/lit/ - Literature

>>23266761
It's not saying that slippery slopes don't exist, but rather that just stating that something shouldn't be done because it will lead to these other bad things in the future, without providing the appropriate justification, is illogical.

>>23266779
There is no logical reason that saying "no one is HARMED by two men having intercourse," leads to "no one is HARMED by a man and horse having intercourse," which leads to "no one is HARMED by (insert whatever you can imagine)." It is always possible to use qualifiers for each individual case. Horses? They can't consent. Well, what is consent? The same argumentation that leads to the idea that children can consent to sex change or puberty blockers is the same argumentation that lead to children being able to consent to euthanasia, which is the same argumentation that will be used to say that children can consent to sex.
However, none of this LOGICALLY and DEFINITELY follows from one another.

>>23266788
>troons exist because eve ate the apple

>>23266791
Yes literally.
Knowledge of Good and Evil = The Subjective Nature of Morality
Once that happened, they could say, "Well... Nothing is OBJECTIVELY..."

>>23266779
Seconding this. At best, the slippery slope is a rhetorical shorthand argument when a larger and more thorough argument can't take place, but it doesn't strictly demonstrate anything by itself. One may find, sometimes, that someone who's used a slippery slope argument, was correct, but this depends on so many other facts. To use ypur historical example of Protestant reformation -> French revolution -> modern tyrannies, just asserting this is to assert something (or rather several things) that is/are overdetermined, since it's otherwise unclear what specifically is causing this or that.

>>23266761
I agree I don't think they are logical fallacies at all. They might not directly address the exact point of contention but it's expressing a valid sentiment

>>23266761
Do Catholic Christcucks who say that Luther lead to abortion or whatever ever implicate Americans like Thomas Jefferson for throwing away the classical philosophies of Aristotle and Plato?
>The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost every thing written before on the structure of government: and in a great measure relieves our regret if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other antient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us.
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0234

>>23266761
Most people are literally retarded when it comes to certain things. Even worse, batshit fucking crazy full of nonsense people. Like clinically insane.
Once you realize this your life will be easier.

>>23266761
I completely agree with you OP, most claims of logical fallacies are uttured by lazy and stupid people unable to use their mind. You present and argument, and their little Reddit brain desperately tries to link it to the jpg of known logical fallacies they have saved somewhere in their brain. Sad, really.

>>23266761
All fallacies are bullshit. Name a single valid fallacy.

>>23267821
No Real Scotsman.
Which is ironic given your statement.

>>23266761

Perhaps looking back you see the line, but you cannot logically show how that line MUST be then only direction/path. Your hindsight is not logical proof.

>>23266761
Just because a thing has always happened in the past, doesn't mean it necessarily has to happen again in the future.
Therefore, your ideas of common sense and self preservation are just paranoid delusions, goy.

>>23266761
because there's nothing deductive about it

>>23269148
It's an empirical argument

>>23266761
>You can draw a straight descending line connecting the Protestant Reformation through the French Revolution down to modern trannies.
Anti-whig interpretation of history is as wrong as the whig version.

>>23266788
I never got this argument. Gay relationships cause a lot of disease, from the bacterial to the superviral

it's a fallacy not because it's not true but because it doesn't actually provide any argument to the case, only a separate one, like if you invented marriage between men and women and someone said that eventually someone might marry a dog or an anime girl, it's a slippery slope argument when used against men+women marriage because it's not arguing against that at all

>>23266761
>You can draw a straight descending line connecting the Protestant Reformation through the French Revolution down to modern trannies.
The absolute state of modern chud historiography

>>23266761
>You can draw a straight descending line