Is the Slippery Slope arguement a legitimate arguement.
Yes
18.1% (15)
18.1% (15)
No
80.7% (67)
80.7% (67)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Legitmacy behind slippery slope?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

SillyBear:

There is no sociological link between homosexuality and polygamy at all. Your argument has as much logic as:

Legalise gay marriage - It will rain more on Tuesdays.

Homosexual marriage has as much of a connection to polygamy does as heterosexual marriage. Both are monogamous relationships between two people in love.

It depends on what the argument for legalizing gay marriage is. If it's along the lines of "if consenting adults want to marry they should be allowed to" then the claim that this could lead to polygamy makes sense, as the exact same logic can be used to support polygamous marriage. So pointing out that this argument could lead to polygamist marriage is valid (though whether it's seen as a decent counter-argument depends on where the other person stands on polygamy).

BrassButtons:

SillyBear:

There is no sociological link between homosexuality and polygamy at all. Your argument has as much logic as:

Legalise gay marriage - It will rain more on Tuesdays.

Homosexual marriage has as much of a connection to polygamy does as heterosexual marriage. Both are monogamous relationships between two people in love.

It depends on what the argument for legalizing gay marriage is. If it's along the lines of "if consenting adults want to marry they should be allowed to" then the claim that this could lead to polygamy makes sense, as the exact same logic can be used to support polygamous marriage. So pointing out that this argument could lead to polygamist marriage is valid (though whether it's seen as a decent counter-argument depends on where the other person stands on polygamy).

By this logical, then the legalisation of mixed race marriages in the past could be applied too.

And I bet there were people going around saying 'But if we let the blacks marry the whites, the blacks will just start marrying each other! What's next!? Ten people marriages!!?!?!"

SillyBear:

By this logical, then the legalisation of mixed race marriages in the past could be applied too.

And I bet there were people going around saying 'But if we let the blacks marry the whites, the blacks will just start marrying each other! What's next!? Ten people marriages!!?!?!"

Substract poligamy for homosexuality, and boom, suddenly they were right ;)

As in, I doubt we'd have a broad acceptance of homosexual unions if interracial unions would still be taboo.

The unspoken slippery slope argument is usually: If we allow A, it will raise tolerance for things like A. Then, when someone wants to allow B, which is similar to A, there would be both precedent and increased tolerance. Proceed through C, D, E, F, G... etc.

The longer the chain, the more likely the argument is invalid due to specific instances being too different from each other (see homosexuality -> paedophilia).

For marriage, one could easily see it: We've gone from a union between a white male and a white female over same thing, but with more rights for the female, over union between two consenting people of the same gender to just two consenting adults. Following that chain, two or more consenting adults seems like a plausible next step.

Of course, the weight of the argument is still nil, because merely by saing "what next? polygamy?", the speaker failed to show why that's even a bad thing. It's an attempt to discredit by association.

~Sylv

Katatori-kun:
Who is "it" here, and how does it "like" things?

It's interesting that you bring up "traditional structure" here, because one of most commonly-attributed traditional structures for opposing gay marriage has been the Bible, specifically the Old Testament (note that attributing a source doesn't mean it actually is the source). And yet, not only does the Old Testament permit polygyny, in some cases it requires it.

True, but I didn't mean the Bible (or anything in particular), just the idea that you have some sort of traditionalist element in society, which isn't necessarily in exact agreement with society as whole.

Both of these things would need to be overcome in order for, say, gay marriage.

Sylvine:

SillyBear:

By this logical, then the legalisation of mixed race marriages in the past could be applied too.

And I bet there were people going around saying 'But if we let the blacks marry the whites, the blacks will just start marrying each other! What's next!? Ten people marriages!!?!?!"

Substract poligamy for homosexuality, and boom, suddenly they were right ;)

As in, I doubt we'd have a broad acceptance of homosexual unions if interracial unions would still be taboo.

The unspoken slippery slope argument is usually: If we allow A, it will raise tolerance for things like A. Then, when someone wants to allow B, which is similar to A, there would be both precedent and increased tolerance. Proceed through C, D, E, F, G... etc.

