Ahhh, The 'Slippery Slope' Argument - seems all too clear (though a better term is needed)

[The Straight Story]

I vote for 'Stairway to fascism'

Let's examine but two examples:

Smoking and Seat Belts.
(feel free to add your own).

Smoking: (Then) Look, we just want to ban it indoors, for the sake of employees and those who don't smoke who want to go to a place and have it non-smoking. You wanna smoke, go outside. Simple and easy.

(Now - see Belmont, CA threads) We just want to ban smoking in your car, apartments, and any where outdoors. Is ok if you smoke at home (for now...) if your home is not attached to someone else's home.

Seat Belts: (Then) We want to be able to ticket you for driving without one, but only if you are pulled over for something else.

(Now) We should be able to ticket you for not wearing one - your decision to not wear one costs us money (though a lot less then the Iraq war per day). So from here on out, if a cop sees you without one they can pull you over.

So why not be upfront with people and tell em from the start what your long term plans are? Why lie and pretend you only want to jail/fine them for X when you really want to jail/fine them for X and Y?

Stand on a step and say you go no further. Then wait a bit, and go down another one.

And these are but two examples I have seen over the years. I could go on for hours about other things: Smart cards, flags, what you eat, red light cameras, cell phone usage, bush and the war machine, and so on.

A slippery slope implies a rapid descent, I don't see it as rapid - but a slow progression of restrictions.

Hide your cheeseburger - for soon it will be a criminal one. Drinking and driving? The percentage of alcohol in your blood which makes you criminal will get less and less.

Second hand flags (ie, ones you can see while driving) will be banned if not the 'right' one (see my other post on a city banning the flying of flags unless the US one is as well). And the list goes on.

Legislating your life away starts with something small. Then a step at a time it gets worse. For the good of everyone I suppose.

Freedom has become freedom from something instead of freedom of something.

What is there left to protect of your freedoms if we are so busy protecting you from the freedoms of others?

[dchill]

1. It's probably time to make deep suntans illegal, too...

and anything artificially OR naturally sweetened. And what about those DANGEROUS amusement park rides? Gotta go!

[rfranklin]

4. Sorry, amusement park rides are statistically very safe...

and they have seat belts or safety harnesses.

"What do other numbers say?
This group's statistics are supported by those of the National Consumer Product Safety Commission. It estimates that more than 270 million people visit amusement parks each year, and that 7,000 people out of those 270 million go to emergency rooms for injuries they receive on amusement park rides--that's only 0.00259 percent of riders."

http://www.learner.org/exhibits/parkphysics/ridesafety.html

[seabeyond]

7. but there is "potential" danger... we know this cause accidents have

happened. and for the good of the whole.... we must eliminate. why do you hate ameicans?

[dchill]

9. No apology necessary...

I don't particularly care about amusement park ride safety, or the "safety" of any other individual activity. What I care about is the fact that life under BushCo rule is more dangerous than any of the safety-nazi causes. What I care about is freedom.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. Freedom is a very relative term

So is "nanny."

[seabeyond]

3. i can see it easily. i wonder why it is so hard for others. my guess

they have so little confidence in self to feel they can walk life wihtout rules. my in laws are that way. there must be rules for all things to make them feel safe and secure and comfortable in life. where i have always been proud of being able to do rules. i take pride i dont read the rules on the board, yet i am quite capable of functioning and not "breaking" any rule to get kicked off. i dont need people to tell me how to do life, cause i probably do it as well if not better, though not exactly like they may. my oldest is like husbands family. i encourage, (bad parent that i am) encourage him to step beyond the bounds. walk on that grass, it is why god gave it to us.

[rfranklin]

5. A Good Rule: Don't smoke tobacco...

You will inevitably end up with lung cancer, asthma, or some other dire ailment and become a burden to your loved ones and society in general as well as feeling like a complete dope.

[seabeyond]

8. you are wrong. there is the "potential", not inevitable, and that is the

fact. if you are going to dictate behavior at least, the very least.... be honest

[dchill]

11. A REALLY Good Rule:

Don't be distracted by those who claim that smokers are a bigger burden on the "system" than anybody else. Everybody, I'm sure you'll agree, dies of something. Our health care system is NOT threatened by smokers. It is threatened by a government that steals from the poor and gives to the rich. How could the potential trillions being spent in Iraq be better spent? Health care.

Whatever one is hospitalized for, it is far too expensive, and there is a lot of profit built into every single item on the bill. So, if you really want to travel the "Good Rule" road, better put out your cigarette and buckle up.

[The Straight Story]

12. Smoking can also prevent parkinson's, and help those with it

posted a thread on that the other day (30 studies done on it).

