Why is this a fallacy again? This is more like a rule than anything. "Give an inch and they'll take a mile" is a fairly well-known saying.
>>16527639>if we legalize homosexuality today we'll be legalizing pedophilia tomorrow!This is how you sound. Slippery slopes represent questionable leaps in logic at best and complete insanity at worst.When weed was legalized in Portugal usage actually DROPPED, from 13% to 8%.Look it up
>>16527680OP, please don't reply to your post with bait to get attention for your thread, let others have the first post.
>>16527680Anon, Pedophilia advocacy was very closely linked to the LGBT liberation movement. Still is, just underground.
>>16527680The faggots are working on that already.
>>16527700Not really, if anything the left has gone in the opposite direction of considering sex with anyone under the age of 30 "paedophilia"
>>16527779That's only for normal relationships (heterosexuals).
>>16527779No they haven’t. The most extreme lefties, like Vasuh, jerk off to loli and say real child porn is/can be morally acceptable. When the recent thing with Vaush kicked off, some of the schizophrenic defenses from keffles, who originally came to vaush’s defense, was to blame him and others for now smearing transexuality by revealing a link between it and pedophilia, when no one asked or implied that from the other side.
>>16527639Lots of fairly well known saying are fucking retarded. In fact most are. Very few have any basis in reality. And are just run by confirmation bias.
>>16527794False, most gay guys get creeped out by eerily young looking guys
>>16527639It's only a fallacy if your justification for why the slippery slope will happen is poor or nonexistent.
>>16527680Oh, and this is another much more straightforward logical fallacy called "poisoning the well".
>>16527680Except the link between pedophilia and homosexuality is not at all a leap in logic to anyone with half a brain.Btw ironic how you used a fallacy when replying to a thread about another fallacy.
>>16527868At least half a brain*
>>16527639>if people get some of their rights respected then they'll want all of their rights respected!!!
>>16527860If that was true they wouldn't be molesting kids. Most pedophiles are men targeting little boys.
>>16527639Fallacious doesn't mean incorrect, hope this helps retard.
>>16527680any gay ppl here? what age was your first sexual encounter?
>>16527639The trick is the word "will". "If we allow this, these things will happen" indicates inevitable causation and you don't know the future. "If we allow this, these things may/are likely to happen" is better as it makes room for your fallibility.
>>16527639 If you can make a clear logical case that A will inevitably cause B, that isn't really a fallacy. But if you structure it saying that A will lead to B without given a clear causal mechanism, that is a fallacy. Slippery slope arguments tend to rely on assumptions about human nature and future developments that cannot really be proven. They are a type of mental shortcut people make that often works out, but are not founded on a purely logical basis.
>>16528209>Slippery slope arguments tend to rely on assumptions about human nature and future developments that cannot really be proven.That's a necessary part of our survival that protects us from predators. Remember the saying: the difference between conspiracy theories and reality is a matter of time.
>if you put your hand in a fire, then it will start to burn, resulting in significant injury>uhhh sweaty, that's a slippery slope fallacy. There's no evidence that suggests that immolating parts of your body is harmful, you're just spreading dangerous conspiracy theories
>>16528239>That's a necessary part of our survival that protects us from predators.Which is why slippery slope is perfectly acceptable for a hunter gatherer in the savannah. Not a 21st century classroom.
>>16528268the teachers in the 21st century classrooms are the modern predators
>>16528273as if you'd know.
>>16527680>Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Schwule, Päderasten und Transsexuelle>Helmut Kentler>Kentler war ledig, homosexuell und hatte drei Adoptivsöhne[16] und einen Pflegesohn.[19] >John Money >Money was briefly married in the 1950s and never had any children.[61] He was bisexual.[62]>Tino Brandt>Anschließend zog Brandt nach Thüringen um und ließ sich dort vom Verfassungsschutz als Spitzel anwerben. >Ab 1999 wirkte er als Landespressesprecher und ab April 2000 auch als stellvertretender Landesvorsitzender der thüringischen NPD. >Teile der rechtsextremistischen Szene wie um das Internetportal Die Kommenden versuchten in den Debatten der Folgezeit, Brandt als homosexuell zu „enttarnen“ >Im Dezember 2014 wurde Brandt vom Landgericht Gera wegen sexuellen Missbrauchs von Kindern und Jugendlichen, Beihilfe zu sexuellem Missbrauch und Förderung von Prostitution in 66 Fällen zu fünfeinhalb Jahren Haft verurteilt.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jHTJs_IiE3UFrom second 47 to second 51 the camera is hovering from Uwe Böhnhardt to Beate Zschäpe. Between these two in the center of the march: Tino Brandt.
>>16527680Give it 5 more years. Don't forget to move the goalpost to bestiality or smth.
>>16528435I will give it 25 and it won't happen. This so-called slippery slope clearly changed its direction after pedos lost the battle in the 70s. Now more and more normies find even age gap relationships creepy. Even if it's a 25 years old man and 18 years old woman. It's actually insane. Instead of this you have trannies, non-binaries and all those other freaks. And this will not change in the near future.
>>16528468The pedos have not lost in the 70s. Helmut Kentler has been running children who were taken away from their parents to be adoped by known pedophiles and it has been called an "experiment". This has been going on for three decades and he had political backing from the same faggots who have been advocating to legalize sodomy. I'd be surprised if this was an exclusively German thing.
>>16528504They lost the legal battle and LGBT groups basically threw them under the bus.
>>16527639>Why is this a fallacy again? This is more like a rule than anything.The majority of fallacies are actually extremizations of perfectly valid and rational rules.
becasue logic deals in absolute truths, uncertainty is not allowed. and you can't guarantee the truth of a slippery slope with total certainty, they're just mere speculations.
>>16527862this.it becomes a fallacy if you can't prove A will result in B will result in C will result in D, etc. the leap in logic between A and D is where the fallacy lies. if you can prove a causal link with decent reasoning between each step then it's not a fallacy.
>>16527639The assumption is that your opponents have the complete opposite opinion.>I think abortion should be legal>Soon abortions may be legally mandated>And then abortions will be mandatory and nobody will be bornYou can look at the real world to see that no, giving an inch doesn't lead to retarded meme shit.
>>1652808524
>>16527680Well /his/?
>>16527680LOL
>>16528533I doesn't matter if they lose legal battles. The state gave them access to children and the scandal has only surfaced once they could say that everyone involved has died. They keep running their pedophile networks and are still backed by Sodomites like Volker Beck and Daniel Cohn-Bendit.
>>16528533Legal battles are never over, and LGBT groups still incorporate pedophiles into every aspect of their movement. They still consider the Stonewall Riots to be the genesis of their movement, which was over policr cracking down on the mafia pimping out homeless male children to homosexual men, and still consider Harvey Milk one of their great leaders, who raped underage boys that went on to kill themselves.
>>16529181>LGBT groups still incorporate pedophiles into every aspect of their movement.This isn't true. There's a small handful of young, idealistic boylovers who still think that it's possible to reconcile the differences between the LGBT and pedophile/MAP communities, but there's very few of these and for the most part both communities want nothing to do with each other. The reality is that the LGBTs have enough power right now that if they had even the slightest interest in the rights of pedophiles, MAP rights would already be a thing.What's actually going on is that the gays, after having thrown the child lovers under the bus to gain general acceptance decades ago, now see that acceptance as being conditional on the nonexistence of pedophiles. And the pedophiles, after experiencing first hand the perfidy of the gays, have no intention of hitching their wagon to that horse ever again. There's too much misinformation in this thread to correct everything, but if anyone has specific questions I'd be happy to answer. For the most part, all of the things that you see from LGBT community (especially the T) that appear to be an attempt at a slippery slope, are actually the result of internal divisions, with certain subgroups trying to get rights or recognition for themselves at the expense of others.
>>16529766>This isn't true.>goes on to write three paragraphs about how it's trueEat shit and die.
>>16529774It's not true and I explained why it wasn't true.
logical fallacy does not mean its something that is never true, it means its not something that can be demonstrated rationally with 100% certainty. you cant say "legalizing homos will 100% lead to legalizing pedophilia" for example, because it is impossible for you to rationally demonstrate that with any clear certainty that a will cause b, even if it is likely to be true
>>16527680A more honest interpretation would use 10 or more years. Secondly not every issue similar to weed you dunce. OP's saying is always true whether you like it or not.
>>16527680There's literally pedo support booths at the pride shit in Toronto, and has been there for years now. It's not a slippy slope, it's literally just using your eyes. There's no secret about it.
>>16529929>TorontoCanadians are just slow, go easy on them
>>16529932>slowYou mean showing you the future of where America will go, if things don't get under control.
>>16527680>When weed was legalized in Portugal usage actually DROPPED, from 13% to 8%.>Look it upLook up the weed usage in Canada then. Because it's up, since legalization.
>>16527680>When weed was legalized in Portugal usage actually DROPPED, from 13% to 8%.In reality that statistic is likely not even true and that survey was poorly conducted, since its not the case for any other locales that legalized the drug, which makes Portugal a suspicious outlier in this regard and should be disregarded.
>>16528054>fallacious • \fuh-LAY-shus\ • adjective. 1 : embodying a fallacy 2 : tending to deceive or mislead>fal·la·cy /ˈfaləsē / noun. a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.It very much means incorrect.
>>16528957do they realize "regaining slurs" doesn't work like that
>>16530003That was just damage control, when people started noticing them taking their masks off. They told us for years to believe them, when they talked.
>>16529766It's true and i already provided multiple examples.
>>16527680There's a push to treat pedo as a slur, and the correct term to be "minor attracted person"
>>16527680Is this a parody of the exact opposite of your point?
>>16527639Got tired of people explaining to you how just because something happens that you don't like doesn't mean the end of human civilization?
No one in here is actually defending the slippery slope argument they’re just saying homosexuality is the same as pedophilia.
>>16529766>MAPEntertaining the latest term to obfuscate that they're pedos raping children.>LGBTEntertaining the idea that the Ts and the rest of the nonsense letters have the same interests as the LGB group. The LGBs barely have any common interests as it is. Trying to add the Ts/etc is nonsense.You've done a great job of showing that you're trying to reconcile the child rapists, with the mentally ills, and the gays.
obligatory
>>16530640People should never have fallen for their lies when homosexuals are created through genetic defects or sexual trauma.
Chuds never gave a shit about children, calling people you don’t like pedophiles is just a convenient tool to get retards on your side.
>>16527888>Most pedophiles are men targeting little boys.B8
>>16527639Because it's effectively a strawman>I think maybe we're eating too much meat. Maybe we should cut back a few pounds of meat per week. >YOU SAY THAT NOW, BUT SOON YOU'LL BE PUSHING FOR TOTAL VEGANISM It's attacking people for arguments they weren't making
>>16531772
>>16531939Who’s they
>>16531913When dealing with marxists, their arguments are never honest.
>>16531941the jews
>>16527639Sleeping people! You might aswell drink - the ones that don't have to act like they do.[Insert spurious rationalisations for inane x,y and z bullshittery here - make it sound high minded]
>>16529942now look up the difference between Portugal and Canada legislations on the topic
>>16528865Nobody says that abortions will be mandatory retard. The argument they make is that it will eventually be legal to abort a baby whenever it in the womb and even outside.
>>16527639It's not logical leap to say that LGBT movement wants to restructure societal norms and even change more fundamental aspects of our humanity such as the gender relations. This is literally what they're theorist and ideologists say, and write about in their books.
Chuds cry about trannies one minute and post about “cunny” the next.
>>16527639It’s a fallacy when it’s not an actual position held by people who promote the premises. My favorite example is voting for GWB in 2000, and the Iraq war that followed years later. The Neocon position was a robust military industrial complex to support American hegemony. The actual manifestation of that policy was the Iraq war, but military adventurism was always predictable as a consequence of their foreign policy. Thus voting for GWB was the start of a slippery slope that lead to that war and some people predicted that. The converse side was people who predicted an increase in Nazism were guilty of the fallacy, as no Nazi policies were an identifiable part of the policy or as premises leading to the policy. Even though militarism was a Nazi policy, the neocons were not directly supporting the growth of racial hierarchies or socialism critical to implementing Nazism. Indeed many forms of policy throughout history had militarism as a core precept and never resulted in Nazism or even Fascism. Thus neocon=militarism is not a slippery slope, because neocons will honestly explain some instances where they support militarism to further American interests. But neocon = Nazi is a slippery slope because militarism is not the core premise of Nazism and many foreign policies can implement militarism and not become Nazism.
