FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Logical Fallacy of the Day: Slippery Slope
Logical Fallacy of the Day: Slippery Slope
Jump to: Newest in thread
When you said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Depends on the context, which is the issue with labelling arguments a 'fallacy'.
We started with the push for equal rights for women and now there is a very vocal group of people who want to completely abolish the definition of what a woman is. The push for gay rights has gone from being treated equal equal, not being killed or imprisoned for their sexuality to 'Queer Theorists' arguing for the sexualisation of children along with the abolishment of the term 'gay' to remove homophobia from society.
The slippery slope fallacy is ignorant of self described progressives and their ability to consistently refute their own positions to signal their ever progressing virtue. There's a great book on the English civil wars titled 'Permanent Revolution: The Illiberal Roots of Liberalism' which highlights this endless repudiation of the status quo in an attempt to strong arm progress, enforcing even more oppressive legislation to control the morality of the citizens.
I mean, prominent Philosophers of the 70s in France signed an open letter that called for all age of consent laws to abolished. I'm pretty sure 'slipper slope fallacy' is used to deflect from the reality that despite the majority wanting a centred approach, you can't do that coherently until you think an idea through to it's logical conclusion. And if there is nothing stopping it from going that far other than 'yeah but people would say something about it', then I wonder why people would stand up to stop the legislation of monkeys being allowed to marry humans when the entire of the UK refused to stand up and say something when we were allied with the Soviets despite knowing they were committing atrocities against their own people? Why didn't the German people stand up when they started forcing disabled people into vans, let alone when they did with the Jews? Because the silent majority is a constant throughout, and the idea people will somehow grow a spine is in it's self a dream at best. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Depends on the context, which is the issue with labelling arguments a 'fallacy'.
We started with the push for equal rights for women and now there is a very vocal group of people who want to completely abolish the definition of what a woman is. The push for gay rights has gone from being treated equal equal, not being killed or imprisoned for their sexuality to 'Queer Theorists' arguing for the sexualisation of children along with the abolishment of the term 'gay' to remove homophobia from society.
The slippery slope fallacy is ignorant of self described progressives and their ability to consistently refute their own positions to signal their ever progressing virtue. There's a great book on the English civil wars titled 'Permanent Revolution: The Illiberal Roots of Liberalism' which highlights this endless repudiation of the status quo in an attempt to strong arm progress, enforcing even more oppressive legislation to control the morality of the citizens.
I mean, prominent Philosophers of the 70s in France signed an open letter that called for all age of consent laws to abolished. I'm pretty sure 'slipper slope fallacy' is used to deflect from the reality that despite the majority wanting a centred approach, you can't do that coherently until you think an idea through to it's logical conclusion. And if there is nothing stopping it from going that far other than 'yeah but people would say something about it', then I wonder why people would stand up to stop the legislation of monkeys being allowed to marry humans when the entire of the UK refused to stand up and say something when we were allied with the Soviets despite knowing they were committing atrocities against their own people? Why didn't the German people stand up when they started forcing disabled people into vans, let alone when they did with the Jews? Because the silent majority is a constant throughout, and the idea people will somehow grow a spine is in it's self a dream at best. "
I agree with most of what you say. But I still think that a request for change must be weighed on its own merit rather than what more changes people will ask for in the future. In other words, slippery slope is a valid assumption about reality. But it's something that is ideally kept in the back of the mind in a debate and shouldn't play a big role in the outcome of a debate.
In my opinion, this is why free speech is important. Yes, some people will misuse it. But the positives far outweigh negatives. Throughout the history, you will see people who don't have their say asking for freedom of speech and people who have their way trying to block it. In the past, religious conservatives were favouring taking action against people who talked against the status quo while liberals wanted freedom of speech. Now you have conservatives supporting freedom of speech while liberals trying to find ways to deny it for either through legal means or by social pressure using any kind of phobia as a way to suppress debate.
