Sheep/normies/NPCs have no idea what a logical fallacy is. They think it means something is wrong, and whatever the opposite of the person using the fallacy was arguing must be true. It's very similar to their total lack of understand as to what science is, despite them claiming the word as theirs and constantly exclaiming they believe in science to signal they think anyone who disagrees with them must be "unscientific".

A logical fallacy just means the logic of the argument is not sound. Meaning it's not absolute. There can be exceptions. The only place citing something as a logical fallacy is appropriate is an academic paper or a court of law. Colloquially, many lines of thought, slippery slopes included, are completely reasonable and useful to use. But just like these people have this warped view of the word science, they have a warped view of logical fallacies, and if they see a line of thinking that in a scientific paper or court of law constitutes a logical fallacy, they 'sperg out, pointing to it, believing whoever used it has been somehow proven wrong.

The reality is, most of the logical fallacies exist in the first place because they often hold true, but are not absolute, therefore not appropriate for places such as a court of law or a scientific paper where claims are expected to be absolute.

Sheeo/normies/NPCs have no idea what a logical fallacy is. They think it means something is wrong, and whatever the opposite of the person using the fallacy was arguing must be true. It's very similar to their total lack of understand as to what science is, despite them claiming the word as theirs and constantly exclaiming they believe in science to signal they think anyone who disagrees with them must be "unscientific".

A logical fallacy just means the logic of the argument is not sound. Meaning it's not absolute. There can be exceptions. The only place citing something as a logical fallacy is appropriate is an academic paper or a court of law. Colloquially, many lines of thought, slippery slopes included, are completely reasonable and useful to use. But just like these people have this warped view of the word science, they have a warped view of logical fallacies, and if they see a line of thinking that in a scientific paper or court of law constitutes a logical fallacy, they 'sperg out, pointing to it, believing whoever used it has been somehow proven wrong.

The reality is, most of the logical fallacies exist in the first place because they often hold true, but are not absolute, therefore not appropriate for places such as a court of law or a scientific paper where claims are expected to be absolute.