So about that slippery slope fallacy

Post Reply New Topic

We've been through this already and I've explained why young children are not able to consent. Furthermore, the burden of proof is not on me to show that homosexual activity between two consenting adults doesn't do anymore harm than heterosexual activity between two adults. If you claim that it does, then that burden of proof is on you, so if you want to continue this line of argument then cite some sources or shut up.



This is actually a false analogy since TV licenses are a way of getting people to pay for a service. Being required to have a TV license in order to watch TV is no different from being required to pay your water and electricity bill.



The state has no business doing any of that. I would oppose the State taking any of the above actions just as much as I would oppose the State taking an interest in whether people are involved in homosexual activity with another consenting adult. In my country, one our rights protected under the constitution is a right to privacy.

Last edited by Jono on 03 Sep 2011, 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am being serious, and my comments are more about the idiocy of politicians and activist judges whom seem to have no moral values. Yes I believe Gay Marriage can be used to pave the way to legalize pedophilia, I mean seriously the people that you are putting your faith in making sure it won't happen are the same people that literally tried to ban drinking water.

@ pandabear

I really don't care what you claim or source at this point, you have literally no credibility in my view.

If you did anything of the sort, I totally missed it. I remember you asserting it. I do not doubt that some laws define it. But law is not fact. Could you actually explain what is the actual difference between capable of informed consent and incsapabvle of informed consent? Fact, please, not policy.



First, why - other than your say so - is the burden of proof not on you? Are you the burden of proof czar? Further, you know - or you would know if you bothered to read - that I have made and an qualified to make NO claim bearing on the question. I simply ask the question.

Finally, when will they learn? I am not arguing, I am trying to discuss. There is an important difference.



How is it not relevant that the State in fact takes an interest in what people do in their home?



Tell that to the State, not to me. The State has made me [let alone anyone else] do any number of things I have no interest in doing and satopped me from doing any number of things I would like to do that would not so far as I can see imppact anyone else. That is what the State does/

Or do you live somewhere where the State just says, Go on, do as you see fit, just play nice?

Pardon me while I hide my laughter.

I would love to see some solve the problem of the beard while shaving themselves with Ocam's Razor on a Slippery Slope.

ruveyn

None of which is an argument that legally or morally justifies withholding recognition from devoted gay couples.

Not making arguments. There may well be moral arguments for or against this or that. In fact, I believe there are, though identifying the moral arguments is by n means easy - moral issues are far too complex for legal systems.

as for legal justification, like I say, that is what Big Brother says it is. The State - I repeat - don't need no stinking justification. And could not care less about morality.

Civilized human governments generally operate at about the level of a three year old.

Actually it does.

In the case of traditional marriage of one man and one woman, you could argue that the intent is procreation (having children), that is an argument outside of simply being arbitrary as to why it should be legal but the others shouldn't.

Homosexual Marriage opens up the door to everything else, because one can argue that the law is simply being arbitrary.

Age of Consent laws, are laws and laws can be changed, plus you can argue it is arbitrary to discriminate against a particular group.

Also as far as pedophilia not being normalized, that is not strictly true if you look at the female teachers whom only got a slap on the wrist for molesting boys (then you have the crackpots saying they were doing the boys a service, and the boys were stupid for reporting the teacher, etc.).

I'm not blaming homosexuals here, I'm pointing out the unintended consequences resulting from the legalization of gay marriage.

Top that off there are all kinds of arguments that could be used to get the support of crackpot politicians and activist judges.

I provided the original legal documents. Affidavits signed by Rusty himself. Nothing could have higher credibility.

These female teachers have been sentenced to many, many years of prison.

Except for the left's habit of manufacturing fraudulent documents.

Seriously, if Rush was really doing what you said, he would have been in Prison by now,, especially considering how much the left hates him.

He should be in prison. However, age of consent laws are not only different in the Dominican Republic compared to Florida, but are rarely enforced.

The documents are not, by any means, fraudulent.

Really, I thought one of them only got sentenced to prison after they violated a restraining order.



CBS news also said that in Rathergate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/ ... 1324.shtml

Yes, he should have been imprisoned for illegally purchasing and abusing the prescription drugs OxyContin and hydrocodone.

Then, children in the Dominican Republic would have been saved from one pervert.

Riiightt....

Except for the fact that Rush Limbaugh has a really bad back and got hooked on a pain killer he was originally prescribed either to deal with the pain from a surgery or a doctor prescribed it originally. That's a little different than going around trying to smoke a joint to get high.

Also, you really missed the reference.

Rathergate is also known as memogate, it is when CBS tried to paint Bush as derelict in his duty when he was in the National Guard, only to have the story blow up in their face because the evidence they used was so blatently fraudulent it was hysterical.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news ... rentPage=1

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news ... rentPage=2

It is highly unlikely that a rich, influential pedophile like Rush Limbaugh would be arrested and convicted in the Dominican Republic, where a blow job from a 15-year-old is only $15-$20.

Considering how much of a thorn in the side he is to Democrats and Obama in particular, your argument really doesn't make any sense.