[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 43 KB, 599x328, 0_E8UwhawSQyAISVhp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17260990 No.17260990 [Reply] [Original]

>slippery slope
>no true scotsman

Are these actually fallacies?

>> No.17260994
File: 78 KB, 850x400, osama_bin_laden_jewish_trench.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17260994

>>17260990

>> No.17261005

Sometimes yes and sometimes no

>> No.17261010

>>17260990
Yes

>> No.17261019

who is the "we" supposed to be? zionists are such creeps

>> No.17261039

the fallacy fallacy is the fallacy that implies that if an argument is structured like a fallacy, it should be immediately disregarded. Sometimes two things can be true. For example I believe it’s usually wrong to assume that one relaxation of societal rules is necessarily going to precipitate the relaxation of other, more important rules, but I certainly think giving faggots acceptance has increased the level of nihilism and degeneracy in society.

>> No.17261877

Sam Harris is literally the midget with the big ear that Nietzsche spike of

>> No.17262912

The slippery slope is true. It's not wrong to say something is bad because it leads to worse things. That's just objectively true. Anyone calling this a "fallacy" is a pretentious idiot. If someone calls you out on your slippery slope, your job is to explain why it's not a slippery slope and will not lead to problems, not to say," UmMmM fallacy!" Answer the concern.

No true scotsman is a fallacy when something is not true by definition. To say "All conservatives believe in conserving tradition, if you don't you're not a conservative" is NOT a fallacy because it's simply the definition of the word. To say "All murderers are psychopaths because I think murdering makes you a psychopath" is a fallacy because it's not true by definition, there are many murderers who do not have psychopathy. You're not making a good point about murderers, you're just changing the meaning. People think it's clever to say something like, "Humans are always selfish because when you do something nice it makes you feel good so that's selfish." In reality that's a VERY weak argument. You are not proving that people are always selfish. You are attempting to change the definition of selfish to close all gaps and make your argument self sealing, which weakens your argument to literally nothing. If it's just true by your definition then there's nothing to argue. You failed to prove the point so you just changed the definition. That's a fallacy. Sometimes you ARE arguing that it is the definition, and that is ok, like the conservative example, but make sure you actually want to argue that it is true by definition rather than true out in the world.

>> No.17262958

>>17261039
You're suffering from cognitive dissonance anon.

>> No.17263993

>>17260994
>>17260990
Who was right?

>> No.17264004

Tranny bathrooms is proof enough that the slippery slope is not a fallacy

>> No.17264058

>>17260990
Who do you see deploying them, and against whom? Here are two examples that should illustrate the nature of the phenomenon.
1. A Catholic argues that the legalization of contraception and the reconceptualization of the marital bond as companionate, voluntary, and based on love will undercut the material and intellectual bases of marriage and necessarily lead to its decay and destruction. A critic responds by accusing him of committing the slippery slope fallacy and claiming that the legalization of contraception will have no effect other than to make sex safer.

2. A Muslim argues that those who claim that Islam is compatible with sodomy, same-sex marriage, and feminism cannot be considered a Muslim, because accepting these beliefs requires the overt or covert negation of both the literal wording and the spirit of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. A critic accuses him of committing the no true Scotsman fallacy and claims that a Muslim is anyone who describes themselves as such.

Think less about whether or not a thing is a "fallacy" and more about who came up with it, against whom it has been deployed, and what set of beliefs it tends to support.

>> No.17264069

>>17263993
both

>> No.17264117

>>17260990
They can be, but they're massively overused. As is stuff like "ad hominem".
>>17261039
Yep, internet midwits of the New Atheist/nowadays LessWrong variety can always be relied on to look exclusively at the form of an argument instead of its content.
Also, 99% of people who invoke muh scotsman on the internet simply don't know what words mean.

>> No.17264128

>>17260990
>Are these actually fallacies?
Only if I don't agree with what you're saying. Otherwise they're sound logical arguments.

>> No.17264143

>>17262912
>"Humans are always selfish because when you do something nice it makes you feel good so that's selfish." In reality that's a VERY weak argument
That's not weak at all. If you weren't selfish you would be literally dead. Nature selects for selfishness. Pushovers don't get to reproduce.