Alright, i'm tired of hearing this debate, so it's time for the the highest IQ board to settle this once and for all

alright, i'm tired of hearing this debate, so it's time for the the highest IQ board to settle this once and for all

is "slippery slope" a logical fallacy or not?

"the chad armchair" is so funny to me.

Nah. I slip down slopes frequently.

depends on the context

Sometimes but not always

This but unironically

I guess, but why would it matter if it is or not?

Logical fallacies, just like rhetorical fallacies only exist within the framework developed in a socratic-aristotelean western tradition.

The problem is that once you start critiquing the slope then where will it end? How will we embrace any real arguments?

>the fallacy of fallacy

fallacies literally dont matter. its just a form of name dropping faggots use because they think it makes them look smart

The "slippery slope fallacy" is meant to apparently refer to causative associations like "gay marriage? what next, legal bestiality?!" That's not really an argument, it's just a rather superficial statement.

The problem is that people take "slippery slope" to mean any sort of causative association between events... so if your conclusion does, for instance, argue that the acceptance of gay marriage culturally and legally may, in the future, allow for the possibility of legal and acceptable bestiality by various means and mechanisms, people will probably dismiss it off-hand "fallacious" even if you use reasoned arguentation to reach it.

I think one element of the "slippery slope" is the attitude of decline. I think the point is that by associating bestiality with gay marriage, you make gay marriage look suspect and immoral for its attachment to something on a timeline. The fallacy is in the prescription, rather than the description. You are trying to paint something as bad by distant consequences rather than tackle the thing in itself. At least that's what I think the "slippery slope fallacy" is meant to describe. Your argument might be poor, but not fallacious.

Of course in the real world things that match the pattern of the "slippery slope" (upward or downard) are common, so tell any retard who dismisses your statement for fitting into the "slippery slope" narratological box to fuck off.

*'your argument might be poor but not fallacious' should be at the end of the second paragraph, my mistake

Ad hominem.

>bro don't go towards that slippery slope! If you take just a couple steps you'll slide all the way to the bottom!
>lmoa slippery slope fallacy much? *falls down hill*
this is why general education was a mistake

The chad armchair looks like Foucault, but he was a rather famous activist.

I don't even get what's up with autists fascination with fallacies. Fallaceis are meant to find holes in someone else's rhetoric / logic in a formal debate situation. Reality doesn't care about fallacies, and someone like the slipery slope is observable in various situations in life. I know people try to sound like "I just won this discussion" but more often than not they sound like "I'm trying to buy some time here pls stop"

Slippery slope is only a fallacy when you are saying "x will lead to y and y is bad" without giving an argument of how or why x leads to y. A slippery slope in and of itself is not fallacious if you can give a rational argument as to how it is a slippery slope. The fallacy essentially refers to when you are misattributing a slippery slope to something that you haven't actually reasonably proven to be a slippery slope.

*lends you a hand to help you back up from the slippery ditch you fell into*
Come on back up, bud!

im not sure if youre aware but the fallacy of fallacy is a real fallacy

i cant quite reach, can you lean in a little closer pal?

*pushes you down the slippery slope*
Tough luck nerd!

thanks man, sorry about that. I don't understand though - my reasoning was impeccable!

It's a fallacy of means, yes. That means that it's a bad way to argue a proposition which could be true: it doesn't prove anything, it's just indicating the conclusion you would like to reach. That conclusion might be valid but it's much like this:

>2+5+2=
>1(4)+5=
>14-5=
>9

You get the right answer, but if you look at the working out of the thing, it doesn't fit the start or end points conclusively, it's just convincing mumbojumbo. Yes, if you go near a slippery slope you might slide all the way to the bottom. You might also go near the slippery slope and get knocked down by a horse and carriage at the cross street before you get to slip anywhere. You might also not slip to the bottom for a variety of reasons. Just because you're at the top of the slope doesn't mean you get to the bottom.

I think this everyone autists complain about Socrates' arguments.

Literally just came back from a two week visit to the slippery slope. Any questions?

why did you not post a ski piste?

I don't ski

sorry lad but what didy ou mean by this?

It was pretty obvious, I think.

It is NOT a LOGICAL fallacy, though it is not in all cases where it is used the appropriate argument.
The syllogism is this:
>Even if A is acceptable, B is absolutely not and needs to be prevented.
>From A (very likely) follows B.
>A needs to be prevented.
It is in the second premise that often the error lies, or where the argument is disputed. For it to be convincing, you need to be able to show or make it believable that this connection exists.

Don't lie; did you really slip?

slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's reduction to absurdity, or at least apparent absurdity.
Like if someone argues in favor of weed legalization and his argument is fully rooted on individual freedom, well he's bound to have to agree with crack legalization. And practically none is willing to do that, but if they do, props to them for being coherent.

It can be.