DescentBB

What does the whole slippery slope thing mean? I've always wondered that.

Birdseye wrote:What does the whole slippery slope thing mean? I've always wondered that.

its the slope of conservative comfort

Jefferson would the first person to shoot if you forced this dude to take an oath on the bible, instead of the Koran, because that is the government forcing someone to make a false oath.

Hmm...
I don't think I need to add in another explanation about how this article is incredibly ridiculous...

Also, as far as I can tell, TJ would have been a Catholic, but he wouldn't let religion interfere when it came to matters of a greater good.

DCrazy wrote:We abandoned tradition when we decided that a fully codified law system was superior to the English system of common law and precedent.

Well I don;t think you got that right DC. The US legal system is a pile of stinking dog ★■◆●, run by politicians. The Justice system is no place for political influence, or appointments.

I think categorically the English legal system is leaps and bounds better than what you have in the USA.

The simple fact of the matter is that every country in the world obeys (or at least pays lip service to) the Geneva Convention and legal concept of Habeas Corpus - which is the cornerstone of civilised law. Whereas the US now states that these do not apply.

No - America can make no claims to a superior form of law, or legal system right now.

Clear out the politics, kill 80% of your lawyers, and repeal 90% of your laws, and you might be starting to get close though.

LOL - the assertion of a superior legal system in the "Land of Litigation" and a system of government "Of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers" is a good joke!

you need to get your eyes checked mobius.

Will Robinson:

They weren't so concerned if someone expressed their faith in a personal way and obviously didn't think a government official doing so, even at work, was a form of persecution against others. They probably would have no problem with someone refusing to use the bible to swear an oath but I believe they would be opposed to making it a law that states no one may swear an oath on the bible.

I think that puts it all in a nutshell. Or in a more current vernacular.

Word!

Birdseye wrote:What does the whole slippery slope thing mean? I've always wondered that.

Your serious?

It's an expression. Picture American culture, or any culture, or any issue as a flat level plain. A small group may not like the Plain but do not have the leverage to make large sweeping change. So they use baby steps. (the first step down the slippery slope). A small change here, a small change there. Nothing to raise a huge alarm. Always going in the direction they intend. After a while, it seems maybe like the normal direction to more and more people. Usually used by someone who does not like the direction of change, hence, Down the slippery slope. Someone else could probably explain it better then I.

I actually think Birds is playing dumb to coax someone into exposing the fallacy of the slippery slope argument. Allow me to indulge him.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

The thing is mobius.. it's still a good system that's been abused by people looking for a quick buck.

Genghis wrote:I actually think Birds is playing dumb to coax someone into exposing the fallacy of the slippery slope argument. Allow me to indulge him.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

"This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious."

This is hardly a basis to totally disregard the slippery slope idea.

I'm with Genghis's definition on this one.

Clever man you are, Genghis.

von, you can nitpick this one, but I think it's worth a serious look at the shortcomings of this argument, and whether it really benefits the causes that use it.

I've got a question that nobody seems to have asked (or at least not this bluntly): just what slippery slope are you talking about? Removing religious symbols from government actions (good thing)? Making Muslims first-class citizens (good thing)? Respecting an individual's right to personal beliefs (good thing)?

I think it's the \"Islamicization of America\" that VV and the author are ultimately worried about. I'm still not really sure what that even means, except of course that it's an obvious evil that must be stopped at all costs.

Lets just call it the slow decline of American values.
Thats what I am worried about... I would like America to be, for my children and yours, like it was for me growing up.

I would like America to be, for my children and yours, like it was for me growing up.

Good luck with that. High button shoes and a horse in every stable. My children's world will be nothing like mine as mine is nothing like my parents.
And that's a good thing.

I think acceptance of the Koran being used for swearing in a congressman is a considerable improvement in American Values. Progress.

Birdseye wrote:I think acceptance of the Koran being used for swearing in a congressman is a considerable improvement in American Values. Progress.

The sad thing is, I'm absolutely sure that there wouldn't have been a hundredth as much of a stink made about this had it happened during the 2000 election. I don't know if it's so much an "improvement" as it is going back to the way things should have stayed. This whole thing is nothing more than thinly-veiled racism.