Is the slippery slope logical fallacy really a fallacy...

Is the slippery slope logical fallacy really a fallacy? It seems to me that it's more logical than most things these days.

>Gays accepted in late 90's
>Gay marriage allowed in past few years federally
>suddenly rapid numbers of made up genders and sexuality appear
>people now writing news articles saying pedophilia is just a sexuality

or how about this

>cocaine breaks out in 80's then war on drugs
>states starting to legalize weed
>countries now creating heroin clinics circumventing their own laws
>clinics welcoming in more and more drugs for "safe monitored use"

Is a slippery slope argument really that invalid? Sure what slope you argue may not happen, no one can predict the future, but things certainly seem to snowball overtime.

Other urls found in this thread:

thefreethoughtproject.com/2-years-legal-pot-sales-colorado-shatters-revenue-projections-arrests-drugs-plummet/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

First example is just a bunch of attention whoring teens on the internet

As for the second, Prohibition is expensive as fuck and has to completely end eventually.

That's implying the change administered is administered correctly, and not with the use of predatorial media manipulation and neglect of the actual social issues

it is indeed a fallacy because you never know whether what you are saying in the counter-argument will happen for sure; it's a lousy attempt at arguing at best imo

Don't let white men around animals.

>lol

Yea it's a fallacy. It's actually a regular case of false correlation.

Most kids have a phase in their life when they get experimental with drugs. Most kids start off with weed, then go to the harder drugs. But it doesn't necessarily mean weed leads to harder drugs, because they were going to do them anyway even if they didn't do weed first. Look at someone that quits weed and then starts doing it again later on in their lives. Usually they don't get into the harder drugs when thy happens and they stick to weed, because they've passed that experimental phase of their lives.

#NotAnArgument

>First example is just a bunch of attention whoring teens on the internet
m8 the DSM took gender identity disorder off the list. You can be fined up to $250,000 for misgendering a person in New York City.

slippery slope in a practical point of view is not a fallacy.

But in terms of strict logic and theory of debating it is.

"if we accept gays, next thing you'll know bestiality and pedophilia will be accepted!"
Your argument is valid in terms of the real world and understanding human nature.

But it doesn't do anything to say why homosexuality contained to itself is bad. It takes the focus away from the central issue and shifts it to other things. So from an academical point of view it is still technically a logical fallacy.

But anyone who doesn't realize that there is truth to this """"logical fallcy""""" isn't very wise.

Once you allow degeneracy more degeneracy will come

It's never been a logical fallacy when the evolution denounced implies a fundamental change of paradigm that people are not even immediately aware of.
For example, when divorce was democratized, the change of paradigm was that marriage went from an institution meant for the protection of the family unit to the benefit of the upbringing of children to a thing of pure convenience between adults. This was the start of the slippery slope that led to fag marriage, because every subsequent evolution was just in order to adapt the historical institution to the new paradigm, without even being aware that its basic nature was irredeemably altered.

As long as you can logically explain why x leads to y then it's not a fallacy

It's not a fallacy, it's just that it's commonly used as a non sequitur.

(((Slippery slope))) fallacy used to be called logic based deduction from past events.

I think of men just like bacteria. At some point the growth is just uncontrollable and it ends up killing them all. That's where we are going.

So im right.
By this post

Pretty much. IDK about colombia but the US legal system is completely based on precedent. It's all about the slippery slope here, every new thing is built on the brick laid before it.

>>countries now creating heroin clinics circumventing their own laws
>>clinics welcoming in more and more drugs for "safe monitored use"
Idc about the rest but these are literally a good thing, they reduce occurrences of overdose and drug crime goes down in areas surrounding these clinics. These clinics arent where you go to try out heroin, all they offer is clean needles and tea/coffee and some shelter.

You've got to be a real fucking moron to think drug clinics are bad. Oh and pre-emptively
>But muh drug clinic will ruin my nice area
If theyre considering building a drug clinic in your area, it isnt a nice area.

