What if I were to declare a putative argument or even an honest assertion, rather inherently, a fallacy and then execute the phenomenon I declared fallacious to a t? Would that be hypocritical? What if, while executing the phenomenon I claimed were fallacious, I repeatedly refuted, declared pointless, and mocked those who posited it?
[/quote]
Ahhh.
I see now.
“And then executed the phenomenon I declared fallacious to a t.”
Wow, you missed the train on that one. By a fucking day and a half.
You think that I called slippery slope arguments logically fallacious in a formal way, and then went on to provide a bunch of them for popular consumption in the form of the alcohol–>heroin and SNAP–> universal welfare eligibility?
Jesus. I said that the slippery slope argument is “impotent because of its universal applicability” and then, in support of that claim, I went on to give a number of examples for which the slippery slope argument portends calamity, wrongly.
I am somewhat shocked that I have to be explaining this. Consider this the last post in which I help you out.
“Tell me why it hasn’t brought on universal welfare benefits and the legal sale of heavy machine guns.”
SMH, I agree with your position more than I agree with the position of anyone arguing for government only recognizing certain unions(if there was any doubt as to my position, I don’t agree that government should play a role in a non-government institution).
However, in the above sentence, you used poor examples in an attempt to disprove the slippery-slope. In actuality, welfare benefits are expanding and although it’s a constitutionally protected right-and therefore somewhat harder to take away, firearms are more heavily regulated than they once were. You actually used examples of the slippery-slope at work.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, smh, I think you must’ve missed this one:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, why do you have this burning desire for this? Not implying you may be gay but if I wanted to marry Tawny and Candy, the two strippers down the street, REAL BAD would you so passionately assist me by trumpeting on and on about it like you do for Joe and John?
If not, why not?
Tell me why you think the state should not sanction Push, Tawny and Candy Harder (all legally consenting adults) in matrimony? Why? Give me your reasons. Why do Joe and John get to live their lifestyle and not me and the two babes?[/quote]
And hey, I forgot to mention that Tawny, Candy and I will absolutely be monogamous.[/quote]
No you won’t. Look up the definition of monogamous.
Anyway, I won’t support or oppose you because I won’t have to. The same kinds of semi-informed, semi-arbitrary lines that keep so-called “hard” drugs illegal while alcohol is sold to anybody with a pulse will obviate the need for me to enter that particular debate. Don’t forget, mind you, that the social differences between a monogamous couple, same gender or different, and a polygamous one are at least comparable to, but in reality far greater than, the pharmacological differences between alcohol and cocaine.
And, by the way, I don’t have a “burning desire” for this. In fact, while I think gays should be allowed to marry, this debate is very low on my list of political priorities. I’m arguing with gusto in here because this happens to be a gay marriage thread and that’s just what I do.
“Tell me why it hasn’t brought on universal welfare benefits and the legal sale of heavy machine guns.”[/quote]
SMH, I agree with your position more than I agree with the position of anyone arguing for government only recognizing certain unions(if there was any doubt as to my position, I don’t agree that government should play a role in a non-government institution).
However, in the above sentence, you used poor examples in an attempt to disprove the slippery-slope. In actuality, welfare benefits are expanding and although it’s a constitutionally protected right-and therefore somewhat harder to take away, firearms are more heavily regulated than they once were. You actually used examples of the slippery-slope at work.[/quote]
Good points. But: everything has some give and take; the point is that doomsday scenarios are not playing out in these and all of the other cases. I’ll also add:
–The welfare state has expanded troublingly, especially since the recession. But almost all income eligibility thresholds are keeping pace only with inflation, with no expansion at all, which renders my argument re; maximum thresholds perfectly valid. The most significant changes to the welfare system came in the mid-90s and restricted rather than expanded, and participation rates fell dramatically as a result.
–“Firearms are more heavily regulated than they once were.” Everything is more heavily regulated than it once was; there was a time when next to nothing was regulated. But guns are easier to buy now than they were ten years ago, and no federal assault weapons ban is coming back anytime soon. We’re at a point of relative stasis. Additionally, the push for gun control measures does not follow the “slippery slope” pattern but is instead a reactionary emotional response to news events.
