Comments on: Argument Tactics http://www.pointedstick.net/colter/2007/07/11/620/ the further adventures of the luckiest bastard you ever saw Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:45:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: heath http://www.pointedstick.net/colter/2007/07/11/620/comment-page-1/#comment-21198 heath Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:10:19 +0000 http://www.pointedstick.net/colter/journal/2007/07/11/620/#comment-21198 Position 1 is a variant of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope" title="Slippery Slope argument at wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">slippery slope</a>, which may or not be fallacious as used in your examples. Position 2 is just arguing the slippery slope from the opposite direction; that is, we're already at the bottom of the slope (or nearly so). As for whether it's weak to adopt position 2, I think the main problem is that by adopting position 2 you're more or less conceding the truth of position 1. You could argue your position just as effectively by shrugging. Note that this is also an example of the sort of argument that is apt to go in circles, because the two parties are arguing about two different things. The person taking position 1 is arguing how things <em>ought to be</em>, whereas the person taking position 2 is arguing about how things <em>are</em>. Obviously, these are not the same. Position 1 is a variant of the slippery slope, which may or not be fallacious as used in your examples. Position 2 is just arguing the slippery slope from the opposite direction; that is, we’re already at the bottom of the slope (or nearly so).

As for whether it’s weak to adopt position 2, I think the main problem is that by adopting position 2 you’re more or less conceding the truth of position 1. You could argue your position just as effectively by shrugging.

Note that this is also an example of the sort of argument that is apt to go in circles, because the two parties are arguing about two different things. The person taking position 1 is arguing how things ought to be, whereas the person taking position 2 is arguing about how things are. Obviously, these are not the same.

]]> By: jm http://www.pointedstick.net/colter/2007/07/11/620/comment-page-1/#comment-20945 jm Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:05:32 +0000 http://www.pointedstick.net/colter/journal/2007/07/11/620/#comment-20945 argument three: marriage is simply a legal contract between two people that leads to the equal ownership of possessions (include children in 'possessions) accumulated throughout the life (and, in some cases, before the execution) of the contract. and defining who may enter into such contracts is just silly. especially considering tricky little constitution guarantees like equal protection under the law. argument three: marriage is simply a legal contract between two people that leads to the equal ownership of possessions (include children in ‘possessions) accumulated throughout the life (and, in some cases, before the execution) of the contract. and defining who may enter into such contracts is just silly. especially considering tricky little constitution guarantees like equal protection under the law.

]]>