>You are not allowed to think ahead of things
Why is the slippery slope even a fallacy?
If there isn't any solid evidence for something, then there's nothing wrong in making predictions for that something
>The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear.
/thread
>>723326
Read the example and then you'll understand, maybe.
if you have situation like - there's burning burning, firefighters put it down and then you want to check if its structural integrity wasn't fucked up then you're retard who does slippery slope
you're committing the fallacy if you want to check if the building is well prepared against flooding because since it was on fire now it may be flooded later because the building is totally cursed
>>723378
>if you have situation like - there's burning burning, firefighters put it down and then you want to check if its structural integrity wasn't fucked up then you're retard who does slippery slope
I mean that it doesn't work like that
>>723326
>When I do it, it's a reductio ad absurdum
>When you do it, it's a slippery slope fallacy
>>723326
>Why is the slippery slope even a fallacy?
Well, it is.
See some americans that are... out there going "any tightening on gun laws/free speech/whatever will result in a communazi dictatorship/theocratic corporatism/sharia law/1984".
Problem is that it's poorly defined, and lots of people use it even when the example may actually cause a dangerous legal precedent to form is that thing happens.
>>723326
It's a fallacy, because if we accept it as a reasonable argument, we'd have to accept all sorts of fallacies as reasonable arguments.
>>723326
>Why is the slippery slope even a fallacy?
It's not.
The example is a strawman though.
Slippery Slope is not a fallacy. The only people I've met who considered it as such came from the Anglosphere. Sure, there are nonsensical Slippery Slope arguments containing predictions that are far out there, but that doesn't mean that any Slippery Slope argument is inherently fallacious. Aforementioned stance is mainly taken by radical political progressivist activists to shut down debates.
Even Wikipedia has it listed correctly, that is a kind of argument and not a fallacy:
"A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a consequentialist logical device in which a party asserts that a particular result will probably (or even must inevitably) follow from a given decision or circumstance, without necessarily providing any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the likelihood of the assumed consequence. A slippery slope argument proposes that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fear mongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome."
>example
classical bullshit
normies will invent any argument like its for """"anti-terrorist defence""""
>>723326
If we accept slippery slope as an valid argument then we have to accept every previous fallacy as a valid argument.
Then society will collapse.
>>723721
>Then society will collapse.
proof
>>723721
That's the sorites fallacy, though.
>>723740
Well, and I don't see how you don't see that what you've just reductio ad absurdum'd is the sorites fallacy and not the slippery slope argument.
>>723725
Oh god i hope you arent that dumb
that was literally a slippery slope fallacy
>>723326
At least it's not as retarded as 'no true scotsman' one.
Even the namesake example is so stupid, I've hard time understanding why people keep promulgating it.
>>724027
It's not a fallacy when you call someone out for saying something like "I'm a Christian, but I don't really believe in God." It's a fallacy when you appeal to some "true" ideal or set of values that you want a group to aspire to in order to imply that they're not actually a member of that group, when in reality those ideals aren't part of the definition.
Take the original example. Suppose that a person from Scotland reads an article about an American school shooting and says "That's awful. At least scotsmen wouldn't do that." When someone else shows him an article about a scottish school shooting, he says "Well, no true scotsman would do that." That person is making an appeal to what he sees as a good, true scotsman. In reality, the definition of a scotsman is a person from Scotland, making the school shooter a scotsman. The fallacy is basically changing the definition to exclude anyone in a group that you don't want to be part of that group.
It is kind of a fallacy when the slope doesn't exist in the terms one describes. Example - right wingers and gay rights.
>i-i-if you let gays marry
>t-t-those degenerates will start marrying their children, doggies and cars
Which completely ignores issues like consent and harm.
>>723713
>having negative husbands
>>724027
The only way I can think of that you'd have a problem with the 'no true scotsman' fallacy is if you're one of the retarded christfags of this board who are the guiltiest group on the planet in regards to the fallacy.
>>724380
It's also something that no conservative has ever said outside liberal circlejerks, cuck fantasies, and leftist wet dreams about how stupid the right-wing is, and how righteous their moral stance can only be.
