How is this a logical fallacy?

How is this a logical fallacy?
Hasn't society been on a slippery slope throughout most of human civilization?
Legalizing gay marriage led to people being more tolerant of fags, which led to fags in assless chaps walking down the street sucking on dildos and squirting makeshift semen on children.
Seems to me the case of criminalizing homosexuality would hold ground knowing where its tolerance could eventually end up.

Attached: modsequalfags.png (274x177, 62.28K)

>That cock sucking cum sucking post
You're on a slippery slope user.

You would need to explain how OI would get from a to b. What happens in between. It won’t happen immediate but it will probably gradually happen.

Is a slippery slope towards worse logical fallacies.

>and squirting makeshift semen on children.
case in point

Attached: fagsbeingfags.gif (475x787, 3.66M)

Fuck this gay earth

its called progress. It will arrive from b through the reasoning that led to the conclusion of a.
the reasoning will not stop, the culture that gave rise to a happening will not stop, hence we will get to b. the causal relationship goes without saying, or when it is said it is disregarded and ignored.

I mean the idea is right but the reassigning is retarted. You would be better off slowly getting to the consequence rather than right away. Then again, this is how I think about it when it comes to essays.

There is no such thing as logical fallacies. They're only used by people not interested in conversation. No sentence have any exact meaning so muh logical fallacy is just a way for the opposition to pretend he won instead of seeking truth.

*reasoning
Phone fag

It’s not a fallacy. We are on a slippery slope into chaos.

It's a logical fallacy in the absence of additional information connecting the steps.
Of course this is often abused to reject arguments even when such additional information is provided.

Sounds right.

what happens in between is that the overton window shifts and suddenly 'A' being okay makes 'B' something to consider and discuss, now that 'A' is out of the way.

slippery slopes exist everywhere.

>they want to gay at straight people
>they gay at straight people
>if we encourage them to gay
>they will gay at us more

People would say its slippery slope and by your definition it isnt.

>cause and effect
>logical fallacy
???

How is "No True Scotsman" a fallacy? According to the UK government, Pakistanis are no less Scottish than Scots.
Does that mean if you refuse to refer to muzzie rape gangs as a Scottish issue, that you are simply wrong?
The pakis call themselves Scottish when the cameras are rolling, and their government will have you arrested if you dare to say that they are NOT Scottish in public.

are those kids in the lower right corner that thing is "spraying" at?

it's a fallacy fallacy. Just because something is a 'fallacy' doesn't mean it isn't true.
When saying ''earthquakes are caused by homosexuality'' that is a fallacy.
Claiming ''pedophile homosexuals are pushing for homosexual rights because they eventually want to change the age of consent'' appears to be a slippery slope, but is infact just correctly predicting intent in the context of large-scale-politics involving large population numbers.

Attached: 1555105548854.jpg (768x461, 58.37K)

Slippery slopes tend to be true but some justification is needed. Most people would still claim the fallacy regardless. They love to hammer this stuff in college.

This is why we hate the "slippery slope" excuse. Yes it is.

Pic_related describes a normative proposition and is thus not amenable to logical deduction.

By transitive implication

x y z so therefore
x z which contraposes to
!z !x which by modal inflection would be

!◻z !◻x

"If z is to be avoided then x must be avoided"

it's only a fallacy when you can't provide a strong case for a leading to b leading to c, etc
of course people love to twist words and call anything they don't like a fallacy

Declaring something that is true a "fallacy" is yet another tactic to discredit a valid argument. If anything, the "slippery slope" argument has been proven to be true, over and over again. Degeneracy begets further degeneracy, easily observable by the fact that women on Twitter openly talk about fucking their dogs and tranny porn is everywhere. In the case of Gun rights, the definition of what an assault weapon is has been changed to further infringe on our rights. There is literally no argument against this as it is easily observable by even a brainlet, so now it is a "fallacy".

Because anime tiddies are also a slippery slope to gay marriage. Making gay marriage illegal is a slippery slope to making straight marriage illegal. Traffic laws are a slippery slope to car control and car control is a slippery slope to gun control. You can have your problems with individual issues, but shifting the conversation to a different issue you believe is related is to avoid actually talking about the issue at hand.

How is this a thread?

Attached: 1569882710010.jpg (381x424, 202.61K)

No true Scotsman is mainly about circular arguments.

“Here’s an example of a catholic priest who rapes kids. You’re saying they don’t”

“Ah yes, but no TRUE catholic priest would rape kids. Thus, there are no such cases”

This so much.

"a good person wouldn't kill children"
"reeeee, no true Scotsman!"

This. Colleges make fallacy’s look like they are bad. That’s not the case for all of them.

it stripped my conditional operator symbols out. Let's try again with babby's first ascii set:

x > y > z so therefore
x > z which contraposes to
!z > !x which by modal inflection

!◻z > !◻x

It's called entropy dumb dumb you need to understand leftist will to power and bioleninist party structure created by a need for a post class struggle dialectic brainlet.

Attached: image.png (599x453, 373.64K)

Yes.
The UK government says that rape gangs are not a muslim problem, they are a Scottish problem.
The issue is that one can simply self-define as 'Scottish' without hindrance, in fact if you have brown skin the UK government will help you along every step of the way in becoming a "True Scottsman"
Tell me, by the way, which part of scripture entails priests to little boys? Or are you simply arguing in bad faith?

Foiled again

Logical fallacy does not imply conclusion false, it just means, more supporting premises are required to make the argument logical.

