WMN: t3_3eb9u6_t1_ctdaich

[TITLE]

CMV: if x is a logical outcome of y but x is an undesirable thing for people that want to do y, then those people will try to figure out how they can do y without causing x.

[SKazoroski]

This is a general response I have for slippery slope arguments or arguments that take the form: if you are Y, then logically you should also be X. My point is that if some undesirable outcome is a logical consequence of some action or ideology, then people who don't want that outcome, will try to figure out how to do that action or fallow that ideology without causing that outcome. I think that people and societies in general are smart enough and/or reasonable enough to know when it would be bad to fallow something to a logical conclusion and so they will stop before they get there. If that makes them a hypocrite, then so be it. I'm perfectly fine with people being hypocrites if it keeps them from doing something unfavorable. So tell me, am I wrong to see things this way? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[forestfly1234]

When you're a teen it is often said that when you first learn to drive or get a car all your expenses will go up. Not just car related ones. And this is true. When people have more access to options to spend their money, the car, they will spend more money. There are lots of things that naturally lead into other things and there isn't anything you can do to stop that relationship.

[Namemedickles]

First, your title is a blanket statement. It does not apply, for example to people who suffer from addiction. By definition you are only addicted to something if you can't stop doing Y even when X hurts you directly. Next, we need to recognize that how one person weighs the negative and positive results from Y is not necessarily how another person interprets them. X may be worth the joy you obtain from Y even though you don't like X but for me X might be to painful, or gross or whatever for me to go through with Y without trying to avoid X. That variability in weighing out the negative consequences vs the positive outcomes is important to note. Now here is a part of your post I don't understand and need some clarification on, [STA-CITE]> think that people and societies in general are smart enough and/or reasonable enough to know when it would be bad to fallow something to a logical conclusion and so they will stop before they get there. If that makes them a hypocrite, then so be it. [END-CITE]What are you talking about? How is anything you've said here related to people acting like hypocrites? Can you give an example of how that would happen? Either people want to do Y and try to stop the negative consequences or they stop Y if they can't think of a way around them. How is that hypocritical?

[SKazoroski]

I wasn't really thinking about the issue of addiction with this so I suppose I should give you this ∆ As for the other part of your response, here's an example of the kind of thing I am talking about: Some people believe that allowing gay people to marry is the beginning of a series of events that will ultimately result in the collapse of family values and society as a result. I'm saying that such a thing isn't going to happen because I think people will be reasonable enough to know when enough changes have been made in society and when any more changes would ultimately be detrimental. I think that in general no one wants to see a collapse of society and so people will try to take steps to prevent it while still allowing for the kind of society they want to live in.

[Namemedickles]

But I don't understand how this example is in line with your view. The collapse of society is not a logical outcome (X) of gay marriage rights (Y). So, I'm still confused.

[SKazoroski]

There are some people who do believe that if gay marriage is allowed, next will come polygamous and incestuous marriage and who knows what else. It will happen until the definition of marriage is unrecognizable from what it once was. I'm just explaining why I'm not convinced by these kinds of arguments.

[Namemedickles]

But you can explain that by pointing out that this is not at all a *logical* result of gay marriage rights. It's a silly notion drummed up by homophobic, religious zealots. I don't see how this example is related to your CMV.

[SKazoroski]

I'm not entirely convinced it's not a logical progression. I'm just simultaneously not convinced society would actually go that far.

[Namemedickles]

[STA-CITE]>I'm not entirely convinced it's not a logical progression [END-CITE] Seriously? Could you give a more solid example of something that you do believe to a high degree of certainty to go in line with your view? Either that, or explain how agreeing to allow consenting adults to have the same benefits of a legally binding contract between spouses regardless of gender, will logically result in allowing sex with children and ducks.

[SKazoroski]

I'm sorry, I'm not here to argue about what I think about those kinds of marriages. I'm just saying that I think that if a situation arises where people try to use gay marriage as a precedent for these other kinds of marriages, society wouldn't take these people seriously.

[DaFranker]

AFAICT, OP is trying to point at slippery slope arguments and holds the view that humans will naturally try to avoid the negative end result of a slippery slope without necessarily giving up on the original behavior that might lead to that negative final result.

[SKazoroski]

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Namemedickles. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Namemedickles)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[Yorubaland]

I feel like you're assuming that people will somehow be perfectly competent at avoiding 'x'. There are scenarios I can think of where a society desires 'y' and desires to avoid 'x', but, even while trying to avoid 'x', is unable to. An example would be something like legalising prostitution promoting something like sex trafficking, slavery or sex tourism. No society wants any of those things, but for many societies they've found them difficult to stop. Allowing a casino to open and problem gambling is another. Of course *minimisation* is always possible, but it's silly to dismiss claims like those above outright simply because minimisation will be aimed for.

