ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, July 11, 2014

The slippery slope is not a logical fallacy

To the contrary, the slippery slope is observably a predictive model with occasional success, particularly with regards to sexual matters:
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.

"If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone....

"The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become 'free' when the second relationship broke down. The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister but we've come a long way from the 1950s – when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful."
This should make it clear to everyone who is not a sexual deviant that the position of the English Common Law was correct, and that all of the various deviancies that have been legalized and normalized and declared no longer indicative of psychological sickness since the 1950s should promptly be returned to their former status.

There is no middle ground. What devotees of one particular immorality or another believe is a reasonable stopping point - here, and no further -  is nothing more than a waystation on the road to total depravity of the worst imaginable sort.

We libertarians were wrong. Societal liberty simply cannot be maximized through sexual anarchy any more than it can be maximized though unrestricted immigration, unrestricted government, or unrestricted voting. In retrospect, this should always have been obvious: if everything goes, then literally everything will go. This is no longer a hypothetical objection on the part of traditional conservatives, it is an undeniable reality. It is human nature to push at the boundaries; there will always be those who cross the line. Therefore, the line needs to be set firmly along boundaries that are undeniably eucivic and proven by centuries of tradition to be sustainable in the long term.

There will be those who disingenuously insist that the clock cannot be turned back, that humanity is doomed to an endless future of sodomy, incest, rape, necrophilia, and bestiality. This is provably false; the current period of sexual anarchy in the West is hardly the first in human history and it is very short by historical standards. And this particular clock most certainly will be turned back, one way or another, because everything from birth rates to the transmission rates of sexually transmitted diseases indicate that the current state of near-sexual anarchy has already reached the point of unsustainability.

Technology can never trump Creator-imposed morality any more than science can surmount the physical laws of Nature. It may appear to do so, for a short time, but that is nothing more than an illusion based on incomplete understanding.

Labels: ,

180 Comments:

Blogger Tommy Hass July 11, 2014 6:40 AM  

To be honest, this is the line of attack I use against homophiles.

"There is nothing wrong with considering homosexuals to be sick fucks, if there is nothing wrong with considering incest sick as well."

Then they come with arguments why incest is different which are all fallacious and make them look like idiots.

OT: You gotta read some of the comments here. Has a better example of Gamma (other than Scalzi) ever been shown? http://www.returnofkings.com/37273/a-guide-for-getting-laid-at-anime-conventions

"You, Sir, have my most utter respect! I've flirted with countless girls at anime and comic cons and cosplay balls and that's all I've done, not picked them up or anything like that because I go to these types of events to have fun more than anything, and I think that people who want to go to these events just to get laid are seriously sad losers."

"Better sycophantic than sociopathic."

Anonymous Rhys July 11, 2014 6:51 AM  

How long until pedophilia is legalised? Anyway I was going to ask you whether you thought the slippery slop was actually a fallacy. I've long had my doubts since experience trumps logic and if experience shows the slippery slope actually happens then it must be true. If you wanted to start a discussion on the problems with logic this would be a good start

BTW the brother raped the sister when she was 11 and they later had consensual sex when she was 18. Normal? I'd say they're both pretty fucked up and have a shit ton of issues. Just goes to show that judges are the worst people to be upholding society's standards

Blogger Tommy Hass July 11, 2014 6:54 AM  

"I've long had my doubts since experience trumps logic"

Nothing "trumps" logic. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Anonymous VD July 11, 2014 7:02 AM  

I've long had my doubts since experience trumps logic and if experience shows the slippery slope actually happens then it must be true.

There is an old truism that begins "let reason be silent...." Experience does trump logic, in that it exposes a certain logical syllogism to posses a false (or at the very least partially irrelevant) proposition.

In the case of the slippery slope, I think the logical error is in claiming that because the slope is not NECESSARILY slippery, it is NOT and CAN NEVER BE slippery.

Anonymous VD July 11, 2014 7:03 AM  

Nothing "trumps" logic. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

No, Tommy, you're the one who doesn't get it. You can have a perfectly sound logical syllogism that is trumped by history, experience, observable evidence, or math. As with science, logic is a useful tool, but it is not the only or the ultimate tool.

Blogger James Dixon July 11, 2014 7:14 AM  

> Nothing "trumps" logic. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Tommy, I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "garbage in, garbage out".
A logical form can be perfect, but it the assumptions it uses are false or incomplete, then you get a false or incomplete conclusion. Experience shows you when your assumptions were false or incomplete.

Blogger James Dixon July 11, 2014 7:15 AM  

Which, of course, merely duplicates our host's point above. :)

Anonymous The Great Martini July 11, 2014 7:17 AM  

And what happens if hetero+homo-sexuality turns out to be the more natural state of Man, so that a resurgence of homosexuality is really just a reversion to the mean for humanity? Two thousand years of repressive monotheism is finally giving way to our natural state. Prove me wrong.

Blogger Cranberry July 11, 2014 7:17 AM  

I feel like I need to go shower.

Rhys, this is all a push for the normalization of pedophilia. We've been headed there for a long time, with "born this way" and giving children the agency to end their lives (as in Belgium) or use the opposite-sex bathroom in Kindergarten because they just KNOW they're trapped in a body of the wrong sex, and even take hormones to alter their gender expression (a 16 yo girl in the UK recently did this).

I am losing sympathy for the libertines. "When everything goes, everything will literally go." Well said, Vox. Another argument to add to the list I'm keeping.

Anonymous Difster July 11, 2014 7:17 AM  

While I don't think that incest should be illegal, it should always be shamed. It's just inherently wrong and disgusting but it doesn't mean there needs to be a law against it as long as they are consenting adults. I have no problem with shaming homosexual behavior, sex outside of marriage or a whole host of other sins.

Most certainly children should be protected from this though. Not being of an age of reason or consent, a child should not be subject to adult sexual predilections.

Anonymous zen0 July 11, 2014 7:18 AM  

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.




Incest:

The crime of sexual relations or marriage taking place between a male and female who are so closely linked by blood or affinity that such activity is prohibited by law.

Incest is a statutory crime, often classified as a felony. The purpose of incest statutes is to prevent sexual intercourse between individuals related within the degrees set forth, for the furtherance of the public policy in favor of domestic peace. The prohibition of intermarriage is also based upon genetic considerations, since when excessive inbreeding takes place, undesirable recessive genes become expressed and genetic defects and disease are more readily perpetuated. In addition, the incest taboo is universal in human culture.


Note that Neilson disingenuously cited only one of the rationales above.

Blogger Cranberry July 11, 2014 7:21 AM  

TGM, the Revelation at Mount Sinai (the Ten Commandments and Law given to Moses) was 3,326 years ago according to the Jewish calendar.

So, we've had at least 3,000+ years of repressive monotheism. Check ur faczz

Blogger Cranberry July 11, 2014 7:24 AM  

And well before the Law was given to Moses, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual anarchy. Even though Judaism had not yet been formalized as a religion, Abraham and Lot were monotheists.

Anonymous A Kind of Alaska July 11, 2014 7:33 AM  

"Societal liberty simply cannot be maximized through sexual anarchy"

Maximizing societal liberty cannot be the highest goal of a healthy civilization. It's a high goal, to be sure, and it is a peak in the range; but it's not the highest. One of the substructural problems of the judge's opinion is that he attempted to employ reason in a situation where reason isn't the chief tool in this particular toolkit.

Blogger Lucilla Lin July 11, 2014 7:34 AM  

Nobody has mentioned polygamy yet, but I think it will be the next thing on the list. Progressive campaigners are supportive of polyamory, a very marginal lifestyle popular mostly in bohemian and geeky circles. Its very easy to argue for polyamory in a way that suits our zeitgeist- its all consensual, adults, people who love each other etc, but by legalizing that, you'd actually legalize good old fashioned polygamy with one man and multiple wives - already unofficially widely practiced in Western immigrant communities.

Anonymous Rufus July 11, 2014 7:36 AM  

Funny. Some lightweight blogger in NZ (kiwiblog) was lamenting today about the slippery-slope being a real worry... but he was talking about the ever increasing war against tobacco and smoking. When people agreed with him that yes, the slippery-slope is working as intended (see civil unions->gay marriage->pedophilia and abortion->euthanasia+geronticide) he went rather quiet. Howls of outrage from his pet rabbits. Of course since he is pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro euthanasia, he can't see the great big elephant in the room.

Blogger njartist July 11, 2014 7:41 AM  

Next to fall is the fallacy of "victimless crimes" : the second great argument among libertarians for the spread of vice.
Amazing what happens when you start from the English Common Law based on God's commandments, statutes, and judgments versus Man's law based on his will.

Anonymous szook July 11, 2014 7:45 AM  

Fine time to bring that up on the thread Lucilla. Nate! clean up on isle five!

Anonymous A Kind of Alaska July 11, 2014 7:48 AM  

"what happens if hetero+homo-sexuality turns out to be the more natural state of Man"

Even if it could be definitely proven that homosexuality is a natural biological state, it doesn't necessarily mean it is a "natural" state. The "natural" state of man is, Man is the animal who can govern himself and control his impulses. Let's grant for a moment that homosexuality is biologically determined (personally I think there must be at least a strong biological factor, though perhaps not 100%). Let's posit two societies, both generally speaking healthy, just, and high-functioning. Let's also leave out monotheistic morality, pretend it doesn't exist. Society One has come to discover a modus vivendi whereby homosexuals can live their lives openly and as they see fit, without fear of persecution and oppression. The open existence of homosexuality is not threatening the foundations of the civilization of Society One (some Indian tribes had practices of this nature). Society Two, equally prosperous, just, and well-functioning, has for reasons of their own discovered that a high degree of sexual restraint is necessary to maintain them in their manner of living. Homosexuals here are not oppressed or killed, but along with other types of sexual irregularity, there are restrictions on their ability to live however they choose. Let's say Society Two seems to know what it's talking about, that they've seen their manner of life threatened by sexual license in the past, and are determined to preserve themselves.

The polis is Man writ large, as the saying goes. In Society One, the "natural state" of Man is for the people to live in a manner which they think is just and good, and includes acceptance of homosexuals. The "natural state" of Society Two is for them to practice governance and restraint, living in a manner which they, also, think to be just and good. The "nature of man" is not reducible to his appetites. Like Woody Allen once said (speaking of incest), Frequently there must also be a beverage.

Anonymous Difster July 11, 2014 7:48 AM  

Maximizing societal liberty cannot be the highest goal of a healthy civilization.

Then what is? Anything short of maximized liberty eventually leads to tyranny.

