Political Crossfire Forums

[JDnCoke]

The Economist wrote: Whipping up a frenzy
Berliners are used to controversy from Klaus Wowereit, the city's flashy and openly gay mayor. But he caused quite a stir when he zealously welcomed a sado-masochism festival in early September, which drew thousands of leather- and chain-clad revellers. Mayor Wowi not only gave a nod to the Folsom-Europe festival (inspired by the more famous San Francisco fest), he even penned the programme’s official greeting.

Conservative members of the city's parliament expressed outrage. The mayor shot back that his critics were “narrow-minded”, explaining that Berlin must, above all, be tolerant. Berliners appear to agree; the event attracted 10,000 people, although the mayor himself did not attend.

Debating whether homosexuality should be "allowed" goes on in the US, and yet prominent political figures on the other side of the pond are welcoming bondage parties. :lol:

Sign of the times Bible-bashers, catch up or be left behind.

[F'losrix]

JDnCoke wrote: The Economist wrote: Whipping up a frenzy
Berliners are used to controversy from Klaus Wowereit, the city's flashy and openly gay mayor. But he caused quite a stir when he zealously welcomed a sado-masochism festival in early September, which drew thousands of leather- and chain-clad revellers. Mayor Wowi not only gave a nod to the Folsom-Europe festival (inspired by the more famous San Francisco fest), he even penned the programme’s official greeting.

Conservative members of the city's parliament expressed outrage. The mayor shot back that his critics were “narrow-minded”, explaining that Berlin must, above all, be tolerant. Berliners appear to agree; the event attracted 10,000 people, although the mayor himself did not attend.

Debating whether homosexuality should be "allowed" goes on in the US, and yet prominent political figures on the other side of the pond are welcoming bondage parties. :lol:

Sign of the times Bible-bashers, catch up or be left behind.
I'm sure the response will be that this is exactly the kind of thing they're trying to prevent happening here.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: JDnCoke wrote: The Economist wrote: Whipping up a frenzy
Berliners are used to controversy from Klaus Wowereit, the city's flashy and openly gay mayor. But he caused quite a stir when he zealously welcomed a sado-masochism festival in early September, which drew thousands of leather- and chain-clad revellers. Mayor Wowi not only gave a nod to the Folsom-Europe festival (inspired by the more famous San Francisco fest), he even penned the programme’s official greeting.

Conservative members of the city's parliament expressed outrage. The mayor shot back that his critics were “narrow-minded”, explaining that Berlin must, above all, be tolerant. Berliners appear to agree; the event attracted 10,000 people, although the mayor himself did not attend.

Debating whether homosexuality should be "allowed" goes on in the US, and yet prominent political figures on the other side of the pond are welcoming bondage parties. :lol:

Sign of the times Bible-bashers, catch up or be left behind.
I'm sure the response will be that this is exactly the kind of thing they're trying to prevent happening here.

Of course that is their response. In my own opinion those people are sick perverts that engage in "bondage parties." But the Museum of Tolerance tells us we must accept everything no matter how perverse it is!!! :roll:

Do it on your own time. Don't bring a sado-masochism festival into the public square. Not only is it reminecent of DarkAge Europe, there are children who also goto the public square and they don't needto be shown that. You may think your kid should; well show him yourself. Very disturbing.

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: JDnCoke wrote: The Economist wrote: Whipping up a frenzy
Berliners are used to controversy from Klaus Wowereit, the city's flashy and openly gay mayor. But he caused quite a stir when he zealously welcomed a sado-masochism festival in early September, which drew thousands of leather- and chain-clad revellers. Mayor Wowi not only gave a nod to the Folsom-Europe festival (inspired by the more famous San Francisco fest), he even penned the programme’s official greeting.

Conservative members of the city's parliament expressed outrage. The mayor shot back that his critics were “narrow-minded”, explaining that Berlin must, above all, be tolerant. Berliners appear to agree; the event attracted 10,000 people, although the mayor himself did not attend.

Debating whether homosexuality should be "allowed" goes on in the US, and yet prominent political figures on the other side of the pond are welcoming bondage parties. :lol:

Sign of the times Bible-bashers, catch up or be left behind.
I'm sure the response will be that this is exactly the kind of thing they're trying to prevent happening here.

Of course that is their response. In my own opinion those people are sick perverts that engage in "bondage parties." But the Museum of Tolerance tells us we must accept everything no matter how perverse it is!!! :roll:

Do it on your own time. Don't bring a sado-masochism festival into the public square. Not only is it reminecent of DarkAge Europe, there are children who also goto the public square and they don't needto be shown that. You may think your kid should; well show him yourself. Very disturbing.

I agree. There is a difference between acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality, and an open display of private sexual behavior.

Being gay is just that, a state of being. Whipping someone with a riding crop while dragging them around wearing leather chaps and a dog collar is a sexual fetish, and not something that needs to be broadcast in public.

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: JDnCoke wrote: The Economist wrote: Whipping up a frenzy
Berliners are used to controversy from Klaus Wowereit, the city's flashy and openly gay mayor. But he caused quite a stir when he zealously welcomed a sado-masochism festival in early September, which drew thousands of leather- and chain-clad revellers. Mayor Wowi not only gave a nod to the Folsom-Europe festival (inspired by the more famous San Francisco fest), he even penned the programme’s official greeting.

Conservative members of the city's parliament expressed outrage. The mayor shot back that his critics were “narrow-minded”, explaining that Berlin must, above all, be tolerant. Berliners appear to agree; the event attracted 10,000 people, although the mayor himself did not attend.

Debating whether homosexuality should be "allowed" goes on in the US, and yet prominent political figures on the other side of the pond are welcoming bondage parties. :lol:

Sign of the times Bible-bashers, catch up or be left behind.
I'm sure the response will be that this is exactly the kind of thing they're trying to prevent happening here.

Of course that is their response. In my own opinion those people are sick perverts that engage in "bondage parties." But the Museum of Tolerance tells us we must accept everything no matter how perverse it is!!! :roll:

Do it on your own time. Don't bring a sado-masochism festival into the public square. Not only is it reminecent of DarkAge Europe, there are children who also goto the public square and they don't needto be shown that. You may think your kid should; well show him yourself. Very disturbing.

I agree. There is a difference between acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality, and an open display of private sexual behavior.

Being gay is just that, a state of being. Whipping someone with a riding crop while dragging them around wearing leather chaps and a dog collar is a sexual fetish, and not something that needs to be broadcast in public.

Agreed. There are bondage-loving heterosexuals as well. I don't want to see that in public either.

[Soldier of Humanity]

what is sado-masochism?

[Centrist]

Soldier of Humanity wrote: what is sado-masochism?

Read Justine by the Marquis de Sade.

I'm of two minds about the party in Berlin. On the one hand it doesn't particularly offend me. I have no particular interest in it, but provided I'm given ample warning of it happening, I don't really have a problem with it happening. On the other hand, I get a bit squeemish when I see two people, regardless of relative genders, making out on the sidewalk.

However, for all we know the event took place, or will take place, in Berlin's red light district, the same way that parties go on in South Beach. I sincerely doubt that there will be leather and bondage-clad partygoers wandering around the suburbs.

[John Galt]

Soldier of Humanity wrote: what is sado-masochism?

Turn off safe -search on Google images if you REALLY want to know. It's whips and chains and bondage and things of that nature used for sexual gratification.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: JDnCoke wrote: The Economist wrote: Whipping up a frenzy
Berliners are used to controversy from Klaus Wowereit, the city's flashy and openly gay mayor. But he caused quite a stir when he zealously welcomed a sado-masochism festival in early September, which drew thousands of leather- and chain-clad revellers. Mayor Wowi not only gave a nod to the Folsom-Europe festival (inspired by the more famous San Francisco fest), he even penned the programme’s official greeting.

Conservative members of the city's parliament expressed outrage. The mayor shot back that his critics were “narrow-minded”, explaining that Berlin must, above all, be tolerant. Berliners appear to agree; the event attracted 10,000 people, although the mayor himself did not attend.

