Lately I’ve often found myself in discussions dealing with what I call “because what’s next” logic. This seems to happen every time that I take the liberal side of an issue and my opposer runs out of actual facts to use in the debate. Some examples:
“I’m against the tax rate increases for the rich because what’s next?, they’ll be taxing everyone at a higher rate soon!”
“I’m against the local no smoking in resaurants ban because what’s next?, people won’t be allowed to smoke in their own home!”
“There shouldn’t be increased restrictions on assult weapons because what’s next?, they’ll take all our guns away!”
and my favorite…
“They shouldn’t allow gays to marry because what’s next?, people will be allowed to marry dogs and cats?!”
These are all actual responses I’ve had to deal with in the past few months from mostly rational and thoughtful people (the last one notwithstanding). I’m wondering is there a better term for this type of debating tactic? And then, how do you continue to argue with someone who think this way? I’d like to say “Yes, it is possible that taken to an extreme, this type of law/ban/whatever could go too far, but we have to trust our elected officials not to let it pass that point.” The trouble with this is, hardly anybody has any faith in their current elected officials, and certainly not the types of people to argue the points above.
Patiently explain that doing one thing does not necessarily and inevitably lead to some carried-to-extremes other thing. You have a car and you drive to work. Does that mean that you must drive to Nome? You have a backyard cookout and you throw a burger on the grill. Does that mean you want to throw the dog on, too? Tax rates rise from, say, 20% to 25%. Does that mean they’re going to go up to 100%?
Come on. People just need to use some common sense.
Excellent link, I was sure there was a name for it, but couldn’t think of what to search on. I agree, common sense should prevail, but what was so troubling is that this type of argument was coming from otherwise intelligent people. I’m feeling more often that [War Games] the only way to win is not to play. [/War Games] when discussing with politics.
Keep in mind that the “slippery slope” is not always fallacious. In the gun control debates, for example, it’s been regularly pointed out that there are several lobbying groups (including the Brady Campaign, IIRC) who’ve come right out and said that it’s their goal to use each new piece of legislation as a way of “easing” the country towards a total ban on firearms.
Of course, it’s still not a logical substitute for discussing the merits or detractions of any specific proposed action, and when it is used in that way it definitely is a fallacious argument. But it certainly can be a perfectly rational justification for somebody’s political stance on an issue. For example, a person who didn’t care about equal rights but was mortally terrified of people being able to marry cats and dogs would have a reason to oppose gay marriage if there existed a powerful lobbying group saying that they intended to leverage gay marriage rights into a new bill allowing people to marry their pets.
The existence of a group advocating something extreme does not mean that every policy change is part of an inevitable slide to that extreme.
There’s a group that wants to ban all guns, there’s a group that wants no gun control, there’s a group that wants to ban all abortions, there’s a group that wants no restrictions on abortions. There MUST be a place in between these extremes that represents an honest attempt to exert a reasonable level of control. In fact there are probably many points that are reasonable, and we should have the right to move from reasonable point to reasonable point without accusations of being in the pocket of the extremists.
Ah, my friend’s favorite argument against gay marriage. The debate usually ends there though. He might as well say “I know you are but what am I?” :smack:
No, but it indicates that each policy change will likely result in a further push down the slope by that group. As I said, this doesn’t address the qualities of the policy change itself, but it can give a person a political reason for opposing the change.
True enough. Ad hominen attacks aren’t always fallacious either. They’re used all the time in court cross-examinations, where they go by the name of impeaching the witness’ credibility.
Haha, that’s exactly my point, it’s a conversation killer every time. In the case of the gay marriage one, it came from the token-Christian of my otherwise agnostic lunch crowd. He refused to admit he was against gay marriage only because his religious leaders say so, and the only other point he could make was the “because what’s next?” line. It was kind of pathetic really.
“You have just lost the BECAUSE WHAT’S NEXT game. By transforming a rational conversation into an irrational extreme hypothetical, you have demonstrated that you have no reasonable response to one or more of my points, but do not want to acknowledge that I have a valid point. Therefore, there is no purpose to continuing this line of discussion. You lose. Thanks for playing.”
Hand out the card when you come up against these straw-man arguments. And then watch yourself–if you’re like most of us, you might get one of your own cards back sometime.
If anyone told me gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because what’s next, people marrying animals, I’d ask them “So if gays are allowed to adopt, does that mean that people could legally adopt animals? Or animals could legally adopt people?”
Are you against gay marriage or people marrying dogs & cats? Because if you’re just against the dog & cat thing, maybe we should come up with reasons why that’s wrong instead of scapegoating the homosexuals.
Edit: Said hypothetically, of course. Not at Joey Tightlips
It has always amazed me that people who think gays shouldn’t adopt because “children need a mother and father” usually support single woman giving birth and raising the child. If they had any consistency, they would state “Single woman should be forced to give birth and give up the child for adoption because children need a mother and father.”