Anonymous A July 11, 2014 7:48 AM  

I once read a newspaper article which said that if we had a fast enough computer we could simulate the entire human body perfectly and therefore discover all possible drugs. I thought to myself that the computer was only half the equation; you'd need a perfect computer model of the human body as well. And I very much doubt such a model will ever be devised.

Anonymous Toby Temple July 11, 2014 7:53 AM  

Somewhere in Westeros, the famous golden haired twins rejoice.

Anonymous Clyde July 11, 2014 7:54 AM  

"what happens if hetero+homo-sexuality turns out to be the more natural state of Man"

The "natural state of man" as defined by liberals is barbarism. I'm more concerned with the natural state of civilization.

Anonymous Logan July 11, 2014 7:58 AM  

I think the simplest way is to ask a defender of same-sex marriage to complete the following sentence:

"It should be legal for a man to marry another man but illegal for a man to marry his mother because...?"

If they argue that the former relationship is natural and the latter isn't, ask how exactly they determine which acts are natural and which aren't. And remind them that, after all, some people don't *choose* to be attracted to a parent or sibling, so what's the problem? Or they could go the utilitarian route, which is always entertaining.

Once the original definition of marriage is rejected, there becomes no non-arbitrary justification for allowing certain kinds of relationships to be classified as marriage and not others. I'm surprised I haven't yet heard of someone arguing that he should be allowed to marry his parakeet, but give it time.

And as far as necrophilia and bestiality go, the high priest of contemporary liberal ethics, Dr. Peter Singer, has no problem with either. We jumped that shark long ago.

Blogger Tommy Hass July 11, 2014 8:00 AM  

"In the case of the slippery slope, I think the logical error is in claiming that because the slope is not NECESSARILY slippery, it is NOT and CAN NEVER BE slippery."

You're developing an argument for experience trumping logic but then say something about logical errors. Huh?

If somebody arrives at a false conclusion through faulty logic, it wasn't logic that was trumped, it was the logician's shitty reasoning skills. Or in other words: No Troo Logic.

"No, Tommy, you're the one who doesn't get it. You can have a perfectly sound logical syllogism that is trumped by history, experience, observable evidence, or math. As with science, logic is a useful tool, but it is not the only or the ultimate tool."

Pretty sure math is based on logic. And a sound syllogysm is both valid AND true so it cannot be false. But if you meant to say valid, you're right. I still don't see how this proves your thesis.

If you meant to say "One can make no logical mistakes and still be wrong (through false premises) while one can come up with logical bullshit and still be right" then I agree. But I don't see it as a case of logic being trumped.

Blogger Scintimandrion July 11, 2014 8:03 AM  

Rufus @ 7:36 AM:

I noticed that too. I suppose they would claim that these things increase freedom while trying to ban smoking and drinking decreases freedom, and that if we weren’t ignoramuses we’d agree with their use of the slippery slope to achieve a particular political goal, etc., etc. Of course, I’m at a loss as to how (in another article I read today) a baker in Northern Ireland is more free, when his refusal to bake a cake and write “Support Gay Marriage” on its top apparently warrants a “please explain” from officials.

On the more general issue, I remain astonished when people accept position A based on certain arguments (which can also be used, quite legitimately, to support positions B, C, D, E and F), and then act all surprised when B through F soon come to pass as well. I guess only a culture as cut off from food production as ours could forget that you reap what you sow.

Anonymous Michael of Charlotte July 11, 2014 8:07 AM  

"...or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone...."

I'm sorry, when did WE decide is was OK to have sex with little boys again? I think I must have been absent that day.

Anonymous VD July 11, 2014 8:08 AM  

I guess only a culture as cut off from food production as ours could forget that you reap what you sow.

In a culture where people literally believe bacon comes from rocks, anything is possible.

Blogger Tommy Hass July 11, 2014 8:08 AM  

"Tommy, I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "garbage in, garbage out".
A logical form can be perfect, but it the assumptions it uses are false or incomplete, then you get a false or incomplete conclusion. Experience shows you when your assumptions were false or incomplete."

That isn't experience proving logic wrong it complementing it.

Anonymous A Kind of Alaska July 11, 2014 8:16 AM  

"Anything short of maximized liberty eventually leads to tyranny."

Pretty much everything eventually leads to tyranny. The big question is, How long a period is this eventually of which you speak? For some societies, it's centuries, for others it's a few decades. The other question is, Maximized liberty in the context of what? Here in the US, we had First and Second Amendment rights until we didn't.

Blogger Crude July 11, 2014 8:18 AM  

"A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said.

'Once she had sexually matured' is going to fall eventually, or be discovered to take place far earlier than anyone had previously surmised.

'Had sexual relationships with other men' will hardly be judged as necessary.

'Available'? Because monogamy will be respected and enshrined? Ha ha haaa.

Of course, this just opens the door nice and wide to 'Adopt a girl or have a daughter, and groom her to be a nice personal sex toy'. Has she been conditioned to enjoy it? Well then, no problems there! Because science and progressivism!

Anonymous ChicagoRefugee July 11, 2014 8:21 AM  

Two thousand years of repressive monotheism is finally giving way to our natural state. Prove me wrong.

Might I just point out that civilization is not "our natural state?"

So when are you planning on retreating to the bush with your very own band of hunter-gatherers? With penis-sheath or without?

Anonymous jay c July 11, 2014 8:23 AM  

We libertarians were wrong. Societal liberty simply cannot be maximized through sexual anarchy any more than it can be maximized though unrestricted immigration, unrestricted government, or unrestricted voting

Welcome aboard.

The non-aggression principal isn't wrong, so long as "the initiation of force" is understood from a more pro-active and Biblical viewpoint. But the shallow-to-non-existent spiritual and human understanding of most libertarians have made their strategies less than useful.

Anonymous joe doakes July 11, 2014 8:24 AM  

"We libertarians were wrong . . . and proven by centuries of tradition to be sustainable in the long term." Thank you, Vox.

I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Conservative. I enjoy your blog precisely because you have the intellect to figure out what's wrong with the theory and the rigorous integrity to admit it in writing. This post is one of your finest.

Anonymous joe doakes July 11, 2014 8:28 AM  

Aw crap, my cut-and-paste didn't work. Should have said this:

"We libertarians were wrong . . . the line needs to be set along boundaries . . . and proven by centuries of tradition to be sustainable in the long term."

Apologies.

Anonymous advocatvs diaboli July 11, 2014 8:29 AM  

Ah but the slippery slope runs both ways. Not endorsing any paraphilias, but should the *government* be the ones enforcing who's with whom and what goes where, if there is actual consent all around? From a minarchist viewpoint, it can be government's role to prosecute people who harm children just as they prosecute people who harm adults. (Yes, I know that the role of government as "protectors of children" can be problematic, depending what the government decides is in the child's best interest.) Methods other than government edict can be used by the community to curb the immoral practices. Examples include exhortation, denunciation, shunning, or excommunication. While somewhat worrisome in character, paraphilias appear to be relatively uncommon -- that's why they're news. Stories about Desmond and Molly Jones celebrating their twelfth anniversary, putting the children to bed then enjoying some nookie in each others embrace just don't seem to sell newspapers or attract eyeballs.

Anonymous Stilicho July 11, 2014 8:33 AM  

if hetero+homo-sexuality turns out to be the more natural state of Man

Define, precisely, what YOU mean when you use "natural state of Man" here.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 11, 2014 8:35 AM  

This judge's opinion reminded me of the first place I ran into the arguments for the viewing incest in a positive light.

By the time To Sail Beyond the Sunset was published I had long held a rule of thumb.

If Lazarus Long is in it, it's gonna be a bad book.



Anonymous cheddarman July 11, 2014 8:43 AM  

I knew three homosexual men who were molested by older relatives. One by his mother, two by male relatives. One of the men was a celibate Christian and died of AIDS, having been infected when he was previously living a gay lifestyle. Another of them became a teacher and was fired for trying to molest young boys. The third never married and lives as a celibate Christian.

The Christian writer Leanne Payne describes predatory sexual behaviour as a "cannibal compulsion." Older deviants molest children for the same reason cannibals eat people. They believe that they will gain attributes of the victim (such as youth and innocence) through the action of molesting/eating them.

Anonymous Athor Pel July 11, 2014 8:44 AM  

" Lucilla LinJuly 11, 2014 7:34 AM
Nobody has mentioned polygamy yet, but I think it will be the next thing on the list. ..."



Nothing says pimp hand like more than one wife.

"You don't feel like having sex? Ok Brenda. If you need me I'll be with Tina."

"You don't feel like going to the beach? Ok Marianne. Me, Molly and the kids will be gone until after sundown. Don't wait up."

Anonymous The Great Martini July 11, 2014 8:44 AM  

A Kind of Alaska,
Well, that was a good preamble, which kind of petered out in the end. You haven't made the case that our society is not like Society number one. What is the great threat that homosexuality poses to it or to our society? The slippery slope argument that "permissiveness" will lead to incest, etc. is not borne out by examining progressives, where, if anything, incest, child molestation, underage sex, rape, etc. are more chastised than in general society. In its way, progressive society is far less tolerant to anything that crosses outside its boundary and polices its boundary more zealously than anything in conservative society. It is not permissive in the libertine sense. It's permissive only in a considered expansion of normative sexuality. Anyone who doubts this doesn't understand the first thing about progressives.

Anonymous ChicagoRefugee July 11, 2014 8:48 AM  

Time Enough For Love was actually one of my favorites, but I'd apparently mentally moved the last segment (Lazarus's visit to his childhood home/time on Earth) over to one of the sequels.

Then I loaned it to my adolescent son. Ooops.

I don't think he'll be reading any more Heinlein for a few years. Just until the trauma wears off.

"He slept with his mother?!"

Anonymous Azimus July 11, 2014 8:49 AM  

Tommy HassJuly 11, 2014 6:54 AM

Nothing "trumps" logic. I don't think you know what you're talking about



I'm pretty sure with thinking like this you would've been fragged by your own men in a combat situation. But that is just logic talking...

Anonymous The Great Martini July 11, 2014 8:51 AM  

"Define, precisely, what YOU mean when you use "natural state of Man" here."

What I mean is a natural social proclivity. There are some, admittedly arcane and neglected, evolutionary theories that homosexuality could have served in kin selection and aided in our survival. Homosexual, non procreative men and women could have served as caretakers and caregivers to the tribe. Maybe it's a stretch, but it's possible.

Blogger Guitar Man July 11, 2014 8:53 AM  

In a culture where people literally believe bacon comes from rocks, anything is possible.

