Grab the guns while we still can

[Eejit]

"While the general form of the argument involving a slippery slope is not valid, the conclusion it leads to is not necessarily wrong."


Slippery slope is one of the few "logical fallacies" that can be used, if applied correctly.

For example, Alcohol.

If I were to say "They should not be able to ban driving while drunk, because they won't stop. Next they'll just flat out ban alcohol."

It would be a valid argument because alcohol was, in fact, banned before.

That's actually an example of the fallacious kind of slippery slope there, good work.
It 'can' be a valid argument, but not in any of the cases you've used it in.

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slopes occur when this is not done -- an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope in technical definition of the term.

 

[unozero]

obama won't ban guns...so relax guys

 

[Jintor]

You aussies have your boomerangs to decapitate zombies with. :>

Boomerangs don't decapitate, idjit. They don't fly back to your hand, either. They're made NOT to return, hopefully because it's sticking in somebody's chest - which doesn't effing stop an effing zombie.

Because they're zombies!

EFF!

 

[Eejit]

What about one of those things Xena throws?

 

[Top Secret]

That's actually an example of the fallacious kind of slippery slope there, good work.
It 'can' be a valid argument, but not in any of the cases you've used it in.

It says quite clearly that the contingency needs to be proven before I can make the statement. Which it is, since alcohol has been banned before. Meaning, I'm not pulling shit out of my ass, meaning the argument is not fallacious. It's valid.

 

[Jintor]

So... what you're saying is... drink driving should be legal? =___=

 

[Sheepo]

This thread is now about zombie kangaroos.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

This thread is now about zombie kangaroos.

I saw one the other day. Lovely fellow.

 

[Eejit]

It says quite clearly that the contingency needs to be proven before I can make the statement. Which it is, since alcohol has been banned before. Meaning, I'm not pulling shit out of my ass, meaning the argument is not fallacious. It's valid.

Actually you have to prove that if drink driving is banned then alcohol will be banned, not that it has been before.
Also that example is complete rubbish because drink driving has been illegal for a very long time when you could also legally drink alcohol.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Plus, alcohol wasn't made illegal everywhere. Only America and Scandinavian countries, amirite?

 

[Sheepo]

Yeah, only the real country.

 

[Top Secret]

Actually you have to prove that if drink driving is banned then alcohol will be banned, not that it has been before.
Also that example is complete rubbish because drink driving has been illegal for a very long time when you could also legally drink alcohol.

Bollocks. I'm not trying to prove that alcohol will be banned. I am just saying it's a viable candidate for the chopping block as anything else.

Also, it IS a viable argument because it HAPPENED BEFORE.

1. 1910 driving while intoxicated by alcohol was made illegal

2. 1920 alcohol was made illegal

 

[nipples]

Imo alcohol is worse for you than marijuana.

 

[Pesmerga]

Everything in moderation. Even moderation.

 

[nipples]

"You're wrong about drug use, when its not abuse"

[youtube]jGaIaSJa630[/youtube]

Edit: Don't flame me for posting this. I didn't say I agreed with anything in it except drug use.

 

[Eejit]

Bollocks. I'm not trying to prove that alcohol will be banned. I am just saying it's a viable candidate for the chopping block as anything else.

Also, it IS a viable argument because it HAPPENED BEFORE.

1. 1910 driving while intoxicated by alcohol was made illegal

2. 1920 alcohol was made illegal

Sigh, to explain again;

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slopes occur when this is not done -- an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope in technical definition of the term.

Because something has happened once before doesn't mean it will happen again. This isn't Battlestar Galactica.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I wonder if it's possible that driving while intoxicated was made illegal at that time not because it was necessarily a precursor to the intersection of government growth and puritanical attitude that led to the Prohibition but rather because it was only about that time that driving was actually invented.

Top Secret needs to show that there's actually a causal link (rather than merely a temporal one) between the two incidents.

 

[CptStern]

ok I'm kinda lost here as the thread jumped to a discussion on whether laws banning drinking and driving may lead to banning alcohol ..this in itself is one hell of a leap in logic (despite past prohibition that had absolutely nothing to do with drinking and driving and everything to do with temperence groups that had been battling the issue for over 80 years prior to prohibition) ...anyways I'm still clued out how this relates to guns except as a means of getting people up in arms in the most alarmist method possible

"dont let thos fatcats in washington fool you, they took away alcohol! what's next? our GUNS, our FREEDOMS? OUR VERY LIVES!?!" <sound of siren/bells sounding the start of ragnar?k/galloping hooves of horsemen of the apcolypse>

 

[Eejit]

ok I'm kinda lost here as the thread jumped to a discussion on whether laws banning drinking and driving may lead to banning alcohol ..this in itself is one hell of a leap in logic (despite past prohibition that had absolutely nothing to do with drinking and driving and everything to do with temperence groups that had been battling the issue for over 80 years prior to prohibition) ...anyways I'm still clued out how this relates to guns except as a means of getting people up in arms in the most alarmist method possible

He was using it as an example of his (flawed) understanding of slippery slope fallacies - which we both know gun rights people use a lot - and trying to show that he wasn't doing it.

 

[CptStern]

so .......... guns are bad?


sometimes I find there's no reasoning with people on certain issues. you can bring up valid point after valid point and it doesnt really matter because the person will do everything in their power to circumvent, ignore, debase, deflect, deride, dismiss the argument because much like a house of cards; their entire argument hinges on ignoring that point because their resolve falls apart if they were to accept it

 

[Eejit]

I don't have to listen to you you're canadian you don't know anything.

 

[CptStern]

I don't have to listen to you you're canadian you don't know anything.

hey we saved your ass in ww2!!! you owe us!

 

[Eejit]

Pffft, as an Irish citizen I can say "we were neutral".

 

[CptStern]

probably because the germans refused to meet the irish in battle with nothing more than their bare fists!

 

[Eejit]

Well, that and the fact we had shit all military to fight and the Germans had no reason to piss us off and give Allied shipping extra safe Atlantic ports and airfields.

But mostly the bare fists thing.

 

[CptStern]

But mostly the bare fists thing.

up until the Universal Handgun Adoption Act of 1947 passed, the irish were considered the best police officers in america because of their tendency to give criminals the business end of their fists

 

[marksiwel]

up until the Universal Handgun Adoption Act of 1947 passed, the irish were considered the best police officers in america because of their tendency to give criminals the business end of their fists

And dont forget those sweet sweet bribes. Ah to be a "Bag Man" in 30's and 40's, think of all the cash, hookers, and random beatings I could have done as an irish cop back in the day.

 

[marksiwel]

Well, that and the fact we had shit all military to fight and the Germans had no reason to piss us off and give Allied shipping extra safe Atlantic ports and airfields.

But mostly the bare fists thing.

I'm sure if the German's were able to launch Operation Sealion they would just avoid Ireland
or they would have just dropped booze and candy on you. Those wacky Nazi's

 

[Eejit]

Don't double post.

And quite possibly. Hitler didn't even want to fight Britain in the first place, Sealion was only thought up because they refused to discuss peace.
They left some other neutral countries more or less alone. /shrug