4 ms·

While "slippery slope" / "where does it end" arguments can be used in bad faith and often are not productive regardless of intention, I don't think they are inh

While "slippery slope" / "where does it end" arguments can be used in bad faith and often are not productive regardless of intention, I don't think they are inherently bad. I think the best use of it is to call into question things the original argument thinks is obvious. Your article's example of using pronouns to show empathy and the saboteur response show this well. It is not clear if Person 1 thinks all people regardless of whether they are a furry, goth, etc are deserving of empathy or whether there is some group of people who don't deserve empathy. I think the position that all people deserve empathy is probably at least a slightly controversial claim, and if only some people deserve it you should provide the reasoning why LGBTQ deserve it. I don't think Person 1's argument could convince anyone who doesn't already believe either: all people deserve empathy or LGBTQ people deserve empathy. Provide more reasoning to support either of those positions would help convince people to refer to people by their preferred pronouns.

cjslep 7y ago
I don't think slippery slopes are productive to constructive discourse at all, and are merely used as a rhetorical device with the goal of invoking Ethos or Pathos to certain demographics. Aka, "virtue signalling". The "this policy/rule/law (moral or legal) could be applied in a way that I don't like" argument is a tired, boring, uninteresting, and fearful one. It is tautologically true of any policy/rule/law. Better is putting forth an actual argument for an alternative policy/rule/law, whether it's merely a small clarification or a complete systemic overhaul, turning that fear into a constructive argument with actual participation in the matters at hand. Less fear and signaling, more activism and constructive dialogue without divisive rhetoric. Edit: if instead the intent of the arguer is to refine something someone else said, just ask! Going back to your example, the (no-longer) sabatuer asking pointedly "Do you think all people deserve empathy, only LGBT (as opposed to flurries and goths), or something else?" is way more productive to directly ask than perform a slippery slope dance. The argument can then be provided without reservation since everyone is being genuine and clear. It might be compelling, it might not. Either way, it'll get made. Rhetoric matters to discourse quality.

cjslep 7y ago

I don't think slippery slopes are productive to constructive discourse at all, and are merely used as a rhetorical device with the goal of invoking Ethos or Pathos to certain demographics. Aka, "virtue signalling". The "this policy/rule/law (moral or legal) could be applied in a way that I don't like" argument is a tired, boring, uninteresting, and fearful one. It is tautologically true of any policy/rule/law. Better is putting forth an actual argument for an alternative policy/rule/law, whether it's merely a small clarification or a complete systemic overhaul, turning that fear into a constructive argument with actual participation in the matters at hand. Less fear and signaling, more activism and constructive dialogue without divisive rhetoric. Edit: if instead the intent of the arguer is to refine something someone else said, just ask! Going back to your example, the (no-longer) sabatuer asking pointedly "Do you think all people deserve empathy, only LGBT (as opposed to flurries and goths), or something else?" is way more productive to directly ask than perform a slippery slope dance. The argument can then be provided without reservation since everyone is being genuine and clear. It might be compelling, it might not. Either way, it'll get made. Rhetoric matters to discourse quality.