81–90 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like how speed limits necessitate the arrest of everyone who drives.
Your comparison would be true if the speed limit differentiated on the intent on the speeder, e.g. person A can drive over the speed limit but not person B because person B has the wrong intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with banning things like "racism" is that words change meaning over time. Maybe some time in the future, any reference to "White Privlege" may be considered racist, for instance.
Quoted post unavailable.
I think terms like white privilege drive resentment and are divisive.
"In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race..." Barack Obama.
Sure the tweet is terrible. But ruining someone’s career prospects for it levels bad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comparison would be true if the speed limit differentiated on the intent on the speeder, e.g. person A can drive over the speed limit but not person B because person B has the wrong intent.
Ambulance, firefighters, etc.
It is more like this, person A is in a hurry and is allowed to drive over the speed limit because person A is good person, but person B, who also is in a hurry, is a scumbag and therefore person B is not allowed to drive over the speed limit. It is very similar to how woke culture works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood why "slippery slope" was listed among other logical fallacies. It is exactly the opposite.
When the UK brought in laws around lockdowns and handling covid people here were complaining that it was a slippery slope and the government would never give up those restrictions yet they did exactly that and those laws are no longer in play. In that case the slippery slope argument was a fallacy.
Furthermore we've not proven that the laws have been given up; the impacts of the anti-liberty legislation in the wake of 9/11 took almost a decade to sink in and enter the public discourse. The surveillance and enforcement measures used to enforce compliance through COVID are firmly still on the table. Probably help protect children and/or fight Russians or something. Worked in China, great impacts on crime, etcetera, etcetera.
I’m generally in favour of some limits on speech. I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages for example. It’s obviously very complicated and something people are going to argue a lot about. BUT this case has made me change my opinion. Things much worse than this are tweeted every day and this is the one that gets prosecuted. It’s blatantly politically motivated (‘national hero’, British soldier etc) a…
I never understood why "slippery slope" was listed among other logical fallacies. It is exactly the opposite.
In other words, slippery slope areguments (like correlation arguments) are fallacies if they are claimed as definitive proofs for a claim being made, but are not fallacies if used as supporting evidence for a claim or if arguing that the claim should be considered a possibility that may need to be considered or investigated.
In bayesian reasoning, both can be used as evidence for some claim, that creates a new set of (posterior) probabilities for a set of mutually exclusive claims based on a set of prior probabilities.
For instance, lets say you are concerned that some president may end up as a dictator. In a democracy, the prior probability may be relatively small. Then, lets assume the country abolishes term grants more power to the president in some time of emergency. In that case, one could argue using a sliding slope argument that the risk that the posterior probability of the president ending up as a dictator had increased after being granted more powers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with banning things like "racism" is that words change meaning over time. Maybe some time in the future, any reference to "White Privlege" may be considered racist, for instance.
Well "white privledge" IS racist. So that's already the case. Just some people don't consider it that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comparison would be true if the speed limit differentiated on the intent on the speeder, e.g. person A can drive over the speed limit but not person B because person B has the wrong intent.
In the UK it does. If you are speeding because you are an appropriately trained person performing emergency response duties then it's not illegal.
Have UK courts heard of the Streisand effect? I have a strong urge to search the said tweet to find what the hell did he say and I'm pretty sure it will be like the first or second result in google images if i had enough motivation for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the UK brought in laws around lockdowns and handling covid people here were complaining that it was a slippery slope and the government would never give up those restrictions yet they did exactly that and those laws are no longer in play. In that case the slippery slope argument was a fallacy.
There was indeed a slippery slope from "2 weeks to flatten the curve" to extended lockdowns. I don't think those policies necessarily were a net benefit, either, particularly in the case of mask mandates for children, which weren't shown as effective enough to warrant damaging the mental health of children. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Whether they were effective or not is orthogonal to whether the slippery slope argument is a fallacy.