This is also an example of why you cannot cave on certain issues of principal.
—Once you crack the door on letting government control any aspect of the Second Amendment, eventually you’ll end up without a right to bear arms. So yes, you have to (must) take an extreme stance on this issue if you think we have a right to bear arms.
—Once you leave the smallest crack open regards abortion (best dealt with by the States as Trump successfully pushed), you’re going to end up with tax payer paid for late term abortions, for under age girls, without parental consent or knowledge.
There are many issues where there is room for compromise, where there are even shades of grey.
There are some issues where you cannot compromise, where you cannot crack the door open even the slightest bit, unless you’re willing to accept that eventually that door will be slammed wide open.
Those people on the fence, that argue for moderation, a middle ground, on these issues of principal where you cannot open the door realistically without having it slammed open eventually are simply for the most extreme and radical liberal ideas usually. They just want to “feel good” about themselves as they propose a middle ground where there in reality in none.
How do you know where there is a middle ground and where not is not as complicated to understand as folks think. (1) Look at the farthest extremes on both sides and ask yourself how many folks are in the middle of that spectrum and on the extreme ends. For example, with abortion you really have a lot of folks that support the most extreme pro-abortion position imaginable. They support it all, literally. So if you cast your vote for the so-called “middle ground” you’re really supporting the most extreme permissive abortion policies. (2) Ask yourself if there is a financial incentive for one side vs. the other. For example, abortion is an industry worth billions not only performing abortions, but also selling the parts of a fetus etc. It’s big money with lobbying and all. If money is involved, there will be pressure to expand it more and more over time and they will ALWAYS have a BS rationalization in hand to justify their cause. Example abortion: stem cells and curing Parkinson’s years ago.
Let me give you a converse example where I am the bad guy. I support the legalization of Marijuana. I know in reality that there is no real middle ground on that issue since most people that want it legal want it entirely legal, in every aspect. The eventual outcome of legalization even if just for medical reasons at first will be that recreational use, stores selling it, farms growing it, THC (not just CBD) containing marijuana will be available. There is no middle ground. Most people for the legalization are on the far end and want total legalization and there is a lot of money to be made. If you do not want my side to prevail, you must be entirely opposed to the legalization of marijuana. Crack the door open, and I will eventually win it all.
*There are some issues where you cannot compromise, where you cannot crack the door open even the slightest bit, unless you’re willing to accept that eventually that door will be slammed wide open.*
Think mail in/motor voting. Same day registration.
Those people on the fence, that argue for moderation, a middle ground, on these issues of principal principle [...]
Excellent reasoning!
Slippery Slope Argument (not always an informal Logical Fallacy).
Regards,