Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Stephen Kobasa has taught English in parochial schools for 25 years, always with a deep religious conviction and without an American flag in his classroom.

It was never an issue until this school year began.

 Kobasa was fired from his job at Kolbe Cathedral High School in Bridgeport Thursday, in the face of a new diocesan policy that he says he's never seen in writing and hours after turning in his classroom flag to Principal Jo-Anne Jakab.

"I had come to the end of all the procedures of appeal available to me," Kobasa, 57, said Friday. He said his deep-seated religious belief, not un-American sentiments, was at the core of his opposition to having the flag in the classroom.

"The crucifix cancels all flags," said Kobasa, a longtime peace activist. "Christ speaks of compassion without boundaries. ...Flags are about separation, assertions of superiority and aggression. The whole notion that loyalty to country is connected to one's religious faith is totally bizarre and unjustified."

A statement posted on the Diocese of Bridgeport's website, attributed to spokesman Joseph McAleer, confirmed that Kobasa "is no longer a member of the faculty at Kolbe Cathedral High School. It is not our policy to comment on any internal personnel matter."

The statement makes cryptic reference to the flag issue, without direct reference to Kobasa.

"Our Catholic schools provide a dynamic learning environment in which respect for the opinions of others, as well as respect for school property, are both key components," it says. "The Diocese of Bridgeport has long believed that the American flag is an important fixture in its Catholic school classrooms."

When asked if Kobasa's opinions had been respected, McAleer declined to comment.

Kobasa is not sure who made the flag an issue. He said he had heard that a colleague complained about the lack of a flag in his classroom. The school year began with an announcement that the Pledge of Allegiance would be said by all classes at the beginning of the day.

"This posed a problem for me," Kobasa said. "I offered a compromise."

Kobasa agreed to display the flag at the start of the school day, for the duration of the pledge, "for any students who feel they require this expression of loyalty to the flag." Then he would remove it.

"I felt I could keep my conscience intact and I wasn't imposing my position on them," Kobasa said. But his compromise was rejected by the diocese's school superintendent and Jakab. Kobasa said he wrote to Bishop William E. Lori to emphasize that for him, the absence of the flag from his classroom was a matter of conscience, not whimsy. He received no response.

Before coming to Kolbe Cathedral in 1999, Kobasa had taught for years at St. Thomas Aquinas High School in New Britain - in a flag-free classroom. "It was never an issue."

He said the support he received from the students was "quite remarkable." He said they spontaneously made posters decrying his termination and were chanting his name in the halls.

"There was all sorts of pageantry," Kobasa said. "It's not something that happens often in that school.

"I taught up to the end, I guess I can say," Kobasa said. "It was my last lesson. For the ones to whom this matters, they'll remember this."

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-flagfiring1015.artoct15,0,7571331.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

wot the fuck?///

How exactly is the American Flag offensive?

That's a pretty strange belief but oh well, to each his own

He doesn't say it's offensive:

"The crucifix cancels all flags," said Kobasa, a longtime peace activist. "Christ speaks of compassion without boundaries. ...Flags are about separation, assertions of superiority and aggression. The whole notion that loyalty to country is connected to one's religious faith is totally bizarre and unjustified."

glad to see they got rid of this douche-bag. if you're gonna choose to teach at a private school, you have to follow their rules. he's just trying to be difficult.

if he's fine with hanging the flag for PART of the day, why's he so against having it up all day.

and what message would that send to children to see an authority figure waste time to take down the flag every day???

Lol - u'd be laughed at (and probabaly viewed as a Nazi) if u displayed the flag over here

so he doesnt have the choice of displaying the flag or not? what a surprise

i wonder if that still would be the case if most of the students in the class were foreign...

along with that stupid pledge of allegiance or whatever you call it, i find it most amusing...talk about early brainwashing :hihi:

You guys turn on anybody......

This guy taught for 25 yrs and with deep religous conviction...just your type of guy right? Or no? Only if he kept the flag up he wouldn't be a douche bag? And even though there wasn't a problem with it until this year.

He made very clear that his religion struck down any flag in his perspective. That it was not an attack on the American flag. It was a new rule, which he was never shown.

He kept the flag up for the pledge and then took it down. Pretty cut and dry. No disrespect towards the flag. In fact more of a deep respect for his religion in a Christian school.

I know I'm from the liberal state of California, and I should probably support this guy, but I just don't.  Its one thing to refuse to display a flag in your home, but a school?  It just feels wrong to me.

I would never let my child go to a religious school anyway.  But if any teacher she had refused to display the flag due to his religous beliefs, I'd have a big problem with that.  We don't all have to have the same religion, but anyone living in this country should support it.  I wouldn't want that man teaching my child. 

This guy says he never seen the new diocesan policy in writen form .But he was damn sure heard about it . Then he geta fired. so what is the big fucking deal here. the same thing would happen to me .

Who is typing for you?  :hihi:


(http://tinypic.com/eq1lrr.jpg)

And the "group I represent" is called offensive.  I am deeply bothered by that comment and that certainly isn't the open minded mentality the admins of this board advocate. Now let's wait and see if anything is done about it or if that rule only applies when someone offends liberal and anti-nationalist/patriotic beliefs.

Were the hell did you get a pic of him ?


I told that fucker to stay hidden.  :rant:

Which comment?

he worked there for 25 years, therefore he should know better than anyone that there are rules to follow.

it's not a big deal....just hang the fucking flag. and the fact that he's willing to do it for PART of the day makes him a total hypocrite.

Not really. I think it makes him respectful towards the people that honor the flag.

On the other hand you could say "It's just a flag, and he feels that the cross erases all flags. So therefore, no big deal, just take it down the rest of the day."

Couple of things:

1) He didn't teach at Kolbe for 25 years. ?He came there in '99. ?He taught at St. Thomas' in New Britain for something like 15 years, and had taught at a different perochial school prior to that. ?He's been teaching, TOTAL, for 25 years in parochial schools.

2) ?Like it or not, the dismissal was justified. ?It's a private school. ?As a teacher, you have to obey the schools rules. ?He claims not to have seen the rule in writing, but it was distributed as part of a "packet" both to the teachers and their union before the begining of the school year (so they said to the local news, anyway). ?If they said that you had to display a purple dinosaur strapped to a rocket, you'd have to do it, so long as they notified all parties it was going to be required.

3) Parents and students, alike, are having a small conniption about his dismissal (again, the local news). ?They're actually the ones who brought the story to the local media. Kobasa just wanted to walk away. I doubt he'll be reinstated, but I also wonder how "costly" this will end up being to Kolbe's enrollment. ?

4) In an interview last night he said he's already had calls offering him employment from around the state. The guy will land squarly on his feet, I suspect, and will be able to maintain his scruples at the same time.

5) He isn't "against the flag".? He's against hanging the flag in the classroom where the crucifix is already hung (Quick question..I don't remember from my younger days...Do they hang American Flags inside Catholic Churches?) .? It's been a bit more well documented locally around here.? He was willing to COMPROMISE and allow anyone so inclined to have their moment, each morning, to Pledge Allegiance (he wouldn't do so, though).? He'd raise and lower the flag for those people.? But he felt having the flag was a conflicting "symbol" "competing" with the crucifix and Christ in his classroom.

 :rofl:

Hilarious. Not displaying a flag -  a piece of fucking cloth! - would make him unfit to teach ur child! God forbid - he might grew up and be able to question values you had forced on you. Democracy indeed.

There is a nation wide epidemic of teachers sleeping with students,  low grad rates, gangs, drugs/alcohol, and so many more problems and this school is worried about a damn flag?  Must be nice living in paradise!

I have no problem with this guy.  He has a position he stands behind and it makes sense.  I can see his reasoning for not wanting the flag.  I can see where he has the support of staunch Catholics on this issue.

I also have no problem with the school's action.  They have rules.  He broke the rules.  They gave him some rope and let him appeal the rules.  He refused to follow the rules.  They terminated him.  I have no issue with that either.

Seems like a non news story to me.   :-\

which comment are you referring to?

