**itskennyandjosh used "*roll picture*"**
**itskennyandjosh rolled image**Then **** it, lets let people marry horses and **** dogs in the ass.
Just because I wouldn't do it, that doesn't mean I should stop others from doing it.

sure wtf idc

I'm not even mad i thought cocktard was funny

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the people that were vexing to legalize gay marriage weren't part of that slippery slope logic, which isn't technically inaccurate.

No worries, our society's morality is based on what's currently popular and tradition based taboos rather than reason or logic.

It's not about the gays having what they want. It's about these kind of people having something to fight about. Because these people ALWAYS want something to fight about. Without gay marriage, they have nothing to fight about anymore, so they need something else.

As it happens that next thing will probably be polygamy, and doubtfully pedophilia. But our taboo for that is so insanely strong I can't imagine anything happening besides MAYBE a loosening up of the age of consent laws, and maybe our societal taboo on the matter.

If you think it just ends here, you're horribly naive. Because degeneracy IS a slippery slope. The only thing stopping another thing, is the time it takes to do one thing, in this case it was gay marriage. Now of course bestiality isn't going to be the next thing, because we wouldn't be ready for that. That would get instantly shut down. But what about in 25 years? A lot can change in 25 years, especially popular opinion. The ideas of sentience, consent, and love will likely degenerate there too.

So no, bestiality will never the next big thing today. But, it might be the next big thing in the decades to come. But only after we have degenerated in some other way first. Making society ok with Gay marriage is like a prerequisite to getting society ready for what's next.

"Because these people ALWAYS want something to fight about. Without gay marriage, they have nothing to fight about anymore, so they need something else."
Fear mongering.
There is literally nothing to support that.
This is just slipper slope fallacy.

"As it happens that next thing will probably be polygamy, and doubtfully pedophilia."
Oh look, the textbook cliche predictions of what happens as society's moral fabric decays as a result of legalizing gay marriage.

"degeneracy IS a slippery slope"
"Making society ok with Gay marriage is like a prerequisite to getting society ready for what's next. "
K, you're just ******* stupid. Nothing more to talk about.

Acting like you're above me, doesn't automatically make you right, it just makes you an asshole. Ironic considering you seem to care about logical fallacies.

It's not fear mongering, it's logic and observation. And if people want to be "afraid" of that, that's their own business. I don't understand why accepting that everything we do having consequences is considered "fear mongering" now.

Nothing to support the slippery slope? Really? How about gun control? As in it gets more and more strict as time goes on. How about civil rights? Where blacks were freed from slavery, years later were made full citizens, then eventually the barriers between white and black were broken down in society making them equals. That's a clear slippery slope right there. A similar process happened with civil rights for women. Allowing women to vote led to one thing, which led to another.

The slippery slope is only a fallacy when it's used in place of an actual argument. Because it distracts from the issue at hand and is more like speculation than an argument. If we used slippery slope as an actual deterrent from doing things, we would never get anything done, because there's always going to be consequences that lead from our actions no matter what we do, that's a fact of life. But saying the slippery slope doesn't exist is absolutely ridiculous. That'd be like saying that cultures and laws never evolve, and time has stopped. Don't let the fact the "slippery slope" being known as an argument fallacy, must mean that the passage of time no longer moves forward. That'd be kind of like committing the fallacy fallacy.

Textbook cliche predictions? Ok. As far as the realm of sexual relationships go, what else do you think there is? Those are the closest to our preparation as a society, and taboos that are illegal. If those are "cliche" would you like to suggest an issue in sexual relationships that isn't? Also those aren't what I would describe as "society's moral fabric decay", they're just in the realm of sexual relationships that are not allowed but could be debated upon today. In fact here we are, debating upon it. Well technically we're debating on the slippery slope existing. But if you see these as "cliche", something tells me you have bias goggles on.

>K, you're just ******* stupid. Nothing more to talk about.

Go **** yourself.

Take your ******** back to /pol/ or whatever church you crawled out of.

Yeah I'm pretty convinced you didn't even read my comment. You are literally too unreasonable to argue with.

Your "point" is the slippery slope fallacy, which you have continually misused in all your supporting arguments.

