U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-09-2016, 08:07 AM
 
2,411 posts, read 1,650,318 times
Reputation: 5767

Advertisements

I took a lot of philosophy in university but either I have forgotten a lot or things have changed. I enjoyed many of those courses (and I always passed with flying colours - mostly because I was smart enough to regurgitate what the prof thought, no matter whether it agreed with what I thought - sad commentary on how to get through university!). However it did always seem to me even back then that sometimes (perhaps even often) philosophical arguments can get themselves all tangled up in knots very quickly and leave everyone with a stalemate - and without the right to a personal opinion based on life experience and even knowledge.


Be that as it may though, lately it seems that when I consider many current issues, one of the first things that jumps into my mind is the concept of 'slippery slope'.


Today that was tweaked once again when I read an article about how a group of muslims are now demanding that polygamy be a civil right in Italy after same sex unions were sanctioned there. No surprise there really .. and it could have been any group almost anywhere in western society today that might be asking for this 'next step' these days .. so for me, this demand is on a specific slippery slope ... do animals come next? children?


Given the way the world is going ... and the fact that language is obviously morphing to suit those who want to gain their 15 minutes of fame sooner rather than later ... neither would surprise me either. Once this .. then that. If we give an inch, they will take a mile. All sorts of associated phrases/truisms might spring to mind. It seems that when some ideas take hold they will be milked till there is nothing left to grant .. and we descend into, I suppose, anarchy. Or is that we allow everyone total freedom of choice and support them entirely in what some may still term, even then, debauchery. Or will we stop the descent at some point .. will we reset somehow and go back up the chain?


But, that is neither here nor there ... it also got me wondering whether perhaps it is just my age that makes this term 'slippery slope' occur to me ... the fact that I have now been around a few years and seen things change over time, have been a keen observer of human behaviour, and have seen the evolution of our world for a number of years through more eyes than my own (i.e. through the eyes of my grandparents, my parents and my children - as well as through those of peers from all walks of life).


Anyway .. today, since I find myself thinking 'slippery slope' so much, I decided to look up the term to be sure I was using it correctly.


Every definition I read a) seemed very political in nature (even on 'educational' sites meant for younger folks to read/use) - and examples were always obviously slanted to protect the (hate to say it, but ...) 'left' b) always deemed the term a 'fallacy' argument and c) if more than just this particular 'term'/concept/fallacy was discussed, seemed to imply that ALL arguments, no matter what they are about or how they are labelled, are 'fallacies'. In other words, it seems that current teaching is that no one is allowed to argue anything. What say you .. is this true and if so, it is progress?


Are we all cut off at the pass now (technically) by the definition of any thought or opinion being labelled a 'fallacy'?


As for 'slippery slopes' ... to me it is not a 'fallacy' argument to use the term 'slippery slope' to suggest a strong possibility if there is a sufficient line of concrete proof over time that what people said might happen was allowed/happened (i.e. if x then y). Of course, there is no 'guarantee' that the next step will always be a given, but, the likelihood increases over time in conjunction with observation about how humans are behaving in that era - so it is still a good way to describe what may happen next in many cases. History is the only way to be certain - but history (as it is revised and taught) is so often warped these days so even that may not be 'proof positive' - and of course we also have the arguments some will make that include 'extenuating circumstances', pure happenstance, etc. to explain/refute everything anyone else brings to the table.


Perhaps the term has just been overused and loses some validity as a result - even if its use or implication is supported by facts surrounding actual events?


So I guess this post is to ask those several questions - first about the use of any argument (are all arguments now deemed fallacies from the start - or only if specific people use them?) and secondly about the use of a specific argument (slippery slope) since the latter is what brought all this to mind.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2016, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Whittier
3,005 posts, read 5,714,910 times
Reputation: 3074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aery11 View Post
I took a lot of philosophy in university but either I have forgotten a lot or things have changed. I enjoyed many of those courses (and I always passed with flying colours - mostly because I was smart enough to regurgitate what the prof thought, no matter whether it agreed with what I thought - sad commentary on how to get through university!). However it did always seem to me even back then that sometimes (perhaps even often) philosophical arguments can get themselves all tangled up in knots very quickly and leave everyone with a stalemate - and without the right to a personal opinion based on life experience and even knowledge.


