Did he seriously just pull out the "lifeboat" argument? He can seriously go @&$*! himself... who gives him the right to assign a value to a person? There is an example of a real slippery slope.

slippery slope... if you were a chess player and could see a few moves ahead you would scrap this idea before going any further.

@Mordhaus

"We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. "

Don't you think that that idea is outdated in 2016? Fine, that's the culture. Change the fucking culture.

When I grew up in Ireland, nobody gave a second thought to driving drunk. Sunday after church, people went to the pub, had a few pints with the neighbours, the kids played space invaders and then the whole family got back in the car and drove home.

And most of the time, it was absolutely fine. People got home, there was the occasional accident, but ya know, what can ya do?

Until it wasn't fine. And it took decades, but eventually, it became socially unacceptable to drive drunk.

"I'm just extremely leery of package deals like lets ban everyone who ends up on a list from having weapons based on a government decision."
I get that. But be reasonable. You're ok with not letting people fly, but you draw the line at owning weapons?

That is some fucked up list of priorities. I would be far more concerned with restricting someones right to travel (essentially restricting their freedom of movement, or a lighter form of incarceration) than whether they can own a gun.

You say that owning a gun is a constitutional right whereas travel isn't. I say that freedom of movement is a fundamental basic human right... oh, look at that, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

I'm completely willing to say that it should be a lot harder to put someone on this kind of list, but there's no way the right to own a weapon is more important than freedom of movement.

Finally, re: slippery slopes
"The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights."

The Patriot Act wasn't a slippery slope, it started at the bottom of the slope and went straight over a fucking cliff. It should never have been passed in the first place.

What absolute fucking bullshit!

I'm so sick of this child like interpretation of the constitution.

Oh slippery slope... same document used to give people the RIGHT to own other humans...

Oh slipper slope... the RIGHT to vote is clearly intended for white men and land owners only.

etc... etc... seems like we're up to like 27 HEINOUS infringements on YOUR rights by now.!

Its absolutely utterly fucking ridiculous. The entire country is held hostage from even discussing the issue. The government isn't even allowed to collect data.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/gun-violence-graphics/

We are the ONLY ones doing this at anywhere even close to this rate. And we can't even discuss potential solutions rationally without it being turned into some paranoid hypothetical tyrannical enslavement scenario.

Its fucking pathetic. So yeah... your right lets not even make a fucking attempt at solving our issues.

*promote

We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. For a person who wants to go out in a blaze of infamy, we are custom tailored to give them their last 15 minutes of 'fame'.

Again, we have a nebulous definition of what it takes to get on the watch list. I could be placed on it simply by stating something to the effect that "I support ISIS", even though I don't. Restricting people who manage to end up on a government list is the same as removing their right to a firearm after committing a felony offense, only you have removed every single bit of their right to a legal defense. There is no due process to being placed on a US watchlist, you get put on and fuck you if it was a mistake. Maybe they'll take you off later, who knows?

I am not going to defend a slippery slope argument on this, I don't have to. It's already happened in the years since 2001. The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights. Not only our rights, but other countries. We have violated their security, spied on their people and leaders, and we perform acts of war on their territories with impugnity. All because we lost two buildings and 2,996 people; a heinous act, but one our government exploited to put us into 2 wars with a death toll to people who may not even be our enemies that dwarf our loss. In short, we fucking have the slippery slope process down to a SCIENCE.

@Mordhaus

The idea of US being a gun violence culture just makes no sense to me. A gun ownership culture among a subset of the population sure, but a culture of resolving conflict with violence? No, it's a product of gun availability. The numbers ChaosEngine quoted on guns / 100 people really is the unique differentiator that makes murder rates some 5-20x the developed country average.

Poverty leading to crime, poor mental health treatment are the tinder but the easy access to weapons is what leads to the death tolls to combust incomparable to any other developed country. Also if legislators can't pass gun control after Sandy Hook, or even restrict people on or previously on the terrorist watch-list from buying guns then the idea of any kind of slippery slope is farcical.

Slippery slope fallacy.
"If we allow gays to marry, what's next? Can I marry my dog?"

No-one is talking about banning guns. I wouldn't support that myself. I have friends who are hunters and target shooters.

But be reasonable; you can have a gun for target shooting or hunting or even "home defence" (if you're really that paranoid), but you don't need an AR-15 or anything with a high capacity magazine and it's not unreasonable to make sure that people who own guns aren't complete nutjobs.

NZ is in the top 15% of gun ownership rates per capita (22 guns per 100 people), but our average annual firearm homicide rate for the last 30 years or so is ~0.2 deaths per 100k people.

Compare that to the USA. The US tops the chart of gun ownership with 112 guns per 100 people. So the gun ownership rate is 5 times that of NZ, but the average annual firearm homicide rate is 4 deaths per 100k people. That's 20 times the number of murders. Even if you allow for the higher gun ownership rate, you're still 4 times worse than NZ.