Slippery Slope is when you suggest one thing will cause another, but you don't actually have any real reason why it would. That's what you're doing when you say that gay marriage will lead to things like "consent" just evaporating into the air.

Your insistence about "them needing something to fight about" is laughably ridiculous. You straight out say that you think allowing gays to marry is "degeneracy", which means you've already played out your hand. Your a conservative fear-monger, bigoted and trying to create boogeymen where none exist. Your "examples" about blacks becoming equal (oh no) and women being able to vote (gasp) only serve to highlight this.

You never had a point to begin with.
You're the worst kind of scum.
You're a bigoted, ignorant **** .
This is even more a waste of my time, but I just wanted to make this abundantly clear to you.

Whew boy, that was a **** ton of misinterpretation.

When did I say gay marriage makes the concept of consent not exist? For one that's irrelevant, and second I never even said that. So strawman bro.

Now for your first misinterpretation, I don't use the word "degeneracy" in this context as meaning good or bad. I mean the word quite literally, like as in "to degenerate". As in morals that we have held close of the sexual nature as a culture, are now on the decline. This is by definition "degeneracy", and that's necessarily a bad thing depending on what it is. So apologies that you took that out of context.

And don't tell me I've "played my hand" as a "conservative fear-monger". I've already said it once, I'm not a "fear monger", I just point out obvious logic which apparently people are in "fear" of according to you. I am not a bigot, I don't even know where you got that from, I don't hate anyone for their skin color, gender, or sexuality. Well maybe not this sexuality anyway. I'm not terribly fond of zoophiles. For some reason you have perceived by observations of the obvious to be some kind of propaganda, can't imagine why.

Now for your second misinterpretation. Your vendetta against the slippery slope, has clouded your perception of the examples I listed. The slippery slope (like the word degeneracy earlier) is not an exclusively good or bad thing, as I thought would have been made clear by my examples. No I am not a racist, I am happy that Blacks are our equals now, but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope. No I am not a sexist, I am happy that women are also our equals now, but that process was also a perfect example of slippery slope. So not "oh no" or "gasp".

I do not entirely blame you for the first misinterpretation, but I blame you a little bit on the second. I hope by clearing up these misunderstandings my points are now abundantly clear to you.

"second I never even said that. So strawman bro."
"The ideas of sentience, consent, and love will likely degenerate there too."
Get ****** .

"I am not a bigot"
Said literally every bigot ever.

"but that process was a perfect example of slippery slope."
You have successfully demonstrated AGAIN that you have no ******* idea what you are talking about.

Saying our idea or perception of consent might change over time =/= Saying consent will just stop existing for no reason

So yeah, wonderful strawman dude.

>Said literally every bigot ever

Yeah ooooook. Despite my literal lack of prejudice toward any particular group, I guess I'm a bigot and I just didn't know it. Geez doctor I really wish I knew earlier, I was completely clueless!

I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about, maybe you don't understand it, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Now do you actually have anything to add or refute? Or is your entire comment just going to be "Get a load of this guy."?

That's literally all I need to do at this point.
You've made it painfully obvious to anyone who were to read this.

More like it's part of a slope.

And I just replied to myself, I am a genius.

>>#122

You mean the fear-monger's logic is based on slippery slope logic.
The people that wanted gay marriage have what they wanted. They don't need to push for anything else.
But people have continuously warned that making gay marriage legal will lead to bestiality being legal, and it's an absolutely ******* sutpid thing to say because an animal can never consent.
Totally different kind of scenario.
Comparing them is a sign that you have literally no good point to present and are just trying to prey on fear because it could NEVER actually happen.

So should incest... but that's much less popular.

difference is, incest creates sick\disabled people and hurts the gene pool. having multiple chicks does the opposite.

Why ban incest when you just want to ban its procreation? That's slippery slope logic.

Like that is literally the main point every person uses against incest. It's like apparently every relationship that has ever existed immediately created a baby, you know, besides all of the relationships that weren't marriages and even marriages that didn't ever have kids.

But **** it, just ban incest as a whole, they're guaranteed to have kids. Not like we could just make incestuously bred children illegal or anything.

Well that was the most subjective argument I've hard all day.

