3 ms·

> Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy? Is it? It doesn't seem like it is because... > There was no meeting required ... GGP's comment started a

> Is this an example of the slippery slope fallacy? Is it? It doesn't seem like it is because... > There was no meeting required ... GGP's comment started a discussion on this very matter, still ongoing, instead of merely accepting that the term "black market" isn't offensive... Which it isn't. > Is it possible that learning to use different words in many contexts is the same as the act of picking up a thesaurus? How commonly does it not take such a trivial amount of energy? How commonly do you need to expend an enourmous amount of energy to achieve this end? You don't find this whole discussion exhausting? I do, it's entirely asinine. > If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words, then the rest of your sentence's argument is nullified. Because people haven't been fired and/or had their reputations ruined even though they said perfectly legal things? The argument is not nullified just because you try to will it so.

CraigJPerry 6y ago
> still ongoing It's not. The parent and grandparent conversation stopped where they did. Our discussion isn't theirs. We're not pursuing the slippery slope on their behalf, we're not debating the merits of particular word choices. > whole discussion exhausting? I do, it's entirely asinine And yet, you of your own free will continue to engage it. Something doesn't stack up between what you say and what you choose to do but it's your affair, i have no cause to dig deeper so i stop here on this particular avenue. > The argument is not nullified just because you try to will it so. Agreed. Your argument >>> it becomes almost impossible to talk and convey ideas was nullified by: >> If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words A law doesn't make it impossible for me to use the words - i can choose to use the words but only at the cost of breaking the law. It's fair to characterise that as "almost impossible". No construct exists with lesser severity than a law which exceeds the "almost impossible" test. QED. Someone once said "Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you realise the pig likes it."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

CraigJPerry 6y ago

> still ongoing It's not. The parent and grandparent conversation stopped where they did. Our discussion isn't theirs. We're not pursuing the slippery slope on their behalf, we're not debating the merits of particular word choices. > whole discussion exhausting? I do, it's entirely asinine And yet, you of your own free will continue to engage it. Something doesn't stack up between what you say and what you choose to do but it's your affair, i have no cause to dig deeper so i stop here on this particular avenue. > The argument is not nullified just because you try to will it so. Agreed. Your argument >>> it becomes almost impossible to talk and convey ideas was nullified by: >> If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words A law doesn't make it impossible for me to use the words - i can choose to use the words but only at the cost of breaking the law. It's fair to characterise that as "almost impossible". No construct exists with lesser severity than a law which exceeds the "almost impossible" test. QED. Someone once said "Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you realise the pig likes it."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]