Absence of evidence, causation, and fallacies
On the slippery slope, here a longish meditation on how it works in the law and policy realm:
The author notes that as a matter of pure logic, it’s true that allowing A shouldn’t necessarily lead to allowing B further down the slope. But for practical reasons, it often does. (Indeed, the slippery slope is so common in real life that calling the idea a “fallacy” has a certain “imagine a spherical cow in a vacuum” quality….)
I really like this: especially your points on "fallacies" - I've noticed how so many people in the last few years reel these off as if "it's never ok to make an argument like this". I think distinguishing between errors in logic, and potential errors in logic is great.
This is a good one Klaus! (Love the cat!)
Also enjoyed Chesterton’s link on slippery slopes.
One might be happy at first to make some emotionally distressed people happy by saying TWAW when you really don’t believe it; and you might not give a hoot about who’s using which bathrooms at Target. But a couple years later, the thinking has evolved to include a male-bodied chaperone in your daughter’s cabin at 6th grade camp, or male-bodied swimmers on the women’s swim team breaking records and exposing non-consenting women to their nakedness in the locker room, or violent male-bodied sex offenders housed in women’s prisons -- all because a belief has evolved that to oppose these things is to be the worst sort of intolerant bigot.