Vox Day: And here I thought the slippery slope didn't exist
"Liberals" -- and libertarians -- are as capable of seeing a 'slippery slope' as any normal human being is. Further, they (both species) constantly make 'slippery slope' arguments when it serves the purpose of advancing their (insane) causes. It's only when recognition of a potential 'slippery slope' might cause "the masses" to pull back from reordering society to suit them that they (again, both sorts) start asserting that all 'slippery slope' arguments are, ipso facto, invalid or even asserting that there are no 'slippery slopes' in the first place.
Myself, while I grew up in a "conservative" church which strongly taught against female ordination -- while still giving women who wanted it far more *actual* responsibility than the "liberal" denominations did at the time -- I'm not fully persuaded by the arguments I've encountered either for or against female ordination. At the same time, as a practical matter, I've long noticed that *any* human organization, including churches, which becomes feminized always pushes the heterosexual men away; at first informally and unintentionally, then intentionally and with a vengence.
edit:
To put it another way -- and to really offend the sob-sisters amongst us -- any society which is dominated by the sort of thought processes and "logic" to which women seem naturally to gravitate, unless those (seemingly) natural tendencies are countermanded by "male" insistence upon actual logic, is not a society that any sane person, man or woman, wants to be a part of. Think of the problem this way: what sane person wants to be a member of a lesbian "marriage."
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I like this explanation of the two forms. (Process and verbal.)
Thanks for the link. However:
"It does not follow from the fact that there is no sharp, non-arbitrary line between "bald" and "hairy" that there really is no difference between the two. A difference in degree is still a difference, and a big enough difference in degree can amount to a difference in kind. For instance, according to the theory of evolution, the difference between species is a difference in degree."
How to put this mildly? The guy isn't thinking clearly (it's probably those DarwinGoggles he's wearing).
A difference in degree, no matter how great, is never a difference in kind (even if the Darwinists need it to be). 'Bald' and 'hairy' do not denote a difference in kind, but merely of degree, no matter that people tend (incorrectly) to think of the terms as denoting a difference of kind.
Heh, he didn't say it was true, just pointed out that it's what the theory holds.
'Bald' and 'hairy' do not denote a difference in kind, but merely of degree, no matter that people tend (incorrectly) to think of the terms as denoting a difference of kind.
You either have hair or you don't; that's phrasing it as a difference of kind. Probably why he chose to say amounts to, rather than is.
For that matter, you're either dead or you're alive, but it's surprisingly hard to draw a distinct line for the change.
'Bald' doesn't normally denote "has no hair, whatsoever." And 'hairy' doesn't normally denote this condition.
Who said anything about anything but their scalp? And "bald" does mean "has no hair on their head" when I use it-- otherwise I say "mostly bald."
That's why it's under the Semantics version.
Post a Comment