Is the "Slippery Slope" argumement really silly?

1. 88

   GA Andersonposted 11 years ago

   Here is some food for thought for all those that think objections against laws and regulations - based on the old "slippery slope" or "give them an inch and they will take a mile"  arguments are nonsense.
   
   In addressing this from a "common sense" approach, I'd say the "proof is in the pudding" (gotta love those cliches)
   
   Regarding worker's compensation injuries - for me, the concept would involve injuries related to work - forget specific examples, I think most get the idea. Hazardous work conditions, negligence, etc.
   
   That was the original intention when the first worker's comp laws were enacted in the 1930s. Sounds reasonable to me.
   
   But, with court and legal manipulations, and political machinations, (ps. Mississippi held out on this silliness until 1948, when they succumbed and agreed to the current "popular" definition of workplace injury liability)
   
   That was just to set the stage...
   
   Here's what I think are couple good "slippery slope" examples involving a "workplace injury" claims:
   
   A women is sent on a business trip by her company to audit a budget meeting. It involved her being out of town, and the company paid for her to stay in a motel.
   
   That evening, after the day's "official" business was done she had sex with her boyfriend in the motel room. Apparently it was so vigorous that it caused a ceiling light fixture to fall on her and cause injury - and mental depression - courts agreed and she collected worker's comp.
   
   Another example
   In the days of home milk delivery - a milkman had an affair with one of his customers. Husband found out and beat-up the milkman. Since his job included home delivery, the courts ruled the home was part of the workplace, and his injury was a work-related injury qualifying for worker's comp.
   
   and for good measure....
   A State Parks "game warden," who essentially worked out of his vehicle, drove to a very secluded spot - late at night - with a female "partner" to have sex. But it was cold and he left the vehicle running - and they both died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Tragic, yes, but work related?
   
   The courts said yes - widow entitled to worker's comp. death benefits.
   
   Now is that "slippery slope" argument against; gun control, health care, privacy, etc. really so silly?
   
   Does anyone remember the days when "personal responsibility" was a real "common sense" concept.
   
   Here's one last chuckle case that did not involve sex.
   A delivery truck driver's helper decided to open his door and take a leak - while the truck was moving.
   Of course the dummy fell off the moving truck and got hurt. And of course the courts approved his worker's comp. claim.
   
   ah, the good ol' days...
   
   GA
   
   Source: Justia.com Verdict article
   http://verdict.justia.com/2013/01/22/labor-of-love

   replyreport
2. 80

   Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago

   All legislation comes with potential slippery slopes especially when the litigation comes up in a liberal leaning court system which views the State or the Corporation as the "big rich guy" who is attempting to cheat the little man.  This is the very reason the Founding Fathers emphasized that nothing which the Federal Government shall l do (i.e. a well-trained and standing militia) shall "infringe upon the right to bear arms".  When we allow that "infringement", we start down the slippery slope and we open up that "right" to interpretation and limitation.  Obama says the debt ceiling has nothing to do with "
   spending" but everything to do with America paying its bills.  What he fails to state is that the debt ceiling is in place as an impairment to America continuing the process of "borrowing or printing money" that it does not have.  Again, a slippery slope that we are already way to far down thanks to our wonderful elected officials and the games they play with our lives and future.  ~WB

   replyreport
3. 0

   Old Poolmanposted 11 years ago

   Even good ideas can turn very bad with time.  Your example of workers compensation is a perfect example.  I had an employee bitten by a rattlesnake who was hospitalized and received the very expensive anti-venom shots.  The final bill to my insurance company was over $125,000 dollars.  Needless to say, they put me in a high risk category and my cost for insurance doubled.
   
   Now this is the first claim I ever filed after paying them their premiums for over 15 years.  It appears they love to collect premiums, but detest having to pay claims.
   
   I believe the intent of this law was to cover employees who were put in harms way by unsafe equipment or other negligence on the part of the employer.  I don't believe it was put in place to cover stupidity on the part of the employee, but it does.
   
   To do anything different would require work from those who regulate the system, and they are not quite up to that.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Greetings Poolman
      Sounds like yours is an example of legit worker's comp. though - if it happened during the performance of his work duties.
      
      Oh wait, wasn't that lady's staying in that motel part of her work duties?
      
      Damn slippery slopes!
      
      ps. yes, you are more than right about "collecting premiums vs. paying claims"  Just like what happens with Home-owners Ins. claims - zap - policy canceled or not renewed
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 93

         Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hi GA,
         I see where you are coming from, but people who take advantage like that hurt the lower percentage of decent and honest people who do get hurt on the job. A friend of mine had a large piece of machinery fall on his foot at work, and had to have two fusion operations on it. This put him out of commission for a long time, as he had to stay off the foot. He's normally an active man who hunts, hikes, etc. It took long to even get disability, he was almost at the point of losing his house.
         
