Is the Slippery Slope truly an logical fallacy? Let's be honest Jow Forums, and hammer this out once and for all.
Can you formulate a counter-argument to say that it's not a fallacy? Can it be said to be a fallacy solely of symbolic logic but not of practical argument?
it's only a fallacy if you can't back up your claim and link the two together by calling it a slippery slope, the slippery slope is legitimate if you can prove the relations between the two first
If I allow an egg to drop, it will hit the ground and break. Therefore, I should not allow the egg to drop.
Seems like it's only fallacious if the causation between A and Z is illogical.
It isn't a fallacy as long as you don't make a strawman of the hypotheticals.
The fallacy means the secondary effect isn't proven.
The fallacy fallacy dictates that just because a fallacious device was used, the conclusion's truth or effect isn't diminished.
Another bad fallacy is: "Correlation doesn't prove causation".
People use that for such logic-farts as: "Just because everyone I punch the wall and my fist bleeds, doesn't mean one caused the other".
Yes it did because people forget that the strength of a Correlation can strongly suggest a causation. The fallacy part means you can't be certain.
I've been thinking about it lately. It could be considered a fallacy before the current days; change took time to set in, now with the internet everything changes too fast.
>>People who categorized as a fallacy, technically never lived long enough to see the consequences.
That is a pretty bad example since it doesn't even has a slope in it.
Sometimes slippery slopes are good arguments. Sometimes they are right. But I can't give you a "symbolic logic" proof of that. Its just common sense.
It's only a fallacy if you can't explain a logical connection between subsequent events. Most of the time when a leftist calls this fallacy on a conservative position, the leftist is pretending they don't know anything about human nature and the normalization of previous taboos through incremental steps.
Hold on a second, guys.
I had a teacher explain to me back in the day that the logical notation form of "Slippery Slope" took the form of.
If X Then X Then X Then X Then X.
The example she gave was that Democrats wanted to strengthen gun laws, which would eventually end up in guns being banned and the Bill of Rights being violated. The other argument was Republicans wanted to relax gun laws, which suggested that they would continue doing so until people could own battleships and nuclear bombs.
But I could be wrong since it's considered an informal fallacy rather than formal.
============================
The Fallacy Fallacy: Just because something is a fallacy doesn't mean it isn't true.
==============================
Slippery slope is a fact when it comes to large-scale human interactions.
ITT: People who use fallacies argue that they are correct.
Basically any argument can be defined in some way as a fallacy.
Committing a logical fallacy doesn't really mean you're wrong about your conclusion or even premises though. It only means you fucked up your argument form. It's an error of explanation.
Slippery slopes are definitely not fallacies. Many legal justifications are in fact based on "slippery slopes" consider sentences, for example. To state that the first time a criminal commits a felony is a "slippery slope" is completely logical, rational and provable.
It is not a fallacy because it can be factually proven that people who commit their first felony have a 76% chance of reoffending within 5 years.
Or take something like smoking marijuana, it can be soundly argued that although not everyone who smokes marijuana ends up doing hard drugs, 95% of hard drug users have tried marijuana first.
In both these cases cause does not absolutely result in effect but that is the point of the slippery slope metaphor, it implies that the likelihood of a negative chain of events is greatly increased.
In the first case, it is the basis for exactly how judges handle first time offenders so it is certainly not fallacious.
go fuck yourself
Well, at worst you've given a retarded shit argument, but at best a logical fallacy means you've failed to give a proper explanation of the connection your premises have to your conclusion.
(checked)
Your reasoning is good as far as I can tell. Didn't really know that about the judicial system.
u mad whyte boi
allow me to apologize
What is causality
There is no such thing as a fallacy
i guess that's somewhat better
Cause and effect are provable. Slippery slope is beating off to what if scenarios
Neither are fallacies. Any ground ceded moves the balance toward one of the extremes. That adds up overtime and eventually you're moving too fast to survive.
100 years ago women couldn't vote and the UK and the US ruled the world without rival. Now look at us.
>be banned all over the Internet
>slippery slope is a fallacy
KYS kike
It is not a fallacy. It's how everything gets done, piece by piece. Liberals want you to think it is a fallacy, so they can take things piece by piece and you can't argue because the college professor says so
yeah you should never think more than 1 step ahead
Let's use slippery slope in reverse while reclaiming our rights.
