Question

...
Gwen

Is the following as slippery slope.

So this is an omnipresent all-seeing, all-knowing group, and its members are informants. Sounds like Nazi Germany to me. Citizens passed on information about their neighbours, family, and friends to the Gestapo. This was called informing.

The information provided was not always based on fact and could often be rumour or suspicion.

Informers had various motives including amongst other things, fear, personal gain, professional gain, and personal disagreements (e.g. in response to a personal dislike or argument with that person). Basically, like you lot, any science that does not fit your narrative, you inform FB, because you believe you are always right.

asked on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 04:48:54 AM by Gwen

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
0
Citizen Irrelevant writes:

I am sorry but this entire post, like so many here at LF.com, needs clarification.  Beginning with the typo in the header ("As").  What group is being referred to?  And how does one move past the seemingly obvious ad hominem swipes at the group's credibility to address the complaintant's allegations?  The final sentence makes unsubstantive and presumptuous claims about "the group" which, taken in context, are really quite inflammatory.  But I am at a loss to understand what group is the target of these incendiary charges?  Please, someone clarify this?

posted on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 04:54:50 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
6

So this is an omnipresent all-seeing, all-knowing group, and its members are informants. Sounds like Nazi Germany to me.

This is a weak analogy as well as reductio ad hitlerum . The whole argument is essentially the same as this first line. I don't think it would qualify as a slippery slope, because they are not arguing that you (your group) will be like Nazi Germany; they are arguing that you are like Nazi Germany.

 

answered on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 07:29:42 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
1
Jordan Pine writes:

Reductio ad hitlerum LOL

I know this one as Godwin's Law: "The longer an internet argument goes on, the higher the probability becomes that something or someone will be compared to Adolf Hitler."

posted on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 11:39:29 AM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:

Could reductio ad hitlerum be said to be just a specific form of weak analogy (just like appeal to the moon is a special case of weak analogy)? Could it also be said that reductio ad hitlerum is a specific form of ad hominem (guilt by association)?
My objection is that they are arguing they are LIKE Nazi, not that they are Nazi (surely they imply it and want to exploit the negative connection - therefore ad hominem (guilt by association)). But the argument explicitly says "LIKE Nazi Germany" which explicitly make it an analogy.
Otherwise, if they didn't say "LIKE" but instead said "ARE", wouldn't it then be closer to 
affirming the consequent ?
1)Nazis reported information.
2)Your group reports information.
3)Therefore, you are Nazis." 
Is the "LIKE" vs "ARE" the small detail that differentiates the two fallacies, weak analogy vs affirming the consequent ? 

posted on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 04:06:02 PM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Kostas Oikonomou]

Otherwise, if they didn't say "LIKE" but instead said "ARE",

How I read it, they are saying they "are like" Nazis, not that they "will be like" if condition 1.2.3... etc.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 05:45:46 PM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

If you say to a woman "you are like a man" it doesn't mean she is a man. If you say to a man "you are like a man", he will say to you "what do you mean? I AM A MAN".
Anyway, if it means "are" and not like, isn't that a case of affirming the consequent and not a case of analogy? 

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Feb 20, 2021 12:20:06 PM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Kostas Oikonomou]

Three options:

1) are/is (same)
2) like (analogy)
3) will be/become (used in the slippery slope)

We are dealing with #2 here. The accusation is that they are currently like - an analogy is being made.

affirming the consequent 

If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

If you are like the Nazis (P) then you report information (Q).
you report information (Q)
Therefore, you are like the Nazis (P)

You can argue this, but I don't think you would get much traction because the main issue here is the difference between "reporting information" like Facebook users vs. being "an omnipresent all-seeing, all-knowing group, and its members are informants."

Many times, many fallacies will fit. Going for the biggest flaw in the reasoning is the best place to start.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Feb 22, 2021 08:51:52 AM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Οκ,  thanks for the clarification!

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Feb 22, 2021 11:48:04 AM
...
Rationalissimo
1

I don't see the argument, so there's no visible fallacy. It's just a (disturbing) pattern of behaviour.

EDIT: See Dr Bo's reply. Can't believe I missed it! Yes, comparing things to Nazi Germany is generally a weak analogy.

answered on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 07:26:16 AM by Rationalissimo

Rationalissimo Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Robert W. Armijo
0

I suggest you read The Question of German Guilt by Jaspers. Maybe you will find your answers there but there is guarantee. 

answered on Friday, Feb 19, 2021 11:19:54 PM by Robert W. Armijo

Robert W. Armijo Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Robert W. Armijo
0

It has been my real life experience that the so-called Slippery Slope is NOT a FALLACY!

 

answered on Saturday, Feb 20, 2021 01:02:02 AM by Robert W. Armijo

Robert W. Armijo Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
2
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

First you say the slippery slope is not a fallacy. Then you will reject all fallacies. The next thing you know, you will reject science, including gravity, and walk off a tall building and fall to your death. All because you don't think the slippery slope is a fallacy!

posted on Saturday, Feb 20, 2021 07:40:50 AM
...
1
Jordan Pine writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Not necessarily, Dr. Bo. Gravity is essential to slippery slopes. Ergo, those who believe in slippery slopes must also believe in gravity.

How's my logic? ;-)

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Feb 20, 2021 10:45:51 AM
...
0
Robert W. Armijo writes:

I never said I was a String theorist. 

posted on Sunday, Feb 21, 2021 01:10:41 AM