I'm a nationalist and i advocate independence for my country, i am patriotic but not to the point where i feel obliged to do as the government says...thats just blind and dumb imo

btw im not what you call a liberal either...and i try not to fit people into one group or the other...its all just pointless name calling just to drive stereotypical views into the heads of others

It's not like those things are something that hasn't been going on for years.



Besides this was a private school. each one has a diffrent standered for hat their teachers are too do.

Despite not being spiritual or religious myself, I can totally understand and sympathize with that statement. Being patriotic and expressing your country's superiority really has no place being in close vacinity of your cherished religious materials, its just not right. The man loosing his job over this I think is horeshit, but in the same regard if he was in direct violation of a *cough*bullshit*cough* rule than not much can really be done to reinstate him..

I was refering to your third sentence:
Do you even know the Pledge of Allegiance??

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
And to the Republic
For which it stands
One Nation, Under God
Indivisible
With Liberty and Justice for all

Explain to me how making this statement being optional at the beggining of school each morning is brainwashing?? Pledging your allegiance to your country on teh basis of democracy and freedom for all?

it's a private school with standards they want followed. there's really nothing to discuss here. they are PRIVATE.

and this is a slippery slope issue. the school wants to set forth certain standards. if you allow one person to break the standards the school wants followed, what happens when someone says they don't want to hang the crucifix in their room cause they are not christian, or if someone doesn't want to follow dress codes, etc., etc.

"Slippery slope" is not really a valid point in any argument.

Besides, it's a Christian school he was teaching in, I doubt anybody would complain because they weren't Christian.

why do you have to pledge allegiance to anyone?...as far as i have seen the pledge is not optional for many...do you think children will not say the pledge while others say it and teachers promote it? kids will join in, naturally...this goes against the will to have freedom of speech imo...why should anyone dictate to you what the flag means to you alone?

the average person probably recites the pledge over 1500 times do they not? is once not enough? to me its like the radio station plugging their latest pop song...put it on a hundred times and youll be sure people will start to recite the words and hum the tune

why do they have the flag in every classroom? whats the point? to reinforce the message that you have to be patriotic to your country in a certain way...thats the difference between me and you...i dont need that...i love my country, i love my flag but i dont need people to tell me what they mean to me nor do i need a pledge, nor do i need to outdo others about how patriotic i am

I agree.

Something loses its meaning after being droned out day after day for 12 yrs.

You can certainly be patiotic without having flags hanging all over the place. You can see that any question made of this gets people pretty angry, which really supports your claim.


Having the CHOICE to make the pledge or not is democracy. Choice is provided yes.

 But to fire somebody for chosing to take the flag down after the pledge isn't very democratic. However it is a private school with their own rules, and they are welcome to be as backasswards as they like.

Wouldn't it also go against freedom of speech to take it down so others couldn't sy it?  Does it also go against freedom of speech when teachers require students to read certain history books?

It is one of those things.  By have the kids say it in the morning they are constantly reminded of the sacrifices made for the freedoms they have.

You may not, but you recognize that there is a difference in perspectives.  So should the flag get taken down because you alone do not need that?

Actually slippery slopes are often times very valid arguments.

they sure are valid arguments. on both sides of any issue, people are scared if they give an inch it will turn into a mile.

slc - i think you may have missed my point. if a jewish teacher teaches at a catholic school, the crucifix must remain hanging in their classroom.

my point is that a teacher, student or anyone else participating in activities at PRIVATE institutions must follow the rules set forth.

Actually slippery slopes are often times very valid arguments.

They would not be accepted in any formal debate, only talking head type shows use them.


I already said that, and agreed.

