It has begun. Still think the whole "slippery slope" thing is a fallacy?

It has begun. Still think the whole "slippery slope" thing is a fallacy?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3725551/Mother-36-son-19-fell-love-met-year-gave-adoption-baby-say-willing-risk-JAIL-defend-love.html

>PLEASE DONT BE HISPANIC
>PLEASE DONT BE HISPANIC
>PLEASE DONT BE HISPANIC

FUCKKKK

REEEEE

FUCKING INDIAN MESTIZOS FUCKS

>still think slippery slope is a fallacy?

You realize incest has been a thing for a really long time, right? Besides, the slippery slope fallacy is only ever called out when that's your main or only argument against something.

She also has 8 children

Lmao you fucking beaners always fuck family members :^)

It's the mestizos who have terrible, terrible traditions

I'm well-aware that incest has been a thing since before we were human. But giving it a label (GSA) and calling attention to it like they're marytrs is the first attempt at legitimizing it, hence the slippery-slope bit.

Slippery slope was proven right with the sudden switch from gay rights to trans rights in this current period. Once trans rights goes through, fuck knows what's next.

>You realize incest has been a thing for a really long time, right?
Sure, but the point it has always been a taboo that people knew they couldn't present publicly.

Now after 30 years of pushing an 'acceptance' agenda these people are wriggling out of the woodwork. And the slippery slope is slippery indeed.

What was the logic used by homosexuals? "Two consenting adults." What is the logic for this incestual relationship? "Two consenting adults."

You cannot construct an argument for homosexual acceptance that doesn't also argue for incest and polygamy. All of these individuals are adults that are consenting.

>tfw anime is becoming real.

That would imply that humans are a time bomb of degeneracy and that cultural norms keep them away from such behaviour, and that pic related was right.

That's fucked up

so this is what a Mexican intellectual looks like

>You cannot construct an argument for homosexual acceptance that doesn't also argue for incest and polygamy

Yeah I guess I can't for polygamy. With incest, however, it can be argued that it increases the risk of genetic disorders which could seriously impact the child's standard of life, while homosexual acceptance only increases risk for AIDS.

Also, yes I agree that this is a slippery slope, I was just pointing out that it shouldn't be the main argument for or against something.

I was hoping she would be a milf with big tiddies. Then it would be fucking hot.

fucking disgusting.
These are the same kinds of retards who call us all inbred and they are the ones actually fucking their relatives

I got head from my thirteen year old sister, whom I had never previously met, when I was fifteen. I'm 25 and she's 23 now and we have never spoken about it since. We were horny kids, and had some harmless fun, we didn't go full retard and fall in love with each other. As adults, we're smart enough to know not to bring it up in casual conversation.

But I digress. As long as one of them is willing to be sterilized, removing the genetic issue from the mix, then what's the problem?

I'm really just playing devil's advocate here. I think both of these taconiggers are disgusting, and that generally, incestual relationships are not a good idea for society, but a handjob or oral once in awhile between adults or consenting teenagers isn't that big of a deal.

I could understand if she was a proper milf but she's 2/10 at best

Spics are spics. You're all like that.

Why do all Mexican women turn into goblins by 30?

>wifeys world
millennials will never know this feel.

She sucks it. Full stop.

>With incest, however, it can be argued that it increases the risk of genetic disorders which could seriously impact the child's standard of life
How is that now only an issue?

The only kind of babies that gays produce are sperm covered turds. And since we let congenital defects marry and reproduce already (retards, blind people, midgets/dwarfs) it's biased to exclude incest because maybe, and only maybe, their babies will be fucked up.

But that's not the discussion.

>I was just pointing out that it shouldn't be the main argument for or against something.
No, "slippery slope" shouldn't be your only argument why you're against something. But let's say the the argument is about A. You know for a fact that A leads to B, and B is unwanted, that's when your opponents jump up and scream "slippery slope fallacy!" to get you to concede that B isn't allowed to be discussed because only A is being argued.

Everyone that saw how gay marriage was being pushed under the stance of "consenting adults" knew that it would open the door to all other forms of "consenting" relationships that are currently illegal. And everyone that saw that was told it was a fallacy to point it out.

'Slippery slope fallacy' is supposed to only be called out when you have no evidence that A leads to B. Except in this case, basic deductive logic gives you all the evidence you need to see that you can't allow gay marriage without also allowing adult incest, polygamy, polyandry, group (s-corp) marriage, and more.

...

Relationship goals.

Pedo will become legal in your lifetime. And then incest pedo.

>tfw no big tit mommy gf uwu mommy I want milky desu lads ;_;
>OMG SOMEONE DOESNT WANT TO GO TO PRISON FOR INCEST MUH DEGENERACY SLIPPERY SLOPES PERSECUTE THIS VICTIMLESS CRIME SO I CAN PRETEND TO BE AN OUTRAGED CHRISTFAG

alt right kiddies everyone

I'm genuinely surprised the idea of a sexual relationship with your own parents doesn't disturb you in some fashion.

This is exactly the slippery slope """fallacy""" that we have been trying to get across for ages.

When can we start removing degeneracy?