And Poland. Don’t forget Poland!
Is that the only interracial marriage you know about? They’re both foreigners anyway, you know.
“Slippery slope” as a logical fallacy is really just a form of straw man. E.g.: No one is arguing that “any two or more entities who wish to get married should be able to,” they are arguing that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, so there is no principle behind the argument that implies the acceptability of polygamy or man-on-dog. On the other hand, if the principle behind, for example, a restriction on smoking is that “the government may regulate personal behavior if it causes health care costs to rise” then it’s NOT a slippery slope to ask “can they now ban unhealthy foods,” because the hypothetical position is entirely derivable from the principle (and thus, when used to attack said principle, is not a straw man). Slippery slope when not a straw man ought not be considered a fallacy.
Very true. A close cousin of this is “Okay, but take that to its logical extreme…” The problem is that this distorts what someone actually may have proposed to what they never proposed and might well be opposed to!
Indeed, because the extremes presented are rarely logical. To continue the SSM>marrying dogs argument that Santorum continues to pedal, that’s not logical because it suggests a world where either a) animals are now considered people, with the massive impact that would have on the concept of owning pets and eating meat; b) we’ve totally changed our concept of consent to include those previously not included because they’re incapable of doing so, such as animals (and sure, why not throw children and toasters in there whilst you’re at it); or c) people are no longer acting in the way we would expect them to in this world - does anyone WANT to marry a dog? What practical benefit would it have for society even if people did? Then see a) and b).
By the time you’ve reached the logical extreme you’ve passed so many points where in reality people would be saying “hang on a second” that you’re in a full blown fantasy land, which isn’t the same as a hypothetical scenario. Of course that’s useful for most of the GOP because that’s where they seem to spend most of their time anyway.
If a human being eats about 20 pounds of chocolate, the mildly toxic (to humans) chemicals will be enough to kill them.
“Logical extreme” is an oxymoron if the extreme is harmful to the people engaged in it. The logical thing to do is not be that extreme. (And if anyone tries to argue with me that this is referring to the philosophical definition of logic, rather than a practical definition, then let’s debate it. Keep in mind, I take debates to the logical extreme with bowie knife.)
I wish Santorum was on a slippery slope himself and would just slip down the damn thing until he fell off the end of it and be seen or heard from never again.
It’s OUR turn to do the invading!
They’d only get lost.
Yeah, well I use a saber… And he uses a light-saber… And that guy over there uses a planetslaying “Death Star.” And the logical extreme of this progression is – about as illogical as may be conceivable!
A: “Intergalactic spasm warfare…”
B: “Well, if you insist on thinking small…”