What is hate?

[Garyzenuf]

Slippery slope argument not always fallacy. If you say A to B, B to C, C to D, and D to E; okay if assumptions valid. But if you skip over C and D, or C and D not valid assumption, then it is fallacy.

PLease explain to me what the letters represent Holy roller, sorry, I mean St.asia, because if it dosen't make sense, then it is a fallacy.

*

 

[Garyzenuf]

It depend on argument for the slippery slope. I teach this, I know this. Not defending his argument. But showing it okay sometime to make slippery slope reasoning if assumption chain all valid. Example

Argument: Drink coffee may lead bone loss for some.

A. Person with ulcer drink coffee
B. Coffee and ulcer make heartburn
C. heartburn need medicine, some may use nexium
D. Nexium increase bone loss for some
E. For some, coffe lead to bone loss.

Is slippery slope, but contain valid assumption. Not say all coffee drinker get bone loss. But say likely for some.

Thank you for explaining that, but could you show (logically) how I could go from A. (SS marrige), to E. (Me marrying my sister)?

*

 

[No Swansong]

*aversion
I may be a child, but I can spell things correctly. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe dictionary.com


[emphasis mine]

So you do not have an opposition to homosexuality? I must have been reading your posts wrong, then.

It may have simply been a typo my friend.

 

[No Swansong]

Yes. If he feels some type of fear with the paranoia then yes. Usually paranoia is accompanied by fear. This more represents homophobia





What do you mean by "recruiting"? By recruiting do you mean teaching children homosexual proproganda and theory? Or adoption?

Not wanting ones children to be taught same-sex theory would not be homophobia, but rather a dissention as to the proper form of raising children. Yes, there might be fear that the parents will worry that child will have a liking to the teaching, but that fear is more rooted in the wanting of the well-being of the child, not in the same-sex material per-se, so this would not be catagorized as homophobia.




No this would not be phobia but rather just a social or theological calculation of what same sex marriage could cause in the future. Yes there would be probably fear involved, but again, it would be rooted in the worry of society as a whole, rather than homosexuality as an entity in itself.

Probably the only time when homosexuality would be truly feared would be in prison or in the case of rape.

One question:
What exactly is same-sex theory? I've never heard or read that term.

One Comment:
Fearing that same-sex marriage will lead to marriages between family members or animals does seem to me to be an unfounded fear. Is that not a definition of phobia? "An unfounded fear"

It seems to me that this could fall under the heading of homophobia.

 

[No Swansong]

Slippery slope argument not always fallacy. If you say A to B, B to C, C to D, and D to E; okay if assumptions valid. But if you skip over C and D, or C and D not valid assumption, then it is fallacy.

Slippery slope is always a logical fallacy. It sometimes is true, (I don't think so in this case) but it is always a logical fallacy.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Cannot show that, you individual. You do what you do, not what logic do. Can show that if legal to marry for gay, likely to end with legal for the marry sister. Because argument same. If okay for man and man, woman and woman; why not brother sister? Both some think bad, both not for mans function (gay no lead to children, brother siste lead to bad genetic).

Exactly, also probably father/daughter/son/mom combinations would disrupt the family structure (what was left of it anyway).

Or take other example. If man and man can marry, why not man and dog?

Consulting adults, cruelity to animals...

Not say I agree. but say argument is valid. Doesn't mean argument true. SO argument not for you. You gay, you not incest, right?

Actually I'm not gay , but thank you anyways.

But for country. If A) allow ss marriage, B) Because no one have right to say you cannot, then C) must allow sister-sister, dog-man because D) no one can say they cannot too.

Yes, I think we both just came up with reasons they couldn't.

Maybe you should take these thoughts of yours over to the ss marrige thread.

 

[No Swansong]

No. It not. And when is, is informal fallacy. It only fallacy when assumptions in chain not valid. You learn this is Philosophy Intro, class I teach before.

If it is a slippery slope argument then it is always a logical fallacy as slippery slope is defined as a logical fallacy. As I pointed out the conclusion can sometimes be true, but the argument is still fallacious.

However I don't want to derail my own thread any further.

As for your kind offer of instruction, I'll stick with the Ph.D. instructors I had for the many philosophy classes I have already taken thank you.

 

[No Swansong]

Slippery slope-type argument only slippery slope fallacy when assumptions not make connection. I PHD, I know. Slippery SLope only occur when assumptions in chain not valid. Definition mean SLippery Slope is Slippery Slope, but the kind of argument can be valid and not fallacy is assumptinos true. Only slippery slope when asumptions in chain not valid.

Then what you are arguing is that the original argument was not a slippery slope. That may be but if it is a slippery slope argument then it is a fallacy, because slippery slope is defined as a fallacy.

Now I kindly request that you to refrain from continuing this silly bickering so that the thread may go back to its original intent.

 

[No Swansong]

No. It is still slippery slope. Not slippery slope fallacy. Because it still argue A lead to B, B lead to C, C lead to D. That is slippery slope. But if A B C and D valid, no fallacy.

We obviously disagree now I have kindly asked you to drop it, as it does not pertain to my original post.

Do you have anything to add that pertains to the original question about hate?

 

[lisah]

I broke my own self-imposed rule and followed your link. I found it interesting and certainly could be used as a screening tool. Thank you for sharing.

So, have you found an answer to your question? From reading (some of) your posts, it seems like you might be finding something.

I have never hit full-on hatred. Awareness of those things I have done to others gets in the way. That tempers it somehow. But, it does require an acceptance of ones failings.

Can you summarize what you have found thusfar? It might be good since your thread got off track a bit.

 

[lisah]

I just remembered something as I was thinking on this topic.

When I was in my 20's I began to be revolted by much of what Christian's pushed. So much so that the very name of Jesus Christ would cause me to feel as though I would vomit, as I would get knot's in my stomach. It has taken me over a decade to get past that, once that I decided it was not good.

Is that hatred?

 

[Beanieboy]

If it is a slippery slope argument then it is always a logical fallacy as slippery slope is defined as a logical fallacy. As I pointed out the conclusion can sometimes be true, but the argument is still fallacious.

However I don't want to derail my own thread any further.

As for your kind offer of instruction, I'll stick with the Ph.D. instructors I had for the many philosophy classes I have already taken thank you.

See? Does "if we allowed two men to marry, we would have to allow a brother and sister, or why not a man and a dog" feel loving?

It's not only a logical fallacy, but it is also comparing my relationship to my partner with a guy trying to marry a dog.

That's not degrading to you?????

Now, imagining me saying, "If you let No Swansong marry his wife, why not a woman and her father? It's heterosexual! Why not a man and a pig?"

How does that feel to you? Like I love you as my neighbor just as I love myself? Or that I am degrading you, and your relationship, and insulting you not only with illogic, but comparing the love you feel for your wife with incest and beastiality?

 

[Beanieboy]

No. It not. And when is, is informal fallacy. It only fallacy when assumptions in chain not valid. You learn this is Philosophy Intro, class I teach before.

Interesting. And since I live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, where it is perfectly legal for two men to marry, and no men are trying to marry animals, nor has there been a huge influx of people wanting to marry incestuously, your fallacy proves you wrong.

If we allow a man and a woman to marry, we will have to allow a man and two women!!!
If we allow a man and a woman, we will have to allow a man and his sister, because it is heterosexual!!!

The slippery slope can be used for heterosexual marriages as well, so does that mean, just to be safe, we should ban all marriage?

 

[No Swansong]

So, have you found an answer to your question? From reading (some of) your posts, it seems like you might be finding something.

I have never hit full-on hatred. Awareness of those things I have done to others gets in the way. That tempers it somehow. But, it does require an acceptance of ones failings.

Can you summarize what you have found thusfar? It might be good since your thread got off track a bit.

Lisah;
I have learned from this thread, I will summarize but give me a day or so to ponder my thoughts. And thank you for sharing.

As for the post immediately under the one I am responding to; no I don't think you experienced hatred I am somehow reminded of Pavlov's dogs. (no I am not calling you a dog LOL)

I do know that when I was a young man I was acquainted with a very arrogant Atheist in my area, he was and is still very involved in the group started by O'haire. Because of the circumstances of my youth I was exposed to this man on a fairly regular basis. At that time in my life I had no faith to speak of really. I made fun of Fundamentalists and the Catholic Church and am not sure if I had ever even been in a Church but this man made me want to become physically violent towards him. I have met very few people as arrogant as he and I just wanted to beat that arrogance out of him. (that may have been hatred) What I discovered many years later was that when I was in the presence of other Atheists I had that same desire to be violent towards them. This of course was unjust as more than a few of these folks were very nice people and did not deserve my immediate disdain. Fortunately I was able to control my impulses and didn't actually become violent with them but I was still rude, dismissive and completely uncharitable.

Thanks for taking part in this thread.

 

[Beanieboy]

I just remembered something as I was thinking on this topic.

When I was in my 20's I began to be revolted by much of what Christian's pushed. So much so that the very name of Jesus Christ would cause me to feel as though I would vomit, as I would get knot's in my stomach. It has taken me over a decade to get past that, once that I decided it was not good.

Is that hatred?

Yes, that is hatred.

When someone can so pervert what Christ taught that someone hearing the name of Jesus Christ wants to make them vomit or get knots in their stomach, the devil has done his job for the inside.

I went through the same thing.

How do you think I felt coming out in the 80s and hearing some Christians making AIDS jokes, or saying that it was God's punishment, or having learned "I was sick and you cared for me" but hearing, "they get what they deserve, and I don't feel sorry for them," or listening to a kid when I worked a Crisis line that said that he was going to kill himself because his priest told him it would be better to be dead than gay?

That's hatred in its basest form.

 

[No Swansong]

See? Does "if we allowed two men to marry, we would have to allow a brother and sister, or why not a man and a dog" feel loving?

It's not only a logical fallacy, but it is also comparing my relationship to my partner with a guy trying to marry a dog.

That's not degrading to you?????

Now, imagining me saying, "If you let No Swansong marry his wife, why not a woman and her father? It's heterosexual! Why not a man and a pig?"

How does that feel to you? Like I love you as my neighbor just as I love myself? Or that I am degrading you, and your relationship, and insulting you not only with illogic, but comparing the love you feel for your wife with incest and beastiality?

It's definitely degrading to compare your relationship to bestiality and incest I agree. Definitely an uncharitable comparison.

 

[Beanieboy]

Yeah, it kind of is.

Ever play Rock, Paper, Scissors, where, if you lose, the other player hits your wrist with two fingers?
At first, it doesn't really hurt much at all, just a little sting. After 5 minutes or so, the pain, because it's repeated, gets more intense. After 10 or 15 minutes, you feel like someone is hitting your wrist with a baseball bat.

It's like that.

 

[Beanieboy]

No you misunderstand. Not say must lead to men-animal, sister-brother. Say may, say likely eventually. Not enough time pass. Say same logic be used by people who want men-animal, but not many such people so take much time. But think will happen. Maybe wont lead to man-animal marriage, because court say no. BUt argument will be made.

By the same logic, allowing one man and one woman means that people will argue that a brother and sister, by that definition, should be allowed to marry, so to be on the safe side, let's make all marriage illegal.

See how silly that sounds?

(like a bat on my wrist. Whaaaaaaaack!) I have to go walk my partner now...

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I just remembered something as I was thinking on this topic.

When I was in my 20's I began to be revolted by much of what Christian's pushed. So much so that the very name of Jesus Christ would cause me to feel as though I would vomit, as I would get knot's in my stomach. It has taken me over a decade to get past that, once that I decided it was not good.

Is that hatred?

If it is, well, that's exactly the way I came to see humanism in all its disguises and forms.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Go see Milk. See the "love" that Anita speaks of. See how people tried to fire not only gay teachers, but anyone who supported the gay teachers, and how it was all about what was "right." And see how Dan White, the moral guy, the upstanding Christian, kills two people in cold blood, and tell me that something is not wrong with what is going on, and what passes as good, righteous, or holy, or passes for "what God wants."

Looks like the media proproganda is doing its job quite well..