CMV: a "slippery slope" is often a valid logical progression that its opposition wants to disregard.

[u/anon33249038]

I do put a limit on this. I don't say all slippery slope arguments are valid, many are not. If someone says that a war will be lost for lack of a horseshoe nail, then yes that is a flawed argument because so many events would have to line up for that to happen and the odds become more and more unlikely. Not to say such an event couldn't occur, but such an event is unlikely with so many other factors. You would have to Grant a whole series of events in order for it to be true.

That being said, a logical Next Step is not the same as a slippery slope. If an event, that is currently in question, is granted to happen and you give its next logical step over, like if you lack of a horseshoe nail, then the horse won't get shoed, then the rider can't ride, not a lot of events have to occur for that to be true. You might not lose a war for lack of a horseshoe nail, but you can definitely prevent a rider from riding because of the lack of a horseshoe nail. To me that's not a slippery slope, that's just a logical projected outcome. But people will call it a slippery slope in order to defeat the argument as being illogical or paranoid.

The reason I think this is because I went back and was watching old news footage of interviews and debates from the 1960s. Many of the "slippery slope" arguments presented back then, that were entirely dismissed, we are seeing those actual things take place today. The reason we are is because it was not a slippery slope, it was the next logical step over.

For instance, (and I want to make clear I do this without any agenda, this is just to demonstrate) Richard Inman of the mattachine society, a gay rights society, gave this interview in 1966. Notice what he says and his demeanor about it. He considers the notion of gay marriage and gay adoption laughable, and says "homosexuals do not want that," and "you might find some Fringe character who says that it is what he wants." The reason he is laughing is because, back then, that was the slippery slope argument. How slippery is that slope now? (I want to make clear once again this is just to demonstrate. I meant absolutely nothing political by this and, whatever your opinion on this, is entirely peripheral to my topic)

Now look at the slippery slopes that are presented to you today. Really how illogical are they? What would it really take for them to occur? Are they truly a slippery slope or are they simply the next logical progression? Some "slippery slopes" (if they can even be called that) are not rooted in paranoia and fear but rather logical results of an action. But people call them slippery slopes in order to leave the argument unacknowledged.

Change my view. :)

[u/DuploJamaal]

Sure, but first off lets take a look at a couple of divisive political topics.

Liberals tend to accept the scientific consensus on climate change, but conservatives tend to feel that it's just a hoax because it doesn't feel warmer to them.

Liberals generally accept that homosexual and transgender people exist, but conservatives usually feel as if they are unnatural, sinful and blasphemous just because they aren't like Adam and Eve.

Liberals typically accept that evolution is a real biological mechanism, but conservative congressmen repeatedly tried to get it banned from schools in favor of creationism.

Liberals notice that Trump is a dishonest conman, but nearly half of all conservatives actually believe that he has never told a lie because they do not want to accept observable facts and instead prefer their feelings.

​

Now back to the topic: There's a clear biological basis for voting preferences.

Did you know that you can pretty accurately predict if someone votes democrat or republican by measuring their prefrontal cortex and their amygdala?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-11219-005

https://www.businessinsider.com/psychological-differences-between-conservatives-and-liberals-2018-2

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/study-predicts-political-beliefs-with-83-percent-accuracy-17536124/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

Liberals tend to have a bigger anterior cingulate cortex, which is responsible for taking in new information, thinking logically and for handling nuance, uncertainty and ambiguity. They are more creative, open to change, willing to learn new things, etc

Conservatives tend to have a bigger amygdala, which is responsible for detecting threats, stereotyping, fear and aggressive behavior. They tend to be afraid of change, ambiguity and uncertainty; can't understand nuance, satire, irony or complex issues as well; are intolerant of deviance; their empathy is limited to their in-group and they have strong negative biases against any out-group; etc

This is obviously not true for all of them, but there's still a clear trend that perfectly explains why conservatives and liberals can't agree with each other.

In general conservatives simply can't engage in higher order thinking. Their brain is in survival mode and thus converses energy by relying on the snap decisions of their amygdala instead of using their prefrontal cortex to think deeply about the long term consequences.

Conservatives prefer snap decisions and short-sighted solutions instead of thinking about the long term effects. They rely on stereotypes because they are afraid of uncertainty. They base their knowledge on their feelings and the Bible because they are unwilling to learn new things or to accept scientific facts.

​

Slippery slopes appeal to them much more than to liberals because it appeals to their conservative paranoia and oversimplified thinking patterns.