When are we removing this from the sticky?
When are we removing this from the sticky?
fallacies are bullshit they should stick a thread up there that says "fuck niggers"
Wtf ZASED
Palest*ne can wait
If we allow Gaza genocide to happen then hot Asian girl genocide will happen too therefore we should not allow Gaza genocide to happen.
If you allow perverts to get married, they will eventually want to adopt and sexually abuse little boys.
It's a slippery slope!
hot Asian girl genocide
Good. Fuck yellow fever sufferers. At least they won't be able to spam their nonsense here anymore.
Retard alert!
The fallacy is not saying the phenomenon of 'slippery slopes' do not exist. It is saying that someone just baselessly asserting that the argument they're against will automatically lead to something le bad isn't true.
It is possible that the alleged slippery slope isn't true in the instance it's being invoked, ergo it isn't a solid foundation to build an argument from.
For an example, 'Appeal to authority' isn't a fallacy because all authorities are illegitimate, it's a fallacy because an authority has the capacity to be wrong and therefore appealing to it as a basis for an argument doesn't work.
The slippery slope is just a phallusee, chud.
if we remove the slipper slope fallacy, then we will eventually remove all fallacies
then hot Asian girl genocide
Never
SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR
A
A
A
A
R
HOLY STREETSHITTING INCEL
Slippery slopes only exist where a phenomenon that incentivizes the original problem is not addressed
k
War in gaza can lead to ww3 so japs maybe extinct too due to chyna and russia and american ally.
...
If we allow feminism to happen, japan birth decline happens therefore we stop feminism all over the world
I think you're on the right track, the slippery slope isn't necessarily real, but only if the Jews are removed from our societies.
if you say free palestine
next you'll say Heil Hitler kill all jews
but correlation does not equal causation
bug fucker calling me an incel
Lel. No Indian DNA here, fella. We all know you lust after bugs because you can't land a White woman. You can deny it all you want, but it's true.
It's only a fallacy if used fallaciously, without demonstrating there's a link between A and Z. Midwits can't into these subtle differentiations though, they just like using the fallacy card because it makes them feel smart
I removed the sticky.
do you practice Pilpul at Rabbi camp?
sexual abuse didn't exist before gay marriage
That's not even a slippery slope, it's a straw man.
erm you actually can't describe this real and true thing that happens because it's a fallacy actually
slippery slope is not a fallacy it's a fact
I never implied that it didn't. The question isn't about existence, it's about implied permission. Marriage implies family, adoption is an option for making families.
inb4 non-sequitor
Then tell them they're employing the fallacy-fallacy and mock them.
They just want to not be arrested for their sexual
They just want to get civil partnerships
They just want full marriage rights
They just want to be able to adopt children
They just want to lower the age of consent
They just want to steal children from their families and pump them full of hormones
They just want to mutilate those childrens genitals
They just want the right to sacrifice children to demons and drink their blood
What's wrong with that, bigot?
So straight marriage implies permission to sexual abuse kids? This is why it's a logical fallacy, because you're presenting any logic.
You obviously cannot grasp logic. You need to go back.
The fallacy stands.
The slippery slope becomes a fallacy when presented as inevitable.
The fallacy-fallacy doesn't mean you're accusing someone of a fallacy when in fact they did not commit a fallacy, as you're implying. The fallacy-fallacy is when you infer that, since an argument contains a fallacy, its conclusion is false.
1/2
Not relevant. If we've established that we're talking to a guy who sees fallacies as some sort of red card to pull during a debate the impact is the same.
Kill yourselves nosey federal faggot fucks
It's not a slope if there's no connection retard-kun.
based kike wtf
Yeah I'd compare it to the concept of defamation. Butthurt faggots try to call any criticism or unflattering speech "defamation" but it's not defamation if it's TRUE. Slippery slope isn't a fallacy only if the facts show that it's actually happening.
It should be changed to "slippery wormhole", where if X happens, then the proponents of it will immediately also try to advance Y because they know it is inevitable and they can get away with it.
make better threads, faggot
You're misusing the word "fallacy-fallacy". I told you what it means. That is very relevant.
you want them to remove 'slippery slope'?
what's next—we remove 'loaded question'?