Be that as it may though, lately it seems that when I consider many current issues, one of the first things that jumps into my mind is the concept of 'slippery slope'.


Today that was tweaked once again when I read an article about how a group of muslims are now demanding that polygamy be a civil right in Italy after same sex unions were sanctioned there. No surprise there really .. and it could have been any group almost anywhere in western society today that might be asking for this 'next step' these days .. so for me, this demand is on a specific slippery slope ... do animals come next? children?


Given the way the world is going ... and the fact that language is obviously morphing to suit those who want to gain their 15 minutes of fame sooner rather than later ... neither would surprise me either. Once this .. then that. If we give an inch, they will take a mile. All sorts of associated phrases/truisms might spring to mind. It seems that when some ideas take hold they will be milked till there is nothing left to grant .. and we descend into, I suppose, anarchy. Or is that we allow everyone total freedom of choice and support them entirely in what some may still term, even then, debauchery. Or will we stop the descent at some point .. will we reset somehow and go back up the chain?


But, that is neither here nor there ... it also got me wondering whether perhaps it is just my age that makes this term 'slippery slope' occur to me ... the fact that I have now been around a few years and seen things change over time, have been a keen observer of human behaviour, and have seen the evolution of our world for a number of years through more eyes than my own (i.e. through the eyes of my grandparents, my parents and my children - as well as through those of peers from all walks of life).


Anyway .. today, since I find myself thinking 'slippery slope' so much, I decided to look up the term to be sure I was using it correctly.


Every definition I read a) seemed very political in nature (even on 'educational' sites meant for younger folks to read/use) - and examples were always obviously slanted to protect the (hate to say it, but ...) 'left' b) always deemed the term a 'fallacy' argument and c) if more than just this particular 'term'/concept/fallacy was discussed, seemed to imply that ALL arguments, no matter what they are about or how they are labelled, are 'fallacies'. In other words, it seems that current teaching is that no one is allowed to argue anything. What say you .. is this true and if so, it is progress?


Are we all cut off at the pass now (technically) by the definition of any thought or opinion being labelled a 'fallacy'?


As for 'slippery slopes' ... to me it is not a 'fallacy' argument to use the term 'slippery slope' to suggest a strong possibility if there is a sufficient line of concrete proof over time that what people said might happen was allowed/happened (i.e. if x then y). Of course, there is no 'guarantee' that the next step will always be a given, but, the likelihood increases over time in conjunction with observation about how humans are behaving in that era - so it is still a good way to describe what may happen next in many cases. History is the only way to be certain - but history (as it is revised and taught) is so often warped these days so even that may not be 'proof positive' - and of course we also have the arguments some will make that include 'extenuating circumstances', pure happenstance, etc. to explain/refute everything anyone else brings to the table.


Perhaps the term has just been overused and loses some validity as a result - even if its use or implication is supported by facts surrounding actual events?


So I guess this post is to ask those several questions - first about the use of any argument (are all arguments now deemed fallacies from the start - or only if specific people use them?) and secondly about the use of a specific argument (slippery slope) since the latter is what brought all this to mind.

Slippery slope just means that the argument itself is undermined by the fallacy. You can't just say (or you can, just not well) that same sex marriage is bad because it leads the way for other forms of marriage to be passed. That's it.

Instead we have to rely on the individual arguments for and against each and every quandary that comes through.

So we then debate same sex marriage in it's own bubble, polygamy in it's own bubble, etc... Just because one may lead to another isn't an argument.

-----------

In the practical world sure it may open the door for a debate, but that's what an informed society does when it progresses.