As long as there is democracy and freedom of speech, I think sanity will prevail. The silent majority can listen to various sides of the arguments and use their voting rights to make a change. Majority of the population know the horrible implications of erasing the definition of woman. They will ensure that sanity prevails on this matter.
On a side note, your arguments and profile name screams of Dosteovsky. Big fan?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I agree with most of what you say. But I still think that a request for change must be weighed on its own merit rather than what more changes people will ask for in the future. In other words, slippery slope is a valid assumption about reality. But it's something that is ideally kept in the back of the mind in a debate and shouldn't play a big role in the outcome of a debate.
In my opinion, this is why free speech is important. Yes, some people will misuse it. But the positives far outweigh negatives. Throughout the history, you will see people who don't have their say asking for freedom of speech and people who have their way trying to block it. In the past, religious conservatives were favouring taking action against people who talked against the status quo while liberals wanted freedom of speech. Now you have conservatives supporting freedom of speech while liberals trying to find ways to deny it for either through legal means or by social pressure using any kind of phobia as a way to suppress debate.
As long as there is democracy and freedom of speech, I think sanity will prevail. The silent majority can listen to various sides of the arguments and use their voting rights to make a change. Majority of the population know the horrible implications of erasing the definition of woman. They will ensure that sanity prevails on this matter.
On a side note, your arguments and profile name screams of Dosteovsky. Big fan? "
Yes that's a fair point and I do agree it's not a proper way to have a debate. It appears that these calls to emotional thinking come from that persons insecurities and fears around the changing of the foundation of values that certain institutions were built on.
Democracy is a tough one to manage in general. We end up with our two party system which is not much better than a one party system to me, but then if we had a multitude of coalitions we'd likely end up stagnating economically and end up in a worse position so I'm just not sure. I think the American attempt to codify a constitution based around English Common Law was helpful but we still don't have a codified constitution. I think the left are starting to wake up to the current situation, the fear is always if it's too late though.
And technically we don't have freedom of speech, we have freedom of opinion haha. All the public order laws from the 80s that came out with the clamping down on football hooligans has made 'offense' illegal to cause in public!
Ah first person to notice
Yeah I love Dostoevsky. something hilariously dark about Notes From Underground but.. He just resonates so well as with his critique of the human condition. Also his epilepsy gave him a real ability to view the world in such a clear and rational way I think anyone pushing for collectivisation should check him out.
Thanks for the reply and noticing the theme |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Yes that's a fair point and I do agree it's not a proper way to have a debate. It appears that these calls to emotional thinking come from that persons insecurities and fears around the changing of the foundation of values that certain institutions were built on.
Democracy is a tough one to manage in general. We end up with our two party system which is not much better than a one party system to me, but then if we had a multitude of coalitions we'd likely end up stagnating economically and end up in a worse position so I'm just not sure. I think the American attempt to codify a constitution based around English Common Law was helpful but we still don't have a codified constitution. I think the left are starting to wake up to the current situation, the fear is always if it's too late though.
And technically we don't have freedom of speech, we have freedom of opinion haha. All the public order laws from the 80s that came out with the clamping down on football hooligans has made 'offense' illegal to cause in public!
Ah first person to notice
Yeah I love Dostoevsky. something hilariously dark about Notes From Underground but.. He just resonates so well as with his critique of the human condition. Also his epilepsy gave him a real ability to view the world in such a clear and rational way I think anyone pushing for collectivisation should check him out.
Thanks for the reply and noticing the theme "
I accept what you said about democracy and freedom of speech. Progress slows down. Not a perfect system. But at least comes with a decent amount of personal liberty which I am happy with. It's indeed unfortunate about how freedom of speech. Most countries have some or other way of controlling it, which I am not a big fan of.
I read my first Dosteovsky book only recently - The Brothers Karamazov. While I don't agree with some of his views, it's still one of the best books I have read. He understands the mind of people following different ideologies really well and expresses them through his characters. The underground man is in my list. Will read it some day.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
