is slippery slope even a fallacy? Things tend to reach their logical extremes, especially in politics and all the social engineering stuff
>>542265396>is slippery slope even a fallacyMost fallacies are just jews bitching that you're not allowed to survive using Pattern recognition or avoid dangers you're aware of but cant fully explain.
>>542265396Look at the LGBT and trans community and you will get your answer.
>>542265612>"if gay people get married, cats will start marrying dogs!">that doesn't happen>"see??????"
>>542265396The 'slippery slopes is proven with timeThere are many idioms for that idiom, like 'give an inch and they will take a mileDEI has proven that the idioms are true
>>542265675>Trans people want equal rights>They get them>Trans people want drag queen story time to children>They get it>Trans people want to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as>They get it>Trans people want to make kids transition without telling the kid's parents>They get it
>>542265700that's not an idiomidioms are phrases with actual meanings different than their literal meaningidioms are not fallaciesslippery slope is not an idiom
>>542265768>you think you know what a slippery slope is>you don't>you want white skin>you never get it
>>542265768>>Trans people want to make kids transition without telling the kid's parentsthis never happened
>>542265831>Shill that is possible gay and/or trains Is being deliberately obtuseI accept your concession>>542265835https://nypost.com/2023/03/08/us-public-schools-conceal-childs-gender-status-from-parents/
>>542265867trans*
>>542265396It's a fallacy in the sense that you cannot definitively prove that X will lead to Y if X is allowed to happen. You can, however, make a good argument that Y becomes much easier to implement after X, and that there must be safeguards in place to prevent Y. In which case the debate can become about Y. But this is a problem if your interlocutor only wants to talk about X and not Y.
>>542265396We are going back to women as property, whether it be tomorrow or in a hundred years. It's inevitable. They avoid accountability, they don't police each other's worst behaviours and they sow chaos on impulse. Islam is wrong about many things but right about women.
>>542265867gender status is not "transitioning"
>>542266038>Teacher nudges kid into thinking they are not the gender they are born as>Impressionable kid believe adult authority figure.>Eventually kid wants to transition because adult authority figures told them they wanted to.
>>542265960>We are going back to women as propertyYes, when you go back to your African homeland where women are property.
>>542266038Pilpul jew
>>542266122>kid hears trump is cool>goes online to get redpilled>discovers 4chan>discovers anime>cuts his dick offI guarantee that my scenario is 100x more common than yours.
Yes, slippery slope is a logical fallacy. "Tend to" does not equal "will", so you cannot effectively use this as an argument. Not to mention that "tend to" is used in an arbitrary manner here - tons of things in history have actually failed to reach their logical extremes. Much of the international community in the 1950-60's predicted that any kind of progress in the nuclear domain would inevitably lead to a nuclear war and destruction of the world, yet it did not come to be. Essentially, by evoking slippery slope as defense you can shut down just about any kind of progress, saying this will inevitably lead to its most extreme harmful forms, but this is not what it always comes down to. You can simplify it by splitting the road from A (the proposed innovation) to Z (its most extreme form) into several road points (B, C, D etc.). Each time you are about to progress to one of them you are given an opportunity to argue why this is harmful to society, so moving from A to B will not automatically mean going all way to Z. At any point failing to argue why moving from one point to another is actually destructive and dangerous naturally means this advance should be made. And this is exactly why people tend to fall back to the slippery slope fallacy - they cannot effectively prove that moving from A to B is bad, so they have to instead make it seem like this will automatically result in Z, which is not the case. Accepting B does not mean people will have no opportunity to argue against moving to C, D, E etc.
>>542265793It is an idiom And I never said the idiom is a fallacy
>>542266193>Still being obtuseI already accepted your concession
>>542266370should 4chan moderators be required by law to tell your parents about the degenerate fag shit you downloaded from /soc/ and /b/?
>>542265396No. Every single time the slippery slope has been invoked it has inevitably become true at some point in the future.