Cause and Effect is a really good Cop Shoot Cop song, quality, unlike your post
"Be careful of that ledge, buddy." said the onlooker puzzled by the man's determined stride towards a nearby cliff.
"HA! You're engaging in what's known as the slippery slope fallacy. So ignorant." the man said as he slipped down the slope towards his doom.
Slippery slope is cowardly.
I don't think fags should get married because that shit is gay and marriage is about babies. I also think fag marriage is creating all sorts of predicable new problems but that's besides the point.
Still a fallacy. The problem isn't "How do we safely regulate guns" the problem is "we're supposed to be constitutionally protected against regulation".
It depends. Saying an extreme Z will happen because we allow some mundane Y to happen is a fallacy. BUT if I were to argue, say, that if we accepted the argument behind Z as truth, then Y must also be true, that is not a slippery slope fallacy.
e.g. "Ban guns because they hurt people more than other dangerous devices."
would logically lead to a slippery slope because you can always find something less dangerous than something, which you can then justify banning.
We must ban assault dentures!
LGB
LGBT
LGBTQ
LGBTQA
LGBTQAI
LGBTQAIP
The slope is steep.
Fucking eh. I came here to post this shit. We have been castrated and beholden to this whole fucking ‘fallacy’ conundrum. It was just some fuck head philosophers who came up with it. It is basically a way of jewing your way out of a discussion and avoiding the point by summoning the fallacy defense and /pol has been so jewed by it...its a fucking sticky to study and know them. Who is jewing who.
I think this makes a great tshirt design
take a look at culture since 1965
I think something beautiful is happening here
der schlippen schloppen
Moreover, the left is entirely a slippery slope at its very core. You see, leftists view the world as steadily improving over time with respect to cultural innovations- and those innovations, coincidentally, always happen to line up with what the leftist believes in. This underlying belief leads only to the logical conclusion that the more left-wing somewhere gets, the more advanced it is.
They make the assumption that since technology is getting better, culture is getting 'better', and since in the past 100 or so years that has tended towards leftism, getting 'better' culturally necessitates become more and more radically left-wing.
>They make the assumption that since technology is getting better, culture is getting 'better'
Always felt like this. never heard anyone say it
I suggest making it rainbow colored.
LGBTQAIP+
LGBTQAIP++
LGBTQAIP+++
.
Foot in the Door...
Give an Inch they take a Mile...
Sh#t Rolls Down Hill...
Heed the spark or you may dread the fire...
.
Not going to bother reading all the replies, just going to answer OP directly; Not all slippery slopes are fallacious and it is fallacious to dismiss a slippery slope just because it is a slippery slope. If the slippery slope exists in actuality (take london for example with regards to weapons restrictions) then it is not fallacious.
There are groups actively seeking out Z but in order to get there they're going for A first. See NAMBLA. Case fucking closed.
Slippery slope is real. Give an inch others will take a mile. Be a doormat expect to be walked on. In a world where there are people that look at you as an opportunity instead of as a person you can expect to be tested to see how far you will go with manipulation. So the slippery slope isn't a fallacy, it is an inevitability.
Idk about that. In practice it’s more like: if X because Y then Z because Y. It never seemed illogical and I cringe when people mention it in a discussion. “If I accept what you’re saying about __________ then by the same logic, I won’t be able to argue against _____________. There are caveats but let’s be honest, in the case of gun banners they don’t wish to stop at ‘assault rifles’.
"As the cuddled, your dad's penis moved gently inside your mum's vagina and the sperms flowed out."
Damn, that's actually pretty beautiful.
It isn't strictly a fallacy but argument in that style will be weak if the slope is long.
>If A then probably B
a fine argument
>If A then probably B then probably C
weaker but probably ok
>If A then probably B then probably C then probably D
much weaker
>If A then probably B... then probably Z
just plain stupid
The more steps you have the weaker the argument gets. However if the probability of making each of the transitions is very high then even some pretty long slopes can be strong arguments.
