Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 8502788" data-attributes="member: 6778210"><img src="https://c.tenor.com/KCtFDepSw2MAAAAC/the-big-lebowski-jeff-bridges.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />Uh, this is about doing things that hold legal power over others. This is about creating laws, not PR responses. I'm... not sure how they actually relate, though I do think this is instructive:"The slippery slope is in some ways a helpful metaphor, but as with many metaphors, it starts by enriching our vision and ends by clouding it. We need to go beyond the metaphor and examine the specific mechanisms that cause the phenomenon that the metaphor describes — mechanisms that connect to the nature of our political institutions, our judicial process, and possibly even human reasoning. These mechanisms and their effects deserve further study, even if paying attention to them will make policy analysis more complex. So long as our support of one political or legal decision today can lead to other results tomorrow, wise judges, legislators, opinion leaders, interest group organizers, and citizens have to take these mechanisms into account."Like, this is exactly not the argument you want.I mean, I don't think the underlying logic of the quote works if it's not really applicable to the situation we find ourselves in? Like the Volokh quote above goes, in the end the argument ends up clouding the vision. By staying on the general instead of the specific, you are losing out on the argument.I feel like your examples would involve a lot of the words I used earlier, and I'll be honest: I don't really find those arguments to be convincing.You have not expressed a concern because you'd have to actually say what it is then. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> But if you want, you can finally tell us so we can discuss it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />But we have actual situations we can reference. Hypotheticals are useful when you don't have a real situation that accurately reflects what you want to talk about... but we're talking about a real situation and there are multiple other situations we could reflect upon similarly, so I don't understand a need to look to made up situations.No, I'm saying that words have meanings, and when you say something is "mixed", that's implying both good and bad things about it. Thus I thought you had something bad about it and I wanted to know what it was. This is not about being flexible, but simply pointing out a lack of clarity here.What is the case for doing nothing? You keep talking about how maybe we do nothing, but you haven't actually expressed a case for it. Is there a justification for that or is that just an empty suggestion? Just being honest here, because I'd like to know what it is.Uh, quote me where I say that, because I say it's an "unofficial" fallacy, which it is (Wikipedia says "informal", but same difference compared to what you are accusing me of doing). It's used fallaciously often enough that is often used as one. That's what I've done and I feel completely justified in doing so.Then give me a reason why we shouldn't.Not acting simply for the purpose of not acting is a very poor justification and the fact that you seemingly can't come up with any sort of reason so far feels very suspect. I'm trying to treat you with good faith, but the fact that you can't give me any sort of reason why something shouldn't be done while also putting words in my mouth is trying my patience.[USER=6688049]@Dungeonosophy[/USER] outlined why we should act. Give me a counterargument as to why we shouldn't.You're talking about innuendo on one side, but within the last page we literally have someone on the other side bluntly lying about the OP to try and make a point. I feel like this exemplifies how the sides are different.Because the "other side" varies from argument to argument and even point to point. People arguing for action here are all different, and they might not be on the same side in other threads. Trying to create overarching generalizations of groups fails because they are individualized to the arguments, as are many of their reactions.</blockquote>

Verification