The slippery slope fallacy is fucking retarded change my mind

the slippery slope fallacy is fucking retarded change my mind

Attached: slippery slope.png (901x551, 47K)

Just because he drinks doesn't mean he's going to end up on the streets retard. If I was the king of these lands I would ask people, "what is wrong with this picture" and if they can't figure it out I'd line them up against a wall and shoot them.

The slippery slope fallacy revolves around probability rather than possibility.
You just have a tiny peanut animal brain.

"Fallacies" and other rules on rhetoric are fucking retarded.
Everyone who isn't a total retard knows right from wrong, they're just fooling each other for kicks.

>Jon goes back to work
Actually he was fired because Stacy reported to HR that his breath kinda smelt like alcohol and it made her uncomfortable.

It is retarded. Slippery slope happens all the time. People spout out that your argument is a logical fallacy so they feel like they win an imaginary point in an imaginary game

>Fallacy fallacy
You played yourself moron.

The LGBTABCDEFG shit is a good example of the slippery slope in action.

I don't think so. They're very effective tools for identifying bad arguments and finding truth if it is there to find.

It's a fallacy only when someone warns of some negative effect without it being logically connected to the point at hand. One easy example is that beastiality will be legalized if we legalize gay marriage, or something along those lines. There's no direct route from one to the other, so it's just fear-mongering. "Jon shouldn't jump off the bridge because he will die" isn't a slippery slope fallacy; there's a clear and rational cause and effect at play.

"If Jon drinks then he will be evicted" is a slippery slope fallacy because you're saying this negative thing will happen when it's disconnected from the first step. Many people drink without getting evicted. The reason why it's called the 'Slippery Slope' fallacy is because often the person making the fallacy will try to string many loosely related things together in an attempt to make two disconnected things seem correlated. Going back to the gay marriage example, someone using the fallacy might say, "If gay marriage is legalized, then morals will degrade, then more people will have sex with animals, then next thing you know people will be marrying animals!" The argument rests on a dubiously connected string of events that, at the very least, the user isn't going into enough detail to properly link.

Going back to your image in the OP, there's loads of fallacious connections between stages in your example. Do you really think everyone who drinks ends up working less to the point of having no money at all? Your end result of eviction is totally disconnected from where it started, which is just casual drinking.

>If gay marriage is legalized, then morals will degrade,
But this really has happened.

but if i phrase the gay marriage thing like this: "allowing gay marriage will allow the nation to become more vulnerable to liberal ideas like child transition and bestiality" isnt that a direct route if i phrase it like that

>morals
>them digits
oof

Hard to argue it has, though, since it's all opinion.

But let's say we give you that it has, just for the sake of argument. You can't argue causation, only correlation.

Society is a lie.
Homelessness just means you've escaped the system.

Attached: 1553759230415.png (608x600, 210K)

That doesn't mean it happened because of gay marriage.

Escaped into what? Squalor and drugs?

I've known a few people that went homeless. They were absolutely not free of the system. In fact they needed it more than anyone.

Escaped not paying tax or relying on the law.
You mean legal homeless people?
I'm talking people that just ignore the system full stop. Squatters are a form of it.

No, I'm referring to people who for example, lived in cities, availed themselves of clean water and the rest of the infrastructure, dug in dumpsters to find food discarded by society, etc. Doing all that, they were very very much part of society. Even squatters are making use of society by living in the building.

If you want to honestly say you've dropped out of society, you'd better actually mean that shit. But in my estimation there are VERY few people who could do that. VERY few.

Most homeless people rob houses, user.

That's even more of an indicator that they've by no means escaped society.

If you're confident that you've solved morality then you politely might want to dig a little deeper into philosophy. Doesn't it seem weird that people spend so much time talking about it? I just all that you keep your mind open for new ideas.

I'm suggesting that there's actual a good amount of depth and some interesting ideas at the bottom of all this. If you're not interested that's fine. You can live your life perfectly fine by adopting the morals of the community you reside in. The golden rule and being able to recognize an honest person is all a respectable person needs to live well anyways.

It's not a fallacy that alcholol has a negative influence on Jon's life. Sometimes we do get trapped into negative feed back loops that put left unchecked can be life destroying. Karren broke up with Chris, Chris is sad, Chris stops eating, Chris becomes too tired to do the things he enjoys, Chris life becomes meaningless without these things, Chris becomes more sad, Chris eats less, is more tired, etc. Sometimes to escape the gravity of one's own suffering and break the feedback loop all you need to do is break one link in the chain in the cycle. Maybe if Chris starts eating again he will have the energy to do the things that give his life meaning and recovery and greating a healthy positive feed back loop. Just this one concerted behaviour can give him enough momentum to get him out of orbit. Sometimes it requires you change more than one "chain" everybody is different and every situation is different.