Current Events > The "slippery slope" argument is often seen as fallacious, but...

(+) Yeah! (+)

sometimes, that's exactly what happens. One ridiculous thing leads to another, and the bar just gradually gets lower...

---

Like one drink leading to twenty?

---

Things sometimes happen is a bad arguement tho

---

furb posted...

Things sometimes happen is a bad arguement tho

I cant argue against it tbqh

---

An argument can turn out to be correct while still not being sound. Yes, the slippery slope could happen, but if you don't have sufficient reasoning or evidence to support it, then you can't assume it will happen.

---

EmbraceOfDeath posted...

An argument can turn out to be correct while still not being sound. Yes, the slippery slope could happen, but if you don't have sufficient reasoning or evidence to support it, then you can't assume it will happen.

That's all subjective. Reasoning I mean, not necessarily evidence.

---

You're saying slippery slope arguments are ok. What's next? Strawmans?!

---

Slippery slope is generally used as an argument against granting people additional rights because this would somehow lead into necrophile child brides. In order for it to be a fallacy you have to ignore clearly different qualities of situations for a slope to be a fallacy.

The fact is, I'm at the top of the slope and I can see the bottom. It's just rocks and dirt. Saying it goes straight into a magma river is bullshit.


---

RetsuZaiZen posted...

That's all subjective

What are you saying is subjective? Both sentences in my post are objective statements. The only thing subjective is how much reasoning and evidence it takes to convince you of something.

---

Squall28 posted...

You're saying slippery slope arguments are ok. What's next? Strawmans?!

Hell, it's all going to be reductio ad hitlerum before we know it.

Squall28 posted...

You're saying slippery slope arguments are ok. What's next? Strawmans?!

I'm saying slippery slope arguments are sometimes valid. Strawman arguments are fundamentally flawed, so they don't compare.

---

the0rebirth posted...

I'm saying slippery slope arguments are sometimes valid. Strawman arguments are fundamentally flawed, so they don't compare.

Strawmans aren't automatically wrong just because they're strawmans. See: Fallacy Fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Strawmans aren't automatically wrong just because they're strawmans. See: Fallacy Fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Strawmans are specifically automatically wrong because they're literally predicated on misrepresenting a person's position. If I say "sunny weather is the best" and you respond with "so what you're saying is, cloudy weather sucks?", you'll never win because the very foundation of your rebuttal is bullshit.

---

the0rebirth posted...

sometimes, that's exactly what happens. One ridiculous thing leads to another, and the bar just gradually gets lower...

The slippery slope is only a fallacy when cause and effect are actually related, is the thing. You're right that one ridiculous thing can lead to another; it's only a fallacious argument when there's weak evidence for the chains of cause and effect.

For example: "You let people get gay married, and soon they'll want to marry dogs and overthrow the government!"

vs

"You let people just eat sugary shit whenever, health problems are doing to rise, and health insurance rates will rise with that."

---

Guide posted...

The slippery slope is only a fallacy when cause and effect are actually related, is the thing. You're right that one ridiculous thing can lead to another; it's only a fallacious argument when there's weak evidence for the chains of cause and effect.

For example: "You let people get gay married, and soon they'll want to marry dogs and overthrow the government!"

vs

"You let people just eat sugary shit whenever, health problems are doing to rise, and health insurance rates will rise with that."

Precisely!

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Strawmans aren't automatically wrong just because they're strawmans. See: Fallacy Fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Strawmen may contain factual statements, but be inadmissible for the purpose of argument.

---

the0rebirth posted...

Strawmans are specifically automatically wrong because they're literally predicated on misrepresenting a person's position. If I say "sunny weather is the best" and you respond with "so what you're saying is, cloudy weather sucks?, you'll never win because the very foundation of your rebuttal is bullshit.

Strawman arguments are about setting up weak arguments to knock them down.
The thing is, pre-addressing counter arguments is generally seen favorably in a debate. Also, sometimes common counter arguments really are just that bad.

But, if you do end up misrepresenting the opposition, that's bad.

---

Logical fallacies aren't necessarily incorrect. They are just irrational.

Although, contextually speaking, most are incorrect as well.