The longer the chain, the more likely the argument is invalid due to specific instances being too different from each other (see homosexuality -> paedophilia).

For marriage, one could easily see it: We've gone from a union between a white male and a white female over same thing, but with more rights for the female, over union between two consenting people of the same gender to just two consenting adults. Following that chain, two or more consenting adults seems like a plausible next step.

Of course, the weight of the argument is still nil, because merely by saing "what next? polygamy?", the speaker failed to show why that's even a bad thing. It's an attempt to discredit by association.

~Sylv

It is not just that the speaker failed to show that it is a bad thing, it is that the speaker has failed to show any connection between the events at all.

There is no connection between the progression of marriage. Allowing interracial marriage is not what is causing gay marriage to be allowed. Interracial marriage was allowed due to the changes in the view of society in regards to race, just as gay marriage is being allowed due to changes in the views of society in regards to homosexuality.

If you want to say Step A leads to Step B then you need to show that there is a logical progression between the two points. The entire idea of the slippery slope is that there is no logical progression, if there was it would be cause and effect.

There are actually three different people in regards to the slippery slope. You have people such as myself who see the slippery slope as the same as cause and effect, but without the logical progression between the steps. You have people who see slippery slope as the same as cause and effect and then you have the people who see the slippery slope the same as the first group but refuse to accept that there is no logical progression between the steps.

thaluikhain:

Katatori-kun:
Who is "it" here, and how does it "like" things?

It's interesting that you bring up "traditional structure" here, because one of most commonly-attributed traditional structures for opposing gay marriage has been the Bible, specifically the Old Testament (note that attributing a source doesn't mean it actually is the source). And yet, not only does the Old Testament permit polygyny, in some cases it requires it.

True, but I didn't mean the Bible (or anything in particular), just the idea that you have some sort of traditionalist element in society, which isn't necessarily in exact agreement with society as whole.

Both of these things would need to be overcome in order for, say, gay marriage.

And I think you're rather missing the point. Tradition is not only reason, not even the main reason, that polygamy is illegal. We break with tradition in marriage all the time. You can go to Las Vegas and get married in under 10 minutes by Elvis. You have weddings where the bride and groom dress up as superheroes. I have personally attended a wedding reception where the bride discretely put on Princess Leia hair buns while no one was looking, only for groomsmen dressed as Darth Vader and Darth Maul to storm into the room and abduct her. She was only rescued when the groom swept into the room with a Han Solo jacket and a lightsaber for some reason. The most vocal champion of the sanctity of marriage of our day[1], Newt Gingrich, even asked his wife if it would be okay if he fucked other women. Clearly, tradition does not have much hold on us.

There is more to opposition to polygamy than tradition. You are under no obligation to agree with that opposition. But if you refuse to acknowledge it you are arguing a fallacy.

[1] as long as it's a Democrat getting caught trying to get a little strange

Katatori-kun:
There is more to opposition to polygamy than tradition. You are under no obligation to agree with that opposition. But if you refuse to acknowledge it you are arguing a fallacy.

No, I agree with that. However, regardless of other unrelated factors, it is a source of opposition, something that must be overcome in order for polygamy to be legalised.

Lilani:
Nine times out of ten the "slippery slope" argument is just paranoia spiced up a bit to keep something from happening without actually having to make a legitimate point. There are ways it can make sense, but as Katatori-kun said, evidence needs to be provided to show that there is actually a plausible link.

Seekster:
Well thats the slippery slope as a fallacy. Slippery slope as a valid argument would be Legalize same-sex marriage > potentially leads to legalized polygamy.

That does make a hell of a lot more sense than marrying a cat, since the instances are actually related in that we're talking about consensual adults getting married.

However, they opposition would also have to prove that polygamy is an inherently bad effect if, like with gay and straight marriage, we're talking about consensual adults who want to be married. To just say "Ha! Look what will happen next!" without proving it's actually bad is just as bad as the situations where there's no plausible link.

