The Slippery Slope Argument

[Xier0]

One of the things that people in this section keep doing that irritates me is using arguments that are subject to the so called 'Slippery Slope' argument. When you argue a point, you have to be absolute in most cases so that you can defend your argument on both sides, for example.

Abortion is morally reprehensible when the fetus is more than 3 months old, because the fetus is developed enough to be considered a human being.

So, the slippery slope begins: Counter argument to that is what about 91 days old? Is it OK to abort the fetus an hour after 3 months? Does anything about the cluster of cells fundamentally change from 1 minute before 3 months old and 1 minute after? So we set the new standard at 3 months and 1 minute. What about 3 months and 2 minutes? Has the cluster of cells actually fundamentally changed in such a way that aborting it is different than 1 minute before?

Repeat until the fetus is 9 months old, setting a new standard on the slippery slope each time.

!PLEASE NOTE::: MY ARGUMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MORALITY OF ABORTION, PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING CONCERNING THE MORALITY OF ABORTION IN YOUR COMMENTS!

This argument is particularly useful against anything time related, there has to be a deciding, measurable factor in a time related argument that makes a difference between it being moral one second, and immoral the next, for example:

Abortion is morally reprehensible once the fetus has a measurable heart beat

This is an example of an argument that is less vulnerable to the slippery slope argument. There is an actual point where you can draw the line between it being moral or immoral that is not reliant on time.

tl;dr Please avoid arguments that are vulnerable to me coming and posting all over your thread with these slippery slope arguments.

 

[Apith]

A few months ago SFA changed and started going down. It's hit a new low. Last thread I was in, and most likely the last for a while, had no argument. I mean what's the point in creating a thread to argue when you don't prepare.

Less and less thoughts are being put into posts and threads. The only argument I got after my well thought out posts was "I'm just consciously against gambling". Keep in mind that it was the first thread I checked in several months. Prior to that, answers were usually one line posts with little to no thought put into. It's the things like this that's degraded the SFA and deterred me and others from it.

 

A few months ago SFA changed and started going down. It's hit a new low. Last thread I was in, and most likely the last for a while, had no argument. I mean what's the point in creating a thread to argue when you don't prepare.

Less and less thoughts are being put into posts and threads. The only argument I got after my well thought out posts was "I'm just consciously against gambling". Keep in mind that it was the first thread I checked in several months. Prior to that, answers were usually one line posts with little to no thought put into. It's the things like this that's degraded the SFA and deterred me and others from it.

You're not alone, that thread made me puke a little.

Also I agree xiero, slippery slope arguments are fallacious and should be avoided. You could probably update the OP to be a little more concise but maybe it'll help someone.