Google "pedophilia acceptance" if you want to see how slippery the slope of sexual deviancy really is.
>>724391
>nobody said that
>but it's right
How to contradict yourself.
>>724391
>It's also something that no conservative has ever said outside liberal circlejerks, cuck fantasies, and leftist wet dreams about how stupid the right-wing is, and how righteous their moral stance can only be.
Words to google:
>scalia gay marriage dissent
>>724399
No conservative has ever claimed that allowing gay marriage will lead to people genuinely wanting to marry their cars, or their dogs.
They have said that normalisation of homosexuality could lead to more deviancy, with pedophilia as a specific example because of the visceral response it gets from people. Again, not suggesting that people marry their kids, just that it's seen as increasingly normal for people to want to fuck kids. Not necessarily for them to act on it, but for the urge to be seen as normal.
>>723326
It's not always a fallacy, but it can be when you make really big jumps
>>724405
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/scalias-full-dissent-same-sex-marriage-ruling
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/26/12-must-read-quotes-from-scalias-blistering-same-sex-marriage-dissent/
What am I supposed to be seeing here?
>supreme court is trying to change a fundamental institution of society
>general public don't want this
>this is undemocratic
All done in an eloquent, well-thought out manner. You're going to have to point out the insanity here.
>>724417
>you're saying stuff I disagree with, you're an idiot and shouldn't keep company with my enlightened self
Look up paedophile acceptance, check the dates of the articles and polemics supporting it
Published after homosexuality has become accepted by the mainstream, by the same kinds of people who would have been pushing gay acceptance two decades ago
>>724420
I'm pointing out that he used the fallacy to imply that bestiality and paedophilia are next.
The decision wasn't reached with the subtext of allowing "deviancy", but with that of consent and harm. Consent is supremely important in the judicial system. Children ALREADY cannot enter into hardly any legal contract, and neither can dogs, this icky-feeling-based fear mongering is unfounded.
>>724431
I didn't see that in either of the articles I looked at. In fact, if you search for "children", "consent", "deviancy", "bestiality", or even "immoral", you'll find no results. It's pretty clear that Scalia is making the argument that an unelected body of a few judges shouldn't be able to make an attempt to change such a fundamental part of 230 million people's lives.
He's arguing that it's undemocratic, tyrannical, and unwarranted. No hints at a slippery slope to pedophilia or degeneracy of any kind.
>>724437
I should make it clear, I was looking through the full text of his dissent while searching for these terms.
>>724428
>posts an image from funnyjunk to tell someone to go back to tumblr
I think these "logic fallacies" are for the debate format that is more like a game than actually defining a position. Not everything that is said needs to be a logical argument, sometimes you just want to call your opponent a jackass because you don't like him; no need to spout off the
>muh ad hominem
>>724380
what? gay rights is a perfect example of the slippery slope being true. I remember right wingers complaining about the possibility of gay marriage back in the 70s while leftists said they were crazy to think accepting homosexuality will mean gay marriage will happen.
>>724478
This.
They're a good way to tell the novice from the expert.
most people here confuse slippery slopes with reductio ad absurdum arguments, theyre not even the same thing. And the slippery slope isnt a fallacy most of the time, rather it's a kind of challenge to a certain proposition that "seems" to lead to an undesirable view.
>>724483
>I remember
I doubt it.
>>724335
The use of a 'no true Scotsman' argument is always part of a nonsensical appeal to in-group pride anyway. People often use arbitrary divisions to explain unrelated phenomena without proper statisticstical evidence. It's only when someone calls them out on it that they need to backpadel wiyh the no true Scotsman defense to protect their assertion.
But the fallacy runs deeper than this defense.
Slippery slope is only a fallacy when there's no ensuing substance behind the assertion and it's stated as self-evident. As an example, if the sum total of your assertion is "gay marriage leads to people marrying animals and children," that's not really an argument or explanation. It's just somebody claiming a causative relationship between the main point and an imagined scenario with absolutely no proof or reasoning to back it up.
