When is the slippery slope argument invalid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter goodcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is a legitimate fear, but not a logical argument. There is probably a fine way of structuring an argument to that end, but the statement as stated doesn’t follow.
 
Kei said:
It is a legitimate fear, but not a logical argument.
Click to expand...
Well we overrate logic then. How much is logic used in debates? I thought the more logic you use, the more powerful your case.
 
Logic is one strategy used in debates. But a lot of times even bulletproof logic isn’t moving.

Classically there are three modes of persuasion- through the authority or expertise or character of the speaker, through an appeal to emotion, and an appeal to logic and reason. This is straight out of Aristotle.

If all you care about is convincing someone of something, then having a well reasoned argument might not be the best way to go about it.
 
phil19034 said:
This is totally false. Your argument is based on the faulty idea that all logic must be scientific. This is not true, because logic can be based on science and/or philosophy. Your argument is a perfect example of science-ism.

While, slippery slope arguments are not scientific, because they cannot be proven with the scientific method, they CAN be logical because they can be supported by solid philosophical arguments rooted in classical philosophy.
Click to expand...
“Logic” is usually meant to mean “deductive reasoning”. No slippery slope argument makes its conclusion through inductive reasoning. It is always inductive.
 
Rhubarb said:
A slippery slope argument is always fallacious. Ask any logician out there. Like I said, an invalid argument only means the logic is faulty - the reasoning is bad. Bad reasoning can lead to true conclusions.
Click to expand...
Is there such a thing as good inductive reasoning? If so, then some (technically) invalid arguments are good reasoning, no?
 
Rhubarb said:
If all you care about is convincing someone of something, then having a well reasoned argument might not be the best way to go about it.
Click to expand...
Ok so in the SSM debate, how much does logic play in winning the vote? Slippery slope seems to be the favoured stance of the Christian Lobby Groups.
 
I have been playing fast and loose with my jargon, which is shame on me.

Validity is a property of deductive reasoning. Induction and abduction isn’t analyzed in the same way.
 
Aristotle would say, and I think I agree, that different people are swayed by different modes of persuasion depending on why they hold a belief.

Two people might believe X, but have different reasons for believing X. They would respond differently to different modes of persuasion.
 
Last edited:
In general, yes. It is more conducive to your case if you use logic.
Your arguments should be logical.
But, many people do not judge cases purely upon logical argumentation.

A case that is logical is a valid way at arriving at a conclusion. A conclusion can be reached by illogical means or otherwise that is still true, but this would be in spite of it.

Usually when we reason things out we quickly go about it and don’t make a fully detailed case deciding what to do, sometimes we just don’t have the time for it. However, leaps in logic are not good arguments. There can be good underlying reason under it, but you’re just not explaining it because you don’t feel you need to.
 
To the OP’s question, when is the slippery slope argument invalid? When it applies to something conservative Christians are trying to limit.

If it’s about something atheists value, it’s all right. “What? Allow you to have your religious freedoms and right to not go against your conscience? If we allow that, before you know it, LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ people will have to go back in the closet.”
 
Last edited:
The “slippery slope” is not really an argument; it seems more like an after thought when there’s no strength to argue from.

I think that it is best to point out the truth about homosexuality (abomination in the eyes of God) rather than to use such arguments (‘when/where will it stop, when a person marries a frog?’) since the truth is that homosexuals are not limited by the law but rather are supported by it; their agenda is not “more rights” but having those who are against their lifestyle capitulate and accept them as just another God-given “right” to pursuit life and happiness.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Why does the gay marriage argument always end with bestiality?

Gay marriage … … … dog stuff.
 
…but this has to do with the homosexual agenda being placed ahead of commonsense and Christianity–whatever sells is always the way that society and the governments go (unless it’s a dictatorship of some sort).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
If you accept as fact that society has become gradually less moral since the Sexual Revolution, then SSM would be just another step down the slippery slope, wouldn’t it?
 
The problem here is the “qualifier.” If “X” is said to be neutral or actually profitable then “X” will not only be acclaimed but laws and regulations will be placed so that “all” must accept “X” as a formative/constructive agent in society.

Look at the irrational gender fluidity–the government telling people that they must accept the claims of males that they are females on the inside and that females are males on the inside.

It becomes so irrational that a “third” bathroom for those who feel their gender is fluid is not accepted as the most commonsensical resolve; rather, your daughter/son must accept the opposite sex child taking undressing/dressing/using the bathroom facilities/taking showers with her/him regardless of what you, your child, and God has ordained to be the norm.

Worst case–some “Christians” have been backing the homosexual agenda and thus giving ammo to God’s opposition.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Not enough or conclusive enough; what is true, though, is that as society becomes permissive and corrupt more and more immoral acts are accepted as simply another “choice.”

I remember as a child that drunks, prostitutes, adulterers and homosexuals were seen in a bad light and shun in the neighborhood; this did not mean that there were no people committing their lives to such vices. This only meant that people thought seriously about engaging in such activities, at least openly.

Once society embraced such behavior as “choice” or as the model of man/womanhood the number of people engaging them arose… to the point that we have the US President (past) and his administration, along with the UN celebrating the culture of death as a forward step in human development.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi, Lara!

As hard as one might want to no one can unpeel a peeled orange (fruit/vegetable); however, the homosexual agenda is indeed using the government and the public school system to extinguish the rights of Christians.

Irrational thought does not need to be accommodated by “slippery slope;” but it can be. Yet, the fact remains that when homosexuals speak the government/s is quick to act–even in an irrational manner.

So you can stop fearing closets.

The government/s will soon issue more irrational mandates against Christians (and may start dismantling closets all over the world and forcing architects to stop including them in future blueprints).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
No… it’s about the “human” condition–since it’s “my right” to think/do what I want, I can claim to be a table or to want to marry my pet tarantula (don’t have any mascots).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top