Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[Kangaroos4eva]

Important context:

1. This is not the national Women's March organization. This is a chapter local to Eureka, California, which has a population of 45,034. It sits in Humbolt County, which has a population of 132,646 including Eureka. In other words, tiny. The next closest chapter is a 3 hour drive away.
   
   
2. Here is the organization's press release in full. https://www.times-standard.com/2018...arch-is-not-happening-in-2019-organizers-say/ They indeed only really proffer lack of diversity as the reason to cancel. There is more detail here in this Facebook post. Apparently it's less about the participants being not sufficiently diverse, but the organizing committee itself.

Good points, most of which were mentioned in the article.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Curtain Razor]

Coming to Australia soon.

The end goal of these dangerous far left politicians is communism. Dumbing down the population with brainwashing techniques starting in school, and flooding their country with refugees and third world immigrants who'll end up voting for them no matter what. Never vote for far left parties.

 

[Father Jack]

Yep, you got me. Good work, you've outed me. I'm anti-Pedophilia. Sorry.

Actually I was inferring that you were homophobic and that the reason why you think 'leftists' will want to decriminalise paedophilia is because of the slippery slop fallacy, in that that is where tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality will lead, which certain people consider to be as evil as paedophilia itself.

 

[Taylor]

It's not the left's comfort with homosexuality that would be the slope. It's the left's comfort with gender and sexuality twisting of children that could.

Creating sexuality for a child in it's world before it's ready so it can, ironically, fit in with the adult world by showing how it doesn't fit in with established norms.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Actually I was inferring that you were homophobic and that the reason why you think 'leftists' will want to decriminalise paedophilia is because of the slippery slop fallacy, in that that is where tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality will lead, which certain people consider to be as evil as paedophilia itself.

There have been some disturbing incidents, like a 10 year old drag queen doing a dance performance on stage in a gay bar in the US. I'm not saying it reflects badly on all leftists or all homosexuals, but I always maintained that slogans like "love is love" are dangerous, and the rapid push to be accepting and tolerant of everything needs to have the brakes applied.

A friend of a friend I see on social media won't shut up about society not being accepting enough of "kink" and BDSM. I don't even understand what her demands are... these things are already legal between consenting adults. My suspicion is that because she is white and hetero, she has had to find some form of "minority" label to attach to herself in order to play the victim and jump on the "you must accept me" bandwagon. Society doesn't have to roll out the red carpet and host a celebration for every different characteristic that every person may have.

 

[Taylor]

I don't think you need to worry about that for long.

Even though we are breeding a culture of externally validated narcissism, we are also more depressed than ever so it's not working.

It's why someone like J Peterson can make a fortune selling a message that is basically "sort yourself out, you've got value and true value comes from within".

 

[Father Jack]

It's not the left's comfort with homosexuality that would be the slope. It's the left's comfort with gender and sexuality twisting of children that could.

Creating sexuality for a child in it's world before it's ready so it can, ironically, fit in with the adult world by showing how it doesn't fit in with established norms.

There's a reason why it's called a slippery slope fallacy, and that's because it's a fallacy. You'll have to construct an actual argument as to how this means that 'the left' would be in any way comfortable with paedophilia.

 

[its free real estate]

There's a reason why it's called a slippery slope fallacy, and that's because it's a fallacy. You'll have to construct an actual argument as to how this means that 'the left' would be in any way comfortable with paedophilia.

But it’s not a fallacy.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Why are we talking about pedophiles again?

No mentally sound person would endorse pedophilia and is an issue for mental health, law and justice, not a matter of political discourse and debate. While many leftist elements have a hold on not-so-conventional (traditional) views when it comes to sex, sexual education and what constitutes gender, it is a bit much to stretch leftist doctrine and thinking to being supportive of pedophilia just because a few out there thinkers endorse it. Milo is the first name that comes to mind when discussing not mixing politics with politics and he's republican style right.

 

[Frank Bunn]

There's a reason why it's called a slippery slope fallacy, and that's because it's a fallacy. You'll have to construct an actual argument as to how this means that 'the left' would be in any way comfortable with paedophilia.

There's no inherent reason why a slippery slope argument is a fallacy. You'll have to construct an actual argument as to how the left's comfort with gender and sexuality twisting of children, and creating sexuality for a child in it's world before it's ready does not enable the goals of paedophiles.

 

[Taylor]

It's not the entire left, but they have been pivoted to be used to validate any and all way of being that is different to how the world currently accepts as normal. I haven't seen the boundaries laid out yet, they are giving agency to those who are without the ability to make an educated choice.

The distance between empowering children to own both their sexual identity and their body and allowing that consent to extend to how they choose to behave with other people is not that far.

 

[Father Jack]

But it’s not a fallacy.

It absolutely is, because it suggests that if you shouldn't do one action because it might lead to some other extreme action that is only remotely (if at all) related to the first action.

There's no inherent reason why a slippery slope argument is a fallacy. You'll have to construct an actual argument as to how the left's comfort with gender and sexuality twisting of children, and creating sexuality for a child in it's world before it's ready does not enable the goals of paedophiles.

No, you have to do the opposite, as you'd be the one trying to make the slippery slope fallacy work.

 

[Proud SJW]

It absolutely is, because it suggests that if you shouldn't do one action because it might lead to some other extreme action that is only remotely (if at all) related to the first action.

I suppose you're completely ok with a JonBenet Ramsey type upbringing then?
As long as we've cleared that up.

 

[Father Jack]

I suppose you're completely ok with a JonBenet Ramsey type upbringing then?
As long as we've cleared that up.

Did you reply to the right post?

 

[its free real estate]

It absolutely is, because it suggests that if you shouldn't do one action because it might lead to some other extreme action that is only remotely (if at all) related to the first action.

