Skip to main content

The slippery slope - Louie Gohmert syle

As any critical thinking professor (all seven of them) would state, the slippery slope is a fallacy, where "a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed." In other words, if one wants to attempt making an argument without worrying about logic in any sense of the word, and sounding like an idiot in the process, the slippery slope is definitely one potential route he or she could travel.

One such individual who regularly attempts to make arguments by utilizing the slippery slope is Republican Texas Representative Louie Gohmert. He's gone about arguments in such a manner so frequently during his time in politics, pretty soon those seven critical thinking professors will suddenly re-term the before-mentioned fallacy from slippery slope to slippery Gohmert.

During a conference call interview today with far-right tea partier Rick Scarborough, Gohmert said the following with regard to gun control and same-sex marriage:

"In fact, I had this discussion with some wonderful, caring Democrats earlier this week on the issue of, well, they said 'surely you could agree to limit the number of rounds in a magazine, couldn't you? How would that be problematic?'

And I pointed out, well, once you make it ten, then why would you draw the line at ten? What's wrong with nine? Or eleven? And the problem is once you draw that limit; it's kind of like marriage when you say it's not a man and a woman any more, then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody has a love for an animal?

There is no clear place to draw the line once you eliminate the traditional marriage and it's the same once you start putting limits on what guns can be used, then it's just really easy to have laws that make them all illegal."

Yeah... On that note, here are a few more "slippery Gohmert" arguments I imagine Louie will make in the future:
 
Issue: Abortion

Slippery Gohmert: "So Democrats want abortion to be legal in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's health is in jeopardy. What's to say Democrats won't push things further than that? Where do we draw the line? Before we know it, they're going to want to make abortion legal in all cases - during pregnancy, after pregnancy, even before pregnancy! If it were up to the Democrats, the Virgin Mary could have had an abortion!"


Issue: Taxes

Slippery Gohmert: "You know what Democrats love doing more than anything? Taxing - taxing the rich, in particular! They're taxing the rich at 35% now and want to increase it to 39.6%. Before we know it, we're going to see their taxes increase to 50%, 70%, and 90%, just like they were under other Democratic presidents, like Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower! Oh, they were Republicans? That's exactly my point! Obama and the Democrats will go above and beyond anything the Republicans ever did and tax the very rich at 150%! Mark my words!"



Issue: Sex Education

Slippery Gohmert: "What is this about sex education Democrats want to force down the throats of our youngsters? The only kind of sex kids should know about is abstinence! That's the only kind of sex anyone should have before they're married! If we allow teachers to teach our kids about sex now, then what? Right now, they're just teaching with words from a book. Pretty soon, they'll be giving actual demonstrations with their spouses or blow-up-dolls-named-Stella in front of the classroom, and we just can't have that! What if these demonstrations include condoms? Toys? Birth control pills? This would be an abomination to God! It was Adam and Eve, not Adam with latex on his dingaling and Eve!"

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/04/02/1813291/louie-gohmert-if-we-limit-gun-magazine-rounds-same-sex-marriage-will-lead-to-bestiality/

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"