"Homosexuality is ******* gross, you don't even need a biological explanation to understand it, what the **** is wrong with you?"

Does anything seem wrong with that statement?

Yes I did compare homosexuality to incest. They are both a sexual issue, and are more similar than you think. They were or still are illegal to some extent, society has strong taboos against them, the taboos against them both are completely irrational, and it's a taste that's only going to be understood by people that belong to that category. Quite similar actually.

This is why I replaced the word "incest" with "homosexuality" in your comment. To put it better into context how ignorant you're being.

For one, you finding incest gross, is completely subjective and irrelevant. Just like how someone finding homosexuality gross would also be subjective and irrelevant. No one is asking you to take part in incest, just like how nobody is asking anyone to take part in homosexuality. But why does just because you find it gross, it should be banned?

>homosexuality isn't that big of a deal

I agree. And I also think that incest isn't that big of a deal

>and you think you can put incest at the same level?

Yes I can, why can't I? They're quite similar. Read my first paragraph on a few examples on how.

We should ban people with genetic disease from havind children/getting married as well then? The risk of transmitting the disease is even higher

I do agree with you but the ethik people would call that eugenics and compare us with hitler and whatnot.

Not necessarily, and even then it's a weak reason.

"..since you can't truly force someone to not have children"

And why the **** not? We've been forcing people to not break the law for centuries. For a while we forced people to never abort, we're forcing people right now to not be allowed to incestuously marry, we force people to not do all kinds of **** .

Saying A must be illegal because B can't be prevented is slippery slope logic.

Well, the matter here is what do you do once you catch someone doing it:

-If you catch people being incestuous, you can arrest them, punish them, etc.
-If you catch people having children what are you gonna do, kill the children...?

Since having an incestuous relationship/intercourse is required to have incestuous offspring, banning the first is the only way to ban the second.

"If you catch people having children what are you gonna do, kill the children?"

So, literally just abortion? Which is the most morally trivialized issue in America? Yeah just make them abort, and make incestuous procreation illegal. When things are illegal it discourages people from doing things, because they'll get a sentence if they do it. If the child was already born, then oh ******* well. It's not like all incestuously born children even have defects, they just have a higher chance to have them. A chance, I might add, which is rivaled by mothers in their 40s? We aren't banning older women from breeding are we? And even if the child did have a defect of some kind, our society is more than happy to accommodate them. Seriously even the most severe of mentally handicapped are ridiculously privileged. Also might I add that retards are still allowed to breed? No one is calling out eugenics there, so why are they calling it here? Why do you make incest just about the children? It's about the relationship.

Saying banning A is the only way to ban B is completely fallacious logic, and morally wrong. If that was how we made laws, we would hardly be allowed to do anything because Z will happen because A happened. Next thing you're going to say is that we should ban paint, because paint is required to vandalize buildings that way, so we may as well ban it.

Abortion is it's own debate. I was referring to the fact that once you find out you can't kil a 1-year old because of his origin. Plus, abortion is a decision that comes from its progenitors, not the state telling you to abort, so no point comparing those.

"If that was how we made laws, we would hardly be allowed to do anything because Z will happen because A happened" What you are using here is plain demagogy, that's like using the counter-argument that you need to be born in order to commit crimes, so stopping births stops crimes.

When A is borderline bannable, and B which is the only possible following event to A, then A is banned. It's not fallacious logic, its ******* logic. Why do you think selling drugs is a crime, when the crime should be taking them? Why do you think having guns is banned in most countries, when the crime should be killing people?

This IS in fact how we make laws, it's just your skewed view of this matter that makes you desire otherwise (as is human nature when we are taken away something we enjoy/want).

You'd be losing your choice in the matter because incestuous procreation would be illegal, and criminal punishment is defined as losing rights, usually being choice. If you were going to break the law by having an incestuous baby, you're not going to have the upper hand against the law as far as choice goes.

How is A borderline bannable? Do you really mean to say it's just a societal taboo? Because that's all it is. And no B is not the only possible thing following A. For some reason you are convinced there has never been a relationship in this world that has not ended with a child being created. I had a girlfriend when I was a 16, I remember very clearly how I never created a baby with her. The same can be said for millions of other couples. Also millions of marriages never conceive children. This is all evidence, that no "B is not the only possible following event to A" Not to mention that when incestuous procreation would be illegal, that would heavily discourage B from ever happening anyway.