Rock Bacon!!

Anonymous RedJack July 11, 2014 8:53 AM  

Two thousand years of repressive monotheism is finally giving way to our natural state. Prove me wrong.


You are right! Dread Ilk, let fly the black flag and let us go a Viking! After all, rape, pillage, and torture are simply the natural state of man.

Prove me wrong.


As an aside, you just laid out and argument of Original sin. Which predated Christianity BTW.

OpenID cailcorishev July 11, 2014 8:55 AM  

It's kind of fascinating to see how they'll twist themselves to come up with new boundaries to replace the traditional ones they've discarded. So now it's okay for a brother to make advances on his sister as long as she's had a couple other men first, but not if she's a virgin. Why? Well, basically because the judge is trying to satisfy two conflicting modernist beliefs: that girls are helpless victims of patriarchy who need to be protected from bad men, and that girls are powerful sexual creatures who should not be denied any experience they desire. So he does it by saying she's the former as long as she's a virgin, and the latter once she's sampled a couple and liked it.

He finds a way to put something off-limits -- for now -- so he can feel like he's finding a middle ground and is still a moral creature, while feeling good about rejecting all that oppressive "1950s" stuff.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 11, 2014 8:56 AM  

@ChicagoRefugee

"He slept with his mother?!"

And his father if you will recall.

Anonymous T July 11, 2014 8:58 AM  

I suspected VD was not a libertarian anymore. This post is the admission.

Who polices this illegal consensual behavior, Vox? Who decides? Who watches the deciders?

If you see it as a matter of "if my guys are in charge it's ok" now, we are right back around the circle to might makes right, as long as the might does what's right. What happens when the strongmen you appoint to regulate and prosecute the sexual behavior of 300 million people don't stop where you wish them to with their power and new position atop the hill?

Anonymous Roundtine July 11, 2014 8:58 AM  

The non-aggression principal isn't wrong, so long as "the initiation of force" is understood from a more pro-active and Biblical viewpoint.

Most libertarians do not believe in the non-aggression principle. They would not accept people being allowed to enforce group morality, even if every member of the group agreed to it. You see this in open borders people and the libertines. Most of them advocate what would could be called the non-exclusionary principle.

The second issue is human group dynamics. There's a large number of people who are mainly influenced by peer pressure, and nearly everyone succumbs from time to time. If you opened a cannibal restaurant serving human meat and advertised it that way, the initial response would obviously be protests. If the government didn't shut it down though, eventually a few weirdos would come in and figure, what the heck! Then some HS or college students will dare their friends to eat there. When people see you don't die after eating, and the reviews are really good on Yelp, then suddenly human flesh will be edgy, then trendy, then available at Whole Foods.

Anonymous ChicagoRefugee July 11, 2014 9:01 AM  

In its way, progressive society is far less tolerant to anything that crosses outside its boundary and polices its boundary more zealously ...

Yes, yes, and upper-middle class white people still get married and raise children with their fathers.

But how are those "progressive" values working out for working-class whites and African Americans? Is the progressives' increased license really worth the harm it's caused to them? How about when you factor in urban devastation and flash mobs caused by pervasive bastardy?

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 9:02 AM  

Most homophiles have already lost this argument by laying claim to the concept that love is sex and sex is love.

While the normal, honest man will claim that SEXuality is about SEX, the arguments made by homophiles is we should be free to "love whoever we wish". Well I don't see many people disagreeing with THAT. We just don't think you should have sex with whoever you love.

When you start the argument and accept the premise of freedom to love and love is sex, than you've lost any ground to oppose incest between consenting adults.

OpenID cailcorishev July 11, 2014 9:03 AM  

I don't think polygamy is really on their list, because it doesn't directly attack what they hate. In some ways, polygamy is more traditional and patriarchal than monogamy, especially Marriage 2.0 monogamy. So the deviants aren't going to push it; they're already working on man/boy sex and more twisted options.

Polygamy is still a done deal legally once someone decides to challenge it, though (especially if the challenger is a black Muslim refugee family rather than native white Mormons, for obvious reasons), because of the arguments this judge brings up. Once homogamy eliminated the traditional meaning of marriage and the connection between marriage and procreation, there's no longer any legal justification for preventing any other "style" of marriage. Once the insurance companies figure out how to handle it, so a thousand people can't all "marry" to share one person's coverage, polygamy will just happen without much hoopla.

Anonymous Roundtine July 11, 2014 9:07 AM  

What happens when the strongmen you appoint to regulate and prosecute the sexual behavior of 300 million people don't stop where you wish them to with their power and new position atop the hill?

Homosexuality was illegal when the state was small. As it grows, morality is substituted with law. The question is no longer "is it moral?" but "is it legal?" If anything, a smaller state is called for.

Blogger James Dixon July 11, 2014 9:07 AM  

> But I don't see it as a case of logic being trumped.

Are you arguing logic as in structure or as in usage? If structure, you are technically correct. If usage, then you're not. Most people use it to include both.

> That isn't experience proving logic wrong it complementing it.

See above.

Anonymous ChicagoRefugee July 11, 2014 9:08 AM  

Ah, yes Cataline, true enough. But wasn't that little episode actually in To Sail Beyond The Sunset? In any event, my son seems not to have remarked upon that particular perversion.

Anonymous ChicagoRefugee July 11, 2014 9:12 AM  

Polygamy is definitely on their list, if only for strategic reasons. It's the bargain they made with the muslims to buy off their opposition to gay marriage.

Blogger Zaklog the Great July 11, 2014 9:19 AM  

@Martini
is not borne out by examining progressives, where, if anything, incest, child molestation, underage sex, rape, etc. are more chastised than in general society.

Tell that to Marion Zimmer Bradley, Walter Breen, Roman Polanski, etc., etc. If you are "One of us", anything is allowed. Anything. As for rape, Bill Clinton is undeniably a serial sexual harasser and quite possibly a rapist. He is also a hero of the left.

Try harder next time, please.

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 9:19 AM  

Homosexual, non procreative men and women could have served as caretakers and caregivers to the tribe. Maybe it's a stretch, but it's possible.

Interesting idea, but isn't there a theory in psychology that lack of restraint can facilitate mental illness?

Homosexuality (and progressivism in general), from where I sit, is all about lack of restraint especially of sexual appetite.

Why entrust someone who refuses to or can't exercise restraint with the weak who need care?

Anonymous Alexander July 11, 2014 9:27 AM  

Polygamy is very, very far down the list. It's only ever going to apply to the top tier alphas, and those men already are or could bang any number of mistresses without legal liability.

Polygamy would require massive legal changes - which would be fine, nothing wrong with destroying the established traditions and order of normal society - but those changes would be overtly anti-feminist. Now you and I know that feminists will happily shriek one thing and do another, but they won't tolerate a legal system that gives them what they want but requires open admission to not being strong and independent.

Plus, free love is more socially destructive and openly progressive than polygamy.

Incest, Pedophilia, and >2 people to a marriage couple are the orders of the day.

Anonymous VD July 11, 2014 9:39 AM  

I suspected VD was not a libertarian anymore. This post is the admission.

How so? My objective is maximizing human liberty. If that is not compatible with libertarianism, so be it. I'm not attached to labels or groups.

Who polices this illegal consensual behavior, Vox? Who decides? Who watches the deciders?

There are many possibilities which don't necessarily involve the state. History suggests that all that is necessary is for the State to stop forcibly imposing sexual anarchy on the public. It's not necessarily necessary to criminalize homosexuality to send it back to the closet. Genuine freedom of association is probably sufficient.

Blogger John Wright July 11, 2014 9:40 AM  

"And what happens if hetero+homo-sexuality turns out to be the more natural state of Man, so that a resurgence of homosexuality is really just a reversion to the mean for humanity? Two thousand years of repressive monotheism is finally giving way to our natural state. Prove me wrong."

Easily done, as your argument turns on one false identification of natural as preferable.

Let us consult with that exquisite philosopher, Conan the Barbarian. Conan, what is best in life?

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."

Or, putting Conan's argument into your words: "And what happens if butchering the weak and the stranger, raping their women and enslaving their children, turns out to be the more natural state of Man, so that a resurgence of barbarism is really just a reversion to the mean for humanity? Two thousand years of repressive civilization, civility, and order is finally giving way to our natural state. Prove me wrong."

Since the above is wrong, and uses the same argument as yours, your argument is likewise wrong.

Actually, I am giving you too much credit: yours is not an argument properly so called: you merely call civilized norms 'repressive' and call perversion, sin and crime 'natural.' It's not an argument, it's an ad.


Anonymous A Kind of Alaska July 11, 2014 9:44 AM  

@TGM: Well that was pretty unpersuasive.

"You haven't made the case that our society is not like Society number one."

I don't have to. History and the newspapers do it for me, every minute of every day. For hundreds of years, Western Christian Anglophone society was Society Two, and it spawned two of the greatest empires in human history. We've only been (trying and failing to be) Society One for a handful of decades -- remember I stipulated that they had found a way to deal with license, yet remain just and prosperous; do you think we are still just and prosperous under our own steam, or running on steam from past human capital? Look what just a few short decades of progressivism have given us: we are bankrupt, despised and mocked abroad, our cities are rotting from within, our culture is degraded and depraved, our economy has been gutted, we allow ourselves to be invaded by children. By _children_. But hey, gays in the military, so, y'know: progress.

"What is the great threat that homosexuality poses to it or to our society?"

See the argument of the original post. I could make plenty of others, but I'm not writing this to disparage homosexuality or call for repression of it. I'm treating your initial question as a thought experiment. It is my view that the experiment has been tried in real life, without the consent of the lab rats, and that the results were and are disastrous.

"The slippery slope argument that "permissiveness" will lead to incest, etc. is not borne out by examining progressives"

First of all, even if that were true (I don't believe it is, but I'm not trying to make that point), it's irrelevant. We don't want to look at just progressives but at everyone in society as a whole, because the effects are felt by everyone as a whole. That nice gay couple who own that cool café in the Pearl District might be very nice indeed; but you have to adopt a holistic viewpoint in order to see that even though they aren't hurting a fly themselves, the imposition of agendas which include their local interests also lead to fatal epidemics, murder in Newark and Chicago, state, municipal and federal bankruptcy, foreigners trucking insane diseases into our country, nightmare schools, the list goes on. An engine doesn't work when you take it apart, put the pieces on the workbench and consider them separately; it only runs when the whole thing is running together.

Anonymous Scintan July 11, 2014 9:48 AM  

I'm not really worried about incest being legalized, in the sense of anything except it demonstrating that the slippery slope argument was correct. I don't see it as a reflection or refutation of libertarians. I think taking it there is going a bridge too far.

