Should Slippery Slope still be considered a fallacy?

Should Slippery Slope still be considered a fallacy?

Other urls found in this thread:

qz.com/438469/the-science-is-clear-children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-are-at-no-disadvantage/
washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/
bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
youtube.com/watch?v=uR_8JlIuP0s
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>slippery slope considered a fallacy from liberal universities and scholars so they can scream FALLACY when we call them out on there bullshit

Stupid goy, it's a logical fallacy through and through.

If we stop calling this a fallacy then who's to say we won't stop recognizing all fallacies?

Well the gay marriage slippery slope is coming true so you tell me.

I think it should because it is retarded to assume things are going to happen because something may have caused it.

Overall it is pretty much a big assumption and that is why it is a fallacy.

Post examples of slippery slopes happening in our society

>colin closet

fuck cultural marxism

The idea that an argument being a fallacy makes an argument automatically invalid is also a fallacy.

To be more specific, you have to actually argue against a fallacy, you cannot just say an argument is a fallacy and therefore wrong.

Many times an argument can be true and valid but fit the bill for many logical fallacies.

10/10

This.

>If we let homosexuals marry each other, a few years down the road we will legalize oral sex with animals
>Uh that's a slippery slope right there
MEANWHILE IN CANADA

Top kek

took me peon brain a while to get it

top kek

clever

In stead of arguing that since X happened, Y will then happen, argue that Y could get away with using the same exact argument for X one day.

Its only a fallacy if i disagree with them

Non-fallacious usage provides an inductive argument for the probability of an extreme result versus a middle-ground one, usually based on observation of previous comparable circumstances. This form of the argument is prevalent, under the actual name slippery slope, in United States First Amendment case law, for example.

By definition, any case involving a valid establishment of a positive feedback mechanism constitutes a non-fallacious use of the slippery slope argument, since the slippery slope argument precisely describes a positive feedback mechanism. The argument is fallacious when it is assumed that a certain action behaves with positive feedback without any prior evidence or logical reasoning that it does, but if evidence of a positive feedback mechanism is found, the slippery slope argument may be an accurate description. Positive feedback mechanisms are common in sociology, including positive network effects, and the bandwagon effect.

>If we allow Muslims to enter the country then they're going to start voting for Islamic Laws
>Leftists think this is a logical fallacy

Only a fallacy if no examples are used.

At least you can't stick your dick in them like one of our neighbouring countries.

i mean if you guys cant post an example then it most definitely needs to remain a fallacy

>Well the gay marriage slippery slope is coming true so you tell me.

The world went from: Arranged marriages, bride price, plural marriages, sexual slavery, temporary marriages and child brides

to

Being free to marry anyone you choose? And for you that's some kind of slippery slope into degeneracy?

That's 5 billion megarounds of FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY!

>a Muslim is a follower of Islam
>Islam states that Islamic Law is the law of all Muslims and any democratic laws that don't entail the entirety of Sharia are false and should not be followed
>Muslims vote for other Muslim politicians who in turn adopt more Islam leaning laws

To deny this is like saying throwing a bunch of red apples into a completely white room isn't going to make the room any less white.

well after passing gay marriage U.S. media focuses on tranny public bathrooms so yeah sloppy slope is not a fallacy

Hah

you think the label-everything-in-sight-a-fallacy thing is obnoxious now, just wait until the normies discover "games people play" that's going to be the next go-to tactic for people who'd rather argue than give orders

...

...

Because it doesn't rigidly require truth. Fallacy doesn't mean that it can never be true.

This, just look at pornography and how that's escalated. Jews lawyer up against public decency laws, in the 50 and 60s and wala you end up with current state of pornography.

A bunch of lefty rags trying to legitimize bestiality and pedophilia with emotional appeal puff pieces to earn tolerance points doesn't mean the rest of the country will ever accept such harmful behavior.

Gay marriage led to nothing bad happening at all and was a boon to the wedding industry if anything.

Whether or not it's a good idea for gays to be able to adopt and raise children is a completely different argument.

No. Pedophilia isn't a slippery slope because people were regularly fucking kids 150 years ago. We've gone up the slope.

But what does Gay Marriage have to do with tranny bathrooms?

when there is no other evidence other than you saying slippery slope yes, when there is actual evidence of it no.

>Whether or not it's a good idea for gays to be able to adopt and raise children is a completely different argument.

Statistically, children raised in homosexual environments do more poorly than those being raised by single mothers, if I'm remembering the study correctly.

