Are Slippery Slopes Real?

[Bill Mattocks]

I believe that 'slippery slope' arguments can be based on fact and can accurately predict future activities. But just because a person invokes the 'slippery slope' argument, that doesn't mean it will come to pass; nor does it mean it will NOT come to pass. Dismissing an argument that invokes the 'slippery slope' is not valid just on the basis that it is a slippy slope argument. You have to have some other means of either attacking or defending such an argument.

Here's a case in point; public smoking.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...in-duplexes-and-other-multi-family-homes?lite

California city bans smoking in duplexes and other multi-family homes
By Ronnie Cohen, Reuters
SAN RAFAEL, Calif. - A San Francisco suburb on Monday banned smoking in duplexes, condominiums and other multi-family homes, with city leaders saying they hoped to lead a wave of such regulations across California and ultimately the country.

Now, you might have noted, if you have been following the smoking/anti-smoking arguments across the decades, that smokers have long held that the anti-smokers would never be satisfied with a simple ban on smoking in restaurants. They argued the slippery slope; that once anti-smokers got smoking banned in bars and restaurants, they'd proceed to ban it in other places, until a person could not even smoke in their own car or home anymore. The anti-smokers, of course, pooh-poohed this argument and dismissed it as pure rubbish. They would NEVER want to ban what a person did to himself alone, so long as it didn't harm others, as second-hand smoke did (they argued). So the smokers were just being a bunch of crybabies, they were safe and could keep smoking in their cars and homes.

Except now, in San Rafael, CA, they cannot, if that home happens to be a multi-family dwelling like a duplex, a condo, and apartment, etc.

Some will still say the 'slippery slope' argument doesn't apply. They'll claim that this is only California, and they're all crazy anyway. They'll claim that there is a danger of second hand smoke to non-smokers if they even live in the same condo complex as a smoker, and that's why it is OK to ban it. But they will never, ever, admit that they will not stop until smoking is just flat-out illegal. And the smokers will claim that this is their ultimate goal, and they're lying if they say anything else.

It's pretty clear if you look at the history, though, that in this case, the smokers are right. The anti-smokers didn't stop and haven't stopped demanding more and more restrictions on public smoking. The 'slippery slope' argument was an accurate representation of the way things have worked out.

I am not taking the side of the smokers here, I'm pointing out that 'slippery slope' arguments can be absolutely true, and that therefore you cannot simply dismiss them because they predict future expansions of some type of activity.

This is why gun owners reject nearly all additional gun legislation. People in favor of 'reasonable' gun laws may think they are crazy, but the gun owners invoke the 'slippery slope' argument that gun restrictions lead to MORE gun restrictions, and that the gun-grabbers will NEVER STOP demanding more and more and more until all guns are outlawed. That's why they fight even laws that some see as 'reasonable'. Does it make a little bit more sense now?

The same thing with legislation for the easing of drug laws. Many (myself included) see these as precursors to laws that open the floodgates to everything; because those in favor of legalizing marijuana will NEVER STOP at legalizing just that drug; they want ALL drugs legalized, no matter what they claim in public.

Not all 'slippery slope' arguments come true. Public smoking? That one is, with a vengeance. And it takes a ballsy anti-smoker to deny it at this point.

Again, not arguing about whether or not anti-smoking laws are good or just. Just pointing out that the smokers' dire predictions were right on the money.

 

[Steve]

There's a reason that the slippery slope is a classic logical fallacy.

 

[Sukerkin]

Usage matters a lot in such matters, Steve. Saying if A then C, without defining B, then the argument has a fallacious element. Defining the intermediate steps with evidence or supported supposition makes it a valid argument rather than a fallacy - a chain of conjecture rather than a leap of faith.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There's a reason that the slippery slope is a classic logical fallacy.

And that would be?

 

[Tez3]

This is an argument about how to argue ?

Of course it could be just the thin end of the wedge.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Its been twenty years since my logic class, but what we have here is a simple social dynamic, that anybody on any side of any issue has a world view, and will assume that world view, for everyone, if you let them. I don't know if that is slippery slope, but its just basic social common sense to assume, any given voting block will subject their point of view on the "rest of us" when it comes to the law. On the the other hand, Bill, perhaps smokers have been running the world for too long, and it is reasonable to think our non-smoking children should be able to rent a duplex that doesn't smell like stale cigarettes all the time. I don't smoke so I pay little attention to the issue.

 

[granfire]

well, this is not about the smoking, I am assuming?
(If so, we got a house from a heavy smoker, a coat of paint and some thorough cleaning gets rid of the smells!)

But I can see the social dynamic part.

However, it is the landslide waiting to happen to cut personal rights.

And it is visible on many fronts.
Of course I don't care where people smoke. I mean, yes, I have gotten used to smoke free public places, but if things were that bad in reality about 2nd hand smoke, we all would be dead by now, because in the 50s, 60s and 70s everybody smoked. Everywhere!

However, I see radical groups working hard to curb rights to own and use animals.
And these people are very open about it, they want more and more regulations. You don't fight that, you will slide down that slope eventually.
And the 'slippery slope' argument has been used to debunk worries and warnings.
However, from were I stand, for everybody with a long enough memory, the slope might not be steep, but it sure is, well, slippery!

I am wondering how constitutional the ban of smoking in a multifamily dwelling really is. Unless the residents are renters, I don't see the government having a say so in otherwise legal activities in privacy.
But California has been the Canary in the Coal mines for a lot of crazy things. Some not too bad, some outright loony. But they set precedence for the rest of the nation to garner a foothold in.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Its been twenty years since my logic class, but what we have here is a simple social dynamic, that anybody on any side of any issue has a world view, and will assume that world view, for everyone, if you let them. I don't know if that is slippery slope, but its just basic social common sense to assume, any given voting block will subject their point of view on the "rest of us" when it comes to the law. On the the other hand, Bill, perhaps smokers have been running the world for too long, and it is reasonable to think our non-smoking children should be able to rent a duplex that doesn't smell like stale cigarettes all the time. I don't smoke so I pay little attention to the issue.

It really doesn't have much to do with smoking, per se.

The idea is that someone on the 'against' side of an argument for some regulation will argue that regulations such as the one under discussion will tend to increase, not decrease.

The example being, if you ban smoking in restaurants today, tomorrow you will want to ban smoking in bars. If you ban smoking in bars, you will want to ban smoking in public. If you ban smoking in public, you will want to ban smoking in private homes. And so on. The slippery slope argument attempts to make the point that opening the door to a little regulation always ends up with a lot of regulation, and that this was the original intent in the first place.

In the case of smoking laws, it's becoming clear that the slippery slope argument is coming true. What the smokers claimed has come to pass and continues to come to pass.

Not about smoking. It's about how attempts to control behavior always advance and never retreat, nor do they remain static.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

well, this is not about the smoking, I am assuming?
(If so, we got a house from a heavy smoker, a coat of paint and some thorough cleaning gets rid of the smells!)

But I can see the social dynamic part.

However, it is the landslide waiting to happen to cut personal rights.

And it is visible on many fronts.
Of course I don't care where people smoke. I mean, yes, I have gotten used to smoke free public places, but if things were that bad in reality about 2nd hand smoke, we all would be dead by now, because in the 50s, 60s and 70s everybody smoked. Everywhere!

However, I see radical groups working hard to curb rights to own and use animals.
And these people are very open about it, they want more and more regulations. You don't fight that, you will slide down that slope eventually.
And the 'slippery slope' argument has been used to debunk worries and warnings.
However, from were I stand, for everybody with a long enough memory, the slope might not be steep, but it sure is, well, slippery!

I am wondering how constitutional the ban of smoking in a multifamily dwelling really is. Unless the residents are renters, I don't see the government having a say so in otherwise legal activities in privacy.
But California has been the Canary in the Coal mines for a lot of crazy things. Some not too bad, some outright loony. But they set precedence for the rest of the nation to garner a foothold in.

I have to agree with you. Not about smoking - as a former smoker, I am of mixed mind on this. I prefer eating in smoke-free restaurants, absolutely. Cigarette smoke annoys me now, whereas it did not when I was a smoker. On the other hand, I had a hard time with the argument that bars and restaurants were not permitted to set their own rules regarding smoking. I got the 'second hand smoke, so we must protect the employees' laws, but even single-owner, no employee restaurants and bars are now subject to the laws, so it never really was about protecting employees anyway; it was about restricting smokers.