But if somebody sets about trying to prove how gay marriage is linked to people marrying animals and children, you can't call that a slippery slope argument. They didn't just state it as a fact in lieu of reason, they made an assertion then tried to prove it. That's real argumentation, and trying to dismiss it without attacking its central points is also a fallacy.
>>724483
>while leftists said they were crazy to think accepting homosexuality will mean gay marriage will happen
No they didn't. 'Leftists' were already campaigning for gay marriage in the 70s.
Anyway, you're talking about a 40 year gap between two policies. Even now gay marriage is still illegal in many places.
That's not a very 'slippery' slope.
This whole thread is a slippery slope.
>>723326
Because you're arguing that you shouldn't allow something because of what will come of it, but there's no reason you can't just outlaw the later things.
For example, if you actually believe that gay marriage will lead to interspecies marriages, that's still not a valid reason to outlaw gay marriage, because you can make gay marriage legal and then outlaw interspecies marriages.
a lot of fallacies, in my experience, are actually fallacious
>Correlation is not causation
did you know causation is actually inferred from correlation?
The slippery slope is not a particularly 'bad' fallacy if you have a good reasoning for causation, it still isn't an argument though.
If I said that legalising gay marriage would lead to society becoming less sensitive to other 'victimless crimes', then I have a reasonable degree of causation for that.
If I said that privatising superannuation will inevitably lead to capitalist-anarchic society then that's more of a fallacy because of the large indirect leap in logic.
>>730284
>gay marriage is a victimless crime
If gay people can't get married how can they commit this so called victimless crime?
>>730295
Victimless crime may be the wrong term, I meant setting limitations on actions that don't necessarily harm others.
>>730058
It's the argument of unrelated things being related.
Ex: Carbon parts per million in the atmosphere have risen and the amount of homosexual couples has risen, therefore fags cause global warming.
>>730885
any correlation is inherently related. Being absurd doesn't nullify this whatsoever
>>730295
Gay people can get married, to members of the opposite sex :^)
>>730903
>any correlation is inherently related.
I don't think you know what the word "correlation", "inherently" and "related" means.
>>730058
>causation
Le fat Scotman.jpg
>>730903
>any correlation is inherently related
http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
You can make correlations out of anything but one does not necessarily effect the other
>>731044
affect*
>>723415
But that's not untrue at all.
Compromises in gun control happen between both sides because each has a different ideal of what should be. To illustrate, let's say there's one side that wants to ban guns and weapons entirely while the other wants all weapons unrestricted for ownership.
To compromise in one direction invites more compromises in that same direction because the compromises were made in the first place to find a medium between the two viewpoints. The ultimate goal of one side might not be realized in one fell swoop, so to prevent it from happening in the future, it makes sense to block any move to prevent progress in that direction. It's why silly things like deregulation of silencers/suppressors are met with so much resistance, because despite the fact that they're used in virtually no homicides and provide a way to improve hearing protection for lawful gun users, any concessions to allow additional gun-friendly laws becomes an opening for more gun-friendly laws to pass.
>>730933
But that crime has victims. How do you think it feels for a straight spouse to marry a gay person, then have them come out of the closet 10 years later when they have young kids?
>>724428
1. You have failed to demonstrate the link between the argument for Gay Acceptance and possible arguments for Paedo Acceptance
2. You have given evidense that only implies a correlation and not a causation; you have failed to explain why these things happen for the same reason or one causes the other.
>>731578
Ask your mom about it
>>723326
>/pol/ says when LGBT marriage is legal pedophilia is next
>think it's bullshit
>/pol/ was right
>>731762
Pedophilia is already legal retard. Child abuse is illegal.
>>730992
yes, it is. You use a heuristic approach to model the relationship
if a moves after b does, that is a quantifiable relationship. Literally all "causation" comes from this
>>731013
semantic tier scotsman
>>731044
just because it sounds stupid doesn't mean it isn't related. See chaos theory, complex systems. In fact, it IS related
>>732064
>Literally all "causation" comes from this
No. It doesn't. If A and B are correlated, it might be that A causes B, or that B causes A, or that C causes both A and B, or it could be a coincidence. Other things besides mere correlation are used to identify which of these possibilities applies.