         He worked all his adult life and paid into insurances. The fusions didn't work, and then the company changed the story and claimed my friend said he "slipped in the shower" which was a lie. You are so right, they love taking the premiums, but hate paying out. He's getting around on a sort of scooter like device at home, with the "bad" foot on there to keep it off the ground. We aren't sure the next step he should take medically, and the bills are piling up, but he can't work if he can't walk. I know there are people who say he could work at a phone bank or some place that pays minimum wage, but that will not pay the bills, it is such a small percentage of what he is used to living on. It would probably help his mental health to get out of the house though.

         replyreport
4. 60

   Deltachordposted 11 years ago

   Couldn't agreed more with the post and discussion so far. When courts throw logic out of the window, we get those kinds of workmen's comp decisions, and when presidents twist language to keep spending money, the country has to borrow more and more.
   
   Logic and sound reason are orphans as far as many government officials are concerned.

   replyreport
5. 76

   Shadesbreathposted 11 years ago

   People hand pick which freedoms they care about, and they allow the slippery-slope erosion of the freedoms they don't value, the freedoms favored by some other group. Meanwhile, that "other" group works to erode the freedoms of the first group since they don't believe those are good freedoms. And so on. The scared parents group (left) takes freedom from the group who believes in the freedoms of the 2nd Amendment (right). The outraged Christian crusaders (right) oppose the freedom to make personal and private decisions about one's relationships and even one's body, taking those freedoms from the gays and women who want to have control of their own lives (left). Etc., etc., etc. It's like a big ping-pong match of who can take the other guy's freedoms away faster, one little law at a time, and all the while, everyone screams and points fingers at "the other guy," putting up stupid, fallacious posts in forums and social media, to the last man and woman blind to their own hypocrisy as they gut American liberty and run headlong into Fascism.
   
   We are ALL the "other guy." We are both "we" and "them" and until we recognize the "we" is our strength, we're all screwed. It should be a battle to always say, "WE the people can" do things, not "THEY the people can't" do stuff. That's the whole point of FREEDOM.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      replyreport
   2. 95

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Why do you write such depressing posts?  Just because they're true?
      
      Maybe we should ban all truthful posts that are also depressing; not allow people to make them.  They don't need that freedom.

      replyreport
6. 75

   Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

   Get the public to accept that the government can interfere with personal activity, and they will eventually regulate every aspect of it.  Allow the government to disregard their own laws, and in time, no law will be imposed upon them. 
   
   death penalty  Government activity.
   
   abortion  (in process of government intervention)
   
   assisted suicide  ( Future healthcare issues.  Will government fund?)
   
   euthanasia  (ambitious goal of the elites)
   
   step by step
   
   
   
   
   It is a slow process, but once it is accepted by the masses that the government could turn their head while a major offense occurred, they will eventually chip away at the entire fabric of society.  If anyone doubts governments desire to make life and death decisions for the individual, research, think, wake up!

   replyreport
7. 65

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   Good points here. The 'slippery slope fallacy' isn't a fallacy at all when it comes to politics, for many reasons.
   
   For one, once the government has ventured into a particular field, whether it be healthcare, guns or people's bodies, it has set a precedent that it has happened before and by extension, this is okay. Passing a law is infinitely easier than repealing one. Repealing a law also requires the admittance that the passer of the law made a mistake. It is far less damaging to suggest that the law didn't go far enough, and that there needs to be new ones to make it work this time. The original law most likely came about through lobbying by special interests, who most probably have a financial stake in the outcome of the law, and are not going to take the repealing lightly.
   
   Point being that there are numerous incentives for politicians to pass laws that are more stringent and in greater quantity as time goes by, and very little incentive to repeal laws. How else does one explain the exponential growth in the size of government in nearly every instance in the world?

   replyreport
8. 58

   Education Answerposted 11 years ago

   It's not a fallacy.  It's a fact.  Politicians say what you want to hear, so they can get elected.  Don't forget what Harry Reid said just 3 months ago:
   
   “We hear a lot about guns and self-defense, and that’s good, I understand,” he said from the podium, then said that he carried a weapon during his days as head of Nevada’s Gaming Commission. “But for me, guns are more than that. In fact, for me the most important part of guns, as far as I am concerned, in my personal life, is the recreational aspect of guns.”
   
   “These weapons become our friends. This weapon is my friend," Harry Reid said as he held a rifle in the air.
   
   Yeah, he said that when he was in a tough campaign.  He said that with the NRA's president present, because he was seeking an NRA endorsement.  Now that the campaign is over, he has a whole new tune.  Now, Reid says that he hopes the Senate’s eventual gun-reform bill will be a consequential one.
   
   Yeah, I can really trust what politicians are saying about my gun rights being protected.  Now that the election is over, we see what they really mean.  This is why I don't believe politicians when they say my rights will be protected.  They lie, so they can get elected.  Is there a slippery slope?  Yes, because there are slick (slippery) politicians.  Don't worry.  These same politicians, the honest ones, are telling us that they sincerely have no intention of going any further with gun control.  They promise, really they do.

   replyreport