The slippery slope


take that, patriarchy!


I found on the Interweb quite a few Slippery Slope Arguments made by people with advanced logical reasoning powers throughout the history every time a social change is about to take place…

Interracial marriage is a slippery slope that leads to legalized polygamy and incest:

" It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psychosociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intra-married, and that the state’s prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage…"

Suffrage is a slippery slope that leads to the dissolution of human relations:

“…giving women suffrage was construed in 1848 as an assault on the traditional family, a slippery slope toward dissolution of the God-given order of human relations.”

Abolition is a slippery slope that leads to blah blah blah:

“Fitzhugh regarded the preservation of societal order as among the chief benefits of human thralldom, declaring that ‘at the saveholding South all is peace, quiet, plenty and contentment. We have no mobs, no trade unions, no strikes for higher wages, no armed resistance to the law, but little jealousy of the rich by the poor. We have but few in our jails, and fewer in our poor houses.’ This was no coincidence: Because blacks so clearly required masters, racial slavery was 'the most necessary of all human institutions,” an "indispensable police institution.’

In Fitzhugh’s view, abolitionists sought nothing less than the reorganization of American society. They wished ‘to abolish … or greatly modify the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, the institution of private property of all kinds, but especially separate ownership of lands, and the institution of Christian churches now existing in America.’ If they are successful, Fitzhugh warned, government, law, religion, and marriage would be among the causalities."

Desegregation is a slippery slope that leads to interracial conflict:

“…segregation could reduce the ‘friction’ caused by the ‘repugnancies’ between the races that arose from ‘natural differences’. Additionally, by the 1890s, violence, including lynching, perpetuated predominantly by Southern European Americans against African Americans, had increased to dramatically that segregation increasingly appeared to be 'the embodiment of enlightened public policy - a progressive strategy for reducing interracial conflict.”

There are many more, but since we’ve got astonishingly many folks here on Forumosa with advanced logical reasoning powers to foresee and warn us of the downward spiral our society will slide down every time an amendment is about to be made, I’m wondering if they’d help me understand the following…

The age of consent has been raised by the US government from as low as 10 to somewhere between 16 and 18 now. Using the Slippery Slope Argument, wouldn’t the government keep raising the age of consent to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110 etc, thus open the door to necrophilia?

The age of majority has been lowered from 21 to 18. Using the Slippery Slope Argument, wouldn’t the government keep lowering the age of majority from 18 to 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, thus open the door to pedophilia?

Christians say that God created Adam and then Eve. So they must have made sexy times with each other to produce children, and the children must also have made sexy times with each other to produce even more children. So would you say that the entire human race is the product of incest? But our godless governments have outlawed incest. Where would this slippery slope lead us to?


I nominate your post for “solved” status, but I’ll leave that for the mod to decide.


But we don’t know the dire consequences of raising the age of majority, lowering the age of consent, and the criminalization of familial procreation orgies yet…


Thinking of the Boston busing crisis of the 70’s. Not a slippery slope exactly, though.

I’m not racist. Some of my worst enemies are white.


True. Hence “at the earliest opportunity” :slight_smile:


We put everyone in jail at the earliest opportunity then! True in the US for sure


“In the phone call she was angry and under stress, and used male pronouns to emphasize her objections. That led the advisor to end the call, concerned that it was in fact Hanna who was violating human rights law by her words and behaviour — which could lead the roommate to file a complaint of her own, putting the Centre in a conflict of interest.”

“Hanna said the woman is in her late 20s, has facial hair, chest hair, and wears large black combat boots that “trigger” her with their thumping. She said at one communal dinner, the roommate talked about having had a wife in the past, and a pregnant fiancée, and was overheard talking about some unidentified women as “hot” and expressing her preference for Latina women. Hanna said her mannerisms came across as “piggish” and inappropriate.” (I put “woman” in bold for comedic effect)

What a bigot, how dare she refer to that tormented individual as a man? First the scrabble guy sexually harassing anything that moves in Taipei, now this…what’s going on in Canada?


I had to make sure the National Post is a legit news site and not an Onion clone.

It’s really hard to write an article that funny without the author acknowledging the growing sense you’re having your leg pulled that you get from reading it. Still laughing over it, in fact.


“This can’t be real, I can’t be reading this” is a reaction that is all to common nowadays.


I’m not a Gavin McInnes fan - he tends to just rant and take the piss rather than follow a reasoned train of thought, which gets a bit boring after a while. But this one (on the general topic of alphabet-soup gender/sex-preference fluidity and whether kids need to know about it) is worth watching. Takes him about three minutes to warm up, but the rest is entertaining. And scary. I think he’s quite right about unqualified nutcases being allowed into kindergartens. Is there going to come a point where the ‘P’ subgroup also insist upon their right to tell five-year-olds that it’s OK to … oh good grief, I don’t even want to think about that possibility.


Very on topic here, but perhaps too triggering to be outside Temp:

(Possibly too triggering even to be in Temp, but we’ll give it a chance.)


Pretty soon, words like doofus, cretin and imbecile are going to be verboten too. Enjoy them while you can!


Saying “verboten” is a microaggression against the consumers of fermented cabbage. Not kimchi. The other kind.


Spit it out Rowland, clicking on some link which takes me to another thread in temp where I need to click on another link which is related to some comment in yet another thread which was flamed by someone else for reasons I don’t know or care very little about is way too much work.

If you have a question that you think pertains to all forum members, feel free to post here, otherwise send me a PM and I’ll be glad to give you my take on whatever it is that seems to be bothering you.


I have my reasons. This is not my first choice, but the mods are making their presence felt.

It’s a lot more inconvenient for me than it is for you. Don’t like it? Blame the mods who make it necessary. They’re not my rules.


It’s cultural appropriation. Non-speakers of German should not co-opt German words.

Anyway, German was the native language of Hitler, therefore if you use German words you’re a Nazi. When speaking, one should stick to non-triggering words like ‘you know’, ‘like’, and ‘um’.




Heads up. It has recently been brought to my attention that to condemn child rapists may be construed as “hateful bigotry” according to the mods here.

Of course any dictionary will give you a very different definition of bigotry. But we must all speak proper IngSoc.


How about this… I’ll just post it right here and risk getting this whole thread sent down the memory hole.

No, not Temp. Oblivion. Would you like that?