State 29 says:
Once cities get hooked on providing services, they’ll be pressured to offer more and more newer technologies. First it was cable TV, but now it’s broadband internet. Then it will be WiFi and digital movie downloads. Maybe somebody will think broadband over power lines (BPL) should be given another try. It’s endless. And expensive.
In the same vein as what State 29 says:
Once the legislature starts limiting city telecom services they’ll be pressured to limit cities from providing other infrastructure and services. First the legislature limits telecom services then they stop cities from providing snow plow service. Next they stop cities from providing roads and streets. Then someone will think the city should stay away from police and fire services. It’s endless. And dangerous.
As you can see, slippery slope arguments are just dumb. Using them to persuade people just shows how weak your argument is.
4 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Yeah… don’t worry. Nobody will ever successfully sue the tobacco companies.
Uh-huh, yeah right.
Yeah… don’t worry. Nobody will ever successfully sue the fast food industry…
Planned Parenthood uses slippery slope arguments all of the time – I’m a member. The NRA uses them too – I’m a member.
I must be dumb or just plain ornery and uncompromising regarding individual rights… or something.
BUt the problem with the slippery slope argument is the arguer can say WHATEVER outlandish thing they want as the next level of the slope, on down the whole freaking mountain. Like this: Royce is uncompromising so it’s a slippery slope before long you’ll see that he never tries a new position and then his wife will be dissatisfied, and then once that is true, then it’s an easy slide to him getting a divroce, and then he’d spiral into such a depression that he’d lose his job and his awesome house and be standing in the street NOT asking for money because he’s against that and he is uncompromising.
Or this: Bush wants to liberate Iraq, so it won’t be long before he “liberates” all dictatorships, and then he’ll think he’s got a mandate to remove all theocracies that don’t center around Christianity, and then who knows, he’ll feel that since he did that and no one impeached him, that now he has a mandate to invade Australia because it’s warm at Christmas, and dammit thats just not right!
As the arguer, I can say whatever BS I want.
I agree with Mike, the slippery slope argument is used when you don’t have a valid argument.
The point is anyone can create a slippery slope argument to go anyway they choose – that doesn’t mean it’s correct.
The arguments you listed above fall closer to standard mutual fund warnings, “Past performance is not an indicator of future returns.” And inductive logic like that comes with its own set of problems.
BTW, Planned Parenthood and the NRA? You must be on some crazy mailing lists. A friend of mine has a subscription to Ms. and is a member of the NRA – thus he gets anything targeted to feminist gun owners.
Thanks for posting Stefanie. If I hadn’t spent so much time writing my comment I would have seen you wrote basically the same thing.
Post a Comment