• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the "Slipper Slope Theory" a valid concept?

Is the "Slippery Slope" a valid concept?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 43.5%
  • No

    Votes: 6 26.1%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • I like cheesecake

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • Total voters
    23

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is the "Slipper Slope Theory", aka the "Domino Theory", a valid concept?

I say 'Yes'. Taking federal income tax, for example. It was supposed to be small and affect only the richest. Within 10+/- years it had expanded greatly beyond the original reassurances. Today, it affects way more people than originally promised, AND the rates have increased as well.

To me, this fits. While it is not a single person or group consciously plotting something big and slipping it by us one piece at a time (that would be a conspiracy theory), the end result is that something grew to be bigger than it ever was meant to be one piece at a time.

Second example: Well-meaning politician sees that a tax or regulation was passed. They want more. They see the passage as a "mandate from the people" that what they want is really what the public wants, hence they propose taking said tax or regulation further.

What was the Dept of Homeland Security's original narrowly-focused purpose?

This is a big reason why I am reflexively worried whenever a new tax or bureaucracy is proposed. Even something small and reasonable. History tells me it won't stay small and reasonable for too long.

Opponents of the Slippery Slope argument often say that they take each issue as it comes along. I say that is easier said than done when group politics is concerned.
 
Last edited:
In regards to history, yes. Slippery slope is plausible, and a reason to remain vigilant. It is particularly interesting when things continue to happen despite the choir of critics.
 
These are my slippers. They're not the best on slopes but they're damn cool looking. :mrgreen:

Star-Wars-Darth-Vader-slippers1.jpg
 
Is the "Slipper Slope Theory", aka the "Domino Theory", a valid concept?

I say 'Yes'. Taking federal income tax, for example. It was supposed to be small and affect only the richest. Within 10+/- years it had expanded greatly beyond the original reassurances. Today, it affects way more people than originally promised, AND the rates have increased as well.

To me, this fits. While it is not a single person or group consciously plotting something big and slipping it by us one piece at a time (that would be a conspiracy theory), the end result is that something grew to be bigger than it ever was meant to be one piece at a time.

Second example: Well-meaning politician sees that a tax or regulation was passed. They want more. They see the passage as a "mandate from the people" that what they want is really what the public wants, hence they propose taking said tax or regulation further.

What was the Dept of Homeland Security's original narrowly-focused purpose?

This is a big reason why I am reflexively worried whenever a new tax or bureaucracy is proposed. Even something small and reasonable. History tells me it won't stay small and reasonable for too long.

Opponents of the Slippery Slope argument often say that they take each issue as it comes along. I say that is easier said than done when group politics is concerned.

How could you answer this question any other way than maybe? It really depends on what we are talking about.

Here's a ridiculous (and offensive, I might add) "slippery slope" example for you... gay marriage will lead to people being allowed to marrying animals.
 
Slippery slope arguments hold validity in some cases, in others not. The onus is on the argu-er to explain why something is likely to lead to something else, and how such a thing would happen.
 
If I were to accept one slippery slope hypothesis, I'd be accepting them all before you know it.
 
I have never heard of the "Slipper Slope Theory." Does this have something to do with friction on hills?
 
Is the "Slipper Slope Theory", aka the "Domino Theory", a valid concept?

I say 'Yes'. Taking federal income tax, for example. It was supposed to be small and affect only the richest. Within 10+/- years it had expanded greatly beyond the original reassurances. Today, it affects way more people than originally promised, AND the rates have increased as well.

To me, this fits. While it is not a single person or group consciously plotting something big and slipping it by us one piece at a time (that would be a conspiracy theory), the end result is that something grew to be bigger than it ever was meant to be one piece at a time.

Second example: Well-meaning politician sees that a tax or regulation was passed. They want more. They see the passage as a "mandate from the people" that what they want is really what the public wants, hence they propose taking said tax or regulation further.

What was the Dept of Homeland Security's original narrowly-focused purpose?

This is a big reason why I am reflexively worried whenever a new tax or bureaucracy is proposed. Even something small and reasonable. History tells me it won't stay small and reasonable for too long.

Opponents of the Slippery Slope argument often say that they take each issue as it comes along. I say that is easier said than done when group politics is concerned.
Are you talking about using baby steps to accomplish a larger goal? For example instead of 2nd amendment opponents just banning all fire arms they enact license requirements, storage requirements, registrations, waiting periods, a ban on certain types of fire arms and all sort of other **** towards eventually banning all firearms.
 
Are you talking about using baby steps to accomplish a larger goal? For example instead of 2nd amendment opponents just banning all fire arms they enact license requirements, storage requirements, registrations, waiting periods, a ban on certain types of fire arms and all sort of other **** towards eventually banning all firearms.
Can be something like that.
 
