Teacher Fired For His Beliefs

[pilferk]

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.

[sandman]

"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.

[pilferk]

"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.

[sandman]

"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.

[sandman]

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.

[pilferk]

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.

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!

[pilferk]

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.

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

[sandman]

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 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.

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. 

[pilferk]

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.

[sandman]

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.

[pilferk]

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.

[sandman]

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???

[pilferk]

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.

[sandman]

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.?

You just refuse to acknowledge it.

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.

[pilferk]

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.?

[Surfrider]

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 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 agree with this.? The original post was:

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.

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.

[sandman]

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've talked MYSELF into a circle?? 

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. 

[Surfrider]

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.