Anonymous Alexander July 11, 2014 9:48 AM  

Mr. Wright hits the point, but I find it interesting how if I were to say something like:

God's Word is Truth

TGM would no doubt retort with something along the lines of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", or at the very least demand that I provide some tangible evidence of such (barring of course the words themselves, as they don't count, because Bible).

But he can make the truly outstanding claim that returning to pre-Christian social mores (which if I recall correctly, is an unfair slight to any number of pagan groups who nonetheless recognized a perversion when they saw it, not least the Roman legions) is a good thing for the western world - in spite of scores of objective indicators saying otherwise - and then demands that we are responsible for proving the claims false.

Anonymous Stephen J. July 11, 2014 10:05 AM  

"Polygamy would require massive legal changes... but those changes would be overtly anti-feminist. ...(F)eminists will happily shriek one thing and do another, but they won't tolerate a legal system that gives them what they want but requires open admission to not being strong and independent."

As long as it gives one woman the chance to have multiple simultaneous husbands as well, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in that argument. The fact that such polyandry, unlike polygyny, is a vanishingly rare arrangement in practice due to fundamental issues of character and biology is not something they can ever acknowledge, so they can't exactly make that argument.

And besides, if you're a divorce lawyer (which I suppose would then have to be called a marital transition lawyer or some such idiotic term), think of the profits. Oodles of cash to be made.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 10:07 AM  

Biblically speaking, incest is not prohibited until the Law of Moses. And, polygamy is not condemned.

Leaders (pastors, teachers,bishops/servants) in the Christian Church, though, are to be "husband of one wife." (1 Timothy 3) Monogamy is viewed as optimal and best.

Paul makes the case that the Law [of Moses] is like a teacher and worthy to be learned. But, lets remember that the Law was given to a small band of a people to live in a theocracy and whose performance dictates whether they stay in the land.

Anonymous Doh July 11, 2014 10:07 AM  



That argument is not wrong. Barbarism IS the natural state of humanity. We ARE reverting to it (thanks, progressives!). It is NOT a good thing.

Anonymous Doh July 11, 2014 10:07 AM  

(directed at JCW.... somehow I botched the quote)

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 10:09 AM  

"Barbarism IS the natural state of humanity"

Not in a Biblical worldview.

Blogger Bogey July 11, 2014 10:19 AM  

"The slippery slope is not a logical fallacy."

Told you all so.

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 10:21 AM  

Paul makes the case that the Law [of Moses] is like a teacher and worthy to be learned. But, lets remember that the Law was given to a small band of a people to live in a theocracy and whose performance dictates whether they stay in the land.

Oh look...Churchianity's defense of incest to avoid being hateful bigots.

Blogger Bogey July 11, 2014 10:23 AM  

Makes me wonder if it was invented as a fallacy specifically by progressives who wanted rapid and unwanted change.

Blogger Nate July 11, 2014 10:23 AM  

"In a culture where people literally believe bacon comes from rocks, anything is possible."

Maybe only 12 people actually got that reference... but those 12 probably really enjoyed it.

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 10:24 AM  

"Barbarism IS the natural state of humanity"

Not in a Biblical worldview.


Yes... yes it is. Biblical wotldview just calls it "original sin".

As humans, we are supposed to exercise free will and not be slaves to our natural state. I believe Paul has something to say about that?

Blogger Bogey July 11, 2014 10:32 AM  

Biblically speaking, incest is not prohibited until the Law of Moses. And, polygamy is not condemned.

If Adam and Eve were the first people or the first people of a particular race then it would have been hard to avoid incest.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 11, 2014 10:33 AM  

Interestingly, for those who 'believe' in Evolution, incest and homosexuality both reduce reproductive success and are selected against and thus would be considered 'bad'.

Blogger Zaklog the Great July 11, 2014 10:34 AM  

"Barbarism IS the natural state of humanity"

Not in a Biblical worldview.


Yes and no. Yes, it is not the state we were created in and intended for. No, because we gave up any hope for that state in this life when we chose our own lordship over God's. Outside of Eden, barbarism is the natural state of humanity. How far we've managed to leave that behind is a testament to the power of the ideals of Western civilization. How quickly many of us are reverting to that is a testament to the destructive power of leftism.

Anonymous chose your weapon wisely July 11, 2014 10:37 AM  

JameInTexas: you may want to set aside the Bible when having a sociological discussion on why incest is not optimum for society, because most people have a hard time understanding how the world could have been populated from Adam and Eve without some incest taking place (or later, from Noah and his boys). "Quod licit Jovi, non licit bovi" undercuts your argument.
.

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 10:39 AM  

If Adam and Eve were the first people or the first people of a particular race then it would have been hard to avoid incest.

We have the creation of the first man and woman, but I'm not convinced they were the ONLY oned created.

Scripture neither confirms or denies this, but the focus on Adam & Eve could be explained as that being Paternal Gen 1 of Noah... who we believe to be the only one to survive the flood with his 3 sons and daughters-in-law. So really, the only confirmed incest that exists in scripture is 1st cousins.

Blogger Bogey July 11, 2014 10:41 AM  

Genuine freedom of association is probably sufficient.
I may have a vague notion of what you mean here. Freedom to not associate would be the flip side. Which would also mean the freedom not to hire someone and the freedom to ostracize a person.

Blogger slarrow July 11, 2014 10:41 AM  

Let's be a bit more precise here: the slippery slope fallacy is that having described a slippery slope (in which A yields B, B yields C, and C yields D, therefore A yields D), the proponent asserts that the transition from A to D is inexorable--"you do A, you're going to get D, can't stop it, so don't do A." The part that makes it a logical fallacy is the "can't stop it" bit.

Trouble is, the other steps often describe reality. As Vox puts it, it's "a predictive model with occasional success", cf. smoking. Thus, while one may not be justified in saying that A inexorably leads to D, it's also a misuse of the fallacy to claim that A will not lead to D. That latter usage is the far more common charge of the "slippery slope fallacy" that I've seen, and it's just wrong.

Rick Santorum's famous reaction to Lawrence v. Texas comes to mind here. He said, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." If memory serves, he was accused of committing the slippery slope fallacy, which he was not. What he was doing was observing that the decision would (and did eventually mean) that there would be no legal distinction between these acts that would prevent a slippery slope from occurring in reality. The law draws lines, and when you remove those lines, the culture is more likely to slide down that A -> D slope. But just as identifying a slippery slope doesn't guarantee that it'll happen, crying "fallacy!" certainly doesn't prevent it from happening.

Blogger James Dixon July 11, 2014 10:46 AM  

> Maybe only 12 people actually got that reference... but those 12 probably really enjoyed it.

I know I did.

Anonymous ChicagoRefugee July 11, 2014 10:54 AM  

Polygamy is very, very far down the list...Incest, Pedophilia, and >2 people to a marriage couple are the orders of the day.

Can someone please explain to me how ">2 people to a marriage couple" is not polygamy? I must be missing something.

Blogger Guitar Man July 11, 2014 10:56 AM  

Bacon Rocks

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 10:58 AM  

Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and the rest of humanity are their descendants. Only way that Adam could be the "federal" head and responsible over the outcome.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 11:01 AM  

"Oh look...Churchianity's defense of incest to avoid being hateful bigots."

This could not be further from the truth about me. All I am saying is that incest, at one point, was not prohibited.

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 11:02 AM  

Can someone please explain to me how ">2 people to a marriage couple" is not polygamy? I must be missing something.

Orders of the day, I took to understand, is that > 2 has lower priority than the other two on the list.

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 11:05 AM  

This could not be further from the truth about me. All I am saying is that incest, at one point, was not prohibited.

My apologies, then.

As for the A & E thing, we are making just as many assumptions in assuming incest for Gen 2 as we would in considering them not to be the only 2 created... namely A & E having a daughter. Unless your suggesting Seth did it with his mom?

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 11:07 AM  

Original sin does not mean we now belong to the "lower" creation. What that means is that the reflection of the divine (the part that is made in the image of God) is corrupted and imperfect. The good that we do, is but a poor image of the good we were created to do. Noah's flood was a one time event. The next big event is in the future and will be the last on this side of the Fall.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 11:09 AM  

"Seth did it with his mom?"

Doubt it. Scripture does not detail other births but make reference A&E decendants.

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 11:09 AM  

However... incest produced offspring only becomes a huge problem in longer lines of incestual relations.

The first couple gens of incest starting with A & E's unadulterated dna wouldn't have had the same problems as hundreds of years of inter-marrying that occurred in royal lines.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 11:14 AM  

I understand that European monarchs suffered the effects from their birth being the result of close family relationships, over several generations. But, what is the incidence of physical problems with the descendants of the sailors of the Bounty?

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia July 11, 2014 11:15 AM  

Genesis is not a blow by blow account, complete with full details on anything and everything.

It is stupid to assume so and then progress with all sorts of proclamations on what was.

Anonymous Will Best July 11, 2014 11:17 AM  

We libertarians were wrong. Societal liberty simply cannot be maximized through sexual anarchy any more than it can be maximized though unrestricted immigration, unrestricted government, or unrestricted voting

The libertarian model requires private discrimination and social shaming to maintain itself. While I am not entirely sure that is enough, since economic prosperity tends to yield social apathy allowing for infiltration, the US outlawed private discrimination 50.

Polygamy would require massive legal changes... but those changes would be overtly anti-feminist.

The first thing you need to understand about feminist is they can rationalize anything in their favor. Polygamy would be ideal for women because its better to be in the Alpha Harem, than be stuck with some delta or gamma creeper.

Second, it wouldn't take all that much work to do away with single/married taxpayer and just require all people living at an address to file on the same tax return. Death taxes only affect about 1.5% of the population that have more than 5.5 million in assets.

Divorce gets a little complicated, but amusingly gets us back to Marriage 1.0 the quickest. Divorcing Wife1 won't necessarily be able to collect cash prizes and use the kids as leverage. Wife2 is still there to run the family, plus wife2 and man may have kids. Courts loathe to separate siblings and cannot order wife2 to give up her kids to wife1. The result is no child support as the kids all stay with the dad. Also, the extra people means wife1's take by necessity must be lower because property settlement is split by 1/3rds (or less depending on how many wives).

Anonymous Alexander July 11, 2014 11:19 AM  

ChicagoRefugee,

I could have written that clearer. What I meant was the new push to where you have a lesbian couple and the biological father being the legal parents, and such nonsense that results in adults that are in no way related to the kid being considered legal parents.

I don't know what to call it. On the one hand, the three "parents" aren't strictly married to each other, so it's not polygamy, though they may have certain rights towards one another. On the other hand, it's clearly a new dynamic that the old step-dad,step-mom setup. It's a deliberate measure to destroy parenthood by eliminating any meaningful attachment to the concept.

I suppose the key difference is that before, a child's primary guardian was the biological parent, and if that parent then divorced the step-parent, the step-parent was no longer legally responsible for the child (I'm sure it got more complex than this, but...). But now you're giving the non-biological partner rights that are no longer dependent on anything else. So I expect to see a situation arise in the future where three, four, who knows how many people are legally entitled, as "parents' to act on the child's behalf.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 11:23 AM  

"Quod licit Jovi, non licit bovi"

I completely agree with this.

"The end does not justify the means" only applies to us, God's creation. Of course, God does establish both the ends and the means since He is the game's creator. We only can play according to His rules.

I think I see what you are cautioning me about, though. I hope I can discuss such things here. I certainly have not and do not talk about some of these things in church. Apoplectics and conniption fits would be the result, on the mild side.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 11:33 AM  

We already have polygamy ... its just serial.

Blogger The Remnant July 11, 2014 11:35 AM  

This is why I quit libertarianism a few years ago. The libertarian has a purely materialist conception of humanity and approves the use force only for materialist aims (e.g., preventing bodily harm or financial fraud). But human communities are bound together by far more than material concerns, far more than logic and reason; what binds us is shared experience, sentiment, and mythology (not lies, but poetic truths).

No human community can survive if assaults on its spirit are allowed to go unchallenged. Like individuals, communities have both a body and a soul, necessitating the use of force to defend them both. Indeed, I would submit that force is even MORE justified for defending the soul, which is far more essential to identity and survival.

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 11:37 AM  

But, what is the incidence of physical problems with the descendants of the sailors of the Bounty?

Those looked more varied than some royal lines. One married the granddaughter of his cousin? While related, its a distant one and allows for more genetic diversity than constantly marrying one's cousins to keep the blood running blue.

Brother/Sister unions are the least diverse while 1st cousins have more genetic diversity from 2 unrelated genetic cobtributors. 2nd cousins provide enough diversity to be considered legal in the states, so really in discussion of incest, we are limiting it to the range of parental to 1st cousins.

It doesn't look like your mutineers married so close to home while there is abundant evidence that at least the Russian czars did.

Anonymous A Plate of Shrimp July 11, 2014 11:45 AM  

Polygamy is already functionally practiced by Muslim immigrants all throughout the West. They don't record the multiple marriages in the Western legal docs, but in their communities it's known who's married to who. The extra wives live apart --hubby takes turns-- in order to maximize welfare benfits as "single" parents.

Once there are enough of them in the US, they'll demand their religious liberty to practice a well-established and canonical religious custom. And they'll get it.

So long, America.

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 11:48 AM  

I suppose the key difference is that before, a child's primary guardian was the biological parent, and if that parent then divorced the step-parent, the step-parent was no longer legally responsible for the child (I'm sure it got more complex than this, but...). But now you're giving the non-biological partner rights that are no longer dependent on anything else. So I expect to see a situation arise in the future where three, four, who knows how many people are legally entitled, as "parents' to act on the child's behalf.

Have you ever heard of something called relational attraction or some such thing that boils down to oedipus complex writ large?

Essentially, 2 people related to eachother with no knowledge of their relationship will form a romantic bond and fall in love with each other because of a recognized affinity for eachother. This is largely prevented when raising children together as it shapes their relationship from the beginning.

While pop culture's knowledge of it is limited to soapy drama and affairs, I've often wondered how closed adoptions, genetic material donations/surrogacy, and anonymous IVF would play a role in allowing incest to be legalized.

Blogger CarpeOro July 11, 2014 11:48 AM  

All the agonizing about placing any kind of limits means tyranny and prevents maximizing liberty misses the point. Maximize and limitless are not the same. The concept of Natural Law is based on the idea that there are limitations on ones actions based on common sense. Removing all limits moves you from the area of greatest level of liberty and freedom of action within a common sense structure to the realm of the libertine, which always devolves into chaos and lack of freedom of action. The reason? A structure will always arise to relations between people. At some point either the libertine will attempt to impose their own interest on others. If not, someone else will try to impose their will on the libertine. Utter chaos assume engenders a situation in which everyone has their own best interest in mind, but not all are able to make a positive connection between their own interest and that of others.

We often talk of "information overload" these days. In a states of limitless liberty you are forced to view each interaction not just as a individual one, but as one in which there can be no expectations of end result because there is no framework within which the interaction can be interpreted. You reach a state of "relational overload". There are plenty of studies on how relations are formed by humans and all point to the fact that they occur within a framework of expectations. Once you get beyond a number of relational links or trust levels, those outside become "the other". Chaos pushes that number of links downward as the framework that supports them has eroded the support for them. What kind of freedom can you have when every man's hand is set against you?

Anonymous Fnord P July 11, 2014 12:13 PM  

OT: You gotta read some of the comments here. Has a better example of Gamma (other than Scalzi) ever been shown? http://www.returnofkings.com/37273/a-guide-for-getting-laid-at-anime-conventions

What the hell happened over there? Is tumblr full?

Blogger ajw308 July 11, 2014 12:15 PM  

How long until pedophilia is legalised?
An age ago, Dr. Laura was stressing that the militant homosexual movement's end goal was access to children. That the NAMBLA offices haven't been burned to the ground and it's members flayed alive and left for the crows to eat tells me that our resistance to them is not as strong as their desire to rape children.

Blogger The Remnant July 11, 2014 12:19 PM  

@A Plate Of Shrimp

I would argue that de facto polygamy already exists among the vast majority of people in the US. No-fault divorce allows for a rotating bevy of consecutive partners, and the extinction of legal and social penalties for adultery makes for harems of concurrent partners as well. Add to that the rampant fornication among the unmarried, and the Muslim contribution to polygamy pales in comparison.

OpenID cailcorishev July 11, 2014 12:19 PM  

Slarrow, right. The fallacy is in assuming that a particular slope is slippery without any evidence, or even contrary to the evidence. The left does this frequently with any sort of restriction on behavior: if you stop funding birth control with tax money, soon women will be enslaved to men who beat them with impunity. Any attempt to roll back their changes will bring a slippery-slope argument as surely as night follows day. But they can't show logically why that slope would be slippery, and the evidence of the past doesn't support it -- men did not beat their women with impunity before birth control -- so it's a fallacy and a scare-mongering technique.

But it's not a fallacy to say, "I see a logical progression from A to D. We were at A; now we're at B; you're recommending C; and I think that will lead inexorably to D. Here's my logical explanation of why C will lead to D, and here are examples from history of C leading to D. Also, you can't find examples where A->B->C didn't lead to D. Also, I predicted that A would lead to B and B to C and was told I was paranoid, and now here we are." That's not a fallacy; that's just good solid argumentation.

Blogger The Remnant July 11, 2014 12:20 PM  

Correction -- I should say "polyamory" to be more precise, since polygamy applies to the married rather than to fornicators.

Anonymous map July 11, 2014 12:21 PM  

Tommy Haas,

Something can be logically correct but empirically false.

Nelly is an elephant. All elephants are pink. Therefore, Nelly is Pink.

This is a logically perfect statement. There are, however, no pink elephants. Therefore, the logic is correct but it is empirically false.

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 12:32 PM  

The slippery slope argument that "permissiveness" will lead to incest, etc. is not borne out by examining progressives, where, if anything, incest, child molestation, underage sex, rape, etc. are more chastised than in general society.

I'm sorry, what? Which group is it that likes to teach grade-schoolers to put condoms on bananas and hands out contraceptive pills to adolescent girls? Which group agitates for girls to be able to get abortions without having to tell their parents? Which group has inflated the word "rape" so much that it no longer has any serious meaning?

Do you pay any attention to the things you write, or are you winding up to pitch the "No True Progressive" proposal?

Anonymous pdimov July 11, 2014 12:34 PM  

Something can be logically correct but empirically false.

Nelly is an elephant. All elephants are pink. Therefore, Nelly is Pink.


Suppose that you observe that Nelly is not, in fact, pink. You can conclude that either

(1) Observation trumps (invalidates) logic

or

(2) Either Nelly is not an elephant or not all elephants are pink.

If you choose (2) then you still trust logic even when it disagrees with the observation, because you still use the syllogism to arrive at the conclusion (2) even though it has produced a result that is empirically false.

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 12:39 PM  

Have you ever heard of something called relational attraction or some such thing that boils down to oedipus complex writ large?

You mean genetic sexual attraction?

Essentially, 2 people related to eachother with no knowledge of their relationship will form a romantic bond and fall in love with each other because of a recognized affinity for eachother. This is largely prevented when raising children together as it shapes their relationship from the beginning.

The bonding between children raised together is called the Westermarck Effect.

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 12:39 PM  

Ugh, the Westermarck Effect.

Anonymous Scintan July 11, 2014 12:39 PM  

This is why I quit libertarianism a few years ago.

This is not about libertarianism, and it certainly doesn't invalidate libertarianism.

This is about the slippery slope that many of us warned we were on with homosexuality getting approval and glory. This is about letting the government become too big and powerful, to the point that it ignores the people.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 12:41 PM  

Truth in service of a lie.
A lie in service of truth.

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 12:41 PM  

Suppose that you observe that Nelly is not, in fact, pink. You can conclude that either

(1) Observation trumps (invalidates) logic

or

(2) Either Nelly is not an elephant or not all elephants are pink.


Or you can snicker and chant "Not All Elephants Are Like That" until nobody brings up Nelly again. Works pretty well, from what I've seen.

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 12:43 PM  

This is not about libertarianism, and it certainly doesn't invalidate libertarianism.

This is about the slippery slope that many of us warned we were on with homosexuality getting approval and glory. This is about letting the government become too big and powerful, to the point that it ignores the people.


Absolutely. If only we get the government out of the marriage business, people will stop boinking farm animals.

...What?

Anonymous Obvious July 11, 2014 12:50 PM  

"Absolutely. If only we get the government out of the marriage business, people will stop boinking farm animals."

^ Awesome.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 11, 2014 12:59 PM  

What happens when the strongmen you appoint to regulate and prosecute the sexual behavior of 300 million people don't stop where you wish them to with their power and new position atop the hill?

Let's take a step back. What conditions do we need in order to avoid having a tyrannical government? The juvenile answer is "a small government." That answer is a Reynolds's Law sort of thing, it
confuses the result of something for the cause of it.

