2 ms·

Pretty sure there's a fallacy about making analogies to things that are not analogous. The city of Austin is not the FBI. The voters of Austin made this decisio

Pretty sure there's a fallacy about making analogies to things that are not analogous. The city of Austin is not the FBI. The voters of Austin made this decision; first through their elected representatives, and then through a ballot measure. There is nothing comparable about the FBI vs. privacy/encryption and the situation we are discussing. No secretive agencies or courts were involved. It is not a constitutional matter, at all. And, if we really were calling slippery slope a valid argument, rather than the fallacy that it so often is: Austin's legal requirements for providing rides have been decreasing over the past decade, both in complexity and in cost of compliance. It's just not very slopey or slippery, as it has been trending in the opposite direction of what your slippery slope argument suggests would happen. I'm sure there's still room for improvement and simplification, but if the stoners I know who pedicab can figure it out, I'm confident the bright young lads who run Uber and Lyft can, too.

chillacy 10y ago
> Pretty sure there's a fallacy about making analogies to things that are not analogous I hope there's a fallacy for superficially pointing out fallacies without actually examining the argument. I brought up an example of a case which could have been argued away with the slippery slope fallacy, where many believed that Apple did the right thing (maybe even yourself), so it's plausible that Uber might too. I could have drawn other slippery slope examples too. Like: Just because I smoke doesn't mean I will get lung cancer. But if I don't want lung cancer, I shouldn't start smoking. Boom: big slippery slope fallacy, and I might even get lung cancer without smoking. But reality is statistical, and not smoking is a smart cancer reduction strategy. Back to Uber: Their concern is probably not that Austin will start cracking down further, but that other cities will as well. Uber doesn't give a shit about Austin. They have a billion dollar transportation market to go after, and if that means cutting off Austin (population 900k) to save the rest of it, it would be a wise choice. > if the stoners I know who pedicab can figure it out, I'm confident the bright young lads who run Uber and Lyft can, too. Uber is playing for the world, not Austin Texas. You may think that Uber is being entitled by asking for special treatment, but in Uber's mind, they probably see Austin as being entitled for enforcing these laws while other cities don't. Only time will tell if they win and Austin capitulates due to public outcry or if Austin does well without ridesharing and the legislation crackdown happens elsewhere as cities learn they don't have to fear the backlash.

chillacy 10y ago

> Pretty sure there's a fallacy about making analogies to things that are not analogous I hope there's a fallacy for superficially pointing out fallacies without actually examining the argument. I brought up an example of a case which could have been argued away with the slippery slope fallacy, where many believed that Apple did the right thing (maybe even yourself), so it's plausible that Uber might too. I could have drawn other slippery slope examples too. Like: Just because I smoke doesn't mean I will get lung cancer. But if I don't want lung cancer, I shouldn't start smoking. Boom: big slippery slope fallacy, and I might even get lung cancer without smoking. But reality is statistical, and not smoking is a smart cancer reduction strategy. Back to Uber: Their concern is probably not that Austin will start cracking down further, but that other cities will as well. Uber doesn't give a shit about Austin. They have a billion dollar transportation market to go after, and if that means cutting off Austin (population 900k) to save the rest of it, it would be a wise choice. > if the stoners I know who pedicab can figure it out, I'm confident the bright young lads who run Uber and Lyft can, too. Uber is playing for the world, not Austin Texas. You may think that Uber is being entitled by asking for special treatment, but in Uber's mind, they probably see Austin as being entitled for enforcing these laws while other cities don't. Only time will tell if they win and Austin capitulates due to public outcry or if Austin does well without ridesharing and the legislation crackdown happens elsewhere as cities learn they don't have to fear the backlash.