Bill Maher Calls Out Rush Limbaugh Boycotters

[AUDub 11,148]

LIMBAUGH: There is an effort underway to normalize pedophilia... I want to take you back. I want you to remember the first time, wherever you were, that you heard about gay marriage, and I want you to try to recall your reaction -- your first gut reaction -- when you heard that some activists or somebody was trying to promote the notion of gay marriage. What was your initial reaction? "Aw, come on. It'll never happen. That's silly. What are you talking about?" There is a movement on to normalize pedophilia, and I guarantee you your reaction to that is probably much the same as your reaction when you first heard about gay marriage. What has happened to gay marriage? It's become normal -- and in fact, with certain people in certain demographics it's the most important issue in terms of who they vote for. So don't pooh-pooh. There's a movement to normalize pedophilia. Don't pooh-pooh it. The people behind it are serious, and you know the left as well as I do. They glom onto something and they don't let go.

[...]

Now, there were people -- I just want to remind you -- back during the early days of the effort to redefine what a family is, and in the early days of the gay marriage activists, there were people who said, "Well, if this becomes mainstream, then someday marrying your dog is gonna be okay, and then having two husbands and two wives in one family is gonna be okay, 'cause who can say it isn't?" There were others who predicted that pedophilia would be mainstream, and there was an outcry of opposition to this.

And he was proven, once again, to be right. At least, things are certainly moving that way.

" then someday marrying your dog is gonna be ok.

( or cats )

Barbarella Buchner Is Happily Married To Her Two Cats, Celebrates 10-Year Anniversary

http://www.inquisitr...RgBVQW9UCSLf.99

But Rush's point is, just as many blacks objected to gay marriage as being the new 'civil rights ' struggle, it won't be too long ( 5, 10, 20 years ? ) before the age of consent for marrying starts to be targeted by certain groups.

New Jersey already allows incest marriages, of consenting adults ie Father / Daughter.

Normalizing Pedophilia

We had a good discussion on this "normalization" a little ways back. Might give you some insight on why Rush is full of crap on this matter as well. What with his goofy slippery slope fallacy on homosexuality and pedophilia.

And, believe it or not, incestuous marriage has technically been legal in Jersey since '79. Odd little loophole. They need to fix that.

EDIT: And in case you missed it above, I hope you weren't seriously presenting that silly marriage certificate from "Marryyourpet.com" as a legal cert. If so, get help.

[WarTim 3,456]

...So, technically, RUSH never said that, in the 25 years of his current radio show. It was 40 years ago, when times were different and so was his show....

Now THAT is some silly sophistry.

"Silly"? Really? What type person even uses that word?....Ohhh.....Never mind... : - )

His name is WarTim.

Silly rabbits. barry is just the gift that keeps on giving. Destroying the dems more and more each day!!!!!!!

Big difference. You figure it out. I am done with you. But, have a nice day...

[WarTim 3,456]

LIMBAUGH: There is an effort underway to normalize pedophilia... I want to take you back. I want you to remember the first time, wherever you were, that you heard about gay marriage, and I want you to try to recall your reaction -- your first gut reaction -- when you heard that some activists or somebody was trying to promote the notion of gay marriage. What was your initial reaction? "Aw, come on. It'll never happen. That's silly. What are you talking about?" There is a movement on to normalize pedophilia, and I guarantee you your reaction to that is probably much the same as your reaction when you first heard about gay marriage. What has happened to gay marriage? It's become normal -- and in fact, with certain people in certain demographics it's the most important issue in terms of who they vote for. So don't pooh-pooh. There's a movement to normalize pedophilia. Don't pooh-pooh it. The people behind it are serious, and you know the left as well as I do. They glom onto something and they don't let go.

[...]

Now, there were people -- I just want to remind you -- back during the early days of the effort to redefine what a family is, and in the early days of the gay marriage activists, there were people who said, "Well, if this becomes mainstream, then someday marrying your dog is gonna be okay, and then having two husbands and two wives in one family is gonna be okay, 'cause who can say it isn't?" There were others who predicted that pedophilia would be mainstream, and there was an outcry of opposition to this.

And he was proven, once again, to be right. At least, things are certainly moving that way.

" then someday marrying your dog is gonna be ok.

( or cats )

Barbarella Buchner Is Happily Married To Her Two Cats, Celebrates 10-Year Anniversary

http://www.inquisitr...RgBVQW9UCSLf.99

But Rush's point is, just as many blacks objected to gay marriage as being the new 'civil rights ' struggle, it won't be too long ( 5, 10, 20 years ? ) before the age of consent for marrying starts to be targeted by certain groups.