For example, polygamy doesn't really bug me, however patriarchy, especially religious patriarchy does. And in most other forms of relationships I think consent, autonomy and rights are what each form of marriage should adhere to. If you have a basis like this for the definition of a relationship then you can more easily be comfortable with deciding that certain relationships can be detrimental to an agent's liberty.

Slippery slopes then play no real part in determining any of this.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2016, 01:17 PM
 
2,411 posts, read 1,650,318 times
Reputation: 5767
I am definitely not as succinct as you are (which is why it is probably a good thing that I put this in the philosophy section) but, I agree with you, harhar, that same sex marriage is not 'bad' in itself .. even if it leads or may lead to other forms of marriage to be allowable in future.


(The subject of same sex marriage was/is, by the way, just an example that came to mind because of recent events/news stories .. I am not arguing that at all - not that it is bad nor that it absolutely must lead to anything else - however, it is probable, if we look back, that there is some connection. We can keep using this one or we could choose any of a myriad of others that seem similar today. I personally don't care one way or another about same sex 'marriage' - in theory, it 'doesn't - yet - affect me - greatly' though I think the state it condones could have been essentially achieved using another set of words and 'rights' so I don't quite get why the word itself was so important to those who advocated - sometimes nastily - for it. I disliked their methodology for imposing their argument more than the subject they were advocating for.)


Each 'step' along a route, whether it appears connected or not, should be considered in its own right - I agree.


However, having been 'considered' in its own right (during which, by the way, often many arguments are made that refer back to past sanctioned 'rights' - implying if not proving a 'connection', not to mention that people will also use the forward looking .. 'well at least it is not x, or y, or z' 'argument' - which often, at least in retrospect, may be used to define the 'next step'), once same sex marriage is 'approved' and the effort begins to ensure it is 'normalized' as acceptable, people are then much more 'ready to accept' the possibility that another previously unapproved form of marriage might also be 'ok' enough and should be sanctioned.


For me ... this is not about any individual argument being 'bad' or 'good' - though I think they are often poorly made from a technical point of view - emotions are used more often than pure reason. In this example for instance, if one assumes that same sex marriage is not the problem, the 'problem', if there is one, as I see it, lies in the acceptance and normalization of each new 'idea' along what one might say is a trail/continuum from puritanism to debauchery which in itself probably constitutes a 'slope' - not the badness or goodness of each individual step.


(An aside: Even there though I am sure some would say that this is 'natural progression' along a flat line, not a slope. But, whatever it is ... not all 'progression' is good 'progress' in my opinion. And if it is not 'progress' in a good sense, what is it? Regression? A downward slope to .. where the heck ARE we going? Have we properly (can we or even should we), defined the 'end state' we desire, the final destination .. the place we need to get to? And if we have .. who is the 'body' that has decided they can represent the greater 'we'? And by what 'right' do they hold that position of authority? And on what basis did they make that arbitrary decision? The list goes on and on of the myriad of topics we could pursue surrounding one issue, much less the many that are confronting us today.)


Anyway .. in the term 'slippery slope', the 'slippery-ness' reference is indicative of at least a potential for movement in some direction and subsequently that implies there is or will be acceleration/speed at which further events appear to happen as societal 'acceptance' gains momentum. The argument at each stage, since it tends to include not only references to the past, but, more importantly, an introduction to the future may be flawed in itself, thus in fact, may be causing this acceleration .. I don't know but that is what I suspect.


I agree with the basic philosophical intent (or at least with what I think is intended) that the 'argument' phase should be self contained, and each should be discussed on its own merits without being backward or forward looking, but, that is really not being done much these days from what I can tell.


Beyond that though, it often seems that as each argument/each level/each promoted idea is approved by whatever powers that be, the slope increases very rapidly as one 'descends' ... as people just opt out of whatever little remaining role they may have in the 'approval process' over time since they feel they have no input or control (a sense of hopelessness and uselessness is imposed on the masses by the nature and execution of the process) and a smaller and smaller group of people seem to 'get their way' to accelerate the next greatest idea into the consciousness of those who still feel they have any right to participate - the number of whom grows smaller and smaller at each interval.