At the same time, progressives cheerlead “progress” which by its very nature asserts a slippery slope. See the arguments invoked for trans women being women. To dispute it you’re assumed to be a bigot, who would have opposed the legalisation of homosexuality. But had someone said at the time when homosexuality was decriminalised that it would lead to “women having penises” they would have been derided as indulging in the slippery slope fallacy.

As I said earlier in the thread, the “slippery slope fallacy” arguments were made when Belgium legalised euthanasia, with dissenters arguing that euthanasia would inevitably be expanded beyond its initial remit. The past few years Belgium has euthanised children. Had someone said that legalising euthanasia would lead to the killing of children with manageable genetic disorders, they would have been called fallacious. But that’s what has happened.

The progressives call the slippery slope a fallacy while greasing up the slope.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

At the same time, progressives cheerlead “progress” which by its very nature asserts a slippery slope. See the arguments invoked for trans women being women. To dispute it you’re assumed to be a bigot, who would have opposed the legalisation of homosexuality. But had someone said at the time when homosexuality was decriminalised that it would lead to “women having penises” they would have been derided as indulging in the slippery slope fallacy.

As I said earlier in the thread, the “slippery slope fallacy” arguments were made when Belgium legalised euthanasia, with dissenters arguing that euthanasia would inevitably be expanded beyond its initial remit. The past few years Belgium has euthanised children.

The progressives call the slippery slope a fallacy while greasing up the slope.

How does that work in regards to the process of it all? Adults I understand, but child euthanasia is straying into Nazi-esque policies. Is it mentally disabled kids or children that want to die for whatever reason, valid or not (or the parents making that decision on the child's behalf)?

 

[its free real estate]

How does that work in regards to the process of it all? Adults I understand, but child euthanasia is straying into Nazi-esque policies. Is it mentally disabled kids or children that want to die for whatever reason, valid or not (or the parents making that decision on the child's behalf)?

From memory, the children that have been euthanised have been one with CF, one with cancer and one with some other genetic disease.

Imo CF and cancer in children are two diseases that should be fought, not succumbed to willingly. Great gains in life expectancy for children have come from people fighting for a cure. To give up on one child is to give up on everyone

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

From memory, the children that have been euthanised have been one with CF, one with cancer and one with some other genetic disease.

Imo CF and cancer in children are two diseases that should be fought, not succumbed to willingly. Great gains in life expectancy for children have come from people fighting for a cure. To give up on one child is to give up on everyone

It's dark territory to go down, but as long as it is not a widespread practise, I can understand individual cases, not that I fully agree with euthanasia.

 

[Father Jack]

At the same time, progressives cheerlead “progress” which by its very nature asserts a slippery slope. See the arguments invoked for trans women being women. To dispute it you’re assumed to be a bigot, who would have opposed the legalisation of homosexuality. But had someone said at the time when homosexuality was decriminalised that it would lead to “women having penises” they would have been derided as indulging in the slippery slope fallacy.

As I said earlier in the thread, the “slippery slope fallacy” arguments were made when Belgium legalised euthanasia, with dissenters arguing that euthanasia would inevitably be expanded beyond its initial remit. The past few years Belgium has euthanised children. Had someone said that legalising euthanasia would lead to the killing of children with manageable genetic disorders, they would have been called fallacious. But that’s what has happened.

The progressives call the slippery slope a fallacy while greasing up the slope.

The point is that you argue each issue as it arises and you don't decide that one will inevitably lead to the other and so the original must not happen. Doing it after the fact makes no sense, as you're now arguing that all the bad things that can happen will happen because something completely unrelated once led to something else.

Plus, do you have a link to the Belgian example, I'd be interested to have a read up on it.

 

[CM86]

At the same time, progressives cheerlead “progress” which by its very nature asserts a slippery slope. See the arguments invoked for trans women being women. To dispute it you’re assumed to be a bigot, who would have opposed the legalisation of homosexuality. But had someone said at the time when homosexuality was decriminalised that it would lead to “women having penises” they would have been derided as indulging in the slippery slope fallacy.

What's the connection between homosexuality and transgender?

If someone had said making it legal for homosexuals to be free consenting adults will lead to more cosmetic surgery, such as breast enlargements. You'd ask how they are connected.

Why is homosexuality, transgender, and paedophilia intrinsically linked in your mind?

 

[Noidenous]

There's no inherent reason why a slippery slope argument is a fallacy. You'll have to construct an actual argument as to how the left's comfort with gender and sexuality twisting of children, and creating sexuality for a child in it's world before it's ready does not enable the goals of paedophiles.

We all joked about trans-racialism being the slippery slope.

Not so much of a fallacy now, is it?

 

[Noidenous]

It absolutely is, because it suggests that if you shouldn't do one action because it might lead to some other extreme action that is only remotely (if at all) related to the first action.



No, you have to do the opposite, as you'd be the one trying to make the slippery slope fallacy work.

I see you, and I raise you the 'Nazi' fallacy.

Or is it the 'Literally Hitler' fallacy?

 

[Noidenous]

What's the connection between homosexuality and transgender?

If someone had said making it legal for homosexuals to be free consenting adults will lead to more cosmetic surgery, such as breast enlargements. You'd ask how they are connected.

Why is homosexuality, transgender, and paedophilia intrinsically linked in your mind?

It's because your lot can't draw the line between a human right and an anomaly, in the name of trying to obtain absolute moral high ground.

 

[quotemokc]

What's the connection between homosexuality and transgender?

If someone had said making it legal for homosexuals to be free consenting adults will lead to more cosmetic surgery, such as breast enlargements. You'd ask how they are connected.

Why is homosexuality, transgender, and paedophilia intrinsically linked in your mind?

Homosexuals and trans are linked and have been for a long time aka LGBT