Is the "Slipper Slope Theory", aka the "Domino Theory", a valid concept?

I say 'Yes'. Taking federal income tax, for example. It was supposed to be small and affect only the richest. Within 10+/- years it had expanded greatly beyond the original reassurances. Today, it affects way more people than originally promised, AND the rates have increased as well.

To me, this fits. While it is not a single person or group consciously plotting something big and slipping it by us one piece at a time (that would be a conspiracy theory), the end result is that something grew to be bigger than it ever was meant to be one piece at a time.

Second example: Well-meaning politician sees that a tax or regulation was passed. They want more. They see the passage as a "mandate from the people" that what they want is really what the public wants, hence they propose taking said tax or regulation further.

What was the Dept of Homeland Security's original narrowly-focused purpose?

This is a big reason why I am reflexively worried whenever a new tax or bureaucracy is proposed. Even something small and reasonable. History tells me it won't stay small and reasonable for too long.

Opponents of the Slippery Slope argument often say that they take each issue as it comes along. I say that is easier said than done when group politics is concerned.
I say that the real slipperier slope here has less to do with taxing more and more to do with attaching pork to bills. The fact is that spending is popular but raising taxes generally isn't, but raising taxes comes along with raising spending in the long run.
However, you have to raise taxes at some point in order to reduce spending. But yes, the slippery slope theory can definitely be valid in many cases.

PS: I got hungry and selected "I like cheesecake" as my response. O well.:lol:
 
Absolutely a valid theory but in proper circumstances. If you look at many abuses of liberty they all started off with a "small inconvenience", such as the EPA, it was a little idea at the time but has grabbed more and more power and now threatens manufacturing and the quality of our automobiles, also the FDA, ATAC, the BATF, gun control legislation...........
 
Its valid as part of a larger argument or as a word of warning, but is not valid in and of itself as an argument for/against a particular thing.
 
Its valid as part of a larger argument or as a word of warning, but is not valid in and of itself as an argument for/against a particular thing.
I agree, there has to be some kind of admonition of further damage as a result of the precedent. I also like the "Camel nose" analogy.
 
I agree, there has to be some kind of admonition of further damage as a result of the precedent.
Does "the government has a history of always taking things further than originally intended" qualify?


I also like the "Camel nose" analogy.
Ha! I haven't heard that phrase used in years. I had forgotten all about it.
 
Does "the government has a history of always taking things further than originally intended" qualify?
Not only does it qualify I think it's the best use of the theory.
 
Certainly there are situations where the concept applies, but it is used far, far, far more often than it actually makes sense. Where it does apply is when there is some reason that each step you take in a particular direction, it gets more tempting to keep going for some external reason. For example, doing crack one time does indeed start you on a slippery slope because each time you use it, the desire to use it again gets stronger because of the physical addiction.

But, people use it just as a generic way to oppose anything other than extremism. For example, say that on some issue there is a spectrum of 1 to 10. Say that 5 is the actual optimal point. Somebody who prefers 10 will scream "slippery slope" if people want to move from 7 to 6 because he can't deny that things improve between 7 and 6, but he can talk about how bad 1 is... It's just flawed logic. Binary thinking. Difficulty dealing with the complexity of life. In virtually all situations the best solution is neither 1 nor 10, but somewhere in the middle. Somebody who habitually uses the slippery slope thinking will always be in the wrong on such an issue because they will always oppose anything other than whichever extreme they like more.

In short, the notion that if as a society we decide to do one thing, it is nearly inevitable that we'll then later do some radically more extreme variant of the same thing makes no sense. There is no logic behind that position at all. It's just a bare, stupid, assumption. It's like saying "you shouldn't walk to the store because then you'll end up walking to China and you'll die of overwalking"...
 
Last edited:
I have never heard of the "Slipper Slope Theory." Does this have something to do with friction on hills?

it's also known as the "ratchet effect"

basically, by pursuing one ideologically moderate-left/right policy, you set the stage for pursuit of an even more left/right policy.
 
I chose "maybe". It depends on the argument.
The problem is, it tends to say that a middle ground doesn't exist.
It also tends to confuse the issue. Either someone has to defend you're new definition of what the argument is or waste time refuting the fact it will lead to these massive expansions.

For the example you give I'd say that higher taxes was inevitable as government has had to deal with more and more complicated issues. That those increases in taxes and government spending has taken place in EVERY modern government in the world. That in general the US taxes less than every modern government in the world. That the only countries that tend to have no bureacracy and little to no taxes tend to be places that are backwards.
 
Is the "Slipper Slope Theory", aka the "Domino Theory", a valid concept?

I say 'Yes'. Taking federal income tax, for example. It was supposed to be small and affect only the richest. Within 10+/- years it had expanded greatly beyond the original reassurances. Today, it affects way more people than originally promised, AND the rates have increased as well.

