Question about "Slippery Slope" arguments

[Jtalk4456]

I've seen many discussions on this forum and others where a topic is presented and someone talks about what can/will go wrong with whatever it is, then someone or several someone's state that it's a slippery slope argument and they never use those. I never see any explanation why people are so opposed to slippery slope arguments. Certainly there are ones made that don't follow a clear slope and seem to be jumping to unreasonable conclusions, but a lot of the time it's a valid argument. I've seen some tell me that it's a slippery slope argument to assume self driving will happen full force and treat that like an invalid point. 
So if you're one who regardless of the context has said they just stay away from slippery slope arguments or treat it as invalid, can you tell me why? I view it as a reasonable progression of technology and more of an inevitability, but I'm curious to know why some don't like it.

[RAS_3885]

This feels like a slippery slope...

[Roswell]

It’s a go-to when people have nothing substantial to add to their argument. It’s basically lost all meaning because you can say pretty much any change “is a slippery slope”.

[For Science!]

I don't really understand what is being asked here. "the slippery slope argument" should be used to point out that a solution presented offers a "new lower baseline" or an "exceptional circumstance" which then becomes the "new normal" and thus makes it easier to make the baseline even lower or, to normalize the exceptional circumstance. So....exactly what do you mean?

[IkeaGnome]

8 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

So if you're one who regardless of the context has said they just stay away from slippery slope arguments or treat it as invalid, can you tell me why?

There's a few "slippery slopes" I actively try to avoid on here. People's who mind's are made up and are not open to reading/hearing/listening to facts to think about their position. If I'm willing to learn, you should be too. These, just like for example miners being the sole source of GPU shortage just leads to pages of back and forth and getting no where.

Is the topic in a spot where it's obviously going to get locked? I'll try to avoid it. Same as above. Wasting time. 

Is the OP or the person I was going to respond to most likely trolling? Move on usually. 

It all ties into a few things. When I'm around on here, I have to actively think about what I'm going to say. I work in an industry where I can tell my boss to eff off and no one cares. I run people out of my warehouse, I'm rude to miners I don't like, I'm rude to bosses I don't like. When I'm being rude to one particular boss, he just tells his mechanics to avoid me for a few days. We have a kid here who is African American. He calls himself slurs. He's had to go to sensitivity training for it actually. I know I have to be careful about what I say on here, and frankly I'm surprised I've lasted as long as I have.

That being said, I do have my days where it's fun to throw fuel on the fire.

I do think the way you're using slippery slope and the way I am are slightly different. Seems like you're using it in the more "normal" way. In my head a slippery slope argument is just going in circles, trying to climb up hill and not getting anywhere. 

[Jtalk4456]

2 minutes ago, Roswell said:

It’s a go-to when people have nothing substantial to add to their argument. It’s basically lost all meaning because you can say pretty much any change “is a slippery slope”.

hmm... I think some people certainly use it this way, but I don't agree that's the only way to use them. I get your point though

 

12 minutes ago, For Science! said:

I don't really understand what is being asked here. "the slippery slope argument" should be used to point out that a solution presented offers a "new lower baseline" or an "exceptional circumstance" which then becomes the "new normal" and thus makes it easier to make the baseline even lower or, to normalize the exceptional circumstance. So....exactly what do you mean?

 

1 minute ago, IkeaGnome said:

There's a few "slippery slopes" I actively try to avoid on here. People's who mind's are made up and are not open to reading/hearing/listening to facts to think about their position. If I'm willing to learn, you should be too. These, just like for example miners being the sole source of GPU shortage just leads to pages of back and forth and getting no where.

Is the topic in a spot where it's obviously going to get locked? I'll try to avoid it. Same as above. Wasting time. 

Is the OP or the person I was going to respond to most likely trolling? Move on usually. 

It all ties into a few things. When I'm around on here, I have to actively think about what I'm going to say. I work in an industry where I can tell my boss to eff off and no one cares. I run people out of my warehouse, I'm rude to miners I don't like, I'm rude to bosses I don't like. When I'm being rude to one particular boss, he just tells his mechanics to avoid me for a few days. We have a kid here who is African American. He calls himself slurs. He's had to go to sensitivity training for it actually. I know I have to be careful about what I say on here, and frankly I'm surprised I've lasted as long as I have.

That being said, I do have my days where it's fun to throw fuel on the fire.

I do think the way you're using slippery slope and the way I am are slightly different. Seems like you're using it in the more "normal" way. In my head a slippery slope argument is just going in circles, trying to climb up hill and not getting anywhere. 

hmm, ok I may be thinking of slippery slope differently. I've seen it used, and then used it myself as something I consider to be a natural progression, whether or not the outcome is good. Once you take the step and start slipping it's hard to stop going in that direction. Once you have cars and basic self driving, it's inevitable that technology will get better and drive towards better self driving and eventually it'll all but replace standard methods. Just a natural progression of things. Maybe I'm using it wrong, however people have taken my point like in the car example and called it slippery slope, so that's just been what I've been calling it

[Jtalk4456]

39 minutes ago, RAS_3885 said:

This feels like a slippery slope...

Absolutely, only the slipperiest slopes here. Side note typing out slipperiest made me realize how weird that is to say. I feel it might need to be most slippery but that doesn't sound right either and spell check isn't stopping me so....

[For Science!]

8 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

hmm... I think some people certainly use it this way, but I don't agree that's the only way to use them. I get your point though

 

 

hmm, ok I may be thinking of slippery slope differently. I've seen it used, and then used it myself as something I consider to be a natural progression, whether or not the outcome is good. Once you take the step and start slipping it's hard to stop going in that direction. Once you have cars and basic self driving, it's inevitable that technology will get better and drive towards better self driving and eventually it'll all but replace standard methods. Just a natural progression of things. Maybe I'm using it wrong, however people have taken my point like in the car example and called it slippery slope, so that's just been what I've been calling it

I'm pretty sure the classical usage of slippery slope for example would be:

 

A: COVID-19 is such a trouble-causing disease, we should mandate vaccinations for it.

B: Well, that's a slippery slope, because if there is a precedent to mandate a certain medical procedure for a perceived threatful disease, what stops governments from mandating medical procedures for less severe diseases in the future?

 

Person B is presenting the slippery slope argument against person A. 

[Beerzerker]

The above is kinda where I'm at with it.
In my mindset it's more of stating a real possibilty of things, like a domino effect that takes place in a bad way.

It's like when a certain tech is developed and originally meant for a good purpose. That kind of tech would make things easier for us BUT at the same time there is the real possibility of it becoming misused (Depending on what the tech is), as in not as it was intended for originally in a bad way with no end in sight if it ever goes there.

It's the same basic thing as saying if a "Line" is ever crossed about or concerning whatever, there is the real possibility of it becoming a "There is no going back" for better or worse situation and that's the way I see it.
 

[Whispre]

56 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

There's a few "slippery slopes" I actively try to avoid on here. People's who mind's are made up and are not open to reading/hearing/listening to facts to think about their position. If I'm willing to learn, you should be too. These, just like for example miners being the sole source of GPU shortage just leads to pages of back and forth and getting no where.

Is the topic in a spot where it's obviously going to get locked? I'll try to avoid it. Same as above. Wasting time. 

Is the OP or the person I was going to respond to most likely trolling? Move on usually. 

None of these qualify as a 'slippery slope'... the fact that they dont lead to anything is what disqualifies them as a slippery slope.

 

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

 

[IkeaGnome]

59 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

I do think the way you're using slippery slope and the way I am are slightly different. Seems like you're using it in the more "normal" way. In my head a slippery slope argument is just going in circles, trying to climb up hill and not getting anywhere. 

