|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 21, 2011 7:11:22 GMT -5
Oh. I took it as the slippery slope into madness with a spreading facet of a singular mentality when I used the term rather than a ridiculous chain of impossibly related cause and effect. Um, oops? So like, if you're standing on a hillside and I say "look out! You're standing on a slippery slope!" You'll be all "LOGICAL FALLACY!" |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 7:12:48 GMT -5
I'm using the dictionary definition, which you've highlighted for our convenience and seem unaware that much of what you've said appears to fit the criteria. You have, in so many words, just stated that the commision of a crime (armed robbery in this case) all but negates the rights of the one commiting said crime reducing the value of their lives and consequences of their death to nil. You seem to be missing a crucial point of said definition. [/b], the rights of others[/quote] Highlighting mine, to emphasise said crucial point. See, there's the problem with your assertion that I'm a sociopath. I've never even gone out of may way to make life difficult for anyone, much less murdered them. Therefore, I'm not qualified as one. Do we understand now? Also, my question: Now, last chance buddy. See that little "report to mod" button in the bottom right corner of every post? I'll be making use of it if you don't answer it directly or at least state you're unwilling. Direct questions must be addressed, the forum rules here state as much. Just so we're clear, in your answer I want one of two things. Either: -Proof that you know me well enough IRL and have the psychological qualifications to judge me as a sociopath. or -Admit your claim was more based on the likely emotional response from the word "sociopath" than the actual definition. Go! |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 21, 2011 7:16:15 GMT -5
None of us can really know you in real life as you've asked. We've just got your words to go by.
Ironbite-they paint a pretty clear picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 7:16:58 GMT -5
Err, you do realise that a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, right? "Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy because people use it to go from "blacks marrying" to "everyone screwing sheep for fun." It's not a slippery slope to say that drunk driving leads to fatlalities. It's also not a slippery slope to indicate an actual pattern of events. The problem with the fallacy cam be summed up neatly in a handful of words: "When will it stop?" It's a forward proposal, usually an irrational one, not one that actively looks back at events and defines them based on a relevant pattern. And I do mean relevant, not a "Hitler ate sugar" argument. Even if one defines it as a slippery slope argument by some rules lawyering bull, the real danger is in the impractical possible future assertions based on specious evidence. Again, gay marriage will lead to people boinking trees. As I said already, the only way a slippery slope argument is valid is if there is objective proof that the transition described is inevitable (please, for the love of god read the thread so I don't have to keep repeating myself). As such, please come up with some objective proof that my views will lead to genocide, as Passerby stated would happen. Otherwise, a fallacy it be. |
|
|
|
Post by Deimos on Jul 21, 2011 7:17:57 GMT -5
Just want to point out. Even if Art is a sociopath. Who cares, not like anyone can do anything about it. (Not intended to be offensive)
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 7:39:05 GMT -5
None of us can really know you in real life as you've asked. We've just got your words to go by. Ironbite-they paint a pretty clear picture. So in essence, you claim to be able to make a psychological diagnosis with no qualifications and going on nothing but a few posts on the internet, right? Art Vandelay-I don't suppose you see anything wrong with that? |
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 21, 2011 8:07:25 GMT -5
While I was mistakenly speaking of the slippery slope into sheer insanity rather than the domino theory being defined I actually do have historical precedent on those grounds as well.
I said you personally wouldn't be phased by murder on a genocidal scale so long as the victims were caught snatching purses beforehand if you are as sociopathic as you appear to be. Engaging in such murder is rarely out of the question in such a case either but we're talking about things that can be proven. What I implied was that adopting the outlook that human life has differing values on a societal level would inevitably lead to genocide and I stand by that. I cited Rwanda and famously racist KKK as examples of real life wide scale disregard for certain imposed 'classes' of people that killing was of no consequence. I could also add the Romans to the list with their killing of slaves as entertainment, slaves that were not only captured in war raids but former petty thieves and the like.
Just to be clear: The Romans took your stance that crooks ain't no thang to gut while helpless and threw their famous circuses, decried today as some of the most utterly inhuman displays of bloodsport ever devised as hundreds of thousands were hideously butchered for laughs. The Romans were all around dicks to everyone else too, not just their slaves or the surrounding countries they went on to enslave.
