Inventing context that isn't there.

What fallacy is this: 

The reason I distrust the Zebra Youth program is because it's associated with Disney, who are letting naked men at their pride parades, which is a form of grooming as children getting used to nudity reduces their instinctive wariness of unnatural personal boundaries, which will then open the door for an adult to persuade a child into taking their own clothes off and put them in a perilous situation, leading to assault and/or child pornography like what the mom says in this video

OK, but Grooming typically involves an abuser targeting a specific child or group of children. The nudity at pride parades is not directed at children specifically

Also, grooming often involves isolating a child and keeping the relationship secret. Pride parades are public events, not secretive encounters.

But the problem is that he thinks seeing nudity & sexual humor in general majes kids more vulnerable. That's like saying because kt looks like something, it is. What fallacy is that?

The provided argument about distrusting the Zebra Youth program associated with Disney because of some participants' nudity at pride parades contains several logical fallacies and reasoning errors:

1. **Guilt by Association Fallacy**: This fallacy occurs when someone tries to discredit an idea, person, or program simply because it is associated with something else that is deemed negative. In this example, the argument attempts to discredit the Zebra Youth program solely because it is associated with Disney, which in turn is associated with pride parades where some participants may be nude. The sin of one party (participants at pride parades) is transferred to another (Disney and the Zebra Youth program), despite there being no direct connection.

2. **Slippery Slope Fallacy**: This argument assumes that allowing children to see nudity at a pride parade will necessarily lead to grooming and child pornography. This is a slippery slope because it suggests that one small step (seeing nudity) will inevitably lead to drastic and severe consequences (grooming and child pornography) without showing a direct causal link or adequate evidence.

3. **Hasty Generalization Fallacy**: The argument generalizes from a specific incident (nudity at some pride parades) to make broad claims about the nature of pride parades, Disney, and finally the Zebra Youth program. A few instances are used to make sweeping statements about inherently diverse and complex groups and events.

4. **Red Herring Fallacy**: Introducing an unrelated issue (nudity at pride parades) to distract from the actual topic at hand (the Zebra Youth program's trustworthiness). The two issues are not directly related and focus on pride parades rather than on concrete evidence or issues with the Zebra Youth program itself.

5. **Appeal to Emotion**: The argument tries to evoke fear and moral panic concerning children's safety to sway the listener, without providing rational evidence or a logical connection between the events.

6. **Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy**: This is assuming that because one thing follows another, it was also caused by it. Just because some nudity might occur at a pride parade doesn't mean it causes grooming or an increase in grooming behavior without concrete evidence to establish such a causative relationship.

In summary, the argument relies heavily on guilt by association, slippery slope reasoning, hasty generalizations, red herrings, appeals to emotion, and post hoc ergo propter hoc assumptions, all of which undermine its logical validity. Additionally, the rebuttal wisely highlights that grooming typically involves specific, targeted actions done in secret, whereas pride parades are public events not specifically aimed at children.