Besides that, the idea I am an easy target is refuted by the number of points I made on that thread, which where then capitalized on by other posters.
Scott:
-
With respect to debate, you have thus far been someone who is easily defeated, or at least bested at debate; and
-
The mutant registration thread is not an exception to that rule; and
-
Tongue-in-cheek comments aside, I will clarify: had I known you were in need of subscription help, I would have helped, as I’ve helped others with their subscriptions, because I believe that you will benefit from exposure to rigorous debate and analytical thinking, and this is probably the best resource on the Internet for same.
Scott:
Here’s an exercise in self-improvement: explain the slippery slope fallacy, as though you were teaching a class. Explain why it’s a fallacy - how to identify it in argument, how to counteract it in argument, and generally discuss it. Teach the readers of this thread what “slippery slope” means.
I disagree. However, tomorrow, I intend to list what debates I think I have scored major points in. We can hash out this claim then.
I don’t see how. You seemed to take it on faith that the list would not lead to a slippery slope. However, you posted nothing in support of that, while I myself, and other people against the list posted reasons why it would.
Unlike the rest of your post, I am glad to hear this.
Please read this this.
And this.
This couldn’t hurt.
This doesn’t look bad.
And round it out with this.
I lurked throughout that discussion, and have no dog in the fight.
If you didn’t have your head so far up your ass, you would have seen that you were completely pwn3d in that thread. Bricker took you apart piece by piece, and all you ever responded with was “rolleyes” and the equivalent of “nuh-uh!”
Further, the majority of references to your statements were made by Bricker when refuting you, and you when quoting yourself.
Your responses demonstrated either an ignorance of logic and debating technique, or a willful disregard of them. Continuing to crow about all the points you “scored” only serves to make you look more like an idiot.
(On preview)
You bring new meaning to the word “clueless.”
Creepy.
All through the first page, I was thinking about what I’d like to say in this thread. And then I come across this post, and I see that Brainiac4 has taken the words almost directly from my brain and put them in the thread. Like I said: creepy.
And nothing on the subsequent pages, not even including the bizarre questions-only pledge, has changed my opinion. Mr. Plaid remains a flannel-brained tool who is an embarrassment to me and my philosophical and ideological kin.
Seriously. Dude. Read more. Post less. Helps with the, what is it called again, oh yeah, thinking.
But mostly, I just wanted to observe the uncanny resemblance of Brainiac4’s post to my own half-drafted thought. It was really quite spooky.
Often, you hear people saying that one thing they consider negative would lead to another thing. Usually, the other thing is something highly negative. For example, we can make the claim that a law against handguns would lead to increased murders, due to an inability of people to defend themselves. Another is the claim that if a teenager goes to a non-christian school, he will become sullen, ans surly. However, the claim can be refuted in one of two way. One is to show hoiw the proposed result would have happend, even if the “cause” never occured. For example, the young boy would have become sullen, and surly anyway, because that is what teenagers do, generally!
However, once we have independent justification that the events will occure, such as past experience, then it becomes not a fallacy, but an ordinary claim of probability.
Saw what? I need to log of soon, but first, I will reread the first page of the argument, and see if it supports your claim, so far.
Post 20: Rick claims that registration violates little privacy. He also claims that it would not lead to round-ups. Now that is hand waving.
Post 41: I claim that, based on past experience "The “slippery slope” argument is already a real danger, and soon after this law comes into effect, I bet we will see people pointing out the registration as a recognition of dangerous people, and greater action should be taken against them.
Post 49: Rick claims he will oppose mutant round-ups.
Post 51: Harborwolf responds to Rick’s post 49, pointing out that the fact that he, personally will oppose it offers little comfort. What about everyone else?
That is all for now. I need to get going.
Highwayman’s past experience of large corporations is that they lay off the little guys and give the big guy a raise for it. msmith537’s past experience is that persons of all positions are layed off at an equal rate (factoring in the probability of attaining a position.)
You can’t just have a past experience, you need to verify that the guy you are arguing against buys your experience as being viable. In the case of profession, you can look up the stats. In the case of Mutant Registration–when was the last time you worried about sending in your census form?* And if the other guy just won’t buy it no matter what then you have to drop that point. But until he gives a grudging accession or you drop it, the issue is still on the table.
And of course, you have to be willing on your part to look fairly on his past experiences and claims, and the BE WILLING TO GRUDGINGLY ACCEDE on the occasion in return.
- Please don’t respond to that.
Hear that, Bricker?! Pwn3d!
Jesus, Scott, you’ve got to stop trying to sound knowledgeable. It simply doesn’t work for you. What you wrote looks like something one would expect to see in a 7th grade English paper, along with a big red D- at the top.
Yes, but only one experience is based on verifiable facts, such as statistics. Oh, wait, I see you already said that.
Nah, I don’t mind sending in my census form. However, I check none, under race. This is due to my being jewish, racially, and my family has bad memories of jews being registered.
Hey, even I think the slippery slope argument was a weak one. Sure, Bricker is wrong about the registration act, but that’s not his fault. He doesn’t have the same knowledge of the literature in question that I do. 
I think the argument involving potential threat as a reason was a far better one.
What, you think he doesn’t believe what he wrote?
His experience tells him that it wouldn’t, yours tells you that it would. The two of you are at an impass until one of you grudgingly accedes. The conversation should not progress until both parties are on the same page.
And why should we care about your past experience?
Dunno, what did Bricker respond?
Often, you hear people saying that the government is planning something. Whatever it might be, it is considered negative to the person you are speaking to. That person then goes on to claim that the government’s action will lead to actions or situations that everyone would consider negative.
If you tell me which ones I got wrong, I can finalize the calibration on my brain scanner. 
Terrible. And that’s not even the point. Instead of dashing off the first thing that pops into your head, take the time to research and read and think before you post. Or better, simply adopt a general read-more, post-less strategy.
Both are verifiable. Only one (or neither) will prove true, however. But until everyone has looked at the cites and agreed that those are believable cites, you’re not finished with that point.
So you don’t think this possibly makes you biased in the Mutant case? Can you think of any cases of registration in the US in modern times that had negative effects–and can you prove that? (Japanese round-ups during WWII comes to mind…)
You said there are two ways to refute the claim. What is the second way to refute the claim?
I notice your examples are simply along the lines of CAUSE —> EFFECT. I believe you fail to appreciate the nuance of slippery slope here. I would suggest it’s much more INITIAL CAUSE —> AGREED-UPON EFFECT —> MILDLY UNACCEPTABLE EFFECT ----> INCREASINGLY UNACCEPTABLE EFFECT —> CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE EFFECT.
Is that consistent with your understanding of slippery slope?
(For contrast, look up the separate fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. I think you may be confusing the two fallacies a bit, here, especially in your second example.)
I hope this helps a bit.
Pointed out that gun owners have been registering their weapons for years without jackbooted [del]mods[/del](sorry, force of habit) police knocking down their doors and taking their guns. Pointed out the basic fallacy of the slippery slope argument (we can’t predict the future and all).
He pretty much took it apart.