Why is this considered a logical fallacy? It literally happens.
>homosexuality becomes socially acceptable
>now we have transsexuals, pan sexuals, other kin demisexual attack helicopters
>women are allowed to work
>women are then allowed to vote (we all know how that goes)
>>68184859
Use it to your advantage anon. You know leftists say, "That will never happen!" But when it does they are obliged to defend it.
Example: Leftists defending pedos.
>https://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/
>>68184859
"The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question."
It's not a fallacy if you give evidence that the general acceptance of homosexuality leads to the acceptance of the things you listed, it's a fallacy if you argue that the general acceptance of homosexuality leads to the things you listed without providing any evidence to support the claim.
>>68184859
Because it's not guaranteed to happen.
Imagine you're in America around the time of prohibition. You hear an argument as to whether or not the 18th amendment should be repealed. One person argues that if we legalize booze again, crime will go down. The other person argues that if alcohol is legal, soon the whole public is going to start drinking again, and before we know it, everyone is going to be going into work drunk. It didn't happen
It's part of the non-sequitor family.
>>68184859
Because this fallacy existed during a time when the degeneracy wasn't as strong. The destruction of the world has accelerated in our life times and as such the slippery slope is now easily possible.
>>68184859
It's a logical fallacy for a reason, you stupid goy.
>>68184859
It's not actually a logical fallacy, it's just an argument people often use that contains fallacies. If anyone ever tells you this is a fallacy on its own and that a slippery slope argument is automatically wrong, they are lying to shut you down without addressing your argument.
remember the fallacy fallacy anon
>>68184859
>>68185145
This.
It's not "bad" idea, it's a bad argument that dumb people abuse because they love jumping to conclusions and being over-emotional and hysterical about things instead of thinking them through.
That's all those fallacies really are, ways of encouraging thought rather than relying on emotions.
>>68184859
I'm 6'5" with a 10 inch cock making over $250,000 per year
everything you listed is gaining acceptance because of a more tolerant and open society. its not a direct cause of legalized gay marriage.
>>68185123
They want weak willed individuals to pause and question what they know is a fact. They know the downward slope is real. They also know by the time we get there it's pointless to say anything about it because they already won.
Just because it's in a logical fallacy doesn't mean it can't be true sometimes.
Read the fallacy again. It says at the end of the bold text "therefore A should not happen". This means that, although allowing A to happen may lead to B, that is not a good reason for not allowing A, as A and B are separate things and so should be looked at according to their own merits. It does not suggest that slippery slope can't happen. Just that, if it can and does, that is not a good reason for weighing up whether something is good or not.
You can't decide whether or not Homosexual marriage should be allowed on the basis of the cons of something completely different, you decide it by the pros and cons of homosexual marriage and that alone. Otherwise, what's to stop the argument moving up the chain to heterosexual marriage? Not suggesting that homosexual marriage may indeed lead to other more damaging forms of marriage, just that that fact alone does not weigh very heavily in the argument for homosexual marriage.
This also very nicely showcases the great point about the logical fallacies, which is the "fallacy" fallacy. Just because an argument commits a fallacy, does not mean it is not correct. Therefore, just because someone like you might argue that homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed because it may lead to worse things, doesn't mean that homosexual marriage is not bad in and of itself. One con of it may be that it leads to something else, but you must take that out of the equation for the good of logic, because slippery slope is poisonous to logic. It makes connections between things that have no basis in anything else other than slippery slope.
>>68184859
The only way to prove it's not a logical fallacy is through time.
At the time of the initial statement, it is a logical fallacy, but if it is proven that if X happens then Y happened, then it isn't a logical fallacy.
It's kind of a speculative logical fallacy. In some cases, Y will happen, but it's impossible to prove it at the current moment.
>>68185145
It's hard to really prove with evidence, because it's something in the future. Different countries have different customs, so it's really impossible to tell what will happen.
>>68188528
I like that explanation.