There is no 'slope' if there is no 'incline' ... hence there must be at least a perception that steps are a) leading somewhere b) are connected and c) (it seems to me) the 'leading somewhere' is towards something better or worse, smaller or larger, taller or shorter, etc. than the status quo. I rarely, if ever, have seen the slope going up however. And lately we don't even level out for long. The cyclonic suction is too great to stop this 'progress' it seems.


(In earlier generations, I am sure many thought there was a similar phenomenon too .. I don't argue they were not also correct given what they knew at the time .. things SEEM often, in relative terms, to be sucking everyone down rapidly .. however, I think in their day, not so many big issues were being attacked at the same time so perhaps there really IS a difference now .. I will have to come back in 200 years to see if there is anything left of humanity or not I suppose.)


However, to get back to what I think really was why I wrote my original post ... if one uses the term 'slippery slope' (more colloquially) when generally describing a whole course of events/actions/initiatives that seem connected, some which may already have happened and some which seem bound to occur given the direction indicated by the preceding events, is it (technically) incorrect to do so?


Who runs this joint anyway - the philosophers and those who would use them? or the masses who, for the most part, want to just speak in the vernacular? Who has the authority to say .. use this term because this is what we mean by it? Language has been so distorted .. does anyone know any more?


Is it acceptable (in most circles) to use 'slippery slope' merely as a descriptive word for what seems to be happening? This is probably just an exercise in semantics but some take those words very literally (as the philosophical meaning of the term) and will attack vigorously so I seriously am looking for another clear word/term to describe what I mean to fend off those attacks as much as possible - so the issues won't be as clouded.


I was dismayed that I could not immediately find a definition of the phrase 'slippery slope' that allowed for its use in common speech ... all discussions I read focussed only on the strict philosophical argument usage. (And also I was dismayed that the examples used were so political in nature and were so obviously slanted towards 'educating children' as to what a particular political stream wants to promote. I have major objections to that ... and I believe it teaches what to think not how to think and I also believe that 'philosophy' should be about learning how TO think as an individual so I further believe that if this really is the way this is being taught, it is a real (perhaps THE real) problem in today's world - but that is the subject for another thread I guess.)


That said though, I can't think of another word/phrase to use in place of 'slippery slope' as a similarly descriptive phrase but not as an 'argument'. According to (at least) 'philosophers' one should not use the term unless one is making a specific argument (which they claim is fallacious in its essence so it cannot be true and the argument cannot be won).


But, in the vernacular sense, I see the term 'slippery slope' as not really an 'argument' at all .. it is more a statement of what someone believes (in fact, which many in society may believe) to be true given how they perceive the world they know to be 'going'.


So .. in a nutshell .. how does one clearly and quickly describe a series of events/actions, etc. that appear connected and appear as though they were leading in a 'downward' direction - if using the term 'slippery slope' is so critically tied to a philosophical argument that immediately indicates it is fallacious? 'Trend' indicates direction (and connection) perhaps but does it also show 'slope'?


*******************


As to the ideas you mentioned in connection with the concept of 'marriage' ... consent, autonomy and rights ... I also agree in principle - particularly where we are talking about human-human relationships ... but many might say that we have no idea if a pig or goat for instance can or does 'consent' to anything. Do animals see themselves as having any form of autonomy or 'free will' no matter how they live or are forced to live? Who judges that if we have no common platform for communication? If pigs see a puddle to play in and no one stops them playing in it - have they free will (autonomy) to decide whether to play there or not? Are they even capable of 'decision' or do they just actual instinctually? Do we really 'know' for sure which it is?


'Rights' are defined and 'given' by man for the most part although yes, one can argue 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' to be god given - but at least the liberty part (and maybe the others too) is relative anyway these days I think. Do we have the 'right' to define different or even the same 'rights' for the 'non-human' - pigs and goats for instance?


