Slippery slope getting steeper
-
jblew - you are going around in circles, then claiming you are the only one
talking in a straight line. Sorry, blew all you want, but you are wrong.
Using snopes is stupid, biased, and very hypocritical when you libs demand
"scientific" sources for everything.
Except YOU are the only ones who get to determine which scientific sources are okay.
So, snopes is you fall back cya move - you should be embarrassed. But liberals never are.
Not self-aware enough.
I will say this, taking neither side and indicating right nor wrong... J forms and outlines a much stronger argument than you have.
The links you posted weren't very supportive and for the most part very catch-phrase-y.
Honestly this forum could be taken half way serious if the threads were condense and the information on both sides presented in a much more intelligent and less flaming way.
-
So what do we have with this story?
- Man is charged with bestiality stemming from oral sex, but no penetration.
- His camp argues he shouldn't be charged, because that's not how the law is written
- The court agrees based on their interpretation of the law. He isn't charged.
- Canada's legislature immediately sees the fault in how the law is written, and is now working to correct it to include oral sex
Soooo.... where is the slipper slope argument? Where are Canadian liberals ruining society? Are any of the claims attempting to be made in the OP of this thread still valid?
-
So what do we have with this story?
- Man is charged with bestiality stemming from oral sex, but no penetration.
- His camp argues he shouldn't be charged, because that's not how the law is written
- The court agrees based on their interpretation of the law. He isn't charged.
- Canada's legislature immediately sees the fault in how the law is written, and is now working to correct it to include oral sex
Soooo.... where is the slipper slope argument? Where are Canadian liberals ruining society? Are any of the claims attempting to be made in the OP of this thread still valid?
So what do we have with this story?
- Man is charged with bestiality stemming from oral sex, but no penetration.
- His camp argues he shouldn't be charged, because that's not how the law is written
- The court agrees based on their interpretation of the law. He isn't charged.
- Canada's legislature immediately sees the fault in how the law is written, and is now working to correct it to include oral sex
Soooo.... where is the slipper slope argument? Where are Canadian liberals ruining society? Are any of the claims attempting to be made in the OP of this thread still valid?
I guess we will need to see where they go from here right? Did you have a problem with blowing your goat?
WSS
-
It is a little bit ironic isn't it? You can kill your cow and eat her but you can't stand on a soapbox and fuck her.
WSS
That order is probably reversed in India...
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.โ - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Or with you and your sheep, right freak?
Sometimes a sheep needs to be pushed through the fence. What's the big deal?
-
Or with you and your sheep, right freak?
Keep up the good work, DH. You'll get one of these eventually:
-
http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2195441/posts
I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! I have suspected some problems with Snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.
Truth or Fiction, is a better source for verification, in my opinion.
TruthOrFiction.com-Is that forwarded email Truth or Fiction? Research into stories, scams, hoaxes, myths, and urban legends on the InternetI have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com, ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I donโt even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.
http://www.curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=1284141
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/bibleandculture/2009/12/the-problem-with-snopes.html
http://blog.doodooecon.com/2012/04/fact-checkers-at-snopes-cover-up-scytl.html
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2010/08/12/snopes-com-leans-left/
-
-
So if the Canadian legislator actually decides to ban all forms of beastiality are they now going to have to list every single form? It seems as though the Canadian Supreme Court wants a list. For their next orgy perhaps? The slippery slope is obviously getting steeper because it is redefining what actual sexual acts are and what perversion is.
-
So if the Canadian legislator actually decides to ban all forms of beastiality are they now going to have to list every single form? It seems as though the Canadian Supreme Court wants a list. For their next orgy perhaps? The slippery slope is obviously getting steeper because it is redefining what actual sexual acts are and what perversion is.
So if the Canadian legislator actually decides to ban all forms of beastiality are they now going to have to list every single form? It seems as though the Canadian Supreme Court wants a list. For their next orgy perhaps? The slippery slope is obviously getting steeper because it is redefining what actual sexual acts are and what perversion is.
We live in such an overly litigious society that you would have to list off a Tijuana donkey show menu in the new law because sick turds with lawyers would try to find the one thing left off the list.
-
The claims that were attempted to be made in the OP are false. This isn't some drastic move down the slippery slope where oral sex with animals is ok now. It was a loophole in a Canadian law that they are in the process fixing. This provides no ammo to the ridiculous "slippery slope" types.
Cal might have realized this, so he is just going on and on about Snopes now, hoping everyone forgets the beginning of this thread.
PE is still fighting that losing fight though.
-
Jesus christ enough about these canadian goat fuckers. We've always known this about them now moving on
?
-
Like a said before the slippery slope is the fact that they have to define specific sexual acts with animals. Labeling want sex is not a sexual act defined by a law is a slippery slope.
-
Like a said before the slippery slope is the fact that they have to define specific sexual acts with animals. Labeling want sex is not a sexual act defined by a law is a slippery slope.
Like a said before the slippery slope is the fact that they have to define specific sexual acts with animals. Labeling want sex is not a sexual act defined by a law is a slippery slope.
No its not. It is some weirdo's lawyer doing their job and identifying holes in how the law is written (which is now going to be immediately changed) to get their client a lighter sentence.
The shitty slippery slope argument is still a shitty argument and a logical fallacy that would never stand up in an actual debate.
-
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1T9JN_bad-woodpecker-bad
woodpecker syndrome...sound familiar?
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2014/01/26/how-not-to-talk-to-or-argue-with-your-spouse/
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better ๐
Register Login