[SKazoroski]

[STA-CITE]>I feel like you're assuming that people will somehow be perfectly competent at avoiding 'x'. [END-CITE]I see what you're saying so I'll give you one of these ∆ I'll admit that there can be situations where people won't be able to avoid x. My position is more about people making the attempt to figure out how to avoid x if it is something they specifically don't want but they still want y. For the prostitution example, people might try to put in place regulations with the goal of cutting down on sex trafficking, slavery or sex tourism. Maybe they would be successful, maybe they wouldn't. My point is that people would try to do this.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Yorubaland. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Yorubaland)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[Yorubaland]

And sure, I think people agree they would try to do that, but I'm not sure that's really an argument against those kinds of arguments: if anything it's an acknowledgement that y would create problems that would, presumably, require additional resources to solve

[SKazoroski]

Right, and my position is that people will try to get these additional resources.

[Yorubaland]

Sure, but that hardly rebuts their argument. If anything that's biting the bullet

[SKazoroski]

I'm not trying to rebut their argument, I'm only explaining why I'm not convinced by it.

[Yorubaland]

But surely you think there's plenty of cases where the resources needed to address the downsides could be better spent elsewhere?

[SKazoroski]

I suppose part of my view is that people aren't simply going to shut up about what they want. If resources can be used to simultaneously give them what they want and prevent it from causing problems then why not try?

[HOU_Civil_Econ]

If X logically follows from Y then there is no way to avoid X if you do Y. The arguments that people have is whether X logically follows from Y.

[IIIBlackhartIII]

Let's take gay marriage as an example here, because it's the one I've heard the most slippery slope arguments about recently, it's fresh on my mind. The slippery slope argument usually comes something along the lines of "allowing gays to marry will mean that soon you'll have polygamy, bestiality, and paedophilia made legal as well!" Your counter argument seems to be that "gays will find a way to marry in a way that won't allow for polygamy, bestiality, or paedophilia". However, what issue is it to them? The slippery slope argument comes from an accusing party who feels that these resulting issues are something to be avoided, not from the party pushing forwards. If polygamists, zoophiles, or paedophiles jump onto the cause, that's not a direct issue of the gays, they don't really have to care, it's not their problem as such, and it isn't necessarily their position to judge. A third party has latched onto a first party cause, that doesn't put the responsibility necessarily on the first party, because they didn't intend for the third party to join.

[SKazoroski]

My only response to this is that when polygamists, zoophiles, and paedophiles start becoming more vocal and try to make the law allow them to do what they want, that's when I'll care about trying to help or prevent these people from getting their way. Until then I just don't see a reason to worry about these people getting their way.

[caw81]

By then it will be too late because they have predicent working for them. "Thats exactly what they said about gay marriage years ago but it was ruled legal.". If you don't have a reason now, you won't have a reason later and it will be worse because you have already shown you are ok with nont-traditional marriages.

[SKazoroski]

The view I'm talking about in my OP is precisely why I don't think I will have to worry about these kind of people anytime soon. I don't think that society is just going to blindly let these people get their way if society does not want them to. I think that society is smart enough to know when following a precedent would lead to an undesirable outcome and prevent that outcome. Also, if these people aren't being vocal, then I have no idea if they even exist, and no reason to react to these kind of people.

[phcullen]

If y was the logical outcome of x then it would not be a Slippery slope argument because Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. A logical statement is "If we go to the movies tonight then we will have to pay for tickets." A Slippery slope is" If we go to the movies, then we will have to buy popcorn and candy. "

[RandomhouseMD]

slippery slopes are not necessarily fallacious. Your example is, and many are, but they are not false by nature. Sometimes there are slippery slopes that are logically sound, like the namesake. If you take the first step onto a slippery slope, it becomes hard not to fall down it.

[phcullen]

A Slippery slope is a fallacy. However that does not mean that the conclusion is wrong.

[DaFranker]

If I put you in front of a slope covered in grease, and you take a step on that slope, you will slide down and have difficulty stopping before you reach the bottom. This is not a fallacy. It's a logical implication in physics. There are "slippery slope" arguments that are about similar things outside of physics. Most of them are fallacious in popular usage *because the final result is not in fact implied by the slope*, but the presence of a "slippery slope" type of argument is not in itself fallacious.

[phcullen]

Except you need to demistrate each step. So I don't see how this applies to OP's original argument

[SKazoroski]

To use the slippery slope analogy, my position is that people will try to build a structure in the middle of the slope to help themselves and others stop themselves from hitting the bottom.

[DaFranker]

In game theory, these are traditionally called ["focal" or *Schelling* points](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_\(game_theory\)).

[awa64]

If X is a logical outcome of Y, and X is considered undesirable by people doing Y, then they'll try to figure out how they can do Y without causing X... [only if X directly impacts them](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem). If it's a problem for other people but not them? They'll keep on doing Y and shrug, until something re-internalizes the [externalities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality).

[SKazoroski]

If the people who are effected by the externalities are loud enough, the people effecting them won't be able to ignore it and will eventually be forced to do something.

[DaFranker]

This counts as impacting the original Y-doer. It's less direct in the original problem, but to a certain degree counts as a direct consequence of Y, by reframing the question as X' (the pressure from those affected by X) being a logical outcome of X being a logical outcome of Y, therefore X' being a logical outcome of Y, where X' directly impacts them, therefore they try to figure out how they can do Y without causing X'... which hopefully involves not causing X, but not always. Arguably, this might be what you meant in the first place by "X considered *undesirable*", but that wasn't clearly the case initially.