Hacker News Reader

Comment by Otek | Hacker News Reader

Slippery slope is fine and all but do you have any constructive argument?

Slippery slope is not a "fallacy" by default. It can be occasionally but its a perfectly reasonably argument in plenty of cases.

Sure, it's not a fallacy, but it does erode nuanced conversations and so it shouldn't be used without caution.

It is a fallacy by default. The existence and slipperiness of the slope must be justified to make it not a fallacy.

The slipperiness comes from the fact that the EU already admits that scanning of private messages didn't improve the catching and prosecution of perpetrators. Also, the biggest lobbyists for breaking E2EE argue that criminals are moving to encrypted platforms, and targeting encrypted platforms is actually the thing we need to finally put a dent in stopping the dissemination of CSAM

In plenty of cases it's absolutely self evident (especially when there are plenty of historical precedents for similar or analogous situations).

Yes you can get involved in extended arguments with people arguing in bad faith or whose world view is fundamentally incompatible with your but that's usually just a waste of time (I mean you wouldn't argue with Nazis either just the same as with people trying to institute a Stasi style surveillance apparatus through slow boiling)

"it's absolutely self evident" is usually code for "I have no evidence so you must take this on faith"

Do you have any evidence to back this claim?

Constructive argument? Just disband the EU as a whole, including all laws, treaties, contracts ...

Europe would be a much better place if the EU stayed what it was, a trade union of sovereign nations without any political power over the people.

The EU was never just a trade union.

How would this have worked in practice though? How could things like trade standards been harmonised or a common currency adopted without the trade union being able to do legislation?

And once you get there, you're no longer a trade union. Or a trading block, which is probably the better word since a trade union already means something else.

It still is. Countries can ignore EU laws if they want to.

I'm not sure what you try to achieve:

>For example, Poland was hit with massive daily fines when it was embroiled in a dispute over rule of law measures, as well as a separate case linked to environmental permits at a coal mine on the Czech border.

>The Commission is allowed to take these fines out of that country’s EU budget allocation, preventing governments from simply refusing to pay up.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/1568198/how-the-eu-punishes-it...

they can subtract the same amount from what they pay towards the EU, and then what?

What "constructive" argument is anyone supposed to give about authorities having warrantless access to all private conversations?

"Slippery slope" does not by itself invalidate an argument, because slippery slopes do exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com