>>16528266Yes. This is exactly how they want people to use this against wrongthink.The point of them making stuff such as OP pic is certainly not to aid critical thinking to find what is right (that is just the cover excuse), nor is the point even to help people find better ways to present arguments or make points. The point isn't even to say that all argumentation made this way is incorrect, either.The sole point of this stuff is to create a mold, where non-woke ideas can be dismissed by the low-IQ groupthink if they can be categorized into one of these "fallacies." For a statement to fit any of the molds that they create means that it can be said by the "experts" to be a "fallacy," even if it is true. Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt school of critical theory and cultural marxism had an idea of "liberating tolerance." Under liberating tolerance and "critical theory," logic must be twisted to always support woke/progressive ideas (whatever those are, and they change often) and meanwhile anything that isn't in line with that neo-marxist doctrine is automatically wrong, and they find some sophistry to support it. They're liars pretending to be using logic and the scientific method, when they're just straight up lying rats.
>>16528533All they did was redefine the terms. They are still sodomites who molest children in reality.
>>16528802The thing about a lot of these "fallacies" is that they could be legitimate in some cases. In other cases, they aren't logically sound arguments, but it isn't inherently because they were "slippery slope" that made them wrong arguments. That's why it makes no sense to pretend that this is a type of fallacy.
>>16532460Yes, and? There's no double standard there.
>>16530640Sadly this was rhetorically effective at the time, and you can't use this to prove anything now that the horse has long since bolted - they just accuse you of being homophobic or whatever. They will say anything to strengthen their position in the moment, they will take advantage of others trust in every opportunity, it can't damage their deeper principles or morals as they have none
>>16531944>4 people have 4 different opinionsWowie this is shocking!
>>16532443But the way they want to change it is not relevant to the discussion if the person never argued for that position. Just argue what the person's opinion is right now. Not what you think it will be in 5 years.
>>16533421God can end them at any time, and those that choose to continue that way will burn though. It's just a matter of time before we have arrived at eternity.
I would love to see the flags of the posters in this thread
>>16531944The same is true of anyone with strong political stances. I've never met a white supremacist who didn't use what they would describe as Jewish tactics. It's born from the belief that if you're right, anything you do to convince people to lead them to the "truth" is permissible.
>>16533463No. My argument is precisely that the person is unknowingly or naively aiding these institutions that want to destroy fundamental aspects of our humanity.Individualy it means nothing what some person thinks of the movement, it's the top down big money that's pushing it mainstream.
>>16527639If you can demonstrate that a smaller shift will lead to a bigger shift, then it is not a fallacy, but you have to reasonably demonstrate it.The fallacy comes from not demonstrating the connection and just fear-mongering.
>>16529960Not in the context of a argumentative fallacy. For example, if I said "OP was a raging faggot." in the midst of me talking about his points I have made an adhomin. It does not negate other points I may have made, and in fact OP can be a faggot. In the context of me making an argument that is a weak point however. Similarly - you can be a rat fink weasle and purposefully use these things to mislead/make it seem like you have a stronger argument than you do, but in theory you could still be "right." though the people defending the LGBTQ = pedo shit should eat bullets and stop vomiting vapid talking head bullshit.
>>16527639Its not an actual fallacy so that should tell you something about it.Its used generally in an underhanded fashion to trick you into compromising, and then its done over and over and over again.The way around it in a formal debate is to establish a cline of precedent.>>16527680Like pedophilia is a trend of behavior among homosexuals, therefore to legitimize homosexuals is to legitimize a trend of pedophilia.
>>16527692Too late.
>>16531835what evidence is needed for you to accept this claim?
>>16531944>employees of the Washington Post, owned by the 2nd richest man in the world>"marxists"Why do anticommunists do this? Bezos blog employees are quite literally paid propagandists for.l capital
it reminds of this epic fail
>>16535037You're a marxist and share 100% of your ideological positions with Jeff Besos.
>>16534858Much higher numbers. In some notorious cases like the Catholic church scandal most victims were boys, but the rate of sexual abuse is significantly higher for females overall, like 1 in 4 vs 1 in 8 or something like that.