Also, fucking while floating on balloons is pretty badass
Those illustrations are meant for 5 year olds now though.
I'd like to point out that after we allowed same sex couples to marry we've had people marrying their dog, their sibling, themself, and yes, their car. The slippery slope might be a fallacy but its something to seriously keep in mind
none of those meme fallacies are actually rules of logic
pedophilia and zoophilia will never be accepted by society
homosexual rights isn't slippery slope
I realize that and don't think it's right.
You must not be paying attention. Search Desmond is amazing or lactacia. It's already getting applause on day time tv talk shows.
homosexuals are pedophiles.
>homosexual rights isn't slippery slope
>what is legal precedent
Something that is easily observable is not a fallacy
Purely speaking, yes, it's a fallacy. However, when used to describe the actions of greedy, self-serving humans (which is its typical application), then it just becomes a factual reflection of human nature and a not a fallacy in that context.
>be 90s
>well never put gay indoctrination in the schools user, don’t worry
>now
>...
Also
>what is every gun rights legislation ever
that's jew propaganda
the masses will never accept pedo shit or beast shit
People don't realize that most discoveries aren't actually proved by causation, just that it's correlated enough to infer causation.
Also people who parrot that "correlation doesn't = causation!" line as their only argument are fucking brainlets.
>gay indoctrination
lol what? do they show gay porn in gym class now?
>amyl nitrite
>As an inhalant, it also has psychoactive effect which has led to illegal drug use.
yeah better teach them 5 years old
the end truly can't come soon enough
>pedophilia and zoophilia will never be accepted by society
You've never heard of Canada, m8?
>Can you formulate a counter-argument to say that it's not a fallacy?
Simply because one "slip" has occurred resulting in the changed state of affairs referred to by the slippery slope argument does not mean that things will continue to slip solely because they slipped that one time that we're talking about.
>Can it be said to be a fallacy solely of symbolic logic but not of practical argument?
No, don't be retarded.
Yes
they portray it as a perfectly normal behavior to children that are still years away from puberty
if you don't understand why this is fucked beyond measure you're part of the problem
the fact it has slipped once proved you wrong and sets a precedent for it to happen again, try harder
>Simply because one "slip" has occurred resulting in the changed state of affairs referred to by the slippery slope argument does not mean that things will continue to slip solely because they slipped that one time that we're talking about.
How many "slips" need to take place before it becomes valid then? And why would the slips suddenly stop when the justification for the original slip still exists and gives reason for future "slips"?
>I had a teacher explain to me back in the day that the logical notation form of "Slippery Slope" took the form of.
>If X Then X Then X Then X Then X.
You had a bad teacher. Using the graphic you originally posted, the above example you've provided would appear as:
>"IF A then B then C then ... Y then Z." That's not a fallacious argument as it lines everything out and contains precepts that ideally follow one another to the conclusion which is itself a part of the completed series. It is a poor argument, sure, but it's not fallacious. A slippery slope fallacy is more like:
>"IF A then B then C then Z."
Where is not explained or even presented as part of the series leading to Z. It's just assumed that Z will flow naturally from the precedents as if it's intuitively obvious to anyone watching. It's not. A logical argument requires that such things be worked out and supported.
If you want a good visualization of what a slipper slope fallacy looks like, think South Park underpants gnomes where ???? precedes the final step which is PROFIT!!!
Thanks user! That makes much more sense. My logic teacher in college didn't give it to us like that since it's an "informal" fallacy.
This
If the justification for A leading to B is the same justification that let to B leading to C, and you can see that the justification would be the same all the way down to Z, just that Z hasn't taken place yet, but over the past 70 years we've seen the original justification used has already reached P, then it's valid to say there's a slippery slope of justification that will eventually lead to Z.
Like If they used the justification of "my body my choice" as being reason enough to end a life, can you tell me why that same justification can't be permeated through society to justify many many other things?
I used to think it was. I though Christian's opposed to gay marries were reactionary.
ffw to 2019
>trans children
>drag queen story hour at public library
>faggot parades in every city
>an entire month devoted to sodomy
>pedophilia becoming normalized
>grown men larping as women
>compelled pronoun usage
>women literally calling animals their babies
It's not a fallacy. It's real. Instead of slippery slope, just call it the overton window. No one can disagree
3 year olds are now allowed to consent to something as life changing as hormone blockers and sex change so why cant they consent to having sex. seems A to B. Honestly this seems B to A actually. sex is way less life changing
fpbp
fpbp
>and based
>jar of cornichon on me mon frere.
I laughed at them in 2012 when they said this was going to happen
No it isn't, as long as it is a sound argument.
>the fact it has slipped once proved you wrong
>How many "slips" need to take place before it becomes valid then?
I see the brainlet squad is out in full force tonight. A slippery slope argument is the assertion that because one change occurred an unrelated change will necessarily occur. That first change occurring is the "slip" I referred to. It's a use of term that I thought people with a reading level beyond 4th grade would pick up on. It doesn't mean things will continue to slip. It doesn't mean that slippery slope arguments necessarily depend on people being unable to stand on slick surfaces. It doesn't mean the argument is about people getting the slip, or whatever other retarded homonym your pitiful stoner brains apply. The "slip" in this case is the first precedent set by the argument.
Think algebra, where you need to solve for X.
Now imagine that "slip" is X.
Now imagine that the equation you're trying to solve lacks any other variables by which you could solve for X (like 3X and that's it).
The incapacity to solve the equation is the slippery slope's incapacity to be a legit argument.
If you want to try to attack my argument on my choice of words (in quotation marks no less), you're going to have to, as said ...
>try harder
Now, to address the other retard babble farted out by >And why would the slips suddenly stop when the justification for the original slip still exists and gives reason for future "slips"?
Have you ever woken up? Did waking up preclude you from ever sleeping again?
Why would you ever be able to go to sleep when it's clear that you've woke. Up in the past before. Because you're awake now then all people must necessarily be awake for all eternity.
>Liberals want you to think it is a fallacy, so they can take things piece by piece and you can't argue because the college professor says so
Can we get this in a larger font?
Another fave of mine is "never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity... that way you won't hang us from lamposts because garsh, we un's is just stoopid!"
(I might have added that last part)
>Like If they used the justification of "my body my choice" as being reason enough to end a life, can you tell me why that same justification can't be permeated through society to justify many many other things?
That can be used to justify many things. That doesn't make it a slippery slope argument. My body my choice (MBMC) CAN be used to justify positions in arguments. But if you were going to say something like "because MBMC exists, there'll come a day when space aliens harvest organs from puppies" you're engaging in a slippery slope argument. The final conclusion that you're trying to make is not supported in any way by your starting point. It relies upon an assumption by both the arguer and the reader that the conclusion is necessarily connected to the first precedent. IF YOU CAN ARGUE THAT CONNECTION, then it's NOT a slippery slope argument. That doesn't mean it's a good argument, like the "IF A then B then C then ... Z" argument which is only as strong as it's weakest precedent.
Let's go back to my strawman of your argument re: MBMC. If you took what I said and swapped out "puppies" with fetuses (remember to think of this as algebra, that's how logic operates), and "space aliens" with planned parenthood, then the argument would be "Because MBMC exists, there'll come a day when planned parenthood harvests organs from fetuses." That is a true statement, but it is a fallacious argument. Learn to recognize the difference.
(part 2)
>If the justification for A leading to B is the same justification that let to B leading to C, and you can see that the justification would be the same all the way down to Z, just that Z hasn't taken place yet, but over the past 70 years we've seen the original justification used has already reached P, then it's valid to say there's a slippery slope of justification that will eventually lead to Z.
No. To prove you wrong, I'll present another slippery slope argument that may blackpill you. If it does, then I apologize user.
>Humanity survives biologically, socially, and productively through the strength of the family unit.
>Women contribute in all ways to a thriving human species through reproduction
>Biologically women are primed to love their offspring above all other things for it ensures their own continued ease of survival.
>????
>And so, it is necessarily the case that women will always seek to reproduce their children and love them and guarantee their future success for the good of all humanity.
Here's the test, user. Why does the above argument (a slippery slope fallacy) not reflect the state of things today? Were any of the initial precedents wrong? Does the final conclusion not follow from the initial set? Does it not appear related? So why does the argument not work?
