I see arguments dismissed as it, but when someone 15 years ago could argue against normalizing homosexuality by saying it will lead to shit like normalizing pedophilia and bestiality and you see things like this article from Salon:
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/
It makes me question if people are using assertions of that fallacy wrong. Hell, pic related is the first in a series of children's books about the concept of a slippery slope.
>inb4 /pol/
Yeah see, I'm asking here because the genuinely philosophically minded /his/torians would actually understand the concept of fallacies and not just circle jerk "muh redpills." I used 90's antihomosexuality and the Salon article and examples that are probably not a good example and I don't care because I needed one that had real world applications and that was a common example used in the real world, wether it is right or wrong.
And if you guys want we can discuss other fallacies that are commonly misused or misunderstood. I'd go to /pol/ but again, "muh redpill" circlejerkers.
it's not always a fallacy, sometimes a genuine concern about an issue must be met by the innovator. But it isnt an argument either.
However, most people often strawman reductio ad absurdum argument as slippery slope fallacies
Note: Just because something is fallacious, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it.
I'm not a philosophy buff, but I think your example is pretty good. For it to be a reasonable slippery slope, it should be reasonable. Legalizing gay marriage is a major "accomplishment", and given that it's LGBT, not just LGB, it's clear that there's more coming.
But if someone tried to argue that banning grenades would lead to taking away guns, they'd be dumb.
>>841322
To someone who'd argue it, it would be reasonable, but could be refuted that a grenade is a seperate class of weapon and is about as similar to a gun as it is similar to a morning star or tessen. Outlawing a particular kind of gun however is a better argument as you are still discussing the same class of weapon and banning shotguns could viably lead to banning other guns like pistols and rifles.
>>841361
Right. That's why I used the grenades example, to show a dumb argument.
it doesn't actually attack the logic of the argument itself so it is an informal fallacy
People overapply the slippery slope label when they want something but don't want to acknowledge the potential consequences. Precedent is a very real concern.
>>841297
You don't understand slippery slope.
Slippery slope is not "homosexual acceptance will not lead to pedophilia acceptance", it's "worrying that homosexual acceptance will lead to pedophilia acceptance is not a valid argument".
For example, if your reason for not supporting homosexual acceptance is because it will lead to pedophilia acceptance, that's fallacious. There is no reason a society can't accept homosexuals and then not accept pedophiles. If you do believe that homosexual acceptance will lead to pedophile acceptance and that there is no way to stop that from happening, then you've already lost, because logically homosexual acceptance must have come from something else and there was no way to stop that transition.
>>841297
It's a material (informal) fallacy, which is just to say that there are occasions where it doesn't strictly work. That's not to say that it never works, however, which, as with appeals to authority or ad hominem, has been forgotten by the autists screaming "FALLACY" whenever it gets used.
Think of it this way and assume that humans only eat is fallen fruit in my examples.
> Someone is arguing that we should eat the whole plant.
> The argument for this is because it's good for us but it doesn't harm anyone, it isn't morally wrong to eat plants.
> Someone say that if we allow people to eat plants we will allow people to eat animals
This is a slippery slope because the reason as of why you're allowed to eat plants can't be applied to eating animals. Eating animals very much hurt them.
Now look at this
> Someone is arguing that we should eat insects because they're a better source of protein than plants
> Someone is arguing that if we're going to eat insects we'll sooner or later eat animals
> The first person claim this is a slippery slope argument
This is not a slippery slope because the very same reasoning as of why you should be allowed to eat protein (better source of protein than plants) can be directly applied to mammals, and accepting eating insects on those reasoning only means that you ought to accept eating mammals.
>>841297
Why do you think that that article has to do with homosexual acceptance? Maybe easy access to information in he digital era just made people realize that paedophilia =/= pederasty.
However arguing that digital media and easy access to information necessarily lead to paedophilia acceptance (which is not a bad thing since it enables treatment and understanding the condition for example) would be a pretty damn slippery slope.
It's not a slippery slope if all of the same arguments can be applied
>why do you care?
>it's just love!
>it's not hurting anybody!
>these laws are just arbitrary!
And so on.
>>841297
pedophilia is inherently different from homosexuality
we are innately attracted to either adult men or adult women which is determined by hormonal conditions in the womb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
pedophilia on the other hand is a fetish due to psychological conditioning
>>842936
The cause of homosexuality has not yet been proven, wiki worrier.
Take that garbage somewhere else.
>>842936
What do you think of neoteny?
15 years ago was 2001
>>841297
Do fuck off. There is absolutely no movement whatsoever to legalise child abuse. In fact there is even less of one than there used to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange
You are indeed just /pol/posting.
>>843026
BRILLIANT DEDUCTION DOCTOR HOLMES!
