5 ms·

This isn't a precedent. There's been some extraditions for decades, each a case with specific details. This is also one case with specific details. The slipper

This isn't a precedent. There's been some extraditions for decades, each a case with specific details. This is also one case with specific details. The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

dontbenebby 4y ago
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  They claimed it's a horrible precedent, except it isn't a precedent. They then went full slippery slope fallacy jumping from Assange to a mythical future (appealing to emotion) Watergate journalist. Watergate type journalists were and are explicitly protected in the US. So the US trying to extradite a journalist for something akin to Watergate is purely nonsense. "And after that, anyone who dissents" - that is full on FUD. Assange is not some gatekeeper between current judicial systems and fantasy dystopian extremes. So this as an endpoint for a slippery slope fallacy is a perfect example. The slippery slope fallacy, to not be a fallacy, needs not only the ends of the slope (which this poster failed at both ends), but an explained or obvious causal mechanism to move from one to the other (also not present - despite going from today to a fantastical extreme). So I don't think I ignored any valid points. Now I'm sure if someone used the above arguments with a "think of the children" to move from one claim to another, you'd rightfully call the argument crap. That Assange's case likely is important to you does not make the above argument any more correct. Feel free to tell me which points were valid.
Ygg2 4y ago
EU politicians believe it will. Other leakers also agreed it would set a dangerous precedent. What are your counter points it won't be a precedent? See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/28/julian-assange-detention-sets-dangerous-precedent-for-journalists https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/28/julian-assange... Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi. Tell me if this sounds familiar. A law is made that targets heinous individuals. Then that law is broadened. Eventually everyone that law is used to target ordinary people or critics. E.g. civil forfeiture laws. Designed to seize organized crime assests. Eventually used to shake down innocent people. Was it used first to shakedown an innocent man? Nah. I'm pretty sure along the way it's use was broadened bit by bit.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >What are your counter points it won't be a precedent? That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. >Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi. I don't even know how to respond - maybe see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope ? If you cherry pick examples - that is not how evidence works. The proper way is to take all laws, not just a few you think supports your case, and see how many have done what you claim is "modus operandi". If the majority have not done what you claim, then more likely to not do what you claim. Also, if laws are going to go where you claim they are, then Assange is not going to be the brick in the wall stopping it.
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    > That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US? > I don't even know how to respond Double check it. > slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent?
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US? Assange is not is being extradited for treason. The US has extradited non-UK people from the UK (and elsewhere) to the US for all sorts of criminal activity. And so have many other countries. That is pretty much the point of something like an INTERPOL Red Notice. Do you think moving from country to country should make arrest warrants invalid? He had his day in court there - they decided extradition was warranted. He'll have his day in court in the US. Here's a list of 14 people extradited from the UK, some of which are not UK citizens [1]. There is very little anything in this case that is ground-breaking precedent. Of course, if you want to keep refining and refining your claims, you can eventually claim this situation is unique, but it's not setting precedent in any legal sense. Everything so far ruled is already under current case law. >Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent? If you think all these things, then Assange being extradited is a non-issue, since the slippery slope you think Assange starts would happen with or without him. Which is it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_extradited_from_the_United_Kingdom_to_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_extradited_fro...

dontbenebby 4y ago

ChrisLomont 4y ago
They claimed it's a horrible precedent, except it isn't a precedent. They then went full slippery slope fallacy jumping from Assange to a mythical future (appealing to emotion) Watergate journalist. Watergate type journalists were and are explicitly protected in the US. So the US trying to extradite a journalist for something akin to Watergate is purely nonsense. "And after that, anyone who dissents" - that is full on FUD. Assange is not some gatekeeper between current judicial systems and fantasy dystopian extremes. So this as an endpoint for a slippery slope fallacy is a perfect example. The slippery slope fallacy, to not be a fallacy, needs not only the ends of the slope (which this poster failed at both ends), but an explained or obvious causal mechanism to move from one to the other (also not present - despite going from today to a fantastical extreme). So I don't think I ignored any valid points. Now I'm sure if someone used the above arguments with a "think of the children" to move from one claim to another, you'd rightfully call the argument crap. That Assange's case likely is important to you does not make the above argument any more correct. Feel free to tell me which points were valid.

Ygg2 4y ago

EU politicians believe it will. Other leakers also agreed it would set a dangerous precedent. What are your counter points it won't be a precedent? See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/28/julian-assange-detention-sets-dangerous-precedent-for-journalists https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/28/julian-assange... Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi. Tell me if this sounds familiar. A law is made that targets heinous individuals. Then that law is broadened. Eventually everyone that law is used to target ordinary people or critics. E.g. civil forfeiture laws. Designed to seize organized crime assests. Eventually used to shake down innocent people. Was it used first to shakedown an innocent man? Nah. I'm pretty sure along the way it's use was broadened bit by bit.

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>What are your counter points it won't be a precedent? That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. >Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi. I don't even know how to respond - maybe see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope ? If you cherry pick examples - that is not how evidence works. The proper way is to take all laws, not just a few you think supports your case, and see how many have done what you claim is "modus operandi". If the majority have not done what you claim, then more likely to not do what you claim. Also, if laws are going to go where you claim they are, then Assange is not going to be the brick in the wall stopping it.
- Ygg2 4y ago
  > That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years. You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US? > I don't even know how to respond Double check it. > slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent?
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US? Assange is not is being extradited for treason. The US has extradited non-UK people from the UK (and elsewhere) to the US for all sorts of criminal activity. And so have many other countries. That is pretty much the point of something like an INTERPOL Red Notice. Do you think moving from country to country should make arrest warrants invalid? He had his day in court there - they decided extradition was warranted. He'll have his day in court in the US. Here's a list of 14 people extradited from the UK, some of which are not UK citizens [1]. There is very little anything in this case that is ground-breaking precedent. Of course, if you want to keep refining and refining your claims, you can eventually claim this situation is unique, but it's not setting precedent in any legal sense. Everything so far ruled is already under current case law. >Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent? If you think all these things, then Assange being extradited is a non-issue, since the slippery slope you think Assange starts would happen with or without him. Which is it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_extradited_from_the_United_Kingdom_to_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_extradited_fro...