Presented without comment
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
I still remember when "we just want to left alone" was used to push gay shit. Soon it became homophobic to do anything short of celebrating two dudes fucking each other in the ass at a pride parade. Even "do what you want but leave me out of it" is homophobic now.
Same with the tranny shit we're witnessing right now. They said it doesn't harm us if some dude wants to dress as a woman and mutilate himself. Now refusing to go along with a troon's perverted lies or even refusing to fuck one of these evil disgusting creatures is transphobic. It's not enough to just leave them alone.
Anyone with basic pattern recognition knows where this pedo shit is going, especially since they're already giving kiddy diddlers a free pass if put on a wig and dress before they rape a child.
Remember during the gay marriage debate they kept telling us we were engaging in the slippery slop fallacy?
It's funny. Before gay marriage was mandated by SCOTUS one of my English professors told me I couldn't use a slippery slope argument because it's a fallacy. I've never heard a convincing explanation for why that's the case, but all the fucked up shit that's happened since 2015 has done a hell of job "debunking" the idea that it's a fallacy. All the shit conservatives warned us about has happened or is the process of happening. It's not coincidence that these tranny activists keep turning out to be child molesters and beastiality enthusiasts. Kiddy diddlers and animal fuckers are next frontier for "civil rights". LGBTQPZ is about to become a thing.
I always joke that I have two warring parts of myself. I'm a christian, and outside of being pro-life I am pretty libertarian. I am personally very traditional but have always said live how you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone. The whole gay thing poses a problem because I have no problem with the live and let live mentality or if a man wants to believe he is a woman then fine. The problem comes to me for not celebrating it or since as a Christian I believe the bible speaks against it I feel they will really ramp up attacks on churches in the next decade or two.
They are burning churches regularly in europe and canada, arresting pastors in canada and using the plandrmic to deny people the right to gather for worship everywhere.
There is hate against Christians everywhere on mainstream social media and no positive depictions of Christians anywhere in popular culture.
The only oppression left to ramp up to is concentration camps.
I'm on the if it is not harming anyone or anything I don't care. But as soon as they harm kids, rape, or begin their destructive path by exclusion and the stuff we are seeing then I have a problem. For instance this why I support gay rights and marriage, but I hate the idea of having to shove that ideology on kids TV shows.
The slippery slope fallacy is part of the progressive war on reality and pattern recognition. Most fallacies aren't real per se. They are simply rhetorical techniques and calling them out as fallacies is counter-rhetoric to convince people their eyes are lying.
Sigh. What logical fallacy actually means is that something seems to prove something 100% but that is not the case
John wears a coat in the winter.
A person walks into Johns house in the winter wearing a coat.
That person must be John.
This is a logical fallacy because the criteria do not prove 100% the conclusion.
But obviously, it doesn't prove the person isn't john either.
Logical fallacies never, ever prove that something is not true.
My understanding is the slippery slope fallacy is only related to deductive reasoning and not inductive reasoning.
Quote from source:
Inductive reasoning starts with observations about the world and then builds a theory about how the world works based on observed patterns.
Deductive reasoning starts with a theory and then breaks it down into testable claims that are either true or false. This usually takes the form of (premise + premise = conclusion) where if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
The slippery slope is a perfectly valid pattern to recognize when building a theory through inductive reasoning but it can be a problem when developing premises in deductive reasoning. Of course, this gets misunderstood and misused by internet warriors trying to score points while ignoring common sense.
Honestly, it's not that complicated. If you observe a pattern and can make accurate predictions based on that pattern, that's all you really need to know if something is likely true.
That's actually pretty reasonable. It's been over a decade since my professor told me that and this is the first time I've ever heard a cogent argument for the slippery slope being a less than ideal form of argument.
I am a bit skeptical that the arguments had to be entirely based on supposition, even if they mostly were in the end. Leftists aren't subtle about their end goals, and this site and its Faggit predecessors are full of examples of the mask coming off. If the right wasn't so fucking useless I'm sure they could have dug up examples of the usual suspects saying that refusing to fuck a tranny is transphobic and ideas like that before they entered the mainstream.
It was never a fallacy in the 1st place- people keep using it wrong. It's only a slippery slope fallacy when using deductive reasoning to make a definitive statement that a will lead to z. Saying a will lead to b will lead to... -> y leads to z using inductive reasoning is not a fallacy at all.
It's the difference between saying "Letting gays have sex will lead to children being married to dogs" and "If we allow gays to marry, we compromise the sanctity of marriage and weaken the moral fiber of our society. Continued loosening of our moral standards could lead to other taboos such as bestiality and paedophilia being normalised too".
In the 1st instance, it is a fallacy because there's no logical connection between the 2 points. In the second instance, there is a logical chain of possible events that could lead up to the feared outcome. It is not stated that this is a certainty or the only outcome and thus it is not fallacious.
Yes, and I remember right after gay marriage was legalized here, seeing an interview on Global BC with the leader of some gay rights group out of Chancouver; the interviewer asked if the group would disband now that they got every legal concession they could possibly ask for ..... the guy said "No, we're not going anywhere because people don't love us enough yet." That was a punch in the face. Sorry, dude, but no one was a "right" to be loved, or even liked, and you can't force people to like you."
The lefties will fucking oo and aa in mock horror at the thought of Harry Potter's love potions existing, but at the same time, they wish they had these things themselves.
Funny you bring up the troons because Shoe is super into that shit. I'd love to know who installed the doublethink that can spot problems with feminism but thinks mental illness is worth accepting.