Meaning that your logic beanie wasn’t enough. It was explained in detail. Not my fault that you tried to pipe in, and so weakly.
Fine, you disagree with the strategy. But the point I was making still stands. Your bias regarding the issue is clouding your logic.
Yes, it was. And explained in detail, it still didn’t work because it says nothing about the merits and failings of either statement. ‘You said something your opponents don’t like, and they sometimes say things you don’t like!’ is not ironic and doesn’t indicate that anything is wrong with jayjay’s comparison.
What point? The one about the fictional “purer moral high ground?”
Well, I guess Obama agrees with me.
You might want to reread the exchange, because that is not near an accurate characterization of what I said. Jayjay’s comparisons were asinine. Equating those who don’t favor SSM with those who favor child molestation, wife beating and lynching is complete nonsense. (But at least it shows that one side cannot keep their senses about them while debating the issue.) The irony is that almost every time the slippery slope argument is explored and polygamy or bestiality come up, SSM advocates have a hissy fit—incorrectly whining (fallaciously), “How DARE you compare homosexuality to those things!!! Huff!!!”
Get it yet? The one who claims that those exploring the slippery slope argument are vile for “comparing” SSM to such vile things raises up his hand and does the very thing he accuses the other side of. The irony is compounded by the fact that the slippery slope argument does NOT compare SS couples to polygamists or anything thing else. Yet, the nonsense he spewed compares SSM opponents to those who are pro-child molestation.
And that is some comical shit right there.
Fictional? No. It’s an argument that is purer in that in seizes the moral high ground while leaving aside the baggage that is most objectionable to the other side. Sheeze, this really isn’t this hard.
You’re explaining an argument I already understood. You don’t have to keep re-explaining it.
The moral high ground isn’t up for grabs here.
And it codifies same sex relationships as less valid than straight relationships and makes gays lesser citizens. It seems to me that doesn’t do very much for the larger cause of gay rights.
You don’t get bonus points for loudly announcing you’ve convinced yourself.
Oh, so you do see the irony in hateful nonsense he posted. Excellent.
This statement proves that you are unable to grasp what I’ve been saying. Unbelievable.
That goes to strategy, as I said. That does not invalidate my statement. I guess you really do find this hard.
But I do get them for being able to apply logic and follow an argument and not let biases get in the way. Maybe you should give it a shot.
I truly get it. It’s truly wrong. I find this easy. Believable.
Oh, I’ll play! What—specifically—is wrong?
And yet, I don’t consider him an insufferable twit.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? And why would you think I care about that?
This sounds like an insult of John Mace, and you’re not allowed to insult other users - even by implication - in this forum.
magellan01 you are right that it is on unfair to compare SSM opponents to child molesters. Klansman and child molesters are different kinds of evil.
A fair comparison would be the racist bigots against Loving in Loving vs Virginia:
Arguments Against Interracial Marriage and Equal Marriage
Arguments against SSM all line up with bigoted arguments against interracial marriage. I wonder why that is.
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! It’s because all those arguments are pinheaded bigoted counter-factual nonsense.
Sorry, the answer is right, but we don’t have any more cookies. Set them down right over there by Mags and now they’re all gone…
You’re right to rebuke my post. I should’ve restrained the snark and responded differently.
I engage in discussion with you John because you take care as a matter of course to consider your arguments and are capable of changing your opinion. I tend to address your points directly and offer counterarguments where I disagree. This in hope that either you will show where my argument is lacking, or take my points but offer reasonable counterpoints. When you fail to reflect that respect, you do a disservice to both arguments.
You’ve handwaved the probability of blowback from presidential advocacy which might reduce its efficacy or even produce an opposite effect and you’ve failed to note that this pragmatic aspect is itself an ethical compunction which should be considered by a national leader. Instead, you’ve made the breezy observation that POTUS appears to agree with your disdain for the politics of the issue, based purely on the fact that he has used some language similar to what you’d like him to use. This superficial response prompted my umbrage.
Recognizing the insignificance of this subtopic to the point of this thread (our conversation should’ve been part of Eve’s thread here instead) and the likelihood that you find my opinion beneath your lofty consideration, I’m prepared to take my disappointment back to Lurkersville. Doesn’t really matter to me, but since you’re the one I’m arguing with, it’s up to you whether the argument is worth pursuing.