4 ms·

I generally agree with LordKano, and in the same positions of having been vaccinated myself and my kids. At the same time I really don't like state-mandated vac

I generally agree with LordKano, and in the same positions of having been vaccinated myself and my kids. At the same time I really don't like state-mandated vaccines. For philosophical reasons first of all ("Your body, your choice"). But also for practical, as it presents a great possibility of abuse; as an example impagine corrupt officials mandating unnecessary vaccination of BigPharma's profit. > If you don't get vaccinated, and you get sick, then you infect everyone else. You don't have the right to choose to infect other people. I would NOT be against public schools mandating vaccines in order for children to attend school. Same for places of employment.

chadgeidel 11y ago
> it presents a great possibility of abuse; I appreciate your concern, but this is a slippery slope fallacy. It's highly unlikely it would be abused without knowledge, because we currently have a net-good policy that is being "debated" at all levels today. I can't imagine a net-neutral or net-evil policy would slip by undetected.
- GauntletWizard 11y ago
  Slippery slope is not automatically a fallacy. In fact, since this is a political (and more importantly, rhetorical) debate, slippery slope isn't a fallacy at all. It is an argument, carrying some weight or none at all, depending on how it is presented. In light of an article that is precisely about how "Big Pharma" overprescribed drugs to people who didn't need them, suggesting that allowing the government to enforce prescriptions will lead to more corruption and overprescription, this argument should hold a lot of weight. More generally: Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. It, along with many of it's brothers [1], do nothing to prove a point in a logical debate. They do no represent MUSTs, they represent SHOULD, MAY, and OPTIONAL [2]. These are rhetorical devices that you should use when you are feeling out the scope of the problem and advocating for policy in a political debate. And it can be relevant to call them by name, but dismissing an argument because you can name it is actually illogical. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fal... [2] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
  - chadgeidel 11y ago
    Point taken. I should not have used that rhetorical device. Thanks for the correction.

chadgeidel 11y ago

> it presents a great possibility of abuse; I appreciate your concern, but this is a slippery slope fallacy. It's highly unlikely it would be abused without knowledge, because we currently have a net-good policy that is being "debated" at all levels today. I can't imagine a net-neutral or net-evil policy would slip by undetected.

GauntletWizard 11y ago
Slippery slope is not automatically a fallacy. In fact, since this is a political (and more importantly, rhetorical) debate, slippery slope isn't a fallacy at all. It is an argument, carrying some weight or none at all, depending on how it is presented. In light of an article that is precisely about how "Big Pharma" overprescribed drugs to people who didn't need them, suggesting that allowing the government to enforce prescriptions will lead to more corruption and overprescription, this argument should hold a lot of weight. More generally: Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. It, along with many of it's brothers [1], do nothing to prove a point in a logical debate. They do no represent MUSTs, they represent SHOULD, MAY, and OPTIONAL [2]. These are rhetorical devices that you should use when you are feeling out the scope of the problem and advocating for policy in a political debate. And it can be relevant to call them by name, but dismissing an argument because you can name it is actually illogical. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fal... [2] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
- chadgeidel 11y ago
  Point taken. I should not have used that rhetorical device. Thanks for the correction.