snooggums

Someone can intentionally trick someone onto a slippery slope and grease it up to make the slide faster, like Republicans are doing right now with undermining abortion and LBGTQ+ rights while claiming it isn’t a slippery slope.

Where do you get the idea that a slippery slope must be unintentional?

Is someone slipping on a banana peel unintentional if someone drops the peel in front of them? Do you think you might be taking the word ‘slippery’ a little too literally?

The slippery slope can easily be unintentional, like the fear that giving something up will just naturally lead to other things being given up as a logical extension of the first thing. That is why slippery slopes are often described when making exemptions for certain rights. It is not that someone is intentionally going to expand the exemptions, but that exemptions tend to lead to more and more exemptions as a slippery slope.

This one is intentional. Some slippery slopes are intentional and some are accidental. Intent does not matter.

Slippery slope implies that allowing the change will mean sliding further and further in the same direction. Intent does not matter.

This is a slippery slope because every time they say something has a limited scope they just keep increasing the scope.

They cannot do it humanely with a method that requires the person to breath normally to work. If they can hold their breath it will always be inhumane because they will still be struggling and have the same impending doom and physical reaction as waterboarding.

It does not matter if the chemical properties are different when the person has a working brain and doesn’t want to die. Or if it is being implemented by incompetent people who couldn’t even kill him with lethal injection in 2022.

“Waterboarding doesn’t cause suffering because it isn’t literally drowning.”

That’s what you sound like.

You did that in a safe situation where nobody was trying to kill you. I don’t suffer when holding my breath underwater, but the moment someone holds me down I am going to panic.

Biblically accurate snow angels.

he fire department doesn’t save people when there isn’t an emergency

Oh, your point is that you are an idiot who doesn’t understand context.

Who is making sure the ‘right people’ use parks and public schools?

Fire departments serve everyone when there is an emergency.

UBI is perfectly fair. The benefits to the lowest incomes is massively higher than the benefit to the wealthy while being a simple system that does not require any complex overhead to make sure the ‘right’ people are receiving it. The same as with public parks, roads, schools, fire departments, and any other public thing available to everyone that is paid through taxes.

UBI achieves that because the person who does those things still gets an income without needing a job.

They will say that while ignoring all the screw ups that councils made up entirely of men have made over the years.

Equality is having most city councils be mixed, and a roughly even number of all men or all women councils where most candidates are all omen or all men. Not every council needs to be split, but at least one of the underrepresented group is a positive as a counterbalance to all the ones that are all men.

They are cutting those programs.

What is your theory for why they are not doing the thing they are already doing?

They do make cuts already, it just gives them even more of an excuse. That is why it is counterproductive, more fuel for the dumpster fire with zero possible upside.

Based on historical events, that will just allow them to make further cuts to programs that support the poor and minorities because “we can’t afford these programs”. Cutting funding as a threat to conservatives who don’t want to spend government money on the less fortunate is counterproductive.

Have you been living under a rock for the last couple of decades? The newest chucklefucks appointed to SCOTUS don’t give two shits about appearances and will do whatever they want at any time.

If it was clearly labeled she would have been able to make that choice and there wouldn’t have been a court decision that it wasn’t labeled well enough.

Fancy bisexual.