Mickey Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 The idea that if you concede to the state the right to force a pregnancy to come to term, you cede to the state the right to forbid a pregnancy to continue or even to start has, in the past, been met with incredulity because "it'll never happen.." Apparently "never" has come sooner than we thought. Indiana is seeking to control who can and can not use fertility techniques to become pregnant. Lesbians will not be allowed and in fact, all women seeking to use these techniques will have to fill out an application to demonstrate their baby-worthiness to the state. I am not sure what their plan is for lesbians who become pregnant the old fashioned way. Forced abortion perhaps? Maybe let the pregnancy come to term and then just take custody of the baby from its mother in the delivery room and hustle it off to be adopted by a good christian family? Nah, it'll never happen. Indiana, salt of the earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I am not sure what their plan is for lesbians who become pregnant the old fashioned way. 466496[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Discrimination based on sexuality or participation in "faith based" activities you can quibble with. The rest? No way. If a couple wants to acquire a baby through adoption, you have to prove your "baby worthiness". And from what I understand, its quite the stringent process and things as small as whether or not you have your sockets child protected affect the outcome of the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 It is a bill submitted to the state legislature. You act like it is been signed into law. Bills as loony from the left get submitted here in CA all the time. Unfortunately, a lot of them were signed by the former gov. At least Arnold has the sense to veto idiotic bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 The idea that if you concede to the state the right to force a pregnancy to come to term, you cede to the state the right to forbid a pregnancy to continue or even to start has, in the past, been met with incredulity because "it'll never happen.." Apparently "never" has come sooner than we thought. Indiana is seeking to control who can and can not use fertility techniques to become pregnant. Lesbians will not be allowed and in fact, all women seeking to use these techniques will have to fill out an application to demonstrate their baby-worthiness to the state. I am not sure what their plan is for lesbians who become pregnant the old fashioned way. Forced abortion perhaps? Maybe let the pregnancy come to term and then just take custody of the baby from its mother in the delivery room and hustle it off to be adopted by a good christian family? Nah, it'll never happen. Indiana, salt of the earth 466496[/snapback] Thanks for pointing this out Mick, as I'm not the type of guy who frequents 'gay news' sites. Not that there's anything wrong with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 its only a matter of time before Motherment decides who is/isn't fit to have a child or raise a child and sets up a department similar to the DMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Thanks for pointing this out Mick, as I'm not the type of guy who frequents 'gay news' sites. Not that there's anything wrong with that... 466712[/snapback] If you are a taxpayer footing the STD cost, there is a lot wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 its only a matter of time before Motherment decides who is/isn't fit to have a child or raise a child and sets up a department similar to the DMV 466746[/snapback] There already is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 If you are a taxpayer footing the STD cost, there is a lot wrong with it. 466750[/snapback] I'm thinking that heterosexual transmission of std's is probably a much bigger problem when it comes to taxpayers footing the bill in terms of numbers than homosexuals. Does that mean there is a lot wrong with heteorsexuals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Discrimination based on sexuality or participation in "faith based" activities you can quibble with. The rest? No way. If a couple wants to acquire a baby through adoption, you have to prove your "baby worthiness". And from what I understand, its quite the stringent process and things as small as whether or not you have your sockets child protected affect the outcome of the decision. 466548[/snapback] This isn't just adoption we are talking about. They are writing laws determining who can and who can not avail themselves of various fertility techniques. These are used by infertile couples to try and get a viable pregnancy going. They are also used by women for other reasons, such as lesbians. My wife had a history of miscarriages so we saw a fertility specialist who was also good at helping women carry to full term as some of the techniques are helpful to prevent miscarriages. Two kids later, I became a big fan of these specialists. Don't kid yourself, the application of this law won't be limited to lesbians. The idea that a husband and wife who are having fertility problems would have to demonstrate their baby-worthiness and that they have the right religion before they would be allowed to undergo a medical procedure designed to overcome their fertility problem is plainly freakish. But then again, since to some there is no constitutional right to privacy, how would it be stopped if it was passed? Withholding medical treatment based on one's religious affilitations or lack thereof, yeah, who could "quibble" with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 It is a bill submitted to the state legislature. You act like it is been signed into law. Bills as loony from the left get submitted here in CA all the time. Unfortunately, a lot of them were signed by the former gov. At least Arnold has the sense to veto idiotic bills. 466629[/snapback] Which is why we mock out California all the time. Now its Indiana's turn. What is your opinion on the law? Good, bad, indifferent? Constitutional or not? Suppose the laws of physics were suspended and the space time continuum suffered a massive rupture which together resulted in you being named to the Supreme Court, how would Chief Justice Wacka rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Thanks for pointing this out Mick, as I'm not the type of guy who frequents 'gay news' sites. Not that there's anything wrong with that... 466712[/snapback] When I saw the source for this story I knew I was asking for trouble linking to it. I know you are kidding but seriously, I bet that some state senator in Indiana is thinking right now about whether he should let this thing pass or vote against it and risk being called gay or gay friendly by his opponent in his next election. I can see the oppo-ad now: "Senator Blufnfuss voted in favor of sexual perverts raising test tube babies. Isn't it time for a change?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Slippery slope. You take away the rights of some and the next step is to take away the rights of another group. Government intervention bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 I'm thinking that heterosexual transmission of std's is probably a much bigger problem when it comes to taxpayers footing the bill in terms of numbers than homosexuals. Does that mean there is a lot wrong with heteorsexuals? 467071[/snapback] No, it means we outnumber them by 9-to-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Slippery slope. You take away the rights of some and the next step is to take away the rights of another group. Government intervention bad. 467141[/snapback] Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Which is why we mock out California all the time. Now its Indiana's turn. 467110[/snapback] When I mocked California here you didn't seem to take quite the same attitude (see post #5). I'm just sayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 When I mocked California here you didn't seem to take quite the same attitude (see post #5). I'm just sayin 467268[/snapback] no legislation proposed vs legislation actually proposed Besides, I see a big difference between taxing trash bags in a city like San Francisco and the State Senate of Indiana telling people they can't have babies. I think one warrants far greater and earlier concern than the other. Then again, your particular need for large numbers of trash bags might be of greater concern to you though I hesitate to imagine why this would be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Perfectly fine with me. Single women shouldn't be allowed to "acquire" a child this way either. Don't most liberals rail about 'population control'? If anything else, homos are natures way of keeping the population down, why should we help them have something that by their actions is forbidden to them? Isn't it rather hypocritical in the grand scheme of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 no legislation proposed vs legislation actually proposed Besides, I see a big difference between taxing trash bags in a city like San Francisco and the State Senate of Indiana telling people they can't have babies. I think one warrants far greater and earlier concern than the other. Then again, your particular need for large numbers of trash bags might be of greater concern to you though I hesitate to imagine why this would be so. 467288[/snapback] I use the garbage bags to pick up and throw out all the hairs you split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Perfectly fine with me. Single women shouldn't be allowed to "acquire" a child this way either. Don't most liberals rail about 'population control'? If anything else, homos are natures way of keeping the population down, why should we help them have something that by their actions is forbidden to them? Isn't it rather hypocritical in the grand scheme of things? 467306[/snapback] By the same token then should the state be able to forcibly abort the pregnancy of a lesbian woman who got pregnant by sleeping with a man rather than through a fertility procedure? You do realize that this law is not restricted in its application to just lesbians? It would also subject an infertile couple desiring to take advantage of a medical procedure that would effectively "cure" their infertility. Even they would apparently have to prove their baby-worthiness including that they practice what the state sees as the proper religion. Why should an infertile couple have to go through a state mandated screening process to have a baby while a fertile couple does not? Is there something inherent in infertility that warrants that their reproductive future be placed in the hands of the state? Maybe your position is that the state should be able to interfere in all pregnancies, not just those that originate from fertility techniques? If you beleive the state should be able to decide who does and who does not have babies, say so and we can address that position first before we move on to under what conditions should the state be able exercise the power you would grant them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 By the same token then should the state be able to forcibly abort the pregnancy of a lesbian woman who got pregnant by sleeping with a man rather than through a fertility procedure? You do realize that this law is not restricted in its application to just lesbians? It would also subject an infertile couple desiring to take advantage of a medical procedure that would effectively "cure" their infertility. Even they would apparently have to prove their baby-worthiness including that they practice what the state sees as the proper religion. Why should an infertile couple have to go through a state mandated screening process to have a baby while a fertile couple does not? Is there something inherent in infertility that warrants that their reproductive future be placed in the hands of the state? Maybe your position is that the state should be able to interfere in all pregnancies, not just those that originate from fertility techniques? If you beleive the state should be able to decide who does and who does not have babies, say so and we can address that position first before we move on to under what conditions should the state be able exercise the power you would grant them. 467439[/snapback] *Yawn* Blah blah blah. The "State" already has a say in babies, as many programs pay more for people to have more kids and also pay to feed them, clothe them, etc. You can't have it both ways, either the "State" has a right for a say in the process, or it should get out of child care completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 By the same token then should the state be able to forcibly abort the pregnancy of a lesbian woman who got pregnant by sleeping with a man rather than through a fertility procedure? You do realize that this law is not restricted in its application to just lesbians? It would also subject an infertile couple desiring to take advantage of a medical procedure that would effectively "cure" their infertility. Even they would apparently have to prove their baby-worthiness including that they practice what the state sees as the proper religion. Why should an infertile couple have to go through a state mandated screening process to have a baby while a fertile couple does not? Is there something inherent in infertility that warrants that their reproductive future be placed in the hands of the state? Maybe your position is that the state should be able to interfere in all pregnancies, not just those that originate from fertility techniques? If you beleive the state should be able to decide who does and who does not have babies, say so and we can address that position first before we move on to under what conditions should the state be able exercise the power you would grant them. 467439[/snapback] Ah, so you're concerned about the slippery slope in this instance but weren't in OGT's example (or various others over the years). How odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 I don't think anyone is realistically talking about forcable abortions. That's stupid. However, I have long thought that an intellegence test would be nice for those interested in procreating. But you are correct, someone would have to administer and decide the criteria by which one would pass/fail this exam. I don't want the government having that right. The problem is we have too many stupid people in the world that take advantage of medicine and welfare before they erradicate themselves from the gene pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Ah, so you're concerned about the slippery slope in this instance but weren't in OGT's example (or various others over the years). How odd. 467508[/snapback] How odd that you have nothing to say on the issue under discussion and instead take a pot shot at my credibility. Well, it has pretty much become an obsession with you so I guesss I'll just have to get used to it. Do you have any point to make about the legislation in Indiana that would require all women to pass some state designed test before being allowed to utilize standard medical procedures to address fertility problems or would you just prefer to discuss the credibility of my opinions, even when you agree with them as I suspect you do here? Or maybe this is one type of government interference you find commendable? As for slippery slopes, some are more slippery than others. For example, I think the city council in San Francisco deciding to "consider" legislation on taxing trash bags to be just a little less slippery than legislation actually proposed to deny fertility treatments to women based on criteria drawn by the state that includes not only sexuality but religion as well. But that's just me. Then again, I guess if your only goal is to try and gin up some attack on my credibility rather than to discuss the acutal issue, you take whatever scraps you can get. Really, are you going to say with a straight face that the slippery slope argument once made must always be made at all times, on all issues and in all circumstances? Are you unable to recognize that such an argument might be prefectly valid in one instance but not so in an entirely different situation? Here is a hint: it is the difference between dogma and reason. Just for kicks, what does any of this have to do with the point I made that this legislation being proposed in Indiana is a really, really, freakishly bad idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 I don't think anyone is realistically talking about forcable abortions. That's stupid. However, I have long thought that an intellegence test would be nice for those interested in procreating. But you are correct, someone would have to administer and decide the criteria by which one would pass/fail this exam. I don't want the government having that right. The problem is we have too many stupid people in the world that take advantage of medicine and welfare before they erradicate themselves from the gene pool. 467653[/snapback] Don't get me wrong, I am against this idea as proposed, not just in the direction it could logically go once you concede the right of the state to get involved in deciding who can and who can not get pregnant. I think it is objectionable enough as is being that it would impose a state designed criteria for eligibility for infertility treatments. I bring up where else it might go just to get those who might think this isn't such a bad thing to think again. If you are one who thinks fags should not be allowed to have kids (i don't mean you), you might be inclined to support this legislation, neverminding the consequences it would have on others now or in the future once the precedent is established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Doesn't this legislation only kick in when determining whether or not "tax dollars" can be used for such things as homosexual parenting, single parenting, etc.? The way I read it was that those things can still occur; just not with "tax dollars". Am I reading it wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 How odd that you have nothing to say on the issue under discussion and instead take a pot shot at my credibility. Well, it has pretty much become an obsession with you so I guesss I'll just have to get used to it. Good, that's settled. Do you have any point to make about the legislation in Indiana that would require all women to pass some state designed test before being allowed to utilize standard medical procedures to address fertility problems or would you just prefer to discuss the credibility of my opinions, even when you agree with them as I suspect you do here? No, because of my freakish consistancy on such subjects. Try it sometime. It'll