homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The "Slippery Slope" argument (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The "Slippery Slope" argument
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
One person marrying 3 others means 2 others don't get a partner.

This assumes that we're talking about pure polygyny or pure polyandry.

So yes, widespread polygyny following the Muslim or Fundamental Mormon model leads to an oversupply of young, poor, single men who can't get laid. Which is a problem for a society.

Among those that call themselves polyamourists, the gender balance is more even. ...

If multiple marriage were legally available, it wouldn't be just a few polyamorists acquiring multiple partners. Men usually have more wealth and power than women, so polygyny will always be more common than polyandry. Socially, a woman with 4 husbands will be viewed very differently than a man with 4 wives. And polygyny seems to have more appeal for men than polyandry for women. King Solomon was the one who had hundreds of concubines, not the Queen of Sheba, after all.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And polygyny seems to have more appeal for men than polyandry for women. King Solomon was the one who had hundreds of concubines, not the Queen of Sheba, after all.

That's as classic a case of using a single anecdote as data as I've ever seen.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And polygyny seems to have more appeal for men than polyandry for women. King Solomon was the one who had hundreds of concubines, not the Queen of Sheba, after all.

That's as classic a case of using a single anecdote as data as I've ever seen.
We have no idea what the Queen of Sheba had. I'm guessing she had whatever the hell she wanted. Story is she went back with a piece of Solomon, and the Ark of the Covenant.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
LucyP
Shipmate
# 10476

 - Posted      Profile for LucyP     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
ISTM that most slippery slope arguments are sleight of hand straw man arguments, in which premises are attributed to the opponent that they don't actually hold. On the "gay marriage leads to pedophilia" front, for example, the person making the slippery slope argument is assuming that the defense of gay marriage is based on the premise that people should be free to do whatever they like sexually, when the real basis of the argument is quite different. The euthanasia question is similar in some respects: some people support death with dignity laws because they believe that people should not be forced to endure intractable pain and suffering; some because they believe people are autonomous beings who have the right to decide how to dispose of their own lives. Slippery slope arguments are a problem for the first group (since the question of how much suffering is too much doesn't lend itself to neat binary answers), not so much for the second. But I have heard opponents make slippery slop arguments against the first position as if they were arguing against the second.

Slippery slopes do exist: racial equality does indeed lead to interracial marriage, as it should--that was only an effective argument for those who were firmly against both to begin with.

This raises a good point, namely, that arguments for change are often complex or multifaceted, and that the stated reason for making a change may mask another "reason" (or consequence) which is currently less acceptable in public opinion.

A proposed change will have a number of potential “reasons” to support it. Depending on public attitudes, some of these reasons will be emphasised and others downplayed.

If the change is successful, the original arguments that were used to bring it about may in future be seen as secondary, and the other “reasons” (that were minimised or denied prior to the process of change) be presented as self-evident.

Staying away from dead horse topics, examples can be found in government actions:

Government: “We need to balance the budget; expenditure on hospital/educational funding is too high and cuts need to be made. Of course we believe in free health and education for those who can least afford it, but these cuts will be minimal, and consumers can easily make up for them by paying small gap fees. “
Opponents: “This is the slippery slope which will lead to unaffordable fees for many people on low incomes.”
Government: “There is no slippery slope involved. Consumers need to be responsible by making small contributions for services they receive. There will be protection mechanisms in place for the neediest.”

(five years later)
Government: “It's ridiculous that consumer fees only contribute 5% of the real cost of supplying these services. Noone realistically thinks that health, education, national parks, and public sporting facilities can be free. People don't value what they don't pay for. We need to increase the consumer component to adequately reflect current expenditure.”

In the beginning, the government says they believe in free health/education for the neediest in society; once the fees have been established and the population is accustomed to them, the government's arguments change. The original fees are “the thin edge of the wedge”, but since the official justification for driving the“wedge” more deeply has moved away from the original reasons given, a slippery slope (ISTM) is also an appropriate descriptor.

[edited by LucyP: typo fixed]

[ 03. May 2014, 02:25: Message edited by: LucyP ]

Posts: 235 | From: my sanctuary | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools