Doug:
I must admit that I hate the term "slippery slope." This seems to be a phrase thrown at a point when there is nothing else to argue about it. Does it actually mean anything to you?
David:
Just the common interpretation. If you start something new or legislate something that has not been in place before, similar events may start up that you don't want to happen. Perhaps you pass a law restricting a certain type of speech. The slippery slope phenomenon would suggest you are now open to restricting any type of speech.
Doug:
I guess I don't believe in a "slippery slope" if one makes choices based on principles. Slippery slope implies that the issue is completely arbitrary.
David:
I disagree. Once you open a door to an idea, the next folks who come along may not follow the original principles at all. Principles, definitions, paradigms....they all may change over time, and allow a follow up action that may even be contradictory to the original idea.
I prefer the designation "unintended consequences" to what happens next, although you could make an argument the two are not exactly the same thing. Slippery slope indicates your actions open the door to unexpected or unwanted follow up actions. Unintended consequences warns of untoward outcomes based on the actual action you have taken.
Doug:
They are not the same thing at all, in my mind. Everything with enough complexity has unintended consequences... that is the nature of interactions. Especially when dealing with an adversary who is trying to divert intended consequences. Slippery slope may have unintended consequences (from the law's designer, for example). As long as the principle isn't violated, then all should be fine. In fact, one can discover new freedoms in exactly this manner. All "men" are created equal? What is the principle? Unintended, no doubt, by the original framers, but all people are created equal is the principle.
David:
Again, the principals are based on the original designer's understanding and interpretation of the principals. For instance, if you pass a law banning "hate speech", those words have certain meaning for the designer. You may even define the words as specifically as you can at the time. Yet, when someone else with a different set of morals or principals is making the rules, "hate speech" may mean something completely different, like speech that differs from that persons ideology.
Doug:
If a law is passed banning "hate speech" then the principles and definitions of "hate" and "speech" have to be very clearly defined.
David:
You and I have many of the same principals, and yet we also have some principals that are quite different. As we have seen in the blogs, we both are quite certain of our principals, and can back up our positions. From different paradigms, sometimes I am right, and once in a blue moon, someone, somewhere may think you're right.
By throwing this topic out, are you insinuating we have reached the end of all debate, and we have nothing left to argue about? To paraphrase John Paul Jones, I have not yet begun to argue!
Doug:
No, not at all. My problem with slippery slope is that it really is a statement that the argument doesn't have principles. To go back to your example, I think one can make laws on certain types of speech without any fear of slipping on a slope. But, those principles need to be clearly stated. I think valid limitations can be made on all kinds of things, including speech, gun ownership, taxes, and even abortion.
David:
Perhaps. Referring back to your previous comments regarding unintended consequences, we've seen how the complexity of variables means that you cannot take in to account all of the instances that could arise that may be misused by a different interpretation of language. The Second Amendment to the Constitution probably was debated by the Founding Fathers, and the language they settled on was understood to have a very specific meaning. I would argue a reading of other documents from the founders indicates clearly that they meant for everyone to own a personal firearm without limitations. But plenty of very smart legal scholars (and my older brother ) would say the meaning is something totally different. Principals, definitions, paradigms, and language change.
Doug:
But what is the underlying principle? Gun ownership, in and of itself, is not the principle. If it were, then we could just ban bullets and we would meet the criteria specified in the amendment, but would gut the principle. We indeed need to look at what arms meant for citizens at the time, and attempt to keep the principle intact.
David:
To keep and bear arms is the principal. Courts have ruled that individuals being able to purchase guns and all of the supplies needed to operate them is exactly the principal involved. It may not be your principle, but that is just the point.
Doug:
The second amendment's principle is stated in the first part of the first sentence: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." This is not about citizens carrying guns. It is about a State's militia.
And we don't allow individuals to have any type of arms. Individuals can't own tanks or nuclear weapons. Why not? Because that is not the principle. Arms don't technically include bullets, but we allow them. Why? Because that is the principle. Therefore, "to keep and bear arms" is not the principle. To have a way for a State's militia to escape from their government is the principle.
David:
And so, the gun debate goes on, you see.
As another example, we've seen this past week that the President, and his agencies, have changed the definition of "man" and "woman". The next president may change that definition once again. That is not a conversation that could have been imagined by the vast majority of Americans even a decade ago.
