Big Bill wrote:
>
> Well, tongue in cheek or not, declaring what's sentient and what's not
> can be tricky.
> There are people who claim to be able to understand what animals are
> thinking. *I* think they're frauds, but who's to say with authority?
> And as for laws governing marriage between close blood relatives, what
> if one or both are 'fixed' so children are not possible?
> Point being, once you open the door to such things, well, there's the
> camel.

BB - You must be new at the game of arguing with liberals. Don't you
know that liberals reject all such arguments by calling them "slippery
slope" arguments, as if "slippery slope" logic isn't valid. Even though
it is indeed valid, by attaching a name to it and ridiculing it, they
pretend that, by default, they win any argument at the instant they can
label it "slippery slope". It's in the liberal play book right after
the section on winning an argument by asking your conservative opponent
if they've "seen any black helicopters lately?".

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---