NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the starting down a slippery slope/ thin end of the wedge a real way of demonstrating problems with someone's position, or is it a fallacy to suggest that you have to take everything to its ultimate conclusion?

Yes and no. The slippery slope argument represents the fact that after a certain point, certain outcomes are pretty much preordained. For example, the slope of the 'secret' treaties before WW1. Once the first shot was fired, then the remaining nations slid to war. Not exactly the best example, since often the beginning point is hard to see, even in hindsight.

It is used to warn that actions have consequences, and that these need to be thought out. Over used, yes. But still, it is usually a way to demonstrate problems with someone's position.

Really depends on what you're talking about.

Sometimes the 'slippery slope' arguement is valid, especially when there is historical precedent for the 'slope' you're slipping down.

An example is the activity and attitude in government that tends to precede totalitarianism, and the establishing of precedents that are later exploited to impose totalitarian rule. I.E. orwellian language in government, laws with names involving 'patriotism' (a favorite of the soviets, chinese, north koreans, nazis, south american authoritarians et al.).


An example of the slippery slope rationale being perverted or misused is the debate over gay marriage.

There is no historical precedent for gay marriage wrecking a country, and because of this gay marriage slippery slope arguements generally have no basis in reality.

I'd say anything you do can be argued as a slippery slope to something else.

I'd say anything you do can be argued as a slippery slope to something else.
But now that you've said this, everyone will be afraid to do anything because of the potential negative consequences, and no one will work, and production of food, clothing, power, medicine, and everything else will fall to nothing, and EVERYONE WILL DIE!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

Really depends on what you're talking about.

Sometimes the 'slippery slope' arguement is valid, especially when there is historical precedent for the 'slope' you're slipping down.

An example is the activity and attitude in government that tends to precede totalitarianism, and the establishing of precedents that are later exploited to impose totalitarian rule. I.E. orwellian language in government, laws with names involving 'patriotism' (a favorite of the soviets, chinese, north koreans, nazis, south american authoritarians et al.).


An example of the slippery slope rationale being perverted or misused is the debate over gay marriage.

There is no historical precedent for gay marriage wrecking a country, and because of this gay marriage slippery slope arguements generally have no basis in reality.I think this is a pretty good analysis of it. I mean, there are times to be worried about the slippery slope--suppression of dissenting speech is one of them, which is why I support the right of groups like the Klan to say whatever they want to say in as public a manner as they wish. If we ban them, then there really is very little to stop us from banning any form of dissension.

But all too often, it's pulled out by political groups of every stripe in order to foist some fallacious outcome upon us if some action is taken or not taken immediately. Whenever someone pulls that argument out, I'm always suspicious first, because it's so often misused.

Well, of course. Look at Viet Nam, and how our loss there led to Communism's global dominance.

communism's global dominance? Riiight.....

communism's global dominance? Riiight.....

Exactly.

The reason slippery slope is a fallacy isn't because the result is inherently incorrect. The fallacy of a slippery slope is suggesting that Incident A causes incident Y, when there are several incidents in between, each with choices to be made, laws to be passed (in the case of the gay marriage argument) and norms to be redefined.

Historical precedence is not proof of corrolation in the future. Slippery slope arguments circumvent the cognitive "cause-effect" relationship, and suggest that something is inevitable. The reason slippery slope is so hard to agree to be a fallacious argument, is that it is such a convincing argument when cloaked with the right situation. From a sports reference, this would be akin to saying that Team A will beat Team B because they are leading 1 minute into a 60 minute game. It may be true that 70% or so of the time that the Team that leads at 1 minute wins, but that is not a valid stance of applying it to an unrelated situation.

Sometimes the 'slippery slope' arguement is valid, especially when there is historical precedent for the 'slope' you're slipping down.

If you have a step by step linking of an event to another event, it ceases to be a slippery slope argument. Using a valid linkage to "prove" slippery slope is actually a commision of another fallacy, fallacious equivocation, or suggesting that two, seemingly similar, situations are related when in fact there are situational differences.

The slippery slope is one of the formal fallacies. Don't use it.

Slippery slope - it leans toward fallacy in most situations

Take gay marriage for example:

People say it could lead to the slippery slope of people marrying kids, etc - GET REAL!!

slippery slope is a real argument when you are talking about court decisions, since precendence can often be not much more than a giant slippery slope...

as far as government's setting laws, since they need to follow no sense of precedence or even logic and rationale, it can be an argument from a historical point of view but more often than not, due to the aforementioned nature of government, it won't be.

There is only one "slippery slope" in my opinion and that is putting anything that should be under the control of the private sector or the individual and letting the government get control of it.

Starting way back to the New Deal, putting anything into the hands of the government leads to the slippery slope of the government taking even more control in our lives.

But that hasn't stopped any politician yet, because there are so many liberals in this country that want them to have the control and don't know or care about the ramifications.

Social Security, Income Tax, welfare, FCC...these are just a few examples.

I have to say that the slippery slope is real, imagine a case of euthanasia (which is legal in my country) When i legalised that, many said that murder would start. However, i have one of the lowest youth crimes in the world, so all this has been unfounded. The slippery slope is where if you legalise one thing, this will cause something more inhumane to be legalised, then another. and another until you have legalised something wierd. If anyone wants to argue then i will hear you out.

Awakawaka :gundge:

What about the new implanted chips, talked about in another thread?
I think you could legitimately use the slippery slope argument to show that this may lead to everyone being implanted with a chip that not only has our medical history, but all our other personal details on it and eventually allow the govt to keep track of us.

Really depends on what you're talking about.

Sometimes the 'slippery slope' arguement is valid, especially when there is historical precedent for the 'slope' you're slipping down.

An example is the activity and attitude in government that tends to precede totalitarianism, and the establishing of precedents that are later exploited to impose totalitarian rule. I.E. orwellian language in government, laws with names involving 'patriotism' (a favorite of the soviets, chinese, north koreans, nazis, south american authoritarians et al.).


An example of the slippery slope rationale being perverted or misused is the debate over gay marriage.

There is no historical precedent for gay marriage wrecking a country, and because of this gay marriage slippery slope arguements generally have no basis in reality.
So you think its alright, but not as merely a thought exercise? It has to be backed up by historical examples

http://datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

People are confusing the slippery slope with a valid tactic called reducio ad absurdum.

A slippery slope is a fallacy because it takes something to an illogical conclusion.
A reducio ad absurdum, on the other hand, takes an argument to its logical conclusion.

http://datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm
Yes, I am aware that some call it a fallacious arguement. I'm questioning whether that's valid to do so though

People are confusing the slippery slope with a valid tactic called reducio ad absurdum.

A slippery slope is a fallacy because it takes something to an illogical conclusion.
A reducio ad absurdum, on the other hand, takes an argument to its logical conclusion.
Ah, interesting.

How do you tell a logical conclusion from an illogical one though?

What about the new implanted chips, talked about in another thread?
I think you could legitimately use the slippery slope argument to show that this may lead to everyone being implanted with a chip that not only has our medical history, but all our other personal details on it and eventually allow the govt to keep track of us.
Here's the key point--while it may be possible for such an outcome to occur, it's not certain that it will occur. The slippery slope argument tends to say that the outcome is all but certain. It's one thing to examine potential outgrowths of a policy--it's another to argue that one particular outgrowth is certain to occur.

Well, of course. Look at Viet Nam, and how our loss there led to Communism's global dominance.

that wasnt the slippery slope that was the domino theory