Doug:
But clarifications of the definitions of "man" and "woman" aren't slippery slopes, they are clarifications based on principles. A person shall be treated as the gender they identify with. You may not agree with the principle, but that is a different issue. Focusing on principles rather than on hyperbole gets to the heart of issues and avoids any slope to slip on.
David:
But don't you see that you are now arguing with yourself. You've said that you must define your words carefully and base your laws on principals. Yet now you are saying that redefining the words using a different set of principals is just fine. In other words, a different leader can now just change the fundamental definitions of the actual words to mean something completely at odds with the original definitions, and enact a completely egregious outcome from the original purpose (and principles) of the law. The idea that an agency or a president can fundamentally change laws by re-defining (or as you say, "clarifying") the terms used within the law does seem to be the proverbial "slippery slope".
Doug:
No, I am saying that the words "man" and "woman" always were rooted in a principle. That principle has nothing to do with one's actual genitalia at a particular point in time. Sure, modern issues change the context under which we interpret laws. But finding the meaningful principle is the goal. But I'm talking about more important issues than the current design of public bathrooms. I'm talking about important principles. If you find a law to be on a slippery slope, then we just need to identify the real principles to get it on flat, stable ground.
David:
I'm glad you find the issue (or principal) rooted in one's genitalia, and not just your state of mind.
I fault Congress as well, in that for decades now they've written laws in very broad terms, and leave the enactment of the bill to unelected officials within the vast array of agencies in the executive branch, via regulations and rules to be written later. That leaves the door open to all sorts of unintended regulations and rules (and crazy ideological ideas) that leave no one ultimately responsible to the people. When these agencies and employees feel they have no one to watch over them, they feel free to act as they see fit. Who purposfully released weapons to criminals in the Fast and Furious debacle? No one. Who targeted conservatives in the IRS scandal? No one. Who failed to provide security to our ambassador in Benghazi despite his repeated pleas for help? No one. Who told Hillary she could keep top secret documents on her own private server in her bathroom closet? No one.
Doug:
Really? In a discussion on slippery slopes versus principles, you want to ask "What about Benghazi?" and blow your other dog whistles. I think that means that the reasonable discussion is over.
David:
It's actually a slippery slope argument. If you don't hold anyone accountable when a government agency screws up, then you are inviting other governmental agencies to also take risks, or step outside of their boundaries. In fact, it isn't just a slippery slope, it's the reality. I didn't even mention other gigantic government failings like the EPA mine disaster, or the Healthcare.gov website fiasco.
Doug:
Yes, there may have been a few government failings you didn't mention (Vietnam War, Iraq War, to name a couple of little ones). But who cares what you (or I) consider a government failing? You have morphed the idea of calling something a slippery slope argument, to now considering entire class of actions slippery slopes. Hold people accountable. That is a fine principle, but you have to do it all of the time, not just when you feel like it. There is nothing slippery here. Have a hearing, and hold them responsible. Done. Oh, wait. Not done. Where did George W. Bush go? The fact that we did not have any hearings about the Iraq war is not a slippery slope. Just a travesty.
David:
We had an enormous number of hearings before the war. Remember, when Hillary voted to send in the troops. What I'm talking about is firing the person or persons responsible for the failure of basic governmental functions. In the private sector, people get fired for failure. Not so in big government. So, managers in government appear to be getting sloppier and more careless.
Moving back to the slippery slope discussion (from here on, I'll just use "SS"), I think what you're getting at is that quite a few SS arguments try to tie unrelated or unlikely events together. "If you allow gay marriage, then people will start marrying their dogs", or something like that.
Doug:
Yes, I have heard Republicans and conservatives say exactly that! A quick search shows:
and many religious people, including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Rick Santorum. Lots of people discussing it (2.4 million web pages).
David:
Then again, Liberals often roll out the slippery slope arguments whenever they talk about gun rights, restricting late-term (or any form of) abortions, or entitlement reforms. "Republicans want children to have guns, wage war on women, and they want to kill Grandma!!"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/03/slippery_slope_arguments_not_just_for_conservatives_anymore_118226.html
However, there are some SS arguments that link consequences that are not only possible, but even likely. Using the speech argument from earlier, banning speech based upon a listeners interpretation of speech, as some colleges have done, invites abuse, and adding to the list of what speech becomes "hateful" is inevitable.
Doug:
But again, I ask you to dive down to the fundamental principle.
David:
I'd ask the same of you. What is the fundamental principal behind banning free speech?
Here's an example of where we're headed with the transgender issue.
Doug:
"The transgender issue"? I have a feeling that your packaging up of the situation is going to largely miss the point (and probably not include their perspective at all). But, do tell: where are we headed?
David:
Remember, this issue about locker rooms came about by an interpretation and re-definition of Title IX authority. Recently, a transgender female was allowed to compete in women's MMA fighting.
http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2013/05/24/should-a-former-man-be-able-to-fight-women/
Although not competing on the national scene yet, this fighter has been cleared to fight women in Florida. In her last fight, her competitor left the mat unconscious with multiple facial fractures, and spent time in the hospital.
If transgender women can be approved to compete in MMA events, the SS argument would allow for them to compete in other sports as well. How long do you think it will take for Russian or Chinese olympic teams to begin recruiting transgender women for all sports? After all, both of those countries have been in trouble for years (the Russians may not be allowed at the next olympics) for using male hormones on their female athletes. This would be a completely legal way for them to skirt the rules. If it's illegal to give a female athlete male hormones, because it provides a competitive benefit, would the olympic committee allow males taking female hormones to compete as females? Seems the SS argument would be that, in an ironic twist, Tile IX redefinitions of "male" and "female" could end up excluding females from the very sporting opportunities it was intended to provide for them. It isn't just possible, but I don't see how it can be avoided, if the new Department of Education rules prevail.
Doug:
I don't think MMA (nor boxing for that matter) is a "sport". But I do think some sports will change. And many other distinctions based on sex and gender will also change. Why do we have "best supporting actress"? Can't men and women be placed into the same category for that one? But what is the principle? We want to see good competition between roughly equal performing people. I think we can do that.
David:
In other words, you have no "principal" to dive down into. Why would only some sports change? The principal of Title IX was to increase opportunities for women. By changing the definition of "women", males (who have become women with penises) may replace those original females and their opportunities the law was designed to protect. That seems to illustrate my slippery slope points pretty well.
Doug:
My opinion stands: one only yells "slippery slope!" when one has no idea what the principle is.
I must admit that I hate the term "slippery slope." This seems to be a phrase thrown at a point when there is nothing else to argue about it. Does it actually mean anything to you?
David:
Just the common interpretation. If you start something new or legislate something that has not been in place before, similar events may start up that you don't want to happen. Perhaps you pass a law restricting a certain type of speech. The slippery slope phenomenon would suggest you are now open to restricting any type of speech.
Doug:
I guess I don't believe in a "slippery slope" if one makes choices based on principles. Slippery slope implies that the issue is completely arbitrary.
David:
I disagree. Once you open a door to an idea, the next folks who come along may not follow the original principles at all. Principles, definitions, paradigms....they all may change over time, and allow a follow up action that may even be contradictory to the original idea.
I prefer the designation "unintended consequences" to what happens next, although you could make an argument the two are not exactly the same thing. Slippery slope indicates your actions open the door to unexpected or unwanted follow up actions. Unintended consequences warns of untoward outcomes based on the actual action you have taken.
Doug:
They are not the same thing at all, in my mind. Everything with enough complexity has unintended consequences... that is the nature of interactions. Especially when dealing with an adversary who is trying to divert intended consequences. Slippery slope may have unintended consequences (from the law's designer, for example). As long as the principle isn't violated, then all should be fine. In fact, one can discover new freedoms in exactly this manner. All "men" are created equal? What is the principle? Unintended, no doubt, by the original framers, but all people are created equal is the principle.
David:
Again, the principals are based on the original designer's understanding and interpretation of the principals. For instance, if you pass a law banning "hate speech", those words have certain meaning for the designer. You may even define the words as specifically as you can at the time. Yet, when someone else with a different set of morals or principals is making the rules, "hate speech" may mean something completely different, like speech that differs from that persons ideology.
Doug:
If a law is passed banning "hate speech" then the principles and definitions of "hate" and "speech" have to be very clearly defined.
David:
You and I have many of the same principals, and yet we also have some principals that are quite different. As we have seen in the blogs, we both are quite certain of our principals, and can back up our positions. From different paradigms, sometimes I am right, and once in a blue moon, someone, somewhere may think you're right.
By throwing this topic out, are you insinuating we have reached the end of all debate, and we have nothing left to argue about? To paraphrase John Paul Jones, I have not yet begun to argue!
Doug:
No, not at all. My problem with slippery slope is that it really is a statement that the argument doesn't have principles. To go back to your example, I think one can make laws on certain types of speech without any fear of slipping on a slope. But, those principles need to be clearly stated. I think valid limitations can be made on all kinds of things, including speech, gun ownership, taxes, and even abortion.
David:
Perhaps. Referring back to your previous comments regarding unintended consequences, we've seen how the complexity of variables means that you cannot take in to account all of the instances that could arise that may be misused by a different interpretation of language. The Second Amendment to the Constitution probably was debated by the Founding Fathers, and the language they settled on was understood to have a very specific meaning. I would argue a reading of other documents from the founders indicates clearly that they meant for everyone to own a personal firearm without limitations. But plenty of very smart legal scholars (and my older brother ) would say the meaning is something totally different. Principals, definitions, paradigms, and language change.
Doug:
But what is the underlying principle? Gun ownership, in and of itself, is not the principle. If it were, then we could just ban bullets and we would meet the criteria specified in the amendment, but would gut the principle. We indeed need to look at what arms meant for citizens at the time, and attempt to keep the principle intact.
David:
To keep and bear arms is the principal. Courts have ruled that individuals being able to purchase guns and all of the supplies needed to operate them is exactly the principal involved. It may not be your principle, but that is just the point.
Doug:
The second amendment's principle is stated in the first part of the first sentence: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." This is not about citizens carrying guns. It is about a State's militia.
And we don't allow individuals to have any type of arms. Individuals can't own tanks or nuclear weapons. Why not? Because that is not the principle. Arms don't technically include bullets, but we allow them. Why? Because that is the principle. Therefore, "to keep and bear arms" is not the principle. To have a way for a State's militia to escape from their government is the principle.
David:
And so, the gun debate goes on, you see.
As another example, we've seen this past week that the President, and his agencies, have changed the definition of "man" and "woman". The next president may change that definition once again. That is not a conversation that could have been imagined by the vast majority of Americans even a decade ago.
Doug:
But clarifications of the definitions of "man" and "woman" aren't slippery slopes, they are clarifications based on principles. A person shall be treated as the gender they identify with. You may not agree with the principle, but that is a different issue. Focusing on principles rather than on hyperbole gets to the heart of issues and avoids any slope to slip on.
David:
But don't you see that you are now arguing with yourself. You've said that you must define your words carefully and base your laws on principals. Yet now you are saying that redefining the words using a different set of principals is just fine. In other words, a different leader can now just change the fundamental definitions of the actual words to mean something completely at odds with the original definitions, and enact a completely egregious outcome from the original purpose (and principles) of the law. The idea that an agency or a president can fundamentally change laws by re-defining (or as you say, "clarifying") the terms used within the law does seem to be the proverbial "slippery slope".
Doug:
No, I am saying that the words "man" and "woman" always were rooted in a principle. That principle has nothing to do with one's actual genitalia at a particular point in time. Sure, modern issues change the context under which we interpret laws. But finding the meaningful principle is the goal. But I'm talking about more important issues than the current design of public bathrooms. I'm talking about important principles. If you find a law to be on a slippery slope, then we just need to identify the real principles to get it on flat, stable ground.
David:
I'm glad you find the issue (or principal) rooted in one's genitalia, and not just your state of mind.
I fault Congress as well, in that for decades now they've written laws in very broad terms, and leave the enactment of the bill to unelected officials within the vast array of agencies in the executive branch, via regulations and rules to be written later. That leaves the door open to all sorts of unintended regulations and rules (and crazy ideological ideas) that leave no one ultimately responsible to the people. When these agencies and employees feel they have no one to watch over them, they feel free to act as they see fit. Who purposfully released weapons to criminals in the Fast and Furious debacle? No one. Who targeted conservatives in the IRS scandal? No one. Who failed to provide security to our ambassador in Benghazi despite his repeated pleas for help? No one. Who told Hillary she could keep top secret documents on her own private server in her bathroom closet? No one.
Doug:
Really? In a discussion on slippery slopes versus principles, you want to ask "What about Benghazi?" and blow your other dog whistles. I think that means that the reasonable discussion is over.
