How do you argue with people who believe in logical fallacies?

I had a discussion with a woman. She claimed that when abortion was legalised in our country in the seventies it lead to a slippery slope of allowing abortion in more and more cases (even though it actually hasn't). She claimed that this slippery slope will "naturally" continue and in the future, abortion will be allowed even in the third trimester unless we fully ban it now (currently it's only allowed in the first trimester unless the fetus is dying or severely handicapped).

I pointed out that this was a slippery slope logical fallacy. She didn't care/understand. I told her that most people who want abortions in the first trimester to be legal do not want to legalize abortions in the second and third trimester, so her argument didn't make sense. She said I was wrong because "history has proven us otherwise".

I told her that people made the same argument about gay marriage: A conservative politician in our country said that gay marriage would lead to people immediately wanting to marry animals. I told her that that didn't happen and noone actually wants to legalize marrying animals. I told her that this type of fallacy is the same type of fallacy she was using. She said I was changing subjects to something irrelevant and that I was intolerant of her views. She told me to "go educate myself on ethics".

How do you talk to people like this? I don't care what she believes, I just want her to realise that her arguments are filled with logical fallacies.

Pull out your dick and slap it on her face you turbobeta.

She's right though. For instance, we gave women the vote and its been a slippery slope ever since of them wanting more and more and more

Your female interlocuter is correct. Slippery slope arguments are not inherently fallacious despite your infographic

You give an inch, they take a mile. People always want more more more.

>trying to argue with people

There's literally no reason to argue with people other than to stroke your own ego about "being right".

What's so unsound about ad hominems? You can't point out that a pedophile is defending pedophilia? I also just appealed to emotion there. We're not computer programs, logic corresponds to nothing in reality.

But in this case it is fallacious. Why would allowing abortion in the first trimester necessarily lead to allowing abortion in the third trimester, even when almost everyone opposes it? People keep acting as if only extremes exist in moral dilemmas, like "either we fully ban abortion or people will literally allow abortions in the third trimester". Why can't society have a ruling somewhere between those two extremes?

It's like saying that increasing a tax will literally lead to communism - or that loweing a tax will lead to Ayn Rand rising from the dead and assuming control of the world.

>implying they didn't want those things from the start

There are a lot of women who want to marry their horses. lemme tell ya. and their dogs. I think that the number is fairly low. but bestiality is a thing.

>tries to use a fancy word
>can't spell it correctly

wew lad, why are you a pseudo-intellectual?

Once abortion in the first trimester becomes accepted by everyone, then some person just starting the second trimester will want one. And why not? If it was a week earlier it would have been fine, what's one more week? Then another person in the second trimester wants one, then another. Eventually there are hordes of "women" protesting for second trimester abortions. Then once that's the new norm, it starts again.
It happens with most things.
First being gay was made not illegal, then they wanted to get married then they want Christian bakers to be forced to bake them wedding cakes.
You can see the same pattern with trannies. And many other "issues".

>Once abortion in the first trimester becomes accepted by everyone, then some person just starting the second trimester will want one.

Except that abortion in the first trimester has been legal here for over 40 years without anything even remotely close to that having happened.

>almost everyone
actually, some 30% of people believe abortion should be completely legal under any circumstances as per gallup. that's almost a third of people who are fine with third trimester abortions.

first of all, you NEVER point out logical fallacies by their name, i.e., if someone says something that is a slippery slope argument, you don't blurt out 'slippery slope' as most people a) don't know what that means and b) it's not an argument by itself, yet you then use it like it was.
If you find another person employing a logical fallacy it's useful if you prepared beforehand some counter measures/or techniques you can use in the case someone uses fallacy x. and no, not an example in which something unrelated and absurd is shown as being of the kind of fallacy x, because this is in itself a fallacy (reductio ad absurdum) and you will, most of the times, find yourself now discussing the new example you brought into the discussion and the original proposition is forgotten (the woman in your example was basically right when she accused you of this). imo, a punch in the face works best.

>implying women in second and third haven't WANTED abortions
talk about fallacies. how could you know if a woman wanted a second trimester or third trimester abortion or not?

no so-called logical fallacy is inherently fallacious, but often they are shortcuts people who can't think properly use or downright traps interlocutors set for you. the art is realizing when a fallacy is one and not learning them by rote and blurting their names out when one seemingly recognizes them.

op, remember about the fallacy fallacy.

Slippery slope it's a prediction, sometimes correct and sometimes not.

>having arguments with people irl
Numb nuts

I just looked it up and A) it's American numbers. That doesn't make it representative of my country. B) You're missing the point: The numbers clearly show that the public attitude has not changed significantly since they started recording in the seventies. In the seventies about 25% supported abortion in all circumstances and exactly the same applies today. Improved women's rights, a more liberal abortion law, third wave feminism etc. haven't changed people's views on abortion. There has been no slippery slope. It is quite insulting and immature to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you will change their viewpoints if they get the chance.

I didn't mention the fallacy by name, I just said something along the lines of "that's a logical fallacy because bla bla bla". Sry that I miswrote it.

I know it because there has been noone advocating to change the law to something more liberal since the current laws were implemented 40 years ago. If a significant number of people wanted to change the law, we would have heard about it in the media, seen politicians supporting this viewpoint, etc. Whenever abortion is debated here, it starts out with a Christian organization saying "All abortions are literally murder" and then politicians, normal people, doctors and philosophers respond by saying that it's not because XYZ and that our current law is fine. Noone is advocating more lenient laws.

I do remember it. I respect other people's stance as long as they can argue for it.

Like, I believe in God but if someone told me "I believe in God because the Bible says he's real and the Bible is the word of God" I'd tell them to grow tf up and realise that that makes no sense.

But she's not just predicting. She's using it as her core argument.

Pansexual orgies actually sound like a lot of fun?

People who are unprepared for children, or who have fucked up their birth control, will abort in the first trimester. People who are aborting after that aren't doing because they don't want to keep the kid, they're doing it because something has gone seriously wrong affecting longterm health outcomes of mother, child, or both, and the most logical and ethical choice is to abort.

I have no idea how you talk to people like this on account of them being ignorant, closed-minded, cunts who are too lazy to actually do any sort of research or put time into thinking something through at all, leaving trying to reason with them sensibly a pointless endeavour.

Go talk to someone who doesn't have their head up their ass, I guess.