revolutionist90 Posted August 2, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 46 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 460 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/16/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/26/1990 Share Posted August 2, 2013 I remember this video. It seems like no one understood the definition of fourth trimester. But eerily when told many still sign the petition which is really strange. I wonder if taken to an actual debate how many would agree on after-birth abortions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Only if they are inevitably linked. If Y and Z do not necessarily follow X, then it is indeed the slippery slope fallacy. So in this case, the argument seems to be something like, "If we allow legal abortions, then we will have legalized killing of babies well after they're born". I seriously doubt the legalized killing of 1 month old babies is a necessary result of legal abortions. Partial birth abortion is killing a baby after it's born, with only the head remaining in the birth canal. I mean if a baby is turned in the womb and only 90% of the baby remains in the birth canal while the spinal chord and brain stem are severed, the baby is for all intents and purposes, born. The murder takes place outside the womb. So it is not a fallacy at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 that is not true. For years, no one accepted the "slippery slope argument" that if homosexuality was accepted as normal, that pedophiles would seek the same legitimacy. Yet today, there are pedophilia advocacy groups like NAMBLA that are now making the exact same genetic preidispoistion and orientation arguments that the gay community has been making. Pedophiles are now claiming that their sexual desire for little boys was put there by God. It took 30 years for the gays to get their genetic orientation argument to be accepted and today, most everyone under the age og 30 accepts homosexuality as a perfectly normal lifestyle. 30 years from now, the pedophiles may find the same thing. Just because a group seeks legitimacy, that doesn't mean they're inevitably going to get it. There is a fundamental difference between behavior between consenting adults and the abuse of children. I'm disappointed that I have to point that out. Yeah that's what they said 30 years ago... I guess it takes a special kind of intellectual suicide to ignore reality that is staring you in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted August 2, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Nebula, I'm not saying nothing will change. I'm simply pointing out that "We must oppose X because Y and Z will follow" isn't a compelling argument against X. that is not true. For years, no one accepted the "slippery slope argument" that if homosexuality was accepted as normal, that pedophiles would seek the same legitimacy. Yet today, there are pedophilia advocacy groups like NAMBLA that are now making the exact same genetic preidispoistion and orientation arguments that the gay community has been making. Pedophiles are now claiming that their sexual desire for little boys was put there by God. It took 30 years for the gays to get their genetic orientation argument to be accepted and today, most everyone under the age og 30 accepts homosexuality as a perfectly normal lifestyle. 30 years from now, the pedophiles may find the same thing. NAMBLA has been around for 35 years and we have not seen any of the things you speak of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Nebula, I'm not saying nothing will change. I'm simply pointing out that "We must oppose X because Y and Z will follow" isn't a compelling argument against X. that is not true. For years, no one accepted the "slippery slope argument" that if homosexuality was accepted as normal, that pedophiles would seek the same legitimacy. Yet today, there are pedophilia advocacy groups like NAMBLA that are now making the exact same genetic preidispoistion and orientation arguments that the gay community has been making. Pedophiles are now claiming that their sexual desire for little boys was put there by God. It took 30 years for the gays to get their genetic orientation argument to be accepted and today, most everyone under the age og 30 accepts homosexuality as a perfectly normal lifestyle. 30 years from now, the pedophiles may find the same thing. NAMBLA has been around for 35 years and we have not seen any of the things you speak of Yeah they have been around for a while and they are now making the same arguments that has been so successful for the gays. My point is that acceptance of homosexuality as a genetic orientation has breathed new life into people like the folks at NAMBLA and they are now adusting their agenda to imitate the tactics used by the gay community to get legitimacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted August 7, 2013 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted August 7, 2013 Only if they are inevitably linked. If Y and Z do not necessarily follow X, then it is indeed the slippery slope fallacy. So in this case, the argument seems to be something like, "If we allow legal abortions, then we will have legalized killing of babies well after they're born". I seriously doubt the legalized killing of 1 month old babies is a necessary result of legal abortions. There's a difference between a slippery slope argument and a slippery slope fallacy. After birth abortions is a logical next step to third trimester abortions because the distinction isn't relevant to the question of personhood. So no fallacy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted August 7, 2013 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted August 7, 2013 LOL, my favorite was the guy that didn't even read it or ask about it and just signed it. I don't think you can really take this seriously, and the guy was obviously not being as blunt as he could in both word choice and tone whenever he answered questions about fourth trimester abortion which is an odd term to begin with. I think MG, JD, and Gerald summed it up, some people are just ignorant and not everyone thinks things through, edit out those that catch on, and wallah. I'm sure everyone here is guilty of doing something completely stupid and ignorant that we normally wouldn't do if we just sat down and thought about it for a minute. I think the video does demonstrate how one can play games with words. Afterall, "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" seem to me to be the same play on words. Making it a women's rights issue is a play on words. Give something a positive sounding term and people will fall for it. Those in advertising have known it for years, so did Orwell and I think it's been employed well by certain liberal organisations. I think that's what the clip is attempting to show, and I think it does so well. I don't think the clip's intent was to make a broad statement about people's intellect, so dismissing the clip on such grounds misses the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Westin Posted August 8, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 616 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 96 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/07/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted August 8, 2013 "Several students at George Mason University (GMU) signed a petition on Wednesday demanding lawmakers legalize “fourth trimester” abortions." http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4872 yes I seen this, very funny to see people sign a petition for blatant murder, I can see why so many college students remain unemployed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbyPants Posted August 29, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 166 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/27/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 29, 2013 I'm curious; was this a serious petition or an exercise in establishing the complete ignorance of some college students? It's almost certainly an attempt to see if they're really paying attention. I remember hearing about a similar petition five to ten years ago where people were asked if they wanted to remove women's suffrage (right to vote). They got plenty of supporters, not on the grounds of thinking women couldn't vote, but rather because they didn't know what the word meant and probably confused it with "suffering". The petition itself wasn't actually intended to be used, but was just a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts