9/11 commission report as applied to software development: Your project failed because of perfectly understandable reasons - bad engineering, lazy programmers, poor management, or maybe the problem you tried to solve was just dang hard. Nevertheless, management is going to fire a bunch of people to throw a scare into the rest of the programmers. Then they're going to start a Department of Homeland Programming to make sure that no project ever fails again. For the children.
Warren commission report as applied to software development: a bunch of you can get together to kill your project manager. When the police start asking questions, all you need to do is blame it on the weird programmer who does all the work and they will believe you.
OK, here we have an illustration of the root of the problem we face. Some of us have decided that in the balance between burning cheap gasoline and causing the extinction of hundreds of thousands or even millions of species, we really should do all we can to prevent whole species from going extinct.
And some us have decided that if they've got to stuff live monkeys and dolphins into their gas tanks so they can drive to McDonalds, then goddammit they're going to do that. Oh, and when they're questioned about it, they're going to try to claim the moral high ground too.
Even rarer is the man who can suck his own cock, but it's the pussy that makes the money. Imagine, something that half the people on the planet possess has a lot more earning power than the self-sucked cock. It's almost as if the baby Jesus were fucking with the free market just to piss off Ayn Rand!
That's GOT to be a joke. Really, one of the old classics goes like this:
man: Hey Sister, does the Catholic Church save bad girls? nun: Why yes sir, the Catholic Church does indeed save bad girls. man: Well, do you suppose you could save ONE FOR ME?
A slippery slope fallacy is a claim that the conclusion depends on the sequence of statements in a presentation from A, to B, to C. The claim is that C is true, because it follows A and B in the order that it was mentioned.
If you have any justification other than the sequence of events, then that is NOT a slippery slope fallacy, because the conclusion C does not depend on merely the sequence of events mentioned, but upon other connections that have been justified.
In your original example, you justified the sequence like this: "once there is a national ID card it will be easier to add more and more functions over time."
That is CORRECT and is a separate claim that C merely follows A and B. You've modified the statement to this: C follows A and B because of {reasons}. When you add the reasons to the sequence, then those reasons might constitute a valid argument. If you don't have any reasons there, then C might follow A and B, or C might not follow A and B. There would be no justification to decide which.
Now, I'm the guy with the rude nickname, but I'm not being rude here. Can you also not be rude?
I have no idea what you're talking about. It's almost as if you're reading someone else's comments and responding to me.
I run into people like you frequently. They think they're smart, they think they have reading comprehension, but they don't. If you understood what I was writing, then you wouldn't have claimed my position was the OPPOSITE of what it is.
Man, you have a bit of an ego problem don't you? I got rated +5 because I provided an argument that is considered correct by many.
Actually, I have sexual and social problems. But we'll see about how correct your argument is.
I'll try to explain once more, but I don't have much hope that you will understand this time. Still: you seem to be laboring under the impression that a slippery slope is a logical construct, but it is not.
I am not. The slippery slope is a rhetorical construct, and that's it.
A slippery slope does not imply anything, it doesn't logically lead to conclusions, and no one (except for maybe a handful of stupid or gullible people) will take it as such. It just a sad comment on the state of mankind, a lack of trust in our fellow men. It is a suspicion that if something happens now, the only (or primary) goal is to do something else at a later date, thus creating a sequence of steps that leads slowly to an ever less appealing situation.
That's what I said, exactly.
When we talk about a "slippery slope" we imply a lack of trust in those in power. By denying the situation by stating that there is no slippery slope, as you do, you manage to come across as an agent of those in power: "there is nothing to see here! There is no hidden agenda! There is no slippery slope, because *it doesn't exist*!" And that is bullshit: it does exist, as this very article proves, and fearing further steps is a normal and prudent thing to do.
Your argument that a slippery slope is by itself an argument, rather than a description of a suspicion, sounds very much like a straw man. Whether that is because you are manipulative or naive, I cannot tell.
If you have the understanding that I am saying that the slippery slope is an argument, then you are REALLY not understanding what I am saying. The slippery slope is a rhetorical technique. If someone says that the rhetorical technique is the REASON that you should believe what is said is true, that's called a fallacy. The slippery slope is NOT A REASON. It's NOT AN ARGUMENT. If someone claims that it is an argument, then that's a fallacy.
My original post was pointing out to someone else that the slippery slope is a fallacy, and when he claimed that the slippery slope was not a fallacy he was actually using some other argument, not the slippery slope fallacy.
Take a second to understand what I'm saying. I don't think you're getting it, because when you repeated my argument back to me you got it wrong.
I think you understand what's going on. The slippery slope is a fallacy. If you have a non-fallacious justification for a specific sequence which might be possible, then that's not slippery slope fallacy. You're one of the FEW in this thread who understand that the slippery slope fallacy SPECIFICALLY ignores the context of its use. That's a good way to put it.
No, a fallacy cannot be used in ANY way to determine the truth value of a statement. If the statement is wrong, then it's not a fallacy, is it.
Another fallacy, as an example of why a fallacy doesn't have to be wrong:
"Adolph Hitler said the sky was blue. Adolph hitler was evil. Therefore, the sky is not blue."
Obviously, a fallacy doesn't have to be wrong. The fallacy is using an incorrect basis to form a logical conclusion. The conclusion might be right or wrong, but you cannot tell. That's why it's a fallacy.
I think you're not understanding what the slippery slope argument is. The slippery slope argument is not that it's insufficient, it is actually a bad argument.
The slippery slope is fallacious because it argues on the basis of the trend, and nothing else.
These examples are equivalent. 1) "If people eat carrots, and then eat peas, then before long they will be eating ocean liners." 2) If people take away speech, and then guns, before long they will take away lives.
In both cases I've established a trend. If number two sounds more plausible, then that's because you know something ELSE which I've not stated, or argued. The ONLY reason in either sentence to justify it as true is that the items are ordered #1, #2, and #3 in the sentence. The slippery slope is an argument based on the trend which is fallaciously established, and nothing else.
I think you can plainly see that the slippery slope is indeed fallacious, because merely establishing an order in a sentence is does not make the last one in the list true.
If you're using the slippery slope combined with an historical example, that's two things. The slippery slope is indeed a logical fallacy, and is a faulty reason to believe something, so you discard it. The historical example might actually be appropriate and convincing, so might justify the statement. A justified historical example is NOT a slippery slope fallacy.
The slippery slope fallacy means that you say that statement C is true because statement A was true which causes statement B to be true, and there is a progression there. End of argument.
The slipery slope IS a logical fallacy, because it'so often given as the reason something is true. Sometimes, the slippery slope is justified, and sometimes it is not. But that justification has to be determined by some other investigation or rationale. The slippery slope isn't good enough by itself. Don't be confused and think that a logical fallacy is a reason to disbelieve something. Indeed, if someone uses a logical fallacy to justify their argument, then it would be ANOTHER logical fallacy to assume that anything justified by a logical fallacy is false.
In the example you gave, the slippery slope may indeed be justified, but that's because you explained another reason why that is so. It is indeed reasonable to consider that at some point this Real ID will be used to control gun ownership, as it may be possible, and has some historical basis.
However, the slippery slope would not justify a claim that if we have Real ID it will be used to control the purchase of frozen peas. We have made another analysis right there to *rule out* the slippery slope, because it's ridiculous.
Therefore, the slippery slope is indeed a logical fallacy. You ALWAYS have to use some other judgement to validate if it is warranted or not. You cannot determine the truth value of a statement based on the slippery slope alone.
No, he's thinking of Oregon. That's why he wrote Oregon. New Jersey might have their own strange laws, but Oregon definitely doesn't allow self-serve stations.
130x10^6 addresses isn't that many. It'll push off the exhaustion of the address space by a year or two at the most, and then we're still going to need IPv6.
Also, without IPv6, there's only a maximum of 2^32 Linksys routers that will be needed. IPv4 is unfairly capping the maximum number of needed NAT routers, and thus unfairly capping the profits of Cisco. We must think of the cost of IPv4 in terms of corporate profits, or we are doomed. Our economy depends on exponential growth, and that applies to addresses on the Internets too.
Don't be silly. God's at the game, helping the quarterbacks run the ball around the field. When those guys point up after a touchdown, they're not pointing at the blimp. They're pointing at the helpful noodly appendage that bitchslapped the defense.
The only question here is "are you a moron?" I'm a moron, that is known. So, that cannot be the question. But, is someone who argues with a moron themselves a moron? I'm sure you can answer that.
Oopsie! I just spit the cum in my mouth right into your asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me summarize:
9/11 commission report as applied to software development: Your project failed because of perfectly understandable reasons - bad engineering, lazy programmers, poor management, or maybe the problem you tried to solve was just dang hard. Nevertheless, management is going to fire a bunch of people to throw a scare into the rest of the programmers. Then they're going to start a Department of Homeland Programming to make sure that no project ever fails again. For the children.
Warren commission report as applied to software development: a bunch of you can get together to kill your project manager. When the police start asking questions, all you need to do is blame it on the weird programmer who does all the work and they will believe you.
Chinese firewall installed upside down!
OK, here we have an illustration of the root of the problem we face. Some of us have decided that in the balance between burning cheap gasoline and causing the extinction of hundreds of thousands or even millions of species, we really should do all we can to prevent whole species from going extinct.
And some us have decided that if they've got to stuff live monkeys and dolphins into their gas tanks so they can drive to McDonalds, then goddammit they're going to do that. Oh, and when they're questioned about it, they're going to try to claim the moral high ground too.
Oh stop your whining. There have been no white women kidnapped or reported missing this week. Our administration has indeed made all of us safer.
Even rarer is the man who can suck his own cock, but it's the pussy that makes the money. Imagine, something that half the people on the planet possess has a lot more earning power than the self-sucked cock. It's almost as if the baby Jesus were fucking with the free market just to piss off Ayn Rand!
That's GOT to be a joke. Really, one of the old classics goes like this:
man: Hey Sister, does the Catholic Church save bad girls?
nun: Why yes sir, the Catholic Church does indeed save bad girls.
man: Well, do you suppose you could save ONE FOR ME?
I wouldn't take the guy seriously either.
You've toolized the language!
Yes, but Lotus Notes will also make baby Jesus and 300,000 IBM employees cry.
One more try.
A slippery slope fallacy is a claim that the conclusion depends on the sequence of statements in a presentation from A, to B, to C. The claim is that C is true, because it follows A and B in the order that it was mentioned.
If you have any justification other than the sequence of events, then that is NOT a slippery slope fallacy, because the conclusion C does not depend on merely the sequence of events mentioned, but upon other connections that have been justified.
In your original example, you justified the sequence like this: "once there is a national ID card it will be easier to add more and more functions over time."
That is CORRECT and is a separate claim that C merely follows A and B. You've modified the statement to this: C follows A and B because of {reasons}. When you add the reasons to the sequence, then those reasons might constitute a valid argument. If you don't have any reasons there, then C might follow A and B, or C might not follow A and B. There would be no justification to decide which.
Now, I'm the guy with the rude nickname, but I'm not being rude here. Can you also not be rude?
I have no idea what you're talking about. It's almost as if you're reading someone else's comments and responding to me.
I run into people like you frequently. They think they're smart, they think they have reading comprehension, but they don't. If you understood what I was writing, then you wouldn't have claimed my position was the OPPOSITE of what it is.
Man, you have a bit of an ego problem don't you? I got rated +5 because I provided an argument that is considered correct by many.
Actually, I have sexual and social problems. But we'll see about how correct your argument is.
I'll try to explain once more, but I don't have much hope that you will understand this time. Still: you seem to be laboring under the impression that a slippery slope is a logical construct, but it is not.
I am not. The slippery slope is a rhetorical construct, and that's it.
A slippery slope does not imply anything, it doesn't logically lead to conclusions, and no one (except for maybe a handful of stupid or gullible people) will take it as such. It just a sad comment on the state of mankind, a lack of trust in our fellow men. It is a suspicion that if something happens now, the only (or primary) goal is to do something else at a later date, thus creating a sequence of steps that leads slowly to an ever less appealing situation.
That's what I said, exactly.
When we talk about a "slippery slope" we imply a lack of trust in those in power. By denying the situation by stating that there is no slippery slope, as you do, you manage to come across as an agent of those in power: "there is nothing to see here! There is no hidden agenda! There is no slippery slope, because *it doesn't exist*!" And that is bullshit: it does exist, as this very article proves, and fearing further steps is a normal and prudent thing to do.
Your argument that a slippery slope is by itself an argument, rather than a description of a suspicion, sounds very much like a straw man. Whether that is because you are manipulative or naive, I cannot tell.
If you have the understanding that I am saying that the slippery slope is an argument, then you are REALLY not understanding what I am saying. The slippery slope is a rhetorical technique. If someone says that the rhetorical technique is the REASON that you should believe what is said is true, that's called a fallacy. The slippery slope is NOT A REASON. It's NOT AN ARGUMENT. If someone claims that it is an argument, then that's a fallacy.
My original post was pointing out to someone else that the slippery slope is a fallacy, and when he claimed that the slippery slope was not a fallacy he was actually using some other argument, not the slippery slope fallacy.
Take a second to understand what I'm saying. I don't think you're getting it, because when you repeated my argument back to me you got it wrong.
How is this overrated when the guy who responded to me, but isn't correct, gets a 5?
I think you understand what's going on. The slippery slope is a fallacy. If you have a non-fallacious justification for a specific sequence which might be possible, then that's not slippery slope fallacy. You're one of the FEW in this thread who understand that the slippery slope fallacy SPECIFICALLY ignores the context of its use. That's a good way to put it.
No, a fallacy cannot be used in ANY way to determine the truth value of a statement. If the statement is wrong, then it's not a fallacy, is it.
Another fallacy, as an example of why a fallacy doesn't have to be wrong:
"Adolph Hitler said the sky was blue. Adolph hitler was evil. Therefore, the sky is not blue."
Obviously, a fallacy doesn't have to be wrong. The fallacy is using an incorrect basis to form a logical conclusion. The conclusion might be right or wrong, but you cannot tell. That's why it's a fallacy.
I think you're not understanding what the slippery slope argument is. The slippery slope argument is not that it's insufficient, it is actually a bad argument.
The slippery slope is fallacious because it argues on the basis of the trend, and nothing else.
These examples are equivalent. 1) "If people eat carrots, and then eat peas, then before long they will be eating ocean liners." 2) If people take away speech, and then guns, before long they will take away lives.
In both cases I've established a trend. If number two sounds more plausible, then that's because you know something ELSE which I've not stated, or argued. The ONLY reason in either sentence to justify it as true is that the items are ordered #1, #2, and #3 in the sentence. The slippery slope is an argument based on the trend which is fallaciously established, and nothing else.
I think you can plainly see that the slippery slope is indeed fallacious, because merely establishing an order in a sentence is does not make the last one in the list true.
I've written three compilers. My website http://symboltablese.cx/ was a huge disappointment.
If you're using the slippery slope combined with an historical example, that's two things. The slippery slope is indeed a logical fallacy, and is a faulty reason to believe something, so you discard it. The historical example might actually be appropriate and convincing, so might justify the statement. A justified historical example is NOT a slippery slope fallacy.
The slippery slope fallacy means that you say that statement C is true because statement A was true which causes statement B to be true, and there is a progression there. End of argument.
The slipery slope IS a logical fallacy, because it'so often given as the reason something is true. Sometimes, the slippery slope is justified, and sometimes it is not. But that justification has to be determined by some other investigation or rationale. The slippery slope isn't good enough by itself.
Don't be confused and think that a logical fallacy is a reason to disbelieve something. Indeed, if someone uses a logical fallacy to justify their argument, then it would be ANOTHER logical fallacy to assume that anything justified by a logical fallacy is false.
In the example you gave, the slippery slope may indeed be justified, but that's because you explained another reason why that is so. It is indeed reasonable to consider that at some point this Real ID will be used to control gun ownership, as it may be possible, and has some historical basis.
However, the slippery slope would not justify a claim that if we have Real ID it will be used to control the purchase of frozen peas. We have made another analysis right there to *rule out* the slippery slope, because it's ridiculous.
Therefore, the slippery slope is indeed a logical fallacy. You ALWAYS have to use some other judgement to validate if it is warranted or not. You cannot determine the truth value of a statement based on the slippery slope alone.
No, he's thinking of Oregon. That's why he wrote Oregon. New Jersey might have their own strange laws, but Oregon definitely doesn't allow self-serve stations.
What a coincidence. I did the same thing to your girlfriend.
130x10^6 addresses isn't that many. It'll push off the exhaustion of the address space by a year or two at the most, and then we're still going to need IPv6.
Also, without IPv6, there's only a maximum of 2^32 Linksys routers that will be needed. IPv4 is unfairly capping the maximum number of needed NAT routers, and thus unfairly capping the profits of Cisco. We must think of the cost of IPv4 in terms of corporate profits, or we are doomed. Our economy depends on exponential growth, and that applies to addresses on the Internets too.
Don't be silly. God's at the game, helping the quarterbacks run the ball around the field. When those guys point up after a touchdown, they're not pointing at the blimp. They're pointing at the helpful noodly appendage that bitchslapped the defense.
Oh goodness! An expert in shotguns AND tigers! Ladies are fainting everywhere!
The only question here is "are you a moron?" I'm a moron, that is known. So, that cannot be the question. But, is someone who argues with a moron themselves a moron? I'm sure you can answer that.
Oopsie! I just spit the cum in my mouth right into your asshole.
I just came in my own mouth!