Good or bad at this stage and in this context is subjective. Those using the argument don't have to prove that polygamy is bad (in a way its sad that they are even asked to but thats the world we live in) they just have to prove that there is a plausible link between one event and another. As evidence of this note how polygamy is suddenly more socially acceptable now that people are willing to consider same-sex marriage as socially acceptable.

SillyBear:

Seekster:

pyrate:

I think you are confusing slippery slope with cause and effect. When an action logically leads to another action and so on that is cause and effect. Slippery slope is like cause and effect, except there is no logical reason for the next step.

Example

Cause and Effect - Legalize gay marriage > increase in gay marriages
Slippery Slope - Legalize gay marriage > allowing marriage to a cat

Well thats the slippery slope as a fallacy. Slippery slope as a valid argument would be Legalize same-sex marriage > potentially leads to legalized polygamy.

There is no sociological link between homosexuality and polygamy at all. Your argument has as much logic as:

Legalise gay marriage - It will rain more on Tuesdays.

Homosexual marriage has as much of a connection to polygamy does as heterosexual marriage. Both are monogamous relationships between two people in love.

How dare you imply that someones love for more than one person is not true! (devils advocate)

SillyBear:

By this logical, then the legalisation of mixed race marriages in the past could be applied too.

And I bet there were people going around saying 'But if we let the blacks marry the whites, the blacks will just start marrying each other! What's next!? Ten people marriages!!?!?!"

Yes, if the argument given for legalizing mixed race marriage was "adults can do what they want" then that would also apply to gay marriage and polygamy.

I'm not sure I understand the basis for your objection, here.

Seekster:
Good or bad at this stage and in this context is subjective. Those using the argument don't have to prove that polygamy is bad (in a way its sad that they are even asked to but thats the world we live in) they just have to prove that there is a plausible link between one event and another. As evidence of this note how polygamy is suddenly more socially acceptable now that people are willing to consider same-sex marriage as socially acceptable.

But what is the point of keeping it outlawed if there is nothing bad about it? Just because it's socially unacceptable doesn't mean it's bad. There have been times where it was socially unacceptable non-white people and women to vote or own property. There was once a time when the word "pants" was socially unacceptable.

I neither subscribe to nor agree with the lifestyle of polygamy, but I feel it would be hypocritical of me to support same-sex marriage but not polygamous marriage. If they want to marry, just let them. We've already got people who marry days after they first met each other, or for money money or because they got knocked up, but we don't bar them from marrying due to their motives or logic. So who are we to question people who say they love more than one person equally, and that those people say they love them back equally?

For something like that to remain illegal, there has to be some sort of logical reason for it, social norms be damned. We can't continue to delay social justice movements like this just because the people won't get their heads out of the sand and use some objectivity.

...But I've steered this way off track huh, lol. If you want to continue start a new thread or PM me or something. There's no need to do this here.

Lilani:

Seekster:
Good or bad at this stage and in this context is subjective. Those using the argument don't have to prove that polygamy is bad (in a way its sad that they are even asked to but thats the world we live in) they just have to prove that there is a plausible link between one event and another. As evidence of this note how polygamy is suddenly more socially acceptable now that people are willing to consider same-sex marriage as socially acceptable.

But what is the point of keeping it outlawed if there is nothing bad about it? Just because it's socially unacceptable doesn't mean it's bad. There have been times where it was socially unacceptable non-white people and women to vote or own property. There was once a time when the word "pants" was socially unacceptable.

I neither subscribe to nor agree with the lifestyle of polygamy, but I feel it would be hypocritical of me to support same-sex marriage but not polygamous marriage. If they want to marry, just let them. We've already got people who marry days after they first met each other, or for money money or because they got knocked up, but we don't bar them from marrying due to their motives or logic. So who are we to question people who say they love more than one person equally, and that those people say they love them back equally?

For something like that to remain illegal, there has to be some sort of logical reason for it, social norms be damned. We can't continue to delay social justice movements like this just because the people won't get their heads out of the sand and use some objectivity.

