Jump to content

Incest Debate And Liberal Double Standards


Donald Trump
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am beginning to come around - or it is the alcohol.

 

I now see that Fathers having sex with their daughters, as long as they meet the age of consent 14? 16?, is perfectly fine given the fact that we can allow two men to get married.

 

Thank god there was no slippery slope to bring us from two adults making decisions in their bedrooms to straight up incest.  How foolish I was.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here, have a youtube. mind the incestuous pedos.

 

 

 

 

º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR DIO BRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¸ DIO BRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am beginning to come around - or it is the alcohol.

 

I now see that Fathers having sex with their daughters, as long as they meet the age of consent 14? 16?, is perfectly fine given the fact that we can allow two men to get married.

 

Thank god there was no slippery slope to bring us from two adults making decisions in their bedrooms to straight up incest.  How foolish I was.

 

Never too late to see the light! Of course, you went a little bit further than I, as you are clearly describing a case where the father has power over the daughter, and I already ruled that out, but whatever floats your boat man!

77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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 compelling reason is being consistent in one’s principles. If the principle of non-harm is what establishes homosexuality as acceptable, then barring anything else that same principle applies to other situations, or else it was never a principle but a subjective sentiment. Given that this was the principle put forth by the sexual liberation camp, and being charitable that this entity actually does uphold its belief in its principles as more than subjective whim, then we extend the principle to other situations. If the principle holds, then so should the argument.

 

P1 All things that can comply with principle of non-harm are things with a basis of acceptance.

P2 All things identical to X are things that can comply with the principle of non-harm.

::All things identical to X are things with a basis of acceptance.

 

In this case, X = homosexuality.  In many cases, X can also be incest. If this was the argument, then its validity should be applicable regardless of the subject we choose for X. If it’s not valid for incest, then it was never valid for homosexuality.

 

 

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

 

 

In the absence of other circumstances (that you refuse to address), it does follow that one should be viewed as acceptable because it is presumed that people prefer to be consistent in their reasoning. It does not mean that it will be accepted in fact, but normatively it should be acceptable. I think it would be inductively probable that given time and a consistent trajectory of reasoning, that incest will become more accepted--just as homosexuality has--by sexual liberationists and their subscribers. In fact, you’ve seen it already in this thread. Q.E.D.

 

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 […] 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.

 

 

I think part says a lot about you. I also think it shows the OP wasn’t wrong when he called your type hypocritical. You actually seem to be advocating a double standard. If incest is not to be viewed as acceptable “even in the event that similar logic might be applied† to it that was previously applied to homosexuality—(assumingly valid) logic that the sexual liberationists advocated that made homosexuality more socially acceptable—then that is a demonstrable example of OP’s accusation. You could absolutely apply the logic of legalizing jaywalking to murder—it’s just an exercise of consistency. The problem would be to *conclude* that murder should be legalized because you should have discovered the extreme dissimilarities between the two—namely, and appropriately, the two being measured against a standard of non-harm.

 

And now we’re finally getting to the crux of the matter. Incest can absolutely be consistent with non-harm. It isn’t always (nor is any form of sex), but it is sometimes. And barring another objection, those times should be viewed by sexual liberationists as acceptable since they should meet the previous standards of acceptability.

 

Edit: grammar

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never too late to see the light! Of course, you went a little bit further than I, as you are clearly describing a case where the father has power over the daughter, and I already ruled that out, but whatever floats your boat man!

 

No no.  The daughter has reached the age of consent and is now in the eyes of the law outside of a power relationship.  Don't try to walk your brilliant argument back too soon!

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, and Princess Bubblegum has come around.  Well done bubblegum.

 

lots of piss-ant excuses for "logic" then brilliance:

You could absolutely apply the logic of legalizing jaywalking to murder

 

 

Amen Bubblegum!  Jaywalking = murder.

 

And with that...my work is complete.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, and Princess Bubblegum has come around.  Well done bubblegum.

 

 

Amen Bubblegum!  Jaywalking = murder.

 

And with that...my work is complete.

 

And you have no idea what I said, just as you have had no comprehension of the terms you use. You had no understanding of slippery slope as not always being fallacious. You had no understanding of induction. And now you have no understanding that logic must be applied consistently. A valid argument is in its form, not its conclusion. It's obvious you didn't know this, though, just as it was obvious you knew nothing of the prior subjects.

