Isn’t there a logical fallacy that says that assuming something is wrong because it’s a logical fallacy a logical fallacy?
I wouldn’t say that her argument was slippery slope but rather an understanding that history repeats itself. She saw what happened before, made a prediction based on that knowledge, and she just so happened to be right.
I too was for the right to die and I still am to some extent, but a few months ago I heard on the news of a disabled man who wanted to die and was assisted by the hospital because he didn’t want to face a lifetime of unemployment. That made me raise an eyebrow.
One tragic irony of society is that we tell people that getting a job and paying taxes is how we contribute to society and that being on welfare or disability makes us leaches, and yet in order to get a job, we have to jump through hoops, hand out resume after resume, take a social test in the form of job interviews, take long gruelling quizzes, and once we finally do get a job, we’re treated like we don’t deserve to be there.
The thing about the disabled man wasn’t the fact that he wanted to die, but the fact that the hospital just went along with it.
I’m not even sure if what they did even was legal since my Mom is a nurse and I asked her about assisted suicide and she said that unless someone is terminally ill, if they want to die, it’s going to be assumed that they’re not in their right mind and will probably be admitted to the psych ward.
Plus, even for people who are terminally ill, assisted suicide is not common. It’s far more common for people to have a do not resuscitate order, which means that they’ll still have meds to help with pain, but if they get a heart attack or stop breathing, life saving measures will not be taken.
The fact that assisted suicide is not even common among those who are terminally ill, should definitely raise concerns when we’re suddenly helping non-terminal patients commit suicide.
It is only as I've gotten older that I realized that slippery slope is not only a potentially valid argument but that there are people who for the most part intend to take advantage of any slippery slopes that they may cause.
Cancer will never be cured for this reason. It's an institution. Politics works this way also. Problems will never be solved as long as they can be weaponized. 'Health care' is an industry that keeps us sick and profitable until we've outlived our profit potential, then we're let out to die. Our government kills us and rallies the 'sides' against each other so we don't see what they're doing. I get all that. I also get that greedy relatives will always try to get a rich relative to die so they can get to the will. But I don't agree that people suffering should have the decision to end their lives controlled by other people. There are going to be evil people who will take advantage of any situation. Always. Some people will suffer and die. Always. There's no absolute answer.
The government sees us as a commodity and isn't looking out for people. Politicians get rich from corporations lobbying them. If you pay them enough, they'll let someone else kill you. Through a doctor, a lawyer, whatever. Taking away people's rights and devaluing their lives in the name of protecting them isn't the answer. Safeguards can be put in place. Evil people will always abuse the system and people will get hurt. But the greater good is always giving people control over their own decisions and their own lives.
I agree with most of what you are saying. But, medical professionals are committed to finding cures and ways to prevent various cancers. As a result, some cancers are being prevented, and others are becoming better understood, and treated. There are over a hundred cancers, and that's just the ones that are known. There's likely many more. So, cancer is not one disease to be cured. It would be more accurate to say curing cancers, but the cures would be as variable and complex as the diseases are. Progress in cancer research and treatment has resulted in significant survival rates and quality of life for patients. Fortunately, politicians are not able to corrupt these dedicated professionals.
I agree wholeheartedly that no one has the right to control a decision to end one's life. I think often of Robin Williams, and his diagnosis of Lewy body dementia. He wasn't willing to face that devastating mind destroying disease, and I don't blame him. He committed suicide by hanging. Wouldn't it have been better for him and his loved ones if he could have had access to a cocktail that would have enabled him to talk to his family before dying peacefully, rather than with violence?
What I believe is the idea of deciding if euthanasia should be allowed from a moral and human point of view is different than deciding of its implementation will be a sucess.
I agree with Athena and Adrianna because their ideas don't essentialy contradict one another. It seems to me Athena is deciding whether euthanasia should be allowed from a small scale and Adrianna is pointing out the flaws of allowing it in a much bigger scale, like USA.
For any idea to be successful it has to be valid from a small scale first. By small scale I mean "your personal moral, what would you do if you were in power to make a decision to allow someone to end their own life" and a big scale would be that of a nation, having everyone allowed to choose.
I still believe it has to be a way to allow euthanasia for the right reasons and control the misuse of this practice. Implementation is a very complex thing, and that includes the situations it should be allowed or not.
