Comments (58)
sorted by:
FuckGenderPolitics 54 points ago +54 / -0

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.

Smith1980 40 points ago +40 / -0

Remember during the gay marriage debate they kept telling us we were engaging in the slippery slop fallacy?

FuckGenderPolitics 34 points ago +34 / -0

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.

Smith1980 19 points ago +19 / -0

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.

acp_k2win 13 points ago +13 / -0

ramp up attacks on churches

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.

Smith1980 8 points ago +8 / -0

Very true. I read that Christians are most persecuted worldwide. I know in Asia and Africa churches are really being attacked. I heard about Canada. Very disturbing. Does the mainstream media cover it or downplay it?

RealDrJester -2 points ago +6 / -8

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.

novanleon 5 points ago +5 / -0

I agree for the most part, but many people like you (no offense) unfortunately still believe we can have legalized gay marriage and avoid all the stuff that naturally follows. This just isn't the case.

Heterosexual marriage in one form or another has existed since the beginning of human history. It's purpose is abundantly clear. In contrast, gay marriage was never a thing except in a few very rare cases and has no purpose. Even so, in 2015 we decided that feelings are more important than reality and decided to legalize gay marriage on the basis that it's part of the "right to freedom of expression". This opened the floodgates that led us to today. No longer did reality matter when emotion, feeling and personal expression were sufficient, and thus society subsequently fell into the mass delusion that we're currently experiencing.

Smith1980 1 point ago +3 / -2


TentElephant 13 points ago +14 / -1

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.

GhostBond 9 points ago +9 / -0

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.

Flarisu 2 points ago +2 / -0

Actually when something is guilty of a fallacy, the assumption that thing is not true is called the Fallacy fallacy, a name I find pretty awesome.

TentElephant 1 point ago +2 / -1

That's an undistributed middle, which is a real logical fallacy. Your syllogism is invalid. Most people don't know logic, and very rarely are such fallacies invoked.

GhostBond 2 points ago +2 / -0

The point you missed is that "logical fallacy" never disproves something.

Shitty internet poster response is to claim that slippery slope "disproves" something but all it actually show is that it's not 100% proven. Yeah slippery slope means it doesn't go there 100% of the time, but when it's 80% instead that's hardly disproving it.

novanleon 6 points ago +6 / -0

My understanding is the slippery slope fallacy is only related to deductive reasoning and not inductive reasoning.

Quote from source:

The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory.

Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalizations, and deductive reasoning the other way around.

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.

Flarisu 1 point ago +1 / -0

Remember that logical formations are just mathematical statements. Truth values rarely easily conform to logical notation. The trick is that because human language is sticky and messy, people use it to duck and weave around logical predicate logic.

novanleon 1 point ago +1 / -0

Very true.

ernsithe 10 points ago +11 / -1

a slippery slope argument because it's a fallacy

  • Saying gay marriage would eventually lead to a push for pedo acceptance.
  • Saying that voter ID will eventually lead to a reintroduction of Jim Crow.

One of these seems reasonable. One seems absurd. Which one is which depends on what you personally fear and cherry-picked examples to create a plausible narrative about how point A leads point B.

It's a bad class of argument because it depends on too many steps all of which are speculative. That doesn't mean the argument wasn't accurate and doesn't turn out to be exactly what happens. It only means that at the time when you were making the argument, it wasn't a strong approach because it relied entirely on supposition.

FuckGenderPolitics 3 points ago +3 / -0

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.

BIgDaddyDangler2 1 point ago +1 / -0

If the right wasn't so fucking useless

There is one solution to dealing with a vermin infestation. I'm not allowed to say. Timestamped. Watch to the end. That's the solution.

I am not advocating for anything, but I'm sure that everyone would agree, mice and other pest animals need to be...removed.


Indipendepede 2 points ago +2 / -0

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.

Knife-TotingRat 7 points ago +7 / -0

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.

deleted 14 points ago +16 / -2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
JustHereForTheSalmon 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

Smith1980 24 points ago +24 / -0

I predicted it a while back that this will be the next trend. Watch “pedophobe” be the next buzzword

NihilistCaregiver 19 points ago +19 / -0

My literal brain is reading that as "fear of children". Some kids you definitely want to keep your distance from.. little filthy monsters.

Smith1980 11 points ago +11 / -0

Ha! Good point. Ever since I learned Spanish I have a goal to learn Greek and Latin so yes, I saw that too with greek. I guess it could be another word but I feel the pedophile rights movement is coming.

AbleistSL 5 points ago +5 / -0

Pedophobe means child hater.

Knife-TotingRat 4 points ago +4 / -0

That would probably more likely be "misoped(os)"; pedophobia would be a FEAR of children.

Though "pedophilia" should really mean FRIEND of children, and child-diddlers would be called "pedosexuals" - pedomaniac would be the types who adopt or breed kids by the dozen.

Funny how misanthrope is a word, but anthropophobe isn't so commonly used.

Smith1980 4 points ago +4 / -0

I know. I was just coming up with something on the fly. So I guess in the future they will call us pedophilia phobic?

deleted 20 points ago +20 / -0
FuckGenderPolitics 16 points ago +16 / -0

It's always about the brain with these freaks, never morality.

It's about whatever they can use to push degeneracy. If they thought they could get people to buy the idea of the potty fairy coming out of the shitter and making people sexual deviants they would be running with that idea and academia would invent some pseudointellectual mumbo jumbo to give the "theory" credibility.

Steampunk_Moustache 7 points ago +7 / -0

They 100% will try something like that.

"He's 46 and still lives in his mom's basement with his pokemon collection. Mentally, he's 8 years old still. IT'S NORMAL FOR HIM TO WANT TO BE WITH 8 YEAR OLDS!"

evilmathmagician 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think the appropriate response would be a restriction of rights. Kids don't have a lot of rights, so anyone who can't mentally develop should not receive the rights and benefits of adulthood. But this is impossible without overcoming easier obstacles, such as invalids counting as adults and citizens.

Yes, you'll still get a bunch of them accepting the tradeoff. Other measures will be needed.

We don't even test for iq to allow voting. We should be testing for -something- to earn that right. Maybe this slipper slope has some consolation prizes on the way.

Maskurbator 12 points ago +12 / -0

Mosquitos don't have any choice but to suck blood and spread malaria but we kill them just the same.

Piroko 10 points ago +11 / -1

Okay, but which side are you taking on the anime tiddies?

DefinitelyNotIGN 15 points ago +15 / -0

Big booby fully adult anime girls are, of course, the bad kind of pedo, the kind of pedo that somehow involves fully mature people, not the kind the Left wants.

Remember, that's an actual argument that was used, that Uzaki-chan, a college-aged girl with massive rack, was pedopheliac and not the somehow tolerated LGBTMAP+ kind they endorse.

AbleistSL 8 points ago +9 / -1

Alot of anti-loli spergs tend to be secretly pro-pedo.

HypJii 4 points ago +5 / -1

and there are a lot of anti-loli spergs on this site too, especially CP.win

these niggas need to watch some monogatari

CZcowboy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bruh this shit made me geek

Knife-TotingRat 4 points ago +4 / -0

As a dirty old wo ... straight female, I'm too busy looking at six-packs and posing pouches to worry about femtits. So, no opinion.

HypJii 3 points ago +4 / -1

I'm surprised they didn't sperg out even more when Ilulu from Dragon Maid got popular, because she's even shorter and her milkers are even fatter and I'm pretty sure in "human years" she's 16 and not 18-19, like Uzaki

CptLightning 3 points ago +3 / -0

They already blew their load on Kanna existing when Dragon Maid aired its first season

HypJii 3 points ago +4 / -1

good point, they definitely hate regular lolis as much as oppai lolis

GeneralBoobs 7 points ago +7 / -0

I love it when they put their own necks in the noose.

ShadistIsACuck 7 points ago +7 / -0

Shoe is a retarded whore. That's all.

current_horror 6 points ago +6 / -0

The pedo issue is an interesting one. Progressives can't ignore it forever. At some point, they're going to have to either condemn or support the pedophiles. If the progs condemn pedophilia, then they'll be agreeing with Nazis, and that would threaten to undermine the entire leftist agenda. If the progs support pedophilia, then everyone will cheer for the Nazis to cave in leftists' heads. It's a massive catch-22.

APDSmith 3 points ago +3 / -0

They've pretty much already decided to roll with it, they're just not advertising that, with the poor optics.

As for aligning with the Nazis ... yeah, I agree, that would be terrible for a group already explicitly dedicated to racial segregation and dedicated to casting a specific demographic as the root evil behind all ills.

novanleon 5 points ago +5 / -0

Mouthy Infidel is making the desire vs. behavior or thought vs. action argument.

I remember making this argument back in the 2000's debating (against) homosexuality and gay marriage in /r/atheism, /r/politics and /r/Christianity. I tried to explain to people that hating the sin is different from hating the sinner and that being born homosexual and acting on those desires are two different things. We can't choose how we are born but we can choose what we do, or at very least, we can choose whether to accept our [broken] nature or fight against it.

That said, in this hypothetical scenario where someone is a pedophile who hates that part of themselves and wants to fight against it, they wouldn't be out there trying to foster mainstream acceptance. They wouldn't be advertising it like it's something to be proud of. They would avoid schools and anywhere with children like the plague on their own rather than being forced to do so. They would be seeking any way possible to "fix" themselves, and bar that possibility, they would accept a lifestyle of self-denial because they know it's the right thing to do.

However, the behavior of someone living this way and the behavior of these people on the left betrays their true intentions. They don't want to fight their nature, they want to be accepted and then later celebrated, following the precedent set by the LGBT+ movement before them.

deleted 5 points ago +7 / -2
Knife-TotingRat 4 points ago +4 / -0

Sorry, I can't control my compulsion to go around punching pakis in the face. Guess you'll just have to let me do it, motherfucker.

Or, at the very least, YOU CAN"T COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE SHITS, dumbfuck.

MonsterUltra 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is just a ploy by Big Woodchipper to increase rentals.

cartoonericroberts 3 points ago +3 / -0

"born this way" to its logical conclusion.

5Cats 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Born this way" is not true for any sexual orientation, including heterosexuality. We may be predisposed one way or another, and certain "things" can pop up (like fetishes) but essentially we all learn it.

But the homosexualists push the "born that way" to boost their paedophile cousins. They'll try to legalize it before you know it 😒

RealDrJester 1 point ago +3 / -2

What a prime example of proving her own point in the same damn tweet and in the same paragraph. That ought to be a record. She shut her brain off immediately.

Fuck pedophiles.

TakenusernameA 0 points ago +1 / -1

When can we go back to imprisoning faggots?

Being a pedophile means that the person has committed pedophilia.