work best for YOU if you actually ignore the political parties involved in each instance. Or maybe this is one type of government interference you find commendable? Hardly, but wouldn't it help your self esteem if it did? As for slippery slopes, some are more slippery than others. Not really. They all EVENTUALLY lead to the same place, regardless of which group they affect the most. For example, I think the city council in San Francisco deciding to "consider" legislation on taxing trash bags to be just a little less slippery than legislation actually proposed to deny fertility treatments to women based on criteria drawn by the state that includes not only sexuality but religion as well. But that's just me. Then again, I guess if your only goal is to try and gin up some attack on my credibility rather than to discuss the acutal issue, you take whatever scraps you can get. I don't have to "gin up" anything. You do a pretty good job all by yourself. I just like to point it out when it regularly rears its ugly head. OGT simply beat me to the link. You'll pardon me for not giving a pass to big government on small things - which leads us to... Really, are you going to say with a straight face that the slippery slope argument once made must always be made at all times, on all issues and in all circumstances? It's never bad to use it as a litmus test. Of course, I'm not in the practice of using absolutes, either. Are you unable to recognize that such an argument might be prefectly valid in one instance but not so in an entirely different situation? Here is a hint: it is the difference between dogma and reason. Gee, thanks for explaining that in your own special way, counselor. I was previously vexed. Just for kicks, what does any of this have to do with the point I made that this legislation being proposed in Indiana is a really, really, freakishly bad idea? 467661[/snapback] Not a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 *Yawn* Blah blah blah. The "State" already has a say in babies, as many programs pay more for people to have more kids and also pay to feed them, clothe them, etc. You can't have it both ways, either the "State" has a right for a say in the process, or it should get out of child care completely. 467453[/snapback] I see, so if the state decides to feed a starving person we can't let it do that without conceding it the right to starve others...after all, once they have a say in the process of nutrition, blah, blah blah? There is a big difference between promoting the exercise of a right and interfering with the exercise of a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 As for slippery slopes, some are more slippery than others. 467661[/snapback] So? It does not matter how slippery the slope is, it still takes us in the same direction: downhill. One just gets us there faster than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 As long as we are clear that even though you agree with me on this subject, you are going to attack me anyway. You are going to attack me no matter what I post. It is not personal though is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 So? It does not matter how slippery the slope is, it still takes us in the same direction: downhill. One just gets us there faster than the other. 467770[/snapback] Maybe so but I am not losing any sleep over the consideration of taxing trash bags in San Francisco. I see this issue as more important and if I choose to pick my battles, so be it. Rather than dissect the efficacy of the slippery slope argument in modern rhetoric, I was hoping more for a discussion of the legislation proposed in Indiana. I would think that AD would be about as appalled at that kind of thing as I am but rather than talk about that, he chose this oh, so relevant and interesting subject. Where I am concerned, he appears to be interested in nothing besides scanning every post for an angle for criticism. It's his time to waste I guess and the attention is rather flattering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Maybe so but I am not losing any sleep over the consideration of taxing trash bags in San Francisco. I see this issue as more important and if I choose to pick my battles, so be it. Rather than dissect the efficacy of the slippery slope argument in modern rhetoric, I was hoping more for a discussion of the legislation proposed in Indiana. I would think that AD would be about as appalled at that kind of thing as I am but rather than talk about that, he chose this oh, so relevant and interesting subject. Where I am concerned, he appears to be interested in nothing besides scanning every post for an angle for criticism. It's his time to waste I guess and the attention is rather flattering. 467781[/snapback] Actually, he expressed his opinions his response to me. IMO, "Bingo" means that he agrees with my view on the situation. The situation sucks. I am concerned with all types of government intervention. To me, the slippery slope is the slippery slope, regardless of the degree of downward descent. Allowing any sort of government infringement will open the door for more government infringement. If they continue to nibble away, eventually, you will have nothing. Fight the small battles along with the big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 As for slippery slopes, some are more slippery than others. For example, I think the city council in San Francisco deciding to "consider" legislation on taxing trash bags to be just a little less slippery than legislation actually proposed to deny fertility treatments to women based on criteria drawn by the state that includes not only sexuality but religion as well. But that's just me. Then again, I guess if your only goal is to try and gin up some attack on my credibility rather than to discuss the acutal issue, you take whatever scraps you can get. Just for the record, you never did offer an opinion on the San Francisco matter, did you? (psst.....here's your chance). And yes, if this is true as is written in the article, than "Indiana Legislature Bad". However, I'd need to see something besides an obviously biased web site to ensure that they did not selectively report the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Doesn't this legislation only kick in when determining whether or not "tax dollars" can be used for such things as homosexual parenting, single parenting, etc.? The way I read it was that those things can still occur; just not with "tax dollars". Am I reading it wrong? 