Presented without comment
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
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.
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?
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.
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.
Agree.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very 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.
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.
https://youtu.be/m149mbLt5Fc?t=89
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.