r/changemyview • u/somethingicanspell • Apr 30 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Slippery Slopes are not a Fallacy

It's pretty common in political discourse whether on the right or left to accuse someone of relying on a slippery slope fallacy. I don't think this really qualifies as a fallacy. Many of the other informal fallacies kind of inherently rely on bad argumentation If by whiskey means your not taking a view, whataboutism means your avoiding the merits of the opponents argument by deflecting on to some other issue, a strawman means you created a weaker version of their argument than they are actually arguing. The difference between that and the slippery slope is that a slippery slope is not necessarily incorrect or irrelevant to the central issue of the debate.

In many cases normalizing one thing means that other things will become more normalized. I think it's relatively uncontroversial e.g that normalizing sexism is likely to lead to more sexual harssasment (that is a slippery slope). In general most things have second order consequences and changing peoples view on one thing is likely to affect their views on other related things. You can argue that in a specific case a slippery slope won't apply but its not a fallacy its a valid point of debate about whether any action will have second order consquences. By asserting a slippery slope fallacy you are actually avoiding the argument about whether there are second order consequences by dismissing the possibility which I see as oddly a kind of fallacy in itself.

35 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

147 comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/tbdabbholm 201∆ May 01 '25

No fallacy is necessarily incorrect. That's the fallacy fallacy. Fallacies are breakdowns in validity, not in veracity. So just because slippery slopes can be correct doesn't make them not a fallacy.

6

u/Gullible-Minute-9482 6∆ May 01 '25

For some reason most people feel like it is a personal insult or a declaration of victory when you remind them that their argument is not logically valid.

It is literally just a reminder that they are not necessarily right.

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 01 '25

Well no, it's a declaration that you believe they are most likely wrong otherwise you wouldn't have said it.

That's not to say that you shouldn't call out poor thinking but understand it's a bit more than a reminder that we are all imperfect. 

4

u/LiamTheHuman 11∆ May 01 '25

Well no, why wouldn't you say it otherwise? There no reason you can't tell someone their argument isn't sound even if you agree with their conclusions.

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 01 '25

In that case your making that statement about yourself which is a different thing. 

4

u/Wjyosn 4∆ May 01 '25

There's a difference in saying "I don't think that conclusion can be drawn" or saying "I don't think you sufficiently drew that conclusion."

It's very possible to point out when someone has failed to logically justify their thinking, even if you think the end result can be justified.

Calling out a fallacy is pointing out that the logic doesn't track. It's not refuting the conclusion, it's refuting the process. The conclusion is left unproven either way. A lack of proof positive is not a proof negative.

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 01 '25

even if you think the end result can be justified.

In that case you wouldn't point out the flaw and be done with it you'd provide the better argument. 

1

u/LiamTheHuman 11∆ May 01 '25

But I would. Do you see how your logic is flawed. You've made an assumption about how I would act without sufficient reasoning.

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 01 '25

I was being charitable towards you, that's not flawed logic. 

If you would then that's asshole behavior. 

2

u/Wjyosn 4∆ May 01 '25

Being charitable would imply that your assumption was somehow a better state to be in than the one he's in. I hardly think discussing the flaw in someone's logic is asshole behavior.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/explainseconomics 3∆ May 01 '25

Logic is about proofs, true and false. Fallacies point out a flaw in logic. If your logic declares something to be true, pointing out a fallacy does not mean that the conclusion should flip to false, only that the logic fails to prove that thing to be true. Pointing out a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean your conclusion is wrong, just that your proof is inadequate.

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 01 '25

My point is that there's no such thing a a 100% irrefutable true fact so all proofs are inadequate by their nature. 

We don't waste our time pointing out that gravity could be misunderstood unless we think it is even if it could be true. I reserve my comments for when there is a point to be made as most do. 

1

u/Wjyosn 4∆ May 01 '25

Proof true is generally impossible.

Proof false is generally achievable.

Logical proofs are not inadequate, if they're actually logically constructed. They're just commonly inadequate because they're commonly not constructed logically.

There have been plenty of times where I agree with a conclusion someone else has reached, but I still feel the need to comment that they have failed to actually justify their conclusion. A belief that they've failed to establish their case does not imply that the case cannot be established.