Rights have been traditionally viewed by humans as nebulous at best till written in law but even that is changing it seems .. and 'written law' is something we humans invented anyway. Because we don't speak pig or goat, it is unlikely we have a clue what their laws may be, if any, or what they view their 'rights' to be. (Oh boy, that discussion could really open up a can of worms .. so, I will leave that for now as this truly gets into the world of 'philosophical arguments' and that is not my intent here).


And, laws be darned in today's world anyway. If you can do it without being caught and/or if you can do it and cow others into thinking it is a 'right' at least for some, that apparently is enough to get away with whatever it is they want to do .. and it all becomes a path to 'normalization' .. by tacit agreement by a growing crowd who openly or silently begin to view that step as 'ok' as the promoters move to make whatever it is they want to become a 'right' for all. Most may 'agree' only because the thinking still is .. "hey, we are still 'free'. Just because we have a 'right' doesn't mean we have to exercise it - but we can allow others to if they want to .. why not?" We have the autonomy to decide for ourselves .. ostensibly .. but, in fact, the minority is now making laws that define what 'rights' they have (and therefore what we all must recognize, if not participate in) if they choose to exercise them. In reality .. we would be wise to listen to the voices of yester-wisdom ... the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those 'wheels' are getting their way more and more as we opt out and shut down - and they know it .. they are using it to their advantage.


I am far from 'religious' but I really wish we would all go back to the basic concepts of what is 'right and wrong' that are voiced in the ten commandments. I believe in our hearts and souls .. most of us know what is right and wrong .. but we are now allowing others to cloud personal judgement in that arena more and more. The commandments cover just about everything that can make society run much more smoothly. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not covet. Complexities injected into the legal system over time have really messed us up. Killing is now only bad 'if' ... stealing is acceptable 'if' ... coveting is more than ok (and grossly advocated by advertisement even) because it may promote ambition - even if that manifests in the ambition to steal from thy neighbour in some overt or covert form. I think going 'backward' in this area that would be a very positive 'forward' move .. back up the slope to sanity. (And I come from a family of lawyers - even though I am not one - a family which believes that laws and the making/upholding of same are important).


People in many places around the world have 'normalized' their supposed rights (using logic that we might not 'yet' necessarily apply, or 'edicts' from 'on high' we do not ascribe to) to have 'relationships' with children who theoretically, according to our 'laws' cannot consent, but their laws may say that either consent is not needed or they have ensured that their children are so schooled from birth to accept what will be as a 'right' for their 'usage' as surrogates in acts we here may not (yet) condone, that those children actually think they have 'consented' and that what is being done to them is not 'wrong'. What we say constitutes consent is not necessarily what others might say or have in their book of laws. In other places, children may even still have the 'right' to refuse, but, they will then have the 'right' to suffer the consequences others impose as a result - consequences they may not yet have the ability to see or understand. If the people who have so engineered their own societies to condone the above bring their thoughts and laws here .. over time .. what will be the result when our own people are already beyond caring any more?


In the west we may not have changed the 'age of consent' yet however I think we are headed that way. We sanction the 'right' to kill off kids in the womb or even at birth (they are not human yet in the estimation of many so what 'rights' could they possibly have ... so we will exercise OUR 'right to decide' for them), at the same time we are also forcing 'maturity' on surviving children at earlier and earlier ages. We feel obliged for some reason to expose children (who in theory are no more evolved today at, say age 7, than they were 200 or 1000 years ago) to more and more traditionally adult things/subjects and expect them to not only understand but condone those things. The next stage is probably to say that since they are already exposed - and have been schooled to think that certain things are 'acceptable', why not give them the 'right' to act as well .. so then 'the collective we' will allow and accept the lowering of the age of consent .. by law.


Dang ... do we have another, what I would call, 'slippery slope' here? Each step may indeed be argued as it comes up .. individually ... but the likelihood that unthinking minds will not approve of each if the bite is small enough gets lower and lower.


