Healthy Approaches To Support Glbt Lds Is A Topic On Mormon Matters Podcast

[california boy]

Neither of these are slippery slope arguments. Do you understand what Slippery Slope is?

Whatever. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom

In the example I gave, If we allow even a little salt to be taken out of the processing of Canadian Bacon, then eventaully ALL salt will be taken out of Canadian Bacon

Or If we change how we process Canadian Bacon and still call it Canadian Bacon then eventually any pork that is thinly sliced will be allowed to be called Canadian Bacon.

Hope you are able to follow the explaination.

[CASteinman]

This is not my issue, but if it were up to me, you can keep your use of Traditional Marriage. But with the use of traditional marriage also comes all the baggage of what it means.

I'm fine withthe baggage -- as long as it is legitimate. Your list is not. Tradition is by definition: the handing down of common practices, from generation to generation. So, in order for a practice to be a tradition it must currently be a practice that is common and that has been received as part of culture and society from past generations.

So, the following I accept as part of the package:

Muslin traditional marriage - You can marry up to 4 (not 6) wives.

In Mormon religion traditional marriage - They believe you can be married for eternity

The rest of your list are not traditional marriage.

However, if you do not like that word, I will be happy to use the term "Morally correct marriage" instead, by which I mean exclusively marriage between a man and a woman.

I am ready to proceed now.

[CASteinman]

Whatever.

Yeah yeah... whatever. If you are willing to play lose and fast with arguments.. then whatever.

[california boy]

Yeah yeah... whatever. If you are willing to play lose and fast with arguments.. then whatever.

lol. That's your answer??? A simple "I get it now would have worked". The whole problem with slippery slope arguments is that people play lose and fast with the arguments. That is why they are nothing more than speculation.

Edited July 28, 2012 by california boy

[CASteinman]

lol. That's your answer??? A simple "I get it now would have worked"

Yes, I get it. If you are not willing to engage honestly then any answer is possible. For example it is simply not possible for Canadian Bacon to be without Salt because by definition it is cured is salt. If you remove the salt it is not Canadian Bacon. It is something else. Making this declaration is not a slippery slope argument. Arguing that somehow it is something else is also not a slippery slope argument. These are arguments related to ignoring the definition of a word -- or affirming it. Not slippery slope.

Not only that, but your arguments were not slippery slope. A slippery slope is not merely a single state argument. It requires a sequence of events, not just A leads to B. Simply saying A leads to B would be a different sort of argument. Instead, Slippery Slope is A leads to B which leads to C (where B may and often is a series of events). This is what leaves Slippery Slope potentially open to being contradicted by charges of contra arguments related to "undistributed middle" and related errors. (Note though that even legitimate arguments might be reasonably attacked on the basis of probabilities -- but this then becomes an argument about opinions not really about logic, unless the probabilities are objectively silly).

It is in fact, impossible to create a slippery slope argument about things that currently exist. That is the fundamental reason your claim fails. Slippery slope can only possibly apply to things projected to occur.

However, if you want to say that you gave a slippery slope argument -- not for supporting the proposition that Canadian Bacon IS salty -- (which was the challenge) but rather to argue that it may eventually be that something called Canadian Bacon will have no salt -- I would agree that you may have done that. However that was not the challenge. When it comes to the challenge -- you did not meet it.

Finally, if you really believe that you provided excellent, well founded arguments that really do support the conclusion, then by all standards -- even the most restrictive -- you have not committed a slippery slope fallacy.

On the other hand, if you have not provided those really well founded arguments then I assert you have not represented my position at all. In particular, when speaking about legal decisions the principle of ceteris paribus leads directly to a sequence of cascading decisions (the slippery slope of which we are talking) -- which is well recognized by legal scholars, even if you deny it. This is why legal decisions by the Supreme Court are so tightly scrutinized and used as arguments in other court cases in subject areas not covered by that decision -- because the legal profession has institutionalized a process of cascading subsequent consequences from one decision.

This is true even if you do not accept it as true.

Edited July 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[Damien the Leper]

Actually, its you who cannot get over the word "Traditional". An inoffensive word as well.

