20 thoughts on “Slippery Slope – Critical Thinking Fallacies | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY”

  1. I thought you couldn't get a 1 mph over the speed limit ticket unless you were in a school or construction zone. That would be my argument.

  2. With regard to the speed argument, there are two major issues…

    1) The "how likely are the following steps to happen?" argument you made earlier unravels this whole reasoning unless you assume that all the drivers on this road know each other and share details of every traffic stop they encounter.

    2) All the police officer need do is appeal to the posted speed limit, rather than the previous drivers, as a case for why the difference is significant. For example, say he decides that 10mph over the limit is his "breaking point." When the person going 75 says "But it's only one mph more than the other guy, and you agreed 1 mph difference isn't significant" he could simply reply "Yes, but the speed limit is 65, not 69 and it's relation to the posted speed limit – not to another driver – that matters."

    There is some merit to the large sodas argument at the end – though the suggested conclusions are unlikely, it does set a meaningful precident that could be used to take further steps down said slope… but the speed one is a pretty poor example.

  3. So a slippery slope argument is not always fallacious? That's good to know and the reason I even looked up this video as I thought there were cases where it was logical. For example: A game company charges $60 for a game and next year charges $70 for a game. If we buy the game priced at $70, the company will continue to charge $70 or even charge more next year given that we've seen the trend and know companies are liable to try to increase their profits every year.

  4. When can a slippery slope be valid? I've definitely heard some bad ones before, but sometimes you hear good ones too and people just dismiss them saying that they are slippery slope fallacies (even when they eventually turn out to be correct).

  5. my favorite one is the argument that hate speech will eventually lead to genocide or something therefore we need to make telling racial jokes illegal . . . for example: the shit going on with Count Dankula

  6. Here's a fun one: Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering…(sentence awkwardly ends)

  7. Banning large coke is a 'nudge', it is not related to 'slippery slope'. Banning large coke does not deprive a customer of the choice of having a large quantity of coke, but just makes it a tad bit difficult to get the large coke (i.e. he/she can buy two cups), which in turn encourages him/her to develop a healthier habit of not having a large amount of coke.

  8. Fedalism/privately owned republics–>Monarchies–>Democracies–Socialist states
    One specific people with specific heritable traits develop the first world–>Information developed by them is used by people who don't have the traits and productivity to maintain their income–>Dysgenics–>? (cataclysmic events?)

  9. I remember saying the bookies should be run by the government and all profits should be spent on preventing and treating gambling addiction, but my dad made this argument saying if the government did that they'd eventually take over every business.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *