[Lnc-business] LNC Contact Form - Returning donations/membership purges

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Claiming slippery slope is alway a fallacy is itself fallacious:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#non-fallacious_usage

http://www.csun.edu/%7Edgw61315/fallacies.html#Slippery%20slope


The only fallacy that is more misused to dismiss arguments is the No True
Scotsman

And snowball is merely another name for slippery slope

https://www.coursehero.com/file/p17146vk/Slippery-slope-sometimes-called-a-snowball-argument-or-domino-theory-A-slippery/


I spent way too many years as the owner of a debate forum.

-Caryn Ann

On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:38 AM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> Some thoughts already covered, and not bad points
>
> I will remind everyone however that the "snowball" is the same as a
> slippery slope.  It is an argument that a few have made here with reference
> to "will we background check everyone" etc.
>
> A slippery slope argument is considered a logical fallacy.  Can we at
> least attempt to refrain from those?
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On Dec 22, 2019 10:48 AM, Libertarian Party <web at lp.org> wrote:
>
> *Contact LNC members:*
>   Contact all LNC members
> Your Information
> *Subject*
>   Returning donations/membership purges
> *Affiliate*
>   Alabama
> *Name*
>   Paul Frankel
> *Email*
>   travellingcircus at gmail.com
> *Phone*
>   (205) 534-1622
> *State*
>   Alabama
> *Address*
>   710 Chickamauga
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Tuscaloosa+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Tuscaloosa 35406
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Tuscaloosa+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g>
> United States
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Tuscaloosa+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Map It
> <http://maps.google.com/maps?q=710+Chickamauga+Tuscaloosa+35406+United+States>
> *Message*
>   Good morning LNC,
>
> As you may know, I read all your public emails, but try to write you
> sparingly (otherwise you'd get more emails from me than you do from your
> own current members, and if I was going to do that I should have run for a
> new term on your committee; I was on as an alternate in 2012-4). I think
> the membership purge/donation return issue is one that merits my input. I
> hope you'll agree and share my thoughts with the public list.
>
> Emotional cases make bad law, and those who sexually abuse, exploit and
> videotape teenagers are certainly a very emotional case. The more
> fundamental question however is whether LNC has *any* authority to refuse a
> membership pledge and donation from *anyone* regardless of what
> reprehensible things they may have done in the past or even do in the
> present or future. One answer is that the bylaws give LNC no such power,
> and thus it would be improper to refuse or refund a membership donation and
> pledge from anyone no matter who they are. I understand that this is the
> current ruling of the chair. The other answer I have seen is that Robert's
> Rules say that in the absence of such a bylaw the governing body does have
> the right to remove members for cause or refuse membership donations. I
> don't remember the exact citation and I am not a parliamentarian so I'll
> leave it to the parliamentarians among you to hash out, along with
> ferreting out where in Roberts that is, since (I apologize) I do not
> remember a specific cite, only being told that it's there.
>
> A few things to consider:
>
> 1) if you do open the door to membership revocation, it could well
> snowball. There have been many historic cases in other parties and
> organizations where it started small with a tiny number of obvious cases
> and then gradually grew to wide ranging membership purges that devastated
> those respective organizations and crippled them over time.
>
> 2) But, it doesn't always have to. I am aware of a handful of state LPs
> which have revoked a very small number of individual memberships over the
> years, typically after some sort of internal judicial procedure, and as yet
> I am not aware that they have devolved into massive membership purges of
> the sort I would be concerned about.
>
> 3) It's also an undeniable fact that individual members who both advocate
> and practice initiation of force in violation of their membership pledge
> and tout their LP membership publicly can and have cause the party
> embarrassment in traditional and social media and among our own actual and
> potential membership as a result; most of the public does not understand
> that we may not have the power to dissociate from members in the way they
> assume any organization can.
>
> 4) This could potentially be an issue to take to the judicial committee.
> But, as at least those of you who have been on the board since the start of
> the term are aware, it's questionable whether we have one which was
> impaneled in accordance with our bylaws right now. For those of you on
> bylaws committee, please do something to fix the voting system which caused
> this, even if it's just going back to the prior one.
>
> 5) If you do open the door to membership removal/rejection in this manner,
> please consider what precedents you set. For example, do we want to
> establish the principle that once someone has been convicted of a real
> crime with victims they can't have a change of heart and honestly sign the
> membership pledge, or that we should assume they don't mean it? What if
> someone does mean it, but despite best intentions does in fact violate
> their pledge -- but does not make it an ongoing pattern of behavior, nor
> advocates for it as policy (I can be included in that)? If the grounds for
> membership revocation include actions taken before the pledge is signed, do
> they include cases where those actions were done under color of law, yet
> amount to the same exact actions from our moral perspective? Example: As US
> Attorney, prior to LP membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage boy for
> having consensual sexual activity with a teenage girl and privately
> videotaping it. As part of the prosecution Mr. Barr's office made that
> video public, allowing unrelated adults to watch the two underage children
> engaging in sexual activity. His actions were legal, but should they have
> been? Would setting this membership removal precedent open up grounds for
> someone else to request a membership revocation for our past presidential
> candidate and life member (if my memory serves correctly) on this basis?
>
> 6) It sounds like regardless of what you do this matter is likely to be
> taken up by the national convention in May. That may be the best venue to
> hash this out, especially in the absence of a universally recognized
> judicial committee.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings, if you did. I hope they
> are of some help to you in considering these matters.
>
> Paul Frankel
> 205-534-1622 currently open for voice calls 6 am - 9 pm central, text any
> time
> secretary at lpalabama.org (not writing in my state party capacity but I
> hope we'll see some of you at our state convention Feb 28-Mar 1 in
> Birmingham
> https://lpalabama.org/event/2020-lp-alabama-state-convention-2020-02-28/
> )
> https://www.facebook.com/paulie.cannoli
>
> PS please let me know if you get this even if you don't want to pass it to
> the list; testing contact all feature of LP.org web form again).
> *Email Confirmation*
>
>
>    - I want to receive email communication from the Libertarian Party.
>
>
> --

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *