Monday, November 09, 2015



Must not mention homosexuality and pedophilia in the same breath

Boxer Tyson Fury was accused of being 'offensive and deranged' last night after he made vile comments equating homosexuality and abortion with paedophilia.

In an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, Fury unleashed a quasi-religious diatribe which is likely to outrage even the most loyal fans of the leading British heavyweight.

'There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home,' he said.

'One of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other is paedophilia. Who would have thought in the 50s and 60s that those first two would be legalised?

'When I say paedophiles could be made legal, it sounds crazy. But if I had said to you about the first two being made legal in the 50s, I would have been looked upon as a crazy man.

'People can say, 'You are against abortions, you are against paedophilia, you are against homosexuality', but my faith and my culture is based on the Bible.'

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell condemned Fury, saying: 'Tyson is a brilliant boxer but a very bigoted and confused Christian. To equate same-sex love with abortion and paedophilia is deranged and offensive.'

SOURCE

He did NOT equate anything with anything. He mentioned three separate issues that he disagreed with on Christian grounds. And his prediction that pedophila would one day be legalized now that homosexuality and abortion have been legalized may well come true.  As he points out, the legalization of all three was once unthinkable.  He may be a boxer but it was a perfectly intelligent comment -- IF you note what he actually said.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Homosexuals viciously attack anyone who dares to criticize their perverted sexual activities.

Anonymous said...

I guess our pugilist soothsayer hasn't heard of the slippery-slope fallacy. It's more likely that his "profession" will be made illegal before abusing children ever becomes legal.

Anonymous said...


Anon 7:17 - Calling "slippery slope" a fallacy is pure bullshit. Lacking an argument to counter the agenda of evil someone decided to start calling it a "fallacy" which is in fact just more dishonesty from the prince of lies and repeated by the fools he has deceived.

You cannot prove that the "slippery slope" is a fallacy because many of the things which were said to be on that slippery slope have in fact become true, or did you miss the recent ruling that boys who want to pretend they are girls must be allowed into the same locker rooms and showers as real girls. That was a "slippery slope" prediction that has come true.

Anonymous said...

8:58 You seem to be saying that no slippery-slope argument can be a fallacy. It is called a fallacy when it is used to discredit an innovation or a proposal by suggesting or claiming it would lead to something thought of as outlandish in some way. Not because there are sometimes likely or predictable consequences. But to suggest that abusing children would one day be made legal just because abortion or homosexuality between adults is legal today, is an outlandish prediction used as a classic case of a "slippery slope fallacy".
.

Use the Name, Luke said...

A slippery slope fallacy is a claim that one thing will necessarily or absolutely lead to something else. It is the "necessarily or absolutely leading" that can be the fallacy.

For example, to say that increased gun purchases will lead to more gun violence or that registration will lead to gun confiscation are both slippery slope fallacies. While both conditions may make it possible for the claimed result to occur, it isn't necessarily so. In the case of the former, gun violence has been going down even though gun sales have been going up. And though there has been some gun registration in this country, it hasn't lead directly to confiscation. (It's opposed by 2nd Amendment advocates because it make confiscation easier.)

Mr. Fury did not claim that legalized abortion or "homosexuality" would necessarily lead to legalized "paedophilia," thus he did not make a fallacious slippery slope argument.

There is a legitimate form of logical slippery slope where reasoning used to justify A also applies to B. Thus if someone argues for A (even though they're opposed to B), the exact same argument can be used to justify B, and probably will, making B predictable. For example, we're already seeing the exact same arguments used to justify same sex marriage (love, no relation to biology, etc.) being used to argue for polygamy. Therefore, given human nature and the arguments used, it's entirely reasonable to predict that B will probably or even likely become accepted for the exact same reasons A was accepted.

Stan B said...

Use the Name - That's a very well reasoned discourse on the entire "slippery slope" argument, and one that I suspect will be read about as well as the boxer's original statements....I find that most people responding with "outrage" have already shut down the reasoning centers of their brains...

Anonymous said...

Mr Fury more than implied that because 'A' happened (the legalization of abortion and homosexual activity between adults) then 'B' will likely follow (legal pedophilia) just because he personally objects to 'A'. That is an example of the slippery-slope logical fallacy.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Yep, Stan. 4:19 proved you right.

Bird of Paradise said...

Gay brown shirts or should they be called Rainbow Shirts?

Stan B said...

