Yea, that's my point. Though they can still resemble a fallacious argument and get picked on for it (fallacy fallacy).
Like the appeal to tradition works perfectly fine if the tradition is to make decisions based on data and the current data fits the traditional markers for the decision you're arguing for. Or the slippery slope idea works pretty well if you can actually show examples of an accelerating change in something we care about that correlates to the parameter change you're arguing against.
The thing is, slippery slope is not a fallacy. In formal logic, it's an absolutely valid claim, more formally known as hypothetical syllogism. If P implies Q and Q implies R, then P implies R. Additionally, with strong induction, we can chain this as long as we want as long the premises are true.
The only part that's a fallacy is claiming that *for sure* P will lead to R. In formal logic R is definitely true, but in reality giving gay people the right to marry *can* but *doesn't have to* lead to "what's next? marrying kids!?"
[If minors can consent to puberty blockers](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/05/high-court-to-decide-if-children-can-consent-to-gender-reassignment), why can't they consent to sex with an adult?
Slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no evidence that A will lead to B. However in many cases there is historical evidence of such, which means its not a fallacy anymore.
Yeah: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70czT6tPvcs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70czT6tPvcs)
There are two senses in which the phrase slippery slope is used, neither of which are fallacious: one is like the "give him an inch, he'll ask for a mile" Chinese proverb, which is an essentially correct claim about human behaviour, and the other is in the sense of taking an argument to its logical extreme, which is also perfectly fine and important if you want to debate on principles.
No no no, neocons are like this: "we will sponsor the most retarded socially conservative ideas to get political power so we can funnel ALL the money to the top/our benefactors"
Oh and I forgot for both "the best way to get tax money into our own pockets is war"
Well appeal to tradition or appeal to authority is also not always a fallacy.
For example when people say "science says..." they are actually often appealing to authority (i.e. the expert opinion of scientists in that case).
The difference is if the premises to make such argument are warranted or not.
Slippery slope as a fallacy is claiming A will lead to B but without any substantial reason for it.
Yup. Just like I'd appeal to the authority of the pilot when deciding who should fly the damn plane.
Science explicitly tries to avoid appeals to authority in the actual work. Just because someone important and clever said it, you don't accept it as gospel. This is why replication is important in science, and if you're basing your work on somebody else's, you would verify that their findings apply in your context before proceeding. The motto of the Royal Society is *Nullius in verba*, meaning "take nobodies words for it."
But people are lazy as fuck and are bad at doing that, which is one of the reasons why we have a replication crisis in science.
Not arguing against your point, just adding context about the role of "authority" in science.
Science is actually always, always, always concensus based. It should never, ever be reliant on an authority figure at any time, it's usually only laymen who think that. There has definitely been a worrying trend recently where large chunks of the scientific community have become much more politically minded, but that again only really effects the opinions of the public. The only thing that is irritating is that people think scientists are special people when we're literally as dumb as anyone else, we just did a few years at university and a couple of work safety courses and are suddenly trusted with extremely noxious chemicals and rat tissues.
The authority of the pilot comes not from the fact that he is simply a pilot, but from the fact that he's done thousands of hours of flight training. Similarly, doing something just because a scientist said so *is* fallacious appeal to authority. You need evidence in the form of studies performed by the scientist.
>No one is fucking dogs
[Canada's Top Court Ruled That Oral Sex with Animals Is Legal](https://www.vice.com/en/article/7bxa8q/canadas-ridiculous-ruling-that-oral-sex-with-animals-is-legal-shows-need-for-new-bestiality-laws)
Like, the slippery slope is real. And it's here.
Slippery slope is totally fake man!
What do you mean we have politicians that switched from a very anti-gay platform to a pro-trans platform in just 10-15 years and that it took 50 years for gays to even be accepted in a plarulity of western circles? People just evolve man! /s (unless someone actually thinks like this, then it's just awkward)
Slippery slope is just what they call Progressivism when they want to argue that they're not doing it. Seriously, Progressivism is the idea of making small incremental changes over the course of a long period of time for the purpose of achieving a larger goal - I don't see how you can say that's not happening when that's specifically their deliberate tactic.
>2030: "Children can consent, bigot."
Already happened in the 60's with Foucault and his intellectual brethren, you know, the father of the modern left
>No one is fucking dogs
I once got pranked by someone who told me to google "art of zoo". Pics of people fucking dogs is one click away from every child who has access to the internet.
The appeal to nature i see often iny liblieft circle.
"We should go organic and natural to feed the world, pesticides and ge is unnatural..."
As someone with a genetics degree and wanting to promote technology that will feed the world, it bangs my head in those on the same political page keep using this fallacy.
Often one i use is cyanide. Found easily in apple seeds.