---

Guide posted...

For example: "You let people get gay married, and soon they'll want to marry dogs and overthrow the government!"

vs

"You let people just eat sugary shit whenever, health problems are doing to rise, and health insurance rates will rise with that."

A decent slippery-slope requires "if A, then eventually Z somehow". Your second example is merely "if A, then B".

Fair, but I made the examples obvious enough to infer from.

---

A great slippery slope, however, is "if A, then eventually somehow."

Notice the "argument" part of your topic title. It's not about being right or wrong about your prediction, it's about if your argument is sound or not, which a lot of the time it isn't.

---

It's an incomplete argument. It makes sense and is logical but there need to be demonstrable metrics for what is being lost as a result of the first action before it can be used as a viable counterpoint to something happening.

---

the0rebirth posted...

I'm saying slippery slope arguments are sometimes valid. Strawman arguments are fundamentally flawed, so they don't compare.

I was making a slippery slope joke ~.~

---

Squall28 posted...

I was making a slippery slope joke ~.~

Whoops. My bad. Looking bad, it's so obvious now. lol ^__^;

---

Slippery Slope is only a fallacy if you disagree with the proposal. You will find people who even cite it as a fallacy use it to fight for their own proposals.

the0rebirth posted...

Strawmans are specifically automatically wrong because they're literally predicated on misrepresenting a person's position. If I say "sunny weather is the best" and you respond with "so what you're saying is, cloudy weather sucks?", you'll never win because the very foundation of your rebuttal is bullshit.

No that's not a strawman. A strawman would be like "oh so you enjoy that 130 degree mid summer Sahara desert sunny day?"

The argument you described is called the inverse fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

Strawmen are only wrong if they are wrong. They are not wrong just for being a fallacious argument. You can have an argument that is both a fallacy while also being correct.

---

I frequently see "slippery slope" used to refer to issues where we are already at the theoretical bottom far more than irrational ones. Almost as frequently as "no one is saying that" posted under someone saying that.

Tyranthraxus posted...

No that's not a strawman. A strawman would be like "oh so you enjoy that 130 degree mid summer Sahara desert sunny day?"

The argument you described is called the inverse fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

Strawmen are only wrong if they are wrong. They are not wrong just for being a fallacious argument. You can have an argument that is both a fallacy while also being correct.

A strawman is essentially a misrepresentation of someones argument. If youre refuting a misrepresentation, then youre not addressing the opponents actual position. I see what you mean when you say it can still be correct though. If I say Vegeta is my favorite character in Dragon Ball, and you misrepresent that as me suggesting hes the best character in all of fiction...your logic would be flawed, but I might actually feel that way.

---

the0rebirth posted...

A strawman is essentially a misrepresentation of someones argument. If youre refuting a misrepresentation, then youre not addressing the opponents actual position. I see what you mean when you say it can still be correct though. If I say Vegeta is my favorite character in Dragon Ball, and you misrepresent that as me suggesting hes the best character in all of fiction...your logic would be flawed, but I might actually feel that way.

The most transparent example of this, stepping away from strawmen for a moment.

Person A: COVID-19 is a hoax to make Bill Gates inject everyone with microchips so the 5G towers can remote control them. (InfoWars link)

Person B: LMAO INFOWARS

This is straight up ad hominem, an argument meant to discredit the person making the argument and not discrediting the argument itself. That doesn't mean the argument is wrong just that Person A's argument isn't stupid as fuck just because it came from InfoWars. It would be stupid as fuck regardless of where it came from.

---

You don't have to look very hard for a strawmans example. The crazy blues here have you covered with some bonus ad hominem.

Person A: Stealing is wrong.
Person B: Stop spreading racism. God. Why haven't the mods banned these white supremacists already?

Person A: The rich actually pay a larger percent of taxes than the poor. *Shares numbers*

Person B: No matter how much you pick their boots the rich aren't going to pay you!

---

Slippery slope arguments are only ever valid in retrospect.

Saying X is right (or wrong) because it will lead to Y is faulty reasoning because no one can see the future.

The fact that its generally used as an appeal to extremes with extra steps only worsens its standing as an arguing tool.