| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
| | | | |
| | ==Explanation== | | ==Explanation== |
| − | In the comic, [[White Hat]] uses a fallacious argument to [[Cueball]] to justify being inconsiderate to people. He argues that if he expends minor effort being considerate to one person, he will be expected to be considerate to everyone he meets, which - he wishes to argue - is an undesirable situation. Thus, he justifies being inconsiderate as a form of avoiding the "slippery slope".
| + | The "Slippery Slope" fallacy hinges on the idea thing if A happens Z will also eventually happen, therefore A should not be allowed. This kind of reasoning is bad because it distracts from the issue being discussed and changes the topic to extreme event which may not happen because of other factors. In the comic, White Hat Guy uses the "Slippery Slope" to justify being inconsiderate to people (which is an unusual context for this fallacy). This is extended in the mouse-over, where he continues extrapolating the train of thought to come to the conclusion that minutes of time would be "wasted" - he seems not to factor in the potential positive effects of being considerate of other people. |
| − | | |
| − | "{{w|Slippery slope}}" argumentation is an informal fallacy that takes the form of "if A happens, then B will follow as a minor but expected consequence. B will lead on to C, C leads onto D, and so on. Each consequence gets progressively worse until an undesirable situation is reached." A slippery slope argument proposes that A should not be allowed, because if it is, then the resulting chain of consequences will inevitably lead to the undesirable situation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | For example, someone who is trying to avoid washing the dishes might try to justify themselves as follows: "if I wash the dishes tonight, then tomorrow night, I might be asked to do the dishes and also to wipe down the kitchen counters. If I do that, then pretty soon I'll also be asked to mop the kitchen floor. If I have to mop the kitchen floor, eventually I'll be asked to mop ALL the floors of the house, and eventually this will extend to washing the windows and taking out the trash and doing laundry, and I'll be doing EVERYTHING around here and NEVER get any time to myself. Therefore, I will not wash the dishes tonight, so I can still have enough time for myself."
| |
| − | | |
| − | What makes the chain of reasoning fallacious is that there is nothing about the task of "washing the dishes" that in any way implies the additional responsibilities that this person imagines (such as wiping down counters or mopping floors). The slippery slope fallacy manifests when there is no cogent basis for believing that the proposed chain of events is likely to follow, especially when the proposed course of action has a clear extent and limitation which would adequately prevent the "slope" from being "slipped down." In the above example: there is an implied extent and limitation to the defined task of "washing the dishes" - namely, the task would be complete when the household dishes have been washed. Additional household chores, like wiping down counters, would be negotiated separately with other members of the household.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is worth noting that a fallacy has NOT been committed if there is a reasonable basis for the concern. For example, the reluctant dishwasher might live with an abuser who will foreseeably intimidate them into taking on an unreasonable share of household chores, on the faulty basis that "if you're willing to do the dishes, surely you must also be willing to wipe down the counters..." In such a scenario, "wash the dishes" may carry an encoded message of "do what you're told," in a form that appears reasonable on its surface. Thus, in assessing whether or not a slippery slope fallacy has been committed, it is important to take ALL the relevant factors into consideration, and not merely the explicitly articulated ones.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This idea is extended in the title text, where he continues extrapolating the train of thought to conclude that minutes of time would be "wasted". Rather than condemning the slippery slope fallacy per se, [[Randall]]'s point here seems to be more that White Hat's priorities are callous to the point of sociopathy. All people desire to be treated with consideration and respect, and taking a few seconds to acknowledge another's feelings is (for most well-meaning people) a small price to pay for improving that person's day, or at least not making it any worse than it needs to be. As such, these seconds would not be "wasted" at all, but would be actively making the world a friendlier place. White Hat's hyperfixation on not wasting time appears ludicrous given how much good feeling he could contribute to the world for so little of his own time. (White Hat also appears to be discounting the possibility that being considerate towards others will encourage reciprocity, which could result in SAVING him time since they will be more willing to help him out should he ever find himself in need.) | |
| | | | |
| | ==Transcript== | | ==Transcript== |
| Line 27: |
Line 17: |
| | | | |
| | {{comic discussion}} | | {{comic discussion}} |
| | + | [[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]] |
| | [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] | | [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] |
| − | [[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
| |
| | [[Category:Logic]] | | [[Category:Logic]] |
| − | [[Category:Social interactions]]
| |
