I hope that the newly elected WP can cut through the trash and get back some sanity into the compact between the Government and governed. First, the holy salaries of Parliamentarians have to be brought down to earth and the perpetrators of the public heist brought to justice with the return of their loot. Yes, I really mean pay us back the big sums that they have robbed from us by whisking the decision to pay through Parliament. Second, the program to replace the original population by foreign invasion has to be stopped before the process becomes another unstoppable holy grail of the Ruling party. Third, elites and elite firms like law firms with connections to individuals of the Ruling Party be prevented from commandeering State Institutions especially the faceless police, ISD, to soften their clients and run errands for them. Singapore is fast becoming a rogue Police State with its Institutions doing the bidding of their political masters and cronies. Yes, I mean Corruption, (the fearful word) because the effect is exactly the same as the plain rotten corruption we see about us in the region. The ISD should be dismantled or should realign its duties against Enemies of the State not enemies of their friends. Fourth, a reinstatement of the possibility of normal conversations between people without fear of suits of defamation- the law of defamation to be examined and rewritten in the context of its deleterious use by the Ruling Party, whereby people who talk are destroyed or have to flee the country. And so on. We have been living too long under the phantasmagoria of the exceptional nobility of the Ruling Party. With the advent of the WP into Parliament we want such things to be brought up in Parliament, pronto.

Ah.. if only Vivian Balakrishnan said,” If you want to drink, some of us will get drunk and act silly. Some people when drunk feel like dancing. Some bars might allow their seemingly drunk customers to dance on their bar top. Some bars might not allow them to do so fearing for their safety. Some friends of a drunk dancer might feel responsible or irresponsible towards his or her behaviour. Some might find it funny. Some might find it not. Some might get hurt falling over. Some might have a great time. Some might sue the bar for the lack of protection towards their drinking customers. Some might complain about the dangerous design of a bar top that was allowed to be danced on. But we all should let adults be adults, and we should like to think that maturity and responsible behaviours will sort themselves out. While I support the liberalisation of this ‘control freak’ policy, I also want all of us to be aware of the price to be paid for liberty. The price of warm, safe and fuzzy feelings of a govermental parental like control. I for one, do not like to dance on bars nor do I like to insult girls with short skirts enjoying freely this act of expression.”

If only he had said that, in my opinion, he might get more fans. He looks like a decent guy though, and I don’t think he goes to bars much.

I don’t know if that can be considered a slippery slope. There’s no connection between the first and the last premise, in your summary. Because of this, it doesn’t look like a real argument — an Opposition without rights must equal to people losing patriotism and loyalty to the state — and I believe that there are implicit arguments within it that have to be considered first.

Are we saying that now we need The Thinking Quotient [TTQ]?

IQ, EQ, AQ, ….. to ZQ are ALL NOT IMPORTANT.

We must have TTQ or The Transparent Thinking Quotient [TTTQ]?????

Life is so difficult….. and have to a lot…..

If Mr Leounheort confirmed that Mr Choo had made an Affirmation of Facts [BIG WORDS that I NEVER use in my LIFE!], WHY WHY WHY is that Mr Choo cannot publish his Affirmation of Facts in the newspapers [BIG WORDS AGAIN]? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
If these politician have made Mistakes about FACTS, WHY they cannot be INFORMED and are NOT REQUIRED TO CORRECT such MISTAKES about FACTS and put the FACTs STRAIGHT?????? WHY WHY WHY???
……………………………..
I am getting VERY CONFUSED …..

Just wonder, are there any FACTS available in this World nowadays?
Are they all “Slipery Slopes” ????? HOW? HOW HOW?? HOW HOW HOW???

For goodness sake, we need Mr Choo and Mr Leounheort to be POLITICIANs. Why NOT? The money is good and you are not accountable when the citizens become POORER.

Anyway, all the World Politicians became RICHER during the 1997 Financial Crisis while the World citizens including unlucky entrepreneurs became very much POORER. I hope this is NOT a Slippery Slope…..

A people without rights is a people bullied and humiliated.

A people bullied and humiliated will find no loyalty and patriotism to the state.”

SDP’s slippery slope.

Do you agree?

Sorry about that. Your previous comment was caught in the spam folder. I have no idea why… :(

Apologies.

Yet another slippery slope argument here

Thanks for the recommendation. An interesting read.. :)

Leounheort, thanks for the clarification on deductive reasoning. Point well taken.

you’re welcome.

…Well, I guess you can tell that I got a bit carried away. Still, since I agree completely with the gist of his article, i.e. certain people have made slippery slope arguments, and how to spot them, and have nothing much more to add on that bit, I thought that it would be better if I touched on semantics instead. In fact, I usually don’t touch on semantics, unless it’s pretty glaring or forms the basis of an argument. You might have noticed by the fact that I didn’t say that ‘debater’ is the actual spelling for ‘debator’, the latter being a mistake that a lot of people, debaters included, make. That I did touch on semantics here means that there’s not much else that can be improved here, content-wise anyway.

But I think the last part was lost in articulation…

Oh well.

definitely so. It’s just one more reason I don’t let my team use a slippery slope, or resort to one myself.

I have a couple of points to bring up.

