Why is the "slippery slope" a logical fallacy?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
The problem with the whole 'if you having nothing to hide, then who cares' train of thought is that if that's the case then why should you be watched in the first place?

Also, without going over-board, measures like this do have a tendency of becoming more intrusive as they are gradually accepted.

But, since it is considered as such, could anyone shed light onto this for me?

A Slippery Slope argument can be true, but it's just not possible to be sure about it and it is often used because there are no real straight forward arguments for a POV. It depends on the argument obviously.

Because it's based on speculation, there is nothing concrete or objective to base a claim like that on. Though I don't think Krunk's claim qualifies as a slipper slope because it's based on past experiences and he's not really saying that it would happen, just that it seems to tend to happen.

A bad slipper slope argument is like - "We can't allow gay marriage because if we allow two men to marry, then next we will allow me marrying a goat or a toaster or frisbee".

agreed, its like the "If a kid has one toke on a joint they'll end up heroin addicts." Its either a easy cop out or some seriously shortsighted judgment.

Originally posted by FeceMan
This was posted in Deano's "Big Brother" thread, and I didn't want to derail it. I agree with what Krunk'd is saying, and, to me, it seems as though the "camel's nose" isn't a logical fallacy at all.

But, since it is considered as such, could anyone shed light onto this for me?

I think the only people who would disagree with my statement are fallacious idiots, so we shouldn't worry too much about their concept of logic.

Finally, did I really type 'having' instead of 'have'? I feel so ashamed.

PS. After Backfire's post, I'm quite interested in marrying a toaster.

Since when did everyone start picking up Sorgo's word?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I think the only people who would disagree with my statement are fallacious idiots, so we shouldn't worry too much about their concept of logic.

Finally, did I really type 'having' instead of 'have'? I feel so ashamed.

PS. After Backfire's post, I'm quite interested in marrying a toaster.

[Well, there goes the thread.]

Originally posted by FeceMan
My garbage disposal loves me tenderly.

[Well, there goes the thread.]

Your girlfriend is trash.

(Oh, well...I unequivocally answered the question, anyway...)

There are few things more annoying than stupid people who know a few logical fallacies and proceed to mention them every second post.

One that springs to mind is the belief harboured by first year psychology students that they can dissect anyone and everything.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
There are few things more annoying than stupid people who know a few logical fallacies and proceed to mention them every second post.

One that springs to mind is the belief harboured by first year psychology students that they can dissect anyone and everything.

I certainly hope this isn't directed at me...'cause I don't do that.

In fact, I can only think of one poster that does, and I haven't seen him for awhile.

I totally inspired Krunk'd's post. 😱

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
There are few things more annoying than stupid people who know a few logical fallacies and proceed to mention them every second post.

One that springs to mind is the belief harboured by first year psychology students that they can dissect anyone and everything.

But every third post is okay? Noted.

Btw this argument commits the logical fallacy of argumentatum douchefalium - which occurs when you make me want to have sex with you. You should avoid this at all costs if you value your anal virginity.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Uh...

I certainly hope this isn't directed at me...'cause I don't do that.

In fact, I can only think of one poster that does, and I haven't seen him for awhile.

Who is it?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Who is it?

Though, I'm not sure to whom VVD refers.

Whob used to try to do it, unfortunately he constantly misused the fallacies.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Uh...

I certainly hope this isn't directed at me...'cause I don't do that.

In fact, I can only think of one poster that does, and I haven't seen him for awhile.

It wasn't aimed at you; nor was it KMC specific.

Originally posted by BackFire
But every third post is okay? Noted.

Btw this argument commits the logical fallacy of argumentatum douchefalium - which occurs when you make me want to have sex with you. You should avoid this at all costs if you value your anal virginity.

I don't.

Wonderful! Then all is right in the world.

i call sloppy seconds

I made a pun about "fellatious" arguments on the way home from school today.

...I was the only one in the car.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I made a pun about "fellatious" arguments on the way home from school today.

...I was the only one in the car.

Are you missing any ribs?