# Are Slippery Slopes Real?



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2012)

I believe that 'slippery slope' arguments can be based on fact and can accurately predict future activities.   But just because a person invokes the 'slippery slope' argument, that doesn't mean it will come to pass; nor does it mean it will NOT come to pass.  Dismissing an argument that invokes the 'slippery slope' is not valid just on the basis that it is a slippy slope argument.  You have to have some other means of either attacking or defending such an argument.

Here's a case in point; public smoking.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...in-duplexes-and-other-multi-family-homes?lite



> California city bans smoking in duplexes and other multi-family homes
> By Ronnie Cohen, Reuters
> SAN RAFAEL, Calif. - A San Francisco suburb on Monday banned smoking in duplexes, condominiums and other multi-family homes, with city leaders saying they hoped to lead a wave of such regulations across California and ultimately the country.



Now, you might have noted, if you have been following the smoking/anti-smoking arguments across the decades, that smokers have long held that the anti-smokers would never be satisfied with a simple ban on smoking in restaurants.  They argued the slippery slope; that once anti-smokers got smoking banned in bars and restaurants, they'd proceed to ban it in other places, until a person could not even smoke in their own car or home anymore.  The anti-smokers, of course, pooh-poohed this argument and dismissed it as pure rubbish.  They would NEVER want to ban what a person did to himself alone, so long as it didn't harm others, as second-hand smoke did (they argued).  So the smokers were just being a bunch of crybabies, they were safe and could keep smoking in their cars and homes.

Except now, in San Rafael, CA, they cannot, if that home happens to be a multi-family dwelling like a duplex, a condo, and apartment, etc.

Some will still say the 'slippery slope' argument doesn't apply.  They'll claim that this is only California, and they're all crazy anyway.  They'll claim that there is a danger of second hand smoke to non-smokers if they even live in the same condo complex as a smoker, and that's why it is OK to ban it.  But they will never, ever, admit that they will not stop until smoking is just flat-out illegal. And the smokers will claim that this is their ultimate goal, and they're lying if they say anything else.

It's pretty clear if you look at the history, though, that in this case, the smokers are right.  The anti-smokers didn't stop and haven't stopped demanding more and more restrictions on public smoking.  The 'slippery slope' argument was an accurate representation of the way things have worked out.

I am not taking the side of the smokers here, I'm pointing out that 'slippery slope' arguments can be absolutely true, and that therefore you cannot simply dismiss them because they predict future expansions of some type of activity.

This is why gun owners reject nearly all additional gun legislation.  People in favor of 'reasonable' gun laws may think they are crazy, but the gun owners invoke the 'slippery slope' argument that gun restrictions lead to MORE gun restrictions, and that the gun-grabbers will NEVER STOP demanding more and more and more until all guns are outlawed.  That's why they fight even laws that some see as 'reasonable'.  Does it make a little bit more sense now?

The same thing with legislation for the easing of drug laws.  Many (myself included) see these as precursors to laws that open the floodgates to everything; because those in favor of legalizing marijuana will NEVER STOP at legalizing just that drug; they want ALL drugs legalized, no matter what they claim in public.

Not all 'slippery slope' arguments come true.  Public smoking?  That one is, with a vengeance.  And it takes a ballsy anti-smoker to deny it at this point.

Again, not arguing about whether or not anti-smoking laws are good or just.  Just pointing out that the smokers' dire predictions were right on the money.


----------



## Steve (Oct 16, 2012)

There's a reason that the slippery slope is a classic logical fallacy.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 16, 2012)

Usage matters a lot in such matters, Steve.  Saying if A then C, without defining B, then the argument has a fallacious element.  Defining the intermediate steps with evidence or supported supposition makes it a valid argument rather than a fallacy - a chain of conjecture rather than a leap of faith.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2012)

Steve said:


> There's a reason that the slippery slope is a classic logical fallacy.



And that would be?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2012)

This is an argument about how to argue ? 

Of course it could be just the thin end of the wedge.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 16, 2012)

Its been twenty years since my logic class, but what we have here is a simple social dynamic, that anybody on any side of any issue has a world view, and will assume that world view, for everyone, if you let them. I don't know if that is slippery slope, but its just basic social common sense to assume, any given voting block will subject their point of view on the "rest of us" when it comes to the law. On the the other hand, Bill, perhaps smokers have been running the world for too long, and it is reasonable to think our non-smoking children should be able to rent a duplex that doesn't smell like stale cigarettes all the time. I don't smoke so I pay little attention to the issue.


----------



## granfire (Oct 16, 2012)

well, this is not about the smoking, I am assuming?
(If so, we got a house from a heavy smoker, a coat of paint and some thorough cleaning gets rid of the smells!)

But I can see the social dynamic part.

However, it is the landslide waiting to happen to cut personal rights.