>See chaos theory, complex systems. In fact, it IS related
In a kind of useless, meaningless sense you could argue that all things are related, being part of the same system. But that is not what the word 'causation' means in English.
If you want to communicate with other people, you need to use the same words that other people use.
>>723334
In a social spectrum that affirmation is wrong though.
>progressives progress
>if you concede X they will only progress towards Y
>once Y is attained they must progress to Z
It's not a fallacy if the group in question literally does this and that's all they do. They move from one thing to another to another to another. Womans suffrage, civil rights for coloreds, female reproductive rights, sexual revolution, promoting racemixing, gay 'rights', it just keeps going. Thinking there's a "next" isn't wrong when there always has been.
>>732127
>>723334
But isn't fear a survival mechanism?
>>732127
These other things are the logical patterns ("laws") inferred after many observations. In other words, correlation only becomes causation when an observer creates a theory or hypothesis about WHY that correlation exists: this imaginative work cannot be done by the observation of correlation alone.
Unless this bozo can show the logic of what causes acceptance of homosexuality (probably recognition of human rights and autonomy in either Kantian or Rousseau-esque thought patterns if you ask me) is the same as acceptance of paedophilia (arguments for this probably do no draw from rights based theories).
It's not about not being allowed to think ahead. The pic states its an assumption with no facts backing it up. "thinking ahead" includes using facts to back assumptions up or else you're not THINKING ahead, you're just a fortune teller.
Reminder that various green parties in Europe were campaigning for acceptance of pedophilia back in the 60s and 70s. And then they have the gall to try and smear right wing parties for their neo-nazi past.
>>724478
Holy shit. You're being honest, but what you just wrote is dumb as shit.
Discussions turn to absolute shite real fast once someone starts namecalling. Because it stops being rational and turns emotional.
Attempting to use hypothetical outcomes of said event or situation to disprove an argument is literally logically invalid. I mean if we start accepting slippery slopes as arguments, eventually we'll be allowing people to get away with more absurd fallacies, and in not too long logical discourse will have lost all meaning.
>>724391
>It's also something that no conservative has ever said outside liberal circlejerks, cuck fantasies, and leftist wet dreams about how stupid the right-wing is, and how righteous their moral stance can only be.
haha, sure pal, just blame the liberals. You're obviously too young to remember politics in the 90's or early 00's when this argument was huge and all over the place. There's a reason why the "allowed to marry their dogs" meme became the poster-child of Slippery-Slope, because you were fucking hearing it from every shit-kicking redneck with an AM radio and in every anime message board with a politics sections.
>Google "pedophilia acceptance" if you want to see how slippery the slope of sexual deviancy really is.
Pedophilia will never be accepted because it is the infliction of psychological injury on a child by forcing them to participate in sexual acts which they are too immature to understand, in a relationship that in practical sense will always be predatory. Liberals understand this which is why the civil rights movement will never apply to them. The only injury that comes from a homosexual relationship is a sore asshole, and be honest: has that ever really stopped you?
>>732064
>yes, it is. You use a heuristic approach to model the relationship
>if a moves after b does, that is a quantifiable relationship. Literally all "causation" comes from this
Oh fuck off, if you've read a single book on statistical method in social sciences you'd know that looking for spurious correlation is a big, if not the biggest, part of it. And you're just skipping it.
>>727466
Nah, the whole thing started in 1990(or there was another case in the 80's, but still).
>>733694
Forgot link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baehr_v._Miike
>>732572
I see what you did there.
>>732168
yeah mate, I'm willing to defend that
>>733642
implying the world is not a giant system intertwined beyond belief
implying small changes don't alter the whole
implying if there's an association between a and b a mystery box isn't the absolutely proper approach to doing this
I admit to being a statistical retard but please just set me straight on this mate, because I don't see why this wouldn't follow. Either it has predictive capacity as a law or it doesn't. And in either case an association is formed
>>732572
clever girl
>>724409
Agreed. It is subjective is the only problem with the argument. Something ultra specific or that doesn't have a reasonable cause and effect (he dropped his books, now he will get hit by a bus) is a fallacy. Something with observable data showing that it is true can't be a fallacy. Saying if someone smokes a quarter of a pack of cigarettes a day that may lead them to a pack isn't a fallacy. Neither is saying marijuana will lead to harder drugs. Both of those have results that pan out in reality, and neither are an irrational claim. (Yes, marijuana is a gateway drug, get over it. No one starts out on heroin.)