Firstly, what do you mean by your point on quantifying collateral damage? I do not believe that the writer has actually explicitly stated any kind of ‘collateral damage’. It is not his responsibility to elaborate on a point he didn’t made. So, having him quantify this so-called collateral damage is not logical.

Even if he did, he hasn’t employed any reductive reasoning. Reductive reasoning is the explanation of complex effects through a simple cause. What he has done is to show the logical fallacies made by members of the Government, Parliament, judiciary, and a university. He has done this by exploring the key assertions of their arguments and showing why they are just that: assertions. This cannot be reductive reasoning, for he has proposed neither cause nor effect of something or another. Therefore, you misrepresent him.

In addition, you have implied that ‘the authorities’, too, employ reductive reasoning. This is not reductive reasoning. The slippery slope fallacy tries to show how something leads to something, which leads to something else. Reductive reasoning looks at the final ‘something’, and tries to ascertain the initial, simple, cause. Because of this difference in methodology, reductive reasoning is not the same as the slippery slope fallacy. Therefore, you misrepresent the authorities, too.

Secondly, what do you mean by the entirety of your second argument? Let me to take it into three parts for easier reading.

Firstly, what is this ‘argument’ you are referring to? What the writer is doing here is to show that certain members of the Government, Parliament, judiciary and a university have, in fact, committed a logical fallacy known as the slippery slope argument. This, I believe, he has done satisfactorily. But he has no made no argument. What he has done is to analyse what these people have said, then declare that they are logical fallacies. Through analysis, he has realised that those speeches fall into the category of ‘slippery slope argument’. This article is, to the best of my opinion, an affirmation of fact. An argument pushes for something, based on a personal belief, and is therefore coloured by personal bias. While the article may be driven by personal beliefs, the cornerstones of this article, i.e. the speeches, are not. They are, as I have explained earlier, logical fallacy. A fallacy is a fallacy no matter how many ways you look at one; so a logical fallacy is objective. This exposure of logical fallacies therefore does not constitute an argument in itself, certainly not in my opinion.

Secondly, what is this ‘contextual sleight of hand’? If you are referring to the aspect of this article that refers to context, then I must disagree. It is not ‘sleight of hand’; it is simply analysis. What he is saying is that we must look at the context of that argument. So, if one says that an action will spark religious riots in Singapore, you need to see if that person has accounted for the context of Singapore, i.e. our multiracial, multireligious nature. There is no ‘sleight of hand’ here, so please clarify what you mean by that.

Thirdly, what do you mean by ‘ultimately snuff out the flame but at best, encourage more creative diversification and alternative experimentation of questionable alliances which may not necessarily be bad depending on which focus lens applied’? Please elaborate on this, because it is very difficult to fanthom your logics and your arguments.

Logikal, please explain your arguments to the fullest, or at least to the point where we can understand your logics. That way, I believe, we can actually go somewhere with our points and beliefs.

Thanks for the explanation. :)

I think in this case, perhaps the gist of the article is more important than maybe the semantics? But nonetheless, it’s good to know how WW1 started. :))

Regards,
Andrew

The slippery slope is not a deductive argument. A simple deductive argument is generally characterised by three statements: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. For example:

1. All wines are beverages.
2. Chardonnay is a wine.
3. Therefore, Chardonnay is a beverage.

The major premise is a general statement. The minor premise is a more specific one. The conclusion links both statements together. More complex arguments have multiple major and minor premises, and sub-conclusions, before arriving at a final conclusion. Since every idea is shown to lead to a conclusion, it is ‘deductive’. Deductive arguments are indeed powerful intellectual tools, because they show explicitly how one idea leads to another, and how they are all linked to provide a final result. This is not a feature of the slippery slope.

In fact, the slippery slope argument isn’t. It is actually called the ‘slippery slope fallacy’ in some circles, because it is illogical. This argument states that A will lead to B, which will lead to C, which will lead to D, and so on. For example:

The driver of Archduke Ferdinand took a wrong turn. By doing so, he allowed his assasins to shoot the Archduke. This assasination caused Austria-Hungary and Serbia to go to war. This exploded into the First World War. Following the defeat of the Central Powers, the Treaty of Versailles was signed to punish the aggressors, Germany in particular. Germany’s economy was shattered by the terms of the Versailles Treaty, made worse by its poor government. This allowed Adolf Hitler to take power, and start World War II. The defeat of Germany, Italy, and Japan gave way to a new war: the Cold War. Therefore, the driver of Archduke Ferdinand was responsible for starting the Cold War.

The slippery slope fallacy is labelled as such because it does not show a logical progression. Take this example: the driver turning the wrong way. This does not automatically lead to Ferdinand getting shot, because someone else pulled the trigger. And that person might not have been responsible for the First World War, because ultimately, it was the governments of Austria-Hungary and Serbia at that time, and not the assasin, that declared war. And so on and so forth.

Similarly, by examining the above-mentioned speakers, we can see the same thing. They did not show how one event would logically lead to another. Instead, all they have done is put forth one assertion after another, some of which are, quite frankly, at incredibility’s edge. I’m not at all surprised that Balakrishnan did it: debaters at all levels are known for throwing up such arguments.

The low-end ones, anyway.

So, while this is a decent essay, the main problem with it is that you have mistaken a slippery slope argument/fallacy for a deductive argument. Hope this helps.