Don't even get me started on mental illness because there is a whole debate whether someone in this situation is actually lucid or not, since a mental illness affect one's hability to judge.
About the slippery slope regarding drugs, I have a friend in Denver who enjoys mild recreational drugs like marijuana, so the fact that this was legal was a plus for him. But, after small amounts of hard drugs were decriminalized, it attracted criminals selling fentanyl, and legally holding under the limits the law specified. However, this drug is powerful enough in minute amounts to destroy an entire city. My friend has lamented how this has ravaged the once beautiful area with criminals emboldened by the fact that they won't get arrested.
So, I understand unintended consequences such as this. But, legally, the law could simply be amended to exclude heavy drugs, and stiff penalties should return to those selling them. Mistakes were made by those who were interested in harm reduction, but inadvertently escalated harm.
As for assisted suicide, I believe it should be legal by confining it to the terminally ill alone, as judged by several professionals, and only by request. Mentally ill patients still have the possibility for improvement, as do the disabled.
As long as competition is important for our survival, humans will resort to brutality in tough times. Or if they are convinced of an imaginary threat by politicians. It's simply adaptive. Groups that were too kind in tough times were wiped out more often.
Even if hundreds or thousands of years from now, we move into a post scarcity society, aggression and fear will find some new imagined target. These genes will take a very long time to evolve away if condition even make that possible. It's not something that could happen in a in the course of 100 years.
As for slippery slopes, taking one step does not make a more extreme step inevitable, but in human society, where change tends to be incremental, that step does remove one barrier and make that more extreme step easier to achieve.
Logical fallacies are good for understanding arguments, but logic is a poor way to understand humans.
I think people understand that it is human nature to push past barriers hence the necessity of guarding against the slippery slope/thin-end of the wedge issues. It is mostly about cultural tolerance, meaningful experience and trust in the decision making process in dealing with these difficult issues. For example, no batted an eye lid when the samurai were carrying out ritual suicide in response to 'unbearable' shame, in fact it was accepted and expected by that society.
Certainly, I once watched a documentary about the renowned kamikaze pilots from WWII. Many were compelled to serve due to both subtle and overt threats to their families' well-being, primarily through deliberate ostracization. Such threats, even back then, were powerful enough to drive these individuals to commit military suicide in the name of the emperor. These were young men with young families; it's interesting but certainly disheartening to see the lengths to which people can be pushed.
Yet another sample where greed or ego can derail the best intentions. “These people don’t realize the gift of help I’m offering them (after a failed SJW campaign). “It’s for a good cause, so why shouldn’t I be allowed to dip into the charity coffers to sustain my fairly modest lifestyle. I’m no Elon, after all!” “Where would they be without me and the others working for them? Besides, my white steed needs a new saddle.”
Even if the good you’re doing outweighs the bad, you’re entire focus should be on the group or demographic subcategory you happen to be dealing with. And that includes admitting your approach is flawed, maybe a little too informed by your own take on the situation and the solution. Even in this particular situation, the seemingly simple right to die by choice won’t likely survive the politics, opinionation (not a real word, but I’m on a roll), religious scrutiny and outrage, or all the other human responses flavored by the personal emotions and values of those making the ‘helpful, caring and intelligent’ choices - with little or no reconsideration, at least, of their own opinions. Especially when confronted with disagreement from the very people they profess to be helping. Not even A for effort.
PETA people fancy themselves to be kind and caring towards animals, but most of them just want to point the finger at thee lesser pseudo humans who don’t give animals all the love they deserve that PETA people do. Ego and elitism, once again. Some people see themselves as higher spiritual beings who can bond with grizzlies, climb into a tiger’s cage at the zoo, kiss a shark (I saw this on YouTub, I think), and so on. Dr. Doolittle wanna-be’s who invariably get schooled by the animals in question. Jane Goodall is one shining exception, but gorillas are a different story. But even their trust has to be earned, and they have the option to change their minds. The Planet of the Apes movies’ promise is that they evolved to be closer to us - and how did that work out? For wild animals - and even poorly-trained or abused animals, thee message is “Stay in your own lane.”
"It was when young people who were sick with covid were sent to nursing homes, and shared rooms with elderly people, infecting them with covid, and leading to somewhere around thirty thousand deaths."
I was shocked by this. Where did this happen? Do you have a link about it? I can't find this anywhere.
