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

[email protected]

-4

(Open-Ended) I feel like "slippery slope" isn't actually a logical fallacy, people just use that as an excuse to dismiss valid concerns. You? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So... it isn't ALWAYS a fallacy. In its purest, a slippery-slope argument is of the following form:

“If A, which some people want, is done or allowed, then B, which most people don’t want, will inevitably follow. Therefore, let’s not do or allow A.”

The fallacy occurs when that form is not fleshed out by sufficient reasons to believe that B will inevitably follow from A, such as in the following examples:

“The US should put the Ten Commandments into schools. If they don't, then everyone will be worshipping Satan within a few generations."
“We’ve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they ban one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be banning all books!”

In these examples, the conclusion does not follow deductively from the premise. Nor is any reason given to believe that a chain of events set in motion by the act described in the premise will inevitably lead to what’s described in the conclusion. Heck, the above examples are not even good inductive logic.

So you're absolutely correct in saying that not all slippery-slope arguments are fallacies, it just takes logic in between, and that's something a lot of people struggle with.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

So you’re absolutely correct in saying that not all slippery-slope arguments are fallacies, it just takes logic in between, and that’s something a lot of people struggle with.

This is the problem with the fallacy-touting crowd. They only partially understand what the fallacy actually is. Not all, as you pointed out, slippery slope arguments are fallacious, but if you make a sound slippery slope some "fallacy expert" will chime in and trumpet how bad your argument is because they only half-spotted the pattern.

In a similar vein, personal abuse is not the ad hominem fallacy. And an ad hominem argument is also not automatically fallacious. Examples:

You're wrong, you piece of shit, because of . (Uncouth, yes, but not the ad hominem fallacy.)
"My client claims he didn't attack you." "Of course he does! He'd be an idiot to admit he did!" (An ad hominem argument, but not the ad hominem fallacy.)
You're wrong because you're a Nazi. (An actual ad hominem fallacy! You can find this particular one in the wild ... pretty much Internet-wide.)

I once thought I was clever by coining the term "fallacy fallacy" for dealing with the mouth-breathers who screech "FALLACY!!!" while flapping their arms wildly as if attempting to launch themselves to the moon. Unfortunately I was beaten to the punch by decades.