I don't accept your analogy though.

ok,an analogy... Bush tells society on TV that shopping malls should start saying the pledge of allegiance twice a day every day...people would probably get used to it being there every day right?...a few years later, the next president comes along and says, no we dont need this to happen and wants the pledge in shopping malls to discontinue...what do you think will happen? first you would get all these people saying its against freedom of speech...why should people care? you never needed it before did you? and you can recite it whenever you want right? do you think would anyone stop you from doing that? i doubt that......if it really is against freedom of speech then you wouldnt allowed to be saying the pledge at all.

also your point of reminding people that others made sacrifices for your country...surely that is down to opinion...some people dont care, some people do...i believe that forcing people to listen to something they dont want to listen to is against freedom of choice...also there are plenty of reminders every year of such events so why should you have to listen to it every day at school...

i had to recite the lords prayer when i was a child...nothing to do with my beliefs as even as a child i was an athiest...do you think its right that i had to listen to it? do you think i had a choice? nope...so thats not democratic, yes?...i think ive heard that prayer far more times than ive listened to any single song that i like...dont you think that is too many times? once a year i could just about understand but once a day?? crazy

That school is doing a disservice to their students. They're teaching them that it's ok to be intolerant of other peoples' beliefs. They teach freedom of religion, but don't practice it. If they want to have a communist school then they should only hire teachers who share the same beliefs.

Just a quick point:

You'd be pretty unlikely to find a jewish teacher teaching in a catholic school.  There is actual legislation in place (or wording attached to legislation) that allows religious institutions (like schools and such) to hire BASED ON religion.  In other words, they can choose to hire all Catholics and I would bet finding a non-Cathoilc teachiing in a private Catholic School would be unlikely, if not impossible.

Just wanted to point that out....

That's one of the points that the ticked off parents and teachers are making in the local media.  They're also pointing out the guy is a damn good teacher.  A bunch of the parents are promising to pull their kids out of school after this semester and send them elsewhere.  In addition, a couple of their top athletes are promising they will not play.  They've said they don't really expect him to be reinstated, either.

If anyone is really interested, I have a list of "Invalid Arguments" - Slippery Slope is number 15.  The rest of list is kind of interesting, if you like to debate people.  Hey, SLC - Strawman is on there too.  :)

http://www.intellectualloafing.com/activitiesfolder/beinformedfolder/invalidarguments.htm

I can see both sides of this.

I really dont see the big deal in not displaying the flag, I mean who gives a shit?

however

A Private business has the right to enforce any rule they see fit, so if it was a rule and they warned this guy countless times, then I guess the firing was justified.

Just like at fast food restaurants they make their employees wear a certain pair of pants.

I mean do u give a fuck what color of pants the person serving your food to u is wearing?

Still if they showed up to work with blue jeans everyday they'd get fired.

Same here, they told him to hang the flag, he didnt, he gets fired.

Company policy no matter how fucked up it is still applies and has to be followed.


I dont agree with the firing at all but if its their policy, its their policy.

It's all based on logic.  There is a logical reason why all of those arguments are invalid.  the problem is that the majority of posters and comments on this board are logically invalid (even SLC who constantly calls someone a liar or hypocrite - both of which are logical fallacies.)  the sad part is that most of the people here don't even know what a stram man or ad hominem is, even after they might click that link.

Actually I call people liars who put words in my mouth and tells others what I am "saying". Or after being told the facts, continue to post lies (see Popmetal or Charity. ie, "not civil war" or "world was behind us") Or if somebody is a hypocrite, I will do just that. Thanks.

Then you go on to insult the members on the board? Class act.....

Here's another teacher fired, this time for what she did outside of school:


Catholic School Teacher Fired For Volunteering At Planned Parenthood
Bishop Says Teacher's Participation In Abortion Procurement Is Morally Unacceptable


October 17, 2005

SACRAMENTO -- Some students don't know what to make of popular drama teacher Marie Bain's dismissal from her job at Loretto High School.

She was fired from the all girls school by Bishop William Wiegand after a parent sent in a picture of her escorting clients into a Planned Parenthood medical clinic.

'It's very disappointing," said Katharyn McLearan of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood says Bain volunteered once a week to help clients past abortion protestors who picketed here several times a week.

"It's very daunting to have people yelling at you and she was here to be a friendly face. She would wear a planned parenthood vest, just really welcome them in," said McLearan.

But, Bishop Wiegand's dismissal order said that Bain's, "public participation in the procurement of abortions is morally inappropriate and unacceptable."

"We can't have it," said Dom Puglisi, Catholic Schools superintendent.

Puglisi says teachers can hold private beliefs, but their public actions can't conflict with the teachings of the church.