And yes, defining the word gets rid of your stated objection -- so it has a place. (Unless your objection is actually something different than you gave expression to). I do not need to understand something that is false and I am glad you will not be saying such things any more. And, so you know, the word "Orthodox" is synonymous with "traditionalistic" and "correct". This is per a thesaurus. So it is actually more than implied -- but I am OK with mere implication.

I can have a discussion without the word but I won't. Because, after all, I like the word -- I think it is entirely appropriate for my meaning. And I do not like the idea of censoring this word out of the discussion merely because you irrationally do not like it and its inclusion, once defined does not actually hinder any discussion -- outside of your peculiar bias. I also do not like the idea that you want to set up penny-ante, ankle-biting rules right away at the start -- so I object to such things right away -- before they go too far. I do not intend any disrespect to you.. but I also will not subject myself to your rules that do not respect my position.

I am really truly fine if you cannot continue with the word "traditional" in the discussion. But, do not leave the discussion under the impression that you have actually engaged. You haven't. And you cannot claim to have explored the logic of the position.

I am willing to proceed. It is up to you.

PS..

Rather than be too inflexible, I am willing to adjust my terminology to any of these words instead of "traditional". I will let you choose:

Valid (or "doctrinally valid") , authentic, correct, genuine, orthodox, legitimate, or proper.

Of all of them, I prefer "Traditional" though.

Very well. Use the word all you want but I won't address an argument with tradition being the basis because it only serves one purpose...it sets up the argument in such a way that an opposition is destined to fail. Because tradition is a 'held truth' and not a fact it can be appropriately applied as a supporting argument rather than a thesis or premise.

Furthermore, since you wish to determine what tradition means to YOU then I will simply dismiss it as opinion and not fact.

[CASteinman]

Very well. Use the word all you want but I won't address an argument with tradition being the basis because it only serves one purpose...it sets up the argument in such a way that an opposition is destined to fail. Because tradition is a 'held truth' and not a fact it can be appropriately applied as a supporting argument rather than a thesis or premise.

Furthermore, since you wish to determine what tradition means to YOU then I will simply dismiss it as opinion and not fact.

All of which is irrelevant to the logic -- as tradition (at least not in any ordinary sense of the word) is not the basis.

But is this where you say "I don't want to discuss it with you any more because i don't like your words"? Or are you saying "OK, lets discuss it even though I don't like your words"?

Edited July 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[Damien the Leper]

I'm fine withthe baggage -- as long as it is legitimate. Your list is not. Tradition is by definition: the handing down of common practices, from generation to generation. So, in order for a practice to be a tradition it must currently be a practice that is common and that has been received as part of culture and society from past generations.

So, the following I accept as part of the package:

Muslin traditional marriage - You can marry up to 4 (not 6) wives.

In Mormon religion traditional marriage - They believe you can be married for eternity

The rest of your list are not traditional marriage.

However, if you do not like that word, I will be happy to use the term "Morally correct marriage" instead, by which I mean exclusively marriage between a man and a woman.

I am ready to proceed now.

Morally correct according to WHO?

Where does this person or object get their/its authority?

Based on your answer to the above question...I ask WHO says so? Because YOU say so? Because a church authority says so? Because someone SAYS God SAID so? How comical will the audacity be...

[Damien the Leper]

All of which is irrelevant to the logic -- as tradition is not the basis.

But is this where you say "I don't want to discuss it with you any more because i don't like your words"? Or are you saying "OK, lets discuss it even though I don't like your words"?

Let's discuss it despite the fact that one single word is baseless.

[california boy]

Yes, I get it. If you are not willing to engage honestly then any answer is possible. For example it is simply not possible for Canadian Bacon to be without Salt because by definition it is cured is salt. If you remove the salt it is not Canadian Bacon. It is something else. Making this declaration is not a slippery slope argument. Arguing that somehow it is something else is also not a slippery slope argument. These are arguments related to ignoring the definition of a word -- or affirming it. Not slippery slope.