>Is the Slippery Slope truly an logical fallacy?
>it's only a fallacy if you can't back up your claim and link the two together
5DMYIWc3, you're right over the target, so let's clean it up.
"Slippery Slope" IS the argument, just like "ad hominem" the INSULT/Character of the person making the opposing side IS the argument.
--If we allow pictures of Pepe to be posted we're on a slippery slope to having cartoon kikes and swatikas being posted next--
That's a logical falacy. This fallacy is insidious because the users of this technique are relying on the audience to insert there own negative emotive connotations, that often sit at the unconscious level due to propoganda and smears that have been leveled at the subjects alledged to sit on said slope.
A slippery slope is only a slippery slope if it sounds like a strawman.
Usually it is but the left is a fallacy machine.
Mathematically, this fallacy is like as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------
Assumptions:
> A happens
A = 1 (fact A is true)
> Z -> A
Z is a fact dependent on A, so the happening of Z assures that A happened (implication connective). Furthermore, ( Z -> A ) = 1, because you're assuming the relation itself exists and is true.
-------------------------------------------------------
The argument of "slippery slope" is:
> A & ( Z -> A ) => Z
which => is the implication operator for variables that are necessary true (i.e. both left and right side needs to be true in order to be a valid argument);
& is the conjunction connective (^);
-------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
So, the idea is:
if A is 1 (true) and ( Z -> A ) is 1 too, then we can't ascertain that Z is either 1 (true) or 0 (false), because ( 1 -> 1 ) and ( 0 -> 1 ) are both true.
Therefore, the argument is false because the operator "=>" do not admit Z as X (unknown 1 or 0) at it right side:
> A = 1
> Z = X (can be 0 or 1)
So,
> A & ( Z -> A ) => Z
> 1 & ( X -> 1 ) => X
> 1 & 1 => X
In short,
> 1 => X
which is absurd.
Thus a fallacy.
I love you
This is ridiculous, I can't even compose an argument because the morans who run this place think banning certain ascii characters will reduce spam. They probably think inanimate objects cause people to kill other people.
Take the first fallacy regarding Pepe. Let's make an actual argument:
(This place is so cucked--fucking banned integers/letters/words--this place is on a slippery post to becoming Reddit tier. When are the "Like" buttons getting installed.)
Take the first fallacy regarding Pepe. Let's make an actual argument:
--. Pepe is the Mascot for a lot of boards on half/, including /pol.
--. One of the main posting factions on half/pol claim to be avid supporters of NatSoc, and think [the leader] was a great leader who had the right idea but got betrayed by his own inner circle.
--. /pol anons really love their Pepe memes. There are 1000's of them, and some of them are very funny or hit the redpill dead on.
--. Anons post Pepe's to signal other anons.
--. user's, love to shitpost.
--. By posting Pepe's shitpostiong /pol anons will team up and ... and slide our message threads.
--.[Screencap of /pol anons discussing a recent shitposting operation]
--. If we allow posters to post Pepe's there's a good chance they'll troll our message threads and shit them up with ..... and ... memes.
See the difference.
ACTUALLY, right side of the argument is ¬A.
> A & ( Z -> A ) => ¬Z -> ¬A
Which gives:
> 1 & ( X -> 1 ) => ¬X -> ¬1
> 1 & 1 => X -> 0
> 1 => ( 0->0 | 1->0 )
Therefore:
> 1 => X
Thus a fallacy.
> right side of the argument is ¬Z -> ¬A
Fuck, another correction.
You're welcome! xD
Have you ever heard the term 'The mask slips further'? First they deny, then they justify - It's all one giant slippery slope. Those radical atheists who ascribed that (morality) is not related to religion now, in 2019, support incest, bestiality, pedophilia, cannibalism, abortions, etc etc. The question stopped being 'Can athiest be moral' and became 'Is it wrong to kill children without Christianity saying it is'. But, enough with the Athiest rants, It's one of many, many examples.
That depends on how far you go down the slope.
Some faggots will REE when you say A will lead to B, but this is common sense to those who understand history.
LGBTQAIPBRAAAAAAAP++
To an extent, but with reasonable arguments, it is undeniable.