i just wish he'd be more honest about it and nationalize the damn thing. clearly the CEO was a MAJOR problem. he'd been there for 31 years (which is about the time frame they've been going down the crapper), and hopefully some fresh blood will take them in a direction that'll be profitable. the US slammed the japanese over and over again for not nationalizing failing companies during their crisis, and now we're too chickenshit to try it ourselves? laaaame.

but back to the slippery slope, i don't see exactly where you're afraid it'll head. if steve starts smoking pot and it leads to heroin (and it's my understanding the data is VERY murky on that kind of thing), so we have another heroin junkie in the world, the onyl difference being he can get his fix at 7-11. or steve marries his cousin which leads to them bringing in a third partner. so what? i'm not seeing the terrifying hellscape at the end of this "slope"

Many people have an issue with incest and polgamy (as do I). Are they willing to take the next steps after same-sex marriage? If not, why not? Can the same arguments used in same-sex marriage be used in these other situations also? In most cases yes. So if same-sex marriage is allowed, are we all okay with what could be next? Is the govt willing to take the next steps that will follow afterwards?

Is it possible that legalized abortion has made people feel more okay to play around with embroyonic stem cells - create "human life" only to "destroy it" in the name of science? Sure, it's given women choice and allowed women to not have abortions in back alleys (a good thing), but what are the consequences (if any)?

So if we're okay with embryonic manipulation, does that open the door for cloning? I know Obama said that he is against human cloning, but in 50 or 100 years will messing around with this sort of thing just lead us to human cloning?

Where does spying on terrorists phone calls with no warrants take us? Does that open the door for a Democratic (or Republican) administration to spy on normal citizens for political gain?

Where does the president firing a CEO take us next? Nationalizing??!! Oh I hope not!!!! Last thing I want is govt playing big bad boss of companies. We're all screwed.

Legalizing weed? What's next? Where does legalizing drugs get us? What are the social and economic consequences? Is it possible they are worse than keeping them illegal? Maybe initially things would be better but what does that do to soceity in the long term (if anything)? Are my hard-earned tax dollars going to go and support Steve's habit while he sits at home too stoned to work (guess I'm doing that now)? What about the increase in medical expenses when he takes a bit too much legal drugs and ends up in the hospital? He may not be working so he has no insurance. It's happening now, of course, but now the govt supports the activity.

My tax dollars are paying off people's mortgages who got themselves in a bind. What next? I'm going to have to pay their car note too so they can drive to work and take the kids to the movies? In 100 years, will all our tax dollars be going to buy everyone a 2 bedroom home so we all have a house - all in the name of humanity, security, and morality? Maybe that sounds extreme, but 50 years ago, i bet the concept of bailing out companies, banks, and everyone else the last 12 months sounded extreme too.

Each step we take has consequences - both good and bad. I'm not saying that we should be scared of taking those steps - not at all. Sometimes slippery slopes are good (race relations, for example). But for once, let's follow through with the next steps if that first one is taken. Are we okay with those next steps? Are we okay with the possibly negative or positive consequences?

Regarding the firing of the CEO - so you have no problems whatsoever with a president firing a private company's CEO if they take money from the govt? Any problems with firing a CEO if the company didn't take money? Some would argue that unions didn't help the situation over the last 20 years. Should the union bosses be fired also? If not, why not? (All rhetorical, no need to answer - just throwing out questions.)

I know too many what-ifs, too many hypotheticals, but that was the point of this thread, right? :-)

Jordan .

the problem is that it seems like "slippery slope" can lead in any direction that a person wants it to in order to make their point. i've heard people try to claim that gay marriages will lead to legalized pedophelia. this makes about as much sense to me as saying, in a hypothetical world where gun ownership is outlawed, that "if we allow guns, people will be shooting each other willy nilly and soon we'll all own nuclear weapons!!" when that's clearly not the intent or predictable outcome.

how can we tell the difference between a logical predictable outcome, and a nightmare scenario used to make political hay?

take fetal stem cell research for example (i'm choosing this one mostly because its an issue i have mixed feelings about). i can picture a scenario where it leads to trafficking in human organs, dr. moreau type creatures, and a bunch of other nasty business not the least of which is what you outlined, a general erosion of the dignity of human life. on the other hand, humanity doesn't always do the worst thing possible. there has not, in fact, been a nuclear war, or even a nuclear exchange. ever. which in my mind is actually fairly damn admirable, and show that humanity is making some kind of forward progress. i also think about my grandmother, whose brain is eroding due to a series of small strokes that just keep happening, leaving her brain more and more damaged. or my cousin, who was hit by a train when he was 2 and has struggled with mental and physical disabilities all his life. even though current research is getting more from adult stem cells, don't people like that deserve to have every avenue open?

i phrased that last part like a question for a reason-- i don't honestly know. but i think its clear that there are some forks in the road that can appear to be "omg slippery slope right into a mad max-type scenario!" and just as equally appear to be a Very Good Thing.