My grandpa smoked his ass off and lived to 86 years old, outlasting grandma who never smoked by ten years.

All but two people (out of 10) I know who died of cancer were rabid anti-smokers. The two who smoked had a cancer unrelated to their smoking (though the cause of death was probably recorded as being related to smoking since they did smoke).

My mom died at 70, and she smoked since she was 16. Cause of death, a staff infection which affected her one good kidney, which then failed.

I have had in my life 4 best friends. Two of them are dead. Neither smoked ever. One of them, still alive, smokes like a chimney.

22 people off the top of my head I have known (and I was quite close to) have died in the last 8 years. Most all were non-smokers, and the smokers in the group were much older then the non-smokers who died.

A lot of things are bad for you. And some people react different than others to the same things. We are all going to die someday. As mom used to say:

"When it's your time, that is it." and she was right. My buddy scott, healthy as an ox, died at 27. Most my friends I grew up with are dead now - and not one because of smoking (in fact, most were on the football team and in good shape, me - the geek who smokes, is still truckin along).

And to think they all made fun of me at times (in a nice way). Out of shape, a it overweight, and a smoker. They got all the girls while I was sitting here learning computers. Scott, Brian, Blair, the other Brian, bart (not dead, but brain damaged), The Kinney boy (Jim), The sanders boy (Scott), Amber, Bobbie, The kitchen brothers, Michelle, Billy Fulden, and a few others whose names escape me - all were non smokers who died in their 20's and 30's.

My X wife. Dead at 41. Her smoking mom, in her 70's and kicking booty. X girlfriend's mom, died 7 years ago at 49, hated smoking and smokers and died of cancer (she was a damn good woman I might add, still miss her).

Smoking can be bad for you, I agree. But there are a lot more things out there that will get you. Life is a terminal condition.

[sweetheart]

42. the drugs war has always been a slippery slope

It is that slippery slope that makes me most dislike democratic party policy,
even the party itself, and if i had an option other than puke, i would take any
party that offered to back off the slope, in every metaphorical meaning that
you've posted in your thread, its bad politics catering to nosy assholes who
think they can legislate life when freedom really is messy, and better for
people to learn by experience than from fascists.

[seabeyond]

45. better for people to learn by experience than from fascists

the main reason it is better is forcing.. even by law... doesnt work. why do it when we KNOW it doesnt work. all these superior intellects telling us because WE are so stupid they have to control us with law.... are actually doing the stupid dance. hm

just like we KNOW invading a country doesnt work. they wanted it to. they tried. and STILL it doesnt work

[Lautremont]

6. These arguments would work for me if

all these early promises (which I don't remember being made anyway) had been made by the exact same people who today hold power and are enacting the harsher or more restrictive ones. Then you could argue perhaps that slope was being slipped down, but as it is, you've got a period of decades over which different people with different ideas of how public health ought to be maintained are in positions of power.

Seat belts is a non-starter anyway: in either iteration of that law, you'd want to wear your belt; moreover, it's smart to wear it anyway.

I generally shy away from slippery-slope arguments. They're weak at the best of times and most visibly wielded by right-wing loons (eg. "If gays can get married, what's next, men marrying dogs?")

[The Straight Story]

10. on the seat belt thing

My brother-in-law is an avid wearer of them, way before the law told you that you had to.

You never got into his car without one. He would rip you a new one.

In the 80's he was this way. But one day he was hunting with a friend. Got in the car, and got sleepy, and took his off. The only time I have ever known him to not wear one. His friend wore his. And fell asleep behind the wheel. They hit a dump truck. His friend was killed, and he was thrown from the car - which saved his life.

He made a choice that day, one which saved him. One which might kill others. Had it been law back then his fundie ass would have been wearing one and dead, or so messed up he would have been in the hospital for who knows how long.

Freedom to choose versus not. I err on the side of freedom.

[kiahzero]

15. Are any public health regulations justifiable to you?

How far does your Libertarianism go?

[The Straight Story]

19. Public health?? You mean like limiting abortions?

The RW claims that as a public health issue (protect the fetus).

My health is not your concern, or the publics. My body after all right? Or is it yours?

[kiahzero]

22. So... would that be a no? (n/t)

[The Straight Story]

23. Depends on how on defines em

What is public health? Restricting folks from having anthrax laying around or smoking?

[kiahzero]

29. Lots of things

Putting restrictions on the possession of anthrax would fall under public health laws, yes. Regulating prescription drugs would be another. Another would be worker safety laws. And yes, banning harmful substances would be another.

Are you against all of these?

