[On same-sex marriage]
Wootsauce: Canada? You use Canada, where one can be jailed for calling homosexuality a sin, as your example for "freedom and equality"??
jillybean: I do know something about this. You are free in Canada to say that the Bible teaches homosexual conduct is a sin. You are not free to use language that seems intended to incite hatred and violence towards homosexuals.
Wootsauce: Slippery slope there.
22 comments
Canada, where one can be jailed for calling homosexuality a sin
That's just a flat lie. And slippery slope arguments are automatically invalid.
"Wootsauce: Slippery slope there."
For sure, next someone will be saying it's a crime to beat up niggers because you don't like their looks.
Yet another fundie who can't seem to understand the difference between saying "Homosexuality is a sin" and "We should kill all the fags!"
Really, if you're that worried about being thrown in jail over your hate speech, maybe you should reexamine what it is you're saying.
a slippery slope argument is of the basic form that "once you do bad-thing A, you'll inevitably eventually do worse-things B and C, and there's no stopping you from sliding all the way down the slope to horrible-thing Z". it's considered fallacious because so many sloppy speakers are in a habit of making it without bothering to show that the slope really is slippery --- that doing A really will predispose you to go on to B and C and so forth, all down the line; or even show that there's any connection between the letters at all.
funny thing is, a slippery slope argument COULD be made validly, with a bit of effort. show that the events really are connected somehow, and that doing the first few in the series really will predispose you toward the later ones --- or perhaps show that credibly similar sequences have happened in the past, maybe --- and you might have a realistic, credible warning there. it's just that fundies never take the effort to do this.
look at wootsauce for a good example of the latter. no connecting existing hate speech laws to the dystopia he's railing about, no showing that hate speech laws have any credible tendency or reason to expand in a dystopian direction, just the bald-faced assertion of "hate speech laws therefore gestapo". the very reason why slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious.
Not even remotely. You just can't encourage your flock to go out and kill gay folk in the same way that you can't tell them to kill people who work on Sunday, who disbelieve on your God or who push many stupid commands of the Bible that are rescinded, rightfully and sensibly so, by free societies.
If you think that's slippery Weaksauce, you'd slip and break your leg playing street hockey on level asphalt in summer.
So apparantly sanity is proportionate to one's ability to keep their footing on ice. Go Canada.
You clearly don't know what a slippery slope argument is.
Go on Nizkor Project; they have a fine list of logical fallacies and other logical mishaps. Although the subject of the site is mainly Holocaust denial, the same logical fallacies crop up in other (unwarranted) debates as well.
Dear friends, I would like to introduce you to "argumentum ad Phelpsum". It goes like this: Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church spew their vomit freely, far and wide, without any legal repercussions. If anyone complains about being "persecuted", "harassed" or "threatened" either they are even worse than those f**kbuckets, or they talk right out of their arse.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