The person you're talking to in this scenario just accused you of committing a slippery slope fallacy. You respond in turn that they're using the fallacy-fallacy. So they either have to accept that they, themselves, are employing a fallacy to disregard your position or that your initial argument wasn't necessarily fallacious.
Harping on technicalities does not work in a debate. Maneuvering them into a position where you have an advantage does.
It's only fallacious when it's fallacious. It applies in many cases.
digits
he means intercourse
context matters
look who's saying that
and then consider what they mean by their words
In my opinion many of the "informal fallacies" are not very useful. Some are very useful, like ad hominem and equivocation. Others are of questionable value. You're better off studying formal logic. If for example someone says "all fatty fish contain heavy metals", there is nothing inherently illogical about that, it's just a proposition. You refute it by showing that some fatty fish don't contain heavy metals, not by proclaiming it to be a hasty generalization.
When you learn.
If you're talking about an inevitable consequence when you're not even talking about slippery slopes.
For instance
if we legalize capital punishment for criminals, it will result in executions of wrongly convicted innocents
is not a slippery slope, it's a natural consequence that can be deduced from the fact that innocent people are sometimes convicted of crimes.
An actual slippery slope would be
if we legalize capital punishment for criminals, it will result in the legalization of state murder of innocents
There's no logical deduction that A leads to B, or that B even depends on A. B is just an extreme version of A that is easier to argue against, like a straw man.
Again, if someone accuses you of the slippery slope fallacy when you did in fact not commit this fallacy, they are not committing the fallacy-fallacy.
log base
not linear axes.
I hate when people present information this way. it masks the true pattern. log based axes charts should always be present alongside the linear axes chart, so you can better see the data pattern and manipulation
Some are very useful, like ad hominem
ad hominem is often the most valid and effective defense against subversive kikes who continue to push the same propaganda and arguments day after day no matter how many times they get BTFO. the "ad hominem fallacy" is just cope by these jews and many other groups that employ similar tactics uncaring of whether or not their arguments hold merit in the first place.
I understand your argument. But you seem to not understand mine:
You could argue until you're blue in the face about whether your particular slippery-slope argument was fallacious. But this creates an unnecessary sidebar to a discussion that should be about the issue at hand. Alternatively, you could directly attack the hidden presupposition on their part that mindlessly calling out fallacies is a valid means of argumentation at all. It's not.
No, you don't understand what the fallacy-fallacy means. I don't have a keyboard so I can't be bothered to beat a dead horse.
Swedish fallacy
Nobody cares about or wants to hear the opinions of lunatics shouting in an asylum, regardless of whether or not their ravings might include the occasional errant factoid. If anything it sounds like you're promoting the expulsion of jews and their containment away from white society, which I would agree with.
Kek
What do normies complain about when they actually do slip down a slope which is slippery?
I do understand what it means.
Let me walk you through the scenario:
fuckhead accuses you of committing fallacy
you respond by accusing them of fallacy-fallacy
This could go one of two ways:
they correctly argue that the fallacy-fallacy existing does not excuse you for committing a fallacy in the first place.
Conclusion: naming off fallacies does not invalidate an argument on its own. Actually address what's wrong with the argument.
they "correctly" ascertain that they did not commit the fallacy-fallacy because your initial argument was not fallacious.
Conclusion: naming off fallacies does not invalidate an argument on its own. Actually address what's wrong with the argument.
You starting to understand yet, fish boy?
That is a misrepresentation of a slippery slope argument. Slippery slope arguments are generally based around sequential developments in a certain (often unwanted) direction, where the prior development risks increasing the probability of the next through an increase in acceptance and moving of goal posts. This is not necessarily logically fallacious, because the discussion becomes a question of risk and attitude, not of strict logical causation.
They become schizo. They complain about the outcome while supporting the issue that causes it to begin with. It's literally impossible to talk to normies about politics because of this and all you are left with is being fence sitter at best.
This is a strawman argument.
they correctly argue that the fallacy-fallacy existing
I didn't, that was your false proposition.
Agreed. The slippery slope has lost all credibility as a fallacy.
You're a favvot
Slippery slope is not a fallacy when your adversary is trying to slowly encroach upon your rights/freedoms/etc or impose creeping new attacks.