Obviously a change in one direction does not imply that in all cases it will continue in that direction. You need to establish other premises such as the lack of a barrier or limiting factor to the change, or a positive feedback mechanism etc. a lot of real world slippery slopes have these other factors

You're confusing noting trends with slippery slope fallacy. Saying "voting for Trump is a slippery slope to nazi America" is just as sound logic as "gay marriage is a slippery slope to child marriage". You can note the trend, but to use the trend as your excuse to be for or against something reduces the issue to whatever nightmare scenario you want.

this nigga be out here using squares and shit

Who the fuck cares about Faggots and Trannies so much? Look at your own family and the families you know. In the US there is a 50% divorce rate. There are broken families everywhere. What is happening to these families? Are faggots running around seducing heterosexual husbands and wives? NO. Wives are cucking their husbands, and husbands are fucking around on their wives, often with the wives of other men. Families and kids are harmed in the process. Faggots have nothing to do with most broken homes.
My father was a bit of an overachiever: He was sleeping with a neighbor's wife, so he managed to mangle two families with his out-of-control dick. My Mom wasn't easy to live with, but because of my Dad 5 kids in 2 families had their lives turned upside down. Both families divorced and both had to relocate and change schools, among other things. It also taught us all not to trust our neighbors (everyone is White here btw). Shit like this happens constantly, I'm sure it's no different in your community.
So why don't we focus our wrath on adulterers rather than faggots? Faggots and trannies may be repulsive, but if you want to save White families then adulterers have to get the rope.

Attached: SEDUCTION.jpg (1920x1920, 673.78K)

But those things already happened before gay marriage. Pride parades and fetish shit like Folsom were already things, as we're pedos. Drag queen bullshit has come from RuPaul's drag race becoming mainstream.

People said it would lead to marrying animals, family members and so on. This stuff hasn't happened.

If i want to check a direction of a line i need 2 points. The argument is not knowing the direction of a line because you dont have ALL the points of the entire line which is impossible.

>People said it would lead to marrying animals, family members and so on. This stuff hasn't happened.
Yet.

It's only a logical fallacy WHEN THERE IS NO PRECEDENCE.
If, historically, A leads to Z, then that is NOT slippery slope, and you should address said fallacy in such a fashion.
>"There is historical precedence in example A, B, & C."

There's at least a correlation with a slippery-slope type situation when you consider the shift in attention from Homosexuals to the Transgender. Just because the slippery slope is considered a fallacy in conjecture doesn't automatically deny any possibility of it being true without regard to evidence.

Slippery slope and Occam's razor are two logical fallacies which have limited validity. Both of them are are legitimate fallacies but only to a point. In the case of slippery slope "just because A happened does not mean it will lead to B" this is true unless further evidence or a trend are established. And as far as Occam's razor, there being a simpler solution than a complex one is valid until it is used to beg the question and argue that "it can't be malice it must be negligence".

Yes.

I guess this is true as well. I guess it's all about the context in which its used, but again that shouldn't mean the argument itself can automatically be dismissed.

It's only a slippery slope if you don't explain why A leads to Z.

I would assume you dont know if its a slippery slope or not ahead of time. So you cannot assume slippery slope only notice it after its passed.

it's only a fallacy if you don't properly argue the inevitability of the follow of z.

perhaps not the inevitability but the likelihood depending how strict you want to be with your rhetoric.

marx was right we need social democracy in america now. we can be like norway if rural retards got out of the way.

those damn chinese are slippery slopes. Every one of them.

Attached: 1585112785530.gif (240x228, 771.34K)

Accurate.

>if you fill up a balloon with helium
>it wont necessarily rise
epistemology is for retards.

lrn2 modal logic

it's not a fallacy in itself, moreso that using slippery slope cannot effectively prove anything, just speculation (which most of it is common sense, but you have to logically point out how A leads to B, not just "if A then B will happen"

Attached: 1583699497068.jpg (2000x3000, 504.05K)

Marx dabbed on colleges when he said "philosophers have only tried to explain the world; the important thing is to change it!".

People dismiss it because it's always used selectively. If someone is arguing that all forms of degeneracy are bad and are there to focus on more than just gay marriage, there's the start of an actual argument. If not, the trend is only selectively used to attack one form of degeneracy, and suddenly it's apparent that degeneracy itself isn't the problem. "Degeneracy" becomes the marketable word for just "gay shit I don't like".

canada literally decriminalized sex with animals

but more importantly people said it would lead to pedophilia which is has
the animal shit was a straw man

>People said it would lead to marrying animals, family members and so on. This stuff hasn't happened.
No, but it is slowly but surely being pushed into the mainstream consciousness that being a pedo is just a sexual preference and that they aren’t as much of a threat to society as commonly believed. That is absolutely happening.

By who? Japan? Is anime the problem?

All change takes place over time. Instantaneous A therefore B only exists in the world of pure logic. In the real world, A gradually changes into B over some amount of time. The slippery slope is a logical axiom, not a fallacy.

It's a fallacy when you simply say "a will lead to b" without explanation as to why or how. When you articulate how the trajectory of "a" can lead to "b" then it is not a fallacy. What really makes the "muh fallacy" argument fall through nowadays is that we no longer argue a to b. We have dozens of points from a to z and beyond through which we can predict the future by simple extrapolation. Moreover, not every country is on the same level of fucked so you can just point out a country further down the slope and say "this literally already happened".

Because most arguments and the people who argue the “slippery slope doesn’t exist” only deal with the now and take the “we’ll just sit back and see what happens, and when it happens it happens” approach. It’s frustrating but that’s just the way it is

Attached: F8F565F2-7036-44BB-B744-F7DFD88A694F.jpg (500x320, 33.6K)

It's not a fallacy, it's cringe from 15 years ago when Yas Forums was started by fedora faggots.