4 ms·

Your objection appears to me to be without merit. You are essentially engaged in the fallacy of the slippery slope. There are quite a few countries that provid

by syops 6y ago

Your objection appears to me to be without merit. You are essentially engaged in the fallacy of the slippery slope. There are quite a few countries that provide universal health care without oppressing people by policing their bad health care decisions. You wish to deny universal health care access in the United States because there is a potential that society will enact laws to prevent you from making bad health-related decisions. It's quite hard for me to grasp how this is a legitimate concern of yours. Besides, your bad health-related decisions already cost others money.

hiram112 6y ago
> ...fallacy of the slippery slope. Haha, I hear this phrasing more and more, almost always coming from the left, as we continue to slide faster and faster down the slopes you pretend don't exist. I think the top trending Twitter threads this week are about how the government will soon be rolling out vaccine passports. Six months ago, anyone claiming these were coming would have been chastised for their fallacious slippery slope arguments.
- syops 6y ago
  The fallacy of the slippery slope is not a fallacy because the slope can't ever come to fruition. It's a fallacy because the scary scenario is always a possibility even if the status quo remains. The slippery slope is a fallacy because the fear mongering it uses can be applied to every situation. The essence of the argument I responded to was: I don't want government run healthcare for everyone because some scary scenario might possibly come to fruition. Therefore it's OK that millions don't have adequate access to healthcare. The reasoning is sloppy and this fact has nothing to do with politics.
  - hiram112 6y ago
    Well as a fellow techy who respects logical arguments, I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with your main point. OTOH, outside in the real world i.e. Twitter and Reddit (haha), this rationale is not what was being used to attack dissenters and anyone who dared question the official standard line. Anyone who pointed out a very relevant example of a "colloquial" slippery slope- especially if it was something that was labeled as a conspiracy that we'd never allow happen or to get that far - e.g. vaccine passports, full time remote learning, restricted travel and forced government quarantines at inflated costs, fining small businesses for having one customer while Costco and Walmart are packed to capacity, etc. 6 months ago and was now occuring or being openly considered - was attacked by the mob who maliciously or mistakenly were peddling the "slippery slope argument has been debunked, just like the Earth is not flat - you are banned for 48 hours" to shut down debate.
    - syops 6y ago
      I think how arguments are framed matter. It’s one thing to say, “If A happens then this means scary scenario B will happen.” And another to say, “If A happens then we need to be vigilant that B doesn’t result as a consequence.” The problem as I see it is that debate on policy does not revolve on how best to achieve an outcome. It typically revolves on the mistaken belief that if change comes then either it will be glorious or have dire consequences. In the healthcare debate rational people should want everyone to have access to the healthcare system. So how best to go about achieving that? That should be the focus.

by syops 6y ago

hiram112 6y ago

> ...fallacy of the slippery slope. Haha, I hear this phrasing more and more, almost always coming from the left, as we continue to slide faster and faster down the slopes you pretend don't exist. I think the top trending Twitter threads this week are about how the government will soon be rolling out vaccine passports. Six months ago, anyone claiming these were coming would have been chastised for their fallacious slippery slope arguments.

syops 6y ago
The fallacy of the slippery slope is not a fallacy because the slope can't ever come to fruition. It's a fallacy because the scary scenario is always a possibility even if the status quo remains. The slippery slope is a fallacy because the fear mongering it uses can be applied to every situation. The essence of the argument I responded to was: I don't want government run healthcare for everyone because some scary scenario might possibly come to fruition. Therefore it's OK that millions don't have adequate access to healthcare. The reasoning is sloppy and this fact has nothing to do with politics.
- hiram112 6y ago
  Well as a fellow techy who respects logical arguments, I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with your main point. OTOH, outside in the real world i.e. Twitter and Reddit (haha), this rationale is not what was being used to attack dissenters and anyone who dared question the official standard line. Anyone who pointed out a very relevant example of a "colloquial" slippery slope- especially if it was something that was labeled as a conspiracy that we'd never allow happen or to get that far - e.g. vaccine passports, full time remote learning, restricted travel and forced government quarantines at inflated costs, fining small businesses for having one customer while Costco and Walmart are packed to capacity, etc. 6 months ago and was now occuring or being openly considered - was attacked by the mob who maliciously or mistakenly were peddling the "slippery slope argument has been debunked, just like the Earth is not flat - you are banned for 48 hours" to shut down debate.
  - syops 6y ago
    I think how arguments are framed matter. It’s one thing to say, “If A happens then this means scary scenario B will happen.” And another to say, “If A happens then we need to be vigilant that B doesn’t result as a consequence.” The problem as I see it is that debate on policy does not revolve on how best to achieve an outcome. It typically revolves on the mistaken belief that if change comes then either it will be glorious or have dire consequences. In the healthcare debate rational people should want everyone to have access to the healthcare system. So how best to go about achieving that? That should be the focus.