Many folks get all worked up when you point out that if you follow certain actions or lines of reasoning to a logical conclusion that you sometimes end up with unsavory unintended consequences. Let's take the push for "gay marriage". At least that what it started out as. It was this lice little picture of a metrosexual gay couple in a loving, happy, lifetime, monogamous marriage to each other. Then we see that a significant portion of the "gay marriage" folks aren't really interested in the whole life time thing, nor the whole monogamy thing. Some folks (not that it took any great predictive power) predicted this, and were laughed off as "That's a slippery slope fallacy". Then the goal posts move slightly to "marriage equity for everyone" and the "why do you want to stop people from loving each other". Of course the question is raised, well if you really mean "everyone", then you realize what that opens the door to, right? Once more, we get that "slippery slope" response. Yet we now see the pedophile community (they need a snappy acronym that isn't NAMBLA), trying to go mainstream, and the various plural folks are all over reality TV. But now we have below a quote from the NY Times which points out what some of us have been saying for quite a while.
"NOW that the dust is settling from the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized a right to same-sex marriage, there are new questions. In particular, could the decision presage a constitutional right to plural marriage? If there is no magic power in opposite sexes when it comes to marriage, is there any magic power in the number two?…
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell did not focus primarily on the issue of sexual orientation. Instead, its main focus was on a “fundamental right to marry” — a right that he said could not be limited to rigid historical definitions or left to the legislative process. That right was about autonomy and fulfillment, about child rearing and the social order. By those lights, groups of adults who have profound polyamorous attachments and wish to build families and join the community have a strong claim to a right to marry…
So the real force of the polygamy question is a lesson in humility. We should not assume that our judges have all the answers. And we should not assume we have them either. Instead we should recognize that once we abandon the rigid constraints of history, we cannot be sure that we know where the future will take us."
What is going to happen is that the same folks who insisted that the line would be drawn at "gay marriage" will gradually but inexorably fall in line behind whichever of these causes seems most likely to come to a head first. Well hear the exact same word for word arguments that they made to justify "gay marriage", and they will eventually frame it as a civil rights issue. Best of all they will still keep pretending that they are not happily rolling right down that slippery slope, and indignantly criticize anyone who dares to suggest that there might be a problem down the road.
I guess the slippery slope argument is only a logical fallacy until it switches from prediction to description of reality.
13 comments:
Dan, in one of my earlier posts I laid out some things I expected from you before I would allow you unfettered access to comment here. I have given you some access recently, but you have decided not to address the issues raised the last couple of posts I've let you comment on.
So, if you want to comment, you know what you need to do.
Hint, coming in here and accusing me of slander or gossip or whatever crap you are spewing while being unwilling to condemn the actual sale of human body parts is the height of the absolute grossest level of hypocrisy.
If you are unable to understand that my expressing my opinion does not constitute gossip, then I can't help you.
If you can't understand that your support of Planned Parenthood is the support of a blatant violation of United States law, and the folks you vote for support this evil both verbally and financially, then God help your depraved soul because I can't.
You constantly spew your pablum about "the least of these", yet when the "least of these" are being aborted and dismembered so the body parts can be sold, you can't even muster the tiniest bit of discomfort.
It is not conflating. Rather, it is you playing semantic games. This link provides as good an explanation as one can have. Note the third paragraph which says, "Romans 5:18-19 says, "through one man's trespass, judgment came to all men, for by one man's disobedience all were made sinners.""
Having a sin nature means we are sinners. Totally Biblical, Dan. I'm surprised that one who seriously and prayerful studies the Bible missed that.
OOPS!!! Dan's comments were moderated right before I posted my last. Feel free to omit mine as well, Craig, if you think it best.
No, MA, that's fine. I'm just not in the mood for baseless accusations while Dan weasels out of every conversation that where he doesn't get his way.
I tried to show him some grace by relaxing the restrictions under which I allowed him to comment, and it did no good. The unanswered questions remain unanswered, the support for PP and it's enablers continues.
Dan,
I've shown you grace enough to relax my policy on allowing you to comment even though your you refused to comply with my simple reasonable request for answers and clarifications about your positions. Your response is to act childish and pretend as if this is not the situation.
I don't know why you think you are above me expecting to you adhere to some reasonable conditions (actually in point of fact they are the same reasonable conditions you imposed at your blog), in order to regain commenting privileges.
So, yes, the fact of the matter is that you have a string of unanswered questions and unsupported presumptions that you think you can dodge.
Well, you've taken my offer of grace and chosen (as you so often do) a different path.
Dan,
In one of your deleted comments, you acted as if you had answered all of the questions you had been asked. While I could post plenty of examples, it really takes one to demonstrate your lie.
"Why is it arrogant to be concerned about denying bisexuals equity and justice?"
This is a question I asked you at 9:37 on July 4, 2015. I know you didn't answer it because you did not comment again on that thread.
"11. Are you seriously trying to suggest that rules about murder and theft are of the same nature as the rules about cutting hair?"
Just for fun I'll post 2.
"I doubt that I'll bother to answer all your questions,..."
So, at least the above quote was honest. The fact is you had no intention of answering the questions asked, and you very clearly said so.
So, stop with the self serving BS.
Yes you did respond to some of my questions, the problems are that I told you what would happen unless you responded to all of the questions and that you chose to ignore the rules before you started.
So, because you made your choice you need to stop complaining about the direct results of your choice.
So, you can continue to post false and misleading comments and I'll or you can play by my rules.
I'll keep deleting them
Sorry my brain went faster than my fingers
Post a Comment