LordRahl2 Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Thank you for making my case. As you say the notable extreme dissimilarities invalidate the OP's "argument". Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trump Posted October 3, 2016 Author Share Posted October 3, 2016 Thank you for making my case. As you say the notable extreme dissimilarities invalidate the OP's "argument". Explain the dissimilarities or otherwise you lack an arguement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklyn666 Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Texas=/=Republicans however, Texas=Bizarre/Crazy I know a lot of great people who live there who are not Republicans. They are crazy though. [snip] And now for a list of other states where bestiality is legal but same-sex marriage (prior to United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges) was illegal: Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. And just for a little comparison, here's the list of states where bestiality is illegal and same-sex marriage was legal before United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Anyone notice a pattern? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Thank you for making my case. As you say the notable extreme dissimilarities invalidate the OP's "argument". Explain the dissimilarities or otherwise you lack an arguement. Yes, please elaborate. As I said previously, this is where the ambiguity of what constitutes sexual transgression for the sexual liberation camp is found. I take it that you are now in agreement that the argument I provided is not fallacious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) The Donald OP here makes me think this is either brilliant trolling or stunning irony Edited October 3, 2016 by Ogaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Yes, please elaborate. As I said previously, this is where the ambiguity of what constitutes sexual transgression for the sexual liberation camp is found. I take it that you are now in agreement that the argument I provided is not fallacious. No, it us. I am just demonstrating it to you since I am in mobile and do not care to write a 5 page proof. I already sumarized OP's similarities: They both fall in the same category as do jaywalking and murder. So if you dismiss the one as an obvious fallacy then logically the other is similarly dismissed. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) The main issue with incest is the issue of consent is really screwed up there, it's the same reason you can't have sex with children because it is unreasonable to assume they can rationally consent to what's going on. The same issues surround prostitution really. Sure, some women voluntarily enter the sex trade, but the majority are trafficked from the third world and tricked into the sex trade (most of them wanted normal jobs, didn't sign up for that). Consent is murky. A Thai prostitute who was trafficked from Bangkok theoretically is consenting to being a sex worker to remain in the country and not be stabbed to death by the gang who has her passport, that is a decision she is making, but there are a shitload of extenuating circumstances. It's the same way the sister-wives of some creepy pedophile religious fanatic probably consented to being married to him, but how much brainwashing went into that? The reason Homosex of Gay is more kosher as far as our society is concerned is the consent issue is pretty clear cut. Edited October 4, 2016 by Ogaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) No, it us. I am just demonstrating it to you since I am in mobile and do not care to write a 5 page proof. I already sumarized OP's similarities: They both fall in the same category as do jaywalking and murder. So if you dismiss the one as an obvious fallacy then logically the other is similarly dismissed. I agreed with the analogy being an example of the fallacy because I can agree to the notable distinctions between murder and jaywalking. Murderers would not be released from jail because, as I mentioned in my 3rd line of my sample argument, "the introduction of other ethical reasoning" can be brought to bear against murder that would not be applicable to jaywalking. Presumably, you have some similar ethical reasoning to introduce and to bring to bear against incest that creates that notable dissimilarity between the analgates. We requested you share that reasoning, and thus far you have only cared to assume that we know of what you are presupposing. We request again: what are the dissimilarities? What is the new ethical reasoning that applies to incest that does not apply to homosexuality? Until this is shared, the conversation cannot reasonably continue and you have demonstrated nothing. Edited October 4, 2016 by Princess Bubblegum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I request that you share the similarities beyond a broad categorization under "things OP finds offensive". This is obviously insufficient in that a similarly broad category "crimes" can easily be shown to be a fallacy - as you admit. Although now that you admit a legal standard of activities that result in severe punishment (murder/incest) and things that result in no punishment (jaywalking/homosexual marriage) as sufficient for a "large distinction" you are basically writting my argument for me. Anyway, what are the similarities from OP that are close enough to allow a non-fallacy slippery slope? Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Killing somebody is the most heinous crime we can come up with nowadays, but in the past when human life was dirt cheap it wasn't considered that big a deal. There are a lot of relics of our legal vocabulary that reveal the deep levels of indifference in the past. Rape for instance meant to unlawfully take, it would have been next to steal or theft in the medieval thesaurus. The virtue of the woman in question wasn't who you were stealing from, but her father or husband. If you killed a slave in the old days, you know he spilled a drink on you and hey, you're not going to put up with that shit, you had to pay blood money, but to the owner, and it wasn't even that much money. When in the ancient world you read about societies that people describe as "decadent" or "soft" they mean people like the Egyptians, where murder, slavery and rape were against the law, not "vigorous" nations like Rome who liked nothing better than forcing a girl against her will, enslaving some poor shlub in his village, then burning his house down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I request that you share the similarities beyond a broad categorization under "things OP finds offensive". This is obviously insufficient in that a similarly broad category "crimes" can easily be shown to be a fallacy - as you admit. Although now that you admit a legal standard of activities that result in severe punishment (murder/incest) and things that result in no punishment (jaywalking/homosexual marriage) as sufficient for a "large distinction" you are basically writting my argument for me. Anyway, what are the similarities from OP that are close enough to allow a non-fallacy slippery slope? The similarities between homosexuality and incest are that they are two behaviors of sexuality at one time considered deviant. One has undergone normalization through the application of ethical arguments stemming from sexual liberationists that homosexuality should be considered a natural right as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (i.e. homosexuals should be allowed to do as they wish because they do not harm anyone in the process). The similarity can be contrasted to incest in that in many cases the same can be said. Two adults who have immediate family relations can be assumed to grant consent to sex with each other and not harm anyone in the process. The philosophy blog I previously linked on the first page gave several examples of where this similarity can be applicable. This is what I've said before and now repeated to you--hopefully with some greater clarity. If you are asserting that incest warrants severe legal punishment while homosexuality does not because of a legal standard between the two, then explain the reasoning that establishes such a standard. Does incest categorically describe situations where one party is harmed or does not consent? Please, we require explanation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I find your explination clear enough yet insufficient. Again they fall under a very broad categorization. Far too broad to avoid a valid claim that there is a slippery slope as the one does not logically follow the other lacking, as it does, a compelling reason to do so. The burden therefore does not lie with me to show that two dissimilar things are dissimilar but with you to show a compelling reason why the second should and will naturally follow the first. That is the definitional standard to avoid a slippery slope fallacy. Clearly this makes sense to you as you acknowledge a change to a jaywalking law does not logically lead to a change in a murder law. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 The casual link is easily seen here, therefore it is not a steep slippery slope, it is instead a simple chain of events and gay marriage starts it. No it is not a simple chain of events. You must show the chain of events. AKA: you have to provide a compelling reason (or any causal link really) that one will follow the other. "We used to see something as similar" is just a categorization of two things. It is not a causal relationship. Your claim that "because gay marriage therefore incest marriage" is a slippery slope. Your burden is to clearly, logically, and unambiguously show how gay marriage leads to incest marriage. PROTIP: You cannot. 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklyn666 Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Hey, quick question. Does anyone remember when this exact same logic was used to justify slavery, jim crow, denying women the right to vote, and miscegenation laws? Cause I sure do. I mean if you think slavery and racism and sexism are fine, then hats off to you I guess for at least maintaining some sort of internal consistency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I already explained the reasoning behind the casual link, it's the arguments used by the sexual liberators or whatever they're called. The argument that love is love applies not only to homosexuals, but of any other sexual preference. So the line drawn is ambiguous at best. Continued desensitisation to the subject of sexual relations will inevitably lead to the legalisation of things that we find repulsive today. It is exactly what has happened with gay marriage. It may not be quick, but it is certain that with the current trend of progressive young people, that in maybe one or two generations major change will happen and a sexual revolution will ensue. The compelling reason for my argument is that the argument used by those who would see gay marriage legalised can easily be used by people in incestuous relationships. You still must show that it WILL be used. You have provided some opinions. I can argue that jaywalking is a crime yet it should not be subject to strict punishment. I cannot argue that just because such an argument can and has been made that it will be made for murder. Were I to do so I would commit the logical fallacy of a slippery slope. As you have done here. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Incest between two consenting adults with no power imbalances is no one's business but theirs. You and I may find it distasteful, but that's their business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Incest between two consenting adults with no power imbalances is no one's business but theirs. You and I may find it distasteful, but that's their business. As long as they don't have a gun fetish ayyyy lmao. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 As long as they don't have a gun fetish ayyyy lmao. You have something against guns m8? Quote "Your cattle will die, your friends will die, you will die. But your reputation, if it is good, will never die." -excerpt from the Havamal "We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man." -Oswald Spengler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 As long as they don't have a gun fetish ayyyy lmao. Jokes aside, the troll OP is quite correct. The reasoning you go through to justify non-intervention in same-sex relationships applies to incest between consenting adults without power imbalances as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Jokes aside, the troll OP is quite correct. The reasoning you go through to justify non-intervention in same-sex relationships applies to incest between consenting adults without power imbalances as well. Yet it remains a slippery slope fallacy because you must prove that one leads inevitably, or close enough, to the other. No such evidence exists in this case. There is zero evidence that when one norm changes another will as well even in the event that similar logic might be applied. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Yet it remains a slippery slope fallacy because you must prove that one leads inevitably, or close enough, to the other. No such evidence exists in this case. There is zero evidence that when one norm changes another will as well even in the event that similar logic might be applied. No slippery slopes or fallacies here. I think two adults who consent to having sex should be able to do so, as long as the consent is not the result of power relations. It applies to same-sex relationships and incest alike. So I am OK with both. Where's the fallacy? I am just applying the same principle consistently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I think, I am OK with both I am fine that you think that. Does not mean that the OP's argument avoids slippery slope. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I am fine that you think that. Does not mean that the OP's argument avoids slippery slope. The OP is a troll, what do you expect? However, if you don't believe in the statement I made, then that must mean you have some other criterion which considers same-sex relationships as legit, whereas incest as illegit. What is this criterion, if I may ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spite Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 The reason why incest is banned is because unless the two partners were raised in different locations by different people and are effectively not "social" family there are a big pile of ethical and social reasons against it. Parental relationships with children are ones of responsibility and nurture. Forming a sexual relationship with someone you have raised is always exploitative (see: grooming). It's for this same reason teachers/lecturers can't have sex with their students even if they're adults, except obviously with parents the relationship is much more intense. In any case there is no slippery slope here. The case against incest was never the same as the case against homosexuality. The case against homosexuality was basically religious. The case against incest is about child protection and exploitation. Here in the UK the age of consent is 16. Imagine dad's screwing their 16 year old sons/daughters with their "consent". In some places it's even lower. You need protective measures in place to prevent exploitation. In a theoretical situation of power balance which kemal describes there wouldn't be such concerns: in practice proving this would be very difficult and so a blanket ban exists. Quote ☾☆ Priest of Dio just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 The reason why incest is banned is because unless the two partners were raised in different locations by different people and are effectively not "social" family there are a big pile of ethical and social reasons against it. Parental relationships with children are ones of responsibility and nurture. Forming a sexual relationship with someone you have raised is always exploitative (see: grooming). It's for this same reason teachers/lecturers can't have sex with their students even if they're adults, except obviously with parents the relationship is much more intense. In any case there is no slippery slope here. The case against incest was never the same as the case against homosexuality. The case against homosexuality was basically religious. The case against incest is about child protection and exploitation. Here in the UK the age of consent is 16. Imagine dad's screwing their 16 year old sons/daughters with their "consent". In some places it's even lower. You need protective measures in place to prevent exploitation. In a theoretical situation of power balance which kemal describes there wouldn't be such concerns: in practice proving this would be very difficult and so a blanket ban exists. You are being disingenuous here. I said no power relations. That obviously means parent-kid is out of the question. Are sister-brother relationships called something other than incest? Assume same age. Sister and brother. Both 30 years old. Continue with your line of reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.