Anon 4:19 - Please contract with a tutor for remedial reading courses, as whoever taught you reading comprehension failed miserably. The "slippery slope" fallacy, as eloquently pointed out by Luke, is that "A MUST NECESSARILY follow B" not that "A probably or may follow B."

Perhaps you should start with the difference between the words "probably" and "necessarily."

Anonymous said...

Stan often shows himself to be Luke's obsequious acolyte, but Luke isn't the arbiter of absolute "Truth", although he obviously thinks he is. This Dismal Duo just don't want to admit that this Fury person was using the Slippery-slope fallacy. He was doing so because he disapproved of legalized abortion and homosexuality and wanted to discredit them by using the fallacious argument that they were somehow linked with an imagined social development that almost everyone would think as definitely unacceptable, namely legalized pedophilia.
You say 4:19 should start with learning the difference between the words "probably" and "necessarily" - well to use the latter first - you are un-necessarily rude to a poster who wasn't being rude to you or personally provoking you in any way - and to use the former - your aggressive attitude probably reflects your insecurity (but you have Luke as the proverbial security-blanket).

Use the Name, Luke said...

"In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fear mongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. However, if an argument uses valid reasoning, it would not identify by the slippery-slope approach."
Slippery Slope

Anonymous said...

The chances of paedophilia being legalised are becoming better each day as is polygamy. Any references to homosexuality are purely made in the context of the fact that if you can legalise abortion and gay marriage which were both considered abhorrent even in the 70's then eventually polygamy and paedophilia will become acceptable especially given the large influx of Muslim migrants in the West whose religion accepts both polygamy and paedophilia tacitly if not openly. As the migrants will outbreed Western citizens their influence on acceptable behaviour will rapidly take hold, especially assisted by so called left-wing intellectuals (an oxymoron).

Anonymous said...

To demonstrate that an argument is not simply a "slippery-slope" fallacy the extreme example given by 11:48 would have to have a very definite and well supported logical pathway to show that the Muslim population in one or more Western countries would be ever sufficiently powerful to overthrow the existing law and officially institute something like Sharia. However even then such Sharia is unlikely to permit "gay marriage" or open homosexuality (however practised in private). Abortion seems not to be allowed officially either. Pedophilia may be a gray area depending on cultural attitudes to traditional age of marriage or betrothal and when consummation can take place (as in earlier European culture). Polygamous marriage would presumably be limited to four wives for one man, but any adultery would result in stoning to death (whereas in most Western societies adultery is okay as is serial divorce, and men can have as many "concubines" as he like). Obviously homosexuality, abortion and pedophilia can, did and does, go on unofficially in any society regardless of the law at the time.

Anonymous said...

@6:29

It is not an extreme example given that in the UK the average Muslim male has been credited with a birth rate of 20 children per male which firstly suggests an attempt to outbreed the local population and secondly supports unofficial polygamy where the authorities support unmarried Muslim mothers with welfare for which the father does not have to contribute to. On those figures the UK is on a path of racial suicide.

Anonymous said...

6:29

It is not an extreme example but reality in many western countries today. Countries that seem hell-bent on committing racial suicide in the name of political correctness. When socialism can't conquer from the outside of a society it will attempt to bring down a society from the inside and it appears to be working. First you gain control of the universities and the unions, then public opinion through the now socialist media. Once you control public opinion you can gain control of the democratic process and subvert it, IF there is no resistance.

Anonymous said...

This thread is drifting a bit. One of the points was that even if (IF) muslims could swing all elections through sheer numbers (whether in an amazing act of coordination and conspiracy, or just by some fluke) then the laws they would introduce (if based on current Islamic laws or Sharia), would not support legal gay marriage or homosexuality in any form, and more likely demand capital punishment for gays - so much for the issue of homosexuality at the top of the "slippery slope". Neither would abortion be approved for the obvious reason of limiting the birth of more muslims - so much for the issue of legal abortions at the top of the "slippery slope"). As for polygamy, men could presumably have up to four legal wives, but adultery, or sex outside marriage, would also be a capital offence. Women and girls would be the property of the patriarchal family so "pedophilia" wouldn't be allowed outside the control of the family.

Anonymous said...

10.05 I very much doubt your statistic that an average Muslim male in the UK has 20 children, or even that it's a general average as that would mean many men would have many more than 20. Please give your source. (I presume 10:05 and 10:13 are one and the same).