New Jersey already allows incest marriages, of consenting adults ie Father / Daughter.

Normalizing Pedophilia

We had a good discussion on this "normalization" a little ways back. Might give you some insight on why Rush is full of crap on this matter as well. What with his goofy slippery slope fallacy on homosexuality and pedophilia.

And, believe it or not, incestuous marriage has technically been legal in Jersey since '79. Odd little loophole. They need to fix that.

EDIT: And in case you missed it above, I hope you weren't seriously presenting that silly marriage certificate from "Marryyourpet.com" as a legal cert. If so, get help. :lmao:/>

Oh, and yet another "silly". Hahaha ... I see a pattern...

[AUDub 11,148]

...So, technically, RUSH never said that, in the 25 years of his current radio show. It was 40 years ago, when times were different and so was his show....

Now THAT is some silly sophistry.

"Silly"? Really? What type person even uses that word?....Ohhh.....Never mind... : - )

His name is WarTim.

Silly rabbits. barry is just the gift that keeps on giving. Destroying the dems more and more each day!!!!!!!

Big difference. You figure it out. I am done with you. But, have a nice day...

I did it! I finally made Tim take his ball and go home!

I figured it out guys. Wait until he accuses you of something, then show him where he is also guilty of it.

[DKW 86 7,423]

LIMBAUGH: There is an effort underway to normalize pedophilia... I want to take you back. I want you to remember the first time, wherever you were, that you heard about gay marriage, and I want you to try to recall your reaction -- your first gut reaction -- when you heard that some activists or somebody was trying to promote the notion of gay marriage. What was your initial reaction? "Aw, come on. It'll never happen. That's silly. What are you talking about?" There is a movement on to normalize pedophilia, and I guarantee you your reaction to that is probably much the same as your reaction when you first heard about gay marriage. What has happened to gay marriage? It's become normal -- and in fact, with certain people in certain demographics it's the most important issue in terms of who they vote for. So don't pooh-pooh. There's a movement to normalize pedophilia. Don't pooh-pooh it. The people behind it are serious, and you know the left as well as I do. They glom onto something and they don't let go.

[...]

Now, there were people -- I just want to remind you -- back during the early days of the effort to redefine what a family is, and in the early days of the gay marriage activists, there were people who said, "Well, if this becomes mainstream, then someday marrying your dog is gonna be okay, and then having two husbands and two wives in one family is gonna be okay, 'cause who can say it isn't?" There were others who predicted that pedophilia would be mainstream, and there was an outcry of opposition to this.

And he was proven, once again, to be right. At least, things are certainly moving that way.

" then someday marrying your dog is gonna be ok.

( or cats )

Barbarella Buchner Is Happily Married To Her Two Cats, Celebrates 10-Year Anniversary

http://www.inquisitr...RgBVQW9UCSLf.99

But Rush's point is, just as many blacks objected to gay marriage as being the new 'civil rights ' struggle, it won't be too long ( 5, 10, 20 years ? ) before the age of consent for marrying starts to be targeted by certain groups.

New Jersey already allows incest marriages, of consenting adults ie Father / Daughter.

Normalizing Pedophilia

We had a good discussion on this "normalization" a little ways back. Might give you some insight on why Rush is full of crap on this matter as well. What with his goofy slippery slope fallacy on homosexuality and pedophilia.

And, believe it or not, incestuous marriage has technically been legal in Jersey since '79. Odd little loophole. They need to fix that.

EDIT: And in case you missed it above, I hope you weren't seriously presenting that silly marriage certificate from "Marryyourpet.com" as a legal cert. If so, get help.

You do know that it was 60 Minutes that years, maybe 40 years ago, predicted that NAMBLA would be mainstream someday.

[AUDub 11,148]

Oh, and yet another "silly". Hahaha ... I see a pattern...

Silly uaters will not let it go. Only a few short months ago Gus was "a HS coach with a HS offense"......Amazing how things can change in a short amount of time........like a SECond........

A pattern!

[AURaptor 1,123]

Ben - point of mainstreaming pedophelia is presented. The pet marriage is more about ideas & concepts starting out as " unofficial " , but over time , trending to legitimacy. It shows a progression, just as gay marriage was seen as ridiculous , not too long ago.

Also, incestual marriage is currently legal now, in some states.

Mock & banana dance all you want. , but Rush's basic pov is valid. Like it or not.

[WarTim 3,456]

benny still got a case of the stalking "sillys"...... :bananadance:

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Can you two take your little flirt-fest to PM?

[AUDub 11,148]

Ben - point of mainstreaming pedophelia is presented. The pet marriage is more about ideas & concepts starting out as " unofficial " , but over time , trending to legitimacy. It shows a progression, just as gay marriage was seen as ridiculous , not too long ago.

The progression is imaginary. This is the slippery slope fallacy. Comparing homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality will always be an exercise in false equivalence. Did you follow the link to the earlier thread I posted?

Also, incestual marriage is currently legal now, in some states.

I can not answer for the others, but the matter of New Jersey is explained by an oversight when they were writing the law in 1979. So, in that case, this is by no means a new phenomenon.

And it is another exercise in false equivalence. As I said in the other thread, the argument against child molestation and bestiality hinges on the concept of informed consent. Incest (assuming consenting adults) is an ethical gray area.

Mock & banana dance all you want. , but Rush's basic pov is valid. Like it or not.

It is not.

[AUDub 11,148]

LIMBAUGH: There is an effort underway to normalize pedophilia... I want to take you back. I want you to remember the first time, wherever you were, that you heard about gay marriage, and I want you to try to recall your reaction -- your first gut reaction -- when you heard that some activists or somebody was trying to promote the notion of gay marriage. What was your initial reaction? "Aw, come on. It'll never happen. That's silly. What are you talking about?" There is a movement on to normalize pedophilia, and I guarantee you your reaction to that is probably much the same as your reaction when you first heard about gay marriage. What has happened to gay marriage? It's become normal -- and in fact, with certain people in certain demographics it's the most important issue in terms of who they vote for. So don't pooh-pooh. There's a movement to normalize pedophilia. Don't pooh-pooh it. The people behind it are serious, and you know the left as well as I do. They glom onto something and they don't let go.

[...]

Now, there were people -- I just want to remind you -- back during the early days of the effort to redefine what a family is, and in the early days of the gay marriage activists, there were people who said, "Well, if this becomes mainstream, then someday marrying your dog is gonna be okay, and then having two husbands and two wives in one family is gonna be okay, 'cause who can say it isn't?" There were others who predicted that pedophilia would be mainstream, and there was an outcry of opposition to this.

And he was proven, once again, to be right. At least, things are certainly moving that way.

" then someday marrying your dog is gonna be ok.

( or cats )

Barbarella Buchner Is Happily Married To Her Two Cats, Celebrates 10-Year Anniversary

http://www.inquisitr...RgBVQW9UCSLf.99

But Rush's point is, just as many blacks objected to gay marriage as being the new 'civil rights ' struggle, it won't be too long ( 5, 10, 20 years ? ) before the age of consent for marrying starts to be targeted by certain groups.

New Jersey already allows incest marriages, of consenting adults ie Father / Daughter.

Normalizing Pedophilia

We had a good discussion on this "normalization" a little ways back. Might give you some insight on why Rush is full of crap on this matter as well. What with his goofy slippery slope fallacy on homosexuality and pedophilia.

And, believe it or not, incestuous marriage has technically been legal in Jersey since '79. Odd little loophole. They need to fix that.

EDIT: And in case you missed it above, I hope you weren't seriously presenting that silly marriage certificate from "Marryyourpet.com" as a legal cert. If so, get help.

You do know that it was 60 Minutes that years, maybe 40 years ago, predicted that NAMBLA would be mainstream someday.

And since that time, NAMBLA has practically become a non-entity.

Good call, 60 Minutes. (Do you have that clip, BTW? I'm curious to see it.)

To the extent that it still exists today, they are pariahs. Every major LGBT rights organization wants nothing to do with the,.

[AURaptor 1,123]

" it is not ."

Really ? Because you said so ?

[AUDub 11,148]

" it is not ."

Really ? Because you said so ?

For the reasons outlined in the post you quoted.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

For the record, a "slippery slope" argument can be a logical fallacy, but is not always so. Here's a good explanation of why:

Slippery Slope (also known as "camels nose")

Very popular among housewives, priests and out of work politicians, a slippery slope is not always a logical fallacy. A slippery slope is a claim which states that one thing will lead to another thing (usually far fetched) without showing a plausible connection between the action taken and the stated outcome.