 

1 minute ago, Whispre said:

None of these qualify as a 'slippery slope'... the fact that they dont lead to anything is what disqualifies them as a slippery slope.

 

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

 

You mean like this one? I said I use it a little bit differently, and if you want to push it we could see where it goes

[For Science!]

2 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

 

You mean like this one? I said I use it a little bit differently, and if you want to push it we could see where it goes

No, this is not a slippery slope argument.

[The_russian]

3 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

 

You mean like this one? I said I use it a little bit differently, and if you want to push it we could see where it goes

There’s a difference between using a slippery slope argument differently than it is normally used and using an argument that is not a slippery slope argument. Your’s seem to fall into the second category, I don’t see how any of the arguments you listed are slippery slope arguments.

[WhitetailAni]

I see slippery slope arguments/topics as something that can quickly descend to something more extreme than it's already at.

Take for example this thread:

It's already skirting the line to politics. Given the right/wrong (depending on how you look at it) things said, it can easily descend into politics.

 

Let's put this thread in a hypothetical situation where the mods do nothing about the "no politics" rule. It starts off discussing the topic at hand, and then begins to discuss the CCP and its policies. There's then a debate about stuff related and it descends further into a more heated argument which discusses more things and some unrelated stuff.

 

This is a slippery slope, to me. It starts off with good intentions but then slips down into the realm of stupidity (such as "does water have a taste", I had to listen to an hour-long argument on that once).

 

No, mods, I did not express an opinion on the CCP.

[For Science!]

Perhaps to clear up some confusion, let me give a few examples of claims/situations that could be countered with a slippery slope arguement:

 

A: So many kids get caught with class C drugs every year, we should legalize all class C drugs

B: That's a slippery slope [Because it may mean that class B, and then class A drugs becoming normalized and you have a nation of addicts]

 

A: Apple now allows governments to start scanning phones for illegal photos

B: That's a slippery slope [Because governments may start scanning photos for other purposes]

 

A: Intel produces backdoor into chips so that FBI can investigate criminals

B: That's a slippery slope [Because FBI may start looking at non-criminals]

 

A: Government allows scientists to fix disease in unborn child using DNA manipulation

B: That's a slippery slope [Because governments may start "fixing" things that aren't diseases]

[For Science!]

I think an important realization here is that the slippery slope arguement hinges on a "may" or "could lead to". i.e. it is speculative. Therefore sometimes it can be countered by just how absurd the suggested slippery slope is, or the fact that the slope is unreleated to the scenario.

 

As an example.....

 

A: Free re-fill of sugar loaded drinks in primary schools are a bad idea and should be banned

B: Well, that's a slippery slope, because what stops the schools from banning genuinely healthy drinks such as water

C Well, schools aren't going to ban water, are they?

B: nuh uh, you never know~ -stupid-

 

[The_russian]

1 minute ago, FakeKGB said:

I see slippery slope arguments/topics as something that can quickly descend to something more extreme than it's already at.

Take for example this thread:

It's already skirting the line to politics. Given the right/wrong (depending on how you look at it) things said, it can easily descend into politics.

 

Let's put this thread in a hypothetical situation where the mods do nothing about the "no politics" rule. It starts off discussing the topic at hand, and then begins to discuss the CCP and its policies. There's then a debate about stuff related and it descends further into a more heated argument which discusses more things and some unrelated stuff.

 

This is a slippery slope, to me. It starts off with good intentions but then slips down into the realm of stupidity (such as "does water have a taste", I had to listen to an hour-long argument on that once).

 

No, mods, I did not express an opinion on the CCP.

Going off topic is not a slippery slope. A slippery slope argument for that thread would have been: 

 

Someone’s opinion:

The government limiting the amount of time minors can play games is a good idea. 

Someone else’s counter-argument, which is a slippery slope argument: 

If you let the government limit the amount of time minors play games, what’s stopping them from limiting the amount of time adults play games? Or limiting the time spent on other entertainment? If they impose limits for this one thing, they will later impose more limits or restrictions on other things.

 

By the way the above is not my opinion, just an example of what a slippery slope argument is.

[YoungBlade]

The "slippery slope" is not necessarily wrong in and of itself. The issue is that, in a debate, you're supposed to demonstrate your claims. So when someone says, "If we allow A to happen, then surely B is right around the corner" then it's up to that person to demonstrate that B follows from A. If that person fails to do so, then that's indeed a logical fallacy. However, if the events actually do share a logical through line, then it's not a fallacy. The line between that can be rather thin, and just because someone makes that fallacy, that doesn't mean they're wrong. (See: Fallacy fallacy)

 

A basic example would be: "If we just allow a company to pawn exploding power supplies on unsuspecting consumers, then that company will continue to cut corners in the future."

 

I would argue that that's not a fallacy. That's a logical conclusion. We know that companies want to maximize profits. Rigorous QC is expensive. So if a company doesn't have to do rigorous QC, that saves the company money, which in turn leads to higher profits. Therefore, a company given free reign to profit from poor quality products will continue to produce poor quality products.

 

However, if instead the argument was: "If we just allow a company to do that, then the company is going to make exploding case fans next."

 

That's a fallacy. There is no logical reason to assume that a company which makes exploding power supplies will follow that up with exploding case fans, unless the arguer can demonstrate how the former leads to the latter.

 

The overarching point is this: if the other person in the debate thinks that slippery slope is irrational, the burden of proof is on the arguer to demonstrate that it's not. If you are trying to say that allowing self-driving cars to develop will lead to the end of human drivers, you actually have to show the logic in that argument. Which basically means that your burden of proof has just gotten even bigger, which is not recommended. If you can prove your point without having to prove that slippery slope, I'd recommend doing so.

[Jtalk4456]

21 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

The "slippery slope" is not necessarily wrong in and of itself. The issue is that, in a debate, you're supposed to demonstrate your claims. So when someone says, "If we allow A to happen, then surely B is right around the corner" then it's up to that person to demonstrate that B follows from A. If that person fails to do so, then that's indeed a logical fallacy. However, if the events actually do share a logical through line, then it's not a fallacy. The line between that can be rather thin, and just because someone makes that fallacy, that doesn't mean they're wrong. (See: Fallacy fallacy)

 

A basic example would be: "If we just allow a company to pawn exploding power supplies on unsuspecting consumers, then that company will continue to cut corners in the future."

 

I would argue that that's not a fallacy. That's a logical conclusion. We know that companies want to maximize profits. Rigorous QC is expensive. So if a company doesn't have to do rigorous QC, that saves the company money, which in turn leads to higher profits. Therefore, a company given free reign to profit from poor quality products will continue to produce poor quality products.

 

However, if instead the argument was: "If we just allow a company to do that, then the company is going to make exploding case fans next."

 

That's a fallacy. There is no logical reason to assume that a company which makes exploding power supplies will follow that up with exploding case fans, unless the arguer can demonstrate how the former leads to the latter.

 

The overarching point is this: if the other person in the debate thinks that slippery slope is irrational, the burden of proof is on the arguer to demonstrate that it's not. If you are trying to say that allowing self-driving cars to develop will lead to the end of human drivers, you actually have to show the logic in that argument. Which basically means that your burden of proof has just gotten even bigger, which is not recommended. If you can prove your point without having to prove that slippery slope, I'd recommend doing so.

So if I follow up the car argument by saying "technology is in a constant state of progression and it's unreasonable to assume those developing self driving cars will stop trying to make it better" Is that a pointed enough argument or am I in a fallacy of assuming the slope there?

[YoungBlade]

3 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

So if I follow up the car argument by saying "technology is in a constant state of progression and it's unreasonable to assume those developing self driving cars will stop trying to make it better" Is that a pointed enough argument or am I in a fallacy of assuming the slope there?

That's simply an argument that self driving cars will improve, which is something I don't think anyone would argue against. But how far will that improvement go? For example, aviation technology has been in a constant state of progression for a century, and yet we still don't have flying cars. Nuclear technology always has people trying to make it better, but we still don't have nuclear fusion. That doesn't mean we'll never have those things, but saying "technology progresses" isn't a great argument for a specific advancement - it's just a general rule.

 

To demonstrate that self driving cars will be able to replace people is rather difficult. You can point to historical examples, like computers eliminating the "computer" job, but that comes with two problems. First, there are still people who do recreational mathematics in the vein of old fashioned computers (like the job, not the device). We haven't outlawed people from doing number crunching by hand. Second, what reason do we have to believe that this situation will be the same as that one?

 

I agree that self driving cars will likely reach a point where they can drive better than the average person, but I can see the counter arguments and they aren't invalid. It's not a 100% guarantee. I just think it's more likely than not.

[mr moose]

A slippery slope argument is like the law of averages,  If it lacks substantial supporting context/reason then it is not a real argument.   A slippery slope argument that requires you to make assumptions on the outcome where no other examples exist seems to be the most common usage.  This is the one that is most often argued because substantial there is no other substantial reason for the argument to exist.    

 

There are legitimate times for them, however because they require that you predict the future, they are not always solid enough to convince anyone. 

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

I've seen many discussions on this forum and others where a topic is presented and someone talks about what can/will go wrong with whatever it is, then someone or several someone's state that it's a slippery slope argument and they never use those. I never see any explanation why people are so opposed to slippery slope arguments. 

A slippery slope is when someone critiques something, usually with "well that's going to get worse" type of argument. Which is a valid opinion. However it's usually directed at things that involve control over some freedom or right to do something.

 

eg, CSAM tech on the iphone. If this tech is implemented, what's to prevent a corrupt law enforcement to use it to censor other things and going "well you already censor, just use that"

 

The argument isn't that "apple shouldn't be doing this", but "we've seen this abuse happen, every time, why should this be any different"

 

When it's a fallacy, is when there is no argument supporting that. eg, new drones come out with energy (tazer) weapons attached to them, and everyone comes out and says "oh, skynet is here", Terminator is fiction. Tech is nowhere close enough to become skynet. The worst things that happen, at present, are automated cars getting into accidents because of human factors it had not learned. Literately every time some tech comes out, someone makes the comparison to the worst-possible use case (Terminator for robotics, "Monorail" Simpsons episode for rapid transit, 1984 for censorship, etc)

 

1984 is also fiction, but it's based on things that were happening, and it's actually about being disillusioned with socialism/communism, in the 40's. Yet a lot of things in 1984 come to pass. "Ministry of Truth", or the censorship of things that really happened because the government is embarrassed by it. If only Orwell had lived to see the internet, I'm sure he'd have several sequels to 1984.

 

 

[TheOnlyKirst]

On 9/8/2021 at 7:01 PM, For Science! said:

I think an important realization here is that the slippery slope arguement hinges on a "may" or "could lead to". i.e. it is speculative. Therefore sometimes it can be countered by just how absurd the suggested slippery slope is, or the fact that the slope is unreleated to the scenario.

 

As an example.....

 

A: Free re-fill of sugar loaded drinks in primary schools are a bad idea and should be banned

B: Well, that's a slippery slope, because what stops the schools from banning genuinely healthy drinks such as water

C Well, schools aren't going to ban water, are they?

B: nuh uh, you never know~ -stupid-

 

BAN ALL WATER

[Jtalk4456]

4 hours ago, TheOnlyKirst said:

BAN ALL WATER

Except for Le Bleu, they're pretty good XD. Nestle bottled water tastes like crap though, it can go

[whm1974]

6 hours ago, TheOnlyKirst said:

BAN ALL WATER

Since the Majority of the Earth Surface is covered in Water, that would be of course Impossible.