I know that it happened in New York and in Michigan along with other states. It isn't easily found now. There is a serious problem with censorship. If it is unappealing or untoward, it will be hidden by the tech companies. You will not find it with Google. You have to use alternative browsers like duck duck go. Here is one of the articles from 2020, but it is one of many that have disappeared into the ether. Around 30,000 people died from these policies that were nothing less than intentional.
It is because of this policy that an elderly man was beaten to death, and this attack was filmed by the attacker, by one of these young covid patients placed in a nursing home. The claim is that he was mentally ill, but that claim means nothing as he should never have been there to begin with:
Wow. I feel like an innocent abroad! Thank you for clarifying, Athena. I have duck duck go, so will research from there. What motive do you think the tech companies have for covering this up?
My personal knowledge is limited, and comes from my partner's mother's situation in an assisted living facility which was in lockdown so tight that they couldn't even go to the dining room. Meals were brought to their rooms. Eventually, this isolation led to my partner's mother accusing her daughters of putting her in an insane asylum, because she couldn't understand her restrictions and isolation. She felt punished. It was a terribly tough time. After she moved to a Catholic apartment for more intensive care and hospice, relatives, knowing that she was near death, started to call on her, and inadvertently gave her covid, which ultimately killed her. But, she was so near death that it merely hastened it. No one, of course, intended to give anyone covid. They just didn't know that they had it. It's plausible that staff who were unaware that they were sick could have infected her, too.
I wonder if Andrew Cuomo's downfall had more to do with the nursing home fiasco than with the allegations made by the young women he wanted to date. I never understood exactly what the women were complaining about. It's pretty easy to sweetly tell your boss that you don't date at work. End of story. It didn't seem damning enough to force him out of office. But, I don't expect men to always be perfect gentlemen. But, this story about nursing homes is profoundly damning. Ditto the Michagan story, and others.
It isn't so much which news sources I use specifically, but rather my mentality when approaching information. My basis for trust is whether or not what they say is independently verifiable, and have they lied to me to push an agenda. If I apply my standard of:
"Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes"
and they cannot pass muster, and most don't, I won't be bothered with them. It is unfortunate when having discussions with people because I am very plugged in to many different sources of information. I have seen and am paying attention to vastly more information than the average person, and often I have average people say things that are patently untrue but because they were told this information by a "reliable news source" they aren't interested in hearing anything different.
People often trust and believe in those that they *feel* are honest and trustworthy. Often this is from parents and/or a peer group who follow the same news sources. When this is despite all evidence to the contrary, they just double down in their loyalty. Their messengers usually appeal to their confirmation biases. A lot of what I think you're observing is the way emotions get tangled up in situations requiring reason, and objective facts for analysis. Instead loyalty to the messengers or tribe undermine the truth. They just believe what their tribe believes so they don't have to bother to think for themselves. They are too lazy to hear something different that would challenge the status quo, possibly upending their worldview. This same dynamic is true from the professionals who don't want to be challenged by what you have to say about psychopathy.
Thank you for another great article. Loads of good points in there and conversations that could follow from this... one thing that occurs to me to say is that life situations often have multiple issues each with their own slippery (or non-slippery) slopes, paths, knots, and mobius strips involved. Noticing another of the myriad issues involved can be what stops a slide down one of those slippery slopes; life's slopes tend to have way more dimensions than a playground slide.
I'm relieved to find out that humanity has a capability to learn from our own mistakes. Mistakes might just need to be monumental.
"...It may also pursue, as a legitimate purpose, the aim of preventing assisted suicide from becoming recognised within society as a normal way of ending life. In this regard, the legislator may intervene to counteract developments that potentially create social expectations pressuring individuals in certain situations to take their own life, e.g. based on considerations of usefulness." [1]
Thank you for this fascinating discussion of the slippery slope fallacy, political discorse, logical fallacy and unintended (or even intended) outcomes.
The question which has not been asked so far (at least as far as I can tell) is that if a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, is there an alternate argumentation which is cogent? What part of the argument can be corrected? Causation? Blowback/Unintended consequences? Likelyhood and cost of adverse outcomes? Any other ideas?
I think that the lesson is to understand that a slippery slope argument can't be dismissed out of hand. It is a prescription for a step back and develop the ability to predict the consequences of what is being proposed. It is also about being able to understand the distance or depths that others are willing to take things. It is a matter of knowing that others are not as rational and balanced as you are, and assuming that they are is what allows those that will take things way too far room to operate.
Humans assume way too much good in their fellow humans, and they want to believe that those around them want the same things. It feels good emotionally so it makes sense to the emotionally logical brain. It isn't so much about how to counter a slippery slope argument, it is a matter of evaluating it and seeing if it has even a small amount chance to be factual. If there is a small chance to you, it is pretty guaranteed that there are people that are entirely invested in making that outcome come to pass.
It's more about internal reflection than it is about presenting an argument that is better than the slippery slope. If you can find the truth, or lack thereof in the argument, then you can verbalize that in a more present and cogent argument.
Given my experience and self-understanding, I think that what has happened is that you have effectively invalidated the slippery slope fallacy by arguing from empirical evidence and observed human behavior, which can be supplied as additional facts. With the additional information, this can still be argued in either an even-handed or even compassionate way, let alone a pessimistic one.
If someone still responds in hostility, this tends to uncover the other party's motivations and brings the discourse to a new level for third parties.
Side note, I realize that this did not pass in 2019, but I'll be watching for it again, as I'm sure they will try again. I'll be paying closer attention from now on.
I live in Minnesota and had no idea. I'll definitely be writing to them to express my concerns. They need far more strict rules in place to protect people, before they let this pass.
I could see if this passes, and it probably will, a huge slippery slope. .. no, a dive off the cliff. I'll do my part to put up a stop.
Isn’t there a logical fallacy that says that assuming something is wrong because it’s a logical fallacy a logical fallacy?
I wouldn’t say that her argument was slippery slope but rather an understanding that history repeats itself. She saw what happened before, made a prediction based on that knowledge, and she just so happened to be right.
I too was for the right to die and I still am to some extent, but a few months ago I heard on the news of a disabled man who wanted to die and was assisted by the hospital because he didn’t want to face a lifetime of unemployment. That made me raise an eyebrow.
One tragic irony of society is that we tell people that getting a job and paying taxes is how we contribute to society and that being on welfare or disability makes us leaches, and yet in order to get a job, we have to jump through hoops, hand out resume after resume, take a social test in the form of job interviews, take long gruelling quizzes, and once we finally do get a job, we’re treated like we don’t deserve to be there.
The thing about the disabled man wasn’t the fact that he wanted to die, but the fact that the hospital just went along with it.
Yes, the banality of evil.
"It's legal, so why not?"
Seems to be too easy of a conclusion for people to reach.
I’m not even sure if what they did even was legal since my Mom is a nurse and I asked her about assisted suicide and she said that unless someone is terminally ill, if they want to die, it’s going to be assumed that they’re not in their right mind and will probably be admitted to the psych ward.
Plus, even for people who are terminally ill, assisted suicide is not common. It’s far more common for people to have a do not resuscitate order, which means that they’ll still have meds to help with pain, but if they get a heart attack or stop breathing, life saving measures will not be taken.
The fact that assisted suicide is not even common among those who are terminally ill, should definitely raise concerns when we’re suddenly helping non-terminal patients commit suicide.
I agree. It should really be carefully considered in every single case
It is only as I've gotten older that I realized that slippery slope is not only a potentially valid argument but that there are people who for the most part intend to take advantage of any slippery slopes that they may cause.
Yes, exactly
Cancer will never be cured for this reason. It's an institution. Politics works this way also. Problems will never be solved as long as they can be weaponized. 'Health care' is an industry that keeps us sick and profitable until we've outlived our profit potential, then we're let out to die. Our government kills us and rallies the 'sides' against each other so we don't see what they're doing. I get all that. I also get that greedy relatives will always try to get a rich relative to die so they can get to the will. But I don't agree that people suffering should have the decision to end their lives controlled by other people. There are going to be evil people who will take advantage of any situation. Always. Some people will suffer and die. Always. There's no absolute answer.
The government sees us as a commodity and isn't looking out for people. Politicians get rich from corporations lobbying them. If you pay them enough, they'll let someone else kill you. Through a doctor, a lawyer, whatever. Taking away people's rights and devaluing their lives in the name of protecting them isn't the answer. Safeguards can be put in place. Evil people will always abuse the system and people will get hurt. But the greater good is always giving people control over their own decisions and their own lives.
I agree with most of what you are saying. But, medical professionals are committed to finding cures and ways to prevent various cancers. As a result, some cancers are being prevented, and others are becoming better understood, and treated. There are over a hundred cancers, and that's just the ones that are known. There's likely many more. So, cancer is not one disease to be cured. It would be more accurate to say curing cancers, but the cures would be as variable and complex as the diseases are. Progress in cancer research and treatment has resulted in significant survival rates and quality of life for patients. Fortunately, politicians are not able to corrupt these dedicated professionals.
I agree wholeheartedly that no one has the right to control a decision to end one's life. I think often of Robin Williams, and his diagnosis of Lewy body dementia. He wasn't willing to face that devastating mind destroying disease, and I don't blame him. He committed suicide by hanging. Wouldn't it have been better for him and his loved ones if he could have had access to a cocktail that would have enabled him to talk to his family before dying peacefully, rather than with violence?
What I believe is the idea of deciding if euthanasia should be allowed from a moral and human point of view is different than deciding of its implementation will be a sucess.
I agree with Athena and Adrianna because their ideas don't essentialy contradict one another. It seems to me Athena is deciding whether euthanasia should be allowed from a small scale and Adrianna is pointing out the flaws of allowing it in a much bigger scale, like USA.
For any idea to be successful it has to be valid from a small scale first. By small scale I mean "your personal moral, what would you do if you were in power to make a decision to allow someone to end their own life" and a big scale would be that of a nation, having everyone allowed to choose.
I still believe it has to be a way to allow euthanasia for the right reasons and control the misuse of this practice. Implementation is a very complex thing, and that includes the situations it should be allowed or not.
Don't even get me started on mental illness because there is a whole debate whether someone in this situation is actually lucid or not, since a mental illness affect one's hability to judge.
Excellent points, Athena. Thank you.
About the slippery slope regarding drugs, I have a friend in Denver who enjoys mild recreational drugs like marijuana, so the fact that this was legal was a plus for him. But, after small amounts of hard drugs were decriminalized, it attracted criminals selling fentanyl, and legally holding under the limits the law specified. However, this drug is powerful enough in minute amounts to destroy an entire city. My friend has lamented how this has ravaged the once beautiful area with criminals emboldened by the fact that they won't get arrested.
So, I understand unintended consequences such as this. But, legally, the law could simply be amended to exclude heavy drugs, and stiff penalties should return to those selling them. Mistakes were made by those who were interested in harm reduction, but inadvertently escalated harm.
As for assisted suicide, I believe it should be legal by confining it to the terminally ill alone, as judged by several professionals, and only by request. Mentally ill patients still have the possibility for improvement, as do the disabled.
Humans are scary sometimes. There seems to be no bottom to some people’s selfishness.
This is true based on my observations
As long as competition is important for our survival, humans will resort to brutality in tough times. Or if they are convinced of an imaginary threat by politicians. It's simply adaptive. Groups that were too kind in tough times were wiped out more often.
Even if hundreds or thousands of years from now, we move into a post scarcity society, aggression and fear will find some new imagined target. These genes will take a very long time to evolve away if condition even make that possible. It's not something that could happen in a in the course of 100 years.
As for slippery slopes, taking one step does not make a more extreme step inevitable, but in human society, where change tends to be incremental, that step does remove one barrier and make that more extreme step easier to achieve.
Logical fallacies are good for understanding arguments, but logic is a poor way to understand humans.
I think people understand that it is human nature to push past barriers hence the necessity of guarding against the slippery slope/thin-end of the wedge issues. It is mostly about cultural tolerance, meaningful experience and trust in the decision making process in dealing with these difficult issues. For example, no batted an eye lid when the samurai were carrying out ritual suicide in response to 'unbearable' shame, in fact it was accepted and expected by that society.
And it even isn't like all of them were always super eager, there was a level of coercion. But culturally accepted one.
Certainly, I once watched a documentary about the renowned kamikaze pilots from WWII. Many were compelled to serve due to both subtle and overt threats to their families' well-being, primarily through deliberate ostracization. Such threats, even back then, were powerful enough to drive these individuals to commit military suicide in the name of the emperor. These were young men with young families; it's interesting but certainly disheartening to see the lengths to which people can be pushed.
Indeed. Humans are very complex
Yet another sample where greed or ego can derail the best intentions. “These people don’t realize the gift of help I’m offering them (after a failed SJW campaign). “It’s for a good cause, so why shouldn’t I be allowed to dip into the charity coffers to sustain my fairly modest lifestyle. I’m no Elon, after all!” “Where would they be without me and the others working for them? Besides, my white steed needs a new saddle.”
Even if the good you’re doing outweighs the bad, you’re entire focus should be on the group or demographic subcategory you happen to be dealing with. And that includes admitting your approach is flawed, maybe a little too informed by your own take on the situation and the solution. Even in this particular situation, the seemingly simple right to die by choice won’t likely survive the politics, opinionation (not a real word, but I’m on a roll), religious scrutiny and outrage, or all the other human responses flavored by the personal emotions and values of those making the ‘helpful, caring and intelligent’ choices - with little or no reconsideration, at least, of their own opinions. Especially when confronted with disagreement from the very people they profess to be helping. Not even A for effort.
This comment is reminding me of PETA and Autism Speaks.
PETA is invariably evil
PETA people fancy themselves to be kind and caring towards animals, but most of them just want to point the finger at thee lesser pseudo humans who don’t give animals all the love they deserve that PETA people do. Ego and elitism, once again. Some people see themselves as higher spiritual beings who can bond with grizzlies, climb into a tiger’s cage at the zoo, kiss a shark (I saw this on YouTub, I think), and so on. Dr. Doolittle wanna-be’s who invariably get schooled by the animals in question. Jane Goodall is one shining exception, but gorillas are a different story. But even their trust has to be earned, and they have the option to change their minds. The Planet of the Apes movies’ promise is that they evolved to be closer to us - and how did that work out? For wild animals - and even poorly-trained or abused animals, thee message is “Stay in your own lane.”
I’ll have to look Autism Speaks up.
"It was when young people who were sick with covid were sent to nursing homes, and shared rooms with elderly people, infecting them with covid, and leading to somewhere around thirty thousand deaths."
I was shocked by this. Where did this happen? Do you have a link about it? I can't find this anywhere.
I know that it happened in New York and in Michigan along with other states. It isn't easily found now. There is a serious problem with censorship. If it is unappealing or untoward, it will be hidden by the tech companies. You will not find it with Google. You have to use alternative browsers like duck duck go. Here is one of the articles from 2020, but it is one of many that have disappeared into the ether. Around 30,000 people died from these policies that were nothing less than intentional.
https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/cuomo-sent-6300-covid-19-patients-to-nursing-homes-amid-pandemic/
Here is more information about it from the US Department of Justice:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-requesting-data-governors-states-issued-covid-19-orders-may-have-resulted
It is because of this policy that an elderly man was beaten to death, and this attack was filmed by the attacker, by one of these young covid patients placed in a nursing home. The claim is that he was mentally ill, but that claim means nothing as he should never have been there to begin with:
https://www.wxyz.com/news/charges-dismissed-against-covid-patient-who-assaulted-senior-citizen-in-nursing-home
Wow. I feel like an innocent abroad! Thank you for clarifying, Athena. I have duck duck go, so will research from there. What motive do you think the tech companies have for covering this up?
My personal knowledge is limited, and comes from my partner's mother's situation in an assisted living facility which was in lockdown so tight that they couldn't even go to the dining room. Meals were brought to their rooms. Eventually, this isolation led to my partner's mother accusing her daughters of putting her in an insane asylum, because she couldn't understand her restrictions and isolation. She felt punished. It was a terribly tough time. After she moved to a Catholic apartment for more intensive care and hospice, relatives, knowing that she was near death, started to call on her, and inadvertently gave her covid, which ultimately killed her. But, she was so near death that it merely hastened it. No one, of course, intended to give anyone covid. They just didn't know that they had it. It's plausible that staff who were unaware that they were sick could have infected her, too.
I wonder if Andrew Cuomo's downfall had more to do with the nursing home fiasco than with the allegations made by the young women he wanted to date. I never understood exactly what the women were complaining about. It's pretty easy to sweetly tell your boss that you don't date at work. End of story. It didn't seem damning enough to force him out of office. But, I don't expect men to always be perfect gentlemen. But, this story about nursing homes is profoundly damning. Ditto the Michagan story, and others.
The policy makers want to do what they want to do without outrage or pushback from the populace. The tech and media companies run interference.
There's no truth in the news and no news in the truth.
You are very astute, Athena. Which news sources do you consider to be the most consistently reliable?
It isn't so much which news sources I use specifically, but rather my mentality when approaching information. My basis for trust is whether or not what they say is independently verifiable, and have they lied to me to push an agenda. If I apply my standard of:
"Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes"
and they cannot pass muster, and most don't, I won't be bothered with them. It is unfortunate when having discussions with people because I am very plugged in to many different sources of information. I have seen and am paying attention to vastly more information than the average person, and often I have average people say things that are patently untrue but because they were told this information by a "reliable news source" they aren't interested in hearing anything different.
People often trust and believe in those that they *feel* are honest and trustworthy. Often this is from parents and/or a peer group who follow the same news sources. When this is despite all evidence to the contrary, they just double down in their loyalty. Their messengers usually appeal to their confirmation biases. A lot of what I think you're observing is the way emotions get tangled up in situations requiring reason, and objective facts for analysis. Instead loyalty to the messengers or tribe undermine the truth. They just believe what their tribe believes so they don't have to bother to think for themselves. They are too lazy to hear something different that would challenge the status quo, possibly upending their worldview. This same dynamic is true from the professionals who don't want to be challenged by what you have to say about psychopathy.
I didn't know that. I am not surprised it wouldn't show up on Google.
Thank you for another great article. Loads of good points in there and conversations that could follow from this... one thing that occurs to me to say is that life situations often have multiple issues each with their own slippery (or non-slippery) slopes, paths, knots, and mobius strips involved. Noticing another of the myriad issues involved can be what stops a slide down one of those slippery slopes; life's slopes tend to have way more dimensions than a playground slide.
Thank you for pointing to a raising issue.
I'm relieved to find out that humanity has a capability to learn from our own mistakes. Mistakes might just need to be monumental.
"...It may also pursue, as a legitimate purpose, the aim of preventing assisted suicide from becoming recognised within society as a normal way of ending life. In this regard, the legislator may intervene to counteract developments that potentially create social expectations pressuring individuals in certain situations to take their own life, e.g. based on considerations of usefulness." [1]
[1] https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/bvg20-012.html
Thank you for this fascinating discussion of the slippery slope fallacy, political discorse, logical fallacy and unintended (or even intended) outcomes.
The question which has not been asked so far (at least as far as I can tell) is that if a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, is there an alternate argumentation which is cogent? What part of the argument can be corrected? Causation? Blowback/Unintended consequences? Likelyhood and cost of adverse outcomes? Any other ideas?
I think that the lesson is to understand that a slippery slope argument can't be dismissed out of hand. It is a prescription for a step back and develop the ability to predict the consequences of what is being proposed. It is also about being able to understand the distance or depths that others are willing to take things. It is a matter of knowing that others are not as rational and balanced as you are, and assuming that they are is what allows those that will take things way too far room to operate.
Humans assume way too much good in their fellow humans, and they want to believe that those around them want the same things. It feels good emotionally so it makes sense to the emotionally logical brain. It isn't so much about how to counter a slippery slope argument, it is a matter of evaluating it and seeing if it has even a small amount chance to be factual. If there is a small chance to you, it is pretty guaranteed that there are people that are entirely invested in making that outcome come to pass.
It's more about internal reflection than it is about presenting an argument that is better than the slippery slope. If you can find the truth, or lack thereof in the argument, then you can verbalize that in a more present and cogent argument.
Outstanding response!
Given my experience and self-understanding, I think that what has happened is that you have effectively invalidated the slippery slope fallacy by arguing from empirical evidence and observed human behavior, which can be supplied as additional facts. With the additional information, this can still be argued in either an even-handed or even compassionate way, let alone a pessimistic one.
If someone still responds in hostility, this tends to uncover the other party's motivations and brings the discourse to a new level for third parties.
Side note, I realize that this did not pass in 2019, but I'll be watching for it again, as I'm sure they will try again. I'll be paying closer attention from now on.
Well written as always.
Thank you for the link as well.
I live in Minnesota and had no idea. I'll definitely be writing to them to express my concerns. They need far more strict rules in place to protect people, before they let this pass.
I could see if this passes, and it probably will, a huge slippery slope. .. no, a dive off the cliff. I'll do my part to put up a stop.