As for the final criteria of sociopathy I thought it was already clear. While I have no way of proving you physically attack your 'acceptable target group' whom you say we shouldn't care if they die while at the mercy of store clerks that shoot them five times while incapacitated nor have I implied you've committed a clearly criminal offense, but the very act of reducing the value of their lives and advocating the removal of their rights in such a way is a violation of their rights in and of itself. That you can't see this only speaks further ill of your mental state and outlook.
Hit the Mod button if it means that much to you Art, but don't dare think for a moment you're speaking to an idiot that skims what you say. While questioning your very sanity is undeniably rude of me your position is not so solid as you've convinced yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 8:19:32 GMT -5
Hit the Mod button if it means that much to you Art, but don't dare think for a moment you're speaking to an idiot that skims what you say. Your position is not so solid as you've convinced yourself. No need, I'm quite satisfied with your answer. Your claim was indeed based on your own emotional definition rather than what the word actually means, that much is abundantly clear. As for my position, I'm not saying it's particularly sold. In fact, I've already stated it's quite subjective. However, the only (what I'm assuming passes for) refutations of said position I've heard so far are various flavours of moral outrage. You know, things like ALL CAPS, accusations of future genocide and a good helping of armchair psychology. Not particularly convincing if I may say so myself. Oh, and one final thought. You know how a lot of fundies like to say that without their belief in God everyone would become murderous, violent loons? You know you're making pretty much exactly the same argument, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 21, 2011 8:24:14 GMT -5
Did I say he should get off scot-free? No, no I did not. You said he should get a fine and have one of his guns taken away. In other words, a slap on the wrist. So yes, yes you did say that. And if you didn't mean that, too bad. I "love" how some misanthropists seem to unconsciously disassociate themselves from other humans. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 8:34:52 GMT -5
Did I say he should get off scot-free? No, no I did not. You said he should get a fine and have one of his guns taken away. In other words, a slap on the wrist. So yes, yes you did say that. And if you didn't mean that, too bad. I "love" how some misanthropists seem to unconsciously disassociate themselves from other humans. For starters I said he should be limited to one gun, not have one gun taken away. There's a difference between the two. Secondly, a slap on the wrist is not the same as getting off scot-free (and no, just because you say it is doesn't make it so). |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 21, 2011 8:56:32 GMT -5
Its clearly an illegal homicide. Not really murder, because it lacks the element of intent, and he was probably in a pretty upset state of mind when he committed the act. However, shooting disarmed unconscious people is not cool. Its at least worthy of a manslaughter charge, at the very least. [/2c]
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 21, 2011 9:14:55 GMT -5
As I said already, the only way a slippery slope argument is valid is if there is objective proof that the transition described is inevitable (please, for the love of god read the thread so I don't have to keep repeating myself). As such, please come up with some objective proof that my views will lead to genocide, as Passerby stated would happen. Otherwise, a fallacy it be. I read it. I disagree. Don't be a twat about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 21, 2011 9:16:17 GMT -5
Or: RAWR! You didn't agree with me WARGARBLE READ THE THREAD!
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 21, 2011 9:18:02 GMT -5
As I said already, the only way a slippery slope argument is valid is if there is objective proof that the transition described is inevitable (please, for the love of god read the thread so I don't have to keep repeating myself). As such, please come up with some objective proof that my views will lead to genocide, as Passerby stated would happen. Otherwise, a fallacy it be. I read it. I disagree. Don't be a twat about it. In other words, ye got nothing. Jolly good. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 21, 2011 9:18:46 GMT -5
Its clearly an illegal homicide. Not really murder, because it lacks the element of intent, and he was probably in a pretty upset state of mind when he committed the act. However, shooting disarmed unconscious people is not cool. Its at least worthy of a manslaughter charge, at the very least. [/2c] ...what planet do you live on to where emptying the clip of a TOTALLY DIFFERENT GUN into someone after they're incapacitated and no longer a threat to you is non-intentional? |
|