Not only that, but your arguments were not slippery slope. A slippery slope is not merely a single state argument. It requires a sequence of events, not just A leads to B. Simply saying A leads to B would be a different sort of argument. Instead, Slippery Slope is A leads to B which leads to C (where B may and often is a series of events). This is what leaves Slippery Slope potentially open to being contradicted by charges of contra arguments related to "undistributed middle" and related errors. (Note though that even legitimate arguments might be reasonably attacked on the basis of probabilities -- but this then becomes an argument about opinions not really about logic, unless the probabilities are objectively silly).

It is in fact, impossible to create a slippery slope argument about things that currently exist. That is the fundamental reason your claim fails. Slippery slope can only possibly apply to things projected to occur.

However, if you want to say that you gave a slippery slope argument -- not for supporting the proposition that Canadian Bacon IS salty -- (which was the challenge) but rather to argue that it may eventually be that something called Canadian Bacon will have no salt -- I would agree that you may have done that. However that was not the challenge. When it comes to the challenge -- you did not meet it.

Finally, if you really believe that you provided excellent, well founded arguments that really do support the conclusion, then by all standards -- even the most restrictive -- you have not committed a slippery slope fallacy.

On the other hand, if you have not provided those really well founded arguments then I assert you have not represented my position at all. In particular, when speaking about legal decisions the principle of ceteris paribus leads directly to a sequence of cascading decisions (the slippery slope of which we are talking) -- which is well recognized by legal scholars, even if you deny it. This is why legal decisions by the Supreme Court are so tightly scrutinized and used as arguments in other court cases in subject areas not covered by that decision -- because the legal profession has institutionalized a process of cascading subsequent consequences from one decision.

This is true even if you do not accept it as true.

Well I certainly am not going to get into a debate about Canadian Bacon. It was just an example of how you can make a slippery slope argument about anything. I. like you, do not think it was a particularly good argument, but slippery slope arguments never are. Like I said, they are always just speculation about what the future would be. By their very structure they are projecting future conclusions that may or may not turn out to be true. I find tea leaves much more reliable.

[CASteinman]

Morally correct according to WHO?

Prophets and apostles.

Where does this person or object get their/its authority?

Through the Priesthood as restored by Peter James and John to the Prophet Joseph Smith under the direction of Jesus Christ.

Based on your answer to the above question...I ask WHO says so? Because YOU say so? Because a church authority says so? Because someone SAYS God SAID so? How comical will the audacity be...

It is always possible to mock and laugh at and find humor in righteous endeavors. This is described in the Book of Mormon where some people were mocking and laughing at those on the paths of righteousness. In some cases, this mocking was effective in reducing the faith of the Saints and causing them to err.

[CASteinman]

Let's discuss it despite the fact that one single word is baseless.

Cool. The word is irrelevant to the logic anyway.

As I recall, I was asking for the logic behind legal recognition of same sex marriage. Can you briefly outline that logic. Note, I will not hold you to picky details -- this is not about trying to 'catch' you in some error. So you don't have to be overly technical in detail... I will be generous in my approach... I promise.

[CASteinman]

Well I certainly am not going to get into a debate about Canadian Bacon. It was just an example of how you can make a slippery slope argument about anything.

But it wasn't an example of a slippery slope argument.

[Damien the Leper]

Cool. The word is irrelevant to the logic anyway.

As I recall, I was asking for the logic behind legal recognition of same sex marriage. Can you briefly outline that logic. Note, I will not hold you to picky details -- this is not about trying to 'catch' you in some error. So you don't have to be overly technical in detail... I will be generous in my approach... I promise.

Give me time. I have to go to a funeral today. The man was my mother's doc and he kept her alive through her blood disease. He was her doc for 16 years.

[ERayR]

This is not my issue, but if it were up to me, you can keep your use of Traditional Marriage. But with the use of traditional marriage also comes all the baggage of what it means.

English tradional marriage- The duke had a legal right to have sex with anyone's bride that was under his domain on her wedding night.

Muslin traditional marriage - You can marry up to 6 wives.

In India traditional marriage - Women have been known to be forced to marry an animal.

In Mormon religion traditional marriage used to mean - Worthy men were commanded to marry multiple wives.

In Mormon religion traditional marriage - They believe you can be married for eternity

In Old Testiment times traditional marriage - If your husband dies, you are forced to marry his brother.