"Parents have made a commitment to send their children to a catholic school so they have certain expectations on us," said Puglisi.

Bain's performance in the classroom was never in question. She got high marks for being a dynamic and passionate teacher."

A Loretto sophomore says weighing the actions of a popular teacher when they conflict with religious beliefs can be tough for many students,"you don't want to go against your faith, but then there's someone you really like and so it's hard, you don't know what to do."

Bishop Wiegand asked that Bain's dismissal be handled with dignity and sensitivity, but wanted it done quickly.
Copyright ? 2005, KTXL

Hmmmmm........

I understand that in private schools they can basically make up their own rules, as far as flags and stuff like that, even the morality thing, fine.  But what I don't understand is, aren't they still subject to the same fair employment rules as the rest of us?  I mean, I've fired a lot of people, and I can't just do it without giving them about 3 or 4 written warnings first.  I have to be able to prove that I told them that they were doing something wrong and give them an opportunity to change it.  The only exception is in cases of gross misconduct, like patient abuse or theft.  It sounds like this teacher was let go without warning.  How is that ok?  Won't they lose in an unemployment hearing?

Nope, they don't have to abide by procedural due process rules.  Absent sometime of illegal discrimination, they can basically fire at will. 

I don't know where you get this from.  They are validly used every single day.  I have heard them used in many formal debates.

I understand logical fallacies; however, I strongly disagree that a slippery slope argument is always invalid.  Wouldn't it be a slippery slope argument to have said that we shouldn't go to war because it might cause more terrorism, which would lower our opinion in the world, which would make other nations less likely to help us, which in turn might cause more attacks on the US?  I think all of these are valid parts of the discussion.  A slippery slope argument is one that looks at the possible consequences of an action, something I think is valid in almost any debate.  Sure sometimes it gets abused, but it is hardly equivilant to the others on that list.

It's not valid in any form of formal debate....because it's playing the "what if" game.? If you're saying that, in hindsight, you might be right when playing "what if", I'll agree.?Ditto if you're saying it's a tool of problem solving. The problem is, you can construct ANY situation with the "what if" game and say it's possible but be wrong, too, when hindsight kicks in.? That's why it's not allowed as an argument, unto itself, in formal debate.? When stating your opinion? Sure, knock yourself out, but realize you're as likely to be wrong as you are likely to be right...and that will be pointed out.

Sorry, but I still disagree.  I understand that it is speculation, but any decision requires one to consider the consequences of an action.  If the consequences are too off the deep end then refute the speculation.

I think I understand where the disconnect is here:

A slippery slope, as I understand it, is not: If this and this and this happen, this might happen or I think this will happen.  That's valid, provided, at least, you have some basis for your speculation (and, in the forum of moderated debate, the basis better be pretty strong).

It's more: "If this and this and this happen, this WILL happen", provided there are other possible outcomes.

Slippery slopes aren't about stating possibilities, they're about stating fact.

In other words, saying:

"If we sell stay puff marshmellows in Bermuda, everyone is Bermuda will get fat" is a slippery slope.

Saying:

"If we sell stay puff marshmellows in Bermuda, there's a possibility that everyone in Bermuda will get fat" is not.

Clearer?

i disagree.

to me, slippery slope arguments are not cause and effect matters (as in your example). i think it's more a matter of "more of the same".

i know i'm not making sense so here's an example....

Statement: We should pass a law to provide personal data of sex offenders on the internet

Cause and Effect: If we pass a law to provide data on sex offenders is on the internet, they will face discrimination and possible violence from citizens.

Slippery Slope: If we pass a law to provide data on sex offenders is on the internet, then the government will want to post other personal records of criminal activity and we will slowly give up our right to privacy. 

Incorrect.  Or, rather, what they mean to you is not the widely held definition.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Slippery_Slope.html

actually i think i'm right on. your link clearly states that they are "ILLEGITIMATE" use of the if-then idea. because they have nothing to do with fact. they are clearly speculation.

so although they are set up as if-then statements, they do not fit the "scientific" definition.

also, when making a slippery slope argument, the "then" part of the statement essentially takes the "if" part of the statement to an EXTREME level.

for example (per your link)....

if you ban SOME weapons, then ALL weapons will be banned.
if you gamble a LITTLE, then you will end up gambling ALOT.
if i make ONE exception, then i will have to make MANY exceptions.

