AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

It "happened" in Texas in the years prior to the 2003 tort reform.

To most of us the term "slippery slope" refers to any action that creates conditions making additonal similar steps progressively more likely, or which sets forces in motion promoting additional like actions.

Inevitability doesn't enter in to it.

Main Entry: slippery slope

Function: noun
Date: 1951

: a course of action that seems to lead inevitably from one action or result to another with unintended consequences

Slippery Slope Arguments
by Douglas Walton

Studies in Critical Thinking and Informal Logic No. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Introduction, pp. 1-2

A SLIPPERY slope argument is a kind of argument that warns you if you take a first step, you will find yourself involved in a sticky sequence of consequences from which you will be unable to extricate yourself, and eventually you will wind up speeding faster and faster towards some disastrous outcome. . . .

It is characteristic of all slippery slope arguments that a dangerous outcome of some contemplated course of action is warned of. But the slippery slope argument is more than just a warning. The dangerous outcome is put forward as a reason for not taking a first step in the contemplated course of action. It is an argument put forward by a speaker to persuade a hearer not to take this first step, on the grounds of the consequences that may follow.

Many textbooks on informal logic and critical thinking have a section on the slippery slope argument, where it is often treated as a fallacy. However, this book takes a case study approach which concludes that in some cases, the slippery slope argument can be used correctly as a reasonable type of argumentation to shift a burden of proof in a critical discussion, while in other cases it is used incorrectly. Four types of slippery slope argument are identified and analyzed in the four central chapters of the book. Each chapter presents guidelines that show how each type of slippery slope argument can be used correctly or incorrectly in a particular case.

http://www.valepress.com/Samples-%20Slippery%20Slope.htm

Douglas N. Walton is the world's most prolific writer on fallacies. He co-authored influential articles with John Woods gathered as Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972-1982. Among Walton's more widely read works, in addition to the above, are Informal Logic, A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, Argument Structure. A Pragmatic Theory, and The Place of Emotion in Argument. Walton is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Winnipeg.

The sorites type of slippery slope typically centers around the definition of a contested term or concept. What launches it, or makes it an appropriate tactic of argumentation, is the kind of situation where one party in an argumentative discussion tries to promote his side of the argument by using a "friendly" definition that tends to support his side, and to go against the other side. This can occur in negotiations, and other contexts of discussion, but it very often occurs in a critical discussion about values"for example, an ethical controversy about what is right or wrong in a morally problematic type of situation where there is controversy and heated disagreement. What typically occurs is that the substantive moral dispute turns to a verbal dispute on how a key term should be defined.

Some see such verbal disputes as trivial, as leading away from resolving the main or "real" issue. But this is only sometimes an accurate criticism. In general, a participant in a critical discussion should have the right to advance a definition of a vague term, even if it tends to support his side of the case. But equally, the other party in the discussion should have the right to challenge the proposed definition, or to offer an alternative definition that he can give reasons for preferring.

Good old Foxfyre fails to see how her link undermines much of what she is doing here..

Quote:

Some see such verbal disputes as trivial, as leading away from resolving the main or "real" issue.

But this is only sometimes an accurate criticism.

In general, a participant in a critical discussion should have the right to advance a definition of a vague term, even if it tends to support his side of the case.

But equally, the other party in the discussion should have the right to challenge the proposed definition, or to offer an alternative definition that he can give reasons for preferring.

but Fox, ican and okie feel no one should be able to dispute their definitions.

1) Thinks personal insults intended to be unkind, hurtful, ad hominem, and/or clever 'put downs' is valid debate and makes him/her look smart, intelligent, credible, and/or funny. (This does not apply to those who exchange such insults. That might be annoying but it isn’t numbnuttiness.)

2) Follow members from thread to thread to insert insulting comments targeted at many or most of their posts.

3) Frequently disrupts the flow of conversation with non sequiturs, straw men, red herrings, and/or irrelevant diversions, intentionally misstates the other person’s posts or intent, or nitpicks one phrase, term, or word to ensure that no discussion of a topic can take place.

4) Spams the thread with frequent irrelevent multiple long, wordy copy and pastes from highly biased sources that are as often as not unsourced and unlinked.

5) Is incapable of or refuses to articulate his/her rationale for a point of view but takes every opportunity to discredit or dispute the person or source and/or the way that a point of view is expressed. Asks endless leading questions while dodging or refusing to answer most directed at him/her.

6) Like to pile on, glad hand, and high five other numbnuts and are much braver if they can operate in packs.

7) Has no intention of contributing to the discussion, but his/her mission is to disrupt.

And yes, we have numbnuts from both the left and right.

