Defending the Truth

Do you even know what "slippery slope" means in the first place?

1) WHERE did it say the age was lowered?
The article starts out with: "A Dutch political party (the pedophile party) that failed to qualify to participate in the country's general election Wednesday ..."

2) Just because people "want" it is meaningless.
There are Christians in the U.S. who want a Christian monarchy established.
Is that evidence against anything???

A "slippery slope" is meaningless if all you can show is that some people "want" something. ESPECIALLY when YOU prove that they FAILED TO OBTAIN what they want...

The age has been lowered and is asked to be lowered again. That is a slippery slope. If the fact they failed to obtain what they want means the end to it, why do you all continually nag about wanting legal homo marriage even after it is denied? Homo marriage has been denied in every state it was voted on, but you all are going to keep trying, even you admit that. You shot yourself in the foot on that one. Don't limp around too much.

WHERE has it been lowered?
WHERE was that stated?

This whole presumption of your definition of "slippery slope" is inane.
It's like saying, "Blacks were freed, and now Joe Schmoe moron is asking that the monkeys be freed, so that means 'slippery slope'".

Part of the way slippery slopes are DISPROVEN is when the next step on the slope FAILS. It proves that the "slippery slope" doesn't exist.
If all your "slippery slope" is regarding what a FEW people might want to do, but can't, then it's meaningless.


I don't follow your question.
You just asked "If apple, then why orange?"


Rrrriiiiggghhhhtttt...
You just tied fighting for eliminating the age of consent, to gay marriage...
And you think I just "shot myself in the foot", instead of you displaying mind-boggling inanity...
If only you had the proper sense to be embarrassed...

I can see it went over your head. Not surprised.

Predictably ignoring everything I said, while pretending that I am not the one who gets it...

Do you actually think that ducking the issue will help your pretense that you have won the issue?
Do you think that convinces anybody?

Yep.

You're deluding yourself.

It's obvious by the fact that you change the subject that not even you believe that. And if anybody would be blind enough to believe that, it would be you...

Why of course.

That reply didn't even try to make sense...

The reply was not supposed to make sense. It was not directed to your senses. It was directed to logic which has nothing to do with the senses.