(and for the record, i agree that slippery slope arguments are weak and i almost never use them.)

No, you're not.? Read the definitions provided.? The drury link is a great definition.

They are not just "more of the same", which is what you said in your FIRST post.? They are illegitemate cause and effect (ie: if/then) statements (as you said in your 2nd post), for sure.? All of them.? Not just the "more of the same" versions.? Read the other examples provided (again, specifically at the drury link).

In addition, your 2nd example above is not the actual conclusion the example comes to.? The conclusion presented is that you will turn to crime.

"You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings."

It would be valid to say the "more of the same" arguments you're showing are slippery slopes, but not all slippery slopes are "more of the same".

Yes, they take on the form of logical (invalid) progression.? But that form of "logical progression" does not have to, necessarily, be "more of the same".

Edit: Or is your point just that my marshmellow example wasn't "long" enough of a slope?? It was just as much of a slippery slope, but the slope was implied (for brevity).? ?The "slope", so to speak, is actually the logical progression to get from point A to point H.? In my original example, point A would be the selling of Marshmellows, Point H would be everybody getting fat.? I elected not to take us through B,C,D,E,F,G because I thought peopel would get the point.

i think slippery slope is a figure of speach, is someone open to interpretation, and doesn't really have a specific definition.

(you know i'm bored at work when i'm on message boards idscussing semantics  ::))

It does have a definition actually, that is why I said it's not really an argument.

SLC and Pilferk are right.  There is no room for interpretation here.  A slippery slope argument is an invalid logical equation.  I repeat. it's an invalid LOGICAL equation.  Opinion and feelings have nothing to do with it or affect whether it is logically valid.

again....you people take shit too fucking seriously. no one is writing a fucking disertation here. someone mentioned it in their post and we're describing it as an "invalid equation"??? in every day conversation, it's a figure of speech. we all understand what people mean when they say it. the over-analysis of people's wording in their posts is boring and such a waste of time.

Says the person who has gotten all worked up because they weren't aware of the proper definition of a term.

Nobody expects everyone to know everything.? No one is personally attacking you because you didn't know.? It's really not a big deal.

I posted the links.? There is a specific, widely held definition (Notice, in my first post, I even said what you think it means isn't the widely held definition).? You didn't know it.? How about you just calmly, and in a civilized fashion say something like "Ah, I wasn't aware of that" and we'll move on?? It's really not THAT big a deal.

i was fully aware of what the statement means.

and your little explanation about FACT vs POSSIBILITY doesn't hold much weight in the real world use of the term. because it's always going to be an argument. nothing in the future is guaranteed as FACT. therefore, using the statement in an argument is speculative.

Yes, it will.  Note what I said in my first post:

"A slippery slope, as I understand it, is not: If this and this and this happen, this might happen or I think this will happen.  That's valid, provided, at least, you have some basis for your speculation (and, in the forum of moderated debate, the basis better be pretty strong)."

I said it would be speculation and you'd have to have a pretty good basis for it.

But it's still not a slippery slope anymore, because you're qualifying it as your opinion, or a possilble outcome.

"Slippery slope takes the form of a valid deductive argument - i.e., a string of "if-then" statements which lead to a conclusion."

slippery slope is not 100% factual. it's an ARGUMENT. if it was fact, there'd be no reason to argue.

You just won't let it go, will you.? Why do you have such a hard time admitting you were mistaken?

A valid, deductive argument, by definition, contains statments of fact or a progression of things that WILL happen, rather than just possibilities. An argument would be an assertion that a particular chain of events WILL happen or DID happen, as in making a legal argument, not that they MIGHT happen.

legal arguments are not necessarily fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

that provides a much better explanation than the links you had provided.

here's an excerpt:

"If A occurs then the chances increase that B will occur"

to me, the key word is "chance". thus, the one making the argument is admitting that there is still only a chance that something will happen, albeit an increased chance.

legal arguments are not necessarily fact.