My 'vague' definition of numbnut:

Quote:

1) Thinks personal insults intended to be unkind, hurtful, ad hominem, and/or clever 'put downs' is valid debate and makes him/her look smart, intelligent, credible, and/or funny. (This does not apply to those who exchange such insults. That might be annoying but it isn’t numbnuttiness.)

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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

Well you have simply defined what to most people is simply an expressive metaphor in an usual and self-serving way, unilaterally decreeing that is has been reborn as a "logical fallacy". There's no arguing any point with one who redefines words or phrases in any way that suits his purpose at the moment.

To most of us the term "slippery slope" refers to any action that creates conditions making additonal similar steps progressively more likely, or which sets forces in motion promoting additional like actions. Inevitability doesn't enter in to it.

FreeDuck and Setanta, when the cost of medical insurance repeatedly increased with repeated increases in the cost of doctor's tort insurance prior to 2003, why do you anticipate that the cost of medical insurance will not decrease with a decrease in the cost of doctor's tort insurance?

FreeDuck and Setanta, when the cost of medical insurance in Texas repeatedly increased with repeated increases in the cost of doctor's tort insurance in Texas prior to 2003, why do you anticipate that the cost of medical insurance in Texas will not decrease with a decrease in the cost of doctor's tort insurance in Texas?

http://www.atra.org/wrap/files.cgi/7964_howworks.html
How Tort Reform Works
TEXAS: Tort Reform Spurs Economic Growth; Aids Access to Healthcare

In 2003, the Texas state Legislature passed H.B. 4 to further reform the state's civil justice system. The bill addressed issues such as: limits on noneconomic damages; product liability reform; punitive damages; medical liability reform joint and several liability; and class action reform. Voters also approved a constitutional amendment, Proposition 12, in 2003, which eliminates potential court challenges to the law that limited noneconomic damages to $250,000. Since the enactment of H.B. 4 and the subsequent passage of Proposition 12, Texas has made great strides in growing its economy and providing jobs and accessible healthcare to its citizens.

Success in the business community:

Texas was awarded the 2004 Governor's Cup award for the largest number of job creation announcements (Site Selection Magazine, 3/05).
Texas also was selected as the state with the best business climate in the nation by Site Selection Magazine (Site Selection Magazine, 3/05).
Successes in the medical community:

The American Medical Association dropped Texas from its list of states in medical liability crisis (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Malpractice claims are down and physician recruitment and retention are up, particularly in high risk specialties (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
The five largest Texas insurers cut rates, which will save doctors about $50 million, according to the AMA (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Malpractice lawsuits in Harris County have dropped to about half of what they were in 2001 and 2002. There were 204 cases filed in 2004, compared with 441 in 2001 and 550 in 2002. There were 1,154 lawsuits filed in 2003, attributed to attorneys trying to file before the new law took effect (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Harris County has seen a net gain of 689 physicians, an 8.4 percent increase, according to the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Texas Medical Liability Trust, the state's largest liability carrier, reduced its premiums by 17 percent (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Fifteen new insurance companies have entered the Texas market (Associated Press, 2/16/05).
Health Care Indemnity, the state's largest carrier for hospitals, cut rates by 15 percent in 2004 (Associated Press, 2/16/05).
American Physicians Insurance Exchange and The Doctor's Company also reduced premiums (Associated Press, 2/16/05).
The American Physicians Insurance Exchange saw a $3.5 million reduction in premiums for Texas physicians in 2005. In addition, beginning May 1, 2005, 2,2000 of the 3,500 physicians insured by the company would see an average drop of 5 percent in their premiums (The Heartland Institute, 5/1/05).
Texas: Tort Reform Spurs Economic Growth

In 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a series of bills to reform the state's civil justice system. These bills addressed: limits on punitive damages, joint and several liability, sanctions for filing frivolous suits, limits on venue shopping and out-of-state filings, modifications to deceptive trade practices and medical malpractice reform.

According to the study, The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas, the total cost of the Texas tort system in 2000 was $15.482 billion. Without reforms, it is estimated that the total cost would have been $25.889 billion. Of the $10.407 billion in total direct savings, approximately $2.777 billion may be attributed to improvements at the national level while $7.630 billion in savings were from reforms in Texas. Of the total savings, $2.542 billion went directly to benefit consumers.

The Perryman Group. The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas Overall Economic Impact on State's Economy. (August 2000)

Facts to Consider: Benefits to Consumers

It is estimated that reforms enacted in 1995 resulted in savings of $2.542 billion that directly benefits consumers.

$1.796 billion in annual cost savings from reduced inflation ($216 per household)

$7.056 billion in annual total personal growth income ($862 per household)

The net result was a savings of $1,078 per year to the typical Texas household.

The Perryman Group. The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas Overall Economic Impact on State's Economy. (August 2000)