Debating whether homosexuality should be "allowed" goes on in the US, and yet prominent political figures on the other side of the pond are welcoming bondage parties. :lol:

Sign of the times Bible-bashers, catch up or be left behind.
I'm sure the response will be that this is exactly the kind of thing they're trying to prevent happening here.

Of course that is their response. In my own opinion those people are sick perverts that engage in "bondage parties." But the Museum of Tolerance tells us we must accept everything no matter how perverse it is!!! :roll:

Do it on your own time. Don't bring a sado-masochism festival into the public square. Not only is it reminecent of DarkAge Europe, there are children who also goto the public square and they don't needto be shown that. You may think your kid should; well show him yourself. Very disturbing.
To clarify: The argument here is over matters related to freedom of expression - and I would assert that no liberty can be utterly free of some limitation without negatively impacting other rights at some point. In examining this, we get into the the question of what represents a reasonable, rational limitation upon the liberties of people in general and gay people in specific. I don't think the original poster's purpose was to advocate for public displays of sado-masochistic behavior (though I could be mistaken). It certainly isn't something I would advocate, either. But does fear of that specific behavior justify shutting down the freedom of gay people to give the difference in their sexuality any expression at all or to infringe on any of their other rights?

I believe the point was to illustrate just how 'backward' American society is in its attitudes toward homosexuality, contrasted with what appears to be an extreme exercise of liberty in Europe. It would be a mistake to think this behavior was acceptable or commonplace there - the article points out that there was opposition.

The problem is the slippery slope argument that attempts to say such displays will be commonplace in America if we give any credence to the concerns and complaints of the gay minority here. America is not Europe and the application of a slippery slope argument to this debate is fallacious.

[JDnCoke]

Talk about taking words out of one's mouth, I was going to give myself 10 minutes to answer this one...

S'pose a tea-break is in order.

[StrangerWitCandy]

i'm gay and i'm totally not into the s&m thing. i really don't think that homosexuality and s&m should somehow be exclusively linked either, and this kind of gives that impression. you can be gay and know what common decency and morals are, and if you choose to practice s&m in PRIVATE then so be it. but why have a friggin festival in the public square? totally unneccesary imo and it makes gays look bad when they are somehow being linked to it

[Enoch]

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
The problem is the slippery slope argument that attempts to say such displays will be commonplace in America if we give any credence to the concerns and complaints of the gay minority here. America is not Europe and the application of a slippery slope argument to this debate is fallacious.

The slippery slope argument is fallacious in nearly all instances anyway, regardless of the context of the argument. It leads the audience to believe that the possible outcomes are so horrible that the first step should not be taken, without providing any evidence to even link decision 1 to outcome 2, let alone outcome 3, 4, 5, etc. If one truly wishes to use the slippery slope argument in any sort of debate, there needs to be hard and fast evidence to support their claims that the outcomes they foresee will truly happen, or have happened elsewhere. Otherwise, it is little more than rhetoric and pandering.

StrangerWitCandy wrote: i'm gay and i'm totally not into the s&m thing. i really don't think that homosexuality and s&m should somehow be exclusively linked either, and this kind of gives that impression. you can be gay and know what common decency and morals are, and if you choose to practice s&m in PRIVATE then so be it. but why have a friggin festival in the public square? totally unneccesary imo and it makes gays look bad when they are somehow being linked to it

I agree wholeheartedly with you. S&M is a sexual practice, for gay and straight couples alike, that is best left to the privacy of your own home. Also, the people who use one gay S&M festival to draw a conclusion about the rest of the gay community are just not using the common sense that I am sure they profess to have.

It is no different than saying Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson speak for all Christians. That isn't the case there, and it certainly isn't the case with the S&M crowd.

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote:
The problem is the slippery slope argument that attempts to say such displays will be commonplace in America if we give any credence to the concerns and complaints of the gay minority here. America is not Europe and the application of a slippery slope argument to this debate is fallacious.

