The slippery slope argument

[JoeNormal]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go **** themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

There are two things that attract conservatives like flies to shit. One is the slippery slope argument and the other is the black-and-white dichotomy.

 

[Erand7899]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go **** themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

The main problem with your reasoning is that government rarely ever reverses itself, and relinguishs control that it has taken. Consequently every act of government takes another small bite out of the apple of freedom. That apple is limited, and at some point will be entirely consumed. Your freedom is gone, and you didn't even notice it going.

You will realize it when you wish to do something that you believe to be your right, and you find that some bureaucrat tells you no, you cannot do that. Perhaps when you get ready to build your home on a piece of property you purchased years ago, and find out that the EPA has declared it a wetland, and you are not allowed to do anything with it. Except of course, you will still have to pay property taxes on it.

Or, perhaps your local government has declared your neighborhood to be a historical district, and you find that you cannot paint your house, modify it, of much of anything else, without permission from the government. And, they tell you what colors they will accept, or what your windows will look like, or even whether you can put in a paved driveway.

You only notice a loss of freedom when it affects you personally. By then, it is far too late to rectify it. The two examples that I have cited, are only the tip of the iceburg when it comes to government taking over our liberties.

 

[Spoonman]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go **** themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

lol, since when did same sex marriage become a progressive idea? progressives invented homsexuality?

 

[Spoonman]

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement? BECAUSE a magazine ban has no effect on criminals, they are in fact necessary. We KNOW the bad guys will have them, so it is only reasonable that we not prevent good people from having the same. Unless of course you want thugs to have the advantage...

In addition, large cap magazines are necessary (or at least highly desirable) for several methods of hunting (wild boar and varmints for example) and many of the shooting sports (IPSC, 3 gun competition, etc).

Lastly, it's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.



Your firearms ignorance is showing. High capacity magazines have NO relation to the power of the weapon, only the capacity.

And, given that changing magazines in front of terrified children would have made no difference, you are not able to state that "the death toll would have been different" with any credibility. That's not conjecture, it's a wild ass guess. Then there's the obvious: What makes you think a ban on high capacity magazines would have any impact whatsoever on a crazy person's actions?

There are many millions of high capacity magazines out there. Every low capacity (<10 rounds) can very easily be converted to high cap. Further, magazines are made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can't ban that. That point is, a ban would not have, nor will it, make a damn bit of difference.



Bullshit. What Australia faces today is a close to an all out ban as you get. If that's what your're calling "reasonable" gun control, you've outed yourself as a full on gun grabber.

Ain't gonna happen here. No way.

Molon Labe.



So what? Do you care about HOW someone is killed or the fact that a murder has been committed? Is some that is knifed to death less dead that if they were shot? England has a HIGHER rate of violent crime than the US, a rate that skyrocketed following their gun ban. So much for "effective" gun control.

Further, for all the firearms in America, our murder rate still doesn't make the list of the top 100 countries by rate of intentional homicide. Kinda kills your argument that more guns equals more crime.

Bottom line, it is true that when Americans kill another, they tend to use a gun. That does not mean the gun did it. It's still people that kill, not firearms.



England having the highest violent crime rate? Yes, that is staggering. But what really sucks is that the good English people are disarmed against all those violent thugs. How in the **** is that a good idea?



Which is why Detroit, Chicago, and Washington DC...and Mexico for that matter are so damn safe?

Fail.

Why would the capacity of a weapon not have anything to do with its power?

Because a firearm's power is determined by the caliber of the round (the diameter) and the amount of gunpowder in the brass behind it (and how fast/slow that powder burns). It has nothing to do with the number of rounds that firearm is designed to hold.



Depends entirely on the intended use.



Because no criminal/crazy will agree to the 'compromise', which therefore ensures your ban on capacity will only effect law abiding citizens, putting them at a disadvantage against the thugs that couldn't care less about your rules.

Now why in the **** would you want to give criminals an edge?

Further, which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?!



This statement demonstrates the insane nature of your argument. One one hand, you acknowledge that criminals/crazies will not follow the law while on the other, you suggest they'll end up with a "less powerful weapon", by which I assume you mean a firearm with less capacity.

Do you not see the contradiction here?!

You cannot make the millions upon millions of existing magazines go away. You cannot ban metal and springs. You cannot possibly think that yet ANOTHER gun control law will all of a sudden be complied with by criminals. So, once again, your proposal only hurts those that obey the law and puts them at a disadvantage against those that don't.

Insane, no?



You might want to rethink that statement. Logical disconnect.

But to be clear, I'm not assuming anything. I only state with certainty that criminals will not follow your rules and that putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage is insane.



Violent crimes, which as far as I'm concerned, is the only type of "crime" that really matters. England and Wales have the highest violent crime rate in Europe and much higher than in the US. Violent crimes refer to murder, rape, etc. Lots of articles out there about it.

Just as importantly, the rate of violent crime increased dramatically in England AFTER the ban/confiscation of civilian owned firearms. Same happened in Australia. This during a time period in which crime rates around the world were dropping! Now why would you want that?

We are taking about guns and gun related deaths in the UK. The numbers on that speak for themselves.

Then I ask you again, why do you care HOW someone is murdered? Further, "gun related deaths" include suicides. We're talking about people hurting others, not themselves.

A few facts to consider:
1) Japan, with it's disarmed population, has a combined murder/suicide rate equal to that of the US. They kill themselves FAR more frequently than US citizens (while murdering others far less of course)...but they do so without anyone owning a gun. So please, stop blaming guns for self inflicted deaths.

2) America has the highest rate of firearm ownership in the world and the most guns overall. Yet, there are well over 100 countries, many of which allow NO civilian firearm ownership, with higher murder rates. If guns are the problem, how is that possible?

Once again, are you concerned about murder and other violent crime or just when a firearm is used? Why?

There is also no causal link between less control laws and overall crime rate. To suggest that is stupid

Bullshit. 25 states allow their citizens to purchase a firearm, strap it on and walk down the street. Yet, 4 out of 5 murders in America are committed in the other 25 states with stricter gun control laws. You were saying something about stupid???

Sorry, but if you take the emotion out of it and look at the facts with specificity, you're argument fails. Logic and reason...try it!

 

[Billy000]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go **** themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

The main problem with your reasoning is that government rarely ever reverses itself, and relinguishs control that it has taken. Consequently every act of government takes another small bite out of the apple of freedom. That apple is limited, and at some point will be entirely consumed. Your freedom is gone, and you didn't even notice it going.

You will realize it when you wish to do something that you believe to be your right, and you find that some bureaucrat tells you no, you cannot do that. Perhaps when you get ready to build your home on a piece of property you purchased years ago, and find out that the EPA has declared it a wetland, and you are not allowed to do anything with it. Except of course, you will still have to pay property taxes on it.

Or, perhaps your local government has declared your neighborhood to be a historical district, and you find that you cannot paint your house, modify it, of much of anything else, without permission from the government. And, they tell you what colors they will accept, or what your windows will look like, or even whether you can put in a paved driveway.

You only notice a loss of freedom when it affects you personally. By then, it is far too late to rectify it. The two examples that I have cited, are only the tip of the iceburg when it comes to government taking over our liberties.

This fallacy is not saying that the government never does anything unfair. it's saying that it is illogical to assume that every issue that you do not agree with is inevitably going to evolve into something else.

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

He does have an point in the OP about the NRA.

A point which neither of you have articulated with any specificity, logic or reason.

But if you really believe that there is no way confiscation is every going to happen, I'd suggest you read up on England and Australia, both of which took firearms from their people. You might look into Diane Feinstein publically-stated goals...or the number of progressive pundits that advocate confiscation.

More importantly, why don't you explain how any of the proposed 'gun control' laws will have any influence on criminals and will not end up putting good people at a disadvantage?

The floor is yours.

If you need a damn AK-47 to protect your house.... you a gun nut or you living in a really bad place and should move. If it's the former.... then go over to Iraq and live. I am sure they be happy to have you.

How are you going to stop them? Go to war with Obama? Good luck!

 

[eflatminor]

He does have an point in the OP about the NRA.

A point which neither of you have articulated with any specificity, logic or reason.

But if you really believe that there is no way confiscation is every going to happen, I'd suggest you read up on England and Australia, both of which took firearms from their people. You might look into Diane Feinstein publically-stated goals...or the number of progressive pundits that advocate confiscation.

More importantly, why don't you explain how any of the proposed 'gun control' laws will have any influence on criminals and will not end up putting good people at a disadvantage?

The floor is yours.

If you need a damn AK-47 to protect your house.... you a gun nut or you living in a really bad place and should move. If it's the former.... then go over to Iraq and live. I am sure they be happy to have you.

How are you going to stop them? Go to war with Obama? Good luck!

That's your retort? Wow.

If you'd like to make your case without childish name calling or ad hominen attacks, then by all means, let's here it. Tell us exactly what gun control laws you advocate and why. Suggesting that those that support the Bill of Rights should move to Iraq only makes you look ridiculous.

The floor is still yours.

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

A point which neither of you have articulated with any specificity, logic or reason.

But if you really believe that there is no way confiscation is every going to happen, I'd suggest you read up on England and Australia, both of which took firearms from their people. You might look into Diane Feinstein publically-stated goals...or the number of progressive pundits that advocate confiscation.

More importantly, why don't you explain how any of the proposed 'gun control' laws will have any influence on criminals and will not end up putting good people at a disadvantage?

The floor is yours.

If you need a damn AK-47 to protect your house.... you a gun nut or you living in a really bad place and should move. If it's the former.... then go over to Iraq and live. I am sure they be happy to have you.

How are you going to stop them? Go to war with Obama? Good luck!

That's your retort? Wow.

If you'd like to make your case without childish name calling or ad hominen attacks, then by all means, let's here it. Tell us exactly what gun control laws you advocate and why. Suggesting that those that support the Bill of Rights should move to Iraq only makes you look ridiculous.

The floor is still yours.

You do not need an Assault Rifle to protect yourself. It is your turn, not mine, to explain. Why do you need one, and tell me WITHOUT using the Bill of Rights as an argument. I bet you can't, because you're a gun right, plain and simple. I own several guns myself.... shotguns. Do I need a AK-47? Nope. If they are taken away, would I care? Nope.

 

[eflatminor]

If you need a damn AK-47 to protect your house.... you a gun nut or you living in a really bad place and should move. If it's the former.... then go over to Iraq and live. I am sure they be happy to have you.

How are you going to stop them? Go to war with Obama? Good luck!

That's your retort? Wow.

If you'd like to make your case without childish name calling or ad hominen attacks, then by all means, let's here it. Tell us exactly what gun control laws you advocate and why. Suggesting that those that support the Bill of Rights should move to Iraq only makes you look ridiculous.

The floor is still yours.

You do not need an Assault Rifle to protect yourself.

While that's the lamest argument for gun control I've yet heard, at least we now know the level of discourse of which you are capable. With that said, I'm guessing you don't even know what an assault rifle is. Next, I never suggested one was needed to protect oneself. Further, assault weapons are already highly regulated, very expensive to obtain and to register. Lastly, can you point to one example...just one...in which someone was killed with an assault weapon? Bet you can't.

It is your turn, not mine, to explain. Why do you need one, and tell me WITHOUT using the Bill of Rights as an argument.

What I need is none of your business anymore that what you need is mine. And if we're throwing out the Bill of Rights, can I assume you have no problem with government telling you which books you can and cannot read? Shall we require registration before certain books can be read? How about banning some books...you okay with that?

I bet you can't, because you're a gun right, plain and simple.

Because you say so? Pass.

I own several guns myself.... shotguns.

So YOU'RE a gun nut...plain and simple? No, you haven't really demonstrated that. An uniformed fool that thinks he knows what's best for everyone else? Yes, that you've made clear.

Do I need a AK-47? Nope.

So what others are allowed to have should determined first by your needs? Pass.

If they are taken away, would I care? Nope

That makes you a sheeple.

Massive fail there pal. Want to try again? Here's the question for the third time: Tell us exactly what gun control laws you advocate and why.

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

Massive fail there pal. Want to try again? You're such a gun nut it's not even funny. Stop avoiding my questions and start answering them.... and I'll answers yours . Because the issue here is guns, not books. You DO NOT need an AK-47. You need to prove to me why, not just a ******* piece of paper says you can owe one.... in theory.

Otherwise, I'm ******* done here .

 

[eflatminor]

I'm ******* done here

Promise?

When you realize that what YOU think OTHERS need makes no difference whatsoever, then you can come back and debate with the grownups. Until then, off you go.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go **** themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

Considering that leftists have achieved everything they've ever done through incrementalism, this post trying to tell us there's no such thing is pretty ******* hilarious.

Contrary to your ignorant religious prejudices (Yes, I know that's redundant), polyamory is alive and well outside of the Mormon community. It's a big, bright, diverse world outside your mom's basement and your own imagination. Why don't you try getting out in it and meeting some of the people in it?

New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You: Scientific American

It never ceases to amaze me how, for all leftists' claims to be supporters of sexual freedom and alternative lifestyles, they are the most prudish, straightlaced, cloistered, ignorant, sexually-uptight people outside of Muslims, and even that's debatable.

"Limiting small freedoms doesn't lead to totalitarianism" . . . except in every place that's ever HAD totalitarianism, dumbfuck.

Seriously, you need to have the blood flow to your brain checked by a professional.

It doesn't ******* matter if people outside of the Mormon church, the movement is completely insignificant. It is never going to get anywhere. The fact that you think it will is a testament to your stupidity.

Chuckles, if you had bothered to read the article, rather than just dismissing it because it doesn't fit your preconceived and incredibly narrow view of the world, you would have seen that that "completely insignificant" movement is about 3-5% of the population. You know what OTHER group makes up about 3-5% of the population? Homosexuals. And yet you and your compatriots are all gung-ho to totally rearrange millennia of human society to accommodate THEM.

And it was within my own lifetime that people said the exact same things about homosexuals, FYI.

Do I think PC fucktards like you will embrace the Next Big Thing in sniveling victimhood? Well, you always have before.

Like most conservatives, you clearly lack any critical thinking skills.

Just FYI, Spanky, "critical thinking skills" is not defined as "stating my own personal beliefs about how the world MUST be and what people SURELY are as fact". So far, I have backed up everything I've said with actual evidence, which you have not. So listening to you drivel on about thinking is akin to listening to you drivel on about the inconveniences of living on a space station: both are something with which you have no practical experience.

Limiting personal freedom does not.lead to totalitarianism.

I'd be fascinated to find out what you think totalitarianism IS, Noah Webster.

Every country in the world has laws that limit personal freedoms.

And all of them either have totalitarianism, have had it, or are on their way to it. Believing anything else just betrays a stunning paucity of knowledge about human nature.

Are you really so stupid to believe that isn't true? It's so unbelievably pathetic that you generalize liberals as all being the same. You are as dumb as a post.

Who said leftists are all the same? They have certain things in common, which are what make them groupable as leftists. Or would you like to tell me that people on the left don't all hold views FROM the left?

Just because ONE scientific study has evidence of psychological benefit, it doesn't mean they are advocating for it politically. Get a ******* clue.

Wow, reading comprehension must not have been your best subject in kindergarten. Who ever said anything about "advocating" for anything, or anything at all about whether or not something has psychological benefit? To recap - because you obviously are too pig-stupid to remember the topic of conversation more than two posts in - you said that only Mormons had any interest in polygamy, and I proved you dead ******* wrong and pathetically uninformed about the world outside your tiny little group of like-minded leftist dimwit friends.

Gotta love that "liberal tolerance" you shitheads prattle on about and congratulate yourselves for. Other people? Why the hell would you need to know anything about THEM?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

Your lack of knowledge does not affect reality.

The FCLDS is not the only group that practices polygamy.

Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy : NPR

There are atheists that, despite your abysmal lack of intelligence, think polygamy is a legitimate lifestyle.

In Defense of Polygamy | Atheist Mom

Canterbury Atheist: Polygamy is a Christian Value Worth Fighting For!

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go **** themselves with their black and white thinking.

You are correct, limiting freedom does not lead to tyranny. The reason for that is quite obvious, it is tyranny. A free society does not have to balance the needs of the few against the desires of the many, anymore than a family needs choose which child is their favorite. Free societies grant everyone their rights, and allow people to make their own choices. Only tyrannies feel a need to restrict the actions of some people to provide for the common good.

Just think, without the common good we would not have slavery, Jim Crow laws, laws that restrict people's rights, or idiots trying to argue that tyranny is good for you.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

Raising taxes leads to economic stagnation. Communism leads to economic stagnation. Tyranny leads to economic stagnation.

Strange how everything you support leads to economic stagnation, isn't it?

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass before you try to pontificate on things that are more complicated than "See Spot run."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The last thing conservatives need to do is compromise with liberals, because the liberal utopian ideology will never accept mere compromise. The only reason liberals think conservatives are stupid, is because conservatives aren't willing to buy into liberal ideological nonsense, and that pisses liberal kooks off. That, and that pesky Constitution always seems to railroad the liberal utopian dream. Well...Boo f-in hoo.

Don't you understand that the lack of compromise is what is harming this country? People like you are making it worse.

Is it? Why don't you compromise then, we can pass a law requiring prayer and Bible study in school, just so you can show us how wonderful it is to compromise.

Or does your idea of compromise require people to agree with you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here we are. Slippery slope is a fallacy. This sums it up better than I could,

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you understand what people mean when they use the term fallacy in logic?

I will give you a hint, the argument that a small action leads to a large result is not always false. In order to prove that it is a fallacy that legalizing same sex marriage would open the door to polygamy you would have to actually take each and every point of the argument and totally refute it. It is not enough to simply declare it a fallacy and think that proves you right.

The simple proof of that is the fact that avalanches never start at the bottom of a mountain.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Political Logical Fallacies We See On This Board

Well put together thread. I like it.

Glad to hear it...now go count the fallacies in your OP.

I stopped counting when I hit 5 and hadn't even gotten halfway through the post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

... the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence.

Do you really believe that will always be case? Are you willing to bet your life on it?

Of course he believes that. In fact, he can point to the fact that most people wanted to end slavery, which is why no one had to argue about it and it went away peacefully.


Wait...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well put together thread. I like it.

Glad to hear it...now go count the fallacies in your OP.

How about you count them? As far as I can tell there aren't any.

Seriously?

• Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope.

Straw man and hasty generalization in one sentence.

• I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Ad hominen.

• Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy.

Argument from ignorance.

• This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism.

Single cause.


Which is where I stopped counting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go **** themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

It won’t lead to polygamy because laws prohibiting plural marriage are Constitutional. Unlike prohibiting same-sex couples access to marriage law, laws banning polygamy are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion.

The slippery slope fallacy is employed by many conservatives because their arguments can’t prevail predicated on the facts and law, they are for the most part demagogues, appealing to fear and emotion because that’s all they have.

The Supreme Court already ruled that there are no constitutional issues in cases about same sex marraige. Baker v Nelson.

Not only that, they actually ruled that a relationship involving a same sex couple is not a marraige. Jones v Hallahan.

Singer v Hara, Adams v Howerton, DeSanto v Barnesly, etc.

I can list plenty of cases where the Supreme Court has handed down decisions that laws that prohibit same sex marraige are just as constitutional as laws that prohibit polygamy.

I guess that makes the slippery slope a bit more pertinent than your ignorant ass thinks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Polygamy, I might add, is counterintuitive to the purpose of civil marriage which is designed for partners to have legal authority to make decisions about each other. Who makes the medical decision in a polygamous marriage? Civil marriage is designed to simplify, not complicate and polygamy would create a civil legal nightmare.

Although...if corporations are people, don't we already have legal polygamy in theory?

I bet you think you made a point there.

You didn't.