Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. - Louis D. Brandeis
The greatest threat to society is people who, without thought, insist EVERYTHING is a slippery slope and don't understand that we have a legislative and judicial process to protect us against tyranny. In short, you are NOT "just like a member of Al Qaeda" if you support a smoking ban or any other ban. - JayBrown80
There are many laws out there. None of them have spelled the end of society as we know it. Yourself, and your followers, whose ONLY argument is the "slippery slope" need to just calm down. Or go vote. You know, avail yourself of the legislative process. I am so sick of all you people saying "if you ban plastic bags THE NEXT STEP is sharia law! You're all just like Al Qaeda!!!". No THL, that's not the NEXT STEP. There are about 15 million steps between the banning of bags and the end of society. And each of those 15 million steps would have to stand up to the protection of the ballot box and the jury box.
So how about a real argument against bans? And not sqwaking "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!" Here's a fun excercise to Austinrebel...how about you give an argument against bans without this phrase "The next thing you know, they'll.....". I personally don't care if they ban bags. I think it's stupid. I think they should just have police troll the problem areas and give $10,000 fines to people who litter. But we are talking about bags, not "if we allow this, the next thing you know they'll ban transfats, and salt, and smoking in apartments, and SUVs, and god, and sex, and christianity and blah blah blah blah".
That type of thinking is ridiculous, and it's the reason that the Austin City Council can so easily pass bans. 1) Most of you don't live in Austin and can't vote for the council, and 2) The people that do live in Austin won't vote to replace the council because instead of sound logical reasoning from the "anti-ban" side, you get "they're out to get you! they're out to get you!! LIBERALS!! SAN FRANSISCO SAN FRANSCISCO!!" and that just runs off most people that would be united under your banner. Also, the condescencing quotes from people who were born in the 1800s don't help either. THL might tell us to read a 1000 books on the history of Texas, but most of us won't because the opinions of the long dead don't really matter in today's society.
Last edited by JayBrown80; 12-14-2011 at 10:46 AM..
The greatest threat to society is people who, without thought, insist EVERYTHING is a slippery slope and don't understand that we have a legislative and judicial process to protect us against tyranny. In short, you are NOT "just like a member of Al Qaeda" if you support a smoking ban or any other ban. - JayBrown80
I'm chanting your name and fist pumping right now!!
The greatest threat to society is people who, without thought, insist EVERYTHING is a slippery slope and don't understand that we have a legislative and judicial process to protect us against tyranny. In short, you are NOT "just like a member of Al Qaeda" if you support a smoking ban or any other ban. - JayBrown80
There are many laws out there. None of them have spelled the end of society as we know it. Yourself, and your followers, whose ONLY argument is the "slippery slope" need to just calm down. Or go vote. You know, avail yourself of the legislative process. I am so sick of all you people saying "if you ban plastic bags THE NEXT STEP is sharia law! You're all just like Al Qaeda!!!". No THL, that's not the NEXT STEP. There are about 15 million steps between the banning of bags and the end of society. And each of those 15 million steps would have to stand up to the protection of the ballot box and the jury box.
So how about a real argument against bans? And not sqwaking "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!" Here's a fun excercise to Austinrebel...how about you give an argument against bans without this phrase "The next thing you know, they'll.....". I personally don't care if they ban bags. I think it's stupid. I think they should just have police troll the problem areas and give $10,000 fines to people who litter. But we are talking about bags, not "if we allow this, the next thing you know they'll ban transfats, and salt, and smoking in apartments, and SUVs, and god, and sex, and christianity and blah blah blah blah".
That type of thinking is ridiculous, and it's the reason that the Austin City Council can so easily pass bans. 1) Most of you don't live in Austin and can't vote for the council, and 2) The people that do live in Austin won't vote to replace the council because instead of sound logical reasoning from the "anti-ban" side, you get "they're out to get you! they're out to get you!! LIBERALS!! SAN FRANSISCO SAN FRANSCISCO!!" and that just runs off most people that would be united under your banner. Also, the condescencing quotes from people who were born in the 1800s don't help either. THL might tell us to read a 1000 books on the history of Texas, but most of us won't because the opinions of the long dead don't really matter in today's society.
A modern half ton pickup pollutes just as much as a large BMW or Mercedes. So what does the contractor drive everyday to get his/her job done?
A Ford Raptor super-off-road truck pollutes less than the new tiny Fiat 500.
So if they banned SUVs, would you ban minivans too?
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I am NOT for banning SUV's. I like Freedom and the free market. That's Freedom with a capitol F, by the way. As much as we can reasonably give people.
I don't want to give any liberal control freak one-percenters any ideas, but a case could be made use to ban trucks and SUV's. They use more gas generally, take more resources to build, cause more wear and tear on the roads, and annoy the heck out of politically correct hybrid economy car owners. Contractors could apply to a City Authorized Vehicle Board to apply for the right to drive a truck. Blah, blah, blah. Regulate, Regulate, Regulate. Control, Control, Control.
The new CAFE standards are going to eventually drive new SUV's off the road anyway, aren't they?
If you have a Ban-and-Regulate Mentality you can make a case to ban anything. I could make a case to ban anything too spicy, for instance.
Last edited by austinrebel; 12-14-2011 at 11:54 AM..
The greatest threat to society is people who, without thought, insist EVERYTHING is a slippery slope and don't understand that we have a legislative and judicial process to protect us against tyranny. In short, you are NOT "just like a member of Al Qaeda" if you support a smoking ban or any other ban. - JayBrown80
There are many laws out there. None of them have spelled the end of society as we know it. Yourself, and your followers, whose ONLY argument is the "slippery slope" need to just calm down. Or go vote. You know, avail yourself of the legislative process. I am so sick of all you people saying "if you ban plastic bags THE NEXT STEP is sharia law! You're all just like Al Qaeda!!!". No THL, that's not the NEXT STEP. There are about 15 million steps between the banning of bags and the end of society. And each of those 15 million steps would have to stand up to the protection of the ballot box and the jury box.
So how about a real argument against bans? And not sqwaking "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!" Here's a fun excercise to Austinrebel...how about you give an argument against bans without this phrase "The next thing you know, they'll.....". I personally don't care if they ban bags. I think it's stupid. I think they should just have police troll the problem areas and give $10,000 fines to people who litter. But we are talking about bags, not "if we allow this, the next thing you know they'll ban transfats, and salt, and smoking in apartments, and SUVs, and god, and sex, and christianity and blah blah blah blah".
That type of thinking is ridiculous, and it's the reason that the Austin City Council can so easily pass bans. 1) Most of you don't live in Austin and can't vote for the council, and 2) The people that do live in Austin won't vote to replace the council because instead of sound logical reasoning from the "anti-ban" side, you get "they're out to get you! they're out to get you!! LIBERALS!! SAN FRANSISCO SAN FRANSCISCO!!" and that just runs off most people that would be united under your banner. Also, the condescencing quotes from people who were born in the 1800s don't help either. THL might tell us to read a 1000 books on the history of Texas, but most of us won't because the opinions of the long dead don't really matter in today's society.
The Slippery Slope argument seems quite valid to me. The anti's used to debunk it when Austin was banning smoking in bars. Back then, it was just to "Protect the Workers inside." Now they are banning it outside. There's your Slippery Slope in action.
I recall discussing the smoking ban in Austin Parks with you and yours. I and others gave sound logical reasoning why it was a silly idea. The Ban-and-Regulate-Everything crowd didn't budge an inch. And there I was thinking that the Left prided itself on being "Reality Based" instead of just another bunch of zealots pushing their ideology, as the Bush Administration was always being accused of.
I think for a large part of Texas history, they were too busy fighting off Comanches to worry about where someone smoked. (The Comanches, of course, were Smokers. Tobacco was the gift of Indians. Europeans gave them Alcohol, and they gave us Tobacco).
If you are referring to the earlier post that contained a quote, I don't see how it is condescending. Just because a quote is old does not make it invalid. There are many quotes from Plato that contain a lot of wisdom, for instance.
I have always thought that the Slippery Slope argument is invalid, and I am talking now just about the city council, but about using that argument in general. It infers that one decision can send us out of control, without the ability to change course, change our minds, re-evaluate, etc. So I reject the argument because I don't think we are helpless; I think people can control themselves and not be swept along with trends in history.
I also do believe that sometimes decisions can be made in a step-wise fashion which people who disapprove will label as being slippery slope, when it was planned all along. For example, in California, smoking was banned in restaurants, but they left bars alone for a few years because they wanted to see how the restaurant thing would work. When the legislature had reports that it was going well, and had more and more requests for banning smoking in bars, they followed with that ban. It was not a slippery slope, it was two carefully made decisions. Sometimes, it is best to go slowly and institute changes gradually. Because the program progresses, it does not mean anyone was out of control or sliding down an inevitable slope. It just means that the next step was taken. There are examples where a law has been passed, but later reversed if it didn't work well or had unforeseen consequences. Choices always exist.
The Slippery Slope argument seems quite valid to me. The anti's used to debunk it when Austin was banning smoking in bars. Back then, it was just to "Protect the Workers inside." Now they are banning it outside. There's your Slippery Slope in action.
I recall discussing the smoking ban in Austin Parks with you and yours. I and others gave sound logical reasoning why it was a silly idea. The Ban-and-Regulate-Everything crowd didn't budge an inch. And there I was thinking that the Left prided itself on being "Reality Based" instead of just another bunch of zealots pushing their ideology, as the Bush Administration was always being accused of.
Of course it seems valid. That's the point of logical fallacies...but they're still logical fallacies, and therefore shouldn't be the foundation of policy.
It's not the Ban-and-Regulate-Everything crowd...it's the Let's Consider Banning Things That Have an Obvious Adverse Affect on the Environment And/or Fellow Citizens. Seems pretty reasonable to me. The only folks against that seem to be those who are convinced that their actions have no impact on their fellow citizens or their planet.
I have always thought that the Slippery Slope argument is invalid, and I am talking now just about the city council, but about using that argument in general. It infers that one decision can send us out of control, without the ability to change course, change our minds, re-evaluate, etc. So I reject the argument because I don't think we are helpless; I think people can control themselves and not be swept along with trends in history.
I also do believe that sometimes decisions can be made in a step-wise fashion which people who disapprove will label as being slippery slope, when it was planned all along. For example, in California, smoking was banned in restaurants, but they left bars alone for a few years because they wanted to see how the restaurant thing would work. When the legislature had reports that it was going well, and had more and more requests for banning smoking in bars, they followed with that ban. It was not a slippery slope, it was two carefully made decisions. Sometimes, it is best to go slowly and institute changes gradually. Because the program progresses, it does not mean anyone was out of control or sliding down an inevitable slope. It just means that the next step was taken. There are examples where a law has been passed, but later reversed if it didn't work well or had unforeseen consequences. Choices always exist.
And that's why I stated that I expect smoking to be banned someday in apartments and condos. And outdoor decks of patios. You can call it something else besides Slippery Slope, but the door is open to do it. You can boil a lobster by slowly increasing the heat or you can do it all at once. Either way, the lobster gets boiled. Next target is alcohol.
This is all well and good if you want to live in some kind of Fascist Utopia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
