HomeRadioForumLog InRegisterLexicon
le slippy slope
You've all heard of the 'slippery slope fallacy' - in its most basic form, it exist as: "if X happens, therefore Y will happen as a result".
For a very long time, it's been a favourite of the left, used to shut down arguments against proposed reforms to law that pave the way for further-legalised degeneracy.
A classic example of this one might be the idea of allowing homosexuals to have intercourse, and it could be argued that the progression will look somewhat like this:

  • let gays have sex, therefore we should:

  • let people have sex with children, therefore we should:

  • let people have sex with animals

Does this progression look familiar to you? It kind of reminds me of the current liberal stack. Thanks to the "brave work" of those who battled through "discrimination" and "inequality", many of those "essential human rights" are being realised in today's society - two of those three are now a reality in at least one place on Earth, or in the case of homosexual intercourse, it's pretty much being allowed all over the world now save for some countries in Asia and Africa, and Canada is basically irreversibly cucked by the legalisation of non-penetrative sex with animals by their Supreme Court (bestiality has been redefined as having actually penetrated the animal).
A lot of this is considered a human right by the (((United Nations))) - there are 96 signatories of the 2011 Gay Rights Protection Resolution.

This gets me onto my first point, which is the exploitation of the idea of what is a human right, and what isn't, and how in reality, they're the ultimate slippery slope.

Human Rights

The idea started off pretty nicely. Post-WW2, 48 states sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's got some pretty fundamental things in it, like the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to vote, not be tortured, etc...
We don't believe that anybody could argue against such clauses as those. They're givens for a functional society, however, the moment the left gets its hands on the power to mould and amend these clauses, or write new instruments, that is when the original purpose becomes lost, and they take on a new meaning - making some special groups of society more equal than others, or otherwise giving them special rights in response to perceived societal injustices.

This type of change may begin domestically - a leftist government taking power, or a government being pressured by voters, or lobbies to make certain changes - and soon, it will be trumpeted as the next big example of progressive enforcement of equality. The more these types of governments gain power, that's when one might propose a change, and soon, we end up with yet another "fundamental human right". Either that, or mainstream media will spread it all through the Internet, and it will become a sort of "de facto" human right, the biggest and baddest evil form of oppression that has to be stomped so that some degenerate can take the moral high ground.

But why stop at animals?
Why not... redefine paedophilia as a sexuality? When you get people like psychologists offering their two cents and spewing garbage like this, that's all the left needs to justify it to themselves.

"I believe Paedophilic Disorder is a sexual orientation with individual that are attracted to child features. In other words, an individual with paedophilia has the same ingrained attraction that a heterosexual female may feel towards a male, or a homosexual feels towards their same gender."
When you couple that with paedophiles who decide to go out and say "I might be attracted to them, but I'll never molest them!", what do you have?
Not a compelling case, that's for sure.

So what if children are able to experience sexual pleasure - it does not mean that they should. Especially since they have most likely got no understanding of what is being done to them, what saying "yes" actually means when someone asks to take a photo of them - or doesn't ask, and threatens to hurt them. It is inherently abusive, and frankly disgusting. Some people are just so far-gone that they say things like this:

"There is research to show that, as well as feeling a sense of power and control in sexual encounters with adults, children can frequently experience sexual pleasure…It is imperative that children’s sexual desires and sense of power and pleasure not only be recognised but also normalised."
Let's try to turn it around, shall we? How could poor Mr. Paedophile possibly resist now that there is research that shows children actually enjoy being sexually abused? They actually justify it by saying that they're the gentle, non-aggressors, who want to satisfy a child's "sexual desires".
Even if paedophilia was a proper form of sexual attraction, justifying it in this way reflects an extraordinary lack of mental strength and an urge to act on impulses - and on average, paedophiles have 10% lower IQs than anyone else.

If they can't be changed, they need to be removed. It's probably best to skip trying to rehabilitate them altogether.

There is enough gender politics bullshit going on as is - what are children going to be raised as in the next couple of decades? Already there are stories of single coal-burner tumblrite womyn attempting to raise their sons in any way contrary to what is typically accepted and right, by forcing them to dress up, wear makeup, and generally not nurturing their inherently male sides. At this rate, we're going to have a generation of cucked beta nu-males. If we were to introduce legitimised paedophilia into the mix, we would surely end up with a horrific society in which unfettered sexual acts are overlooked and possibly encouraged - reminds me of Brave New World.

How did we get here? We slid right down the slope from another, only recent shift in public acceptance of degeneracy - the idea of the "gender spectrum". In fact, our psychologist himself stated the following:

"With that being said, it needs to be said that sexuality is more of a spectrum than a finite category. We know that heterosexuals may engage in homosexual behaviour, and deny they are bisexual or homosexual."
This is where the cracks start to show in the "fallacy" element of "slippery slope" - we let people self-diagnose their own genders, suddenly we end up with unprecedented amounts of genders coming into existence - what's to stop anything from being justified by being claimed to be a sexuality? Nothing.

For reference, here are the 63 currently existing 'genders' - a new one seems to be created every day.

At the moment, there is a decent amount of furor over Turkey's recent legislation which seemed to lower the age of consent to 12 years of age. While this isn't explicitly allowed, the change that was made removes the automatic defence of "sexual assault" to victims of sexual crimes who are under 15. The concerning thing here - apart from the obvious threat to the wellbeing of children - is that Turkey itself does not want to address the issue so much as respond angrily to alleged smearing of their global image - they don't see anything wrong with it.

While we do have people publicly denouncing this change in Turkey, it could happen in other places sooner than we think. Maybe not by lowering the age of consent, but when you have such organisations as Amnesty International pushing for recognition of human rights in relation to gender identities, and a disturbing, growing acceptance of paedophilia as a sexuality because of (((science))), we'll see a gradual shift in public perceptions.

At least, that seems to be what the left wants. We have to get the normies to wake up.

The slippery slope is undeniably real, and as Western society, we're only tumbling further and faster into irredeemably degenerate territory.
Comments on this article (0)
No comments have been left on this article yet.