A common logical fallacy that gets tossed around as if it's a "good argument" is the "slippery slope fallacy". You know this one. "If they register guns, that will lead to seizing guns, and then where will we be?" "If they legalize marijuana, how long before meth is legalized??!" "If you make embryonic stem cell research legal, pretty soon they'll be killing babies for testing!" I'm pretty sure most of you won't remember this one, but "If Vietnam falls to the Communist, pretty soon the entire region will be Communist." The "slippery slope fallacy" is a logical fallacy. It is not a good argument.
On the other hand, because such an argument is a logical fallacy does not mean that the slippery slope doesn't happen. So, while lots of people were complaining, "If they redefine marriage to include 'same-sex' couples, how long far behind will polygamy be?", others were waving them off. "Slippery slope fallacy! Bad argument." Yes, a poor argument, but ... it is actually happening. In fact, it's not just in America, but in Canada as well. The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association (CPAA) has filed petitions with the court to legalize their "marriages" (if you don't know what polyamory is, you will not get the impact of such a statement). In fact, this kind of stuff is upsetting the gay-rights advocates because it really looks bad when the warning comes true.
"Slippery slope" is not a good argument ... but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
12 comments:
Yes, the slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy.
I also like to make the distinction about "cliff" arguments vs. slippery slope arguments. In the case of SSM and polygamy, it is really a cliff argument, as in once you've rationalized SSM you've gone off the cliff and rationalized polygamy as well. The arguments are so similar that you can't justify one without justifying the other. Just because it takes society a little longer to catch on doesn't mean the two aren't connected.
Same thing with the inevitability of SSM impacting religious freedoms and the child abuse of teaching 5 yr. olds how "normal" LGBTQX behavior is.
In the case of same-sex marriage, the slippery slope argument is 100% accurate!
The question, of course, is where does this stop? Seems like polygamy is just the beginning. Polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands)? I joked way back when about "same-sex marriage" being unfair to bisexuals because they need to marry two people ... one of each gender. What about that? Polyamory? Group marriages? On what basis, then, is bestiality outlawed? I mean, in all seriousness, where does it stop?
By their logic, it CAN'T stop!
See, you've got it all wrong, logic doesn't play into it, only what we feel matters. Logical consequences be hanged.
Interesting post, bro, but I'm curious what happen to your design? Also, if you want check out my blog.
I had a request for a change in design, so I accommodated the request.
Oh gosh, I hope you know I was only kidding in my comments about the totally dog crazy woman. Also, I was not at all talking about her having any kind of physical stuff going on with them. (Gross.) I'm quite sure they were just exceptionally-loved pets, esteemed highly enough to be considered right on par with humans. She really DID tell me that she would die for them because she said she knew they would die for her. Wow. Anyway, it dawned on me, later, that those who don't know me might actually take what I wrote seriously. (Yikes.)
And Stan, you're right about SSM being unfair to bisexuals. They should get to marry one of each gender! But wait a minute. That's only a 3-person "marriage", and of what "sexual orientation" might those spouses be? Now that I think about it (excuse me while I wretch for a moment here), if 1 bi married 2 other bisexuals, that marriage might be more apt to work if 4 people were involved. I mean wouldn't each bi like his or her own set of spouses? We really must be fair to ALL consenting adults who love each other or else we'll be called haters and phobes.
Starts to get real messy real fast, doesn't it? The only possible end result is an entire abolition of marriage because, in the end, it means nothing at all. (And I never once read something from you that I thought intimated bestiality. You're safe.)
I don't know what happened to my first post about the animal lover. Here it is.
Years ago, I met a woman who was such a dog lover of a particular breed (or one might say dog NUT) that I honestly would not put it past her to be the kind of person who might want to enter into some kind of formalized, lifetime commitment to her favorite dog(s), if only such a thing was considered to be okay. I'm serious. She might actually "marry" her dog or dogs. Her car sported a bumper sticker that said something like DOGS ARE JUST FUR-COVERED PEOPLE and she told me that her dogs were her "life". She lived alone with them and said they were the best friends a person could ever have, so obviously they were her best friends. She took them with her wherever she went and said would even die for one of them if she had to.
And really, in this world where we are now all expected to be tolerant of everyone and every thing and embrace and celebrate diversity, what's so bad about a loving person wanting to commit to his or her long-time, beloved companion(s) who just happen to be fur-covered? I mean, c'mon, people! Love is good and commitment is good! And that is about all that should really matter! (Love trumps most anything out there!) I'm sure it could be demonstrated that her dogs "love" her as well and would likely be very devoted to and faithful to her until death did them part, so it's not like she would be coercing them into anything unkind.
After all, what they do in the privacy of their own home is their business. It's not hurting anyone else. It's certainly not diminishing the sanctity or importance of other people's marriages in any way! Who should care all that much if some woman loves her dog(s) that much? It might always be kind of unusual for animal lovers to marry their most-cherished pets, but.... like I said, LOVE is a GOOD thing! Love is never bad. So it would be wrong to discourage any kind of love a person might have, right? The world needs MORE love.
So, even if sort of just "in the name of fun", why not? Why not let people marry their pets if that's what some of them really want to do? And if some want to do it in a church setting or religious ceremony, all the better! Then they could have the blessings of a priest, a holy man, or even some god himself upon their union! Cool, huh? Dogs can now ride in grocery store shopping carts. They can receive large inheritances. Some have regularly scheduled sessions with psychologists, massage therapists, and beauticians/groomers. At the end of their lives, their family members can hire a funeral director. We just love our animals in this country! A commitment made before witnesses in a little ceremony saying we will cherish certain special ones of them and love them in sicknesses and in health is just another nobel thing we can do for them.
The priest in The Princess Bride comes to mind here. "Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam... And wuv, tru wuv, will fowow you foweva... So tweasure your wuv."
Yep, that woman I met wuved her dogs! And we should ALWAYS tweasure wuving rewationships.
Okay, yeah, now I see (in light of the several mentions of bestiality in other comments) how you might have feared being misunderstood. Glad you set it straight ... before it got crooked.
Okay, yeah, now I see (in light of the several mentions of bestiality in other comments) how you might have feared being misunderstood. Glad you set it straight ... before it got crooked.
Post a Comment