Making a legal argument means laying out a progression of what, based on the evidence, has happened or, in civil court, will happen. The progressions are definitive. Lawyers don't say "I think he is guilty because here's what might have happened". ?They provide facts and evidence to support a LOGICAL PROGRESSION of ?events...and they state their arguments as such. ?No "I thinks", no "In my opnion" (that's left to those providing expert testimony). ?Their progression is laid out as statements of fact, of certainty. ?Their facts may be in error, yes. ?

Again, just admit you were wrong and lets move on, eh? ?

Or are you so obtuse that you refuse, even when presented with overwhelming evidence, to abandon your position and integrate new information. ?It's perfectly OK not to know something. ?It's entirely something else when you CHOOSE not to accept the truth of something....

Jeesh!

Wikpedia is a user editable source.? The person editing it got it wrong (hell, YOU could have edited it).

I can provide, if you like, half a dozen more (or so) links that give the definition the first links provided.

Hell, look at the very EXAMPLES in the Wikpedia article...and notice their format and structure.

Edit:

And from within the SAME citation you used:

" However, the slippery slope claim requires independent justification to connect the inevitability of B to an occurrence of A."

Yet more links:

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

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-Slope.html

http://mindprod.com/jgloss/slipperyslope.html

http://www.goodart.org/ss.htm

take cheap shots and question my intelligence. but just know that i would not stoop that low, pilferk. i can simply agree to disagree.

above is your original post on this issue. let me make it known that i do not consider "the jungle" section of a gnr message board to be a "formal" debate.

back on topic.....the women getting fired for attending planned parenthood meetings doesn't sit with me too well. it's not as cut and dry as "it's her personal time, so she can do what she wants." but something just doesn't seem right about that. 

I've taken no cheap shots. I didn't question your intelligence. Again, I'm quite sincere when I say I don't think anybody expects anybody here to know everything.  As a matter of fact, I was quite nice about the whole thing UNTIL, when provided with overwhelming evidence that was contrary to your position, you still insisted you were right.  That's being obtuse, by the very definition of the word.  That's not a shot, it's a simple fact.  I offered you a few opportunites to just gracefully admit you were mistaken and move on......I think that's being pretty nice.

And you can disagree with established fact if you'd like.  But realize that, if you CHOOSE to percieve red as blue, or CHOOSE to define a term alternately than the widely accepted definition, that YOU take responsibility for what happens next.  You certainly can't hold others accountable to your alternate version of things.

Ah, and now you try to change the subject.  Berkley claimed he thought the slippery slope could be accurate and acceptable at times.  I said, in formal debate, at least, it is not.  And explained why.  Then saw WHERE Berkley was disconnecting....it was on his perception of what a slippery slope was.  Then YOU chimed in and we had our discussion.

So, where did I say that HTGTH was a formal place of debate?  However, when discussing issues like the ones we do, it's certainly pertinent to call a spade, a spade. 

I agree on the woman fired for volunteering at PP.  While the school is well within their rights, I suppose, it's still skeevy.

everyone can easily understand that slippery slopes (by definition) technically are fallacy. so the term is actually used only in informal situations. you even stated...

"When stating your opinion? Sure, knock yourself out"

my point is, when conversing in a relaxed environment, there's no reason to treat statements in a formal manner. it's a waste of time.

so now you are stating as FACT, that i'm stupid. interesting.

I said no such thing.? Don't put words in my mouth.

Obtuse is not "stupid", it's stubborn.  Specifically it's a stubborn resolve to refuse to abandon a position when faced with overwhelming, irrefutable contrary evidence.

And I said "when stating your opinion" BECAUSE WHEN STATING YOUR OPINION YOU'RE NOT MAKING A SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT. Kindly place my quotes in the context they were actually used in.

sandman, just admit you were mistaken and move on.? Really.?

You've taken what could have been chalked up, by you, to a simple, honest mistake and just perpetuated it.

you're the one not getting this. this is a relaxed informal setting. and everyone but you understands what the term slippery slope means in every day common language.

and here's your quote....

"That's being obtuse, by the very definition of the word.  That's not a shot, it's a simple fact."

did i really take that out of context???