Gun control isn't a slippery slope if you know your history of law. Laws set precedents for more laws. One law leaning in a particular direction can literally be used to push a new law even further along that direction. To say there is irrationally to this argument is deceptive, and is essentially trying to make people let their guard down, because history shows results very similar to what anti-gun law people are claiming.
So, yeah, people basically understand it isn't a fallacy, especially when it comes to human nature. There are even expressions which admit it isn't, such as "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile," which is saying if you set a precedent of acquiescence you will be expected to acquiesce further. I see it as deception, personally. The same people that claim your argument is irrational will fight to keep a precedent from being established in something they care about.
>>734132
Yeah but in the 70's they were an extremely tiny, ineffectual movement. It was really the dawn of the internet era that allowed homosexuals to break the decades long grip that conservatives had on the conversation. It was the Rob Portman effect that in practice fueling society's paradigm shift: gays defending each other for being normal individuals and nothing at all like the flaming deviant queens that they were being portrayed as by religious demagogues, using the internet to spread the message and support one another and make more people aware of this fact than what was previously possible in a top-down centralized information distribution system that has a bottom line to maintain.
>>723326
because no evidence is presented that shows that the trend will continue, as the image shows, there is no evidence that gay marriage will lead to animal marriage.
the moment you present evidence it stops being a fallacy
>>732168
CONNECTED
>>723326
Slippery slopes work both ways.
>If we let gays marry, then people will be marrying snakes or chairs!
>If we don't let gays marry, then eventually they'll ban straight marriage too!
>>723436
No, it is by-the-book slippery slope reasoning.
>>732154
That's still fallacious. You have to provide full reasoning for why it'll keep on going forever, not only the observation that "it seems to keep on going forever!"
>>723384
They're not the same at all.
Let's try the example given by OP. The statement is fallacious because:
1. it doesn't provide reasoning about why people "marrying their parents, their cars and even monkeys" is objectively bad.
2. it doesn't provide reasoning for the conclusion that what is stated will inevitably happen.
The former problem is relatively easy to deal with, but the latter hasn't been solved yet, which is why this reasoning doesn't stop people from supporting gay marriage: it is fallacious.
Reductio ad absurdum would be something like:
>Is "marrying their parents, their cars [or] even monkeys" also okay? What is the difference between those and gay marriage?
To which the opponent will have to either present their argument for why the situations aren't analogous, or acknowledge that they aren't and provide the reasoning for why the "absurd" consequences aren't actually bad.
>>730903
Yes, and water is wet.
However, not every correlation implies a causative relation between the observed objects. To prove that there's causation, one must evaluate the data and discard the possibility of coincidences or mutual causes thoroughly.
That's the "rigorous" part of the scientific method.
>>724380
>literally making up strawmans to defend slippery slope
like poetry
>>731762
Are you stupid? There's absolutely nothing illegal about being attracted to children. There's also absolutely no harm to come to anyone because of it, so there's no reason to make it illegal either.
Sexual abuse of children, however, is actually harmful and therefore rightfully and heavily punished in most societies.
Possession and/or distribution of different levels of child porn (read: actual children vs fictional children) is more debatable in regards to harm done, and therefore less kinds of illegal (distribution of actual child porn is illegal everywhere, possession of it is legal in very few places, and fictional child porn isn't illegal in many places.)
Innocent pedophiles needs psychiatric help and therapy, not being thrown to jails for crimes they did not commit.
>>724478
You're committing the fallacy fallacy fallacy: the fallacy that just because someone brings up an opponent's fallacy in their argument, that their own argument has not value other than petty nitpicking.
Here in Sweden the liberal youth party wants to legalize incest and necrophilia. I fear whats next.
>>724335
Right, but what about groups that were established on a certain set of ideals and people use examples of those who go against said ideals as a representation of the group?