467685[/snapback] No, it is legislation regulating fertility procedures for everyone, not just for those whose medical care is publicly subsidized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 I would think that AD would be about as appalled at that kind of thing as I am but rather than talk about that, he chose this oh, so relevant and interesting subject. Where I am concerned, he appears to be interested in nothing besides scanning every post for an angle for criticism. It's his time to waste I guess and the attention is rather flattering. 467781[/snapback] Let's go back and review the thread, shall we? Slippery slope. You take away the rights of some and the next step is to take away the rights of another group. Government intervention bad. 467141[/snapback] Bingo. 467261[/snapback] By the same token then should the state be able to forcibly abort the pregnancy of a lesbian woman... Ah, so you're concerned about the slippery slope in this instance but weren't in OGT's example (or various others over the years). How odd. 467508[/snapback] The jury will note that I did, in fact, give my opinion on the subject a nearly two HOURS before pointing out yet another example of the accuser's typical hypocrisy. Paradigms. For some people it's the same thing as four nickles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Just for the record, you never did offer an opinion on the San Francisco matter, did you? (psst.....here's your chance).And yes, if this is true as is written in the article, than "Indiana Legislature Bad". However, I'd need to see something besides an obviously biased web site to ensure that they did not selectively report the facts. 467824[/snapback] Check the link that OG provided originally. I have now the same opinion I did then, it was a stupid idea, just not one I was going to get all worked up about. You see, all this fuss is over points upon which we basically agree. Here is another source: Indiana And another link with rumor that the State Senator who sponsored the law has withdrawn it: An end to the madness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Just for the record, you never did offer an opinion on the San Francisco matter, did you? (psst.....here's your chance).And yes, if this is true as is written in the article, than "Indiana Legislature Bad". However, I'd need to see something besides an obviously biased web site to ensure that they did not selectively report the facts. 467824[/snapback] To be fair, he did offer his opinion that the San Fran thingy was a stupid idea. I mostly originated that old thread as a sarcatic look at how its linked article was written with a side dish of its stupid premise. In my view, his "let's not condemn the whole place until something is actually done" vs. "Indiana sucks because something was proposed" don't really reconcile. I understand that there is a difference between introducing a bill and considering same, but it is still basically an idea, not a law. I don't see how you can indict/poke fun at Indiana and call for reason in condeming SF. That's why I threw in the hair splitting joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Actually, he expressed his opinions his response to me. IMO, "Bingo" means that he agrees with my view on the situation. The situation sucks. I am concerned with all types of government intervention. To me, the slippery slope is the slippery slope, regardless of the degree of downward descent. Allowing any sort of government infringement will open the door for more government infringement. If they continue to nibble away, eventually, you will have nothing. Fight the small battles along with the big. 467814[/snapback] A valid philosophy upon which reasonable minds may differ. For me, I think its better to use what resources I have on injustices I care about rather than to leap at every Tom, Dick and Harry injustice as it arises. I recognize though that you can get nickle and dimed to death as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Let's go back and review the thread, shall we?The jury will note that I did, in fact, give my opinion on the subject a nearly two HOURS before pointing out yet another example of the accuser's typical hypocrisy. Paradigms. For some people it's the same thing as four nickles. 467925[/snapback] Your replies to my posts didn't cover the Indiana thing at all. In fact, I asked what in the world any of this slippery slope stuff had to do with the Indiana thing and you admitted, not a thing. Again, here is a subject upon which we agree and rather than talking about the price of sex in Indiana, a far more interesting subject, we are dissecting the proper role of slippery slope arguments. How is this relationship ever going to work if we fight when we agree? That's it, I want a divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 To be fair, he did offer his opinion that the San Fran thingy was a stupid idea. I mostly originated that old thread as a sarcatic look at how its linked article was written with a side dish of its stupid premise. In my view, his "let's not condemn the whole place until something is actually done" vs. "Indiana sucks because something was proposed" don't really reconcile. I understand that there is a difference between introducing a bill and considering same, but it is still basically an idea, not a law. I don't see how you can indict/poke fun at Indiana and call for reason in condeming SF. That's why I threw in the hair splitting joke. 467933[/snapback] You made a valid point and did so in a non-offensive way which I recognize for you is an achievment worthy of note. I defended it that trash bags in a city are not the same as babies in a state plus the proposed vs. considered thing and you thought those differences were not sufficient to warrant a differing view here. All in all a rather reasonable exchange. So we are both on a bio-rythm high today. In any event, the legislation was pulled so Indiana is safe from having to endure my scorn for awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts