I would guess a small amount…

Hmmm. Good point. You may be right. In practice, both are sure to provoke anger…but, atleast with proper theory backing you up, you have a right to claim unjustified anger from your opponent.

Anyway, I have no grounds to chastise you about the way you run your board. As long as there is a good discussion, right?

That is primarily what I seek. I don’t want to preach to the choir, I am doing this primarily to learn. If I find out I am wrong I have no qualms with switching my position. I have done it plenty of times in the past.

You, and all liberals, are warmly welcome here anytime. Seriously.

Conceptually, I think you’re absolutely correct. My concern is that in the often heated discussions and accusations that occur online and elsewhere the distinction you’re referring to is lost. In a moment of anger, one becomes as good as the other. To put it another way, you can have correctness in theory if I can have correctness in practice.

Anyway, I have no grounds to chastise you about the way you run your board. As long as there is a good discussion, right?

What I was saying is that fundamentally, slippery slope claims are much different than claims of two things being equal. Liberals say Bush is another Hitler, which is very similar to PETA comparing the killing of Chickens to the holocaust. The two things are on very different moral grounds, and to ignore that moral difference is insensitive, at best.

To make a slippery slope argument is fundamentally different. If (extreme) liberals would have said that the same philosophy that supports Bush would have lead to the support of Hitler, that would have been a completely different thing (I would have disagreed still, but atleast it’s more sensical). And yes, I do believe that it would have been taken more seriously.

It doesn’t seem like good practice to assume commentators aren’t reading articles carefully.

You’re correct, my bad. Sorry.

Sorry to be late getting back. As I read you position, you’re saying if (extreme) liberals had all along been saying “Bush is on the way to being Hitler,” as opposed to “Bush is Hitler,” then all criticism could have been avoided. I simply can’t believe that would be the case. Muted, perhaps–but not silenced. And if not silenced then Noonan and others on the (extreme) right are still open to the charge of hypocrisy.

It doesn’t seem like good practice to assume commentators aren’t reading articles carefully. I’d suggest the distinction is somewhat subtle, but in any case not important. Hope this isn’t posted too late!

I understand, I’ve definitely felt like that with regard to liberals at times in the past, no hard feelings. Maybe next time.

Hey Henk,

I see what you mean. Personally, I am no fan of assault weapons.

But I would say the same thing in reverse, conservatives see liberals as having no limit in their restrictions either. Just look at D.C. A law abiding citizen (I am assuiming, here) like yourself, would not be allowed to own any gun in the very liberal D.C. area.

I would say that ultimately, I agree much more with the conservative view than the liberal view. The fault is not the guns per se, but the person. So stop focusing primarily on guns, and focus more on the person. No ex-felons, no person who has had a history of anger, etc….should be allowed to own guns.