Slippery slope @ Columbia
 

Ah, the progressive lib defense......why not, both consenting adults, with a redef of marriage etc, etc,...and a Columbia Professor no less...another stellar educator, wonder what his attitude is in the classroom....



The lawyer representing a professor charged with incest with his 24-year-old daughter has questioned why the alleged affair has been made public.

David Epstein was charged last week with one count of incest for what was allegedly a consensual three-year sexual relationship with his daughter.

The political science professor at Columbia University, 46, allegedly slept with her between 2006 and 2009.

Epstein, who specialises in American politics and voting rights, is also said to have exchanged twisted text messages with the woman during their relationship.

Matthew Galluzzo, defending Epstein, has said that even though his daughter had emerged as a victim in the case, she could ‘best be described as an accomplice’.

He told ABCNews.com: ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so.

‘At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.

‘It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?

‘We have to figure out why some behaviour is tolerated and some is not

The line in the sand
 

The line in the sand keeps getting drawn closer and closer........................

Just got this response from a liberal nutcase that I know...

"What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is not your business or mine. No slippery slope to that.



I don't care if they are father/daughter, they can have sex. They can not have a child, because we believe that in-breeding causes birth defects and the child didn't ask to be born. That involves a third party. But just between them. It's no one's business but their own."

This is the primary argument for defining marriage in its age old traditional form...once it becomes "whatever' you get 'whatever'

Ahhh.

Must be a NAMBLA supporter as well.

TR

No, he is not. He is a lib progressive and his position is if you are of legal age whatever you do behind closed doors is your business....incest included.

Damn! I tried to follow this logic train and I met myself coming around the bend :eek: That sort of thinking just validates A. MacLeish's (a liberal thinker BTW) warning in "Man's Revolt Against Himself".

I'm guessing your friend would argue "If it's OK with Woody Allen, then why not?"

We're doomed, Brother if these chuckleheads continue to procreate. I thought that level of stupid would naturally be self-annihalting.

Shit, I'm starting to rant. It's Friday night and I'm gonna have a drink - maybe several;)

The last sentence was mine about trad marriage, just noticed that....maybe that thru you off.

True tho that the lib progressive attitude is unreal....my 'gut' tells me that Daddy screwing his daughter is a bad thing, regardless of reaching the age of maturity....maybe that's it, libs have no guts.

Um, I'm willing to bet they weren't asleep. At least not all night.

And ... THIWWP.

If you've seen dad, you might not want to see daughter. ;)

Pat

Looking into this story I found it seems to have originated around May 25, 2011 after Epstein copped a plea in New York Criminal Court that reduced the initial Felony 3rd Degree Incest charge to a mere Misdemeanor.

So he copped more then a feel for 3 years with his daughter, then copped a plea deal and like Ms. Boudin, Mr. Epstein is still gainfully employed by Columbia.


In comparison Jerry Sandusky is doing time, Rutgers gave Mike Rice the boot because of a violent outburst.


Mr. Epstein Wiki's Articles of Deletion is an interesting read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...vid_L._Epstein


Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive119

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...vid_L._Epstein

Moral relativism in full bloom......incest is no different that gay sex, kinda sorta, you get it don't you.
If sexual proclivity is predestined...you are 'born that way'...then pedophilia is just another normal human expression, kinda sorta, you get it don't you.
It is all the same.

Given over to a reprobate mind.
When people want a Godless existence badly enough, they get it.

Romans 1:28-32

And down the rabbit hole we go! :eek: This trend of moral relativism reminds me of why I left the Unitarian Church.

Some personal background: I was raised Episcopalian and as most of you probably have deduced by now, I have developed a personal philosophy that is highly influenced by Ayn Rand and can best be characterized as a conservative libertarian philosophy.

So back to my point: As some of you may know, Unitarian services are lay led, not unlike the Quakers in that respect. Well, after years of hearing the virtues of Tolerance, I led a service pointing out the importance of personal responsibility and critical thinking in a philosophy that emphasizes personal liberty and the right of self-determination. I pointed out that being ethical is very different from being moral. Situational ethics applies, situational morality is an oxymoron. In that vein, I promoted the virtue of Intolerance and the ability to discriminate between what is right and what is wrong irrespective of the situation.

Well, you would have thought that I just pissed in everyone's Cornflakes :D

I don't think they missed me when I never went back:p

Ain't it the truth. :mad:

I don't understand how people who claim to be libertarians cannot feel the same way. If I want to have upside down sex with my sister using ice cubes, whistles and glitter paint, it should be OK; as long as we are both consenting adults.

Now, if you don't subscribe to the libertarian ethic, other points can be made; especially when one brings religion into the fold (which I feel has no place in government).