The slippery slope argument is fallacious in nearly all instances anyway, regardless of the context of the argument. It leads the audience to believe that the possible outcomes are so horrible that the first step should not be taken, without providing any evidence to even link decision 1 to outcome 2, let alone outcome 3, 4, 5, etc. If one truly wishes to use the slippery slope argument in any sort of debate, there needs to be hard and fast evidence to support their claims that the outcomes they foresee will truly happen, or have happened elsewhere. Otherwise, it is little more than rhetoric and pandering.

Not really. Consider what social conservatives claimed would have happened with the relation of divorce laws and whatnot. The destruction of the family.

To a very large extent they were correct.

As for gay marriage there is no doubt in my mind that if the Supreme Court mandates it upon the masses, polygamy and incest will be legal and a constitutional right or some nonsense. Read Scalia's perhaps most... hmm... shall I say 'biting' dissent in Romer. I agree with Justice Scalia's use of the slippery slope there as well reasoned. Slippery slope arguments in relation to the Platonic Gaurdian's edicts from the Court of the High Templar Lawyers are nearly always relevant.

But if legislatures do it, then the slippery slope argument is moot. I applaud California's legislature and have repeatedly said Arnold was wrong to veto it -- especially since he claimed it was an issue for the Courts. It is an issue for the people (aka, the legislature).

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote:
The problem is the slippery slope argument that attempts to say such displays will be commonplace in America if we give any credence to the concerns and complaints of the gay minority here. America is not Europe and the application of a slippery slope argument to this debate is fallacious.

The slippery slope argument is fallacious in nearly all instances anyway, regardless of the context of the argument. It leads the audience to believe that the possible outcomes are so horrible that the first step should not be taken, without providing any evidence to even link decision 1 to outcome 2, let alone outcome 3, 4, 5, etc. If one truly wishes to use the slippery slope argument in any sort of debate, there needs to be hard and fast evidence to support their claims that the outcomes they foresee will truly happen, or have happened elsewhere. Otherwise, it is little more than rhetoric and pandering.

Not really. Consider what social conservatives claimed would have happened with the relation of divorce laws and whatnot. The destruction of the family.

To a very large extent they were correct.

As for gay marriage there is no doubt in my mind that if the Supreme Court mandates it upon the masses, polygamy and incest will be legal and a constitutional right or some nonsense. Read Scalia's perhaps most... hmm... shall I say 'biting' dissent in Romer. I agree with Justice Scalia's use of the slippery slope there as well reasoned. Slippery slope arguments in relation to the Platonic Gaurdian's edicts from the Court of the High Templar Lawyers are nearly always relevant.

But if legislatures do it, then the slippery slope argument is moot. I applaud California's legislature and have repeatedly said Arnold was wrong to veto it -- especially since he claimed it was an issue for the Courts. It is an issue for the people (aka, the legislature).

However, using a (shaky) connection between a former slippery slope argument and a current one is, again, an argumentative fallacy. The slippery slope argument against gay marriage is just that; against gay marriage. It is irrelevant to bring up other arguments, as this is an entirely different scenario.

Rhetoric can be used in positive and negative ways, based upon the actions and desires of the rhetor. In this case, the very term "slippery slope" has become a rhetorical tool of fear. People hear that term and become afraid that it is true due to faulty logic, emotional appeals, lack of legitimate evidence, and a play on people's most emotional of connections; to the family.

However, no slippery slope argument concerning gay marriage has shown a logical, and evidential, connection between the legalization of gay marriage and polygamy, or bestiality. (I still laugh when people argue that allowing two men to marry will down-slide society to the point of people screwing penguins in front of JC Penny's. Not saying you are doing that, but some do argue that point under the same 'slippery slope' concept.)

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote:
The problem is the slippery slope argument that attempts to say such displays will be commonplace in America if we give any credence to the concerns and complaints of the gay minority here. America is not Europe and the application of a slippery slope argument to this debate is fallacious.

The slippery slope argument is fallacious in nearly all instances anyway, regardless of the context of the argument. It leads the audience to believe that the possible outcomes are so horrible that the first step should not be taken, without providing any evidence to even link decision 1 to outcome 2, let alone outcome 3, 4, 5, etc. If one truly wishes to use the slippery slope argument in any sort of debate, there needs to be hard and fast evidence to support their claims that the outcomes they foresee will truly happen, or have happened elsewhere. Otherwise, it is little more than rhetoric and pandering.

Not really. Consider what social conservatives claimed would have happened with the relation of divorce laws and whatnot. The destruction of the family.

To a very large extent they were correct.

As for gay marriage there is no doubt in my mind that if the Supreme Court mandates it upon the masses, polygamy and incest will be legal and a constitutional right or some nonsense. Read Scalia's perhaps most... hmm... shall I say 'biting' dissent in Romer. I agree with Justice Scalia's use of the slippery slope there as well reasoned. Slippery slope arguments in relation to the Platonic Gaurdian's edicts from the Court of the High Templar Lawyers are nearly always relevant.

But if legislatures do it, then the slippery slope argument is moot. I applaud California's legislature and have repeatedly said Arnold was wrong to veto it -- especially since he claimed it was an issue for the Courts. It is an issue for the people (aka, the legislature).

However, using a (shaky) connection between a former slippery slope argument and a current one is, again, an argumentative fallacy. The slippery slope argument against gay marriage is just that; against gay marriage. It is irrelevant to bring up other arguments, as this is an entirely different scenario.

Rhetoric can be used in positive and negative ways, based upon the actions and desires of the rhetor. In this case, the very term "slippery slope" has become a rhetorical tool of fear. People hear that term and become afraid that it is true due to faulty logic, emotional appeals, lack of legitimate evidence, and a play on people's most emotional of connections; to the family.

However, no slippery slope argument concerning gay marriage has shown a logical, and evidential, connection between the legalization of gay marriage and polygamy, or bestiality. (I still laugh when people argue that allowing two men to marry will down-slide society to the point of people screwing penguins in front of JC Penny's. Not saying you are doing that, but some do argue that point under the same 'slippery slope' concept.)

Have you read Scalia's dissent in Romer v. Evans? Tell me why his conclusions about polygamy are illogical.

P.S. The reason I used the supposed "argumentative fallacy" of talking about another slippery slope argument that did indeed come to pass was I was highlighting why you are incorrect that a slippery slope argument "is fallacious in nearly all instances anyway, regardless of the context of the argument." Ergo, my "argumentive fallacy" was not one at all. I was presenting evidence which you dismissed as a "fallacy" when it wasn't one.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: Of course that is their response. In my own opinion those people are sick perverts that engage in "bondage parties." But the Museum of Tolerance tells us we must accept everything no matter how perverse it is!!! :roll:

Do it on your own time. Don't bring a sado-masochism festival into the public square. Not only is it reminecent of DarkAge Europe, there are children who also goto the public square and they don't needto be shown that. You may think your kid should; well show him yourself. Very disturbing.

I just hate it when people smoke on the streets! Will you support banning smoking anywhere in the public?

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: Have you read Scalia's dissent in Romer v. Evans? Tell me why his conclusions about polygamy are illogical.

P.S. The reason I used the supposed "argumentative fallacy" of talking about another slippery slope argument that did indeed come to pass was I was highlighting why you are incorrect that a slippery slope argument "is fallacious in nearly all instances anyway, regardless of the context of the argument." Ergo, my "argumentive fallacy" was not one at all. I was presenting evidence which you dismissed as a "fallacy" when it wasn't one.

You misunderstand me at several points.

First, I did not state that every slippery slope argument is fallacious. If, in fact, you consider the conservatives correct in their argument concerning divorce laws, then you will have, indeed, provided an exception to argumentative fallacy. Although, one might also note that issues such as "a family unit" are abstract concepts that can not be readily defined and agreed upon by the society at large, as what constitutes family has a wide array of meanings, which vary from culture to culture, subculture to subculture, and person to person.