In order to avoid tyranny, we need to have citizens who are capable of governing themselves so that they can achieve two criteria - one that society is collectively strong enough to resist invaders, and two society has low enough internal friction to avoid civil unrest and revolution.

Sexuality is a powerful primal drive and can be immensely destructive if allowed to run riot. It can also provide immense positive motivation when channeled well. A sexual free-for-all society is highly unlikely to generate the self-governing type of people necessary for liberty.

Anonymous Scintan July 11, 2014 1:06 PM  

Absolutely. If only we get the government out of the marriage business, people will stop boinking farm animals.

Did you miss that whole "government in the form of courts overruling the will of the people" thing?

As for boinking farm animals, why is that any business of yours? Do you have a cute little chicken that you've had your eye on, or something?

Blogger Brad Andrews July 11, 2014 1:15 PM  

Trying to argue without any reference to the Scriptures is idiotic. They detail the entire scope of life. Ignore them completely at your peril.

I may not force them into a discussion of programming, but neither would I shy away where they are relevant.

The same is the case here.

Jaime, you do need to review what Paul says about our natural state. It is very corrupt and would include barbarism.

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Those saying Adam and Eve weren't the whole thing really don't believe the Scriptures. It clearly says in many places that Adam and Eve were it, not one of an evolved group. Believe what you want, but don't claim to believe what is written if you do not believe that.

Incest, even to a point at the time of Abraham was much less dangerous then because man has descended from perfection, not ascended from slime as modern theory asserts. That is a major misconception and causes all kinds of foolishness.

Note that lifespans were much longer prior to the Flood, rapidly spinning down afterwards. We are regaining a bit of it now, but the idea of ancient man as a savage is not congruent with the Truth.

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 1:17 PM  

Did you miss that whole "government in the form of courts overruling the will of the people" thing?

Nope. The "will of the people" is pretty stupid and destructive, too, considering what they've voted for in the past and will probably vote for in the future.

As for boinking farm animals, why is that any business of yours? Do you have a cute little chicken that you've had your eye on, or something?

I've heard that dismissal before. Where was it? Oh yeah, the old "If you object to gays, it's probably because you are one" thing.

Stale. Bring something better next time, kk?

Blogger RobertW July 11, 2014 1:22 PM  

Incest among consenting adults is not so clear cut. In many parts of the world, including the UK and a handful of American states, first-cousin marriage is not uncommon and has a long historical record. Yet many people would consider it an abomination. Where do you draw the line?

Anonymous Scintan July 11, 2014 1:25 PM  

Nope. The "will of the people" is pretty stupid and destructive, too, considering what they've voted for in the past and will probably vote for in the future.

I've heard that dismissal before. Where was it? Oh yeah, the old "If you object to gays, it's probably because you are one" thing.

Stale. Bring something better next time, kk?


Did you not read for comprehension, or are you just trolling?

OpenID cailcorishev July 11, 2014 1:26 PM  

What I meant was the new push to where you have a lesbian couple and the biological father being the legal parents, and such nonsense that results in adults that are in no way related to the kid being considered legal parents.

Right. Like that woman who was in the news because she was Obama's Russia expert or whatever and she was trying to get us into a war with Russia, ostensibly over Ukraine, but really because Russia isn't homo-friendly enough anymore. She claims her kids have something like 5 parents, between herself and her lesbian lover, their biological father, and a couple other people who are involved somehow.

Old Testament or Mormon-style polygamy is way too normal for these people. They don't really want to redefine marriage anyway; they want to destroy it entirely.

Blogger Jefferson Selvy July 11, 2014 1:34 PM  

For evidence of this, refer to the "Black Swan" fallacy

Anonymous Jack Amok July 11, 2014 1:36 PM  

...first-cousin marriage is not uncommon and has a long historical record. Yet many people would consider it an abomination. Where do you draw the line?

I think it depends on the size of the community, but at least 2nd cousin. The problem with incest (beyond genetic issues, which is why the taboo usually applies to adoptees, in-laws, etc), is that it creates insular groupings and degrades trust and cooperation. Call it hyper-tribalization.

Anonymous Hunsdon July 11, 2014 1:42 PM  

@cailcorashev: She claims her kids have something like 5 parents, between herself and her lesbian lover, their biological father, and a couple other people who are involved somehow.

Hunsdon said: The lovely and talented Masha Gessen? (Hurriedly scans the room for scoobius.)

Anonymous Eric Ashley July 11, 2014 1:42 PM  

Imagine you're a great-grandson of Seth. Your wife is also a descendant of Seth. You have twenty kids. You invented a game like chess when you were fifty. You're now 300 years old, and are a grandmaster at chess, a fourth degree black belt in Me Smak Yu, and can play the harp well enough to make angels cry.

You've personally chatted with Adam and Eve. Adam told you how God handed him a clay tablet with Ch. 1 of the Bible on it.

You have only ten errors in your genetic code, and none of them manifested. You can run twenty miles easy peasy. Your IQ leaves our smartest in the dust, and you could out jump Michael Jordan.

Or...What Brad said.

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 1:44 PM  

Did you not read for comprehension, or are you just trolling?

*sigh, pinch bridge of nose* Point out where, in your initial Needs More Cowbell comment that I quoted, you said anything about courts.

I'll save you some time. You didn't. (And I stand by my "will of the people" statement, too.)

Pro-tip: Say what you mean THE FIRST TIME, and then you don't have to scramble to save face by resorting to "I know you are but what am I???"

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 1:51 PM  

She claims her kids have something like 5 parents, between herself and her lesbian lover, their biological father, and a couple other people who are involved somehow.

Well, considering that kids nowadays spend more time with day-care workers and schoolteachers than with their own parents, I'd say that's actually a pretty small group.

...Joking aside, WTH? I'm Squish's mommy. If God intended for her to have more than one mommy, He'd have had her emerge from several women with some assembly required. This does not compute.

Anonymous castricv July 11, 2014 1:54 PM  


" We libertarians were wrong. " --- VD

Yep.

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 1:57 PM  

You invented a game like chess when you were fifty. You're now 300 years old, and are a grandmaster at chess, a fourth degree black belt in Me Smak Yu, and can play the harp well enough to make angels cry...

You have only ten errors in your genetic code, and none of them manifested. You can run twenty miles easy peasy. Your IQ leaves our smartest in the dust, and you could out jump Michael Jordan.


I think I married that guy, actually. What was your point?

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 1:59 PM  

"Jaime, you do need to review what Paul says about our natural state. It is very corrupt and would include barbarism. "

And, yet, Romans 2

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Anonymous Scintan July 11, 2014 2:05 PM  

*sigh, pinch bridge of nose* Point out where, in your initial Needs More Cowbell comment that I quoted, you said anything about courts.

I'll save you some time. You didn't. (And I stand by my "will of the people" statement, too.)

Pro-tip: Say what you mean THE FIRST TIME, and then you don't have to scramble to save face by resorting to "I know you are but what am I???"


I spoke about it not being a libertarian issue. I spoke about it being a slippery slope issue. I spoke about the power of the government.

Again, did you not read for comprehension, or are you just trolling?

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 2:14 PM  

It clearly says in many places that Adam and Eve were it, not one of an evolved group. Believe what you want, but don't claim to believe what is written if you do not believe that.

Note that I said nothing of one of an evolved group. I said maybe others were created , too. Which in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant to scripture because, while scripture is relevant to ALL mankind, its historical perspective has been limited to A people. Kind of like how we know little of Cain after he leaves and starts his own family... or Ishmael. Its not that their descendents don't exist, but that they are not central to the main story.

Unlike GRRM, God is capable of streamlining his character list in The Greatest Story Ever Told without killing them off.

I don't sit around all day questioning scripture's veracity and those are the ONLY boundaries I'm fully willing to accept in the grand scheme of things.

I've been reading some christian sf/f lately on the Fall of Lucifer and the proposition that Adam was the first while not being the only was interesting enough to warrant thoughtful inquiry. I haven't tested it on scripture yet, but rest assured I will.

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 2:17 PM  

Ah... so JamesinTexas,

You believe the natural state is law based on conscience and that barbarism is a willful rejection of conscientious thought?

Anonymous Luke July 11, 2014 2:19 PM  

Excerpt from recent Fred Reed essay:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Apoptosis.shtml

Through the Eye of the Microscope
A Biopsy of Sorts

July 1, 2014

“The proximate cause of all our woes is/
Civilizational apoptosis”—My Ling Gum, late Tang (or early Gatorade) Dynasty

"In my role as chief social oncologist of the Republic (remember it?) I offer the following diagnostic snippets. Although the patient is dying, the disease remains of interest. Let us begin with the Secretary of State. A headline:

Kerry: 'I'm Working Hard to ... Have Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Ambassadors'

From a curmudgeonly point of view, this is wonderful. America is going to be represented abroad by a freak show. The country is going to hell, sissified neocon Tamerlanes in panties bankrupt us with brainless wars they don´t understand, the schools make us an international joke, but the Secretary of State rushes to fill the consulates with sexual abnormalities.

Washington begins to make a Weimar bordello look like Mormon Sunday school. I picture myself showing up at some embassy for an interview and being told, “The ambassador will be with you in a moment. Just now, he’s fucking a sheep.”

Male or female? The sheep, I mean. With the ambassador, it would probably be hard to tell.

I am losing track of the various weirdities whose tiny concerns and wounded vanities are now the chief concern of policy domestic and foreign. It used to be only homosexuals. Now we must reverence bisexuals, transsexuals, transgendered (what is the difference?), transvestites, sadomasochistic hobbyists, perhaps bisexual transsexual homosexuals, and so on. I often see initials like LBGT, which I at first understood to be a sandwich (Lettuce, Bacon, Tomato, Garlic….) Can bestiality be far behind (so to speak)?

What is an actual man like Vladimir Putin going to think of an American ambassadress when he knows that she has a surgically implanted silicone penis and a hairy chest from testosterone injections?

“Oh please, cut off my willy/
I know you think it’s silly/
But Sally wants a schlong/
Says she was born all wrong/
So get me my bottle of Elmer’s Glu-u-u-ue....”

Excuse me. I am a frustrated Milton.

This is nuts. It is one thing, and a good thing, for a decent society to leave the sexually disturbed in peace, for the police not to harass homosexuals or raid known but discreet “gay” bars. (Though, if we can have homosexual bars in which the normal are not welcome, why can we not have normal bars in which homosexuals are not welcome? Can we not choose with whom we want to drink?) (No.) If discreet (that word again) sex shops deep in the city wants to sell motorized dildos, hig-fashion whips, and male chastity belts, well…the buyers do no harm to others. It is another thing to turn the whole damn country into Caligula’s bedroom.