Such statements usually assume the following form :-

If Event A occurs

Unrelated Event B will occur

Such statements are fallacious because no conclusive evidence is given to show a connection between the two events. If plausible reasons are given as to why A would lead to B, which would in turn lead to C and so on, then the statement is not to be considered fallacious.

Eg. of a Slippery slope :-

A

: What do you think of the government's move to ban pornography?

B

: Absolutely ludicrous! Soon they'll start burning all forms of literature. One can only image the fate of classics such as Shakespeare and Tolstoy!

When used in extremity (as in the example above), slippery slope arguments are very easy to catch and therefore, to refute. But if used cleverly, such arguments carry a lot of weight in debates.

One such case where a 'slippery slope' argument has often been implemented successfully is in the debate over the legalization of drugs.

We've often heard the following:-

"If marijuana is to be legalized, we might as well legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine."

But one could claim that the legalization of one form of drugs could (in principle, at least) open the possibility of other forms being considered for legalization.

Thus a valid form of a 'slippery slope' argument.

[AUDub 11,148]

For the record, a "slippery slope" argument can be a logical fallacy, but is not always so. Here's a good explanation of why:

Slippery Slope (also known as ‘camels nose’)

Very popular among housewives, priests and out of work politicians, a slippery slope is not always a logical fallacy. A slippery slope is a claim which states that one thing will lead to another thing (usually far fetched) without showing a plausible connection between the action taken and the stated outcome.

Such statements usually assume the following form :-

If ‘Event A’ occurs

Unrelated ‘Event B’ will occur

Such statements are fallacious because no conclusive evidence is given to show a connection between the two events. If plausible reasons are given as to why A would lead to B, which would in turn lead to C and so on, then the statement is not to be considered fallacious.

Eg. of a Slipper slope :-

A

: What do you think of the government’s move to ban pornography?

B: Absolutely ludicrous! Soon they’ll start burning all forms of literature. One can only image the fate of classics such as Shakespeare and Tolstoy!

When used in extremity (as in the example above), slippery slope arguments are very easy to catch and therefore, to refute. But if used cleverly, such arguments carry a lot of weight in debates.

One such case where a ‘slippery slope’ argument has often been implemented successfully is in the debate over the legalization of drugs.

We’ve often heard the following:-

“If marijuana is to be legalized, we might as well legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine.”

But one could claim that the legalization of one form of drugs could (in principle, at least) open the possibility of other forms being considered for legalization.

Thus a valid form of a ‘slippery slope’ argument.

Rush put it forth the "if we allow gay marriage, it will lead to people marrying their dogs, it will normalize pedophilia" without consideration of other mitigating factors. In his use, it is indeed a fallacy.

Maybe it could be described as a way too serious reduction ad absurdum.

[AURaptor 1,123]

" it is not ."

Really ? Because you said so ?

:lol:/>

For the reasons outlined in the post you quoted.

* clarified below *

[AUDub 11,148]

" it is not ."

Really ? Because you said so ?

:lol

For the reasons outlined in the post you quoted.

They present the opposite conclusion you came to.

Then you're reading the wrong post

[TitanTiger 20,482]

For the record, a "slippery slope" argument can be a logical fallacy, but is not always so. Here's a good explanation of why:

Slippery Slope (also known as ‘camels nose’)

Very popular among housewives, priests and out of work politicians, a slippery slope is not always a logical fallacy. A slippery slope is a claim which states that one thing will lead to another thing (usually far fetched) without showing a plausible connection between the action taken and the stated outcome.

Such statements usually assume the following form :-

If ‘Event A’ occurs

Unrelated ‘Event B’ will occur

Such statements are fallacious because no conclusive evidence is given to show a connection between the two events. If plausible reasons are given as to why A would lead to B, which would in turn lead to C and so on, then the statement is not to be considered fallacious.

Eg. of a Slipper slope :-

A

: What do you think of the government’s move to ban pornography?

B: Absolutely ludicrous! Soon they’ll start burning all forms of literature. One can only image the fate of classics such as Shakespeare and Tolstoy!

When used in extremity (as in the example above), slippery slope arguments are very easy to catch and therefore, to refute. But if used cleverly, such arguments carry a lot of weight in debates.

One such case where a ‘slippery slope’ argument has often been implemented successfully is in the debate over the legalization of drugs.

We’ve often heard the following:-

“If marijuana is to be legalized, we might as well legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine.”

But one could claim that the legalization of one form of drugs could (in principle, at least) open the possibility of other forms being considered for legalization.

Thus a valid form of a ‘slippery slope’ argument.