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Which is a very unusual story

How often can being thrown from a car actually help save your life? In most cars, that means getting thrown through a windshield, which is highly dangerous. I presume the car exploded within seconds, because there had to be some reason being in one piece inside the car was more dangerous than being thrown through a windshield (or was it an open-top? Either way, being thrown from a car is very dangerous). That's a very unusual accident. In the vast majority of accidents, wearing a belt is safer. For a widely publicised example, see Princess Diana's death - the one person in the car who was wearing a belt survived.

Your brother-in-law didn't choose to not wear the seatbelt because of the chance of this particular accident. He did it for a non-safety related reason. He just got lucky that one day.

[seabeyond]

48. my uncle twice. dont know why he experienced it twice, but he did

He just got lucky that one day.

and the one in seat belt unlucky. any accident in seat belt.... that "luck" you talk about is there. still can die. i think for feeling safe people like to think wearing seatbelt will keep you from death if the unusual, the against the odd, the unlucky of getting in an accident happens. think the difference is there are some that are well aware even in seatbelt death is a possibility if the against the odd happens to us, and seatbelt could help or be a hinderance...... all in the stars of life.

shit happens, every single moment of life, shit happens. it is what we do with it.

superintendent of kids school driving down to southern texas a year ago to visit college son. all in belts. two daughters, his wife and himself. all dead, in a flash. no speeding, belts on, airbags.

[kiahzero]

13. Slippery Slope arguments like the one you present are logical fallacies (n/t)

[The Straight Story]

14. care to elaborate? (nt)

[kiahzero]

16. There's no causal link between the various steps on your slope.

Therefore it's fallacious to oppose early parts of the "slope" on the grounds that they will lead to later, less desirable parts.

[The Straight Story]

17. Sure there is

You start by having a desire to ban something, and instead of telling people that you only ban a small portion of it, then move down a step.

[kiahzero]

20. Banning only a small portion does not cause the full ban.

If at any point people do not agree with a successive "step," they can simply oppose it. Banning smoking in public accommodations, for instance, does not have a causal link to banning smoking in general.

[The Straight Story]

24. Sure it does - because that is the desired outcome

but they know it won't fly so they pass a law, which they won't get rid of, and then toss out another one. Been that way for a long long time :)

[kiahzero]

27. Yes, some of the people advocating the step desire a certain end.

However, your argument is predicated on the assumption that not all of the people advocating a step desire that end, because otherwise they wouldn't care if that end was the result of their small step. Thus, your argument is invalid, because if a subsequent step is deemed to be inappropriate, it can be opposed. Such steps would not be able to proceed unopposed.

If, for instance, the step desired were to pass a law giving a local government the power to do whatever it saw fit to stop smoking, and the government insisted it would only use this power to ban smoking in public accommodations, then your argument would be valid, as it would require no more movement to ban smoking entirely. However, that is not what we are talking about in the present case.

[grizmaster]

41. ah, somebody knows their modus tollens

from their modus ponens.


I've been thinking we could use a handy primer on deductive reasoning around here. Maybe I'll have to take on the task myself and whip up a journal entry on it.


If P then Q
P
therefor Q

[TahitiNut]

18. But his argument really isn't 'slippery slope'

It's about an organized interest group that perpetuates its own existence by the pursuit of ever more draconian repression.

Let's try to make one thing very clear. Organizations (corporations, etc) DO NOT "go quietly into the night" when the objective for which they were established is achieved. Institutions DO NOT commit suicide. Period. March of Dimes. Nowhere is this made more abundantly clear than in federal contracting. When Uncle Sam opens his wallet to pay to have a problem solved, you'd be amazed at how those contractors can put that 'problem' on life support. That 'problem' becomes the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs. You just don't kill geese that lay golden eggs.

The profiteering in politics is based on "wedge issues." Find something that divides people somewhat equally in terms of zeal and money - and you've got a goose. Both sides will spend - and there're lots of folks eager to profit.

ATF ... Alcohol. Tobacco. Firearms.

[kiahzero]

21. So argue against their regulations when they are wrong.

If we were to accept that logic as an argument against taking the first step, we wouldn't have DUI laws because MADD is now starting to turn towards prohibition.

[The Straight Story]

25. The 'first' step?

Rather telling ;)

[kiahzero]

28. Whatever

You seem to be arguing against taking any step down the dreaded slippery slope, so "the first step" would seem to be the appropriate language.

[nebenaube]

38. stick your head in the sand ...

The war on terror would never have happened without the war on pot, et al. As the war on pot, et al. was necessary to:

1. Exploit the black market by driving the prices up,
2. Fund secret wars and covert actions,
3. Provide a convenient excuse to 'disappear' anyone (hey look! there's a kilo of cocaine in his trunk!)
4. Isolate individuals, destroy families and destabilize communities.
5. provide clientele for fake health care in 'rehab'
6. provide slaves for private prison industries.