>>542266438>Waaaaah!I bet you are either a woman, teacher or a trans. Possibly a mix
>>542265396Just read the hungry caterpillar or if you give a mouse a cookie. They're tough reads for the average 4channer, but it's worth it and it should answer your question.
>>542265396>"what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms"Is how it started. Pic related is how it's going.
>>542266490well you didn't say know so i guess you support mutilating children. probably started when your mother had you circumcised
>>542266634>If straight people do this, they are arrested. If gay people do it, it is stunning and powerful>>542266649>Dick insultYou are a woman. Shouldn't you be defending Clancy in another thread?
>>542266325Except in some cases it is proving true.Idiots WILL try to reach Z and you cannot count on sane to stop them everytime. Hence why drawing a line in the sand and NOT allowing things to progress further is the sensible choice, no matter how cruel or restrictive it may seem at first.
>>542266038hey guys he is playing the "pretending not to understand" role because he has nothingDo you ever think about the fact that you having to pretend to not understand things as a defense might indicate that you are wrong? Just a thought.
>>542265396THE BITCHES ARE COMING
>>542265571did you just...omg you did, you fucking didyou just did a strawman fallacy. You need to do better
>>542266681>>Dick insult>You are a woman.dilate.
>>542266817>Muh Tranny!I am using trans as an example of the slippery slope. Accusing me of being one makes no sense. You are just throwing shit at the wall to see what will stick.
Idioms represent the earliest form of nation wide, multigenerational indoctrination. "Don't judge a book by its cover" = "Take your firewall down". Idioms like these reach critical mass because it's like fortune cookies, it's phrased in a way that fits the majority, so that the masses self-propagate the indoctrination. There are plenty of ugly, low-charismatic people who resonate with the book-cover analogies. Instead of growing, becoming better, we tell others to "accept my dysgenic and dysfunctional self".
>>542265396The woman question is arguably the biggest argument against sign tappers. Why would (((they))) demoralize men so bad to normalize killing their children? That is not going make men want to fight for the system. Also including other things on top and it all looks too bleak.
>>542265396It was never a fallacy. It's a logical thinking but evil people hate when you call out their plans.
>>542266943>It's a logical thinkingYour skin is the color of human feces.
>>542266987No shit look at my flag
>>542265571Fpbp /thread
>>542265960Mad fuckhole detected.
>>542266765Bring back the Psaki obsessed Brazilian, jew defender Brazilian is lame as fuck, never thought I'd say this but stop taking your meds.
>>542265396I think it's a fallacy if you are lazy and don't justify why you think a slippery slope existsI think the word fallacy is misleading, since all these things are really just rhetorical devices we implement to push our prejudiced notions. Perhaps we should delineate between rhetoric and honest logical proof Similarly appeal to authority fallacy I think is actually pretty fine in many contexts.
>>542266727I am assessing "slippery slope" on a logical level rather than practical. Logical fallacies exist specifically to call people out on inconsistencies in how they are drawing conclusions from premises and to explain to them where they are wrong exactly. In the case of "slippery slope" the ones evoking the fallacy are wrong because they attempt to draw a link of inevitability between A and Z, essentially skipping all the points in-between. However, in your example people are just as guilty of a different logical mistake - the "nirvana" fallacy, through which they are essentially trying to change the status quo based purely on comparing it to some (in their minds) idealistic extreme with no regard to the possible consequences of trying to achieve that. You can basically illustrate this with the example of socialist ideas. Saying that people should have zero weekends because it will always lead to people never working at all or communism is basically a slippery slope fallacy. But, likewise, demanding we abandon currency and private property altogether because that would mean living in a commune utopia is a nirvana fallacy. Both are engaging in logical mistakes here and both can be called out on them.
>>542266038What's your home address?
>>542265396I can see it looks like they plan to hang her. But why does he have his sword drawn like hes meant to behead her? They used axes to chop peoples heads off. they only use a sword for royalty or other higher ups.