 

And might as well go with this, too:

 

XXs9xAW.jpg

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kemal, I was agreeing with you in principle whilst pointing out that theory does not support practical reality.

 

There is no objective difference between a hetero and homosexual relationship other than some biblical nonsense. However there is an objective difference between a relationship between two individuals unrelated and two individuals related, and that is, as you correctly identify, the power dynamic and social pressures involved.

 

As you said in a situation where two siblings, with presumably no grooming, decided to have sex, there would be no power issues. However sibling relationships (note: relationships and not experimentation) are the rarest form of incest. Most incestuous relationships are abusive and unhealthy.

 

We do allow incest legally in most cases where power relationships can be definitively ruled out, for example between cousins (in most countries). This is despite the fact that this is more likely to create unhealthy offspring than non related partners. In fact, cousin marriage is legal almost everywhere and is very common in the middle east. Over half of Pakistanis marry a first or second cousin.

 

With this in mind, it's clear that there are two major factors that mean incest is banned between first degree blood relatives (historical reasons aside):

1. Potential for abuse. It is clear that relationships between an elder and younger family member are often abusive and this applies to siblings as well. Even a two year gap between children can represent a big enough gap for an older child to abuse a younger. I'd imagine most relationships between siblings would emerge when they lived together: ie as children rather than as adults. There are enough potential partners out there to mean that this prohibition isn't harmful.

 

2. Social reasons/taboo. Society frowns on incest but also people are programmed not to find the people they were raised with attractive (even if they are objectively attractive). Again I'm referring to emotionally mature adults not adolescents.

 

The reason you can't compare this to homosexual marriage should be obvious, but if not: if you are gay this is a sexuality and you are only attracted to men. "want to bang my sister" is not a sexuality. There are plenty of other women in the world.

  • Upvote 1

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There is no objective difference between a hetero and homosexual relationship other than some biblical nonsense.

 

OKVE5xn.jpg

 

Sorry to ignore the rest of your argument; I'll probably get to that later, but this part I just couldn't resist. Soz.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the difference then? And don't give me nonsense about children unless you want to breed with every boy you ever slept with.

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

text

 

In regards to power dynamic, what is the argument here? That there is a mere existence of one, or that the qualities of it make it exceptional? The only power dynamic that I'm aware of is between those who are assumed to be unable to properly consent being paired with those who can. If the power dynamic extends beyond that, then it should extend to more than just incest. You're opening a pandora's box of delegitimizing several kinds of disparate relationships. Perhaps you agree with me that no relationship is egalitarian. If the magnitude is sufficient, then presumably the relationship should be disallowed?

 

Employees forbidden to marry their employers.

Rich forbidden from marrying the poor.

Smart forbidden from marrying the unintelligent.

etc.

 

Seems draconian. For any of these categories, the magnitude should be capable of approaching the quality of an incestual power dynamic. 

 

If the issue is convenience, is it really that difficult to determine who is a parent and who is a child and if the relationship is such? 

 

Regardless, the point of the thread was the eventual acceptance of incest. If incest between siblings is at all acceptable (immediate familial incest), the qualification for the "slippery slope" has been met, and the reasoning of one has led to another.

 

 

 

What is the difference then? And don't give me nonsense about children unless you want to breed with every boy you ever slept with. 

 

Aside from those arbitrary biological differences, even sexologists would discriminate between the two (e.g. the Kinsey continuum). If there is really no difference, then even using the two terms is a pointless exercise. Just use them interchangeably.

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The power dynamic is only applicable when it becomes exploitative. For example if a white plantation owner forces himself on a slave in the knowledge they wouldn't be able to object. Or a rich businessman (in the past) on his secretary. Or a father on his teenage daughter. I shouldn't need to explain this further, I'm sure you're smart enough to identify when a relationship becomes exploitative and the risks of it doing so.

 

With regards to differences in hetero/!@#$ relationships, I think we do use them interchangeably. We usually refer to our partner as a partner. I don't call gay couples gay couples, just couples. Most of the time there is no need to differentiate in modern society. The obvious difference is that both have the same set of genitals, but other than that gay relationships span the same set of experiences as heterosexual ones. Any outstanding differences in experience are a result of residual prejudices rather than anything inherent.

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The power dynamic is only applicable when it becomes exploitative. For example if a white plantation owner forces himself on a slave in the knowledge they wouldn't be able to object. Or a rich businessman (in the past) on his secretary. Or a father on his teenage daughter. I shouldn't need to explain this further, I'm sure you're smart enough to identify when a relationship becomes exploitative and the risks of it doing so.