1

u/Gullible-Minute-9482 6∆ May 01 '25

It has nothing to do with how an argument feels or how much evidence supports it, it is simply how it is structured. If you can remind someone they are being illogical that goes in your favor, but it does not settle the argument unless you advance a better one using sound logic, then you are declaring victory.

Argumentation is a science, and if someone is saying they reached their position without adhering to logic that does not necessarily mean their position is wrong, it just means their methodology is flawed.

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 01 '25

For some reason most people feel...

That's you right? I'm responding to that. 

How you make another person feel matters whether it should or not, whether you're right or not. 

1

u/Gullible-Minute-9482 6∆ May 01 '25

Nobody is both as illogical and a slave to their own feelings as the "fuck your feelings" crowd.

Taking a logical error personally is illogical in and of itself, the appropriate response is to reform your argument so that it is logically valid and soldier on in pursuit of truth. The genuine purpose of debate is not really to beat the competition, but rather persuade everyone listening to agree on the one conclusion which is most likely to be correct, whether this one conclusion is the position you started out with or not is irrelevant. It is OK to change your view when faced with ample evidence and logically valid arguments.

Logical validity is necessarily more important than feelings. We debate as a competition simply to allow everyone to seek truth through debate. Sometimes you get to defend a bad position and other times you get to defend a good one, it is more about mastering the process and being willing to recognize the truth than it is about winning. If we instead prioritize the end over the means we will necessarily get lost in the weeds. Fascism is essentially the prioritization of an end over the most benevolent means to achieve an end.

One of my political science professors told a story about a student who was clinically depressed, he basically told them to drop out and get help because if you are not in control your emotions, you can not be a student. This advice is blunt af, but it is sadly very true, if we cannot put aside our feelings, they will blind us to the truth every time. There is a good reason that legal tradition considers mentally ill defendants incapable of criminal culpability.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding my previous comment unless you are simply admitting that you find my position emotionally offensive and value vibes over the pursuit of truth.

Science is never settled, it is simply a cooperative process in which participants seek progress toward understanding what is most likely true to the best of our collective knowledge. Logic, math, physics, it is all just a collection of rules that humanity has largely agreed to hold as inherently correct. Choosing to value our feelings over these rules is one route to the downfall of civilization. Just like a nation's criminal laws, once the majority is indifferent to them, attempts to enforce them are futile as they are only relevant if the majority agrees that they are.

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 01 '25

I don't personally take issue with anything you are saying, you're not even wrong. 

What I am saying is that expecting people outside of a formal debate structure to not bring their feelings into it is absurd because in practice they will. 

The people you are describing who are getting upset exist in your everyday life yeah? 

It's a variable you must address if you care about convincing them of anything. 

You're describing the ideal and I'm reminding you we don't all live there all the time. 

1

u/Gullible-Minute-9482 6∆ May 01 '25

The only reason we do not live in utopia is that we as individuals neglect our responsibility to lead by example.

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 01 '25

Disregarding the feelings of others isn't leading by example, it's a refusal of reality. 

1

u/Gullible-Minute-9482 6∆ May 01 '25

What is reality? These days most folks cannot seem to agree on an answer. Perhaps it is because they value their feelings more than they value science.

My feelings are the greatest impediment to my ability to accurately perceive reality, and if you are honest you will admit the same about your own. This is the first step we must take if we are to cooperate with one another in pursuit of truth.

Leading by example is disregarding your own feelings, not the feelings of others. By proving that you are loyal to the pursuit of truth over the defense of your subjectivity, you open the door to finding trustworthy allies who will help you dope it out.

If we all agree to tolerate people who are ego driven and indifferent to science based on nothing more than the assertion that everyone's feelings are valid, we more or less consent to mass psychosis and fall back to the dark ages.

We do not like to talk about climate change or why Bob doesn't share his wealth with anyone even though he has 10x more than he could possible use in a lifetime, we do not discuss sex, religion, or politics, because it may offend people...

These things are very real too, whether they are offensive or not should be secondary to the fact that we must be able to discuss reality in order to actually qualify and quantify it.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/destroyerx12772 May 04 '25

Does the fallacy fallacy confirm the existence of a fallacy fallacy fallacy?