Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by BigAppleNYC123, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. BigAppleNYC123 macrumors regular

    BigAppleNYC123

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2017
    #1
    A slippery slope logical fallacy asserts 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.




    Person 1: Nazi speech should be made illegal
    Person 2: If nazi speech is made illegal, Jew speech could be made illegal, gay speech could be made illegal, and gays and Jews could end up in jail or dead. In order to forestall these circumstances, nazi speech should remain legal.
    Person 1: ....?



    Person 1: Nazi speech should be made illegal
    Person 2: If nazi speech is made illegal, America will become like nazi Germany or the USSR.
    Person 1: ....?




    Historical slippery slopes include:
    1. We cant let gay fornicators leave prison because it could destroy the fabric of America
    2. We can’t let gays have civil unions because it could destroy the fabric of America
    3. We cant let gays have gay marriage because it would destroy the fabric of America
    4. We cant let black slaves go free because it would destroy America
    5. We cant let black people vote because it would destroy America
    6. We can’t let women vote because it would destroy America
    7. We cant give women easy access to abortion because it would destroy America
     
  2. ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #2
    Well it's been a couple of weeks since you last made a new thread about this, so I guess it's time to rehash it here yet again?
     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    We do see a lot of slippery slope arguments here in PRSI.
     
  4. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    PRSSI Politics Religion Slippery Slope Issues.
     
  5. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #5
    Lol, is this thread because you were upset that it was pointed out to you in the other thread that it isn’t a slippery slope to say that if you punch people you decide are Nazis in the face you will end up in jail? Did you need online validation that badly?
     
  6. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    In his defense, I truly believe that the OP is very young.
     
  7. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    I agree, I doubt he is even the 13 he is supposed to be to sign up for this site.
     
  8. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #8
    Slippery slope arguments generally are logically fallacious.

    But that still doesn't mean we ought to ban certain kinds of speech, no matter how offensive they might be. Free speech means free speech. Incitement to riot and conspiracy to commit murder are crimes in their own right, without compromising the principle of free speech.

    Nazi speech, provided it stays within the general precepts we attach to the term, cannot and should not be outlawed.
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    When Nazi speech turns into Nazi action I'll join in punching them in the face. The best thing for Nazi sentiment is to expose it to public scrutiny.
     
  10. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #10
    Yeah, this is getting old.

    I'm gay and I am a Jew, everybody love me!
     
  11. cube Suspended

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #11
    I think the OP has a fake avatar. Probably a state or group actor.
     
  12. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #12
    Jesus Christ another Nazi thread from this guy. There might be 5000 in the entire US, IGNORE THEM!!!!!!
     
  13. BigAppleNYC123 thread starter macrumors regular

    BigAppleNYC123

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2017
    #13
    I expect the oppposite. I don’t want or need or expect to have your love
    --- Post Merged, Oct 11, 2017 ---
    source?
    --- Post Merged, Oct 11, 2017 ---
    Nein
     
  14. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #14
    I like John Olivers explanation for this argument. When someone asks, "where does it end?" or "where is the line" in response to a suggested policy, the answer is always "somewhere." There is a line where, and it ends somewhere.

    Slippery slope arguments presume that a certain policy will be stretched forever ad absurdum. But this is never the case. Again, John Oliver's words I am paraphrasing: "Oh we let our toddler have Twizzlers, so obviously she's allowed to have black tar heroin too." No, there is a line somewhere in between, and it's not difficult to find.
     
  15. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #15
    May I ask your age?
     
  16. cube Suspended

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #16
    And this is why your avatar looks suspicious.
     
  17. DeltaMac macrumors G3

    DeltaMac

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Location:
    Delaware
    #17
    But, tolerance turns into something completely different when you disregard (or totally ignore) love.
    Tolerance with love accepts a wide range of behaviors, without turning to hate, or even to intolerance, and also without accepting or agreeing with those behaviors. Those without love cannot see (or feel) the difference.
     
  18. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #18
    ADL has it at 3000, the SPLC has it between 5000 and 8000.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...is-still-based-in-22-states-in-the-us-in-2017

    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan

     
  19. BigAppleNYC123 thread starter macrumors regular

    BigAppleNYC123

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2017
    #19
    Why does it matter?
    --- Post Merged, Oct 11, 2017 ---
    Do you expect gay Jews to be desperate for your love? Why?
     
  20. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #20
    Because you seem very idealistic, so I am trying to figure out if yours is the result of the typical idealism that affects everyone in youth, that is before life, laws, and reality hit and the consciousness of consequences becomes evident.
     
  21. BigAppleNYC123 thread starter macrumors regular

    BigAppleNYC123

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2017
    #21
    I’m in my twenties. I used to be more pragmatic but the growth of the alt right, AFD and BNP has jolted me to the left. I maintain that I am a centrist,
    Given my ability to criticize BLM, Obama’s Middle East inaction, and the misuse of the word racism.
     
  22. cube Suspended

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #22
    No, I expect that a hate group could start controversial threads with their enemy's avatar.
     
  23. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #23
    Unfortunately it’s not always an easily defined line that everyone will agree on, and people will use the slippery slope accusation as a deflection to avoid debating where that line is.
     
  24. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #24
    Thank you for your honesty (37 here).
    I strongly suggest to utilize PRSI as a trampoline to challenge your own views, and not to use it exclusively as a platform for them. Most regulars here read constitutional law books and historical papers as the light breakfast read of the day. It should not come as a surprise that if someone opens five threads with the same line of thought in total disregard of stuff like the Constitution people immediately think of a troll. I think you’re honest in your beliefs, you do really care about the issue which - we ALL agree here - is an issue. But once you disregard each rebuttal based on the constitution as if “enabling nazis” or similar, then you incur in the risk of not being listened.
    This is not to say that you should not say what you believe - far from it. But you have to be ready to argumentate in a way that is not based on feelings. If I reply to you quoting an opinion or an historical document, go read it and find the counter argument in, let’s say, the dissent, and add your own views.
    You opened a thread quoting Popper and a paradox, which is all good, but you forgot the part that philosophical arguments are abstract, and paradoxes are used to push questions, often with little or no practical purpose in mind. That is, a philosophical paradox might not be a real paradox, and it could be actually useless. It’s a bit like the age old question of “if you could go back would you kill 9yo Hitler? Would it be ethical?”. It’s a good philosophical question, and we can argue about it forever. But it does not teach much about practical matters (we will never be able to do it), and certainly we can’t develop policies based on such an abstract question.
     
  25. anonymouslurker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    #25
    Which is cancelled out by overwhelming use of the word nazi.
     

Share This Page

33 October 10, 2017