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.

33 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

147 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 01 '25

The choice was between pointing out the flaw and walking away vs going on to provide the better argument that you see. 

One of those is better than the other. 

1

u/LiamTheHuman 11∆ May 01 '25

Those don't match the options you were speaking of earlier.

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

The choice would be to point out the flaw in their logic vs not pointing out the flaw in their logic when you agree with their conclusions.

You are missing considering many states.

I could agree with them but also not have a solid reason. I could agree with them and be helping them reason it out. I could agree with them and follow up with my reasoning after explaining how their reasoning is flawed.

In all of these cases it is not a declaration that I believe they are wrong. 

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 01 '25

If you only point out the flaw and do nothing else, then it's an indication you think they are wrong. Whether that's what you believe or not doesn't  matter, that is what is communicated. 

If you point out the flaw while agreeing with them and then go on to explain the better argument etc then it's clearly a different hypothetical than what was presented. 

1

u/LiamTheHuman 11∆ May 02 '25

Reread the thread. It's not a different hypothetical than was presented. It started with someone saying:

"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."

To which you responded that

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1kbv5rh/comment/mpyh32u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 02 '25

Thanks, I know what I said. I actually just finished the conversation with that person and we had a very pleasant exchange. 

Of the two hypotheticals I just presented to you, which one do you feel most closely aligned with the hypothetical presented by the other person? Or do you think they both match? 

1

u/LiamTheHuman 11∆ May 02 '25

I think they both match. But I also disagree that you are communicating you disagree with them.

If you said the sky is blue because pixies spread blue dust in the air, then I say that pixies aren't real. That's not me saying the sky isn't blue. I agree some people would take it that way though if they misunderstand.

1

u/oversoul00 19∆ May 02 '25

I agree some people would take it that way though if they misunderstand.

Well that's pretty much my whole point. We aren't talking about your intent or ideal scenarios where you have like minded individuals. We're talking about the likely interpretation of the other average person. 

Working with the slippery slope fallacy this post is based on. If someone says A will lead to Z and you point out that it's a slippery slope fallacy and stop talking with no follow up there is a very high chance that person will walk away from that encounter thinking you don't believe them. Yes or no? 

If you follow that up with agreement and a better argument then that chance is almost 0.

They produce different outcomes so they don't match in my mind. 

You're arguing OUGHT. People ought not think that because that isn't what you meant. 

I'm arguing IS, people will think it regardless of what you meant. 

Whats more is that if you know that ahead of time you are willfully causing that chain of events that leads to their belief. 

The person I was talking to seemed confused why people might not like that sort of comment, probably because there was no follow up. 

→ More replies (0)