How come the slippery slope is considered a falacy?
paralyze a premise
> WE WUZ SCRIBBLERS N SHIET
>>70188442
Slippery slope implies a connection between two or more points without proof of any connection. It's a deductive fallacy.
>>70189588
Gay acceptance has lead to trans acceptance. In 2008 Obama and Biden officially did not support gay marage. Now they do and Hillary is a man
>>70190202
That's nice. However, we are discussing fallacies not current events.
>>70188442
It's a system of thought which often fails to offer concrete evidence to support its premise.
Although there are times when predictions of this sort are correct, it is often dismissed.
>>70188442
>slippery slope
Not always a fallacy, as long as you can demonstrate the cause and effect.
>>70188442
We just had this fucking thread.
>>70188442
Slippery slope is a tactic used in politics all the time. For example it's being used against gun laws right now. Liberals want to chip away at gun rights a little at a time until they can finally take them away.
>>70190202
And the fun thing with logical fallacies is, that just because one was used, it does not mean that the outcome is going to be different than the outcome that the fallacy was used to argue for it.
Take this for example:
If Jim buys a gun, he is going to kill somebody.
That is a fallacious argument. Under most circumstances, it is going to be false too. I've known lots of people named Jim who have bought guns and they haven't killed anybody. But, if I said that right after finding out that a particular Jim just discovered that his sister's fiancée had raped and severely beaten her, and had witnessed him muttering about killing that motherfucker, I might be right. But the statement "If Jim buys a gun, he is going to kill somebody," by itself is still fallacious.
>>70190946
You forgot a "therefore", you stupid fuck.
>>70190340
Aw look at you, you're so cute, trying to think too hard, but those things aren't mutually exclusive.
>>70192625
Straw man. No claim was made that they were mutually exclusive. It wasn't topical.
>>70188442
Because if people knew it was true liberals couldn't do anything to trick normies.
>>70192777
Yes you did, you claimed fallacies and current events could not be discussed simultaneously when someone tried to discuss a current event fallacy.
>>70192902
>Yes you did, you claimed fallacies and current events could not be discussed simultaneously
You are retarded.
>we are discussing fallacies not current events
Nowhere does this claim or imply the two are mutually exclusive. Only that the current discussion is about fallacies. If you honestly believe that it was stated or implied after it has been explained to the otherwise I'm left to assume you cannot, or more likely will, be anything but a retard in this thread. Therefore there is no point in responding any further to your retarded posts.
>>70190340
Well it's an example of the slippery slope being abused. Liberals use it all the time, that's why I don't believe that it's a fallacy. Of course, you can't say that, by example, gay rights was slippery slope since it was just the start, but you could say that gay marriage and trans surgery paid by the government is, since it really is.
>>70193079
>Well it's an example of the slippery slope being abused.
If there is no refutation or misunderstanding of the point what utility or benefit is there in adding an example, especially one that can (and likely was presented specifically to) derail the discussion?
>>70188442
>if we allow fags to marry people will demand the right to marry their dogs too
This is a logical sequence of events.
>if we allow fags to marry every man will turn gay
This is a fallacy.
It's not too hard, but then again, you are a Brazillian.
>>70193076
That statement did not just assert that we could discuss fallacies in this thread, it also tried to instruct us that we could not discuss current events because it was only about fallacies implying that the two are mutually exclusive.
If something (like current event discussion) can not happen while something else is happening (like fallacy discussion) that is the definition of mutual exclusivity.
Why can't we discuss current events in the process of a fallacy discussion and how can saying "we are discussing fallacies not current events" possibly mean anything different?
>>70193456
>>if we allow fags to marry every man will turn gay
No but its an imitable act and when we flood tv and movies with it the younger generation will come to accept it and the numbers of gay men will grow. We are already seeing this. It pollutes the minds of the youth and serves no purpose to society, basically its an evolutionary dead end. Not to mention the issues of disease and other "problems" associated.
>>70193079
Oh, and I forgot to elaborate. The form the argument is presented in is the problem not the argument's accuracy (such as with many fallacies you can have an accurate result despite the flawed argument).
>>70188442
Slippery Slope is a peculiar fallacy, it's basically a specific way of saying "not an argument".
Slippery Slope: Gay marriage is legal? Next necrophilia will be tolerated!
Not Slippery Slope: The normalization of far left politics will either away at a traditional culture and promote degeneracy, as seen already in countries like Sweden who have taken similar paths.
>>70194505
No obviously necrophilia comes after pedophilia and bestiality, there at least has to be a logical order.
>>70195214
so when will we be able to marry our dead fuckbuddies?
>>70196460
After the singularity, death will just be a lifestyle choice and they will be able to consent to marriage at whatever terms best suit their relationship.
