this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
-4 points (35.7% liked)
Actual Discussion
219 readers
1 users here now
Are you tired of going into controversial threads and having people not discuss things, circlejerking, or using emotional responses in place of logic? Us too.
Welcome to Actual Discussion!
DO:
- Be civil. This doesn't mean you shouldn't challenge people, just don't be a dick.
- Upvote interesting or well-articulated points, even if you may not agree.
- Be prepared to back up any claims you make with an unbiased source.
- Be willing to be wrong and append your initial post to show a changed view.
- Admit when you are incorrect or spoke poorly. Upvote when you see others correct themselves or change their mind.
- Feel free to be a "Devil's Advocate". You do not have to believe either side of an issue in order to generate solid points.
- Discuss hot-button issues.
- Add humour, and be creative! Dry writing isn't super fun to read or discuss.
DO NOT:
- Call people names or label people. We fight ideas, not people here.
- Ask for sources, and then not respond to the person providing them.
- Mindlessly downvote people you disagree with. We only downvote people that do not add to the discussion.
- Be a bot, spam, or engage in self-promotion.
- Duplicate posts from within the last month unless new information is surfaced on the topic.
- Strawman.
- Expect that personal experience or morals are a substitute for proof.
- Exaggerate. Not everything is a genocide, and not everyone slightly to the right of you is a Nazi.
- Copy an entire article in your post body. It's just messy. Link to it and maybe summarize if needed.
For more casual conversation instead of competitive ranked conversation, try: [email protected]
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Someone's fishing for political opinions. Anyways, how I know if they're valid or not is by considering their logic and likelihood, not just dismissing an opposing view as "slippery slope" and moving on.
Ah; in that case the fallacy is reductionism. Slippery slope is the excuse.
I'm starting to feel like you're exactly who I had in mind, knows the names of all the logical fallacies but lacks a real understanding of the concepts, just uses them as dismissive magic wands
Ah, then you didn’t get what I was doing with my response.
The thing about actual fallacies is that they are about flawed logic. If a fallacy is being used, that means the conclusion is not actually warranted by the evidence and logic.
It says nothing about whether the conclusion is true, just that the path taken to arrive at the conclusion is flawed and not worthy of further consideration.
So when someone names a fallacy to dismiss what someone is saying, they’re not arguing that the person’s stance is wrong and doesn’t deserve further consideration, they’re arguing that the person’s logic to arrive there is flawed and does not deserve further consideration.
Slippery slope is a fallacy because it argues that if certain steps are taken, others will inevitably follow that wouldn’t follow if the first steps were never taken.
So “it’s a slippery slope from playing violent video games to mass murdering your friends and family” is the fallacy; “it’s a slippery slope from taking fentanyl to becoming an addict” is not.
That's kinda what I mean, often the scenario isn't a logical fallacy at all, but people who basically misunderstand the concept just bleat it out regardless.