View Single Post
Old 05-30-2009, 09:43 AM   #416 (permalink)
FoolThemAll
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
(I don't deny that smoking bans are bigoted against smokers. But "bigot" is a loaded word, in my opinion.)
Which is effectively why I would deny it. You don't have to be a bigot to advocate for private property smoking laws. It's enough of an impetus to see medical harm in smoking.

And to get right down to an eventual point, you don't have to be a bigot to advocate against even homosexual relationships, let alone gay marriage. It's enough of an impetus to see spiritual harm in them. You don't need "I'm better than that" or "I hate those guys" to make the jump from 'looks harmful' to 'let's make it illegal'.

Granted, for both parts of this comparison, you do have to be overly paternalistic and, well, wrong.

---------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin View Post
So what you are saying is that there is a large segment of people who have a good type of argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve a slippery slope, but refuse to make that argument publicly? I never said that all people who are anti gay marriage are bigots, and not even that all who use the slippery slope are bigots. Just that I suspect that the reason so many people cling so fervently to slippery slope arguments without saying a single thing about gay marriage do so because they can't come up with a justifiable, rational reason to oppose it.
Well, no, I never said 'good' argument. I don't actually think there is a 'good' argument.

It's fine to suspect a majority and you may even be right. I just didn't like the phrasings that seemed to suggest a wealth of evidence for your guess.

I'll push again the alternate possibility that what some slippery slopers are hiding is some argument that's theocratic in nature. And frequently such arguments are useless when the others in the conversation are secular or strident believers in complete separation of church and state. If such an argument is presented, it'll likely be rejected without much discussion and tones might even turn hostile or condescending. Thus, people would rather prefer sticking with the belief that doesn't invoke religious doctrine and might sound pretty sturdy on its superficial face. It's even possibly an amicable attempt to find common debating ground.

There's lots of wrong in that, but not necessarily any bigotry.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Last edited by FoolThemAll; 05-30-2009 at 09:45 AM..
FoolThemAll is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360