Slippery Slopes

[The ClayTaurus]

What do people think of using a slippery slope argument when discussing an issue? It appears to be a reasoning tactic that I'm seeing pop up more and more. Thoughts on the general idea of the slippery slope?

 

[GotZoom]

The "then" portion of the "if/then" analogy of the slippery slope could, theoretically be truthful. At times, the "then" is taken to extremes, but based on past history, it isn't that outrageous of a possibility.

 

[dmp]

If/Then.


IF I allow my daughter to go on ONE date, THEN the way could be paved for her to go on MORE dates.


IF we allow Homosexuals the ability to Marry, THEN we'll be forced to look at OTHER forms of marraige: Family Members. Pedophiles. Human-Animal. Human-Plant. Etc.


and so on.

 

[5stringJeff]

Slippery slopes are the fallacy version of cause and effect relationships. Basically, it is assuming that a cause and effect relationship exists when it may or may not exist. It's something that you have to look at on a case by case basis.

 

[GotZoom]

Slippery slopes are the fallacy version of cause and effect relationships. Basically, it is assuming that a cause and effect relationship exists when it may or may not exist. It's something that you have to look at on a case by case basis.

word

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What do people think of using a slippery slope argument when discussing an issue? It appears to be a reasoning tactic that I'm seeing pop up more and more. Thoughts on the general idea of the slippery slope?

In the real world the slippery slope is applicable because you see it everywhere. For example, once a person becomes acclimated to "soft porn" and begins to think it is "normal", then he typically is open to gradually accepting forms of "hard porn" and other various sorts of abnormal behavior in society such as foul language on TV shows children watch, sexually explicit shows, more and more violence on shows and in real life, "open" marriages, homosexual marriages, and the list goes on ad nauseum.

The Far Left won the "soft porn" battle many years ago. They won it by twisting our Constitution and "free speech" to force us to accept soft porn in the public venues. Step by step (slippery slope) they are unraveling our society by changing our laws to make society more degenerate in order to destroy our country.

Our country was founded on solid Christian values and that is why it has been such a leading light in this world with democratic values based upon the idea that we are all given rights by God but that we are also individually responsible to that same God. The Left does not believe this and so they target Christian values which are absolute and attempt to replace them with "relative" values. This is the "slippery slope" that we as a country are on today.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

In the real world the slippery slope is applicable because you see it everywhere. For example, once a person becomes acclimated to "soft porn" and begins to think it is "normal", then he typically is open to gradually accepting forms of "hard porn" and other various sorts of abnormal behavior in society such as foul language on TV shows children watch, sexually explicit shows, more and more violence on shows and in real life, "open" marriages, homosexual marriages, and the list goes on ad nauseum.

The Far Left won the "soft porn" battle many years ago. They won it by twisting our Constitution and "free speech" to force us to accept soft porn in the public venues. Step by step (slippery slope) they are unraveling our society by changing our laws to make society more degenerate in order to destroy our country.

Our country was founded on solid Christian values and that is why it has been such a leading light in this world with democratic values based upon the idea that we are all given rights by God but that we are also individually responsible to that same God. The Left does not believe this and so they target Christian values which are absolute and attempt to replace them with "relative" values. This is the "slippery slope" that we as a country are on today.

So you would argue that soft porn (whatever you define that as) does not fall under the protections of free speech?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So you would argue that soft porn (whatever you define that as) does not fall under the protections of free speech?

Yup.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yup.

So, does free speech protect racial epithets?

 

[GotZoom]

So, does free speech protect racial epithets?

Only if you are non-Caucasian.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Only if you are non-Caucasian.

Smart ass

SHOULD free speech protect racial epithets?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Smart ass

SHOULD free speech protect racial epithets?

Yes, with the exception of when it falls under the laws of slander or libel.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Only if it falls under the laws of slander or libel.

So, there's no slippery slope for using hatespeech, as long as it's not slander or libel?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So, there's no slippery slope for using hatespeech, as long as it's not slander or libel?

I just corrected my last reply to make it more clear.

Yes, the slippery slope can be applied to "hatespeech" as well. The more it is tolerated, the worse it will get. And you can "reverse" the slope as well. The more it is NOT tolerated, the worse it will get.

The point is, where do you draw the line? It has to be drawn somewhere in a reasonable manner. If two people are just having a heated argument and one uses "hatespeech" it is not reasonable to legally charge anybody. However, if the same scenario plays out in a forum where the other person is harmed in a meaningul way, then charges of slander or libel are reasonable.

What blows me away is how two-faced liberals are. On one hand they are jumping all over somebody for using innocuous forms of what they call "hatespeech" such as accusing Roberts of using the word "amigos" when he referred to our southern neighbors. The next minute they are defending child porn as a form of "free speech". The honest person has to ask themself why there is such a disparity.

 

[GotZoom]

Let's look at the infamous "N" word.

Whites use it - hate speech. We aren't "allowed" to use it.

Black use it - it's cool...they are allowed.

If the word is offensive, it is offensive.

It doesn't matter whose mouth it comes out of.

I have yet to see a white person get offended because they are called a "cracker" - but let a white person say, "you people", or anything else that can be even remotely associated with discimination, and listen to the uproar.

 

[Max Power]

The next minute they are defending child porn as a form of "free speech".

Could you cite an example of this?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Let's look at the infamous "N" word.

Whites use it - hate speech. We aren't "allowed" to use it.

Black use it - it's cool...they are allowed.

If the word is offensive, it is offensive.

It doesn't matter whose mouth it comes out of.

I have yet to see a white person get offended because they are called a "cracker" - but let a white person say, "you people", or anything else that can be even remotely associated with discimination, and listen to the uproar.

Another great example of what is going on in our country with regard to what I would call the liberal "reversed slippery slope" because they are targeting and tightening up free speech with regard to race as opposed to their loosening of free speech with regard to porn where we are slipping down the slope into more and more degeneracy.

The Far Left in the Democratic party is carefully constructing a multiculturist society for various reasons. The only way they can do that is separate the races/ethnic groups by any means they can. "Hatespeech" and accusations of "racial slurs" are great ways to drum up this business of hate between different groups. "Hate" is a great business since it is how the left gets votes and money. They also use it to attack such as in the Robert's case where he used the so-called "racial slur" word of "amigos". Ultimately it is just another method how the Far Left breaks down our American society...divide and conquer. They don't believe in the Great American Melting Pot - just in their melting pot.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I just corrected my last reply to make it more clear.

Yes, the slippery slope can be applied to "hatespeech" as well. The more it is tolerated, the worse it will get. And you can "reverse" the slope as well. The more it is NOT tolerated, the worse it will get.

The point is, where do you draw the line? It has to be drawn somewhere in a reasonable manner. If two people are just having a heated argument and one uses "hatespeech" it is not reasonable to legally charge anybody. However, if the same scenario plays out in a forum where the other person is harmed in a meaningul way, then charges of slander or libel are reasonable.

What blows me away is how two-faced liberals are. On one hand they are jumping all over somebody for using innocuous forms of what they call "hatespeech" such as accusing Roberts of using the word "amigos" when he referred to our southern neighbors. The next minute they are defending child porn as a form of "free speech". The honest person has to ask themself why there is such a disparity.

Amigo isn't hate speech. And your second paragraph couples well with my original post. If there is no two extreme ends to something, then the argument is about where to draw the line... what constitutes reasonable manner. To me, hatespeech is much worse then soft porn because it incites violence. So to me, the line looks like, for porn, it is drawn in an area where no one is being hurt. No one dies after seeing someone's rack. Victoria's secret commercials don't cause someone to get punched in the face. But then, with hatespeech, the line is drawn in the area where people do get hurt. If you call someone the n bomb you'll get punched.

This was my entire point of slippery slopes. We have to go back to banning soft porn because it leads to hard core porn which leads to this which leads to that. Why can't the line be drawn at hard porn? Why can't the line be before hatespeech? There seems to just be a lack of consistency.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Could you cite an example of this?

Read this:

The ACLU: No Pedophile Left Behind

The case is New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747. The ACLU in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court argued that the possession of child pornography should be legalized. Twilight of Liberty summarizes:

"The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit." ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of the ages of its performers; this would be "a gross violation of privacy."

To the ACLU, violating an 8 year old on tape is bad, but to support the production of that tape by buying it is ok. Needless to say the Supreme Court rejected this obvious stupidity, but it makes it clear that this organization doesn't see a problem with supporting the child porn industry because legal regulations would be a "gross violation of privacy."

Sounds like Planned Parenthood's arguments when covering up for child rape. We would hate for the privacy of pedophiles to be violated, after all. That's much more important than protecting kids.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/16/123428.php

 

[GotZoom]

Amigo isn't hate speech. And your second paragraph couples well with my original post. If there is no two extreme ends to something, then the argument is about where to draw the line... what constitutes reasonable manner. To me, hatespeech is much worse then soft porn because it incites violence. So to me, the line looks like, for porn, it is drawn in an area where no one is being hurt. No one dies after seeing someone's rack. Victoria's secret commercials don't cause someone to get punched in the face. But then, with hatespeech, the line is drawn in the area where people do get hurt. If you call someone the n bomb you'll get punched.

This was my entire point of slippery slopes. We have to go back to banning soft porn because it leads to hard core porn which leads to this which leads to that. Why can't the line be drawn at hard porn? Why can't the line be before hatespeech? There seems to just be a lack of consistency.

So if a black guy calls me a cracker, and I punch him, it is now hatespeech?

The line isn't drawn because people get hurt. The line gets drawn because certain people make an issue of it, and others don't stand up to those people.