Gun control, abortion rights, drug legalization — it seems like every argument these days claims that if X happens, then Y will follow, and we’ll all be doomed to Z. Is the slippery-slope argument a valid logical construction or just a game of feelingsball?
First and foremost, it's understanding precisely what a slippery slope is, and what it isn't. More isn't actually, due to changing times, other protocols or factors, something simply got steeper or trickier to navigate, which was not something expected or predicted as a net result.
A slippery slope always was and is slippery, venturing over onto it generally results going downwards.
It's joins a list of argumentative logic which has poor outcomes if it is misused or not applied correctly - in regard to slippery slopes, people are prone to misusing it either out of ignorance or rather deliberately to BS / promote their agenda, often to generalise opposing ideas and thoughts.
I'll sidestep the gun debate in the US and stick to what happened in Australia 25 years ago when they brought in extra gun rules At the time a number of concerned people pointed out what they were trying to implement was a slippery slope in that it would be increasingly difficult for the average citizen to retain their guns. Oh no it wouldn't the govt at the time stated, paid half a billion aud in a scheme to recall various guns, and a one time fee was maintained as the only onus on a person who wanted to keep their guns, a fee payable along with complying with gun safes, registering all their guns and making a case for more lethal arms. It wasn't long though, fees became payable every 5 years and then the prices started to hike upwards, so much so the powers that be offered yearly payment options - since there really was a fair bit of paperwork involved to keep the gun registry up to date and keeping abreast of changing weaponry ... this wasn't unexpected, thus it was indeed the slippery slope that a number of people identified.
[Important note: Most striking changes since the introduction of the new gun laws in Australia, included rules how authorities could respond to poor gun ownership, police were given a much wider broad common sense range of actions against idiots who liked to think they could scare people and neighbourhoods with their careless gun activities ... and the law courts could really put anyone unfortunate enough to be stupid around or with guns, through the wringer - more as a warning to anyone else who might be stupid enough to think they might get away with being a tool. ]
2 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 12.2 ms ] threadA slippery slope always was and is slippery, venturing over onto it generally results going downwards.
It's joins a list of argumentative logic which has poor outcomes if it is misused or not applied correctly - in regard to slippery slopes, people are prone to misusing it either out of ignorance or rather deliberately to BS / promote their agenda, often to generalise opposing ideas and thoughts.
I'll sidestep the gun debate in the US and stick to what happened in Australia 25 years ago when they brought in extra gun rules At the time a number of concerned people pointed out what they were trying to implement was a slippery slope in that it would be increasingly difficult for the average citizen to retain their guns. Oh no it wouldn't the govt at the time stated, paid half a billion aud in a scheme to recall various guns, and a one time fee was maintained as the only onus on a person who wanted to keep their guns, a fee payable along with complying with gun safes, registering all their guns and making a case for more lethal arms. It wasn't long though, fees became payable every 5 years and then the prices started to hike upwards, so much so the powers that be offered yearly payment options - since there really was a fair bit of paperwork involved to keep the gun registry up to date and keeping abreast of changing weaponry ... this wasn't unexpected, thus it was indeed the slippery slope that a number of people identified.
[Important note: Most striking changes since the introduction of the new gun laws in Australia, included rules how authorities could respond to poor gun ownership, police were given a much wider broad common sense range of actions against idiots who liked to think they could scare people and neighbourhoods with their careless gun activities ... and the law courts could really put anyone unfortunate enough to be stupid around or with guns, through the wringer - more as a warning to anyone else who might be stupid enough to think they might get away with being a tool. ]