...But I've steered this way off track huh, lol. If you want to continue start a new thread or PM me or something. There's no need to do this here.

Same general reason necrophilia is outlawed in all cases, its wrong for reasons that shouldnt need to be put into words to anyone with a good moral conscious.

"I neither subscribe to nor agree with the lifestyle of polygamy, but I feel it would be hypocritical of me to support same-sex marriage but not polygamous marriage."

And that boys and girls is why slippery slope can be a legitimate argument.

No Lilani I would rather keep our discussion here so everyone can see you proving my point about the slippery slope argument. If you want to argue that polygamy isnt wrong thats another matter but the slippery slope argument I would say has legitimacy in this case is the one that says legally recognizing same-sex marriage and making it widely socially acceptable will lead to other things like polygamy also starting to become socially acceptable.

Seekster:
Same general reason necrophilia is outlawed in all cases, its wrong for reasons that shouldnt need to be put into words to anyone with a good moral conscious.

"I neither subscribe to nor agree with the lifestyle of polygamy, but I feel it would be hypocritical of me to support same-sex marriage but not polygamous marriage."

And that boys and girls is why slippery slope can be a legitimate argument.

No Lilani I would rather keep our discussion here so everyone can see you proving my point about the slippery slope argument. If you want to argue that polygamy isnt wrong thats another matter but the slippery slope argument I would say has legitimacy in this case is the one that says legally recognizing same-sex marriage and making it widely socially acceptable will lead to other things like polygamy also starting to become socially acceptable.

Necrophilia does not connect them because it's a different situation under different circumstances. In both homosexual and polygamous unions, we're talking about consensual adults making an informed decision. With necrophilia, not all parties can speak for themselves and give consent, thus lending it to a completely different type of scrutiny. So no, I don't agree that it confirms it, because we've agreed that a logical connection must exist and that connection simply isn't logical.

Lilani:

Seekster:
Same general reason necrophilia is outlawed in all cases, its wrong for reasons that shouldnt need to be put into words to anyone with a good moral conscious.

"I neither subscribe to nor agree with the lifestyle of polygamy, but I feel it would be hypocritical of me to support same-sex marriage but not polygamous marriage."

And that boys and girls is why slippery slope can be a legitimate argument.

No Lilani I would rather keep our discussion here so everyone can see you proving my point about the slippery slope argument. If you want to argue that polygamy isnt wrong thats another matter but the slippery slope argument I would say has legitimacy in this case is the one that says legally recognizing same-sex marriage and making it widely socially acceptable will lead to other things like polygamy also starting to become socially acceptable.

Necrophilia does not connect them because it's a different situation under different circumstances. In both homosexual and polygamous unions, we're talking about consensual adults making an informed decision. With necrophilia, not all parties can speak for themselves and give consent, thus lending it to a completely different type of scrutiny. So no, I don't agree that it confirms it, because we've agreed that a logical connection must exist and that connection simply isn't logical.

I didnt say its the same thing, I said that polygamy is illegal (same-sex marriage technically isnt illegal anywhere in the USA its just not legally recognized) for essentially the same reason that necrophilia is. I grant you its a different set of circumstances but thats not the point. If you look through the R&P forums you will by the way find people already asking why sex with animals is illegal as if there is nothing wrong with it.

That as the essence of slippery slope, as things become socially acceptable we start to look at other things and go "hey what is wrong with this?" Whether its right or wrong is a separate argument, but the slippery slope argument is that it does happen. Admittedly too many people use the fallacy version of slippery slope and claim that same-sex marriage will eventually lead to people being able to marry their dog or what not. I think that such a thing is ridiculous...yet only a few decades ago most people found the idea of same-sex marriage ridiculous too so that worries me.

Toy Master Typhus:
"Once we let the gays marry how long until we let people marry animals or in-animate objects"

See, animals and in-animate objects are not consenting adults. Dropping the requirements of social-status, race and religion is logical, as two CONSENTING ADULTS can make their own decisions. Expecting bad weather after a series of rainy days is semi-logical, but expecting it to rain frogs is not.