I swear when arguing with people that have the same viewpoint you do, condoms, abortion, contraceptives, and the concept of "not wanting kids" just stop existing.

Now selling drugs is guaranteed that the sole purpose is for someone to take them. People don't sell or buy drugs just to have them sit on the shelf, it's a substance they intend to use. In this case, A is a means to get to B. That doesn't apply to this argument, because A in itself is what these people would want. To be married to their incest based partner. There aren't people that want incest legalized so they can create children that way, they want incest legalized so they can legally marry their partners period. I'm not going to deny there would be couples that would want such, but since B would be illegal, that is the compromise for legalizing this. And gun control, like you said, is it's own debate. It's a little too complicated to be used as a comparison in this regard.

A should be illegal when it's purpose is to cause B. But that doesn't ******* apply here. Because it's not the purpose of a marriage to create children, it's the purpose of a marriage to married to your spouse, procreation is something else entirely. Essentially A should be legal, because A doesn't always cause B, especially if B was illegal on it's own. And if you think A will always cause B, you're wrong.

Also I'll just assume, that you didn't have a counterpoint for most of my first paragraph on my previous comment?

Yep. In fact we should require people to be tested for all manners of genetic defects to weed out undesirables. That's not orwellian at all.

We should. But it's not 'moral'. Honestly I don't think it would be possible unless a massive shift in public opinion were to occur.

Yeah good luck pushing eugenics into the public sector.

unfortunately, yeah.

Any consenting adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult.
If a bunch of consenting adults all wanna get married, fair ******* game, I guess.

The only reason it will never happen is because legally it creates a ******* messy situation for the state when it comes to benefits and such.

This is the exact reason I support polygamy. Of course, the way legal marriage works would need some changes so people wouldn't be able to reap massive benefits from marrying several times. A polygamous relationship should not be an issue as long as all parties are consenting. **** , it means there's one more source of income for a household and if they decide to have children, it'll probably be a hella stable environment, since they'd be much more able to split up their workloads so somebody is always available to be with the child.

The only reason it will never happen is because legally it creates a ******* messy situation for the state when it comes to benefits and such.

That's the argument I read online when I was researching why polygamy is illegal. The only arguments basically boil down to 'it's not christian' or 'it's harmful to women/children, and to a lesser extent men'. The christian one is just silly to use as a legal precedent nowadays, and the argument that it is harmful basically assumes that if polygamy were to become legal suddenly a bunch of people will want to have multiple spouses, bot those spouse will for some reason be unhappy that they have to share. It's basically a weird fear that monogamous people will be forced into polygamous relationships. As for men they say that 'lower class men' won't be able to find spouses because they will hogged up by the "more desirable" men.

Actually there are many polyamorous people who get along just fine, the problem is that polygamy is not "it's not cheating baby, i'm poly", it's "all of us want this relationship"

Have no fear, humanity is the master of understanding absurdly complicated things. Look at engineering, economy, banking, insurance, I can hardly dream about understanding how all that crazy **** fits together.

So if we can figure that out, I'm sure we can figure out how a divorce would work in this new circumstance.

Be careful when using that argument. You probably wouldn't steal a car; but if I want to steal yours, should it be legal?

There's a difference in that polygamy doesn't hurt anybody.

For me polygamy is unfair competition. If a Man can have multiple wives there will be more single mans... Polygamy may be usefull in societies where there are way more women than mens but otherwise it's quite harmfull....

Well for one, >>#79

Second, there are men in this world then women. If every man in this world had a wife, there would be a massive population of women who would never find their mate, what is your solution for this?

I agree, or many goats, many Thai prostitutes, many waifus...

Well, my point was that I used the pattern one man several wives because it is the most widespread, and it was the pattern pictured in the comic... I did'nt meant there was'nt other types of polygamy

My sense of humour and unperfect english made it hardly understandable

I was just bringing to your attention the fact that this particular argument can be fallacious at times, not claiming your use of it was or was not

But if you want my opinion, I believe polygamy is wrong. Harmful? No. Wrong?Yes.