And it is visible on many fronts.
Of course I don't care where people smoke. I mean, yes, I have gotten used to smoke free public places, but if things were that bad in reality about 2nd hand smoke, we all would be dead by now, because in the 50s, 60s and 70s everybody smoked. Everywhere!

However, I see radical groups working hard to curb rights to own and use animals.
And these people are very open about it, they want more and more regulations. You don't fight that, you will slide down that slope eventually.
And the 'slippery slope' argument has been used to debunk worries and warnings.
However, from were I stand, for everybody with a long enough memory, the slope might not be steep, but it sure is, well, slippery!

I am wondering how constitutional the ban of smoking in a multifamily dwelling really is. Unless the residents are renters, I don't see the government having a say so in otherwise legal activities in privacy.
But California has been the Canary in the Coal mines for a lot of crazy things. Some not too bad, some outright loony. But they set precedence for the rest of the nation to garner a foothold in.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> Its been twenty years since my logic class, but what we have here is a simple social dynamic, that anybody on any side of any issue has a world view, and will assume that world view, for everyone, if you let them. I don't know if that is slippery slope, but its just basic social common sense to assume, any given voting block will subject their point of view on the "rest of us" when it comes to the law. On the the other hand, Bill, perhaps smokers have been running the world for too long, and it is reasonable to think our non-smoking children should be able to rent a duplex that doesn't smell like stale cigarettes all the time. I don't smoke so I pay little attention to the issue.



It really doesn't have much to do with smoking, per se.

The idea is that someone on the 'against' side of an argument for some regulation will argue that regulations such as the one under discussion will tend to increase, not decrease.

The example being, if you ban smoking in restaurants today, tomorrow you will want to ban smoking in bars.  If you ban smoking in bars, you will want to ban smoking in public.  If you ban smoking in public, you will want to ban smoking in private homes.  And so on.  The slippery slope argument attempts to make the point that opening the door to a little regulation always ends up with a lot of regulation, and that this was the original intent in the first place.

In the case of smoking laws, it's becoming clear that the slippery slope argument is coming true.  What the smokers claimed has come to pass and continues to come to pass.

Not about smoking.  It's about how attempts to control behavior always advance and never retreat, nor do they remain static.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2012)

granfire said:


> well, this is not about the smoking, I am assuming?
> (If so, we got a house from a heavy smoker, a coat of paint and some thorough cleaning gets rid of the smells!)
> 
> But I can see the social dynamic part.
> ...



I have to agree with you.  Not about smoking - as a former smoker, I am of mixed mind on this.  I prefer eating in smoke-free restaurants, absolutely.  Cigarette smoke annoys me now, whereas it did not when I was a smoker.  On the other hand, I had a hard time with the argument that bars and restaurants were not permitted to set their own rules regarding smoking.  I got the 'second hand smoke, so we must protect the employees' laws, but even single-owner, no employee restaurants and bars are now subject to the laws, so it never really was about protecting employees anyway; it was about restricting smokers.

But as I said, I see it both ways.  The point I wanted to make in this thread, though, was that 'slippery slope' arguments, though often used, can be true or false.  Just because someone offers an objection to some proposal and bases it on the 'slippery slope', you can't automatically assume they are right - OR - wrong.  In the case of the smoking thing, it's pretty clear that the argument was an accurate prediction of things to come.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have to agree with you.  Not about smoking - as a former smoker, I am of mixed mind on this.  I prefer eating in smoke-free restaurants, absolutely.  Cigarette smoke annoys me now, whereas it did not when I was a smoker.  On the other hand, I had a hard time with the argument that bars and restaurants were not permitted to set their own rules regarding smoking.  I got the 'second hand smoke, so we must protect the employees' laws, but even single-owner, no employee restaurants and bars are now subject to the laws, so it never really was about protecting employees anyway; it was about restricting smokers.
> 
> But as I said, I see it both ways.  The point I wanted to make in this thread, though, was that 'slippery slope' arguments, though often used, can be true or false.  Just because someone offers an objection to some proposal and bases it on the 'slippery slope', you can't automatically assume they are right - OR - wrong.  In the case of the smoking thing, it's pretty clear that the argument was an accurate prediction of things to come.


If you give them an inch they will take a mile, is the more accurate argument. LOL


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> If you give them an inch they will take a mile, is the more accurate argument. LOL



Better said, thank you!


----------



## Steve (Oct 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have to agree with you.  Not about smoking - as a former smoker, I am of mixed mind on this.  I prefer eating in smoke-free restaurants, absolutely.  Cigarette smoke annoys me now, whereas it did not when I was a smoker.  On the other hand, I had a hard time with the argument that bars and restaurants were not permitted to set their own rules regarding smoking.  I got the 'second hand smoke, so we must protect the employees' laws, but even single-owner, no employee restaurants and bars are now subject to the laws, so it never really was about protecting employees anyway; it was about restricting smokers.
> 
> But as I said, I see it both ways.  The point I wanted to make in this thread, though, was that 'slippery slope' arguments, though often used, can be true or false.  Just because someone offers an objection to some proposal and bases it on the 'slippery slope', you can't automatically assume they are right - OR - wrong.  In the case of the smoking thing, it's pretty clear that the argument was an accurate prediction of things to come.


