Psyral Infection said
I really didn't think I was "slippery slope"-ing this. I was posing questions which is what true science does. It never accepts, always questions. Nothing is ever settled and everything is open forever to be denied, questioned, and repostulated. Even scientific laws are not set being defined as simply a description of an observation. Of course you can find definitions of scientific laws that state that they are invariably proven but this is a new (common core) style definition which destroys scientific thought. The four fundamental tenants of scientific thought are fact, law, hypothosis, and theory. Facts are what is observed. Laws describe the observation. Hypothosis is an attempted explanation of the described obeservation (law). Theories are the result of substantiated hyposthosis based on experimentation. The tenants never change class but can evolve only within their classification. Theories can never become laws, facts, or a hypothosis. A hyposthosis cannot change into any of the others. Laws cannot become facts or anything else either. I always find it odd when people say something is only a theory since theory is actually the highest of the four tenants with facts and laws being the lowest. ... Well, I ran off on a tangent there. Back on tract ... Everything should be questioned and never "accepted" even if it goes against social ideas... especially if it goes against social ideas.

Do I personally think it will lead to the far fetched expamples I gave? No. I even said it would probably not lead to that. The extreme possibilities (however unlikely) were used for emphasis to drive the question.

I think we are doing well with this. Several people ( @piggofdoom , @bayareashaman , and others ) have posed additional questions which help spark the necessary discourse that should accompany all social changes and ideas. I am at work and probably shouldn't be devoting this time to posings answers or even replying with my tangental responses, but I will try to revisit your questions when I get a chance.

It is unfortunate that my type of "rhetoric" questioning used by social scientists and even by progressive think tanks is "always used by bigots". Maybe I am a bigot along with those scientists and progressives. It seems that only a tiny group here seems to accuse me of being a bigot and intollerant even though people with whom I interact personally have quite an opposite opinion of me and my mindset. Oh well. The accusations don't change what people who know me know about me, if that makes any sense.  

No, it was a slippery slope, don't sociopath your bullshit away from it. "If this happens who's to say that down the line they won't start doing this!?" Text book definition of slippery slope.

krunkazphuk said
My hypothesis is that King's mad because the only one on here who calls him a troll anymore is him, and lately real science seems to trigger WAY more posters than he ever has.

Conclusion: He's

  

I haven't been trolling on here lately, so no... I'll leave the trolling to you guys... I find pissing people off is really easy. Having an actual discussion where people respectfully walk away with a better perspective is hard. You should try it sometime.

those people are sick and evil baby-killing child torturing pedophiles all of them.

the more a person hates Trump the younger the child they want to abuse.

you should also post a picture of that bald guy who wears a dress and purple lipstick who has a puppy fetish that Biden's boss hired as head of nuclear energy.