AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

A slippery slope argument is one that supposes consequences, generally negative consequences, of an action that cannot be reasonably supported via logic, reason, or tangible evidence. There is such a thing as a slippery slope that can be reaonably supported via logic, reason, or tangible evidence. Therefore, labeling something a 'slippery slope' is not the same thing as a 'slippery slope argument.'

Now, for your edification, telling me what I have or have not examined in depth or what is or is not too difficult for me to square with is not something you could know, is something you cannot verify or offer any reasoned support for and therefore IS a logical fallacy (ad hominem actually) and would lose you major points in a formal debate.

Zoning laws, or what a house can be built out of, what sorts of utilities can be piped in etc., is a part of the social contract to preserve aesthetics and/or property values and/or public safety in many locales and is something quite different than moral values. I personally know contractors who have been asked to use a certain kind of wiring or heating system or building material that met existing government-established codes who have refused to do so because their experience is that the failure rate and/or risk factor is too high. Sometimes their reason is practical in not wanting their name associated with a substandard product. And sometimes their motive is based on moral grounds that the product is wrong for the customer.

When we were contemplating replacing our water heater, for instance, we asked our plumber to install one of those wall-mounted instant electric water heaters. He refused saying his experience with those in our area was not good. If we wanted one, he couldn't recommend it and we would have to get somebody else to do it.

Should the government require him to install the legal product we asked for even though he was convinced it was wrong for us? (He ultimately convinced us it was wrong for us, but that is irrelevent to the principle here.) I say that no, liberty affords him the right to not sell and/or install a product that he personally opposes and that right should have no bearing on his right to engage in whatever legal profession he chooses and can qualify for a business license.

A medical doctor is no different. Liberty allows him the right to choose not to perform an elective procedure that he personally opposes and that right should have no bearing on his right to engage in a legal profession and chooses and for which he is legally qualified.

Quote:

A slippery slope argument is one that supposes consequences, generally negative consequences, of an action that cannot be reasonably supported via logic, reason, or tangible evidence. There is such a thing as a slippery slope that can be reaonably supported via logic, reason, or tangible evidence. Therefore, labeling something a 'slippery slope' is not the same thing as a 'slippery slope argument.'

Once again, you are wrong. There is no such thing as 'a slippery slope that can be reasonably supported via logic, reason, or tangible evidence.' What you describe isn't a slippery slope, but an actual argument which has been made. A Slippery Slope is, by definition an argument which does not do the things you listed.

You did not make an actual argument. You did not provide 'logic, reason, or tangible evidence' to support your contention. You merely mentioned that the path I was recommending would have Unnamed Negative Consequences, at some Nebulous point in the future.

Quote:

Now, for your edification, telling me what I have or have not examined in depth or what is or is not too difficult for me to square with is not something you could know, is something you cannot verify or offer any reasoned support for and therefore IS a logical fallacy (ad hominem actually) and would lose you major points in a formal debate.

I was being generous; the alternative is that you aren't intelligent enough to recognize the contradictions between your argument and our actual reality.

Quote:

Zoning laws, or what a house can be built out of, what sorts of utilities can be piped in etc., is a part of the social contract to preserve aesthetics and/or property values and/or public safety in many locales and is something quite different than moral values. I personally know contractors who have been asked to use a certain kind of wiring or heating system or building material that met existing government-established codes who have refused to do so because their experience is that the failure rate and/or risk factor is too high. Sometimes their reason is practical in not wanting their name associated with a substandard product. And sometimes their motive is based on moral grounds that the product is wrong for the customer.

When we were contemplating replacing our water heater, for instance, we asked our plumber to install one of those wall-mounted instant electric water heaters. He refused saying his experience with those in our area was not good. If we wanted one, he couldn't recommend it and we would have to get somebody else to do it.

Should the government require him to install the legal product we asked for even though he was convinced it was wrong for us? (He ultimately convinced us it was wrong for us, but that is irrelevent to the principle here.) I say that no, liberty affords him the right to not sell and/or install a product that he personally opposes and that right should have no bearing on his right to engage in whatever legal profession he chooses and can qualify for a business license.

A medical doctor is no different. Liberty allows him the right to choose not to perform an elective procedure that he personally opposes and that right should have no bearing on his right to engage in a legal profession and chooses and for which he is legally qualified.

If your plumber is taking money from the gov't to provide that service, then yes, he should be required to provide the service you request. Doctors who take money from the government should be required to provide the services the gov't says are legal, or they can choose not to accept funds from the gov't.

"I am right, but I won't waste any more time trying to convince you."

this should be your sig line.

it would save a lot of folks some trouble, you know?

Once again, you are wrong. There is no such thing as 'a slippery slope that can be reasonably supported via logic, reason, or tangible evidence.' What you describe isn't a slippery slope, but an actual argument which has been made. A Slippery Slope is, by definition an argument which does not do the things you listed.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Once again, you are wrong. There is no such thing as 'a slippery slope that can be reasonably supported via logic, reason, or tangible evidence.' What you describe isn't a slippery slope, but an actual argument which has been made. A Slippery Slope is, by definition an argument which does not do the things you listed.
Cycloptichorn

Yet another example of the circular "logic" by which Cyclo presumes to establish that his prejudices are universal truths.

Does he read what he writes?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Once again, you are wrong. There is no such thing as 'a slippery slope that can be reasonably supported via logic, reason, or tangible evidence.' What you describe isn't a slippery slope, but an actual argument which has been made. A Slippery Slope is, by definition an argument which does not do the things you listed.
Cycloptichorn

Yet another example of the circular "logic" by which Cyclo presumes to establish that his prejudices are universal truths.

Does he read what he writes?

I'm curious why you think doctors would behave differently than any other business owners. Medicine ( including individual medical practices) is a for-profit business in the U.S. That is one of the reasons doctors want to practice in the U.S. It's not about the golf. It's about the money for good club memberships.

The significant increase in the number of Texas doctors, increases competition among Texas doctors. In response to their increased competition, doctors will reduce their medical fees. In response to the decrease in medical fees, the cost of private medical insurance will decrease.

FreeDuck, when the cost of medical insurance increased with the increased cost of doctor's tort insurance, why do you anticipate that the cost of medical insurance will not decrease with the decrease in the cost of doctor's tort insurance?

To say that runaway inflation inevitably leads to job loss is a logical fallacy and a slippery slope argument.
To say that runaway inflation is a slippery slope leaving the door open for higher interest rates, higher prices, a weakened dollar, and/or stress on the stock market is not a logical fallacy.

Certain relaxed regulation leads to abuses of the system. (Slippery slope argument and logical fallacy.)

Certain relaxed regulation can open to door to abuses of the system. (Statementof fact that can be supported and not logical fallacy.)

Can you not see what a slippery slope it becomes when the government decides what is and is not moral as opposed to what is and is not legal?

Certain relaxed regulation leads to abuses of the system. (Slippery slope argument and logical fallacy.)

Certain relaxed regulation can open to door to abuses of the system. (Statementof fact that can be supported and not logical fallacy.)

Or perhaps you would like to take up her half of the argument, and describe to me a slippery slope which is actually backed up by logic and facts? I'd love to see that.

Cycloptichorn