While I agree with the general point, slippery slope arguments are usually pretty weak.
Why not take away 3RR citing the argument that "Eventually we won't be allowed to edit. It is a slippery slope"? Or NPA on the basis that it infringes free speech?
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Just a thought in the wake of the pedophile thing. Could we agree not to ever again block people for what they are? No matter how disgusting, unpleasant, immoral etc. Such things always being at least somewhat objective, we should stick instead to only blocking people for actions.
In other words: If someone says, "I'm a pedophile", then by policy this should not be a reason to block them. If, on the other hand, they are trolling, and it works, then that becomes a blockable action - trolling.
I worry that there is a genuine slippery slope where "I am a pedophile" gets confused with "I am a terrorist", then "I am a member of Hamas" then "I support Eta" and so on and so forth. Is it not better to simply say "We do not block people for statements of who they are or what they believe"?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.