How does one acquire marijuana where it's not legal?

>cocaine breaks out in 80's then war on drugs
War on Drugs started in the early 70s with Nixon, Reagan just turned it up to 11. The 80s was known for crack, coke was the drug of choice in the mid-late 70s.

This response is concise and well stated. What the fuck are you doing on this site?

You need freinds.

Friends who have friends who knows a guy who knows a guy

My statements aren't false, are they?

there are certainly some aspects of the "slippery slope" that can be true, but it isn't necessarily true 100% of the time

I think the argument that legalizing weed will lead to more people doing heroin is idiotic. If anything I imagine it will make people less likely since the majority of heroin addicts I've met became that way after getting addicted to pills or sometimes alcohol.

If there's a gateway drug it's either alcohol or tobacco. I think almost 100% of heroin abusers started with those drugs first.

Suppose I have no friends

as someone who is steadily losing contact with people from highschool, that is my biggest fear.

No friends = no weed

I mean if you wanted to be really bold you could walk onto a college campus and walk up to kids and be like "do you know where I can buy weed? I'm not a cop I swear to god"

Slippery slope can be a fallacy, but it is sometimes not. If someone asks for a piece of your birthday cake it is a logical fallacy to assume they will then take the entire cake. If someone takes away your constitutional rights it is not necessarily a logical fallacy to assume they might take more. After all, they have now set a legal precedence.

nicely put

how about this
the first one has nothing to do with science and is complete bullshit, while those clinics are to help ween people off of shit, and legalizing weed is not only the freeeedum thing to do, put it is proven that cannabis has some benefits

You just contradicted yourself buddy.

It's not a contradiction. One is a legal precedence, one is not.

A fallacy isn't suddenly made less fallacious because your prediction happens to come true; it's a fallacy because you're making an assumption without proper empirical support.

You ASSUME legal precedence on constitutional rights, but not on your hypothetical analogy of the cake.

YOUR REAL WORLD EXAMPLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF.

Perfect logic

He's not contradicting himself. The reason you don't assume the piece of cake means all of it is because they only ask for 1 piece. With constitutional rights, they go after all of them and KEEP GOING long after initial victories.

The second ammendment still exsists.
In fact, we've added constitutional rights.

Give up, you lost.

...

>what is a drug dealer

Drug dealing is the easiest business to get into. It's entrepreneur friendly. Unless you get caught.

>implying happiness isn't the first gateway drug

I shiggydiggy.

Not really, no. It's merely a consequence of two factors.

First of all, any action in a direction changes the status quo. There are two possible results from this:

* The opinion of the people stays the same, and as such anyone who wants to move the slide further will find growing resistance.

* The opinion of the people shifts to accomodate the new status quo.

In practice it's a bit of a mix, but the second part wins over time and with gradual changes, partly with the help of propaganda.

Secondly, any movement can gain "momentum" - the more it changes things, the more it can change. This is only attenuated by the "over time" part of accustoming to the changing status quo, but with well placed propaganda it certainly can lead to a snowball.

Of course, I'd still say is right - it's lousy arguing, you're basically admitting that there's nothing wrong with what is being discussed and you can only bank on supposed things that might happen in the future. It all depends if the "slide" is real.

Actually, that's not deductive reasoning, it's inductive reasoning, and yes, it's a big difference.

But technically a lot of the reasonings we make are inductive.

Exactly. Sure, the slippery slope argument isn't formally logical, but we don't live in a logical world.

People behave largely based on emotion as opposed to logic, therefore logic can't be strictly used to mandate the way we do things.

After Year 2 of Legal Pot in Colorado, ALL Drug-Related Charges Drop Significantly, Record Revenue

thefreethoughtproject.com/2-years-legal-pot-sales-colorado-shatters-revenue-projections-arrests-drugs-plummet/

The article is old and definitely pro-pot but you get the drift

i think you have the wrong flag.
>A FUCKI---