re: Was Gay Marriage a Slippery Slope?

quote:

---

at the time we were assured it wasn’t

---

The left always lies.

quote:

---

You can’t keep saying the line was drawn at kids and then argue that we can move the line.

---

The fact that you're asserting this shows that you haven't understood my point. You can disagree with my stance, but suggesting that it's at odds with itself proves that you do not understand it.

quote:

---

And maturity has nothing to do with this.

---

So when determining age of consent we do not, even slightly, consider the general maturity of people in that age group?

Humor me, what criteria is used?

I have been stating publicly for years that the culmination of two evils, evolution and homosexuality, will be beastality. There's a reason that God thought it necessary to explicitly forbid it in the Law.

quote:

---

Good for you, but it makes me wonder why you can't see the connection between a deconstruction of truth and foundational epistemology and relativism in terms of truth and morality (among other things).

---

I can make all sorts of connections. You haven't made any specific arguments other than to blame postmodernity as a whole. I mean, postmodernity was the thing to criticize for numerous philosophers of the 20th century, some of whom are now included by people as postmodern philosophers. What was specifically postmodern for them was the breakdown of metanarratives and how that occurred. Very few, if any, actually said that these narratives should be broken down. All they said that these structures which underpin society are breaking down, and here's why and here's how to operate in this new world.

quote:

---

It questions truth at its core and whether it can even be objective.

---

Specifically it questioned whether language could ascertain truth. The moral philosophy of "postmodern" philosophers, like Derrida, certainly didn't indicate they didn't believe that truth wasn't objective, as he showcased explicitly in On Forgiveness and On Hospitality.

quote:

---

That is the epitome of relativism, which teaches that truth (and morality) is relative to each individual.

---

This isn't what any postmodern philosopher said, at least that I read. The Structuralists and Poststructuralists were working within a very specific milieu, and were very careful with their arguments. The foundation of Structuralist thought was simply that whatever subjectivity a person may have, they always existed within in pre-established system of meaning, but there was an essential narrative in that system of meaning, making it a Modernist (technically) philosophy. Derrida came along and said that even in any pre-arranged system of meaning, there was a possibility of disruption to that system of meaning. He literally says himself, in the paper that started Poststructuralism itself, that he did not mean words could mean anything. He was simply, in his view, acknowledging a center, which he called an essential function, the object around which systems of meaning were organized.

The Poststructural overlap with Phenomenology has also been tremendous, as phenomenology says (and which neuroscience backs up) that humans are the second subject which experience things, a notion that is now somewhat benign but at the time was revolutionary. But neither argue for relativism by any stretch, as for both there is a center or a primary phenomena, around which humans attempt to orient themselves. In fact, there is a French philosopher, Jean-Luc Marion, who uses phenomenology to argue for proof of God. The notion that postmodern philosophy argues for relativism isn't accurate at all, and does a disservice to 20th century philosophy bordering on dishonesty.

quote:

---

Jean-François Lyotard is at the forefront of what I believe has been an increasing movement in our society over the last 30-40 years.

---

Have you read Lyotard?

......abortion. That was the slippery slope. The decline started on January 22, 1973....the day SCOTUS legalized genocide.

Again, give me a specific philosopher who said these things. For example, the context of what Baudrillard says about reality is fundamentally and meaningfully different than what Foucault says about these things. Again, I'm skeptical that you can find a philosopher who is well-regarded who would say things like "there is no objective truth" and not be taken to task by colleagues or the community as a whole.

Also that is a frankly shoddy article by Encyclopedia Britannica. This one is far better. LINK

Disparate events with no causal connection. Just a list of things you don’t like.

quote:

---

Never fail to show how retarded you are PT

---

frick you

The left never stops pushing their bullshite.

Of course once the perversion of gay "marriage" sis mainstreamed then all this other shite follows.

Then you have liars on the left who spout bullshite saying the obvious isn't true.

In a decade or two they will push to normalize fricking kids, animals, and eating shite.

quote:

---

The left never stops pushing their bullshite.

---

Neither side stops pushing their bullshite. Usually their "bullshite" is coming from politicians pandering like hell to their extreme sides.

It's quick because it's the truth. Maybe if you quit with the my side is better triabilism bullshite you'd see where I'm getting at. But you won't you'll fling shite at the other side and ignore your own side's problems and believing any story that makes the opposing side seem awful