Damien the Leper Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 You clearly lack the acumen to correctly comprehend my simple point. Oh well...Wrong. The issue of consent wasn't part of the exchange in question, and so it had no bearing on the analogy. The analogy, in principle, compared apples to apples, whether you comprehended it or not.If your message was simple then the clarity of such a simple message is lacking. No insult intended.However, for the sake of clarity, please be specific and clear as to your intended message.
Damien the Leper Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Evidently, some people here don't understand the important difference between an illustration and an argument. Perhaps it is part and parcel of knee-jerk reactions.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Illustration? Argument? Either way you presented a logical fallacy in the form of a slippery slope. If you think that by figuratively applying such a fallacy to advance your argument or to one-up the arguments of others...you failed.A logical fallacy, no matter the context in which it is implemented, is still fallacious.
Aliwe Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 If you're going to use the slippery slope argument the only one that works is that gay marriage will lead into other marital relationships between consenting adults like polygamy.I think the big problem with polygamy in the American West back in the Day was the fact that womenfolk were kinda scarce back then. They had to come out on the train from "back East" and that was tough before there was even tracks. Everyone thought the Mormons were getting all the wimmins. My political persuasion is libertarian. That means I have no problem with polygamy, unless Super Stud is relying on gummint welfare to support his extra wives, which is sometimes what we see with the fundamentalist Mormon compounds up there in the back woods. But if you're a millionaire and you can support forty wives, knock yourself out. Just beware that they come with forty mothers-in-law!
wenglund Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 If your message was simple then the clarity of such a simple message is lacking.There are none so blind that cannot see.However, for the sake of clarity, please be specific and clear as to your intended message.Been there, done that.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
wenglund Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) Illustration? Argument? Either way you presented a logical fallacy in the form of a slippery slope.Wrong. There was no argument and no mention (even inferentially) to a slippery slope. Both, as with the alleged logical fallacy, are a figment of your fertile imagination. This would be self-evident to you if you correctly understood the aforementioned important difference.If you think that by figuratively applying such a fallacy to advance your argument or to one-up the arguments of others...you failed.If you think there was an argument, and that the argument was intended as you suggest, then it is you who failed.A logical fallacy, no matter the context in which it is implemented, is still fallacious.Pigs is pigs except when it is a horse.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited June 26, 2012 by wenglund
Damien the Leper Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 My best friend had a dog that he loved more than just about anything. His dog was the first thing he wanted to see when he got home, and was the thing he wanted to be with most everywhere he went. And, while I admired the depth and breadth and value of that relationship, it never occurred to me that it was deserving, on that basis, of being solemnized in marriage.YOU are the one who brought up your friend and his dog and then stated that their relationship did not deserve marital solemnization.YOU made the mistake of bringing up the relationship between owner and owned in the same post as marriage.YOU made the mistake of attempting a corellation between consenting beings and one consenting being and another that cannot give consent. This is a disgusting action and shows a great deal of insidiousness.It is YOU who must now own up to such fallacy.
Hayds Posted June 26, 2012 Posted June 26, 2012 Wrong. There was no argument and no mention (even inferentially) to a slippery slope. Both, as with the alleged logical fallacy, are a figment of your fertile imagination. This would be self-evident to you if you correctly understood the aforementioned important difference.If you think there was an argument, and that the argument was intended as you suggest, then it is you who failed.Pigs is pigs except when it is a horse.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Gee, Mr. Englund. I wish I was as intellectually superior as you! Then I could summarily dismiss other people's comments and claim they aren't smart enough to hang with me while not providing any context of my own. I stand in awe and yield to your IQ!Thanks,Hayds
Recommended Posts