[madmusic]

26. Laws are black holes.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Somebody said that:

http://www.samueljohnson.com/road.html

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. The One Thing That Pisses Me Off About This OP,

is that up until now not one friggin person has given it a recommendation.

I think this is a great post. Good job, SS.

[seabeyond]

32. i made it three and a kick along the way....

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. 'Stairway to fascism.'

Perfect term and that's exactly what I would call this dangerous descent we're on.:(

Great post, BTW. K & R!

[kiahzero]

33. Was West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish the first step?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrish

[seabeyond]

34. a not fun slippery slope effect us all. torture over there so we dont

oh wait... torture over here? have we been watching the behavior of our police force? you dont think legalizing and making torture of fellow human beings, the ones we declare enemy is not goig to seep into our own police force and effect all of us? it is a mind set, and we have gone beyond what our line was. and we allowed the police tme and again to go beyond hte line we had set in the past, for all kinds of reasons so we would feel safe.

my 9 yr old in a boyscout meeting last week had a policeman as speaker. he told them, you dont have to be afraid of them. he didnt know why, but some people were afraid of the police. and he assured the kids, they did ot have anything to fear.

my son watched the peace march in oregon where they said someone threw a bottle before police attacked, but clearly no bottle was thrown.

tonight he wathed the woman in the red suit at the miami peace march and the cops laughing about it afterwards

and he watched a pursesnatcher get run over by a police man in another video on this site.

we want to support the police. we know we should support the police. we should be able to support the police. but i think the next time my son listens to the police say we dont have to be afraid, my son may say, that isnt true.

[rosesaylavee]

36. There is too much govt in our lives.

Less is more.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

37. That which governs least governs best. - Thomas Jefferson

IMO, this is one of those areas where we democrats shoot ourselves in the foot.

Banning smoking in the workplace makes sense, but banning it in restaurants is overkill. You can make the restaurant have good air filtration so that the second hand smoke doesn't bother the non-smoking customers, but that is far enough.

Baning smoking in cars and at home, any home, is the kind of regulatory overkill that RW politicians love to talk about during campaigns. It's one thing to mandate legitimate public health concerns but it is quite another to meddle in people's lives when it isn't necessary or wanted.

[madinmaryland]

39. Re: Banning smoking.

Isn't the point of banning smoking to protect those who do not smoke? If it is more than that, then I have a problem with that. I just don't want to be forced to inhale other people's toxins.

[grizmaster]

40. how about torture and the destruction of habeus corpus?

If we haven't already hit the bottom of the slippery slope, I'm scared to think of what lies at the bottom.

[The Count]

43. Smokers. Welfare Queens. Immigrants. French. Muslims. Democrats.

No one ever went broke in this country by designating scape goats and fueling resentment. It's what made some of those excesses possible.
I doubt cheeseburgers are in any danger - because who's going to stand in Mac Donald's way? (and i don't want them in danger, mind you)
But whenever there's a controversy, it somehow always gets resolved in the detriment of a group of people rather than the big fat profiteering corporation behind it.

[BlueEyedSon]

44. The fact that cigarette companies are still operating is more indicative of fascism

in the sense of corporate/state fusion

[rateyes]

46. I for one could care less if you smoke or not...

just so long as I don't have to breathe it second-hand. Just be considerate of others, and light up where people who have the right not to smoke don't have to.

[treestar]

47. It is getting ridiculous, and how can the government enforce all this?

People seem to think the government has endless funds for enforcement.

Making ordinary people into criminals is not a good idea.

That which is "good for you" can be the subject of nagging, but why does everything need to go into government hands? There is plenty of motive to quit smoking and plenty of lecturing and nagging to do it - and people do quit. (I'm a nonsmoker.)

[seabeyond]

49. we put cameras everywhere..... arent i clever. that would work,

wouldnt it treestar?

[radfringe]

50. reminds me of a discrimination law suit

this was years ago, before ERA, when women were first fighting for equal rights..

a bank decided if an employee became pregnant she would have to leave. the reasoning behind it was that a pregant woman's belly did not fit the bank's image.

There were immediate objections stating if a woman was in her first or even second tri-mester she may not even show and know one would even know she was pregnant unless she told them.

The rule was then modified to apply to the size of the belly. If, while facing a wall, a woman's belly touched the wall before her feet, then she would have to leave.

It ended up in the courts saying the rule just applied to women, and as such was discrimatory. The courts said the bank could have the rule, but it would have to apply to men and women.

The bank dropped the rule after losing a female teller and 4 male VP's/loan officers.