 

With regards to differences in hetero/!@#$ relationships, I think we do use them interchangeably. We usually refer to our partner as a partner. I don't call gay couples gay couples, just couples. Most of the time there is no need to differentiate in modern society. The obvious difference is that both have the same set of genitals, but other than that gay relationships span the same set of experiences as heterosexual ones. Any outstanding differences in experience are a result of residual prejudices rather than anything inherent.

 

To me it sounds like you're simply describing a lack of consent. The introduction of "power dynamic" is unnecessary.

 

If the 25 year-old progeny of a person wants to marry that person, that doesn't seem to be a violation of a lack of consent. At some age, that person is going to have that quality of autonomy, else that lack of ability to consent should extend to other facets of that person's life beyond his/her/xer choice of sexual partner.

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about consent, we've already discussed age of consent. I'm not sure you're getting this, and I'm not a fan of repeating myself, so this will be my last try to engage with you on this.

 

1. Why is this not just about consent?

 

The age of consent is the age at which people are considered rational enough to consent to a sexual relationship with another person. In some countries it is as young as 14/15/16. You use an example of a psychologically healthy 25 year old who enters a relationship with a parent. That would be a very rare example of incest. In most cases legalising incest would lead to a legotimisation of abusive relationships and grooming.

 

2. Power balance isn't implying lack of consent

 

People raised in an abusive relationship (i.e. They are groomed) often go for years before they inform the police, if they ever do. They may or may not consent, but because they have been groomed they can't be considered to be giving informed consent. The same could be argued for example about child soldiers, who are raised in an environment where certain behaviours are the norm and this decides their future behaviour to a certain extent.

 

Ps in most education/work environments a relationship between teacher and students or boss and workers is frowned upon and can result in disciplinary action.

Edited by Spite

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no.  The daughter has reached the age of consent and is now in the eyes of the law outside of a power relationship.  Don't try to walk your brilliant argument back too soon!

 

If you recall, my first post was

 

"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."

 

I made it clear from the beginning. Ignoring it is your mistake.

77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kemal, I was agreeing with you in principle whilst pointing out that theory does not support practical reality.

 

There is no objective difference between a hetero and homosexual relationship other than some biblical nonsense. However there is an objective difference between a relationship between two individuals unrelated and two individuals related, and that is, as you correctly identify, the power dynamic and social pressures involved.

 

As you said in a situation where two siblings, with presumably no grooming, decided to have sex, there would be no power issues. However sibling relationships (note: relationships and not experimentation) are the rarest form of incest. Most incestuous relationships are abusive and unhealthy.

 

We do allow incest legally in most cases where power relationships can be definitively ruled out, for example between cousins (in most countries). This is despite the fact that this is more likely to create unhealthy offspring than non related partners. In fact, cousin marriage is legal almost everywhere and is very common in the middle east. Over half of Pakistanis marry a first or second cousin.

 

With this in mind, it's clear that there are two major factors that mean incest is banned between first degree blood relatives (historical reasons aside):

1. Potential for abuse. It is clear that relationships between an elder and younger family member are often abusive and this applies to siblings as well. Even a two year gap between children can represent a big enough gap for an older child to abuse a younger. I'd imagine most relationships between siblings would emerge when they lived together: ie as children rather than as adults. There are enough potential partners out there to mean that this prohibition isn't harmful.

 

2. Social reasons/taboo. Society frowns on incest but also people are programmed not to find the people they were raised with attractive (even if they are objectively attractive). Again I'm referring to emotionally mature adults not adolescents.

 

The reason you can't compare this to homosexual marriage should be obvious, but if not: if you are gay this is a sexuality and you are only attracted to men. "want to bang my sister" is not a sexuality. There are plenty of other women in the world.

 

Hmm, I think you are approaching from a different angle, and I think we can agree. Let me clarify.
 
There is only one dynamic involved that differs between incest and homosexuality: Power dynamics. That's why I mentioned it in my first post. The latter ("social pressures") is not an objective difference, and the social pressures existed for homosexuality in the past too, and still exist to an extent today.
 
Now, the fact that preponderance of incestuous relationships are between parents-children as opposed to siblings is not a statistic I have. I don't know where you acquired it from. But it would still mean that the sibling relationships should not be something to be frowned upon, correct? You may find it distasteful. I may find it distasteful. But the government probably should not separate them.
 
We agree about cousin stuff, yeah. I think genetics argument should not be considered unless the couple choose to reproduce, but that's another rabbit's hole of an argument that we should have some other time (I think the right to produce and raise a child should ideally be earned).
 
I agree with you about the potential for abuse, and I could get behind legislation to outlaw incest in such cases. A blanket ban, however, would be something like my proposal to collect all guns from civilians in the gun debate, with zero permits. It certainly solves the problem to an extent, and there is quite a lot of social good in that. But recall that this is a crime much harder to detect: It is within the family, and it is quite likely the criminal and the victim are living in the very same house. Even if you have a blanket ban against incest, how do you detect and punish it? By criminalizing it in all cases, you are perhaps making it easier for the criminal to stay hidden. And there is also the case of criminalizing relationships like the one in my example.
 
That being said, I agree with your overall reasoning for *criminal* reasons. That doesn't mean however that the example I gave, i.e. 30 year old brother-sister who consent is nothing different from a homosexual couple from an "objective" point of view. It may be disgusting, but there is nothing criminal about it. If that relation has to be prevented "for the greater good" so that we prevent abuse, I can back that. But that's the result of the imprecision of our policy tools, not the result of some objective truth that "incest" is more deplorable than "homosexuality."
 
The social reasons/taboo argument is not objective, so I will just ignore it. If we are going into subjectives, we could have 4 people:
 
Person A: Finds homosexuality gross, but not incest
Person B: Finds incest gross, but not homosexuality
Person C: Finds both gross
Person D: Finds both OK
 
No difference at all. It is immaterial what causes the people to find it "gross," be it religion, mores, norms, tradition, whatever...
 
The "plenty of other women" argument will bring me into my next example of how we cite power relations to prevent incest, whereas prostitution and sugar daddies go unpunished. But let's wait a little for that, xd.
  • Upvote 1
77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you said Kemal and if I wasn't clear, I was just saying that finding a couple of siblings with no "baggage" would be quite difficult. If you have siblings you know that the older siblings inevitably form a parental role with younger siblings, and sometimes that can also be abusive (bullying) because the older sibling has the desire to care for the younger but not the patience or emotional maturity. I'd imagine that in most cases where a relationship emerged between siblings that had a sexual nature, it would emerge when they are in close proximity (as children) and would be a perversion of the existing brother sister relationship rather than an entirely separate relationship like you would have with a stranger. That overlap would probably be exploitative, ie an older sibling egging on a younger one.

 

However in your hypothetical situation where two fully mature adults of approximately the same age and no history of exploitation suddenly decided to go like rabbits I can agree there would be no ethical concerns.

 

I think it's unlikely (and this is the social element) because of the taboo. By this I don't mean peer pressure-as best I know (may need to consult our Mensa peers with psychology backgrounds) there is a strong aversion to sex with siblings which forms within family units. They've tested it with foster children and it still applies if enough time is spent with the host family. It is instinctive and strong. I'd argue few balanced healthy adults would overcome that aversion.

 

On the other hand, in a "comedy of errors" style situation where siblings were separated at a very young age and then met up later, that aversion wouldn't exist and there would be no moral objections based on exploitation. If I remember correctly people find those of close genetic background but not of their family unit especially attractive, hence the cousins thing.

  • Upvote 1

☾☆


Priest of Dio

just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean it's automatically wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

img

Hur du hur. So you hung out on 4chan or reddit one day and read what ammounts to an infographic. Neat.

 

The fact remains unchanged that to avoid a slippery slope you must show that things logically will follow not that they possibly can. Your argument that x was used to justify y and therefore x will be used to justify z IS, by deffinition, a slippery slope fallacy plain and simple.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you said Kemal and if I wasn't clear, I was just saying that finding a couple of siblings with no "baggage" would be quite difficult. If you have siblings you know that the older siblings inevitably form a parental role with younger siblings, and sometimes that can also be abusive (bullying) because the older sibling has the desire to care for the younger but not the patience or emotional maturity. I'd imagine that in most cases where a relationship emerged between siblings that had a sexual nature, it would emerge when they are in close proximity (as children) and would be a perversion of the existing brother sister relationship rather than an entirely separate relationship like you would have with a stranger. That overlap would probably be exploitative, ie an older sibling egging on a younger one.

 

However in your hypothetical situation where two fully mature adults of approximately the same age and no history of exploitation suddenly decided to go like rabbits I can agree there would be no ethical concerns.

 

I think it's unlikely (and this is the social element) because of the taboo. By this I don't mean peer pressure-as best I know (may need to consult our Mensa peers with psychology backgrounds) there is a strong aversion to sex with siblings which forms within family units. They've tested it with foster children and it still applies if enough time is spent with the host family. It is instinctive and strong. I'd argue few balanced healthy adults would overcome that aversion.

 

On the other hand, in a "comedy of errors" style situation where siblings were separated at a very young age and then met up later, that aversion wouldn't exist and there would be no moral objections based on exploitation. If I remember correctly people find those of close genetic background but not of their family unit especially attractive, hence the cousins thing.

 

I think we completely agree.

 

I also think, however, that in the very long run, sex without reproduction will not be something as sensationalized as it is now, as our norms from the ages where contraception was not a thing erode. As long as no baby is produced, sex is just two sacks of meat creating heat and sweat through friction, and I can see it's importance falling down in a few centuries. When humanity reaches that point, no one will care who shags whom.

77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as a radical liberal (feel da burn, yas! ayyyyyyy), there is no double standard! If you want to touch your daughter in an inappropriate way, that's ok! If you feel strongly attracted to anyone, it's ok. Hell! Even if you are really attracted to yourself, you can go !@#$ yourself too! There is no double standard, i don't know what you guys are talking about.  

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about consent, we've already discussed age of consent. I'm not sure you're getting this, and I'm not a fan of repeating myself, so this will be my last try to engage with you on this.

 

1. Why is this not just about consent?

 

The age of consent is the age at which people are considered rational enough to consent to a sexual relationship with another person. In some countries it is as young as 14/15/16. You use an example of a psychologically healthy 25 year old who enters a relationship with a parent. That would be a very rare example of incest. In most cases legalising incest would lead to a legotimisation of abusive relationships and grooming.

 

2. Power balance isn't implying lack of consent

 

People raised in an abusive relationship (i.e. They are groomed) often go for years before they inform the police, if they ever do. They may or may not consent, but because they have been groomed they can't be considered to be giving informed consent. The same could be argued for example about child soldiers, who are raised in an environment where certain behaviours are the norm and this decides their future behaviour to a certain extent.

 

Ps in most education/work environments a relationship between teacher and students or boss and workers is frowned upon and can result in disciplinary action.

 

Consent can encompass more than just age of consent (e.g. an unconscious person can't consent), so I was using it in that broader context when I was reading your examples. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that some "power balances" are situations where someone can't consent; just the opposite. "Power imbalances" is the superfluous factor to the ethical judgement being made, it's actually the lack of consent that some power imbalances create that is objectionable, which is why I was saying we should just stick with "lack of consent" because there exist relationships with "power imbalances" that do have consent (the examples I provided). It's just a matter of avoiding confusion :) . And when it's put in that perspective, at some point a child will no longer be a child and is going to be able to give consent. That may be "rare," but as Kemal is pointing out the issue is whether incest between consenting adults can be seen as non-deviant in the ethical sense by sexual liberationists. If the issue is "consent," then just like regular sex that the law has required needs consent, the law can require incest to have consent. However, the nature of what that would look like would likely be more legally restrictive given what you point out.

 

 

Hur du hur. So you hung out on 4chan or reddit one day and read what ammounts to an infographic. Neat.

 

The fact remains unchanged that to avoid a slippery slope you must show that things logically will follow not that they possibly can. Your argument that x was used to justify y and therefore x will be used to justify z IS, by deffinition, a slippery slope fallacy plain and simple.

 

  :lol: â€œI suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." That isn't by definition a slippery slope fallacy at all. Another example that you don't understand the words you use. 

 

 

 

The phrase by definition has a precise meaning: the speaker is asserting that a property can be assigned to an object that has been named, by virtue of the fact that the definition of the object requires it to have that property.             http://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/fun/wordplay/by_definition.html

 

Your example is not by definition a slippery slope fallacy because not all slippery slopes use the the act of justifying as their causal link. 

 

 

[...] you must show that things logically will follow not that they possibly can.

 

 

 

You can retreat into Humean skepticism all you want with causation. That's why causation is treated inductively, not deductively. Slippery slope arguments, like ALL arguments, are evaluated on the principle of charity, meaning they are treated as inductive if (1) it fails as a deductive arguments and (2) the argument does not purport itself to be deductive via its grammar. I even told you as much that these are inductive arguments. 

 

But to your example, even your example is a strawman of sorts. A more accurate argument being made is:

 

P1 x can be used to justify y

P2 x can be used to justify z

P3 x was used to justify y

:: x will be used to justify z

 

This addresses the jaywalking/murder analogy. Obviously if P2 isn’t true, if reasoning X can’t be used to justify action z (murder/incest), then the conclusion is not cogent. So how do we know X can be used to justify Z? Because we created the syllogism for it explaining the reasoning of sexual liberationists:

 

P1 All things that can comply with principle of non-harm are things with a basis of acceptance.

P2 All things identical to X are things that can comply with the principle of non-harm.

::All things identical to X are things with a basis of acceptance.

 

And murder clearly would render this syllogism unsound by virtue of making premise 2 false. 

 

Your example was obviously a ridiculous one because we can also reduce the population of your example down to just one person, say you for example, and making the argument "x was used to justify y by LordRahl2 and therefore x will be used to justify z by LordRahl2":

 

P1 x can be used to justify y by LordRahl2.

P2 x can be used to justify z by LordRahl2.

P3 x was used to justify y by LordRahl2.

:: x will be used to justify z by LordRahl2.

 

Obviously that is not something that anyone could claim WILL happen with certainty. There clearly would exist the possibility of LordRahl2 not making that second justification for z. And this is where that wikipedia portion I first linked to you comes into play:

 

 

 

If an argument uses valid reasoning, it would not be identified as the slippery slope fallacy,[2] and the term "slippery slope" may be used without an implying faulty argument. Non-fallacious usage acknowledges the possibility of a middle ground between the initial condition and the predicted result, while providing an inductive argument for the probability of that result versus a middle-ground one, usually based on observation of previous comparable circumstances. 

 

The unstated middle ground here is the possibility of X not being used to justify Z, in which case the argument is this: 

 

P1 x can be used to justify y by LordRahl2.

P2 x can be used to justify z by LordRahl2.

P3 x was used to justify y by LordRahl2.

:: x will be probably used to justify z by LordRahl2 OR x will not be used to justify z by LordRahl2 and LordRahl2 is a hypocrite.

 

The probability of one result vs another was based--as previously explained--on a presupposition that people prefer to be consistent than be hypocrites. For you, that presupposition is clearly wrong. You prefer to be a hypocrite.

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See I used both an example and the definition.  Nice try Bubbles.

 

So.  Follow the definition and provide an non-opinions based set of inductive arguments.  You have not because you cannot.  You can P1 x all over the page and it will not improve your argument.  So ACTUALLY Q.E.D. and I will be content.  What we have so far is me saying that the argument is a fallacy you say nuh uh and provide a proof based on an opinion which is invalid.

 

By the way, take note that I have never used the phrase "non-harm" nor do I accept it as x.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See I used both an example and the definition.  Nice try Bubbles.

 

So.  Follow the definition and provide an non-opinions based set of inductive arguments.  You have not because you cannot.  You can P1 x all over the page and it will not improve your argument.  So ACTUALLY Q.E.D. and I will be content.  What we have so far is me saying that the argument is a fallacy you say nuh uh and provide a proof based on an opinion which is invalid.

 

By the way, take note that I have never used the phrase "non-harm" nor do I accept it as x.

 

What exactly is the opinion you are referring to? A syllogism isn't an opinion. It's an argument. It's either valid or it's not. And no, you did not define it there. You haven't even defined it correctly. You asserted that all slippery slopes are fallacies. You were already wrong from the beginning, and I have not seen you attempt to correct that. If this is your "definition" of slippery slope:

 

 

 

you must show that things logically will follow not that they possibly can.

 

...then anything that does not "logically follow" is a "slippery slope" which describes EVERY FALLACY.

 

That's fine if you don't personally accept the syllogism, but that (to my understanding) was the normative reasoning put forth by sexual liberationists. In that event, you are presumably saying that is not a reason to be accepting of homosexuality. However, those who DO fall into that category, like the sexual liberationists, would merely replace your position in the argument.

 

Edit:

 

P1 All things that can comply with principle of non-harm are things with a basis of acceptance.

P2 All things identical to X are things that can comply with the principle of non-harm.

::All things identical to X are things with a basis of acceptance.

 

And just to test you, do you think the above syllogism is a valid or an invalid argument?

Edited by Princess Bubblegum
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.