My opinion on this is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes.  I'll have to give some thought to where I stand on rentals.  Owners should be able to set terms on their properties, and renters should be obligated to comply.  

But where people are earning a wage, I believe very strongly that they should be protected from risking their health and safety in ways that are irrelevant and avoidable, even if they voluntarily do so.  Coal miners can't volunteer to forego equipment that protects them from black lung.  Were that possible, there is no doubt that some people would be desperate enough for a job that they would knowingly risk their lives to mine coal.  Similarly, construction workers can't waive the requirement that they wear a hard hat.  And in all cases, where the risky behavior or exposure is unnecessary or irrelevant, that exposure is eliminated.  

Except when it comes to relatively low wage earning, service industry employees.  It's a glaring disparity, and personally, I'm 100% in favor of making everyone's workplace as safe as possible.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2012)

Steve said:


> My opinion on this is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes.  I'll have to give some thought to where I stand on rentals.  Owners should be able to set terms on their properties, and renters should be obligated to comply.



That is already the case, I believe.  I have lived in apartment buildings which banned smoking, and many hotel chains ban smoking in the rooms now.  The property can indeed set those rules to the best of my knowledge.

And in Michigan, as in a lot of states, employers can force employees to not smoke even on their own time, even at home, under penalty of termination.

But neither of those is the government.  Governments have the power to coerce with penalty of removal of freedom (jail time).  No employer can put you in jail, they can only fire you.  No landlord can put you in jail, they can only evict you.  Government has much more power over our lives; this also means they should (IMHO) have less power over our bodies.



> But where people are earning a wage, I believe very strongly that they should be protected from risking their health and safety in ways that are irrelevant and avoidable, even if they voluntarily do so.  Coal miners can't volunteer to forego equipment that protects them from black lung.  Were that possible, there is no doubt that some people would be desperate enough for a job that they would knowingly risk their lives to mine coal.  Similarly, construction workers can't waive the requirement that they wear a hard hat.  And in all cases, where the risky behavior or exposure is unnecessary or irrelevant, that exposure is eliminated.
> 
> Except when it comes to relatively low wage earning, service industry employees.  It's a glaring disparity, and personally, I'm 100% in favor of making everyone's workplace as safe as possible.



That's something I'm sure we could argue about forever.  I will agree that as taxpayers have to assume more and more of the source of funding for healthcare, then we do indeed get to a point where the taxpayer should have a say in how those they have to pay for choose to treat their bodies.

However, the other side of that coin is easy to see also.  If you can make the argument that the government has a compelling reason to ban smoking as it requires hard hats, then the government can also force you to lose weight if you're fat.  Or to exercise if you are sedentary.  Or to eat or not eat certain foods.  Risky 'extreme' sports are right out the window, due to the high risk of injury.  And while we're at it, we're going to have to ban unprotected or risky sex.  Hey, if you want to get extreme, when AIDS first arose in the USA, it was initially seen almost exclusively in the gay and intravenous drug users; we should have quarantined them, and we definitely should have made anal sex illegal due to the high risk to health it caused.

That's the problem with 'if it is good for you, you should be forced to do it' arguments.  There is no limit to the things that we do to ourselves that are not technically 'good for us'.  Is the government responsible for some of that, none of that, or all of that?  If you argue that it's only responsible for some of it, then where do you draw the line?  Hard hats and no smoking are OK to regulate, but gay sex is off limits to regulate?  Some one else might disagree with you.  What if the numbers are on their side?  At what point are you willing to throw away somebody else's freedoms for your notion of what's good for them?

Speaking only for myself, although I am far more moderate than I once was towards the idea of government regulation, I don't think it's the government's damned business whether I smoke or not in my own home.  Or skydive on weekend.  Or engage in risky business with partners who shall remain unnamed.  I might agree to wear a seatbelt while driving, though.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2012)

Never got the hang of logic, much prefer empathy, passion and good old fashioned common sense. Don't go much for theoretical arguments either much prefer action rather than talk.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Never got the hang of logic, much prefer empathy, passion and good old fashioned common sense. Don't go much for theoretical arguments either much prefer action rather than talk.



With logic, like science, the best argument wins.  Anything else boils down to who brought the biggest gun.  Dictators prefer not to use logic also.  They similarly claim that they based their oppression on empathy, passion, and good old fashioned common sense.  Without logic, you can't even argue that their empathy is not as good as your empathy.  So if they have the bigger guns, you lose.

Logic and science are all that matters externally.  I will reserve my emotion and passion for matters of the heart, not in telling other people how to live.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> With logic, like science, the best argument wins. Anything else boils down to who brought the biggest gun. Dictators prefer not to use logic also. They similarly claim that they based their oppression on empathy, passion, and good old fashioned common sense. Without logic, you can't even argue that their empathy is not as good as your empathy. So if they have the bigger guns, you lose.
> 
> Logic and science are all that matters externally. I will reserve my emotion and passion for matters of the heart, not in telling other people how to live.



Logic doesn't really exist and science can be used, it's not infallible, look at thalidiomide. Logic is what people want it to be and they will use their 'logic' to tell people what to do. Dictators very much argue that their logic is what is needed.
Why is it all a competition? Why does someones empathy have to be better than someone elses? 
Perhaps what's needed is not logic or even science, perhaps what is needed is tolerance and acceptance, less arguing altogether.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 16, 2012)

I&#8217;ve tried&#8230;I&#8217;ve tried REAL hard but I am weak&#8230;

When I was in 4th grade I was waiting to get into school, it was spring and I was playing with my friends on the outside of the fence, next to a slope that was at about 45 degrees&#8230;I stepped on it and slid all the way down (about 20 feet) to the bottom and landed in a big mud puddle and had to spend the entire day, in school, wet and covered in mud&#8230;&#8230; so you ask Are Slippery Slopes Real? And I respond Hell yeah, I got in all sorts of trouble because of one


----------



## geezer (Oct 16, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> &#8230;&#8230; so you ask Are Slippery Slopes Real? And I respond Hell yeah, I got in all sorts of trouble because of one



Really, it depends on where you stand. One man's _slippery slope_ is another's _uphill battle_.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 16, 2012)

geezer said:


> Really, it depends on where you stand. One man's _slippery slope_ is another's _uphill battle_.



Yeah... I had that too...right after I discovered the slippery slope


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 16, 2012)

The slippery slope arguement is often used instead of logic to scare people into thinking a certain way.  IF you can connect a to c through b, then it is a valid arguement.  I don't see that very often though. 

In the case of smoking, I'm all for public area bans. I am an ex-smoker and now cigerette smoke makes me physically ill.  I shouldn't be subjected to it out in public. Like the old saying, "Your rights end and the tip of my nose (or lungs)"  Even if second hand smoke was not bad for a person, a person shouldn't have to deal with it.  Now in a person's private domocile, I don't care much what they do.  It would only effect me if I went to thier place, and then I knowingly enter a smoker's home.  An employer can decide whether smoking on premises is allowed or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 16, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> The slippery slope arguement is often used instead of logic to scare people into thinking a certain way.  IF you can connect a to c through b, then it is a valid arguement.  I don't see that very often though.
> 
> In the case of smoking, I'm all for public area bans. I am an ex-smoker and now cigerette smoke makes me physically ill.  I shouldn't be subjected to it out in public. Like the old saying, "Your rights end and the tip of my nose (or lungs)"  Even if second hand smoke was not bad for a person, a person shouldn't have to deal with it.  Now in a person's private domocile, I don't care much what they do.  It would only effect me if I went to thier place, and then I knowingly enter a smoker's home.  An employer can decide whether smoking on premises is allowed or not.



Ah, but the argument seems to hold water.  The ban I mentioned is not on workplaces or in public, but in the home.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 16, 2012)

Is the ban a result of smoking first being banned in public, then in the work place?  Or is the ban of smoking at home more of a overall systemic approach?  It matters if the slippery slope arguement is valid.  Then can the ban at peole's home really be achieved?  It would seem a constitutional issue in that case, which would be hard to overcome.  Now keep in mind, if renting, that isn't your property, but rather the landlord's, so he could put conditions on your renting the place.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 16, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Logic doesn't really exist



Excuse me?  Given that mathematics is founded on logic and all of science and engineering is founded on mathematics I have to say that I would be most interested in seeing a proof of that assertion :lol:.

As to the use and abuse of science, that has little to do with the science and much more to do with money and power (and poor research on occasion (plus the odd catastrophic unintended consequence)).


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Excuse me? Given that mathematics is founded on logic and all of science and engineering is founded on mathematics I have to say that I would be most interested in seeing a proof of that assertion :lol:.
> 
> As to the use and abuse of science, that has little to do with the science and much more to do with money and power (and poor research on occasion (plus the odd catastrophic unintended consequence)).



You live with a woman and you want proof there's no logic?


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 16, 2012)

:chuckles:  Well *I* wasn't going to be the one to say that! :lol:


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 16, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> You live with a woman and you want proof there's no logic?