Yes, they do.? I've provided the definitions. I'm quite sure most everyone knows what the definition of the term slippery slope means in the ENGLISH language...There isn't an "informal" and "formal" definition.? There is just a definition.? I provided it.  Others have pointed the same thing out to you.  Notice...you're the only one "not getting it"?

You just refuse to acknowledge it.? And instead of just letting it go, you try to wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.? Dude, you were wrong.? Proven wrong.? Ya can't wiggle.? Just gracefully acknowledge you were wrong and LET IT GO.

If YOU choose to use the term incorrectly, hey...go right ahead.? But choosing to be wrong doesn't mean WE have to adopt your "informal" definition.

Hey, you know what, it's an informal discussion group.? From here on out, I want red to actually be used to refer to a mixture of blue and green.? No biggie, right?? ? ? ::)? You just all remember that! Because if you say red, and actually mean the color FOMERLY referred to as red...you're just wrong, ya know.? ?:-\

And here's an example of how you SHOULD have handled the situation, right from the get go:

sandman, you're quite right.? Obtuse was not the word I should have used.? I used the word incorrectly, and it did not accurately reflect what I meant.? If I offended you, I'm sorry.

I should have, instead, used the word obstinate.? If you'd like, I'll edit the posts where I incorrectly used the word obtuse.

but your definitions also state that the term slippery slope is fallacy. read your definitions again and think about what they are saying. yes, it is based on fact and certainty, as you have said....BUT it is a fallacy. and i argue that is, in part, because no one can predict the future. therefore you cannot guarantee an event.

no need to edit your previous posts. i have thick skin and take personal insults in stride. i am not easily offended.

i find it interesting though, that as much as you discuss semantics, you would come back and claim you used a word that did not accurately reflect what you meant.

sandman, you've now talked yourself directly into a circle. What you posted has NOTHING, whatsoever, to do with the conversation at hand.? Of course it's a fallacy because no one can predict the future.? That's the point.? Making a statement OF FACT about an event that WILL occur, inevitably, when there are other possible outcomes, is exactly why it's a fallacy.? That's the whole point!

I never said slippery slope was based on fact.? I said "statements of fact".? A statement of fact is an assertion that something WILL happen, rather than MIGHT or COULD happen.? The statement of fact might not ACTUALLY? BE a fact....or the fact being stated might be an error.? But its still a statement of fact.

And you can predict future events, FYI.? If I were to shoot someone in the chest, directly over there heart, I could pretty accruately predict what would come next.? That's a VALID logical progression.

 You're wrong. There's ample proof that your original statement was wrong.? There's ample proof that subsequent statements were wrong. You can either accept it, and move on, or you can continue to obstinately hold on to your belief and use the term incorrectly.? At this point, I don't really care which choice you make.? The ACTUAL definition of the term has been established, whether you choose to accept it or not.

As for using the wrong term to accurately reflect what I meant.....maybe you should revisit the posts I made about not expeting everyone to know everything.? Everybody makes mistakes. It's called the human condition. It's about whether we learn from them, or not.? I've chosen to learn from mine, and make amends for it.....

If you're trying to call into question whether I'm right on THIS terminology...well, that's a tough claim to try to make.? I've provided documented proof of the definition that is correct.

But, of course, I suspected you'd do as much when I posted what I did.? It's all you have left.? ::)

I agree with this.? The original post was:


I think this is more speculation than saying something will happen.? It is an argument to stop people from taking the flag down now because if they give in here then it may lead to other things.

To dismiss the argument because someone uses the term "slippery slope" in the post is wrong.? I think people need to pay more attention to the argument at hand and less attention to "terms" that they can look onto websites to see whether it is on someone's list as a valid argument.

i've talked MYSELF into a circle??  :rofl:

i was under the assumption that everyone would understand what i meant when i used the term. i should not have used the term because i rarely do as i hate to speculate.

little did i know that people focus on my terminology more than on the actual point being made. i guess i need to research the definitions of all my terminology on the internet before i post.  ::)

Anyway someone can discredit an argument they will try and use it.  It is easier than responding to the argument.