Making same-sex marriage legal is just a logical progression in our socially-conscious march towards equality, making human-animal marriage legal, however, is not.

thaluikhain:

Katatori-kun:
There is more to opposition to polygamy than tradition. You are under no obligation to agree with that opposition. But if you refuse to acknowledge it you are arguing a fallacy.

No, I agree with that. However, regardless of other unrelated factors, it is a source of opposition, something that must be overcome in order for polygamy to be legalised.

But this is akin to saying that the cellophane wrapper surrounding a cookie is an obstacle to be overcome in order to eat the cookie when that is also locked in a giant safe at the bottom of the ocean.

You claimed that "the traditional structure" "arbitrarily ban[s] things it doesn't like" and that structure must be weakened in order for polygamous marriage to become legally recognized (presumably in Western cultures, as in countries operating under sharia law polygyny is permitted up to 4 wives apparently). While technically true, this claim is a lie of omission as it ignores that there are much bigger, much more important reasons why polygamy is not legal in western countries. That's what makes your use of the slippery slope a fallacy. There is much, much more to the argument than mere tradition arbitrarily making things right and wrong.

(and that's leaving aside the notion that an inanimate, intangible, mindless abstract concept "bans things it doesn't like.")

SillyBear:

Seekster:

pyrate:

I think you are confusing slippery slope with cause and effect. When an action logically leads to another action and so on that is cause and effect. Slippery slope is like cause and effect, except there is no logical reason for the next step.

Example

Cause and Effect - Legalize gay marriage > increase in gay marriages
Slippery Slope - Legalize gay marriage > allowing marriage to a cat

Well thats the slippery slope as a fallacy. Slippery slope as a valid argument would be Legalize same-sex marriage > potentially leads to legalized polygamy.

There is no sociological link between homosexuality and polygamy at all. Your argument has as much logic as:

Legalise gay marriage - It will rain more on Tuesdays.

Homosexual marriage has as much of a connection to polygamy does as heterosexual marriage. Both are monogamous relationships between two people in love.

It does have connection in the sense that it is extension of marriage rights to groups that are traditionally barred from them.

However, I don't see a problem with that. When you really get down to it: what is wrong with polygamy? I certainly wouldn't want to be in a polygamous marriage, but if a group of consenting adults want to get together and have a legal document expressing that they are together, doesn't bother me.

Seekster:
I didnt say its the same thing, I said that polygamy is illegal (same-sex marriage technically isnt illegal anywhere in the USA its just not legally recognized) for essentially the same reason that necrophilia is. I grant you its a different set of circumstances but thats not the point. If you look through the R&P forums you will by the way find people already asking why sex with animals is illegal as if there is nothing wrong with it.

Are we really counting Danyal? ;-P But I still say it's different. Again, you simply can't compare a situation where consent is clear and situations where consent is either ambiguous or impossible. I'll agree that the slippery slope can lead to the consideration of those other things, but when it comes to actually implementing them that is where objectivity must come into play. That's when ourselves and our dear lawmakers must look passed the superstitions and taboos to really get down to the heart of the issue.

That as the essence of slippery slope, as things become socially acceptable we start to look at other things and go "hey what is wrong with this?" Whether its right or wrong is a separate argument, but the slippery slope argument is that it does happen. Admittedly too many people use the fallacy version of slippery slope and claim that same-sex marriage will eventually lead to people being able to marry their dog or what not. I think that such a thing is ridiculous...yet only a few decades ago most people found the idea of same-sex marriage ridiculous too so that worries me.

It looks like we do agree on what it is, then. But there is still a limit on how far people will go. Gay marriage is really pretty straightforward--two consenting adults making an informed decision. No gray area there. The only gray areas people see regarding it are formed by religious reservations or subscriptions to taboos and the slippery slope. Bestiality is less straightforward, given they are a different species, do not cognate on our level, and are unable to give consent. The people will likely continue to subscribe to their taboos if it ever gets considered for legalization, but it will be up to the lawmakers and professionals to stage these arguments. So I wouldn't worry about it. There's no need to limit the rights of the people who are doing nothing wrong because you have so little faith in the rest of society.

Seekster:

How dare you imply that someones love for more than one person is not true! (devils advocate)

You're not playing devils advocate. You're playing devils let's make shit up.

Sillybear said straight/gay marriages are both, and I quote.

"Monogamous relationships between two people in love".

Polygamy literally can't be that. It's not monogamous, and there are more than two people in love/involved.

There was zero implication that "someones love for more than one person is not true".

You've made that up.

Stop making shit up.

Lilani:

Seekster:
I didnt say its the same thing, I said that polygamy is illegal (same-sex marriage technically isnt illegal anywhere in the USA its just not legally recognized) for essentially the same reason that necrophilia is. I grant you its a different set of circumstances but thats not the point. If you look through the R&P forums you will by the way find people already asking why sex with animals is illegal as if there is nothing wrong with it.

Are we really counting Danyal? ;-P But I still say it's different. Again, you simply can't compare a situation where consent is clear and situations where consent is either ambiguous or impossible. I'll agree that the slippery slope can lead to the consideration of those other things, but when it comes to actually implementing them that is where objectivity must come into play. That's when ourselves and our dear lawmakers must look passed the superstitions and taboos to really get down to the heart of the issue.

That as the essence of slippery slope, as things become socially acceptable we start to look at other things and go "hey what is wrong with this?" Whether its right or wrong is a separate argument, but the slippery slope argument is that it does happen. Admittedly too many people use the fallacy version of slippery slope and claim that same-sex marriage will eventually lead to people being able to marry their dog or what not. I think that such a thing is ridiculous...yet only a few decades ago most people found the idea of same-sex marriage ridiculous too so that worries me.

It looks like we do agree on what it is, then. But there is still a limit on how far people will go. Gay marriage is really pretty straightforward--two consenting adults making an informed decision. No gray area there. The only gray areas people see regarding it are formed by religious reservations or subscriptions to taboos and the slippery slope. Bestiality is less straightforward, given they are a different species, do not cognate on our level, and are unable to give consent. The people will likely continue to subscribe to their taboos if it ever gets considered for legalization, but it will be up to the lawmakers and professionals to stage these arguments. So I wouldn't worry about it. There's no need to limit the rights of the people who are doing nothing wrong because you have so little faith in the rest of society.

I pray that decades from now people who give the consent argument arent called bigots, I really do.

Why is there a limit on how far people will go? Has progress or "progress" ever stopped in history?

Zekksta:

Seekster:

How dare you imply that someones love for more than one person is not true! (devils advocate)

You're not playing devils advocate. You're playing devils let's make shit up.

Sillybear said straight/gay marriages are both, and I quote.

"Monogamous relationships between two people in love".

Polygamy literally can't be that. It's not monogamous, and there are more than two people in love/involved.

There was zero implication that "someones love for more than one person is not true".

You've made that up.

Stop making shit up.

I really need to stop making smart ass remarks that go over people's head. Its not funny if they don't get it.

Seekster:
I pray that decades from now people who give the consent argument arent called bigots, I really do.

Why is there a limit on how far people will go? Has progress or "progress" ever stopped in history?

Human cloning has never been allowed to go very far.

And I really do think you need to not worry so much about decades from now. Prohibition of gay marriage is something that needs to be rectified. That is today's issue. If bestiality comes up years from now, we'll deal with it then. There's not even a guarantee that will happen or that they will even ever have enough of a presence to make a difference. Why crush the dreams and rights of millions right now indefinitely because you're afraid of the off-chance it might lead to people wanting to legally fucking dogs somewhere along the line? We shouldn't deal with the clear problems of today with the maybes of someday.

EDIT: Actually never mind. If I missed a joke then that's my bad.

Lilani:

Seekster:
I pray that decades from now people who give the consent argument arent called bigots, I really do.

Why is there a limit on how far people will go? Has progress or "progress" ever stopped in history?

Human cloning has never been allowed to go very far.

And I really do think you need to not worry so much about decades from now. Prohibition of gay marriage is something that needs to be rectified. That is today's issue. If bestiality comes up years from now, we'll deal with it then. There's not even a guarantee that will happen or that they will even ever have enough of a presence to make a difference. Why crush the dreams and rights of millions right now indefinitely because you're afraid of the off-chance it might lead to people wanting to legally fucking dogs somewhere along the line? We shouldn't deal with the clear problems of today with the maybes of someday.

Because I am not short sighted and I know that certain principles are important.

Why does the lack of legal recognition for same-sex unions as a marriage need to be rectified? I think the issue itself needs to be addressed because it is the issue at hand. Hopefully when we are done addressing it we can move on to addressing things like adultery or divorce instead of things like polygamy or God knows what else. I don't even want to imagine a society where bestiality would be seriously considered and what worries me is that only a few decades ago we lived in a society where same-sex marriage was scarcely even talked about seriously. I am like you, I don't think that the issue of bestiality will ever come up. What worries me is that I can't think of any reason why it wouldnt when people are already starting to talk about polygamy like its perfectly fine and soon they will be calling those who oppose polygamy bigots.

Aye we should deal with the question of same-sex unions today. No matter what same-sex couples deserve the same rights and benefits as a marriage has but leave it up to the states what you call that union. That is the world we live in and that is how the issue will be addressed unless someday the Supreme Court rules definitively on the issue. Until that time I would kindly ask you to stop making up rights that don't exist and instead focus on getting the rights that actually exist which homosexuals are in fact being unfairly denied. Things like visitation rights, join filings of taxes, special tax breaks, and what someone earlier on this forum told me about not being able to have a non-American spouse file for legal residency. There are injustices that are being ignored because some idiot activist wanted to put the quest for marriage above the quest for equal rights.

In a great many cases the slippery slope argument is a valid one. Not in the cases listed by the OP, however.

Any argument that bases itself on a fear of what might happen is not legitimate.

ReservoirAngel:
Any argument that bases itself on a fear of what might happen is not legitimate.

So it is not legitimate to say that people should wear seat belts in cars?

ReservoirAngel:
Any argument that bases itself on a fear of what might happen is not legitimate.

That is a rather blanket statement. What about the arguments for environmentalism or to fight global warming? Are they not based in fear?

ReservoirAngel:
Any argument that bases itself on a fear of what might happen is not legitimate.

...

Do you mean "fear" as an unreasoning, kneejerk reaction, as opposed to a valid concern?

Otherwise I'm going to disagree. Fear is one of the driving forces of humantiy, one of the great sources of progress.

ravenshrike:

nyysjan:
millionaires paying as high a tax as their secretaries in their earnings = they want to take away all your money (no matter how wealthy or poor you are)

Ahhh, stupid left wing idiots who think that Warren Buffet is actually a kindly old man make me snigger. Let me point out that a woman who only makes 60,000 dollars a year cannot afford to live in two separate houses in two different states and leave it at that. You were sold on a lie, and not a particularly clever one at that.

Ummmmm, what?
What are you talking about?
I just pointed out that people wanting for the top 1% to pay as much taxes as the rest of us might not actually mean that we are intending to rob people out of all their money.

Also, what the hell does poor (or atleast not wealthy) people not being able to live in two houses have to do with anything?

nyysjan:

ravenshrike:

nyysjan:
millionaires paying as high a tax as their secretaries in their earnings = they want to take away all your money (no matter how wealthy or poor you are)

Ahhh, stupid left wing idiots who think that Warren Buffet is actually a kindly old man make me snigger. Let me point out that a woman who only makes 60,000 dollars a year cannot afford to live in two separate houses in two different states and leave it at that. You were sold on a lie, and not a particularly clever one at that.

Ummmmm, what?
What are you talking about?
I just pointed out that people wanting for the top 1% to pay as much taxes as the rest of us might not actually mean that we are intending to rob people out of all their money.

Also, what the hell does poor (or atleast not wealthy) people not being able to live in two houses have to do with anything?

So let me see if I've got this straight, you used a line of argument that is meant to be an example of a slippery slope AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM? It's times like these that I wish I drank, if only to dull the pain of others' stupidity.

Anyone who says Law X will lead to different Law Y is wrong.

Take the marriage one. Some people might say that gay marriage may lead to legalizing polyamory or some other looser definition of marriage.

Well that's not true. In order to legalize polyamory we'd need a whole nother law to do that, and it won't get a fast lane just because gay marriage passed.

There could be a case where legalizing polyamory and gay marriage are both part of the same bill, but then it's not a slippery slope to talk about it.

Although you should be weary of legal precedent.

Using the "Slippery Slope" to take ideas to their logical extent is all well and good, and I support it. However, there are people who say that two things are related when they aren't.

For example, arguments for gay marriage do not lead to being able to marry a cat.[1] In that case, someone using the "Slippery Slope" is wrong. But it isn't the fault of the Slope, it's the fault of the person who is misusing it.

[1] You can argue over arguments for [gay]marriage leading to polygamy, but that only comes from arguments that also support [hetero]marriage. (i.e., marriage is about love etc.)

ravenshrike:

nyysjan:

ravenshrike:
Ahhh, stupid left wing idiots who think that Warren Buffet is actually a kindly old man make me snigger. Let me point out that a woman who only makes 60,000 dollars a year cannot afford to live in two separate houses in two different states and leave it at that. You were sold on a lie, and not a particularly clever one at that.

Ummmmm, what?
What are you talking about?
I just pointed out that people wanting for the top 1% to pay as much taxes as the rest of us might not actually mean that we are intending to rob people out of all their money.

Also, what the hell does poor (or atleast not wealthy) people not being able to live in two houses have to do with anything?

So let me see if I've got this straight, you used a line of argument that is meant to be an example of a slippery slope AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM? It's times like these that I wish I drank, if only to dull the pain of others' stupidity.

/facepalm
I know where the line about millionaires paying less than their secretaries comes from, that's not what i meant.
I was simply wondering how your rant, in anyway, had anything to do with my example.

Buffets personality has nothing to do with the argument that rich people should pay atleast as much as the poor, if not more, or that some people seem to think that advocating for a slight tax increase will immediatly lead to government coming and taking away all the wealth from the poor hard working millionaires, and middle class, and the working poor, and, i don't know, go build palaces for the lazy non working welfare queens or something.

Also, how did that "can't live in two homes with 60k yearly income" come from? how is that relevant to anything?

nyysjan:
Also, how did that "can't live in two homes with 60k yearly income" come from? how is that relevant to anything?

His secretary, which is a misnomer anyway given that her position is really that of an executive assistant, has two houses, in two different states. Both paid off, and both quite expensive. In other words, an impossibility given her purported salary. Simply put, Buffet lied out his ass, both about his secretary's compensation, and her supposed federal tax rate(which using any sane metric was an impossible number to achieve. You have to twist the definition of federal tax rate into a mobius strip in order to come anywhere close). And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker, like a good little minion because that was what you wanted to hear.

ravenshrike:

nyysjan:
Also, how did that "can't live in two homes with 60k yearly income" come from? how is that relevant to anything?

His secretary, which is a misnomer anyway given that her position is really that of an executive assistant, has two houses, in two different states. Both paid off, and both quite expensive. In other words, an impossibility given her purported salary. Simply put, Buffet lied out his ass, both about his secretary's compensation, and her supposed federal tax rate(which using any sane metric was an impossible number to achieve. You have to twist the definition of federal tax rate into a mobius strip in order to come anywhere close). And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker, like a good little minion because that was what you wanted to hear.

And this relates to the idea that rich should not be able to pay less tax on their income and that some people think the idea of progressive taxation, or even non regressive taxation, will inevitably lead to, or is equivelant of, robbery, how?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked