NationStates Jolt Archive

Just thought this might encourage debate. I'm somewhat divided on the issue myself.

Depends on the issue...most of the time it's used by conservative reactionaries, so I discount it.

For instance, "Gay marriage leads to pedophelia, rape, beastiality, and necrophelia."

Bad use of slippery slope, since "consent" puts a stop to the others rather fast.


I wish people would think rationally and adress issue by issue.

When someone asks me "Whats next after legalizing gay marriage? Polygamy? Marrying your dog?" i respond "Whats next after banning gay marriage? Interacial marriages? Free speech?"

Any teacher of stage one logic and philosophy will tell you that the slippery slope argument is invalid. I dont even think its controversial, everyone agrees that it's rubbish.

When someone asks me "Whats next after legalizing gay marriage? Polygamy? Marrying your dog?" i respond "Whats next after banning gay marriage? Interacial marriages? Free speech?"

:applauds:

What about the slipperly slope argument for free speech, though? That's why I'm divided. I believe that free speech is about more than protecting democracy, but some poeple don't believe that, and the slipperly slope is the only ammo I have.

What about the slipperly slope argument for free speech, though? That's why I'm divided. I believe that free speech is about more than protecting democracy, but some poeple don't believe that, and the slipperly slope is the only ammo I have.
please describe the free speech argument you are talking about.

Just thought this might encourage debate. I'm somewhat divided on the issue myself.
The slippery slope argument is the last resort to confront the discussion partner with the fact of an uncertain outcome due to too many variables which often times do not even fit into the discussion, to deprive him or her of any way of counter argument. I think it is rather bad to use it since as some others before me proved, it can be used both ways, which destroys the purpose of the discussion itself.

Furthermore it implies that the person using it, has some "divine" insight into what the future may bring, despite not knowing facts that may or may not play a role in the possible outcomes. There are so many possible ways these slippery slope arguments could happen or not happen, that it discourages dissecting it on a rational basis.

Sometimes, especially in issues relating to war or nat'l security, people will advocate the curtailing of free speech (though perhaps not through legal means) because they believe that freedom of expression is trumped by the needs of the society.

A common example is the freedom to yell "fire!" in a movie thearture. This is a right Americans do not have because the courts feel that the safety of the movie-goers not to be trampled is more important than the rights of individuals to yell "fire!"

I dont see any use of a slippery slope argument in your last post, you will have to be more specific.

The slippery slope argument is a wonderful thing: It's a nice, simple way of admitting you've have no further argument and want to be left alone.

I dont see any use of a slippery slope argument in your last post, you will have to be more specific.

Well, one of the counter arguments to the opinions described is "If we start banning elements of free speech, whats to stop the courts, the legislature, or any other part of the gov't to ban more significant elements of our freedoms?

Calling bullshit on a left-winger here: Liberals use the 'slippery slope' as much as conservatives do. Look at opposition to the Laci-Connor's law that adds additional penalties to federal crimes when the victim is pregnant and the pregnancy is harmed. Liberals object to that on slippery-slope grounds, calling it the first step towards giving a fetus rights.

Also, as far as 'consent' goes: why do you need consent from an animal? And Polygamy involves consent. Some would argue that paedastry involves consent (although we generally assume that minors cannot give consent...)

Back up your statements a bit.

As for validity... slippery slope has an analogue in science where you normalize values until you arrive at an error. Imagine that you want all values within 1 unit of a set goal. If one falls at 1.002, you might let it slide. Then, a value at 1.006 might slide. Then 1.01... 1.06... 1.1... until you end up far away from your goal by normalizing these outlaying values.

Slippery slope is real. Consider the right to free speech, as above: initially, the Const. says: Congress shall make -no- law... no law turns into time and palce constraints ("Fire!" in a theater), hate speech, and now "free speech zones" for protesters at the Conventions. Ask any 2nd amendment enthusiast and they'll regale you with tales of slippery slope there, too.

-Woland

I used to be a big proponent of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector rules, and part of it is to question Slippery Slope and Ad Hominem arguments.

However, in thinking about one of my issues, I wanted to do some research on Slippery Slopes and ran across this paper by some guy at UCLA Law:
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slippery.htm

The problem is that while one can say that logically and rationally, slippery slope arguments are fallacious, we are dealing with humans, and humans are neither logical nor rational.

The paper is quite good. It is longish, but he had me hooked by the first few pages. How often do you hear justices or judges refer to previous legal decisions to validate their rulings. The idea of legal precedence is one form of slippery slope.

He gives specific examples where slippery slopes have been slidden (?) in series of legislative and judicial situations. There are wide range of practical and sociological factors that can make slippery slope arguments true. He even argues that there are cases when ad hominim arguments are valid, particularly in cases where a proponent of a moderate idea is known to support an extreme idea, for example: a pro-life group proposes a ban of partial-birth abortions. Their motives must be questioned because it is well-known that they support a full ban on abortions and, to quote a quote in the paper, "[H]owever narrow the first opening, there will never be wanting hands to push it wide..."

I just stumbled across this paper and have know idea who the guy is, but I know good thinking when I read it and this is really sound stuff.

I once saw a paper (no reference, sorry) where they asked people to put a big sign in their garden saying "please drive carefully" and very few people agreed. But then they asked a bunch of folk to put a small sticker in their window with the same message and THEN later asked them to put the big sign in their garden and most did it. This is the gist of it anyway, I can't remember the details. Anyway, the slippery slope argument IS valid, at least sometimes.

For the guy who said it had no grounds in logic, nobody claims it does. It isn't a statement about logic. It is a purely empirical proposition about real people. Do they act this way or not? The answer is often, yes, they do.

For instance, the US congress could never have legislated it's current tax rate from scratch. What happened was that high taxes used to be only for the rich but then govt caused inflation which put many pooorer people into the higher tax bracket. (bracket creeping). The slippery slope to tax slavery.

*slides down slippery slope and out of thread* Damn, I knew that would happen.