3 ms·
What? This has nothing to do with the slippery slope fallacy. . It's not because we're aren't there yet that saying that it could happen is a fallacy. With that
by mardifoufs 7y ago
What? This has nothing to do with the slippery slope fallacy. . It's not because we're aren't there yet that saying that it could happen is a fallacy. With that logic any type of planning or forecast about the virus is just a slippery slope since we aren't there. And If you agree that forecasts about the virus are okay, I dont see why forecasts about the economy depending on what policy is enforced (full isolation that would ruin the economy or allow people to get infected to keep it going) are worst?
- JediWing 7y agoIt is textbook slippery slope. Because grandparent said they would sacrifice a realistic tax increase to save lives in the COVID-19 outbreak, the parent asked about a confiscatory 99% tax rate and asset seizure, which would be wholly unnecessary for paying for the current crisis.
- mardifoufs 7y agoYes, current crisis. Everyone agrees on the fact that the virus will probably spread and become much more widespread. Isn't it logical that costs will go up too, especially if the state decides that the economy isn't worth the loss of lives? Is slippery slope just saying that cause and effect exist now? I don't see how the original comment was unreasonable in asking what is the threshold where economic losses are too high. Halting all economic activity to completely stop the spread of the disease and prevent deaths amounts to a 100% taxation since you are forced to not work and generate revenue. Whether that is acceptable or not isn't my point, but asking the question isn't a fallacy
- helij 7y agoThere are no economic losses too high as long as loss of life is less.
- austhrow743 7y agoThey didn't mention confiscation anywhere.