Are Slippery Slopes Real?

[WC_lun]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... which text book would that be?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bill Mattocks]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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.

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

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2