Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Raystown, Pennsylvania
    (Bedford County)
    Posts
    726
    Rep Power
    8320

    Default 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?
    I am not a lawyer !!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Falls Twp., Pennsylvania
    (Wyoming County)
    Posts
    480
    Rep Power
    32667

    Default 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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kimberton, Pennsylvania
    Age
    38
    Posts
    277
    Rep Power
    504100

    Default 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.
    will that extra 15% matter? not as much as being able to put one in their face. ~Edg

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Brookville, Pennsylvania
    (Jefferson County)
    Age
    51
    Posts
    20,076
    Rep Power
    21474874

    Default 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.

    "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.
    Last edited by knight0334; August 5th, 2011 at 09:24 AM.
    RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515

    Don't end up in my signature!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Lebanon, Tennessee
    Posts
    4,941
    Rep Power
    21474854

    Default 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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Langhorne, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Age
    69
    Posts
    2,003
    Rep Power
    13958301

    Default Re: The Slippery Slope Argument

    I try not to engage someone in an intellectual debate when they are obviously unarmed
    Jesus is Lord !

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    West Chester, Pennsylvania
    (Chester County)
    Posts
    600
    Rep Power
    3782723

    Default 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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Gunshine State (PA expat), Florida
    (Chester County)
    Posts
    250
    Rep Power
    17523

    Default Re: The Slippery Slope Argument

    I just avoid liberals like the plague. That way you don't have to deal with their disgusting ideologies.
    God Created Man. Sam Colt made them equal.
    FU BHO.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    somewhere, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,757
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default 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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Out in the yard
    Posts
    107
    Rep Power
    286

    Default 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.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Project Appleseed - Slippery Rock
    By EZ3 in forum Training Courses
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2011, 01:55 PM
  2. Appleseed in Slippery Rock
    By EZ3 in forum Butler
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 14th, 2011, 07:15 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2009, 10:13 AM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: March 7th, 2009, 09:11 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •