The Slippery Slope Argument
In conversation with a very Liberal friend of mine the other day, the topic of gun control happened to come up. During the course of our conversation, the slippery slope argument came up. Essentially the age old tactic of taking an argument to the extreme in an attempt to make it illegitimate.
While I feel that I bested him in scope of the entire conversation, I must admit that I was thrown a little off guard by this. I should have not even entertained the argument, and quickly dismissed it as ridiculous, but I went along anyway. For those of you who do not engage in these conversations, the slippery slope argument often looks something like this:
so you believe in constitutional carry for self defense?
What about full auto's?
What about hand grenades?
Bombs?
tanks?
blah blah blah...
So what say you, have you been presented with the slippery slope argument? How did you respond?
Re: The Slippery Slope Argument
I enjoy and respect opinionated folks,,,matters not whether they are pro or con...I enjoy the opportunity to make my points in an educated conversation...BUT...I do not indulge assholes who don't have a clue and just dismiss them and move on.
Re: The Slippery Slope Argument
When I am presented with this argument I generally establish that for the purposes of self defense, hand grenades and bombs are not practical due to the possibility of collateral damage, and tanks are rather slow and unwieldy. If they want to bring it up (even though I know they are just trying to be difficult), I will explain it out to them in painstaking fashion until they want to puncture their own eardrums.
If they still don't get it, my favorite tactic is to turn their own argument against them and insert First Amendment in place of the Second. Then proceed to ask them if they feel if people should be completely free to say what they want (since words never hurt anyone), or if the government should limit who can say what, or if there should be a ban on verbally defending yourself with more than 10 words.
They probably still won't agree with you if they pulled the extreme slippery slope argument out, but maybe they will think about it.
I'm sure you will get some people that will tell you not to even bother wasting your breath on these types, and I do agree that sometimes it can just be a waste of time, but there is always the chance that you might make them think differently about something.
Re: The Slippery Slope Argument
Remind him that the Second Amendment is more about keeping tyranny in check.
As one of our Founding Father's pointed out, we should have the same equipment as the military.
Quote:
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ~Tench Coxe 20 Feb 1788"
Personal defense was, and is, a secondary reason for protecting keeping and bearing.
It is against our FF's wishes for this nation to have a standing army. They only allowed for an army of X number of soldiers per X number of citizens. The defense of this nation was to be like the Swiss design of a militia to be called when needed. The small standing army was for emergency response in the time delay it took for the militia to come forth.
Re: The Slippery Slope Argument
I simply point out their logical fallacy and move on. If they continue down their slippery slope, then I invoke my second life rule;
Don't argue with idiots.
YMMV.
Justin
Re: The Slippery Slope Argument
I try not to engage someone in an intellectual debate when they are obviously unarmed
Re: The Slippery Slope Argument
You might want to remind your liberal friend that those items ARE legal, as long as you want to pony up the $$$ for the proper papers.
Re: The Slippery Slope Argument
I just avoid liberals like the plague. That way you don't have to deal with their disgusting ideologies.
Re: The Slippery Slope Argument
I teach philosophy to undergraduate students. One of the first lessons I teach them about arguments is that the slippery slope argument is a poor method; don't use it.
Slippery slope arguments generally devolve into the other guy being a Nazi or a slave owner, or other such nonsense, which is ussually a rediculous allegation to make against your interlocutor.
There are other reasons why it's bad form---but in a real debate, generally, slippery slope should be off the table.
Re: The Slippery Slope Argument
So then doesn't the argument work the other way as well?
If you DON'T believe in guns for self defense, then
What about a knife, a pocket knife?
a bat, a club?
a stick?
what about martial arts then... should they be banned?
The reality is there are some folks who will never be moved from their position.