But as I said, I see it both ways. The point I wanted to make in this thread, though, was that 'slippery slope' arguments, though often used, can be true or false. Just because someone offers an objection to some proposal and bases it on the 'slippery slope', you can't automatically assume they are right - OR - wrong. In the case of the smoking thing, it's pretty clear that the argument was an accurate prediction of things to come.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I have to agree with you. Not about smoking - as a former smoker, I am of mixed mind on this. I prefer eating in smoke-free restaurants, absolutely. Cigarette smoke annoys me now, whereas it did not when I was a smoker. On the other hand, I had a hard time with the argument that bars and restaurants were not permitted to set their own rules regarding smoking. I got the 'second hand smoke, so we must protect the employees' laws, but even single-owner, no employee restaurants and bars are now subject to the laws, so it never really was about protecting employees anyway; it was about restricting smokers.

But as I said, I see it both ways. The point I wanted to make in this thread, though, was that 'slippery slope' arguments, though often used, can be true or false. Just because someone offers an objection to some proposal and bases it on the 'slippery slope', you can't automatically assume they are right - OR - wrong. In the case of the smoking thing, it's pretty clear that the argument was an accurate prediction of things to come.

If you give them an inch they will take a mile, is the more accurate argument. LOL

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If you give them an inch they will take a mile, is the more accurate argument. LOL

Better said, thank you!

 

[Steve]

I have to agree with you. Not about smoking - as a former smoker, I am of mixed mind on this. I prefer eating in smoke-free restaurants, absolutely. Cigarette smoke annoys me now, whereas it did not when I was a smoker. On the other hand, I had a hard time with the argument that bars and restaurants were not permitted to set their own rules regarding smoking. I got the 'second hand smoke, so we must protect the employees' laws, but even single-owner, no employee restaurants and bars are now subject to the laws, so it never really was about protecting employees anyway; it was about restricting smokers.

But as I said, I see it both ways. The point I wanted to make in this thread, though, was that 'slippery slope' arguments, though often used, can be true or false. Just because someone offers an objection to some proposal and bases it on the 'slippery slope', you can't automatically assume they are right - OR - wrong. In the case of the smoking thing, it's pretty clear that the argument was an accurate prediction of things to come.

My opinion on this is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. I'll have to give some thought to where I stand on rentals. Owners should be able to set terms on their properties, and renters should be obligated to comply.

But where people are earning a wage, I believe very strongly that they should be protected from risking their health and safety in ways that are irrelevant and avoidable, even if they voluntarily do so. Coal miners can't volunteer to forego equipment that protects them from black lung. Were that possible, there is no doubt that some people would be desperate enough for a job that they would knowingly risk their lives to mine coal. Similarly, construction workers can't waive the requirement that they wear a hard hat. And in all cases, where the risky behavior or exposure is unnecessary or irrelevant, that exposure is eliminated.

Except when it comes to relatively low wage earning, service industry employees. It's a glaring disparity, and personally, I'm 100% in favor of making everyone's workplace as safe as possible.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My opinion on this is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. I'll have to give some thought to where I stand on rentals. Owners should be able to set terms on their properties, and renters should be obligated to comply.

That is already the case, I believe. I have lived in apartment buildings which banned smoking, and many hotel chains ban smoking in the rooms now. The property can indeed set those rules to the best of my knowledge.

And in Michigan, as in a lot of states, employers can force employees to not smoke even on their own time, even at home, under penalty of termination.

But neither of those is the government. Governments have the power to coerce with penalty of removal of freedom (jail time). No employer can put you in jail, they can only fire you. No landlord can put you in jail, they can only evict you. Government has much more power over our lives; this also means they should (IMHO) have less power over our bodies.

But where people are earning a wage, I believe very strongly that they should be protected from risking their health and safety in ways that are irrelevant and avoidable, even if they voluntarily do so. Coal miners can't volunteer to forego equipment that protects them from black lung. Were that possible, there is no doubt that some people would be desperate enough for a job that they would knowingly risk their lives to mine coal. Similarly, construction workers can't waive the requirement that they wear a hard hat. And in all cases, where the risky behavior or exposure is unnecessary or irrelevant, that exposure is eliminated.

Except when it comes to relatively low wage earning, service industry employees. It's a glaring disparity, and personally, I'm 100% in favor of making everyone's workplace as safe as possible.

That's something I'm sure we could argue about forever. I will agree that as taxpayers have to assume more and more of the source of funding for healthcare, then we do indeed get to a point where the taxpayer should have a say in how those they have to pay for choose to treat their bodies.

However, the other side of that coin is easy to see also. If you can make the argument that the government has a compelling reason to ban smoking as it requires hard hats, then the government can also force you to lose weight if you're fat. Or to exercise if you are sedentary. Or to eat or not eat certain foods. Risky 'extreme' sports are right out the window, due to the high risk of injury. And while we're at it, we're going to have to ban unprotected or risky sex. Hey, if you want to get extreme, when AIDS first arose in the USA, it was initially seen almost exclusively in the gay and intravenous drug users; we should have quarantined them, and we definitely should have made anal sex illegal due to the high risk to health it caused.

That's the problem with 'if it is good for you, you should be forced to do it' arguments. There is no limit to the things that we do to ourselves that are not technically 'good for us'. Is the government responsible for some of that, none of that, or all of that? If you argue that it's only responsible for some of it, then where do you draw the line? Hard hats and no smoking are OK to regulate, but gay sex is off limits to regulate? Some one else might disagree with you. What if the numbers are on their side? At what point are you willing to throw away somebody else's freedoms for your notion of what's good for them?

Speaking only for myself, although I am far more moderate than I once was towards the idea of government regulation, I don't think it's the government's damned business whether I smoke or not in my own home. Or skydive on weekend. Or engage in risky business with partners who shall remain unnamed. I might agree to wear a seatbelt while driving, though.

 

[Tez3]

Never got the hang of logic, much prefer empathy, passion and good old fashioned common sense. Don't go much for theoretical arguments either much prefer action rather than talk.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Never got the hang of logic, much prefer empathy, passion and good old fashioned common sense. Don't go much for theoretical arguments either much prefer action rather than talk.

With logic, like science, the best argument wins. Anything else boils down to who brought the biggest gun. Dictators prefer not to use logic also. They similarly claim that they based their oppression on empathy, passion, and good old fashioned common sense. Without logic, you can't even argue that their empathy is not as good as your empathy. So if they have the bigger guns, you lose.

Logic and science are all that matters externally. I will reserve my emotion and passion for matters of the heart, not in telling other people how to live.

 

[Tez3]

With logic, like science, the best argument wins. Anything else boils down to who brought the biggest gun. Dictators prefer not to use logic also. They similarly claim that they based their oppression on empathy, passion, and good old fashioned common sense. Without logic, you can't even argue that their empathy is not as good as your empathy. So if they have the bigger guns, you lose.

Logic and science are all that matters externally. I will reserve my emotion and passion for matters of the heart, not in telling other people how to live.

Logic doesn't really exist and science can be used, it's not infallible, look at thalidiomide. Logic is what people want it to be and they will use their 'logic' to tell people what to do. Dictators very much argue that their logic is what is needed.
Why is it all a competition? Why does someones empathy have to be better than someone elses?
Perhaps what's needed is not logic or even science, perhaps what is needed is tolerance and acceptance, less arguing altogether.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I’ve tried…I’ve tried REAL hard but I am weak…

When I was in 4th grade I was waiting to get into school, it was spring and I was playing with my friends on the outside of the fence, next to a slope that was at about 45 degrees…I stepped on it and slid all the way down (about 20 feet) to the bottom and landed in a big mud puddle and had to spend the entire day, in school, wet and covered in mud…… so you ask Are Slippery Slopes Real? And I respond Hell yeah, I got in all sorts of trouble because of one

 

[geezer]

…… so you ask Are Slippery Slopes Real? And I respond Hell yeah, I got in all sorts of trouble because of one

Really, it depends on where you stand. One man's slippery slope is another's uphill battle.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Really, it depends on where you stand. One man's slippery slope is another's uphill battle.

Yeah... I had that too...right after I discovered the slippery slope

 

[WC_lun]

The slippery slope arguement is often used instead of logic to scare people into thinking a certain way. IF you can connect a to c through b, then it is a valid arguement. I don't see that very often though.

In the case of smoking, I'm all for public area bans. I am an ex-smoker and now cigerette smoke makes me physically ill. I shouldn't be subjected to it out in public. Like the old saying, "Your rights end and the tip of my nose (or lungs)" Even if second hand smoke was not bad for a person, a person shouldn't have to deal with it. Now in a person's private domocile, I don't care much what they do. It would only effect me if I went to thier place, and then I knowingly enter a smoker's home. An employer can decide whether smoking on premises is allowed or not.