3 ms·
> Otherwise we are on the slippery slope to, "oh, what they really meant to say is [phrase phrase phrase]". Slippery slope arguments tend to ignore that if a r
by hansvm 6y ago
> Otherwise we are on the slippery slope to, "oh, what they really meant to say is [phrase phrase phrase]".
Slippery slope arguments tend to ignore that if a result is actually unconscionable then regardless of the apparent slope we'll still actually stop somewhere. Additionally, they often could be applied just as well in reverse, indicating some sort of flaw in the reasoning: "We can no longer even substitute proper nouns into our quotations: how long is it till we can't use 'sic', and from there it's a slippery slope to not being able to fully quote people at all for fear of misrepresentation."
In this case though, what would be so bad about the use of brackets changing over time? Changes don't happen in isolation, so presumably people would adapt, recognizing that the author's interpretation probably plays a key role (much as it already does because of the author choosing the context to omit and the new home for an unsuspecting snippet).
- ddingus 6y agoPrior to this use, brackets were clear. Subtract them and what remains is quoted verbatim. Using them this way breaks that and renders both past and future text less clear, and does not add real value otherwise. Real ambiguity becomes codified into otherwise precise expression.
- titzer 6y ago> Slippery slope arguments tend to ignore that if a result is actually unconscionable then regardless of the apparent slope we'll still actually stop somewhere. I disagree. The point of the slippery slope argument is that no one knows where we'll stop, or if at all. We should be cautious in ever starting sliding.