It's much easier to say that the only thing about it that's clear is that the poster is sarcastically enthusiastic about the hypothetical end of some slippery slope. How that conjecture relates to the actual matter at hand, or what the poster really believes about it is left untold.
The post a level above it in the thread on the other hand makes a reasoned case for why this might not be a good idea, rooted in the actual matter and addressing it directly. With that in mind, it's even harder to imagine what lenkite thought would add to the discussion.
Actually saying that disingenuous mockery doesn't help apparently added to the discussion, though, in that lenkite then responded with a clearly reasoned argument.
Reductio ad absurdum is useful. Sounds like you agree. Idk why label it a slippery slope, it's pretty cut and dry. SAT scores def do determine who gets to work on your heart.
Maybe, but in this case I don't think that it was for the reasons that I've previously stated.
> Sounds like you agree.
What makes it sound like I agree? The only opinions I've divulged are on the quality of the post as an entry to the debate.
> Idk why label it a slippery slope, it's pretty cut and dry.
Please offer an opinion on whether its use was legitimate and based on a reasonably likely chain of events, but don't tell me that this wasn't using a slippery slope as a rhetorical device. It's not cut and dry, it's hyperbolic and vague, as bitter sarcasm tends to be.
> SAT scores def do determine who gets to work on your heart.
... and if that argument had been voiced I might have agreed or disagreed, but it wasn't.
> It's useful independent of whether the comment is sarcastically enthusiastic, hyperbolic, vague or bitter.
You can say that, but until you've actually offered an argument that supports your conclusion I have no reason to reconsider my view. There's no question IMO that a sentiment can be useful while being sarcastic, hyperbolic, vague or bitter. I just don't believe that this one was, for the reasons I've previously stated.
> Your actual objection seems to be that it's hypothetical when in fact that's the point of the technique.
No, my objection is that it is hypothetical without reasoning for how the actual matter at hand could form a basis for the hypothesis. To say that because SAT scores are adjusted for adversity, "adversity scores should also be counted towards recruitment in elite military units, selection for senior military leadership and all significant promotions" begs the question: why? The post doesn't answer that question.
> Why claim a simpler non-sarcastic example on how honest test scores matter was somehow not made?
I haven't. Plenty of users have written simpler, non-sarcastic examples on how honest test scores matter. I acknowledged this already, and I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.
It's a slippery slope because the logic used to rationalize special treatment is that the outcome isn't the same for different people. Whatever measure or system they come up with, it won't change that, and they'll demand yet another concession.
In the progressive orthodoxy, merely observing that some distribution isn't independent of gender or ethnicity is necessary and sufficient proof of discrimination, and sufficient justification for a power grab too.
