Frivolous literary note

[doktor at primenet.com]

Regarding the slippery slope argument/fallacy, Dennis Grace (recovering
medievalist)  writes:

>According to the rhetoric texts I've been teaching from for the last few
>years, slippery slope fallacies are any extrapolation that assumes an
>exponential cascade will result whenever anything starts going awry.  My
>statement about illegitimacy was ill-defined.  In particular I was thinking
>of the ludicrous "Coming White Underclass" from Wall Street Journal, ca
>1992, which says, hey the African American illegitimacy rate exceeded 25% in
>the sixties and is now in excess of 68%; the white American illegitimacy
>rate is now approaching 23%.  Therefore, if the white illegitimacy rate
>exceeds 25%, whites'll shoot right past 70% in the next twenty years.
>
>Also, as far as I know, the rhetorical descriptor "slippery slope" is used
>exclusively to describe a logical fallacy, in which case Joe's reasoning
>only makes sense if his intent was facetious (and, yeah, I know, this IS the
>Pynchon list, after all).

Maybe the slippery slope is taught differently in law schools than in
rhetoric classes.  I still think it is best described in Joe's and my
position, namely, that the slippery slope is not an argument which projects
statistical trends into the future, but is rather one that deals with
deviation from rules.  Underpinning the slippery slope argument is the
notion that consistency (or stare decisis) is a good thing, so that if you
make one exception to a rule, you must make a number of others to be
logically consistent.

Here is a description of the slippery slope from

http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[Quote follows]

Fallacy: Slippery Slope


Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.

Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event
must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the
inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series
of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no
reason is given as to why the interveing steps or gradations will simply be
bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1.Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).

2.Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to
believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an
argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there
is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples of Slippery Slope

1."We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll
be charging $40,000 a semester!"

2."The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the
government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."

3."You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."

4."We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning
one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they
will be burning all the books!"  .

[End quote]

I'd be glad to hear your view on this, but just think...if we keep using
the P-list to discuss rhetoric, soon the entire P-list will be given over
to the same topic.

--Jimmy