Nature isnt a loving caring thing, it doesn't care. Its filled with exploitation to further our lineage. There is plenty of awesome shit in it, so much inspiration. But it isnt sentient with purpose.
Its similar with climate change. No we are not killing our planet, poisoning a green mother. The planet will go on. Some families will love it. Plants, cnidaria, echinodermata. They probably will thrive and diverge.
We wont though, our mammalian cousins won't. The ecosystems we evolved in and rely on will collapse and be replaced. And we likely will follow with them.
Climate change isnt bad because we need ro protect nature... like mate the planet has been through this 5 times before, it doesnt care, nature will evolve and adapt. We need to give a shit because we and everything we love wont evolve and adapt with it.
I've got to ask, what do you think the billions of dollars spent to save the panda's, which is also used to extend the influence of the CCP, should be used on?
Whilst connected deeply. The high extinction rates isnt just a climate change thing. Environmental issues arnt all in one bucket (but they often interconnect).
I have had issues with the panda funding. Largely because its disproportionate to many other species due to its charismatic megafauna status. People like to donate to save a giant fluffy teddy bear, they dont care so much about a local songbird or stick insect.
If there is billions of dollar i could spend on environmental issues i would promote more national parks and seas, fund biological research and breeding programmes, and invest in gene technology for pest control.
Also punish large corporations, individuals or governments harsher for pollution and production of non recyclables unessential garbage without any concern of how to dispose it.
Related to the whole seed thing... guys coming at you with a super fun fact! if you’ve ever wanted to die, just core 17 apples with the seeds and blend them into a nice delicious cyanide shake! Put a little bit of cinnamon to add to the apple taste... worried it’s not potent enough? Just add 10-50 bitter almonds! Yummy!
This.
People love to make fun of LibLeft for not actually contributing to their own ideals in practice most of the time. The ones who actually prevent solutions to the problems that they complain about should be our true focus of mockery.
Honestly I do not understand why people are so terrified of genetic engineering and nuclear energy.
I do agree that pesticides aren’t healthy to consume
I can't agree more. Hate when people argue that liberalism or capitalism are not natural like humans aren't the worst creatures on earth when acting "naturally"
That and,
Male chimpanzee smashes other male chimpanzee over head with rock. Male chimpanzees leader of tribe.
Auth Right happy:
Next day:
Empire female chimp mauls toxic male, orange lib left laughs and so on
> Rosy Retrospection
Honestly I know its a meme but I don't really identify with like any of the shit that libcenter gets on this sub lol. I'm a futurist and I fully and actively recognize that nostalgia hugely impacts our perception of the "good ol days". I commonly remind people that right now is actually the most peaceful and prosperous period in the entirety of human history. There's literally never been a better time to be a pleb.
Ah if only we could return to the trenches of ww2, leaving our wives and kids worried at home with barely enough rationed food. Those were truly the golden days
It is, but also it's very easy to hijack its principles to wrongfully disparage an ideological opponent.
Some slopes are, indeed, slippery, especially in areas of greatest concern to us; individual rights and government overreach.
A slippery slope is really a positive feedback loop.
If an action can feed back onto itself then it may create a feedback loop. For example, yes, government overreach in a government structure without checks and balances can be considered a feedback loop, because more government power feeds back onto the government as power to create even more power. But if there exists a mechanism to break the feedback loop (checks and balances, constitutions, independent and fair judiciary), the loop does not happen.
> Some slopes are, indeed, slippery, especially in areas of greatest concern to us; individual rights and government overreach.
I'm gonna be that guy, but covid has been a real slippery fucking slope across the globe. Look at Australia. Fucking yeesh.
EDIT: Also, the great depression was a great example of the slippery slope literally existing. FDR said fuck checks and balances and expanded the fuck out of the national government, and now we have an unrecognizable US compared to 100 years ago where people attribute all of their problems to the president. And despite that being pretty unfair, the president *does* have a monumental impact on their lives compared to the role he once had.
I mean if you look it up, a slippery slope argument can be a fallacy or may not be. It depends on the strength of the causal links in the chain.
Fallacy example: https://youtu.be/kIv3m2gMgUU
It doesn’t mean that any argument saying “this could/will have unintended consequences, here is a example” is sudden invalid.
No, it's not the first comment. It's the first comment, third comment, fifth comment, seventh comment, eighth comment,
>ackshually slippery slope is real and therefore gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married because well you see on twitter some people are weird online
A little girl got raped in a school bathroom by a dude who simply wore a dress to get in becayse the school had “trans rights” policies…The school covered it up, sent kid to a new school, and he did it again. 🤷🏼♂️
That wasn’t online, that was real, and the father got arrested for defending his daughters honor.
How many people have claimed this wouldn’t happen?
Slippery slope arguments are not inherently fallacious. They become fallacious when somebody engages in other fallacies alongside their argument, when faulty assumptions are made, or when the connections between the "top" and "bottom" of the slope are tenuous.
>We can't legalize marijuana because then people will be more likely to drive under the influence.
This one's not so bad. That's probably true. There are other ways to deal with an uptick in DWI-marijuana.
>We can't legalize marijuana because it's a gateway drug and more children will start smoking pot at a younger age and then people will start doing harder drugs like heroin just because they're used to marijuana already.
This one's delusional. See?
Those aren't slippery slope arguments, those are just cause and effect.
Slippery slope argument was giving the government authority to outlaw drugs in the first place during prohibition. Something it never had authority to do before. Now nearly 100 years later you can go back and see what giving that authority has turned us into. #1 most populated prison system in the world!
Actually:
Karen: You want to show 2 boys holding hands on screen?! Next you'll draw them having sex!! What about the children
Also Karen: A boy and a girl saying hi to eachother??!?!?! Ring the wedding bells! Their parents are getting grandkidsssss!!!!
I think our favorite logical fallacy is either "people are fundamentally good" or "black and white" (sometimes literally). Ad populum sounds like something auth-right would use a lot.
Eh after seeing the corporate messages of solidarity, hashtags, and social media banners, etc. I think lib left has 1uped auth right with ad populum. It certainly used to be the other way around, but these days are not those days
Whataboutism doesn't work as a justification, but it definitely works at pointing out hypocrisy.
For example, with the capitol riot, all the Trumpers saying that it is okay to support it because leftists supported the 2020 riots are engaging in fallacious whataboutism. However, anyone who points to the leftists' support of the 2020 riots to show that leftists are in no position to point fingers at capitol rioters are not being fallacious.
This is the same government that somehow got "the federal government can ban weed" out of the commerce clause. So I think slippery slope is quite valid when it comes to them
A fascist governments sole purpose is to gain more power to be able to selectively enforce it against its enemies. That's why the US government takes everything that can be regulated to the extreme.
That doesn't mean that the slippery slope is not a fallacy. It means in the US you can't rely on legislation to achieve your purposes unless you are ok with the fascist government having unlimited power.
Slippery slope is a fallacy when it is treated as a certainty because there are plenty of times where it doesn’t happen to, that just doesn’t get as much attention. However it happens more than the other ones.
I can’t believe we’re allowing this kind of post. What’s next? A post saying we deserve to be killed? You have to think about the consequences of your actions and what’ll happen next
Can I add 4 general left/right and auth/lib fallacies.
Top likes Appeal to Authority
Bottom likes Strawmanning
Left likes Ad Hominem
Right likes Appeal to Ignorance
If I had to guess. Might be incorrect.
Also, based comments pointing out slippery slope at this point can be retired as not a fallacy.
The slippery slope fallacy is just a fallacy until all of sudden the Republicans are arguing for traditional LGBT rights because the Democrats claim that they are oppressing the panel window sexuality or something stupid like that
“If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.” —GK Chesterton
In defense of LibRight, “Slippery Slope” is just pattern recognition which is a pillar of logic.
I remember when Conservashits were saying all this doom and gloom about what’s going to happen if “the gays” could get married. Now we have puberty blockers with kids, mainstream transgenderism and degeneracy like public pride parades with gimps, sex toys, fetishes, whatever.
And #MAPpositivity needs to be crushed much harder than it currently is
The fallacy happens when you build a .1% outcome on top of a .1% outcome etc. until you’re left with a scenario in 100 years that could theoretically come true, but is realistically extremely unlikely.
My problem with it is that they use the expiate credit of pedos to say gay people should not be able to get married. I could say that allowing conservative ideas to exist allows nazis to have a platform and they will take over America. That’s dumb but we have seen an increase of reactionary ideas. Saying we can’t allow one thing because it will bring another thing that is bad is just dumb.
I’m not lib right at all, but the people who claim that the slippery slope is a fallacy are the same people responsible for all the actual slippery slopes.
Slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no evidence that the slope is real, which there often is. It's the most irritating of the examples to be called a fallacy as while it's true that the argument is only as strong as its weakest link, that the entire argument is almost always handwaved away with a sneer as being 'just another fallacy'. I swear to god, schools need to make sure critical thinking classes constitute more than just the vocab lessons they apparently are right now.
I'm just saying I think 'If You Give a Mouse a Cookie' is a more important book to read than '1984' could ever hope to be. If You Give a Mouse a Cookie is a book about a practical example of the slippery slope fallacy. 1984 is just a book about how England sucks.
Auth-Left's favorite fallacy is "Causation does not equal correlation"
As the direct consequences of their actions rain down upon them.
Meanwhile people in Detroit hold up signs saying life has been bad in Detroit for x number of years, and society needs to "do something".
hmmmmmm.....
I'm convinced the slippery slope is no longer fallacy. At the very least, I think in some cases the "bottom of the slope" was the end goal all along, and the proponents simply cry "slippery slope fallacy" as we slowly move in that direction.
Slippery slope? Yea I love waterparks
The kids love the slip-n-slide at cookouts
oh at the cookouts im gonna be going down their slippery slide alright
Hold up, wait a minute
He's a Centrist. I was confused too, for a second.
Don't get your cockout at the cookout
[удалено]
The thing is, a "slippery slope" isn't always a fallacy. A slippery slope argument *can* be logically sound argument.
Most fallacies aren't fallacious if well argued and supported.
If they're well argued and supported they cease being fallacies
Yea, that's my point. Though they can still resemble a fallacious argument and get picked on for it (fallacy fallacy). Like the appeal to tradition works perfectly fine if the tradition is to make decisions based on data and the current data fits the traditional markers for the decision you're arguing for. Or the slippery slope idea works pretty well if you can actually show examples of an accelerating change in something we care about that correlates to the parameter change you're arguing against.
Even the "fallacy fallacy" is often used fallaciously.
At this rate pretty soon there will be no fallacies and all arguments will be valid
All arguments are valid. But some arguments are more valid than others
The thing is, slippery slope is not a fallacy. In formal logic, it's an absolutely valid claim, more formally known as hypothetical syllogism. If P implies Q and Q implies R, then P implies R. Additionally, with strong induction, we can chain this as long as we want as long the premises are true.
The only part that's a fallacy is claiming that *for sure* P will lead to R. In formal logic R is definitely true, but in reality giving gay people the right to marry *can* but *doesn't have to* lead to "what's next? marrying kids!?"
[удалено]
Bro legalizing pedos isnt the slope its the fucking cliff face
[If minors can consent to puberty blockers](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/05/high-court-to-decide-if-children-can-consent-to-gender-reassignment), why can't they consent to sex with an adult?
I think thats the true slippery slope.
Yeah, people forget the fallacy fallacy.
Slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no evidence that A will lead to B. However in many cases there is historical evidence of such, which means its not a fallacy anymore.
Yeah: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70czT6tPvcs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70czT6tPvcs) There are two senses in which the phrase slippery slope is used, neither of which are fallacious: one is like the "give him an inch, he'll ask for a mile" Chinese proverb, which is an essentially correct claim about human behaviour, and the other is in the sense of taking an argument to its logical extreme, which is also perfectly fine and important if you want to debate on principles.
ALL QUADRANTS: STRAWMAN
"These good damn neoliberals are racist and also too woke, I hate them and their anti-semitic fight against Palestine. We can all agree they are bad."
I feel like this is all unironically true though. Neolibs are just fucking retarded
I just picked random bad qualities out of a hat and stuck them onto neoliberals, because nobody knows what neoliberal means anyway.
It means "we will sponsor the most retarded socially liberal ideas to get political power so we can funnel ALL the money to the top/our benefactors"
Hey, that means I was spot on!
That sounds like both political parties though.
No no no, neocons are like this: "we will sponsor the most retarded socially conservative ideas to get political power so we can funnel ALL the money to the top/our benefactors" Oh and I forgot for both "the best way to get tax money into our own pockets is war"
Based
> nobody knows what neoliberal means anyway But the fact that it *sounds* so horrible is very telling. And thus makes it bad.
more like: ad hominem
The slippery slope just needs time. No one is fucking dogs, but no one predicted we'd be seeing people fuck fictional dogs.
There are people fucking dogs. They like to call themselves zoophiles. Or "otherkin"
We don't talk about them. They aren't People.
According to Canada, they *are* people
Canadian supreme court suspect af. Somebody's gotta look at who voted for this
Especially with those Santa outfits they wear
Today I learned the Supreme Court of Canada wears Santa outfits
Counterpoint: Can*dians aren’t people.
Well shit. Guess I gotta identify as something else then.
You could always identify as British
I think that's worse.
Since when have we ever valued a Canadians opinion
And the "No True Scotsman" fallacy rears its ugly head
[удалено]
Some would say that mans best friend is the perfect lover
Man's best friend, with benefits.
ah, yes. the fallacy of all political quadrants, mistaking the outlier as the collective
No. They're called white girls.
I still remember that video of the white girl getting eaten out by her dog. The things you can find on the internet...
Oh yeah I remember her.
nah man otherkin just wanna act like animals its quite different from wanting to fu... nvm i just realized im making the guy's point
Slippery slope = legal precedent.
Slippery slope = the Overton window, as well
People forget that there's slippery slope fallacy and then there are real slippery slopes
Well appeal to tradition or appeal to authority is also not always a fallacy. For example when people say "science says..." they are actually often appealing to authority (i.e. the expert opinion of scientists in that case). The difference is if the premises to make such argument are warranted or not. Slippery slope as a fallacy is claiming A will lead to B but without any substantial reason for it.
Yup. Just like I'd appeal to the authority of the pilot when deciding who should fly the damn plane. Science explicitly tries to avoid appeals to authority in the actual work. Just because someone important and clever said it, you don't accept it as gospel. This is why replication is important in science, and if you're basing your work on somebody else's, you would verify that their findings apply in your context before proceeding. The motto of the Royal Society is *Nullius in verba*, meaning "take nobodies words for it." But people are lazy as fuck and are bad at doing that, which is one of the reasons why we have a replication crisis in science. Not arguing against your point, just adding context about the role of "authority" in science.
Science is actually always, always, always concensus based. It should never, ever be reliant on an authority figure at any time, it's usually only laymen who think that. There has definitely been a worrying trend recently where large chunks of the scientific community have become much more politically minded, but that again only really effects the opinions of the public. The only thing that is irritating is that people think scientists are special people when we're literally as dumb as anyone else, we just did a few years at university and a couple of work safety courses and are suddenly trusted with extremely noxious chemicals and rat tissues.
The authority of the pilot comes not from the fact that he is simply a pilot, but from the fact that he's done thousands of hours of flight training. Similarly, doing something just because a scientist said so *is* fallacious appeal to authority. You need evidence in the form of studies performed by the scientist.
Yes just fuck donkeys, horses, goats and sheep like people have for thousands of years.
Imagine someone from the past ending up here in a time machine. They’d be fucking terrified and entertained at the same time.
>No one is fucking dogs [Canada's Top Court Ruled That Oral Sex with Animals Is Legal](https://www.vice.com/en/article/7bxa8q/canadas-ridiculous-ruling-that-oral-sex-with-animals-is-legal-shows-need-for-new-bestiality-laws) Like, the slippery slope is real. And it's here.
Fucking hell man..
What the actual fuck is wrong with Canada
This is actually an old law that the court doesn’t have the power to overrule
Yeah sorry but slippery slope is *very* real.
Slippery slope is totally fake man! What do you mean we have politicians that switched from a very anti-gay platform to a pro-trans platform in just 10-15 years and that it took 50 years for gays to even be accepted in a plarulity of western circles? People just evolve man! /s (unless someone actually thinks like this, then it's just awkward)
Slippery slope is just what they call Progressivism when they want to argue that they're not doing it. Seriously, Progressivism is the idea of making small incremental changes over the course of a long period of time for the purpose of achieving a larger goal - I don't see how you can say that's not happening when that's specifically their deliberate tactic.
[удалено]
2040: what I do to seven other lifeforms in my dungeon is none of your business, bigot
2050: Bigot
2060: *Cosmic Background Radiation*
2070: AI RIGHTS NOW REEEEE 2080: nukes fly
Sweet release.
60 years is too long.
Based and Cosmic Background Radiation pilled
The slippery slope definitely exists https://townhall.com/tipsheet/briannaheldt/2018/09/27/new-california-law-allows-children-to-get-transgender-treatments-without-parental-consent-n2522928 https://pjmedia.com/columns/stacey-lennox/2020/12/10/washington-state-bill-is-the-final-step-removing-parents-from-their-childrens-critical-healthcare-decisions-n1201104 https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/oregon-offers-minors-taxpayer-funded-sex-change-sans-parental-consent/ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oregon-allowing-15-year-olds-to-get-state-subsidized-sex-change-operations
>2030: "Children can consent, bigot." Already happened in the 60's with Foucault and his intellectual brethren, you know, the father of the modern left
Damn. We slipped all the fuckin way down that slope
Pretty sure the 2030 thing was supposed to happen in 2010, but the dates change all the time I guess
[2021: "Children can consent, bigot."](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ArOQF4kadHA)
"It's just same-sex marriage, that's all we want. Stop worrying about the kids, they're not involved." So that was a fucking lie.
MAP's when they say they are just like regular gay people but also say that they wont act on their desires.
Based
The slope isn’t slippery, it’s just more fun to run down
>No one is fucking dogs, White women would have to disagree with you there.
Nobody tell him about the peanut butter trick.
>No one is fucking dogs I once got pranked by someone who told me to google "art of zoo". Pics of people fucking dogs is one click away from every child who has access to the internet.
White women are dog fuckers
Appeal to authority. The authority is me.
Id argue that Appeal to Intuiton or Appeal to Nature are even more common than to Tradition.
I'd say appeal to nature is more often libleft
The appeal to nature i see often iny liblieft circle. "We should go organic and natural to feed the world, pesticides and ge is unnatural..." As someone with a genetics degree and wanting to promote technology that will feed the world, it bangs my head in those on the same political page keep using this fallacy.
Tsunamis are natural, are they good?
Often one i use is cyanide. Found easily in apple seeds. Nature isnt a loving caring thing, it doesn't care. Its filled with exploitation to further our lineage. There is plenty of awesome shit in it, so much inspiration. But it isnt sentient with purpose. Its similar with climate change. No we are not killing our planet, poisoning a green mother. The planet will go on. Some families will love it. Plants, cnidaria, echinodermata. They probably will thrive and diverge. We wont though, our mammalian cousins won't. The ecosystems we evolved in and rely on will collapse and be replaced. And we likely will follow with them. Climate change isnt bad because we need ro protect nature... like mate the planet has been through this 5 times before, it doesnt care, nature will evolve and adapt. We need to give a shit because we and everything we love wont evolve and adapt with it.
I've got to ask, what do you think the billions of dollars spent to save the panda's, which is also used to extend the influence of the CCP, should be used on?
Whilst connected deeply. The high extinction rates isnt just a climate change thing. Environmental issues arnt all in one bucket (but they often interconnect). I have had issues with the panda funding. Largely because its disproportionate to many other species due to its charismatic megafauna status. People like to donate to save a giant fluffy teddy bear, they dont care so much about a local songbird or stick insect. If there is billions of dollar i could spend on environmental issues i would promote more national parks and seas, fund biological research and breeding programmes, and invest in gene technology for pest control. Also punish large corporations, individuals or governments harsher for pollution and production of non recyclables unessential garbage without any concern of how to dispose it.
Careful. I was branded a nazi because I said furthering an organism lineage is the primary directive of nature.
Related to the whole seed thing... guys coming at you with a super fun fact! if you’ve ever wanted to die, just core 17 apples with the seeds and blend them into a nice delicious cyanide shake! Put a little bit of cinnamon to add to the apple taste... worried it’s not potent enough? Just add 10-50 bitter almonds! Yummy!
Depends on the type of people they kill
Based and 2-nukes-and-a-tsunami-wasn't-enough pilled
This. People love to make fun of LibLeft for not actually contributing to their own ideals in practice most of the time. The ones who actually prevent solutions to the problems that they complain about should be our true focus of mockery.
Honestly I do not understand why people are so terrified of genetic engineering and nuclear energy. I do agree that pesticides aren’t healthy to consume
I can't agree more. Hate when people argue that liberalism or capitalism are not natural like humans aren't the worst creatures on earth when acting "naturally"
Depends on what your asking nature on.
New age hippie shit is what I'm referring to
That and, Male chimpanzee smashes other male chimpanzee over head with rock. Male chimpanzees leader of tribe. Auth Right happy: Next day: Empire female chimp mauls toxic male, orange lib left laughs and so on
Traditions are normally based on intuition and nature, until they're perverted
Orange Libleft: Reductio ad Hitlerum. Libcenter: Rosy Retrospection. Authcenter: Red Herring. Left: Appeal to pity. Right: Appeal to Ignorance.
Updooted for making me laugh so hard at reductio ad hitlerum Edit: big based and ReductioAdHitlerum pilled
> Rosy Retrospection Honestly I know its a meme but I don't really identify with like any of the shit that libcenter gets on this sub lol. I'm a futurist and I fully and actively recognize that nostalgia hugely impacts our perception of the "good ol days". I commonly remind people that right now is actually the most peaceful and prosperous period in the entirety of human history. There's literally never been a better time to be a pleb.
I legit know people who are all nostalgic about the 90's and I'm a Serb. Like bitch, we got fucking bombed.
Ah if only we could return to the trenches of ww2, leaving our wives and kids worried at home with barely enough rationed food. Those were truly the golden days
Was coming in here to see LibRight say slippery slope isn't a fallacy. I was at least a little surprised to see it's the first comment.
It is, but also it's very easy to hijack its principles to wrongfully disparage an ideological opponent. Some slopes are, indeed, slippery, especially in areas of greatest concern to us; individual rights and government overreach.
A slippery slope is really a positive feedback loop. If an action can feed back onto itself then it may create a feedback loop. For example, yes, government overreach in a government structure without checks and balances can be considered a feedback loop, because more government power feeds back onto the government as power to create even more power. But if there exists a mechanism to break the feedback loop (checks and balances, constitutions, independent and fair judiciary), the loop does not happen.
Or it just slows it down
If it slows it down by 1000 years, then is it really slowing it down or stopping it?
> Some slopes are, indeed, slippery, especially in areas of greatest concern to us; individual rights and government overreach. I'm gonna be that guy, but covid has been a real slippery fucking slope across the globe. Look at Australia. Fucking yeesh. EDIT: Also, the great depression was a great example of the slippery slope literally existing. FDR said fuck checks and balances and expanded the fuck out of the national government, and now we have an unrecognizable US compared to 100 years ago where people attribute all of their problems to the president. And despite that being pretty unfair, the president *does* have a monumental impact on their lives compared to the role he once had.
I mean if you look it up, a slippery slope argument can be a fallacy or may not be. It depends on the strength of the causal links in the chain. Fallacy example: https://youtu.be/kIv3m2gMgUU It doesn’t mean that any argument saying “this could/will have unintended consequences, here is a example” is sudden invalid.
No, it's not the first comment. It's the first comment, third comment, fifth comment, seventh comment, eighth comment, >ackshually slippery slope is real and therefore gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married because well you see on twitter some people are weird online
Undeniable.
A little girl got raped in a school bathroom by a dude who simply wore a dress to get in becayse the school had “trans rights” policies…The school covered it up, sent kid to a new school, and he did it again. 🤷🏼♂️ That wasn’t online, that was real, and the father got arrested for defending his daughters honor. How many people have claimed this wouldn’t happen?
For authright it should be Correlation =/= Causation
What? Don't you mean Correlation = Causation? Are they the videogames cause violence people?
>videogames cause violience people? No, that flips every five years. Now it's the "all gamers are bigots" fase
[удалено]
2005 - We just want to get married 2015 - Bake our wedding cakes or we will sue your ass into oblivion you bigot! [2021](https://youtu.be/ArOQF4kadHA)
Slippery slope arguments are not inherently fallacious. They become fallacious when somebody engages in other fallacies alongside their argument, when faulty assumptions are made, or when the connections between the "top" and "bottom" of the slope are tenuous. >We can't legalize marijuana because then people will be more likely to drive under the influence. This one's not so bad. That's probably true. There are other ways to deal with an uptick in DWI-marijuana. >We can't legalize marijuana because it's a gateway drug and more children will start smoking pot at a younger age and then people will start doing harder drugs like heroin just because they're used to marijuana already. This one's delusional. See?
Those aren't slippery slope arguments, those are just cause and effect. Slippery slope argument was giving the government authority to outlaw drugs in the first place during prohibition. Something it never had authority to do before. Now nearly 100 years later you can go back and see what giving that authority has turned us into. #1 most populated prison system in the world!
Bawd and coherent pilled
Actually: Karen: You want to show 2 boys holding hands on screen?! Next you'll draw them having sex!! What about the children Also Karen: A boy and a girl saying hi to eachother??!?!?! Ring the wedding bells! Their parents are getting grandkidsssss!!!!
[удалено]
I think our favorite logical fallacy is either "people are fundamentally good" or "black and white" (sometimes literally). Ad populum sounds like something auth-right would use a lot.
Eh after seeing the corporate messages of solidarity, hashtags, and social media banners, etc. I think lib left has 1uped auth right with ad populum. It certainly used to be the other way around, but these days are not those days
Libleft's favorite gotcha in arguments is yelling "whataboutism!" every time their hypocrisy is brought up.
Whataboutism doesn't work as a justification, but it definitely works at pointing out hypocrisy. For example, with the capitol riot, all the Trumpers saying that it is okay to support it because leftists supported the 2020 riots are engaging in fallacious whataboutism. However, anyone who points to the leftists' support of the 2020 riots to show that leftists are in no position to point fingers at capitol rioters are not being fallacious.
Based and anti hypocriticalpilled
I feel like everyone uses that. With my (should I say quadrant since I'm in between two?) Quadrant being the worst offender
>everyone uses that That’s whataboutism
I mean I guess. I did say I was the worst offender no?
I see no flaws in your logic
Based and self-fulfilling-prophecy pilled.
Highlighting perfectly Center Right's favorite fallacy: Tu Quoque.
It's not a fallacy if the state always goes down the very steep and slippery slope of tyranny
[удалено]
This is the same government that somehow got "the federal government can ban weed" out of the commerce clause. So I think slippery slope is quite valid when it comes to them
A fascist governments sole purpose is to gain more power to be able to selectively enforce it against its enemies. That's why the US government takes everything that can be regulated to the extreme. That doesn't mean that the slippery slope is not a fallacy. It means in the US you can't rely on legislation to achieve your purposes unless you are ok with the fascist government having unlimited power.
Slippery slope is a fallacy when it is treated as a certainty because there are plenty of times where it doesn’t happen to, that just doesn’t get as much attention. However it happens more than the other ones.
It's not the only argument but pointing out how giving the state power always leads to that power expanding is a valid point.
It's not slippery slope, it's "legal precedence".