Especially when they say something like "well X is OK so therefore we should just go ahead and do Y".
Work on your reading comprehension.
Your argument falls in the second scenario.
That being said: whether they actually committed the fallacy-fallacy is irrelevant to the core point.
Either they did and are forced to admit that mindlessly naming off fallacies is not a valid argument if you can't address what's actually wrong with the argument, or they didn't and are forced to admit mindlessly naming off fallacies is not a valid argument if you can't address what's actually wrong with the argument.
This is the core of why the fallacy-fallacy exists at all. Mindlessly naming off fallacies is not a valid argument if you can't address what's actually wrong with the argument. You're fixating on extraneous information.
The Slippery slope is a fallacy if you cannot provide a reason other than the slippery slope itself.
I dont see how its a logical fallacy when all of human history involves doing things and learning that allowing A to happen will have consequences and lead to unforeseen trouble in the future. I have never understood why people sperg about this, its just common wisdom and normal caution innate in all humans
Yeah retards take "slippery slope fallacy" to mean anyone observing escalating patterns. Like you said it's not just a le slippery slope fallacy when we have trannies and pedo-normalization movements. Both were dismissed as "slippery slope," but are true so it's not a fallacy. But retards always say "SLIPPERY SLOPE" when people talked about the inevitable consequences as a method of silenting dissent. I've grown up around a lot of libtards so I've had to deal with so many reddit fallacy bros. It annoys me that they think they're giga-minded sophists when all they do is yell fallacy names at every argument, without any explanation or justification. They think if something you're saying can be construed as a similar-sounding fallacy, invoking the name is like a magic spell that makes you wrong and them correct. Ask them to justify their reasoning and watch their eyes go wide in fear.
You're clueless and need to study logic instead of freestyling it as you do. That's all I can be bothered to say without a keyboard. Plenty of links here:
Here's another book for beginners. I only read part if it but it seems good.
juristpanel.com
This "fallacy" will destroy civilization on this planet.
Haha what do you mean importing a few muslims into Europe will doom it to future collapse! Slippery Slope much!?
Haha what do you mean female empowerment will lead to a nihilistic perversion based antinatalist cult that will lead to depopulation of Earth? Slippery slope much?!
Everything wrong with the world is due to the slippery slop being a fact, not a fallacy. When I hear even people like Scott Adams STILL saying to not engage in the slippery slope it fills me with discontent.
Found this. Nice narrator voice. Don't know if it's good.
I'll just go ahead and point you to your own textbook reference:
Does the section on "attacking the fallacy" say to "proudly proclaim they committed a fallacy and declare yourself the victor" when you suspect a slippery-slope fallacy?
No. It doesn't. It says to either:
ask for a causal link between the supposed outcomes and the thing they're arguing against.
Or:
provide a scenario with more exaggerated spurious thinking to show why their argument doesn't hold water
Moving back to the specific argument in question: your opposition in this scenario, regardless of whether they're committing the fallacy-fallacy, is employing an unspoken assumption that underlies the fallacy: that if a fallacy is committed, the argument can be disregarded.
What I'm saying is bringing up the fallacy-fallacy as a thing that exists, again regardless of whether they technically committed it, is a powerful avenue by which you can attack that core assumption.
Mindlessly naming off fallacies is not a valid argument if you can't address what's actually wrong with the argument.
This is not the fallacy-fallacy. An argument consists of premises and a conclusion. Someone committing the fallacy-fallacy could be breaking down very thoroughly why your conclusion does not follow from your premises, ie why your reasoning/argument is fallacious/wrong/unsound. The fallacy-fallacy is committed when they say that SINCE your argument is wrong in this way THEREFORE your conclusion is false.
It's a fallacy because you need to offer more than what could happen next as to be against something different. It's like how allowing any level of cow shit in your food is a slippery slope to banning burgers; the conversation of meat sanitation concerns could make only steak legal if more and more considerations are made, but those are all separate conversations.
I'll level with you and say I was using the definition of the fallacy proposed by William Lycan.
imputing fallaciousness to a view with which one disagrees but without doing anything to show that the view rests on any error of reasoning
unsound
*invalid