<whistles quietly so his wife doesn't hear him laughing>


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2012)

The logic you find in numbers and science isn't the 'logic' you find when you deal with people, then there is no logic at all! Ask any police officer lol!

http://scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 16, 2012)

Interesting link, Tez.  The article is largely nonsense; 'look-at-me!' circular double-talk dressed up to look smart.  But the comments after it, specifically those of Steve Thomas, were well worth waiting for .


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Interesting link, Tez. The article is largely nonsense; 'look-at-me!' circular double-talk dressed up to look smart. But the comments after it, specifically those of Steve Thomas, were well worth waiting for .



The article is what is wrong when people try to sound smart. Just say what you think and say it from the heart is good enough for most, it's honest at least. Too many people think it's clever to try and play games with words, they think they sound educated when in fact well educated people put things plainly without playing word gymnastics.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 17, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> In the case of smoking, I'm all for public area bans. I am an ex-smoker and now cigerette smoke makes me physically ill.  I shouldn't be subjected to it out in public. Like the old saying, "Your rights end and the tip of my nose (or lungs)"  Even if second hand smoke was not bad for a person, a person shouldn't have to deal with it.  Now in a person's private domocile, I don't care much what they do.  It would only effect me if I went to thier place, and then I knowingly enter a smoker's home.  An employer can decide whether smoking on premises is allowed or not.



Ok, so... Bars, Restaurants etc, are all Private Property.  They are open for the use of the public at the discretion of the owner.  So, if a Bar allowed smoking, wouldn't it only effect you if you went to their place, as you stated above about a private home?  By going, aren't you choosing to expose yourself to the environment?  If so by your own argument the ban would make no sense... but a ban on smoking outside the bar would:  The exact opposite of what we have now.

Not that it matters to me, I don't smoke.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 17, 2012)

You have a point, Cryzombie.  Those resteraunts would lose my bussiness, but perhaps they would make it up with smokers.  I can see how requiring the resteraunts and bars being smoke free is government going to far.  However, public places should remain smoke free.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 17, 2012)

The argument that government has used to ban smoking in restaurants and bars is not about patrons, but about employees, who are being exposed to 2nd-hand smoke whether they like it or not.

OK, so that's a valid argument in and of itself, but it gets the camel's nose under the tent, and it has been noticed that not many jurisdictions that have banned smoking in bars and restaurants have made any exceptions for bars and restaurants that HAVE no employees other than the owners.  That behavior kind of shoots down the notion that it's really all about the safety of the employees.  It's not, that's just a backdoor way of getting smoking banned.

And as I've pointed out, the smokers said this would be taken to extremes, and the anti-smokers said it would not.  The smokers were clearly correct; now we see banning of smoking in multi-family homes in these towns in California.  From there, it will become a statewide law, and then spread to the East Coast (NYC) and then fill in both sides of the country; from the liberal states to the conservative.

The goal is clear - to ban private behavior that 'we' don't care for, using any means necessary and a 'divide and conquer' strategy.

This strategy is the same one used by gun-grabbers since the 1960s, and one which they consistently deny using.  Oh no, they don't want to ban all guns!  Heaven forbid!  They only want to have some 'reasonable restrictions' for the safety of all.  And the pro-gun people laugh at this and resist all guns laws, no matter how 'common sense' they seem, because they KNOW that this is a lie.  And as you see in the smoking example, it is a lie.

Sometimes, the 'slippery slope' argument is correct.   This is one of those times.  Notice that several people don't want to talk about that, they want to change the subject.  And that's the point.


----------



## granfire (Oct 17, 2012)

There is something for ya:
http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=20790

but then read this:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1717.13


> [h=1]1717.13 Any person may protect animal.[/h]             When, in order to protect any animal from neglect, it is  necessary to take possession of it, any person may do so. When an animal  is impounded or confined, and continues without necessary food, water,  or proper attention for more than fifteen successive hours, any person  may, as often as is necessary, enter any place in which the animal is  impounded or confined and supply it with necessary food, water, and  attention, so long as it remains there, or, if necessary, or convenient,  he may remove such animal; and he shall not be liable to an action for  such entry. In all cases the owner or custodian of such animal, if known  to such person, immediately shall be notified by him of such action. If  the owner or custodian is unknown to such person, and cannot with  reasonable effort be ascertained by him, such animal shall be considered  an estray and dealt with as such.
> The necessary expenses for food and attention given to an animal  under this section may be collected from the owner of such animal, and  the animal shall not be exempt from levy and sale upon execution issued  upon a judgment for such expenses.
> Effective Date: 10-01-1953



though, the date has me baffled.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 17, 2012)

granfire said:


> There is something for ya:
> http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=20790
> 
> but then read this:
> ...



What?


----------



## Steve (Oct 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's something I'm sure we could argue about forever.  I will agree that as taxpayers have to assume more and more of the source of funding for healthcare, then we do indeed get to a point where the taxpayer should have a say in how those they have to pay for choose to treat their bodies.


I think you misunderstood.  I think people should be allowed to poison themselves in any number of ways on their own time.  What I am talking about are employers.  An employer shouldn't be able to knowingly and unnecessarily put an employee's health or safety at risk, even if the employee is willing. 

I am not talking about somehow removing risks inherent to the job.  For example, a fire fighter is going to encounter fires and that's dangerous.  But the fire fighter is provided gear that keeps him or her as safe as possible.  The fire fighter can't be required to juggle knives while at the station, or inhale scotch guard fumes.  While fire is an inherent danger, knives and noxious fumes aren't.

In the same way, a bartender or waitress might risk burns and back problems as inherent parts of the job.  But smoking isn't inherent to eating, as demonstrated by people who smoke without eating or drinking, and people who drink and eat without smoking.  And so, I don't think that an employer should be able to force an employee to knowingly risk exposure to a known carcinogen unnecessarily, even if that employee would be willing to do so. 

Beyond that, knock yourself out.  We've talked before about my views on prohibition.  It's a free country and, provided that there is transparency so that you are making a knowledgeable choice to eff yourself up, go for it.  Eat twinkies and big macs for every meal.


----------



## granfire (Oct 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What?



LOL, sorry.

Slippery slope: My argument was that certain segments are actively working on curbing our rights of animal ownership, a little step at a time (that is what they say in their meetings, of course not on their webpages) 
The first article featured two 'ladies' getting busted for trespassing, as they marched themselves into somebody's barn, without permission, to take pictures of the neglected?mistreated horses.

Under the article posted below, in Ohio there could probably not even be any legal ramification for these two women should the animals be determined abused/mistreated....
Slippery: Few people know anymore what animals really need to  be happy and healthy.
But more people feel entitled to stick their noses into other people's business. Rules are for the other person, after all. 
(the age of the law surprised me though, I had expected it to be much newer. On the same note, I wonder what precedence caused it to be drafted)


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 17, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And that would be?




That would be the closely tied fallacy of the undistributed middle.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 18, 2012)

Steve said:


> I think you misunderstood.  I think people should be allowed to poison themselves in any number of ways on their own time.  What I am talking about are employers.  An employer shouldn't be able to knowingly and unnecessarily put an employee's health or safety at risk, even if the employee is willing.
> 
> I am not talking about somehow removing risks inherent to the job.  For example, a fire fighter is going to encounter fires and that's dangerous.  But the fire fighter is provided gear that keeps him or her as safe as possible.  The fire fighter can't be required to juggle knives while at the station, or inhale scotch guard fumes.  While fire is an inherent danger, knives and noxious fumes aren't.
> 
> ...



OK, I got ya.  Sorry for misunderstanding you.

My point was not really about how we feel about banning smoking, though.

My point was that the smokers who claimed that banning smoking in the workplace would not be the end of it were right.  It isn't.  The slippery slope they described at that time turned out to be accurate.

This also helps to explain the reason why gun owners tend to resist all new attempts to regulate firearms, claiming the slippery slope.  People in favor of 'reasonable regulation' never seem to grasp why they would think that the slippery slope exists, but here is proof that in some case, yes, it most definitely does exist.  Fearing the slippery slope in the case of gun control is hardly paranoid thinking.


----------



## Steve (Oct 18, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> OK, I got ya.  Sorry for misunderstanding you.
> 
> My point was not really about how we feel about banning smoking, though.
> 
> ...


I get you.  But the hazard here is failing to acknowledge that human nature and reasonable prediction based on cause and effect isn't exactly a slippery slope.

For example, saying, "Oh brother.  They've banned smoking in bars.  Mark my words, those zealots won't stop until they've banned french fries and big macs."  That's a slippery slope.  

That's different from acknowledging that there are factions with agendas and the degree of support they receive is a function of money, influence and several other things.  Simply put, I'd say that the distinction is whether we draw conclusions based on an emotional litmus test or based on reasonable evaluation.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 18, 2012)




----------



## WC_lun (Oct 18, 2012)

I understand what you are saying Bill, and don't neccesarily disagree with you.  There are times though that the slippery slope arguement is used to counter otherwise reasonable things.  The one that pops immediatley to mind is gay marriage.  How many times have we heard arguements not against gay marriage itself, but rather the slippery slope arguement that ends with beastiality being legal? There is no reason to think that gay marriage would lead to that, but people will use it as an arguement.  I'm not trying to start a discussion on gay marriage, so please don't anyone derail the thread.  It is just an example. 

I think we must be careful about using the slippery slope arguement except in cases where it is a real threat.  Any legislation should be judged on its' own merit.  That in itself would keep the slippery slope from happening.  in the case of cigerette smoking, there are strong reasons to ban smoking in public places.  However, it is much harder to justify banning smoking in a person's private home.  If legislation to ban smoking in the home is rejected, then there is no more slope.