Second, I stated "no slippery slope argument concerning gay marriage has shown a logical, and evidential, connection between the legalization of gay marriage and polygamy, or bestiality." Evidential is the key here.

I am not saying that polygamy will not become a legal issue if gay marriage is enacted, I am saying it is illogical to assume that it will become one. There is a difference between possibility and probability. Slippery slope arguments rely on passing possibility off as probability. If you refer to my first post, I stated: "If one truly wishes to use the slippery slope argument in any sort of debate, there needs to be hard and fast evidence to support their claims that the outcomes they foresee will truly happen, or have happened elsewhere. Otherwise, it is little more than rhetoric and pandering."

And, at the risk of sounding disrespectful to the honorable Justice Scalia, it appears that his argument (while constitutionally sound) is also rhetoric which is guilty of assuming probability over possibility. He has not shown, and with all due respect neither have you, that there is a definitive link between allowing legal protections for homosexual couples, and a repealing of state anti-polygamy laws.

The most interesting thing, in actuality, about the link you provided, and indeed both the decision of the court and the dissent written by Justice Scalia, is one line in particular:

Justice Scalia wrote: I would not myself indulge in such official praise for heterosexual monogamy, because I think it no business of the courts (as opposed to the political branches) to take sides in this culture war.

However, it appears he could not heed his own advice, as he continues to decry homosexuals as wishing for "special rights," and that the courts must oppose it, throughout his dissent.

Regardless of the personal opinions of Justice Scalia, or yourself, my point remains simple. The slippery slope argument lacks any evidential, concrete, proof that the effects of homosexual rights will extend themselves beyond the scope in which they are intended.

[John Galt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: Of course that is their response. In my own opinion those people are sick perverts that engage in "bondage parties." But the Museum of Tolerance tells us we must accept everything no matter how perverse it is!!! :roll:

Do it on your own time. Don't bring a sado-masochism festival into the public square. Not only is it reminecent of DarkAge Europe, there are children who also goto the public square and they don't needto be shown that. You may think your kid should; well show him yourself. Very disturbing.

I just hate it when people smoke on the streets! Will you support banning smoking anywhere in the public?

As I have mentioned several times before I support a state's right to enter into these things even if I don't support the policy persay. There you mention a policy I would not support. But it's a legitament action by a state government if the people wish for it. I do however support banning S&M festivals from the public square as I plan on having children one day.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: Of course that is their response. In my own opinion those people are sick perverts that engage in "bondage parties." But the Museum of Tolerance tells us we must accept everything no matter how perverse it is!!! :roll:

Do it on your own time. Don't bring a sado-masochism festival into the public square. Not only is it reminecent of DarkAge Europe, there are children who also goto the public square and they don't needto be shown that. You may think your kid should; well show him yourself. Very disturbing.

I just hate it when people smoke on the streets! Will you support banning smoking anywhere in the public?

As I have mentioned several times before I support a state's right to enter into these things even if I don't support the policy persay. There you mention a policy I would not support. But it's a legitament action by a state government if the people wish for it. I do however support banning S&M festivals from the public square as I plan on having children one day.

Smoking is far more dangerous than getting to see something like some kind of S&M festival. :wink:

[John Galt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: Of course that is their response. In my own opinion those people are sick perverts that engage in "bondage parties." But the Museum of Tolerance tells us we must accept everything no matter how perverse it is!!! :roll:

Do it on your own time. Don't bring a sado-masochism festival into the public square. Not only is it reminecent of DarkAge Europe, there are children who also goto the public square and they don't needto be shown that. You may think your kid should; well show him yourself. Very disturbing.

I just hate it when people smoke on the streets! Will you support banning smoking anywhere in the public?

As I have mentioned several times before I support a state's right to enter into these things even if I don't support the policy persay. There you mention a policy I would not support. But it's a legitament action by a state government if the people wish for it. I do however support banning S&M festivals from the public square as I plan on having children one day.

Smoking is far more dangerous than getting to see something like some kind of S&M festival. :wink:

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it and can use that to influence others to make polcies you approve of.