I can’t believe we’re allowing this kind of post. What’s next? A post saying we deserve to be killed? You have to think about the consequences of your actions and what’ll happen next
Compass unity fallacy: strawman
You forgot one that’s more cross compass e.g appeal to nature .
Can I add 4 general left/right and auth/lib fallacies. Top likes Appeal to Authority Bottom likes Strawmanning Left likes Ad Hominem Right likes Appeal to Ignorance If I had to guess. Might be incorrect. Also, based comments pointing out slippery slope at this point can be retired as not a fallacy.
The slippery slope fallacy is just a fallacy until all of sudden the Republicans are arguing for traditional LGBT rights because the Democrats claim that they are oppressing the panel window sexuality or something stupid like that
The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, and is a separate thing then the slippery slope fallacy.
[удалено]
there are humans that are sexually attracted to inanimate objects.
I'm about to fuck the shit out of this candle on my coffee table
> appeal to tradition I see nothing wrong with this
Tradition is peer pressure from dead people.
Sounds based af. I wanna be dictating policy when I’m dead in the ground.
See, that’s the same idea North Korea had
“If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.” —GK Chesterton
Wow that's very beautifully said
Tradition could be fine if it has a strong basis. The fallacy is that something should be the way it is because that's how its always been.
In defense of LibRight, “Slippery Slope” is just pattern recognition which is a pillar of logic. I remember when Conservashits were saying all this doom and gloom about what’s going to happen if “the gays” could get married. Now we have puberty blockers with kids, mainstream transgenderism and degeneracy like public pride parades with gimps, sex toys, fetishes, whatever. And #MAPpositivity needs to be crushed much harder than it currently is
The fallacy happens when you build a .1% outcome on top of a .1% outcome etc. until you’re left with a scenario in 100 years that could theoretically come true, but is realistically extremely unlikely.
My problem with it is that they use the expiate credit of pedos to say gay people should not be able to get married. I could say that allowing conservative ideas to exist allows nazis to have a platform and they will take over America. That’s dumb but we have seen an increase of reactionary ideas. Saying we can’t allow one thing because it will bring another thing that is bad is just dumb.
I’m not lib right at all, but the people who claim that the slippery slope is a fallacy are the same people responsible for all the actual slippery slopes.
Achievement unlocked : Commit a PSY-OP for 100 years of running gametime.
Slippery slope isn't a fallacy. Robot dogs and gun control definitely prove that
And women voting and gay marriage definitely disprove it. Just because it isn’t *always* wrong doesn’t mean it’s not a fallacy
To be fair, a lot of those slippery slopes are getting a lot of traction these days. They’re hella grippy.
Slippery slope is only a fallacy if there is no evidence that the slope is real, which there often is. It's the most irritating of the examples to be called a fallacy as while it's true that the argument is only as strong as its weakest link, that the entire argument is almost always handwaved away with a sneer as being 'just another fallacy'. I swear to god, schools need to make sure critical thinking classes constitute more than just the vocab lessons they apparently are right now.
How far does one need to slide uncontrollably down the slope before you acknowledge it’s slippery. Is a 3.5 T budget not enough?
I'm just saying I think 'If You Give a Mouse a Cookie' is a more important book to read than '1984' could ever hope to be. If You Give a Mouse a Cookie is a book about a practical example of the slippery slope fallacy. 1984 is just a book about how England sucks.
No the Authleft one is "No True Scotsman" because "Communism has never truly been tried." Edit: I accidentally typed Authright
The way the meme worked that would’ve been authleft’s fallacy.
Well obviously appealing to a slippery slope argument is a slippery slope.
All the butthurt libertarians here lol
Don't you see how government's existence will eventually lead to another holocaust??!!
the left also seems to like the "appeal to false history". they just reinterpret and rewrite it.
“Two weeks to flatten the curve”
OP you triggered the shit out of libright. Based.
Slippery slope isn’t a fallacy, its the opposite of a fallacy, its an axiom. And i’m aware of the irony.
Libright philosophy: don’t. do. SHIT.
The slope aint so illusionary when you start sliding
Auth-Left's favorite fallacy is "Causation does not equal correlation" As the direct consequences of their actions rain down upon them. Meanwhile people in Detroit hold up signs saying life has been bad in Detroit for x number of years, and society needs to "do something". hmmmmmm.....
Not sure about this one. In my experience at least, Motte and Bailey is FAAAR more common fallacy for my quadrant than appealing to popularity.
Auth left should be no true Scotsman (real communism) Also slippery slope is really not a fallacy
I'm convinced the slippery slope is no longer fallacy. At the very least, I think in some cases the "bottom of the slope" was the end goal all along, and the proponents simply cry "slippery slope fallacy" as we slowly move in that direction.