The SCOTUS needs to come to T-Nation to check out all these arguments before ruling. The knowledge base on this site is incredible, and that does not include Zep. This has been a great discussion and I have enjoyed both sides of the debate.
By the way, before I go, the prospect of two people being named Tawny and Candy Harder is pretty damn close to reason enough for me to support polygamy.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The SCOTUS needs to come to T-Nation to check out all these arguments before ruling. The knowledge base on this site is incredible, and that does not include Zep. This has been a great discussion and I have enjoyed both sides of the debate.[/quote]
Agreed. The level of debate on TN is excellent. I have not come across more a more in-depth look at the logic and theory of same-sex marriage anywhere else, ever.
And, by the way, I don’t have a “burning desire” for this. In fact, while I think gays should be allowed to marry, this debate is very low on my list of political priorities. I’m arguing with gusto in here because this happens to be a gay marriage thread and that’s just what I do.[/quote]
Apparently the Supreme Court agrees with your general apathy.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I heard C. Thomas was checking in on this thread, but only because he thought Push might post pictures of Tawny and Candy. (I’m hoping so too.)[/quote]
Anyone else notice that C. Thomas speaks maybe once a decade ?
And, by the way, I don’t have a “burning desire” for this. In fact, while I think gays should be allowed to marry, this debate is very low on my list of political priorities. I’m arguing with gusto in here because this happens to be a gay marriage thread and that’s just what I do.[/quote]
Apparently the Supreme Court agrees with your general apathy.
[/quote]
Leave it to the Onion to hit the nail on the head. While we have gone back and forth over a ton of posts in this thread, you still end up with what WILL happen regardless of the great hypothetical scenario whoever comes up with next in this thread. Gay marriage is an inevitability at this point.
The amount of Republicans (and the language used by them) has really driven home that point. Hell even Rush says it’s over. His opinion is way more valuable than mine on the subject. I’m a heterosexual who is getting ready to be married, what’s he on now #4 or 5? Hard to keep up. Knows way more about marriage than I do Maybe should give gay marriage a spin anyways, traditional doesn’t seem to be working out well.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The H Factor point, i.e., “Just like rape it’s going to happen anyway so you might as well lie back and enjoy it,” is a weak intellectual exercise in a discussion like this one.
[/quote]
Except nobody’s getting raped, and, to the contrary, nobody’s doing anything at all to you or anyone else.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The H Factor point, i.e., “Just like rape it’s going to happen anyway so you might as well lie back and enjoy it,” is a weak intellectual exercise in a discussion like this one.
[/quote]
Yeah, not what I’ve been saying, clearly you won’t enjoy it even though it doesn’t effect you one bit.
But hasn’t your ilk learned anything lately about rape? What is it about you far righties and rape you can’t figure out? Jesus Christ.
Just when you think you’ve heard it all. Can’t say you’re not entertaining. No wonder you’re so scared…it’s going to feel like I’m getting raped when those gays kiss and say I do!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The H Factor point, i.e., “Just like rape it’s going to happen anyway so you might as well lie back and enjoy it,” is a weak intellectual exercise in a discussion like this one.
[/quote]
Except nobody’s getting raped, and, to the contrary, nobody’s doing anything at all to you or anyone else. [/quote]
[/quote]
I’ve never been very good at Archery. But I have lived in the great state of Texas long enough to know how to properly use a Clayton Williams quote.
they shouldnt be allowed to get married so as to avoid the whole religious argument. they should get fairried or uni-corned and be able to reap the same benefits as being married. boom problem solved and the gays would love the title because they like fairys and unicorns and shit like that.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s the institution of marriage that’s getting raped in this instance. [/quote]
What about the people who are getting married for the second, third, fourth, fifth time? Is that raping the institution of marriage?
What about the people who are serial cheats and liars within their marriage? Is that raping the institution of marriage?
What about a heterosexual couple who gets married solely for tax breaks and shared insurance with no sexual or emotional connection. Is that raping the institution of marriage?
Maybe should give gay marriage a spin anyways, traditional doesn’t seem to be working out well.