The argument against those stats was always the stress of an illegitimate relationship could have negative consequences, so legalizing homosexual marriage would alleviate those problems.

Nobody ever stops to ask if children should be able to take dick. They just shut down and use emotional arguments. MUH CHILLUNZ.

Nothing.

Gay marriage was a civil rights issue. Bathroom shenanigans are a societal issue.

Children shouldn't be able to take dick the same way they shouldn't be able to work: they aren't matured enough to realize the consequences of what they're doing. They can easily be taken advantage of by older people you shitposting fuck.

>Greenberg

It's a fallacy if you do a shit job of explaining the connection between A and Z.

Yes, because it's far too speculative to carry weight.

>A bunch of lefty rags trying to legitimize bestiality and pedophilia with emotional appeal puff pieces to earn tolerance points
Where?

>Gay marriage was a civil right issue

Way to fall for the leftist narrative. Marriage is not a "right" as the founding fathers defined the term, same goes for all these other made up "rights" like free healthcare and gib me dats.

Wrong.
qz.com/438469/the-science-is-clear-children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-are-at-no-disadvantage/

washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/

bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup

Funny that Sup Forums loves to say that they're about the facts. Kill yourself.

>inb4 "wapo"

So we should ban child actors? No? Fucking hypocrite.

The whole point of a slippery slope is that there is no proof to establish the chain.

With evidence of what will happen, it's not a slippery slope. It is cause and effect.

Yes because it's flawed logic.

>implying that taking dick will lead to pscyhological trauma and being taken advantage of

Here ladies and gentlemen, we see an example of the slippery slope. Fuck off Canada, we've had quite enough of your shenanigans.

kek

>taking dick = acting
Nice fallacy :)

I think huffpost wrote a pedo sympathy article where it was basically a guy explaining how he's not a monster for wanting to fuck children

All citizens are equal under the law and marriage is a binding contract between 2 consenting adults.

But hey, feel free to take it up with the Supreme Court if you think it isn't.

You literally said children shouldn't be able to work then started back pedaling immediately. Are you stupid or just intellectually dishonest?

Realistically that the only job they'd ever be good at considering children are masters of pretending and imagination.

:^)

>guy explaining how he's not a monster for wanting to fuck children
Pfft, it's already established that people don't pick what they are attracted to. I thought you meant that leftists wrote arguments about permitting pedophilia.

>doesn't mean the rest of the country will ever accept such harmful behavior

50 years ago no one would have ever accepted gay marriage. I know things move quickly nowadays but give it time.

a fallacy can still be a valid argument

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Yes because it's a non-sequitor.

If you can shoe that A leads to B, and B leads to C etc. Then it isn't a fallacy to say A leads to Z.

Yes but just disregarding an argument just because it contains a fallacy is a fallacy of itself.

It's speculation, not a logical conclusion; hence it cannot be used as a logical argument.

Should slippery slope arguments be discarded as being completely unfounded and illogical at all times? No, but they don't stand as arguments on their own.

Noice

It logically never should have been considered a fallacy with the exception of claiming that events A and B 100% imply that C will happen as well, but only idiots make that kind of argument.

...

Its the one fallacy that can be quite true a lot of the time
Human psychology for many people is that if you give them an inch they will take a fucking mile

As an argument rule no.
But concepts like accepting gays in mainstream culture leads to gay marriage is no longer a slippery slope fallacy as it is true.

Source: Western culture

In the particular realm of politics there are many theories supporting that politics moves on a spectrum and thus moving down to one end will lead to further extreme action. Given this at least in politics slippery slope is not a fallacy but a legitimate claim that a spectrum move somewhere can lead to a highly negative extreme.

>doesn't mean the rest of the country will ever accept such harmful behavior.

That's what they said about gay marriage.

How about subject matter in popular music?
In the 50's it was taboo to mention sex on the radio, in the 70's it was taboo to mention unwedded sex, in the 90's it was taboo to sing about tits an ass, in the 10's its okay to have "eat the booty like groceries" in your song. And kids listen to it!

That isnt to say that accepting one thing will give you a worse thing, but it is stupid to think that accepting something wont make it easier for the stronger version to be accepted.

>Yes but just disregarding an argument just because it contains a fallacy is a fallacy of itself.

Umm...No, it isn't. Dismissing an illogical argument and ignoring it isn't a fallacy because you have nothing to argue with since their original assertion is incorrect.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy if you cannot demonstrate that the two things are related. The original picture is correct though, in that slippery slope fallacies frequently aren't addressing the core issue of what the person who brought it up is complaining about. Combine that with the fact that most people use it fallaciously, or at best, dubiously, and slippery slope arguments become nearly useless to make.

kek

...

Legality of homoexuality. Then it became about legality of having sexual relations with children (14 year olds are children), then animals as we can see here in Canada with cuckman Trudeau.

Well done.

So "taboo" means "popular"?

What are all those other steps supposed to be? Oy vey

In erms of logic yes

In terms of laws now, they are always incremental

slippery slope is not a fallacy. It's just a fragment of an argument that isn't sufficient on its own. If there is clear evidence and precedent of a slippery slope, then it absolutely applies.

So the usual context is smug libcucks going "hurr slippery slope fallacy" when you bring up how accepting trannies leads to even more degenerate shit. But this is blatantly true, as we've seen over the past decades with other social justice warrior bullshit like the acceptance of homos.

yeah i guess. i wasnt good at presenting the example. the idea is that people become more and more accepting of gratuitous imagery in their radio music because their standards are lowered.

People wanted Elvis banned because he was too lewd mate

Should ad hominem still be considered a fallacy?

It's an edit you dingus

>See a post
>Has a lot of replies
>Read replies
>People congratulating the witt of the post
>I don't get it
>Congratulate anyway to fit in

Lol nice one user!

It is a fallacy. However, people often think that personal attacks are ALWAYS fallacious, and this is not always true. If the character of a person is relevant to the debate, it is not a fallacy.

For example, if the debate is whether I should allow Mr. Tibbs to babysit my little daughter, and you respond by saying he's a disgusting pedophile, that's obviously not a fallacy.

youtube.com/watch?v=uR_8JlIuP0s

Anarchists and domestic terrorists like #BLM #Deray4Treason burning the US flag get lighter fluid sprayed on them by user patriots in crowd and burst into flames. Makes ya think...

That post itself is an example of the Slippery Slope fallacy, hence the witty congratulations.

He used a slippery slop fallacy as an argument against the premise of OP's post.

You know, I said this to a young leftist I was internet friends with and this guy is literally trying to dox me to have me killed as we speak. He blocked me on everything.

...

>If the character of a person is relevant to the debate, it is not a fallacy.
How is your character ever irrelevant to your argument? Do you think arguments are born of thin air? No, they are developed based on life experiences and observations. This is why your character is the foundation of every argument you make, and attacking your character is never fallacious.

Although I'm not professional on this, I think slippery slope is NOT a fallacy, because actually it is a "reductio ad absurdum", which it is a fair logical resource.

In this example the author is WRONG, because the issue of gay marriage is that marriage was always definied as a marriage between man and a woman. If we can question the gender man/woman point, what is the logical reason for not question the number, thus legalizing polygamy? And why couldn't question a relationship between human kinds and animals? Etc, etc. The real problem is: if we can question one characteristic, how the heck couldn't others question another one?

Immigration. Allowing in more immigrants creates registered voters that are immigrants. These immigrants will vote for more immigration, even against their own interests, because of the interests of their families. This snowballs until pro-immigration policy is doctrine.

Plenty of examples really. A slippery slope, when not used fallaciously, refers to going in a direction which reinforces going in that direction. The image in the OP shows a good example of a slippery slope argument.

Yes. That doesn't make it wrong, remember.

Ad hominem is NOT a logical fallacy when it is used as an "exemplum in contrarium". Ex:
Karl Marx said that with the evolution of capitalism proletarians will achieve class consciousness by themselves and they will bring to socialist/communist revolution. But Karl Marx himself was not a proletarian.
Is it an "ad hominem"? Yes. But it is an "ad hominem" which shows Marx's thesis is wrong, so in this case it is not a fallacy, but a valid logical resource.

(((slippery slope)))

just because slippery slopes turn out to be correct does not mean they're not a logical fallacy
still need evidence to prove why one action will lead to another action

slippery slope is a fallacy only if you don't provide evidence or properly supported theories.

otherwise it is logical prediction (if USA arms nuclear weapons aimed at China in Japan and South Korea, then China will retaliate through becoming more hostile and the whole situation will irreversibly escalate).

this is wrong. the next logical step after gay marriage is polygamy.
pedophilia may come after that.

>Implying temporary marriages is a bad thing

Formal fallacy is an appeal to authority fallacy.