... Roughly translated to "I'm right, you're Wrong, because I say so. Nya-nya-nya".
I thought the idea of a hypothesys was to prove them wrong? Which, you havn't even tried to do, instead attacking the method in which I present my theory.
I have proposed my theory and defended the logic as well as the method I used to structure my argument.
You quip about my logic professor? Your entire debate team must have been laughing at you. Try to show evidence against my argument. Prove me wrong. At least give credible reason why my argument is unsound, other then unbacked opinions and unsourced definitions.
While you have gotten the main point of my argument, a few notes I feel I should point out.
On steps 4, 5, and 6, these are not government-mandated. They are voluntary "benifits" to people being used to constant survailance. Hence, the Habituation part of my argument.
Back to the current thread:
There are more then a few definitions of a "Slippery Slope", most of which do not require inevitability, but only probability.
As far as I can tell, my definition and it's application were logical and demonstrated enough of a direct path from one event to the next, that it does not turn my slippery slope argument into a fallacy. Had I continued on and added "The law would easially be mended to require the cameras in the home", then I would have promptly lost the argument, as there is no logical reason that they would be so. Many things are legislated for businesses that are not required in the home. Hence, my logic would falter at that point.
I will admit, freely, that (like Godwin's Law) the slippery slope is so misused that it's lost most of it's credability in rational debate. I do, however, feel that I applied it in appropriate context, backed with enough logic, to support my claims.
I'm sorry, but that page did nothing to prove it's point. It simply listed a few examples of taking the "Slippery Slope" concept to an extreme. A slippery slope is simply a listing of probibal outcomes of a decision. For a proper Slippery Slope hypothesis, each layer of the gradient must be a very probibal outcome of the prior layer.
For example... Proper Slippery Slope: "If the government can request ID if they suspect a crime today, tomorrow they will be able to demand you carry ID on you at all times."
Logically, it's not a large leap. It has evidence to support it (The PATRIOT act wouldn't have passed 20 years ago, and most of it was removing restrictions on powers the police and government already had). It's an effective argument against allowing police to demand ID.
Bad Slippery Slope: "If you change the restrictions that this town has put on cutting down old-growth trees to make way for development, it will lead to widespread deforistation of our natural parks, the resuming of international whaling operations, and the removal of EPA restrictions on noxious emissions. "
This is absurd, has no facts to stand behind it, and plays entirely on emotion and people's natural reactionary nature.
I hope this clears up why the "slippery slope" argument is not a logical fallacy. It can become one if used improperly. Then again, most debate methods can become invalidated when taken to an extreme.
Are you familiar with the concept of a "slippery slope" or the psychological term "Habituation". You don't just go out and install Big Brother...
You start with a camera here, and a camera there. Then you point out how much good it's done and "wasn't that worth a little bit of liberty"? then you install more, and later add the face recognition software, then you put the cameras in old people's homes "for their protection", and then sell them to parents to make sure their billy isn't going to burn down the house. Better, you sell Subscriptions for this "Service". Once it's common place, you legislate these being required for buisnesses "To Ensure children aren't buying alcohol/cigarettes/crack" or to "Allow emergency services to asses the situation before arrival" or similiar.
It's not complete 1984, but it's close enough to make one wince, and it's less "tinfoil hat" then you'd think. Don't believe me? Try to live without a social security or a driver's license number. Live a single month without any form of government issued ID.
A few other issues... Who owns the images caught on CCTV? What if someone happened to see Robin Williams spill his drink on a hapless store clerk? would it be illegal to disclose those images to the public? Should it be?
I read about a novel proposition a while back. An interesting idea in which there are cameras everywhere 9save for private residences). They are monitored by the government, but not exclusivly. Any citizen can connect to those cameras and monitor any of them at any time.
The answer to "Who Watches the Watchers" is quite simply, "The Watched".
Slashdot Mirror
By "Playing" with his "Instruments" all the time!
Why don't you ship those old radios over to me? :D
I'll put them to good use!
73's.
... only up till the line:
Move guy shows up while I'm at lunch. No one told him which PC, so he leaves
It's quite a bit better then "Absolutely No Privacy"...
You just made me shed a tear, remembering the old school days of SegFault.
*whatever happened to "Naked and Petrified"?*
Knot as fishy as Yaw's.
They tried that with Westley, and it didn't work. The Stupid Interdimentional Sky God let him go.
Damn Picard's extremely high Charisma Modifier!
Heh. Tell that to Google.
I wish I could mod you up further. This made me snarf soda through my nose.
Happened in Linux??
You mean like "find" or "locate" or the notorious "grep"???
Sure, we'd complain alright. "Why do we need this?"
I'll get you next time, Gadget! Next time!
*pounds his fist on his armchair*
*cat hiss*
You forget...
The first party to invoke Goodwin's Law automatically loses!
You lose.
"Troll isn't in the DSM, unfortunately.
No...
Just the regular kind.
That the Flywheel is always forgotten?
Skype for Linux
And no, I don't have to compile it. Oh, and have you ever heard of RPM's or packages?
Some windows programs one has to *gasp* download additional software for it to work! (see videos, or anything that requires VBRUN DLL's)
And finally, the parent wasn't arguing about compiling.. the post was arguing about software availability for linux flavors.
Read before you Reply, Moron.
How many times has a windows 2000 user not been able to run XP software?
Just TRY to find a windows 9x copy of Skype! Or a Win95 version of X.popular.software.
FUD indeed.
...
Then write it like everyone else does in the OSS community?
They made a considerable amount of political Cartoons in WWII.
"Der fuhur's Face" for an example. Look it up.
I apologise, then if that was your intention. I can agree to disagree and leave it at that. And so I shall.
... Roughly translated to "I'm right, you're Wrong, because I say so. Nya-nya-nya".
I thought the idea of a hypothesys was to prove them wrong? Which, you havn't even tried to do, instead attacking the method in which I present my theory.
I have proposed my theory and defended the logic as well as the method I used to structure my argument.
You quip about my logic professor? Your entire debate team must have been laughing at you. Try to show evidence against my argument. Prove me wrong. At least give credible reason why my argument is unsound, other then unbacked opinions and unsourced definitions.
While you have gotten the main point of my argument, a few notes I feel I should point out.
On steps 4, 5, and 6, these are not government-mandated. They are voluntary "benifits" to people being used to constant survailance. Hence, the Habituation part of my argument.
Back to the current thread:
There are more then a few definitions of a "Slippery Slope", most of which do not require inevitability, but only probability.
A link to support my statements:
Slippery Slope Definition and Discussion
As far as I can tell, my definition and it's application were logical and demonstrated enough of a direct path from one event to the next, that it does not turn my slippery slope argument into a fallacy. Had I continued on and added "The law would easially be mended to require the cameras in the home", then I would have promptly lost the argument, as there is no logical reason that they would be so. Many things are legislated for businesses that are not required in the home. Hence, my logic would falter at that point.
I will admit, freely, that (like Godwin's Law) the slippery slope is so misused that it's lost most of it's credability in rational debate. I do, however, feel that I applied it in appropriate context, backed with enough logic, to support my claims.
I'm sorry, but that page did nothing to prove it's point. It simply listed a few examples of taking the "Slippery Slope" concept to an extreme. A slippery slope is simply a listing of probibal outcomes of a decision. For a proper Slippery Slope hypothesis, each layer of the gradient must be a very probibal outcome of the prior layer.
For example...
Proper Slippery Slope: "If the government can request ID if they suspect a crime today, tomorrow they will be able to demand you carry ID on you at all times."
Logically, it's not a large leap. It has evidence to support it (The PATRIOT act wouldn't have passed 20 years ago, and most of it was removing restrictions on powers the police and government already had). It's an effective argument against allowing police to demand ID.
Bad Slippery Slope: "If you change the restrictions that this town has put on cutting down old-growth trees to make way for development, it will lead to widespread deforistation of our natural parks, the resuming of international whaling operations, and the removal of EPA restrictions on noxious emissions. "
This is absurd, has no facts to stand behind it, and plays entirely on emotion and people's natural reactionary nature.
I hope this clears up why the "slippery slope" argument is not a logical fallacy. It can become one if used improperly. Then again, most debate methods can become invalidated when taken to an extreme.
Amusingly, I posted this very same comment 5 mins ago. Hooray for being on the same wavelength.
Are you familiar with the concept of a "slippery slope" or the psychological term "Habituation". You don't just go out and install Big Brother...
You start with a camera here, and a camera there. Then you point out how much good it's done and "wasn't that worth a little bit of liberty"? then you install more, and later add the face recognition software, then you put the cameras in old people's homes "for their protection", and then sell them to parents to make sure their billy isn't going to burn down the house. Better, you sell Subscriptions for this "Service". Once it's common place, you legislate these being required for buisnesses "To Ensure children aren't buying alcohol/cigarettes/crack" or to "Allow emergency services to asses the situation before arrival" or similiar.
It's not complete 1984, but it's close enough to make one wince, and it's less "tinfoil hat" then you'd think. Don't believe me? Try to live without a social security or a driver's license number. Live a single month without any form of government issued ID.
A few other issues... Who owns the images caught on CCTV? What if someone happened to see Robin Williams spill his drink on a hapless store clerk? would it be illegal to disclose those images to the public? Should it be?
I read about a novel proposition a while back. An interesting idea in which there are cameras everywhere 9save for private residences). They are monitored by the government, but not exclusivly. Any citizen can connect to those cameras and monitor any of them at any time.
The answer to "Who Watches the Watchers" is quite simply, "The Watched".