In some parts of the world traditional marriage will mean - Gay people can marry their own gender.

I guess if you believe in traditional marriage, you have to believe in all of these traditional marriages. After all, we ALL have the same idea as to what a traditional marriage is don't we.

A GREAT BIG RED HERRING

We are discussing 21st century US of A.

[CASteinman]

Give me time. I have to go to a funeral today. The man was my mother's doc and he kept her alive through her blood disease. He was her doc for 16 years.

You bet. Although everyone dies -- I am highly sympathetic to the loss of important people in our lives.

[california boy]

A GREAT BIG RED HERRING

We are discussing 21st century US of A.

I agree. So is saying that marriage must stay as it currently is in most of America because it has always been that way.

BTW, In India traditional marriage - Women have been known to be forced to marry an animal. is still practiced today.

[treehugger]

Cool. The word is irrelevant to the logic anyway.

As I recall, I was asking for the logic behind legal recognition of same sex marriage. Can you briefly outline that logic. Note, I will not hold you to picky details -- this is not about trying to 'catch' you in some error. So you don't have to be overly technical in detail... I will be generous in my approach... I promise.

You have not addressed the CFRs from post 85.

[CASteinman]

BTW, In India traditional marriage - Women have been known to be forced to marry an animal. is still practiced today.

That is not traditional marriage .. not even in india. Despite what the internet may tell you.

However, would it be likely to see someone who supported gay "marriage" using "marriage" to animals as support for their views?

Edited July 28, 2012 by CASteinman

[ERayR]

I agree. So is saying that marriage must stay as it currently is in most of America because it has always been that way.

BTW, In India traditional marriage - Women have been known to be forced to marry an animal. is still practiced today.

No marriage must stay that way because it is what more closely aligns with God's revealed purposes of marriage.

[treehugger]

CAsteinman, since you seem unwillingly to honor the CFR, and that you have asked of valentuis the very issue of CFR requested of you, I will provide you what the answer you have not provided but requested another provide.

Ssm was upheld in a Federal Court becuase The restriction on ssm is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Here is a link to the 9th Circuit opinion, start on page 55 - that is where the Court begins its direct explanation of its opinion.

Are you willing now (or anyone else using the slippery slope to counter ssm) to explain that the Government does not have a legitimate interest in prohibited incestuous marriages?

To stand by the proposition 'ssm leads to incestuous marriages' means that you are saying the Government does not have any legitimate interest in prohibiting incestuous marriages.

Edited July 28, 2012 by treehugger

[ERayR]

CAsteinman, since you seem unwillingly to honor the CFR, and that you have asked of valentuis the very issue of CFR requested of you, I will provide you what the answer you have not provided but requested another provide.

Ssm was upheld in a Federal Court becuase 1. The restriction on ssm is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

And separately, the supporters of alleged traditional marriage did not provide a compelling government interest for the restriction on ssm is not the

If you are talking about the First Circuit Court ruling then same sex marriage was not upheld. The ruling was that if the states chose to allow it then the US Congress will have to come forward with stronger reasons than it has so far for denying those who marry under such a state law the federal employment, insurance and tax benefits that are available to opposite-sex couples.

That ruling in no way upheld ssm. What it did uphold was states rights.

[treehugger]

If you are talking about the First Circuit Court ruling then same sex marriage was not upheld. The ruling was that if the states chose to allow it then the US Congress will have to come forward with stronger reasons than it has so far for denying those who marry under such a state law the federal employment, insurance and tax benefits that are available to opposite-sex couples.

That ruling in no way upheld ssm. What it did uphold was states rights.

I edited my post and did not see your response to the unedited post, please see the link provided in post 146 it is too the 9th Circuit ruling on Proposition 8.

Edited July 28, 2012 by treehugger

[Skylla]

Don't derail the thread please.

[california boy]

No marriage must stay that way because it is what more closely aligns with God's revealed purposes of marriage.

I don't think anyone is asking religion to change how they view marriage. Religion can continue to teach what ever it wants. This is certainly not the only issue that the church has that is not supported by the government.