03-05-2018, 05:50 PM
(03-05-2018, 05:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The "slippery slope" argument only works on people who are clueless about the difference between "correlation" and "causation".
For example, it has also been proven in almost every part of the country that most heroin addicts drank alcohol before they became addicted to heroin.
Anywhere there were enough voters to try and enact confiscation there would have been just as many, and probably many more, who supported owner licensing and gun registration, but that does not mean licensing and registration caused the attempts at confiscation or that every place that supports licensing and registration will also support confiscation.
And that is why a "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy. It does not differentiate "correlation" from "causation".
Quit being obtuse, Fred, it's boring. You can't argue the slippery slope fallacy when you have real world examples of exactly what you're talking about happening actually happening. If you want to make the argument that CA style gun laws won't fly in Kentucky or Virginia, then make it. You may be, and probably right now are, right. But your argument hinges on the idea that what I'm saying can happen is a fallacy when we have examples of it doing exactly that.
