# How to counter "because what's next" logic **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 23, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463 "2009-03-23T15:20:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Joey\_Tightlips](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@Joey\_Tightlips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_Tightlips)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/1 "2009-03-23T15:20:44Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/2 "2009-03-23T15:26:46Z")
You might want to see this: [Slippery slope - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/3 "2009-03-23T16:31:30Z")
I think this is sometimes what pollutes discussions of gun control. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/4 "2009-03-23T16:33:50Z")
> [@Mach Tuck](#): > > I think this is sometimes what pollutes discussions of gun control. I assume you don’t mean, “I buy a gun, and what’s next? I shoot you.” ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_Tightlips](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@Joey\_Tightlips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_Tightlips)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/5 "2009-03-23T16:35:40Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/6 "2009-03-23T17:17:20Z")
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. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/7 "2009-03-23T17:19:56Z")
> [@Joey\_Tightlips](#): > > “There shouldn’t be increased restrictions on assult weapons _ **because what’s next?** _, they’ll take all our guns away!” There ain’t no such thing as assault weapons, Jack. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/8 "2009-03-23T17:34:58Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![tr0psn4j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@tr0psn4j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tr0psn4j)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/9 "2009-03-23T17:40:53Z")
> [@Joey\_Tightlips](#): > > and my favorite… > “They shouldn’t allow gays to marry _ **because what’s next?** _, people will be allowed to marry dogs and cats?!” 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: ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/10 "2009-03-23T17:51:37Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The existence of a group advocating something extreme does not mean that every policy change is part of an inevitable slide to that extreme. 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. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/11 "2009-03-23T17:57:09Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > Keep in mind that the “slippery slope” is not _always_ fallacious. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_Tightlips](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@Joey\_Tightlips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_Tightlips)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/12 "2009-03-23T18:17:36Z")
> [@tr0psn4j](#): > > 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: 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. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/13 "2009-03-23T18:27:52Z")
Honestly with the gay marriage one, the appropriate response should be: “Gay people are human beings, not animals.” ---
**Author:** ![palindromemordnilap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/db5fbb/32.png) [@palindromemordnilap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/palindromemordnilap)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/14 "2009-03-23T19:34:25Z")
Get some cards printed up that say: “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. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/15 "2009-03-23T19:38:37Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > 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. _Ad hominems_ are aimed at casting doubt on a party’s competence. Attacks on the credibility of witnesses generally focus on their honesty. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/16 "2009-03-23T19:38:39Z")
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?” ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/17 "2009-03-23T20:06:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > _Ad hominems_ are aimed at casting doubt on a party’s competence. Attacks on the credibility of witnesses generally focus on their honesty. With apologies for the hijack and for citing [wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad\_hominem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) > [@](#): > > Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. > > Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against. > > Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the source making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence. The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence. > > Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the source asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the source making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position it claims, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument. (Footnotes omitted.) ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/18 "2009-03-23T20:30:44Z")
> [@Joey\_Tightlips](#): > > and my favorite… > “They shouldn’t allow gays to marry _ **because what’s next?** _, people will be allowed to marry dogs and cats?!” 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** ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/19 "2009-03-23T20:36:18Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463/20 "2009-03-23T20:42:26Z")
You won’t hear that from Gov. Palin, I’m guessing. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-counter-because-whats-next-logic/490463.md?page=2)