Do I really need to explain to Andrew Bolt why the “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy?
Some hilarious dumb in Andrewâs attempted defence in todayâs paper of the slippery slope fallacy, sorry, âargumentâ:
When you destroy the traditional idea of a marriage being between a man and a woman, in favour of a union between any two consenting adults, you invite more changes.
Why stop at two? Why not also ârespectâ unions between a man and two women? After all, polygamy has what same sex marriage does not â religious backing in Islam, and historical precedents everywhere.
Yes, this is the slippery slope argument that social âreformersâ sneer at, arguing weâre smart enough to know how much is enough when we start smashing.
Yes, how else to determine where we draw the line? Which is why Bolt now apparently endorses a return to Biblical marriage, where a woman must marry her rapist and the man rules over her.
What, too far? No, sorry. When you destroy the traditional Biblical idea of a marriage being between a Christian man and a Christian woman, in favour of a union between any two consenting adults, you invite more changes. Why stop at atheists? Why not also ârespectâ polygamy?
Only the rules in the Bible stop us falling down the slippery slope. If you let women be treated as equal, then eventually people will marry dogs. Why not? Youâve already abandoned the Bible, the only clear rules on what should be acceptable. And why should non-Christians be allowed to marry? Recognising non-Christian marriage is the first step to allowing people to marry a tree. Once youâve abandoned the Biblical principles, where do you stop?
It couldnât possibly be the case that we can review each development on its merits, and if it has more problems than benefits draw the line there like rational human beings, could it?
Nope. As soon as we let women not marry their rapists, we brought the rest of this on ourselves. And if we donât want to find ourselves being forced to marry a stockpile of Australian uranium on a dock in India, then we must return to those Biblical principles immediately. All non-Christian marriages must be annulled. All divorcees must be forced to go back to living with their first husband. All rapists must be let out of jail and forced to marry their victims.
Because if we don’t, then where will it end?
PS I did like Andrewâs little concession disguised as a dismissal â âThe legal difference between those unions and marriages are usually smallâ. Oh, so you concede that there still are differences before the law in how theyâre treated, do you?
But as long as they donât affect you, you donât mind?
PPS Seriously, I doubt Andrew Bolt is really stupid enough not to understand why the “slippery slope” is a fallacy. Which begs the question, then – why does he run an argument he knows is misleading and false? What is he trying to do? (Note: suggestions on what readers suspect he is trying to do will be tightly moderated, so as to protect our right to speak in these dark times.)