confessions of a bigot

[Kaak]

I actually used the term "child molestation" rather than paedophilia quite deliberately.

And I used paedophilia quite diliberately, and since you were attepting to retort MY argument...The reason I used paedopgilia is because the reason that some people claim homosexuality is okay is because it is not a choice, like paedophiles..

Which brings me to mr fun.

Some of you are exploiting the fallacy type of argument called "slippery slope."

It's good that you have been paying attention in your argumentation class, and memorized a definition. However, it is clear that you haven't mastered the concept.

Slippery slope applies when you confuse causes.
Here the causes are directly related and equivicable.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Kaak

And I used paedophilia quite diliberately, and since you were attepting to retort MY argument...The reason I used paedopgilia is because the reason that some people claim homosexuality is okay is because it is not a choice, like paedophiles..

Man, you STILL don't get it. "Because it is not a choice" is NOT the reason homosexuality is okay. It is okay because it harms NO ONE. Do not try to equate homosexuality and pedophilia simply because they "aren't choices." You sound like an even bigger horse's ass than you do when you take pride in being a bigot.

[Dr Strangelove]

Can you provide details or a link to your assertion that the ACLU is working for "equal rights" for pedophiles? Would this be for child pornography or actual sexual contact? Would it include only adolescents above a certain age?

[Gibsie]

...which brings us right back to the beginning of our latest melee where I say that most people think homosexuality is okay because it involves two consenting adults! Let's say you have successfully refuted the "argument" (put forwards by... probably the counterpart to that horrid Christian fundamentalist who kept using scripture to bash gays... i.e. no-one ) that because something is not a choice it should be accepted- you have yet to show why the actions of two consenting adults that harm nobody could be wrong... although you have said that these actions disgust you, so I can't really remember the purpose of the discussion beyond there and there's not enough posts present on this reply page for me to read it, so I'm just going to assume this is a circular argument

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kaak

And I used paedophilia quite diliberately, and since you were attepting to retort MY argument...The reason I used paedopgilia is because the reason that some people claim homosexuality is okay is because it is not a choice, like paedophiles..

Which brings me to mr fun.

It's good that you have been paying attention in your argumentation class, and memorized a definition. However, it is clear that you haven't mastered the concept.

Slippery slope applies when you confuse causes.
Here the causes are directly related and equivicable.

You bore me with your misinterpretations.

Here is the definition of slippery slope.
slippery slope: assumes, without evidence, that a given event is the first in a series of steps that will lead inevitably to some outcome.
Soure--Critical Thinking and Communication, Fourth Edition by Edward S. Inch and Barbara Warnick

You are claiming that accepting homosexuality is only the first step towards eventually accepting pedophilia. That is a slippery slope claim according to the above definition.

And besides that, the two are not related when one involves sex between two consenting adults, and the other involves manipulating children into having sex with adults.

[spartak]

post 500 in this thread. I should get half a K for that!.

Come on guys hasn't this thread not gone far enough now?

[Kaak]

You are claiming that accepting homosexuality is only the first step towards eventually accepting pedophilia. That is a slippery slope claim according to the above definition.

By your logic, any argument that tried to establish a basis would fall victem to slippery slope. I agree with your definition. You just don't understand what it means.

and guy: passive pedophilia also harms no one. that was why i used it instead of child abuse.


Anyway, now that the end of this thread has come to fruition, I would just like to take this oportunity to thank those of you who provided logical arguments contributing to intellectual discussion. I really have grown to understand many of you much more than 17 parts of MrFun's threads (btw, MF, you are excluded in the thank you above, as your arguments were poor, and your logic worse)

Anyway, to the point. I do not have anything against homosexuals. To each their own. I don't like or dislike them as a group; i am completely indifferent. For example, I like Asher, as I think he is witty, and at times logical. His bisexuality does not bother me. This thread was started a) as an irritant b) as a catalyst, and c) to better understand my fellow posters.

It was also an exercise for me in stoic argumentation, of which i am a big fan. Thank you all for participating and making it worth the effort and the time. (i meant to write more here, as i have been waiting for this for quite some time. however, it is almost 6 in the morning, and I have been studying for about 10 hours straight. I'm a bit brain dead, but I think this is enough to convey my feelings).