David:
It's actually a slippery slope argument. If you don't hold anyone accountable when a government agency screws up, then you are inviting other governmental agencies to also take risks, or step outside of their boundaries. In fact, it isn't just a slippery slope, it's the reality. I didn't even mention other gigantic government failings like the EPA mine disaster, or the Healthcare.gov website fiasco.
Doug:
Yes, there may have been a few government failings you didn't mention (Vietnam War, Iraq War, to name a couple of little ones). But who cares what you (or I) consider a government failing? You have morphed the idea of calling something a slippery slope argument, to now considering entire class of actions slippery slopes. Hold people accountable. That is a fine principle, but you have to do it all of the time, not just when you feel like it. There is nothing slippery here. Have a hearing, and hold them responsible. Done. Oh, wait. Not done. Where did George W. Bush go? The fact that we did not have any hearings about the Iraq war is not a slippery slope. Just a travesty.
David:
We had an enormous number of hearings before the war. Remember, when Hillary voted to send in the troops. What I'm talking about is firing the person or persons responsible for the failure of basic governmental functions. In the private sector, people get fired for failure. Not so in big government. So, managers in government appear to be getting sloppier and more careless.
Moving back to the slippery slope discussion (from here on, I'll just use "SS"), I think what you're getting at is that quite a few SS arguments try to tie unrelated or unlikely events together. "If you allow gay marriage, then people will start marrying their dogs", or something like that.
Doug:
Yes, I have heard Republicans and conservatives say exactly that! A quick search shows:
and many religious people, including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Rick Santorum. Lots of people discussing it (2.4 million web pages).
David:
Then again, Liberals often roll out the slippery slope arguments whenever they talk about gun rights, restricting late-term (or any form of) abortions, or entitlement reforms. "Republicans want children to have guns, wage war on women, and they want to kill Grandma!!"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/03/slippery_slope_arguments_not_just_for_conservatives_anymore_118226.html
However, there are some SS arguments that link consequences that are not only possible, but even likely. Using the speech argument from earlier, banning speech based upon a listeners interpretation of speech, as some colleges have done, invites abuse, and adding to the list of what speech becomes "hateful" is inevitable.
Doug:
But again, I ask you to dive down to the fundamental principle.
David:
I'd ask the same of you. What is the fundamental principal behind banning free speech?
Here's an example of where we're headed with the transgender issue.
Doug:
"The transgender issue"? I have a feeling that your packaging up of the situation is going to largely miss the point (and probably not include their perspective at all). But, do tell: where are we headed?
David:
Remember, this issue about locker rooms came about by an interpretation and re-definition of Title IX authority. Recently, a transgender female was allowed to compete in women's MMA fighting.
http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2013/05/24/should-a-former-man-be-able-to-fight-women/
Although not competing on the national scene yet, this fighter has been cleared to fight women in Florida. In her last fight, her competitor left the mat unconscious with multiple facial fractures, and spent time in the hospital.
If transgender women can be approved to compete in MMA events, the SS argument would allow for them to compete in other sports as well. How long do you think it will take for Russian or Chinese olympic teams to begin recruiting transgender women for all sports? After all, both of those countries have been in trouble for years (the Russians may not be allowed at the next olympics) for using male hormones on their female athletes. This would be a completely legal way for them to skirt the rules. If it's illegal to give a female athlete male hormones, because it provides a competitive benefit, would the olympic committee allow males taking female hormones to compete as females? Seems the SS argument would be that, in an ironic twist, Tile IX redefinitions of "male" and "female" could end up excluding females from the very sporting opportunities it was intended to provide for them. It isn't just possible, but I don't see how it can be avoided, if the new Department of Education rules prevail.
Doug:
I don't think MMA (nor boxing for that matter) is a "sport". But I do think some sports will change. And many other distinctions based on sex and gender will also change. Why do we have "best supporting actress"? Can't men and women be placed into the same category for that one? But what is the principle? We want to see good competition between roughly equal performing people. I think we can do that.
David:
In other words, you have no "principal" to dive down into. Why would only some sports change? The principal of Title IX was to increase opportunities for women. By changing the definition of "women", males (who have become women with penises) may replace those original females and their opportunities the law was designed to protect. That seems to illustrate my slippery slope points pretty well.
Doug:
My opinion stands: one only yells "slippery slope!" when one has no idea what the principle is.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!