To me, this fits. While it is not a single person or group consciously plotting something big and slipping it by us one piece at a time (that would be a conspiracy theory), the end result is that something grew to be bigger than it ever was meant to be one piece at a time.

Second example: Well-meaning politician sees that a tax or regulation was passed. They want more. They see the passage as a "mandate from the people" that what they want is really what the public wants, hence they propose taking said tax or regulation further.

What was the Dept of Homeland Security's original narrowly-focused purpose?

This is a big reason why I am reflexively worried whenever a new tax or bureaucracy is proposed. Even something small and reasonable. History tells me it won't stay small and reasonable for too long.

Opponents of the Slippery Slope argument often say that they take each issue as it comes along. I say that is easier said than done when group politics is concerned.

any scheme that was intended to pander to the many by allowing them to be given what they want paid for by a minority voting block is going to expand
 
I chose "maybe". It depends on the argument.
The problem is, it tends to say that a middle ground doesn't exist.
It also tends to confuse the issue. Either someone has to defend you're new definition of what the argument is or waste time refuting the fact it will lead to these massive expansions.

For the example you give I'd say that higher taxes was inevitable as government has had to deal with more and more complicated issues. That those increases in taxes and government spending has taken place in EVERY modern government in the world. That in general the US taxes less than every modern government in the world. That the only countries that tend to have no bureacracy and little to no taxes tend to be places that are backwards.
I don't see it as the middle ground not existing, but rather that people have a hard time leaving the middle ground alone. There's always something that "needs" tweaked, or changed, or "improved", or whatever.
 
I don't see it as the middle ground not existing, but rather that people have a hard time leaving the middle ground alone. There's always something that "needs" tweaked, or changed, or "improved", or whatever.

If I propose a small change and someone says it leads to a much larger change that is an argument against any sort of middle ground. "We can't make this small change because inevitably it leads to a large change". I'm not saying that always an invalid argument. As far as fallacies are concerned I want to say slippery slope is one of the less set in stone fallacies.

I think there's an issue of using a whole argument based on a slippery slope. If it's a consideration I don't find fault with the argument. To say that you can't do X because it inevitably leads to Y.....well you better be able to prove it.
 
If I propose a small change and someone says it leads to a much larger change that is an argument against any sort of middle ground. "We can't make this small change because inevitably it leads to a large change". I'm not saying that always an invalid argument. As far as fallacies are concerned I want to say slippery slope is one of the less set in stone fallacies.

I think there's an issue of using a whole argument based on a slippery slope. If it's a consideration I don't find fault with the argument. To say that you can't do X because it inevitably leads to Y.....well you better be able to prove it.
You can't prove what will or will not happen. That's an unreasonable bar. That's like trying to prove a negative. You can, however, point to countless examples in history. The slippery slope doesn't mean the "next step" is a done deal, it's merely a possibility. Often a well-founded possibility. I have seen many instances where it never came to pass. I have seen many that have. Enough to make me cautious.
 
some systems, once implemented almost guarantee going down the slope

for example in jurisprudence we have what is known by the leftwing ratchet

for years there were two basic kinds of judges

the first were "progressive judges" who ruled that the New Deal was proper even if it violated 130 years of precedent

the next type of judge are the so called conservatives who follow existing precedent. so they refused to overturn the radical decisions of the FDR court. then you have the warren court which ratchet the law leftward and then comes Burger who won't overturn most of the change

People like Bork terrified the left because they and the "original intent" crowd tend not to respect precedent

when it comes to income taxes a system that allows the many to demand higher taxes on the few is going to cause the system we have today. once congress was given the power to tax at a progressive rate, anyone with half a brain knew we'd end up with the crap we have today.

as to James' comments, one gun law does not necessarily lead to the other if the MOTIVATION is not to ban guns. when the people start with that motivation then the slippery slope was planned all along rather than created or caused by the first step
 
You can't prove what will or will not happen. That's an unreasonable bar. That's like trying to prove a negative. You can, however, point to countless examples in history.

Well...if you can't prove something will happen then how can they disprove it will happen? Like I mentioned, it can be a consideration but it can't be the crux of your argument.

The slippery slope doesn't mean the "next step" is a done deal, it's merely a possibility. Often a well-founded possibility. I have seen many instances where it never came to pass. I have seen many that have. Enough to make me cautious.

Well....if your argument is based on the "next step" than you are in effect arguing that the next step will take place. If you say that gay marriage leads to people marrying animals (chose a ridiculous argument on purpose) than you are arguing that X can't take place because Y is the conclusion of X. I either have to prove that X doesn't lead to Y or defend Y. If you can't prove X leads to Y then there's no place in the argument for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom