Well, I don't think I was clear. I was not comparing tax cuts to homosexuality (by the way, I believe a tariff *is* a form of tax, but let's pop out of that rabbit hole).
You were certainly making this comparison. You see, when your opponent issued the "domino argument" against homosexuality, you erroneously deflected it by claiming any good idea, (including tax cuts and homosexuality) when taken to an extreme can become a bad idea. You were assuming homosexuality is a good idea - like cutting taxes can be. The fallacy is manifest. The “goodness” of Homosexuality is the issue of debate.
Merely, pointing out that the style of 'domino' argument is inherently flawed.
This depends upon the nature of the first domino. If that domino is “tax cuts,” then tipping it over will not necessarily result in a string of tragedies because no corrupt thing is inherently attached to it. To posit a necessary list of tragedies from tax cuts, even extreme ones, is flawed in this case. But should that first domino be an act of murder, then positing tragedy should it be tipped is not flawed at all because murder, by definition, is contrary to human identity.
In essence, I was saying that any good idea, taken to an extreme, can become a bad idea.
And now you see this is false. Think in objects. “Water” is an object that, like tax cuts, can be used fruitfully or destructively. We might combine an object called “too little” with an object called “water” and that might be bad in some contexts (like that of thirst), but in others (like that of drowning) it could be quite good. Combining “Tax Cuts” and “too big” is not necessarily bad as you are claiming. The bad thing is something else-- an object called “Obligation Default.”
But with homosexuality the domino argument is not flawed at all because the very presence of homosexuality means human contrariness. If we accept human contrariness in homosexuality, we necessarily must accept it many other places, like in bestiality and polygamy. Only by inconsistency and arbitrary “community preference” can we deny these other corruptions. Homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality are all of the same specie of human corruption.
The domino argument does just that; taking any idea, seemingly good, and extending it to a bad conclusion. That is what the homosexuality/beastiality/child abuse argument goes.
Yours is a very flawed approach (though most people likely will not see it). Whether you realize it or not, you are assuming homosexuality is good when that is the issue of dispute. You assume bestiality and your arbitrary definition of “child abuse” are extremes. The natural and objectively apparent fact is, all of these are extremes. They are all so extreme that they are utterly foreign to nature. They do not serve as a basis for anything that exists in nature.
Rather than argue the relative pluses or minuses of the particular subject (homosexuality), the argument is pushed into something that really has no direct connection to the original argument. That is, there is no connection between homosexuality and beastiality and child abuse.
There is indeed a connection between these things. Homosexuality and bestiality are both corruptions of human identity. The proof of it is that should you accept one, there is absolutely no logic allowing you to deny the other. I have demonstrated that even here with you.
Pedophiles may or may not be homosexuality, and vice versa. One does not connotate the other, so there is no link, and no 'domino'. Ditto with beastialites (?) There is no connection, and the argument is a non sequitur.
See above.
I could argue that, for example, all organized religion is bad, because it can (and has) been abused. Based on the domino argument, churches and religions should be outlawed because, taken to the extreme, you have the Inquisition and the Taliban.
You could argue this, but no reasonable person would accept it. Religion itself must be judged. Here is where you fail. You too easily are distracted by objects that allegedly flow from religion when in fact those objects do not necessarily flow from religion at all. But corruption in human identity necessarily does flow from homosexuality.
Here is where we get into the crux of the dilemma. Should there be a law preventing marriage of 12 year olds, as is the custom in some cultures? Some would say yes, others no. To the ones who say yes, the question becomes: should we allow 10 year olds to marry? 8? 2? At birth?…
It is this arbitrariness that allows homosexuals to press for the lowering of the age of consent. They understand that there is no logic in nature forbidding their having sex with “kids.” The real answer is clear, it is in nature and it forbids homosexual sex with boys.
I think we fall back on a sense of right and wrong, which must be fair, secular, and human. The way I look at it, knowing same sex couples with kids, is that these people are what you would call 'solid citizens'; they are active in the community, morally strong, know right from wrong, contribute to the well-being of our society, and do no harm to others.
Kevin, these are all subjective determinations that are naturally false. But, because of your right to be willfully false you are free to hold these beliefs. You commit a crime against your nature, but you have no natural right to commit such a crime against others by forcing them to effectively embrace your beliefs here.
The difference between advocating something and tolerating it. There are many things that fall into the category for me. It is what I am most proud of as an American.
The problem is, other Americans wish to follow the reality of nature and nature’s morality more closely than you. They have the natural right to do so. When you use the might of law to force them to accept your sense of morality, you commit a natural crime against them and all humanity. Sugar coating this criminality with pseudo-American pride does nothing to eliminate its stench and bitterness. It is still crime and of the most fundamental sort. |