 let me try to unpack this. :)

yes, GM taking the money puts them somewhat in a position of needing to listen to the government. if you were a shiftless bum living off your folks and they suggested you lay off the weed, their "suggestion" should carry some serious fucking weight.

i'm not going to speak to the union thing because i'm pretty ignorant about it and don't want to make guesses. in general i'm not blindly pro-union, as i feel they have a pretty good chance of leading to corruption, and a culture of entitlement even worse than the companies they are trying to fight back against. i will hazard one guess about the whole thing, and that's that the unions don't get to choose which cars to make (in the case of GM, "shitty cars")

EXACTLY! That is the problem with slippery slopes (which is why I popped the spying with no warrant thing out there since so many criticized Bush for it.) Of course it could be used for horrible unethical things, but it could also save millions of lives potentially. What are we willing to give up?

The thing though that people I think sometiems forget (or ignore) is that if you support certain issues, you should truly analyze what that issue could do for the future before jumping on the bandwagon. I think most (not all) people jump onto a bandwagon and don't think of ramifications.

I'll use environment as the example. people jump on the environment bandwagon to save the world for our kids - noble goal. But while you're jumping on the bandwagon, have you (plural you) TRULY considered that some of the envrionmental restrictions could hurt the economy, could hurt jobs, could have a larger impact than we realize in the future which would as a result hurt the kids we're trying to help. Take a more recent idea like Cap and Trade that Obama is proposing. Noble idea but potentially going to cause a spike in energy prices in some states. he says that the money from this would help subsidize those spikes, but that makes me wonder - why then even do it - it makes no sense IMO.

Same with the recent hike in cigarette taxes. Increase it to help stop people from smoking and give more tax dollars to health organizations. Noble goal, but what's next? People seem to support cigarette taxes, but the moment you start taxing alcohol at an even higher rate in the name of health concerns, what are we gonna do? How about higher tax on sweets? Higher tax on junk food? Who does that all hurt? Low and middle income folks, so what's the end result? Higher taxation on the vast majority of the country.

Funny, I never even considered organ trafficing as a potential rpoblem of stem cell research.

GM CEO - the moment the CEO came to Washington begging for money, he should've stepped down. He failed as the GM CEO. So I agree with him being out of that position, but I am troubled by the way it happened. I would've been fine if the WH has strong-armed the board into doing it in fact to a certain degree. But the fact that govt can do this troubles me greatly.

BTW - every car I've owned was a GM car - Saturn. :-)

Jordan .

Owning a Gun - Duh. How can I protect my other basic freedoms (life, liberty, speech) without a gun?

Having an abortion - Can you use food stamps?  Just kidding...  Um, does it come with a free hysterectomy?

Refusing to wear a seatbelt -  and refusing to take vitamins.

Marrying whatever consenting adult you want - and refusing to take vitamins. (Because marriage causes cancer.)

Using recreational drugs - Laws have never stopped that, what difference would it make? (Aside than keeping the system less busy with crimes that have no victims, of course.)

Choosing assisted suicide - The less suffering in the world, the happier the world is. (And the less Medicare I have to pay.) Makes sense to me.

Homeschool children - Probably better than "not getting left behind" by the quality public school system.

I do not offer an alternative because I am perfectly content with the status quo of marriage as it's been defined by the bulk of Western civilizations for about 5000+ years.  

As for the third party concept, no thank you.  If another party were to squeeze out one of the existing parties, rename itself and finely tune itself along the lines of R and D, that's fine with me too.  But I wouldn't vote for a third party for the major national offices.  I'm content with the two-party system's push-pull.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

let's see, the majority of the last 5000 years.....

women as property? that's......an interesting opinion.

What about all the people who responsibly use recreational drugs and are never harmed by them, and drive without a seatbelt but have never been in an accident?

Why should we adjust the law as a preventative measure for idiots and make everyone suffer for it? I don't like the idea of being a criminal because some people can't be trusted with freedom.

 i don't know why you're arguing with someone who basically agrees with you, this whole thread is basically a loving tribute to freedom of the individual to choose what to do with themself. i just think it doesn't help anything to not acknowledge known issues with those choices.

An apt illustration of the "so, what you're saying is..."  switcheroo maneuver. 

I guess I should elaborate.  * One Man + One Woman = Marriage.

But if you'd like to search the archives to locate my voluminous quotes where I endorse the women as property notion, I'll sit back and wait patiently. 

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I did acknowledge those issues. I said that they'll be there, with or without legislation.

I have an idea! Let's make murder and stealing illegal! That will surely fix everythi-- oh, wait...

 i take your point but it seems like the only alternatives to making murder/theft illegal is some kind of vigilante/mob justice, or putting people who commit crimes into facilities designed purely around rehabilitiation, with a focus on making sure that criminals have strong ties to society (sociology says it's ties to society instead of laws that prevent crime).  i see nothing wrong with the second option, but then again....you know....whiny liberal douche

the first option, vigilante/mob justice, sounds like it could work but an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and "oh, steve was trying to steal my car, that's why i shot him. where's his wallet? no idea."