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 18, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> However, it is much harder to justify banning smoking in a person's private home.  If legislation to ban smoking in the home is rejected, then there is no more slope.



And here's where the definition of a private home becomes important. People should b a ble to to what they wish inside a single family dwelling.

Rental units are not yours. Condos are a grey area. Much of the arguments in favour of a smoking ban in multi-unit buildings is tha the HVAC is shared, therefore second-hand smoke cannot be restricted to the smoker's unit.


----------



## Carol (Oct 18, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> And here's where the definition of a private home becomes important. People should b a ble to to what they wish inside a single family dwelling.
> 
> Rental units are not yours. Condos are a grey area. Much of the arguments in favour of a smoking ban in multi-unit buildings is tha the HVAC is shared, therefore second-hand smoke cannot be restricted to the smoker's unit.



However, that would only apply to shared forced-air HVAC systems.  I have seen shared FHW and individual forced-air systems that are fed by a common fuel supply (usually natural gas) but not a shared forced-air.  That's not to say they do not exist, just saying that I have not seen them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## CanuckMA (Oct 18, 2012)

Carol said:


> However, that would only apply to shared forced-air HVAC systems.  I have seen shared FHW and individual forced-air systems that are fed by a common fuel supply (usually natural gas) but not a shared forced-air.  That's not to say they do not exist, just saying that I have not seen them.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I've also never seen a multi unit building where individual units were completely sealed from each other. 

It's a minefirld, with so many different construction types, but I don't see it as a slippery slope. More as the continuation of tacling the same problem. Go for the easy solution first, ban in public places, and slowly move on to more difficult places. Multi unit buildings are the next step. Should be the last.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 18, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> I've also never seen a multi unit building where individual units were completely sealed from each other.
> 
> It's a minefirld, with so many different construction types, but I don't see it as a slippery slope. More as the continuation of tacling the same problem. Go for the easy solution first, ban in public places, and slowly move on to more difficult places. Multi unit buildings are the next step. Should be the last.



That is actually the textbook definition of a slippery slope.

And duplexes and townhouses are definitely on their own HVAC systems; I've lived in them.  As are most apartment buildings.  My last apartment had its own heater and AC unit.  No vents between apartments.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 18, 2012)

... which text book would that be?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 18, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> ... which text book would that be?
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



Not one of yours, apparently.  I'll bet yours are all colored in already anyway.  I heard your library caught on fire; it was a complete loss, both books burned.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 18, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not one of yours, apparently.  I'll bet yours are all colored in already anyway.  I heard your library caught on fire; it was a complete loss, both books burned.



In my defense, I colored in the lines like 90% of the time.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 20, 2012)

Part of the Validity or lack there of  of Slipery slope argument too, comes from, IMO, the lack of understanding on the part of the participants:  

Lets look at Bill's example of gun control;

Already the people in favor of the bans have demonstrated a lack of understanding of these bans: Interchanging "Full Auto" and "Semi Auto" and taking them to mean the same thing, Instituting bans on the appearance of a firearm rather than its function, or its country of origin, or the brand name of the manufacturer... It's very easy to see how, given those circumstances, the slippery slope on gun control very well could be real...  Let them Ban Shotguns because they were made in Russia, now there is no reason why they might not ban them because they were made in Italy.

Then lets look at the other example of Gay Marriage; 
If we allow gays to marry, It's just a Slippery slope until we let a guy marry his toaster.  But where is the connection to allowing a man to marry his toaster?  That would be, to my mind like saying "If we ban guns, next we would ban Shampoo"  There is no real connection between the two, so where is the slippery slope?  But the people making the argument don't seem to understand the difference between a man and a toaster, only fixating on the term Marriage. Maybe it should be called the "slippery ramp to jump thru a ring of fire" argument.

I think that if there could be a reasonable connection between A and B, the Argument should be valid, if there is not but rather a wild leap from A to C, The Argument becomes a Logical fallacy.

Just my thoughts on the issue.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 20, 2012)

Or something else that comes to mind, perhaps all parts need to be related for it not to be a Logical Fallacy:

"If we let them look in our Purses, next they will want to search our pants."  <---This works for me because "Look and Search" are related and "Purse and pants" are also.

"If we let them look into our Purses, next they will want to grope our Children" <--- This doesnt work for me... "Look and Grope" arent really related "Purse and Children" also are not.  I'd call that one a Logical Fallacy.

"If we let them Look into our purses, next they will want to look at our kids naked" <--- This also doesnt work for me, because while "looking" remained constant, Purses and children have no de facto relationship.

