MSNBC FAILS 05 - Lessons In Slippery Slope Fallacies (w/Olbermann)

[ChanneloftheRepublic]

keith, we still have to vote you dibshit.

[independentview1]

Funny to hear Olbermann, a guy who made millions working for one of the largest corporation in the world, talk about corporations taking away your freedoms. Just about everything Olbermann argues for is more Government power, more Government control over people, less freedom for people and more laws. This is a guy who tries to people to accept the fact that the more of their lives they hand over to Government the better life they can have.

[henshinman]

you know olbermann could easily be talking about his side too i mean the same it could happen the other way too but it doesn't mean it or the scenario he is talking about necessarily will happen

[michidan79]

money doesn't equal votes

[mypsmells]

My God, this guy is completely nuts.

[butMydesign]

Tell us Keith, whatever did we do waaaaay back before 2002 when McCain-Feingold was enacted. How did we SURVIVE?!?!

[walkermydawg]

@butMydesign I think he did. What is it that you know about sarbanes oxley? Did you shoot one with palin after it got into your garbage cans? Waaaaaaaaay back when mccain was a, well, it's not going to be a digital rectal exam, you get the, as simpson said without exp, the green weenie.

[butMydesign]

@walkermydawg Was I meant to understand that?

[MrEatonbeaver]

@butMydesign Some questions, like yours and "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" answer themselves. Just like a former shit for brains president, does not like to read, believes anything he's told, and is distracted by bright shiny objects.

[butMydesign]

@MrEatonbeaver Yes, apparently *I* am the idiot if I cannot follow a badly written, poorly reasoned retort.

[Taftthemusicman]

Dred Scott v. Sanford? He's comparing supporting right wing candidates to supporting slavery? I could say a lot more, that I'm not going to

[manga4774]

hes right, though...

nazi fascist police state

just you wait ;) !

[bigpappashouse]

The only difference now is that it is legal, and they don't have to spend as much time hiding their activities. This is nothing new, it just got a little brighter in the room.

[ImWilson1]

Vote Murray Hill Inc.

Murray Hill Inc for Congress!!!!!

[r3v3ng3ofthef4113n]

I see someone has been watching too much Keith Olbermann

[Etimos]

This video is fail for several reasons.

1) Kieth is an opinion mouthpiece, not a news anchor. Anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt in the first place, so vilifying him for not being 100% infallible seems like a waste of time.

2) What he says here is perfectly reasonable. There's a big difference between a slippery slope WARNING and a slippery slope fallacy, and clearly BlameTheFirst can't tell what that difference is.

I shake my head in disappointment. Bow your head in shame.

[Etimos]

3) The music, video effects, and choppy editing are irritating and only obscure the already ill-defined and poorly thought out theme of this weak and insubstantial video.

If you spent less time playing with the special effects on your movie maker, and more time actually formulating a coherent argument, or at the very least UNDERSTANDING the thing you're trying (and failing) to argue against, this video may be worth two stars.

Fortunately my expectations were already too low to fall any further

[BlameTheFirst]

1) At least you agree with me that Olbermann shouldn't be taken seriously.

2) A slippery slope is a slippery slope. It's fallacious in it assumes that one thing will lead to another until things turn out for the worse. Has there ever been a country that became totalitarian because of big business? Because most have been the result of BIG GOVERNMENT!

3) Tough beans if you dont like my video. I used the effects to highlight the propaganda tone behind Olbermanns argument.

[Etimos]

@BlameTheFirst

Negative Precedent is not automatically a fallacy. Actions have consequences, and things which are likely to cause undesirable consequences are used as a negative precedent argument.

If you had any experience in law, you'd know the difference. In the courts, Precedent is very important, and the court must always be conscious of its actions as they will translate into future decisions

What Kieth says here is not a fallacy, for several reasons.

[Etimos]

1) A Slippery Slope fallacy involves a long chain of spiraling undesirable consequences following a small and seemingly innocuous first step, which does not logically seem to lead to those consequences. Kieth's argument is a simple Cause and Effect argument, and you have yet to explain why it's inaccurate.

2) Campaign contributions are already a significant deciding factor in the decision making process of elected officials in the US. Unlimited corporate spending can only aggravate this problem

[Etimos]

Look at Obama's corporate sponsors, for example, and you'll see why he so readily accepts huge subsidies to non-national banks in a supposedly capitalist "sink or swim" system, just as his republican predecessor did, without batting an eyelash, and why congress is so eager to pad every bill that comes through with as many corporate loopholes and exemptions as they think they can get away with.

Olbermann's argument here is a perfectly logical consequence chain, based on previous observations.

[BlameTheFirst]

@etimos

Will there be negative consequences to this? Perhaps there will. There a negative consequences to all actions. Thats why many are opposed to the healthcare reform bill.

But Olbermann is arguing that this decision will lead to a fascist totalitarian state like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. As I asked before, when has a country ever become totalitarian because of big business rather than big government. My answer (according to history): none!

[BlameTheFirst]

So why should I accept Olbermanns argument that allowing corporations to finance campaigns without restraint any more seriously than an argument like legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest, pedophilia, or bestiality?

[Etimos]

@BlameTheFirst

Wrong again I'm afraid. History demonstrates clearly that when the power to decide (or to influence decisions, openly or secretly) is given to or shared with a small but influential upper class, the result is invariably an oppressive autocracy.

Take Post Industrial Europe, for example. A few powerful, wealthy men worked together or in their own interests to create an oppressive work environment that effectively turned their employees into indentured servants with very few rights

[Etimos]

Invariably when money and power are allowed to concentrate in the hands of a small elite, the result is oppression of the lower class majority through exclusion and systematic violation.

During the industrial revolution, lobbyists and sympathetic-ears allowed the business class to effect LAWS governing the rights and conditions of their employees, driving millions into enforced poverty and wage-slavery for the better part of a century before UNIONS finally managed to effect group change.

[Etimos]

Therefor, by the example set by the Industrial Revolution,which was itself merely a microcosm of the age old power/class struggle between the powerful few and the impoverished memory since Egypt and Rome (and therefor throughout human history), allowing Corporations the power of citizens to unlimited campaign spending and influence in government affairs will logically lead to exactly the same kinds of oppression and violation that it has always historically done.

To assume otherwise is asinine.

[Etimos]

Repeating the same actions indefinitely and expecting a different result is the definition of stupidity (theoretical quantum physics aside).

If, throughout history, wealthy groups have systematically influenced, corrupted, and bought public officials, elected or autocratic, in order to enforce their minority will to their sole benefit at the expense of the greater good, then when those restrictions which were placed on companies for public safety are removed, what should we assume will happen?

[BlameTheFirst]

@Etimos

Im obviously dealing with a Socialist/Communist, so Im not going to continue this argument any further.

I will say this: I do not buy that this is the end of democracy. Corporations may now have the power to finance campaigns, but we the people still have the power to decide what candidate will represent us, we still have the power to vote for the person to be our elected official, and we still have the power to voice our opinions on laws and legislation.

[Etimos]

@BlameTheFirst Yes, the guy who disagrees with you is CLEARLY a socialist or a communist. That's the only explanation. Bravo.

As for your power to decided and vote, What has that power done for you lately?

When the government bailed out the bank (and honestly, what could be MORE socialist than a company begging the government for a tax-payer handout? Whatever happened to sink-or-swim capitalism?) and the vast, overwhelming majority of the American people didn't want it, did votes stop it?

[ghostbuddy]

@BlameTheFirst

I think the problem with that is your being a little niave. Corporations aren't going to give money to candidates for nothing. Corporations give them money, to sway their policies. Politicians take the money and put it into advertising.

The politicians with the most money will get the most exposure. The best advertisement campaigns to make that exposure count. They will have better fact spinners. The better speech writers. They will have a distinct advantage.

[r3v3ng3ofthef4113n]

Because fear-mongering is what made Fox News such a credible news source. :(

[fudgebrownies42]

I still don't know what your argument is, because what you are making fun of you just proved.

[BlameTheFirst]

What? That Keith Olbermann used a slippery slope fallacy?

[meraranjha]

@fudgebrownies42 yeahhhh duh'''

[Whitepussyass]

Olbermann is such a douchebag.