And the difference is simple: we have sensible gun ownership laws.

I saw a great post the other day.
"The conservative mind:
Abortions? BAN THEM!
Gay Marriage? BAN IT!
Marijuana? BAN IT!
Guns? eh, banning things never works"

But hey, you're gonna need those guns for when Donary Trumpton ushers in a tyrannical dictatorship. Good luck with that; let me know how you get on with an AR-15 versus a predator drone.

The claim that government fines are backed with the threat of imprisonment is a slippery slope argument? Do get your act together, mate.

It is literally the case that in the UK the apparatus of state violence is brought to bear on those who dare to broadcast speech that stupid people find offensive.

Well, I made a genuine effort to find out exactly what Ofcom did and all I could find was a ruling that said he breached broadcasting standards. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll happily read it. For reference, here is a list of sanction decisions made by ofcom: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/content-sanctions-adjudications/

"Punishment means fines. Fines means the threat of force. Force means abduction and false imprisonment. For the crime of sitting on a couch and having a conversation."

That slippery slope looks awesome fun! Does it go the other way too? If you can't joke about dwarfs, then pretty soon you won't be able to advocate giving those queers the beating they deserve or tell those darkies to fuck off back to africa! It's PC gone mad!

@enoch I agree he is an asshole for trying to get in front of her in the line (which started all this) and for trying (and succeeding) to agitate her. I may have missed it, I didnt hear any "rape culture". Perhaps I dont understand what is meant with that?

To me it seemed the lady was much more (Physically) aggressive than the gentleman. He was being a douche, she was being aggressive which just motivated him to agitate her more.

Tolerating physical action based on verbal abuse opens up a can of worms. All of a sudden we put the judging into the hands of random people. Everything someone says can then be interpreted as abuse and lead to physical reaction. What about a look? Is looking weirdly at someone considered abuse and therefor liable to physical deterrent? Is tasering someone considered ok next to peper spraying them? What about shooting? Where does it end?

That is a slippery slope. I am guessing here, but legally I think verbal abuse is a minor offence, physical action is a major offence.

Was it the employee of the shop or the agitating gentlemen that got fired?

Firing the employee of the shop for not stopping the gentlemen seems extremely harsh. You are depriving someone of their livelihood for not judging well enough if someone else goes over an arbitrary line.

If it was the gentlemen that got fired, well, still harsh. He was being an asshole for sure, but firing someone for that? Does that mean that everyone who is an asshole in traffic should get fired? I think there would not be many employees left.

I was in Ireland years ago. Someone told me that there were hot tubs up in Northern Ireland that were filled with seaweed. Slippery seaweed, loads of salt, water warmed up....

If you can't find someone to do the warm noodle treatment, maybe you can hie yourself to Ireland.

Report back to me?

...slippery slope that.

We are not the only members that have given this probie the once over. However, and with all due respect, lacking compelling evidence, frankly, this is not actionable although I do no argue against much of what you say.

This type of concrete (or something very similar) has been in use since 1973 in the Netherlands. Currently about 90% of the Dutch highways use this. Its big advantages are less noise, less aqua planning and more visibility due to less water from tires. Its disadvantages are somewhat less grip, more wear and issues with freezing. The freezing doesnt necessarily break the concrete but any salts used to de-ice the road will also be washed away meaning that the top layer of the road will often be very slippery. In the Netherlands, with between 23 and 46 days with temperatures below zero on average, the amount of trouble that causes is acceptable compared to the advantages.

Damnit! My keyboard is now slippery.
Makes it hard to sign up for CPR classes.

The key word is "implied". You're making a judgement based on what you have read in to his comments, not what was said...

And yes, polygamists have a choice. A gay man could be a polygamist as well, but he's always going to be gay. That should not be seen as criticism of polygamists (as long as everyone can legally consent, I don't see why the state should step in), but someone else made the slippery slope argument as in, if we allow same sex marriage, we open the flood gates. He is pointing out why that is a fallacious argument to withhold the right of SSM, not that we should extend the right to gays/lesbians only and not go further. You're shooting the guy pointing out what a ridiculous argument it is rather than the person promoting said argument, and then flailing at anyone who doesn't agree with you...

re. the second paragraph quoted below, that is your opinion of marriage and you are entitled to it, but the mistake you are making (the same that most conservatives who don't want gays to be able to get hitched let alone polygamists) is believing that your view is the last word on the situation. Ultimately, the right to be able to marry (in which ever configuration suits you, again, as long as everyone is legally consenting) should be up to you, and how others choose to define their love is none of your damn business. Once you start trying to define and dictate to others what their relationship is (or is not), how are you any different to the judgemental assholes you apparently abhor?