Apparently the greatest transgression in America today is “homophobia.” The word is etymologically absurd as well as linguistically inaccurate, but these are concerns for the literate, who are rapidly going out of existence. “Homophobia” ought to mean “fear of homos,” but nobody is afraid of them, just tired of endlessly hearing about them. Go in peace, but go. Or just shut up."

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 2:20 PM  

If God intended for her to have more than one mommy, He'd have had her emerge from several women with some assembly required. This does not compute.

Coming to an iKea near you...

Anonymous ogunsiron July 11, 2014 2:39 PM  

@cailCorishev ,
you're talking about the detestable masha gessen aren't you ?
everyone needs to search for "masha gessen gay marriage" on youtube.

OpenID cailcorishev July 11, 2014 2:52 PM  

you're talking about the detestable masha gessen aren't you ?

Yes, that's her; couldn't remember her name. Funny how the whole tremendously critical issue just kinda went away, huh? I wonder if that had anything to do with her becoming too visible.

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 3:16 PM  

I spoke about it not being a libertarian issue. I spoke about it being a slippery slope issue.

The slippery-slope issue is part of what makes it a libertarian issue, silly, because it's ultimately a human-nature issue.

By the way, no matter how much you yell at me right now and tell me you think I'm stupid or whatever, that doesn't change that you didn't mention judicial activism in that comment. It is not my responsibility to read into your comment what you didn't see fit to put in it yourself.

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 3:20 PM  


Washington begins to make a Weimar bordello look like Mormon Sunday school. I picture myself showing up at some embassy for an interview and being told, “The ambassador will be with you in a moment. Just now, he’s fucking a sheep.”

Male or female? The sheep, I mean. With the ambassador, it would probably be hard to tell.


Careful there, Luke, or else Scintan will assume both you and Fred might be into ewe-civic bedroom antics. Because it's none of his business.

Blogger J Curtis July 11, 2014 3:45 PM  

Joe Carter has examined slippery slope arguments recently here

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 3:46 PM  

"You believe the natural state is law based on conscience and that barbarism is a willful rejection of conscientious thought?"

Willful? At some point it can become willful. It is the fallen nature and the inability to see clearly. In a fallen world there are mistakes due to a variety of reasons, which include willful neglect or disregard of conscience.

Anonymous Alte July 11, 2014 4:13 PM  

Logic and truth are not synonymous. Something can be perfectly logical, but still false.

Anonymous Athor Pel July 11, 2014 4:17 PM  

"JaimeInTexasJuly 11, 2014 10:58 AM
Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and the rest of humanity are their descendants. Only way that Adam could be the "federal" head and responsible over the outcome."



Minor quibble.

There are some "people" on this planet that do not have the same genetic or spiritual inheritance as the rest of us.

It has been this way since at least the days of Genesis chapter 6. (pre-flood)

King David killed some of them. (post-flood)

It is the reason that since the Exodus the 12 tribes took such care in recording geneology. Without the clear patrilineal path from Adam to Jesus the crucifixion would have been without any power.

If you want to see a parable of the phenomenon then read Christ's own words in the parable of the wheat and the tares.

It's the reason many royal families interbreed so assiduously.

Anonymous Luke July 11, 2014 4:30 PM  

Sigyn July 11, 2014 3:20 PM

"Careful there, Luke, or else Scintan will assume both you and Fred might be into ewe-civic bedroom antics. Because it's none of his business."

Sigyn, I'm on record as advocating homosexuals (when known) be kept away from professions or other situations where they have access to (esp. any power over) vulnerable people or legal children to whom they're not closely related by blood. That includes the clergy, counselors, clergy, therapists,schoolteachers, coaches, Sunday school teachers, medical fields, youth volunteers, the military, political office, etc. as well as ever fostering or adopting children. I would not have much of a problem of unrepentant ones clearly sexually active being periodically jailed for a while. Neither do I want to knowingly read anything sociological written by a known homo.

Certainly, nonnative-born known homos should be instantly and permanently exiled, just as native borns who show up as as HIV positive should be forcibly quarantined (with zero possible sexual access to nonpositives) until a cure is found or they die.
Something like 20% of queers admitted in a survey a while back that if they came up HIV+ they'd lie about to prospective sex partners. Likewise, remember some ACTUP-ish nutcases actually advocating for queers to lie on Red Cross blood donor screening forms so they could pass on their curse to innocents? To paraphrase Ayn Rand describing the productive's view on parasites, homos have nothing to offer the rest of us; we do not need them.

Eventually, the causes of this defect will be fully identifiable by testing, and few will be born in the West, making this as moot as debates in ancient China over the appropriate political roles of eunuchs sound to us now.

Anonymous Alte July 11, 2014 4:35 PM  

"Yet many people would consider it an abomination. Where do you draw the line?"

At least second cousins. Otherwise, you leave young women with a rather small pool of platonic relationships with male relatives. Who will protect these women if everyone wants to get into their pants?

I had a cousin crushing on me, so the thought is rather terrifying. Women need men around them who are not allowed to have sex with them, but who take an interest in their well being.

Good grief, what an absolute nightmare. I feel ill. What a world. Everyone has gone mad. OMG

Anonymous castricv July 11, 2014 4:53 PM  

Luke , you forgot about bug chasers as well.

OpenID whoresoftheinternet July 11, 2014 5:33 PM  

the current period of sexual anarchy in the West is hardly the first in human history and it is very short by historical standards

---Totally agree, but it's hell living through it.

Rape!

Anonymous Peter Pan July 11, 2014 5:57 PM  

We Libertarians were wrong.... if everything goes, then literally everything will go.

This doesn't exclude Vox from the Libertarian label. The fundamental definition of a Libertarian is one who has maximum human liberty as a primary objective... which is what Vox stated as his own view. Different permutations and interpretations of this definition obviously exist, of course, sometimes to the point of anarchism. Most libertarians, however, are closer to minarchists rather than anarchists. Anarchy eventually leads to an oppressive state or many different states simply on the basis of voluntary association and the right to bear arms. A group will inevitably form with conquest and rule as their goal, and will use their arms to get at least some of what they want.

Anonymous Big Bill July 11, 2014 6:20 PM  

"Polygamy would require massive legal changes ..."

Not really. The Muslims and Africans have polygamy traditions, rules and regulations that would be adopted. We could do like Israel does and have family courts (i.e. ethnic religious courts) that would make the rules for each community and decide issues like that. We used to do it. Where do you think the Israelis got it from? Just recognize multiculturalism and let each community marry, divorce, adopt, bequeath, share custody, whatever as they see fit.

Muslims and Jews are trying to opt out of the family court (read: white Christian) system by setting up their own courts to decide these issues and passing enabling acts that would require secular (read: white Christian) courts to defer to the ethno-religious courts' decisions. Its "multicultural", it is "respectfully of other religious traditions", it is "diverse".

Believe me there are bodies of family law that are over a thousand years old and people that are fully prepared to step in and take over rule- and decision-making for their own "communities". My guess is that they will do it by expanding the "alternative dispute resolution" statutes to cover more family law matters. After all, how can a Christian judge possibly know what is in the best interests of an orthodox Jewish or Muslim child/marriage/family? You see how easy it is? Who are you to force your monogamous God-bothering on people that follow another God, anyway?

Anonymous Sigyn July 11, 2014 6:53 PM  

Sorry there, Luke; it was a joke at Scintan's expense. *smile*

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 11, 2014 9:40 PM  

Athor Pel: It may not be a minor quibble. All human lineage go back to Adam and Eve, through Noah or one of his shipmates. I do not want to get into the lizzard people stuff nonsense, so to speak.

Anonymous Rabbit July 11, 2014 10:17 PM  

**In the case of the slippery slope, I think the logical error is in claiming that because the slope is not NECESSARILY slippery, it is NOT and CAN NEVER BE slippery.**

You are deliberately omitting the logical opposite error(s), the first being that claiming that because the slope is sometimes slippery, then it is necessarily slippery in your particular case, the second being that a slippery slope will necessarily be slippery all the way down.

Anonymous Ladies And Gentlemen, Harold Camping July 11, 2014 10:24 PM  

"Sigyn, I'm on record as advocating homosexuals (when known) be kept away from professions or other situations where they have access to (esp. any power over) vulnerable people or legal children to whom they're not closely related by blood."

What world do YOU live on?


"I would not have much of a problem of unrepentant ones clearly sexually active being periodically jailed for a while."

Praytell, how would you LEGALLY justify your proposal?


"just as native borns who show up as as HIV positive should be forcibly quarantined (with zero possible sexual access to nonpositives) until a cure is found or they die."

You do realize that your proposal is fascist, right?

OpenID cailcorishev July 11, 2014 10:26 PM  

Am I the only one who's noticed that "we are all descended from Adam and Eve" doesn't necessarily imply "we are descended from no one other than Adam and Eve"? In other words, my siblings and I are all descended from my paternal grandparents. But we're not only descended from them; we're also descended from our maternal grandparents. All people alive could be descendants of Adam and Eve, through their children who might have mated with others outside that lineage who long since died out.

Just a thought; I don't know if that's part of anyone's theology or is a heresy or anything. But what's the explanation for Cain's wife in Genesis 4:17?

Anonymous Rabbit July 11, 2014 10:31 PM  

Alaska and Martini:

Regarding homosexual behavior, I'd say society two would do well to emulate society 1. Why? In the scenario you proposed, since homosexuals were able to exist openly, with full rights, in society 1, that is proof that homosexuality is not necessarily harmful or destructive to a society. If you consider society as a sort of a tower that we all live in, and that at least some of us must maintain, it's generally best to have people who are maintaining the tower in some way, and second best to have people who may not be maintaining the tower, and may (or may not) be acting in a manner some might regard as odd or offensive, but are at least not tearing the tower down. It is not good to have people who are actively engaged (or have good incentive to engage) in tearing the tower down. There are already enough criminals who tear the tower down, and it is expensive to deal with such people, by repairing whatever damage they did and/or punishing them. It is counterproductive to create more such people with reasons to tear the tower down by making it clear that it doesn't matter how much they contribute to the tower, they are never going to be given a full set of rights in it the way the beautiful, popular people are.

Anonymous Luke July 11, 2014 10:49 PM  

Ladies And Gentlemen, Harold Camping July 11, 2014 10:24 PM

"Sigyn, I'm on record as advocating homosexuals (when known) be kept away from professions or other situations where they have access to (esp. any power over) vulnerable people or legal children to whom they're not closely related by blood."

