Slippery slope @ Columbia

[PRB]

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

[Pete]

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

[PRB]

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'

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by PRB

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

[PRB]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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.

[MTN Medic]

Originally Posted by PRB

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.

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).

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by PRB

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'

Damn! I tried to follow this logic train and I met myself coming around the bend 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

[PRB]

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.

[CSB]

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

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

And ... THIWWP.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by CSB

And ... THIWWP.

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

Pat

[Box]

Originally Posted by Pete

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

Limousine Liberals only talk about lines, they don't actually draw them.
Overtons Window won't work for them if they "draw a line". A year in, and the Limousine crowd inches the window a little more left because nobody notices if you only move it a tiny bit.


...besides, what exactly "is" morality anymore? Morality is clearly an aberrant behavioral trait.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

And Bill Ayers is your argument that his personal POV means we, as a nation, do not value honor? Hunh.

Richard

You're trying to spin my case.

Bill Ayers' extolling of Kerry's virtue in the act of throwing away the awards he received in protest of a war in which he was an Officer in the service of his Country is a perfect example of liberace disdain for honor, any way you want to twist it. Look where Kerry is, now-in a lib administration.

The Clinton experience harbors a treasure trove of examples for both BJ and Hil of the besmirchment of honor, as well, but it would be more expedient for you to google those up for yourself, Bro.

[Dusty]

One thing one has to admire about libs and their apologists-theyr'e stubborn. Even when it's as obvious as the sun that they're dead wrong, they keep on posing their ridiculous arguments.

Conservative: A guy shouldn't screw his own daughter.

Liberace: Why did you blowtorch all those blacks and commit genocide on the indigenous peoples of the Country?

What a freaking headache for a man in his right mind.

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Dusty

One thing one has to admire about libs and their apologists-theyr'e stubborn. Even when it's as obvious as the sun that they're dead wrong, they keep on posing their ridiculous arguments.

Conservative: A guy shouldn't screw his own daughter.

Liberace: Why did you blowtorch all those blacks and commit genocide on the indigenous peoples of the Country?

What a freaking headache for a man in his right mind.

Dusty....You nailed it here...every difficult to defend Lib discussion leads to racism....regardleass of the subject.
The default position of Liberal comfort.....I love it, since they don't even know their own parties complicity...
btw, from now on ALL GLTG whatever's are Liberace's....perfect.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Based upon your own personal experiences, you opine that blacks were better off in an era where they had shorter life expectancies, fewer economic opportunities and housing options, and less political power, as well as other obstacles.

Are you misreading me on purpose? I’m talking about “relative to now” things such as “morality” and “family values” were better for most Americans (I should not have said all) in the ‘50s. (BTW, were you living back then? Or, do you only learn things from books and not those that lived it?) Economic opportunities were improving for all, though not at the same rate. I also said that a child my age at that time would (if honest) agree with me. The odds are high that his children and grandchildren entered the world fatherless. Not because they were raised poorly, they were not. It was because the government got involved in raising their children. If you disagree, then how do we get to a 70% fatherless rate between then and now?

If, as you aver, race is a "non issue" then why did you identify the friend by color FIRST? How does your friend's race reinforce the arguments that you're attempting to make in this thread?

Had you read with your academic glasses on you would have noticed I was pointing out an example of “self segregation”! He and I became friends due to our common interest in Akita dogs and “discriminated” against owners of dogs with floppy ears.

You know a black guy who agrees with you so that validates your controversial POV that blacks were better off then than they are now? Is it your position that one's race alone makes one a SME on the experiences and issues that one's race faces? Or does that only apply to those of a different race who agree with you?

I didn’t say he agreed with me. It’s not a subject that ever came up. We talked about dogs, our children in High School, and sports cars. And, if I recall correctly, we discussed the weather once or twice.

You prefer a time in America's past in which there were fewer blacks, they lived shorter lives, and they had fewer opportunities for economic, social, educational, and geographic mobility. Yet, you take umbrage when asked about your views about racial difference by what you yourself have posted in this thread. Really.

This, again, is an insult and unsupported. This thread is about “moral values” and “family values”. That is what I was addressing.

Pat