Rush put it forth the "if we allow gay marriage, it will lead to people marrying their dogs, it will normalize pedophilia" without consideration of other mitigating factors. In his use, it is indeed a fallacy.

Maybe it could be described as a way too serious reduction ad absurdum.

I agree. I think the distinction if that you can't conclusively say it "will" lead to whatever. A better phrasing would be that Event A could lead to Event B. Or that the same arguments in favor of Event A can also be applied to Event B, and give some supporting statements as to why.

[AURaptor 1,123]

The reasons I posted validated Rush's comments.

Next

[AUDub 11,148]

The reasons I posted validated Rush's comments.

Next

"I'm right because I say I'm right!"

-AURaptor

[homersapien 11,373]

IMO, this forum would be far better off without Tim and Raptor.

Giving them the benefit of doubt, they are simply trolls. They post just to make absurd arguments to get a reaction.

Frankly, I wish there was a way to vote them off. Most really good forums are self-moderated. But that can't work with people who have no shame and it's not working with them.

[DKW 86 7,423]

IMO, this forum would be far better off without Tim and Raptor.

Giving them the benefit of doubt, they are simply trolls. They post just to make absurd arguments to get a reaction.

Frankly, I wish there was a way to vote them off. Most really good forums are self-moderated. But that can't work with people who have no shame and it's not working with them.

[homersapien 11,373]

IMO, this forum would be far better off without Tim and Raptor.

Giving them the benefit of doubt, they are simply trolls. They post just to make absurd arguments to get a reaction.

Frankly, I wish there was a way to vote them off. Most really good forums are self-moderated. But that can't work with people who have no shame and it's not working with them.

Ha ha. Nice graphic. :-\

Serious question: Do you think my participation is also detriment to the forum?

And keep in mind, I am not referring to political positions. While I don't normally agree with many posters on this forum - including you, PT, Japan, 78, Blue, and several others - they at least make an honest effort to express their views. They rarely troll with silliness or absurdity for the simple purpose of eliciting a reaction (trolling). For Tim and Raptor, it's become their stock in trade.

I understand the nature of a political form is going to lead to a lot of heated discussions, but that's not the same as the sort of gratuitous trolling Tim and Raptor do, which simply devalues the venue. It's corrupting the forum. And it should be obvious by now they are totally impervious to corrective criticism.

So how can a forum self-moderate when participates are shameless?

Regardless, I would be OK with subjecting myself to being thrown off the forum along with anyone else. Heck, if it continues to get worse, I'll probably leave anyway.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

IMO, this forum would be far better off without Tim and Raptor.

Giving them the benefit of doubt, they are simply trolls. They post just to make absurd arguments to get a reaction.

Frankly, I wish there was a way to vote them off. Most really good forums are self-moderated. But that can't work with people who have no shame and it's not working with them.

Ha ha. Nice graphic. :-\

Serious question: Do you think my participation is also detriment to the forum?

And keep in mind, I am not referring to political positions. While I don't normally agree with many posters on this forum - including you, PT, Japan, 78, Blue, and several others - they at least make an honest effort to express their views. They rarely troll with silliness or absurdity for the simple purpose of eliciting a reaction (trolling). For Tim and Raptor, it's become their stock in trade.

I understand the nature of a political form is going to lead to a lot of heated discussions, but that's not the same as the sort of gratuitous trolling Tim and Raptor do, which simply devalues the venue. It's corrupting the forum. And it should be obvious by now they are totally impervious to corrective criticism.

So how can a forum self-moderate when participates are shameless?

Regardless, I would be OK with subjecting myself to being thrown off the forum along with anyone else. Heck, if it continues to get worse, I'll probably leave anyway.

I'm going to have to agree with homer to an extent here. There are some posters who I can at least understand why they think the way they do, even if I disagree with them on most political matters. But there are some here whose sole contribution to most threads is some snide one-liner or nonsense remark. Everyone here has fired off a one-liner here and there, but there are some who do almost nothing but.

I disagree with homer often, especially on social/moral issues. But I think he at least makes an effort to put forth a cogent argument.

[homersapien 11,373]

And to clarify, I don't expect "purity" of intent. Throwing jabs and making fun of posts - at least if it actually involves humor - is part of the fun. And we have all been guilty of that at one time or the other.

But to consistently and persistently post without any intent to seriously engage the issue just devalues the whole exercise. I have no interest in spending time addressing deliberate, sophomoric foolishness. What's the point? It just devalues the forum.