I would like to call a moratorium on the overused phrase “slippery slope”. When someone uses that phrase to claim that action A will inevitably lead all the way to Result Z, they should have to show us a cite where that particular A lead to that particular Z despite efforts to stop the slide. If not the exact same A and Z, then something damn close. What do y’all think?
I don’t know…that’s a pretty slippery slope. Keep this up and eventually everybody will have to give an example for everything. 3/4 of every thread will be people providing cites for cites, and everbody will get tired of it and quit coming to the Dope at all.
I’m against it.
I have no idea why people object to the suggestion of a slippery slope. In conversations regarding law for example, the slippery slope is indeed a valid fear; one ruling sets precedent that can affect the success or failure of another case, and so on. That’s not to say ALL instances of slippery slopes are valid, but it isn’t an inherently fallacious fear.
In the case of laws previous examples should especially be required. If not previous examples, then at least good arguments that show the steps the supposed “slippery slope” would take to get from A to Z. The longer the path from A to Z, the better the supporting argument should be, in my opinion.
I dunno, sometimes it’s valid, other times it’s just used as a justification for fanatics to adhere to some ridiculous rule for the sake of preventing complete chaos. Like, “gateway drug”.
In the practice of law it’s different, but in general colloquialism, it would be nice if the meaning could shift over to mean “walking a thin line” as opposed to “inevitable extreme result”.
There is a definite difference between “A could lead to the next step-B” and “A will lead all the way to Z, never mind how.”
Well, yes and no IMO. I think if someone is saying X WILL lead to Y because obscure legal thing Z, they need to cite. If they’re saying “I worry this ruling could open the door to X or Y in future”, I don’t think that needs a cite.
But you are talking about an x to y to z sequence. I’m talking about a long range A leading all the way to Z without explanation as to why there is no possibility of stopping the process along the way-thus the term “slippery slope”.
Here here, I’ll sign on to that!
I think you have to take these things on a case by case basis; I mean, there are probably times when it’s sensible to think in terms of worst-case-scenario and get to Z from A - though if what you’re talking about is people saying Z is GUARANTEED to happen because A then yeah, that’s silly.
I dunno Czarcasm - if you start limiting debates by banning that particular phrase, pretty soon all tiresome expressions and fallacies will be forbidden, and then the board will have to shut down.
It’s a voluntary moratorium, of course.
But you’re right about the board shutting down if all the tiresome expressions and fallacies disappeared.
That’s a bit of an icy incline.
No “Slippery Slope”? In 1913, Congress enacted an income tax. The rate on incomes not over $20,000 was 1%, with a stepped increase up to 7% for incomes over $500,000.
Adjusted for inflation, today this would be a 1% rate on incomes over $463,826, and a 7% rate on incomes over $11,595,167.
Cite is here
No sirree - no slippery slope seen here.
Slight correction to the above post.
Should be “…not over $463,826”
Sorry
What slippery slope are you referring to? That having an income tax in one era a hundred freaking years ago may not be proportional to income taxes we have now? Times change; people, income, and wealth changed. If you’re going to rant about the slippery slope being real, you better come up with something more than a broken analogy. All you’ve shown is that tax rates, adjusted for inflation, are different
The type of slippery slope I think Czarcasm is referring to, having seen him in some of the recent gun debates, is the type where ANY law that has even the tiniest affect on guns, whether good or ill, INEVITABLY leads to full firearms ban, a knife ban, bat ban, crowbar/tire iron/stick-with-a-nail-in-it ban and then tyranny and the second coming of Hitler. That is the kind of insane, stupid, vile, and despicable slippery slope I am against, the kind that prevents any discourse at all on guns, ever. Well, fuck that. If you want to pretend the world exists on an incline, be my guest, but don’t expect me to follow you down the cliff
All slippery slope arguments should be voluntarily refrained from in gun debates, because we’ve had a million of them with slippery slopes derailing it and not one without it. Just out of simple intellectual curiosity, I would like to see where a debate would go without gun nuts screaming from their mountain of dead children. One of my first major debates upon joining the board was about guns, and later I think I did make one of those topics, asking for the cessation of slippery slope arguments in the thread. While it was 4 years ago, I remembered it going well, and gun nuts weren’t as eager to bring on the crazy and derail it. Maybe that’s why they refuse to do so ever again, knowing they’d be exposed as crazy people without the ability to reference tyranny and drum up the hysteria. It certainly taught me a lot about those people
I think that tax rates going up a bazzilion times (or almost) is a perfect example of a “Slippery Slope”.
Or maybe it would be better form to refer to this as “the camel’s nose in the tent”. Whatever floats your boat.
Maybe you’re talking about something different than the topic at hand.
I’m confused by the OP. Are you suggesting we prohibit slippery slope arguments or are you suggesting we prohibit the term slippery slope?
I think it’s rare for people making a slippery slope argument to actually identify it as such. Most often, it’s another poster who accuses somebody else, rightly or wrongly, of having made a slippery slope argument.