So, it is fun to 'philosophize' but in today's society people suddenly appear to have a 'newly defined' right to 'self-identify' as anything they please, whether to most of us that seems rational or not, and are then apparently instantly accorded further unwritten 'rights' as a result. The world has gone off its tracks in my opinion (which counts for exactly nothing these days) and I am not sure we can do much about it as individuals without much power .. other than just keep our own heads above water and maintain awareness as we slide.


Unfortunately, while I would like to believe that society, from its smallest components (the individual) to the whole, is 'informed', if they ever were, in the best sense of that word ... I do not any more. And even if they are 'informed' in some way, even through personal experience, observation and perhaps some form of media that talks 'truth' (whatever that is) ... it seems many, even most, do not know how to 'think' anymore except as a 'group' - and 'groupthink' outcomes are usually quite different from what an 'informed' individual might determine is the best course of action. 'Bandwagon' fallacy comes to mind. I see that as having been 'engineered' for the benefit of the few over the many.


Inputs to personal thought and opinion are now 'informed' by a much wider range of thought because of the internet - and while one might initially think that has been a boon .. giving more to consider than just our immediate world .. I believe it has already (in just a few short years) overloaded our capacity to make good and sound judgements, even for ourselves, much less for all on earth. And unless the web and all it allows vis a vis the 'transfer of information and opinion' implodes at some time, that is not likely to change. I think the result will be that more and more people will begin to cocoon and not 'think' for themselves, allowing those who engineered all this (and most of it is now intentional, even if it was not meant to be initially) to decide for us all everything about how we exist.


Dangerous for all humanity? You bet! More people will be in the world, and over time the more homogeneity will arise from the currently promoted idea that 'diversity' (leading to 'fusion' as far as I can tell) is the best way to 'equalize' everything for everyone ... but fewer in future will have any idea of what is really going on around them .. we will truly be slaves to the few. This is already blatantly illustrated by the change in the concept of 'customer service' in the corporate world - where once the customer was able to determine what products they wanted and the corporate world used that input from real customers to determine what they would supply .. now we are told what products we must take, no questions asked, and with no expectation of 'longevity' or quality allowed - and how much we will like their choices for us. Major and very critical conundrums are evident when we blithely accept the concept that the loss of individual thought is a virtue and become the 'sheeple' that many would apparently want us to be.


From my perspective, unless one just wants to hide their head in the sand (which many indeed do think is the best way to go about 'life' - since the stress imposed by doing otherwise - again deliberately engineered by TPTB - is too great to bear for long periods), it seems that all one can do is stand back and watch all the 'slippery slopes' converge at the very bottom in a giant cesspool. I find that very sad ... but it has happened in history before and I don't doubt it can and will again, probably sooner than later.


We are likely not really very 'intelligent' after all as a race (the human race, I mean). If the ability to reason properly was our forte, the natural niche which defines humans as superior (as defined by 'us') to other species and which proved we had the right to 'dominance', I believe we have lost that ability for the most part - so where does that leave us? Are we back to 'opposable thumbs' are our only advantage?


Sorry for the length of this post ... the trail leads in many directions. But no, I am not just talking to myself (I hope) because I like the sound of my own voice. I have no answers .. but I want to keep asking many questions .. and I hope that indicates my head is not yet in the sand .. and if it is not in the sand, maybe talking about these things can plant seeds that pull or keep others out too. My motto is .. question everything .. know your own mind, not the 'mind' that the few would have you believe is the only 'right' mind.

Last edited by Aery11; 08-10-2016 at 01:46 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Whittier
3,005 posts, read 5,714,910 times
Reputation: 3074
Well, that was a read.

Ok, so, I'll just address generally those that would use the term slippery slope.

You mentioned "downward." I wouldn't want to get too political, although I am liberal in most things, I'd consider myself a moderate, but in all actuality it doesn't matter in this context.

However I would think that those who are more conservative would view the abstract view of liberalism as a bad thing. Insofar as it is crumbling the more more static and concrete views of their world. A conservative in terms of being "strict" would view anything with freedom to choose as a runaway freight train because without a base to fall back on, one would constantly (in their view) would be in a limbo; without foundation, or a foundation so far back that anything resting on it would crumble.

Gay marriage is a perfect example because it directly "attacks" a strict viewpoint of no homosexuality and the "sanctity" of the religious concept of marriage. Hence if and when legislation is passed in regards to Gay rights or Gay marriage those who are against it do feel that society is on a downward trend and hence feel like the literal gates of hell are opened; a pandora's box of the degradation of society. And now since Gay marriage is essentially legal, those felt and feel that anything else is fair game in terms of liberal societal changes and I would argue that it is a coping mechanism to call it a slippery slope.

On the other side, progressive societies push the boundaries of what is and can be socially acceptable. With every new generation comes a tolerance of things that people were intolerant before. Especially when a society becomes more secular and has a more logical or dynamic base, based on certain general principles and not on and ultimate objective word of God.

So for some, a slippery slope, is just progression. On the extreme if one believes in ultimate freedom then one is free to do anything. However since we live together and certain actions affect us as a whole those certain actions, either direct or indirect, should be regulated for the happiness of all. This is only meant to be general and not an adherence to a certain type of political philosophy like Utilitarianism or anything like that.

That being said, arguments are made over time, people are more visible, the problems or lack of problems given a certain lifestyle are brought to light and then society decides based on the evidence of the situation.

And that's the most important. The evidence; not dogma, not fallacies, not the fear of progress. Change is inevitable. I can absolutely see the need and the desire for those to hold on and cling to rock solid belief. There is a sort of solace in that. However I'd argue one could still hold those kinds of beliefs in a more general way, based on principles not absolutes; and that one shouldn't hold those beliefs in detriment to another's freedom.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,309 posts, read 10,327,263 times
Reputation: 6224
Tl;dr
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 10:56 AM
Status: "Not Communist, Just KAHM-nist" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
4,909 posts, read 2,799,899 times
Reputation: 4823
Legalizing gay marriage leading to polygamy - and even other forms of consensual sex in general. I think I have a simple way out of this one: The principle of "meeting of the minds" combined with consistent rules applying to all people in extremely similar circumstances.

Polygamy as certain Muslims call for doesn't work because it denies women the same right to take multiple male spouses. The only way to permit polygamy is to permit women to have the same number of male spouses. Naturally the polygamy laws would apply equally to GLBTs as well.

Even merely giving ascent doens't really work, for drugged and intoxicated spouses are not in a position to refuse. Children and minors, even sober ones, are not on the same mental level as most adults - they simply have a different understanding of the consequences of sexual relationships. Hence there can be no "meeting of the minds" here.

I hate to bring this up in the same post, but "meeting of the minds" also applies to non-human animals. They also lack the understanding of the human mindset and so this also should be banned.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2016, 03:54 PM
 
119 posts, read 74,390 times
Reputation: 205
Slippery slope is often cited as an example of a "false argument," but it's easily demonstrable in real life and almost always it's the people who vehemently deny doing it who are guilty. For example, I constantly point out how "slippery slope" is true of the left in politics. That's because their beliefs are completely and totally rejected by society, unless implemented slowly, sometimes over the course of decades.

A simple example is that if you had just said even five years ago that you thought that transgenders were normal and that it was their "right" to choose what bathroom they wanted, even most liberals would have laughed at you. But after gay marriage supposedly defined homosexuality as totally normal, of course the next move would be for transgenders. When speaking of homosexuality, it is a truth that any argument used to normalize homosexuality could normalize any other previously deviant behavior, including pedophilia. The "game" has always been to viciously deny that anyone would ever normalize pedophilia and then be outraged like "how DARE you even mention the two in the same sentence?? How DARE you, sir! GOOD DAY!!" Guess what? Hot on the heels of the transgender ruckus, Salon published an article by a pedophile in defense of his desires. That's called "just the start."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top