What world do YOU live on?"

One where people want to survive, and seeing poufters for what they are, know they need curbing to raise the societal odds of that.

"just as native borns who show up as as HIV positive should be forcibly quarantined (with zero possible sexual access to nonpositives) until a cure is found or they die."

"You do realize that your proposal is fascist, right?"

No, there's nothing particularly essential in Italian socialism of the 1920s in my proposal. Rather, it's long-standing public health policy expectable to be implemented when a communicable largely-fatal disease starts to infect tens or hundreds of thousands of people. A special exception was made for GRIDS (Gay-Related Immunodeficiency Disease, the original term for AIDS). This was due to political correctness bending over backwards (pun intended) to pander to the queers. Ironically, this policy resulted in many thousands of American homos dying from this disease than would have otherwise, had it been halted by measures known since the fricking Middle Ages to work. Ah, well, eventually all the retrovirals and such will stop working and buying time for the rump romeos, time that they've put to use spreading it even more among their own kind and sycophants. (I don't blame wiping out lots of hemophiliacs on them, but on the Red Cross.) Now, I understand, half those newly contracting it are black. The ironies do pile up...

Blogger CM July 11, 2014 11:26 PM  

Cail - you are not alone in that theory (I agree it is possible), but it probably is a heresy.

Anonymous Malthusian Doom July 12, 2014 12:37 AM  

** Ah, well, eventually all the retrovirals and such will stop working and buying time for the rump romeos, time that they've put to use spreading it even more among their own kind and sycophants.**

Interesting. Will this be before or after the standard use of antibiotics on livestock, necessary to provide sufficient cheap meat for the large number of babies that religious people demand women pop out, causes currently curable diseases to become fatal again?

Anonymous Luke July 12, 2014 12:54 AM  

Not really sure, Malthusian. I'm going to guess sooner. The antibiotics used in livestock I have the impression are often the more common and cheaper ones like streptomycin and penicillin (my ethanol plants used those), which have already lost much of their effectiveness, but we're getting by regardless, given we for now have cephalosporins and such.

Anonymous ChicagoRefugee July 12, 2014 1:41 AM  

... the large number of babies that religious people demand women pop out..."

Nations that are now rich enough to have meat as a regular part of the diet all have birth rates below replacement rate. Most are in the early stages of demographic collapse.

So, what the hell are you ing babbling about? Shouldn't you be embarrassed to be that stupidly bigoted on a public blog?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since non/anti-religious people currently have an auto-genocidal birth rate. So how smart is self-extinction from a Darwinian standpoint?

Anonymous Anonymous July 12, 2014 5:21 AM  


cailcorishev/11July14@12:19 PM,

"The left......day."

Same w/ 'civil rights'/discrimination. Funny how that argument suddenly doesn't work when the subject is licensing of gun owners/users & registration of guns/ammo resulting in the eventual confiscation of the latter, then it's "ridiculous", "paranoid", & "something only an idiot would think". Bringing up that lil' hypocrisy has caused numerous anti-2A cultists a great deal of revelatory consternation & led to the collapse of their 'common sense'/'reasonable'/'moderate' pose. That collapse may take awhile due to said cultist/s increasingly obvious attempts at evasion, but its inevitability is unavoidable & the more they try to stave it off the more self-defeating their efforts become usually ending w/ their total unhingement & exposure as morons &/or liars.

Thoroughly entertaining.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Anonymous Rufus July 12, 2014 5:48 AM  

What pisses me off most with the Liberal idiots like Kiwiblog now complaining of a slippery slope with regards to their pet peeves (ie the war on smoking) - yes and you're one of the wankers standing next to the slope of my pet peeves (yoof-in-asia, abortion, the incessant promotion of gayness - pick one) and are gleefully squirting it with more liquid soap...

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 12, 2014 8:59 AM  

Adam and Eve are the parents of all of humanity. Yes, that means that the first generation, at least, of brothers and sisters married.

OpenID cailcorishev July 12, 2014 9:27 AM  

Adam and Eve are the parents of all of humanity. Yes, that means that the first generation, at least, of brothers and sisters married.

No, it doesn't necessarily. Again, where did Cain's wife come from? If all humans can trace their lineage back to Adam and Eve, that doesn't mean they can't also trace back to some person who wasn't a descendant of Adam and Eve.

Or put another way: was Cain's wife human?

Anonymous The other skeptic July 12, 2014 1:47 PM  

They do understand that the Slippery Slope concept is not a logical fallacy.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 12, 2014 1:50 PM  

And now Singapore will face the wrath of the fudge packer lobby.

Blogger RobertW July 12, 2014 3:21 PM  

@Alte - I think historically first-cousin marriage was for the preservation of wealth and large estates. At least that was the historical purpose in England. I can't claim to be an expert on the subject. But my guess is that in our hyper sexualized world, the idea of getting it on with your first cousin dows sound icky. However in earlier times it is doubtful that was what was on the minds of the affianced.

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 12, 2014 3:54 PM  

Am I not clear? Cain's wife was his sister(s) or niece(s).

OpenID cailcorishev July 12, 2014 4:21 PM  

You're assuming Cain's wife was family, and she could have been, but scripture never says so. It says Cain killed Abel, was cast out and marked so no one would kill him, went and lived far away as a fugitive, then got a wife. Then it says Adam and Eve had Seth, and then other sons and daughters. It's possible that, being very long-lived, Cain lived alone for a long time before one of those daughters or a niece showed up, and the events are just related out of order. It's possible that Adam and Eve had daughters before Seth that were never mentioned, though it sure makes it sound like Seth was the third child. But those are just theories; the text never says.

I've looked up the question online and read several different answers, and been unimpressed. Most beg the question by saying, "Where did Cain's wife come from? Well, we're already certain there were no other people running around, so incest must have been okay then." But that wasn't the question.

Blogger automatthew July 12, 2014 5:16 PM  

cailcorishev, there were also those "beasts of the field" running around. You know, like the ones that the King of Nineveh commanded to wear sackcloth along with the men.

Blogger CM July 12, 2014 11:19 PM  

James, no offense, but you are making just as many assumptions about what scripture doesn't say as Cail and I are.

Scripture doesn't prove or disprove our theories. And our theories are still consistent with Adam being the father of all creation.

However, our theories provide far more satisfactory answers for the unanswered questions in the first 4 chapters than your do - such as who are the nephilim copulating with? And if its true that adam to noah was uncorrupted by the nephilim, that leaves out a good bit of people because even the spouses would have to be uncorrupted.

Anonymous Alte July 13, 2014 4:59 AM  

@RobertW

That wasn't really my point (that it's icky), but that young women need male protectors who are essentially altruistic. Especially beautiful young women. Otherwise, she ends up living Tamar's nightmare. Not only is that a terrible environment for a girl to grow up in, it's confusing for the men by crossing sexual rivalries and family loyalties.

Her closest male relatives should be her protectors, not her courtiers. Otherwise, it all turns into a big mess. Maybe I'm projecting onto other women, but I'd have had to sleep with one eye open. I've got a large extended family on both sides, and we're quite close and grew up together, and all of the girls are exotic and pretty.

I mean... there's a reason Muslims keep the sexes so separate, even within families. They all marry their relations, and young men have easier and faster sexual access to their cousins than to any other women. It's not unnatural that they'd be attracted (or that the girls would feel likewise), but there are excellent reasons why the Catholic church cracked down hard on that sort of thing. It's dysgenic and destroys family harmony, and doubles-down on clan-like structures.

I live in a small town here, in Bavaria, and I'm distantly related (by blood or marriage) to about 300 people out of 1600, when counting up to third-cousins, and that includes about a third of the local businessmen and politicians, and a fifth of the property owners. Now imagine how SOL everyone else in town would be if we only married amongst ourselves.

Anonymous Alte July 13, 2014 5:21 AM  

We spent vacations together, lived at each other's houses for months or years at a time, stayed up late dancing on the porch, went out on the town together, hire each other for jobs, helped each other move house, picked out and vetted potential mates (my husband was introduced to me by my relatives), given interest-free loans, backed us up in a fight, etc.

How many times has one of them walked in on one of us changing, rescued us from a clothing or swimsuit malfunction, driven us home after we'd been plied with one too many drinks, shared tents with us, dragged some slimeball off of us, comforted us when we cried, and so on?

If I imagine my life without my male cousins as my true allies, it seems pretty sad and scary. Also, my feelings of loyalty to my male relatives are the main reason I'm not a feminist. This smacks as just another way to ensure that women see their potential allies as just more potential rapists.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 14, 2014 2:33 AM  

young men have easier and faster sexual access to their cousins than to any other women. It's not unnatural that they'd be attracted (or that the girls would feel likewise), but there are excellent reasons why the Catholic church cracked down hard on that sort of thing. It's dysgenic and destroys family harmony, and doubles-down on clan-like structures.

Bingo! Thank you Alte, that's what I was trying to get at. Societies that allow close family members to consider each other potential sexual partners would seem just doomed to a whole bunch of dysfunctions. Clannish yet, but your point about girls having no guardians they can trust is a good one. I'd add that such a society also means boys would grow up with limited exposure to women, and thus be susceptible to the pedestalization/demonization dichotomy we see so often from men who are clueless about women. Growing up with a sister or a female cousin I think does wonders to keep a man from thinking women are either all saints or all whores.

And just possibly instilling the notion that some members of the opposite sex are simply off limits might be a good thing.

Blogger Robert What? July 14, 2014 9:27 PM  

@Alte - sounds like a heavenly place you live in. I'm envious :) Although I can see that marriage options might be a challenge sometimes. Groups that have a long history of close intermarriage tend to have a lot of inherited conditions - as I'm sure you are aware of. Maybe that's why the Brittish "nobility" tend to look and act so odd :) I have no female first cousins so I don't know what that dynamic would feel like. I do have a second cousin I had the hots for in my younger days, but I never did anything about it. Regarding any male cousins who might have the hots for you - don't assume they wouldn't have your back in an emergency. So how close a cousin would you consider for marriage material? Is second cousin too close?

Blogger lmcquaid July 21, 2014 2:58 PM  

Well, yes the slippery slope is a logical fallacy if you rely on it as a tenet of your argument. And no experience can't trump logic. That's a category error. But you know this, right? I assumed you're just sacrificing accuracy for rhetorical punch.

I might as well plug my blog since I posted on the same topic. :D

http://sexdrugsandfinance.blogspot.ca/2013/09/slopes-and-goalposts.html

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts