Edwards Says an Apple a Day Won't Do

In fact, I could argue much more absurdities, since ib1 argument was simply that if you want government healthcare you have to do what the government tells you.

Cypress' argument was a little better, arguing that it makes economic sense. But then so would controlling diet and exercise.

There are no b-y gradations here. It is one step using the very same logic.

No slippery slope fallacy. Sorry. Try again.

As for how it is to be enforced, the article says nothing of it. But Edwards says it "requires" and "you can't choose."

Like most nationalized industries, the government will complain of overuse and blame the consumer for service failures.
 
Slippery slope is a fallacy and you can't sit there and extrapolate on things using it and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who has passed a college-level English class. Ornot did a pretty good job of explaining why.
 
Yeah, you went to college to learn how to take pictures. We already know that.

Anyway, it is not always a fallacy. I provided three sources all saying the same.
 
Besides the fact that my argument did not include several steps to get to the negative, that the argument for forcing a person to go to the doctor is little different than food nannyism or forcing them into the gym, that I offered argument for why these next steps might come (costs will continue to go up), there is the fact that I posed it as a question rather than a conclusive statement.

You may have went to college, but it does not seem you learned anything there.

And again, this is the course of government in all the industries it controls. It attempts to deter consumption of the product because it fails to deliver adequate supply. With water they fine you if you turn the sprinklers on on the wrong day, electricity they emplore you to turn off lights, roads they use all sorts of coercion to get you to use mass transit or car pool. It will be the same with medicine. The only time the government does not try to discourage consumption is when they need to spend up the budget to justify increases next year.
 
You can't spin away from the fact that in almost every list of logical fallacies you can find, "slippery slope" is one of them. You can't extrapolate on the future like that and pretend it has logical merit. It is a logical fallacy. It is always a logical fallacy, even though the predictions you make with it may come true occasionally.

Edwards is polling better than Ron Paul, by the way. Just throwing that out there.
 
ib1yysguy said:
You can't spin away from the fact that in almost every list of logical fallacies you can find, "slippery slope" is one of them. You can't extrapolate on the future like that and pretend it has logical merit. It is a logical fallacy. It is always a logical fallacy, even though the predictions you make with it may come true occasionally.

Edwards is polling better than Ron Paul, by the way. Just throwing that out there.
Click to expand...

Well, duh he is. Still, Hillary's going to win.

I was just trying to make an ambivalent joke that poked fun at both sides.

How did I know someone was going to bring the poll numbers up?

I really think Ron Paul would poll better if he ran as a Democrat, though.
 
ib1yysguy said:
You can't spin away from the fact that in almost every list of logical fallacies you can find, "slippery slope" is one of them. You can't extrapolate on the future like that and pretend it has logical merit. It is a logical fallacy. It is always a logical fallacy, even though the predictions you make with it may come true occasionally.

Edwards is polling better than Ron Paul, by the way. Just throwing that out there.
Click to expand...
However, among the writing you will find that it can be also a valid argument. You keep insisting when evidence is provided that you are right. That is an actual fallacy, it is called Argument by Pigheadedness (Doggedness).

How does it feel to be right in there with "Flat Earthers"?

He provided three well-written cites that explain that it is not always fallacious.
 
ib1yysguy said:
You can't spin away from the fact that in almost every list of logical fallacies you can find, "slippery slope" is one of them. You can't extrapolate on the future like that and pretend it has logical merit. It is a logical fallacy. It is always a logical fallacy, even though the predictions you make with it may come true occasionally.

Edwards is polling better than Ron Paul, by the way. Just throwing that out there.
Click to expand...

IT IS NOT ALWAYS A LOGICAL FALLACY. I aint spinning shit and the sources I provided were the top three. I did not cherry pick. You're just wrong. Deal with it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=slippery+slope+fallacy
 
What is it with libertarians and using this argument? I think String and I have had this conversation before because he uses it like crack, and even Wikipedia's first example is an argument by a civil libertarian.
 
In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend given another. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later. The argument is sometimes referred to as the thin end of the wedge or the camel's nose. The slippery slope can be valid or fallacious.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy

Ignoring what you don't want to see doesn't change that your argument has become Argument by Pigheadedness, an actual fallacy.
 
Something needs to be done, Republicans answer to the healthcare problem is to quietly propose a plan that clearly will not work, then never take any action to try to implement it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top