Not to be confused with, and arguement with Slippery Slope, do you feel that the slippery slope argument is a valid one?
Objectively speaking, almost everybody uses it here. Or I should say that amongst the various factions, each side uses it. I am sure, that in sometime in my 10,000+ posts, I have used it as well. I'll give examples...
A popular slippery slope argument amongst the right, would be that gay marriage will lead to the legalization of beastiality, or other such strange arrangements. Or that the legalization of marijuana will lead to the legalization of all drugs.
A popular slippery slope argument by the left here, is that if we engage in waterboarding, we are no better than the terrorists who hack the heads off their prisoners. Or another would be that we should continue to work to restrict peoples access to guns, because of the inherent danger they pose to society.
And for libertarians, pretty much anything the federal government does, is subject to the slippery slope argument as the government wrests freedom from the hands of states and individuals and we will soon be living in the Orwellian society.
So, in your opinion, is the slippery slope argument, a valid debate tactic?
My opinion is that it actually is. Thats not to say that I agree with all the above slippery slope examples I put forth, but it does seem to be a valid debate tactic, because it is routinely used by all. Whether or not it comes to fruition in these cases, is not the point I am trying to make here. The fact that it sometimes does come to fruition, means that there is some validation of the tactic, even if the tactic is sometimes applied improperly.