SmarterthanYou
rebel
again, total horseshit. the slippery slope is exactly that. slippery. inevitability is the key, not the timing or speed of it.
Napalm
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.11
- Start date
christiefan915
Catalyst
You're not *proving* inevitability, you're conjecturing.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
i've proven inevitability. I can't help it if you can't acknowledge it.
christiefan915
Catalyst
All you've proven is that one law was passed in one state.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
which is inevitability. it happened once, it can happen again, thus the slippery slope does exist. admit it, you're wrong.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Your argument is right out of Volokh conspiracies. He used the very same example. It doesn't make either of you right, though.
The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.
Often proponents of a "slippery slope" contention propose a long series of intermediate events as the mechanism of connection leading from A to B. The "camel's nose" provides one example of this: once a camel has managed to place its nose within a tent, the rest of the camel will inevitably follow. In this sense the slippery slope resembles the genetic fallacy, but in reverse.
As an example of how an appealing slippery slope argument can be unsound, suppose that whenever a tree falls down, it has a 95% chance of knocking over another tree. We might conclude that soon, a great number of trees would fall; however this is not the case. There is a 5% chance that no more trees will fall, a 4.75% chance that exactly one more tree will fall (and thus a 9.75% chance of 1 or fewer additional trees falling), and so on. There is a 92.3% chance that 50 or fewer additional trees will fall. The expected value of trees that will fall is 20. In the absence of some momentum factor that makes later trees more likely to fall than earlier ones, this "domino effect" approaches zero probability.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No, that didn't happen but it has pretty much backfired too. Not only did the demand for automatic weapons increase substantially after the Brady Bill but it's to easy to make work arounds to make semi-auto weapons that were legal into auto weapons that were not. As a law the Brady Bill has been a failure. There are more assault rifles on the market after the Brady Bill then they're were before the Brady Bill because the Brady Bill created demand for assualt rifles where hardly any had existed before.
Don't get me wrong, this attitude that we can't draw a line about military style weapons being publically available is a slippery slope to undermining our second amendment rights is prepsterous!
Think about the damage to society that Cap'n Billy could do with a tank! Think about the damage to society 3D could do with missle launcher! Think about the damage to society Grind could do with a plastic spoon!
christiefan915
Catalyst
I can't admit it exists re: gun regulation because it doesn't. I know you need to believe you're right, though.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Since the Brady Bill was about background checks, I'm not sure what the demand for weapons has to do with it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... is this the new code phrase by the fear mongers? 'military style weapons'... you fear mongers are certainly a funny lot.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the 2nd Amendment IS about military weapons you dolt.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you're saying that gun regulation doesn't exist now?
christiefan915
Catalyst
All I'm saying is that reasonable regulation of arms and ammo does not inevitably lead to a total ban of arms and ammo.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
would you be willing to stipulate that regulation of arms and ammo CAN lead to a total ban on arms and/or ammo?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
It was freaking hilarious. They are just grumpy old men. Bravo must have aged them somehow.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Are you trying to tell me that society shouldn't be alarmed at the thought of Grind being turned loose on society with a plastic spoon??!!
christiefan915
Catalyst
No, because I don't believe that the 2nd amendment will or should be overturned, and that would need to happen to get a total ban.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I had the absolute honor and blessing of interviewing Mamie Till for an Atlanta radio station 3 weeks before her death. Her aura and power emanated through the phone. Seriously. It was a spiritual experience.
She never received the recognition that she deserved for demanding that her son's casket remained open .. even under threats of death.
She looked so much like my own mother.
Thanks for posting this.
What a beautiful picture BAC.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I consider that nothing more than a copout to avoid the iinevitable.
when my brother was killed, he had an old pre-wwi 30-06 rifle which i inherited (the -06 stands for the year it was originally made)
our military used it during wwi and the first part of wwii (i guess it could be called an assault weapon, but it only held 5 rounds in its internal clip and it had a bolt action not semi-automatic, and oh yes, it had a mount for a bayonet, but no flash suppressor
it is an excellent hunting rifle and yes it would go bang, bang, bang and was designed to kill people or whatever living thing it was aimed at or paper targets...
firearm design evolves and firearms may be used for either war or hunting...target practice or hunting and killing people