Do I make any sense?  Or am I just making up crazy talk?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 20, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Then lets look at the other example of Gay Marriage;
> If we allow gays to marry, It's just a Slippery slope until we let a guy marry his toaster.  But where is the connection to allowing a man to marry his toaster?  That would be, to my mind like saying "If we ban guns, next we would ban Shampoo"  There is no real connection between the two, so where is the slippery slope?  But the people making the argument don't seem to understand the difference between a man and a toaster, only fixating on the term Marriage. Maybe it should be called the "slippery ramp to jump thru a ring of fire" argument.
> 
> I think that if there could be a reasonable connection between A and B, the Argument should be valid, if there is not but rather a wild leap from A to C, The Argument becomes a Logical fallacy.
> ...



Let's see if we can establish the logic of the slippery slope as it pertains to gay marriage.

We begin with the premise that prior to the same-sex marriage laws in the USA, marriage had a specific meaning, whether it was defined as such or simply understood to be a certain way.  That is, it was one man, one woman.  Two important considerations here.  The first is gender - they must be opposite.  The second is number - there must be two.  This is clear because we forced the Mormons to give up polygamous marriage before we would permit Utah to become a state.  So I think we've established the premise that marriage had a definition.

Now, we can begin to advance arguments.

The slippery slope argument is that if we permit same sex marriage, then we will end up polygamous marriages.

Why?

Because once we have removed one of the previously-understood definitions of marriage (a man and a woman), then there is no logical reason we could not or should not also remove the OTHER traditional definition of marriage, and that would be that there can only be two people in a marriage.

Now, can I also argue that same-sex marriage will end up with people marrying toasters, or their dogs?  I don't think so, because there is a component of marriage that exists independent of any definition of marriage; and that is the ability to give consent.  A child cannot give consent to marriage.  An animal cannot.  An inanimate object cannot.  So I think that the fact that nothing but an adult human being in a normal functioning capacity can give informed consent or enter into a binding legal contract would prevent people from marrying toaster ovens.

So as you said, we move from A (same sex marriage) to B (multiple marriage) but we cannot make the bridge to C (marriage with non-humans and objects) because it is not the redefinition of marriage alone that would open the door to this sort of thing, but the remaining (and undisturbed) issue that non-humans and inanimate objects cannot give consent or enter into contracts.

However, I think that it is a perfectly logical 'slippery slope' argument to say that same-sex marriage will indeed lead to multiple or polygamous marriages being legalized as well.

Some would say that's fine, but then would also have to admit that it's a perfectly acceptable slippery slope argument.


----------



## granfire (Oct 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's see if we can establish the logic of the slippery slope as it pertains to gay marriage.
> 
> We begin with the premise that prior to the same-sex marriage laws in the USA, marriage had a specific meaning, whether it was defined as such or simply understood to be a certain way.  That is, it was one man, one woman.  Two important considerations here.  The first is gender - they must be opposite.  The second is number - there must be two.  This is clear because we forced the Mormons to give up polygamous marriage before we would permit Utah to become a state.  So I think we've established the premise that marriage had a definition.
> 
> ...



that still does not get you to the toaster....

And it's a perfect example where the slope isn't all that slippery: Gay marriages have been done in a number of civilized countries for a while now, and society did not end, pandemonium has not occurred and the world still revolves around the sun....and nobody married a toaster in ernest.


----------



## granfire (Oct 20, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Or something else that comes to mind, perhaps all parts need to be related for it not to be a Logical Fallacy:
> 
> "If we let them look in our Purses, next they will want to search our pants."  <---This works for me because "Look and Search" are related and "Purse and pants" are also.
> 
> ...



Crazy talk... because the TSA has been looking into our purses, into our pants, groping children and looked at everybody nekked....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 20, 2012)

granfire said:


> that still does not get you to the toaster....



And I said that.



> And it's a perfect example where the slope isn't all that slippery: Gay marriages have been done in a number of civilized countries for a while now, and society did not end, pandemonium has not occurred and the world still revolves around the sun....and nobody married a toaster in ernest.



And I never made the argument that the world would end if same-sex marriages were allowed, did I?  What you just did is called 'obfuscation'.  You could not address my slippery-slope argument, so you threw chaff at an argument I did not make.

The slippery slope argument I advanced was that same-sex marriage would lead to multiple-partner marriage.  Refute that, or you have nothing to say about my slippery-slope argument.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 21, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Let's see if we can establish the logic of the slippery slope as it pertains to gay marriage.
> 
> We begin with the premise that prior to the same-sex marriage laws in the USA, marriage had a specific meaning, whether it was defined as such or simply understood to be a certain way.  That is, it was one man, one woman.  Two important considerations here.  The first is gender - they must be opposite.  The second is number - there must be two.  This is clear because we forced the Mormons to give up polygamous marriage before we would permit Utah to become a state.  So I think we've established the premise that marriage had a definition.
> 
> ...



Actually, that is a better example of a hypothetical syllogism.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------

