Well I still think we should have some gun safety measures, but I guess it really isn’t a slippery slope fallacy. We also have direct evidence of current political leaders who have stated support for confiscation. 2A: It isn’t bologna, since we have precedent of gun control measures leading to weapon confiscations both in the US and in other countries. It is an actual slippery slope, or a Boiling of the Frog. GC: But that’s a slippery slope argument! No one wants to take your guns. 2A: Because I know that this will lead to you wanting to take my guns. GC: Why won’t you compromise on the current gun control measure.
#Red herring fallacy in advertising pro#
We’ll call them Pro Gun-Control and Pro Second Amendment, or GC and 2A respectively. That being said, here goes: Two opposing people are having a debate. If you want to argue about it, there are several subreddits where that would be appropriate. Combine that with the complexity of many investments and it can be overwhelming to get right.
#Red herring fallacy in advertising full#
The world is full of people looking to separate you from your money. Personal finance is both important and complicated in creating a great life for yourself. It’s an example, and I am only using it for illustrative purposes. The Red Herring Logical Fallacy In Personal Finances. I don’t care what side of my example you are on. Sure, the steps along the way don’t necessarily lead to a boiled frog, but if they continue that direction (and you have proof that it’s happened before, or has happened the same way somewhere else) eventually the frog boils.īefore I list an example, I only want to state that I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE. For this reason, I like to say that the counterpoint to the slippery slope fallacy is Boiling the Frog - gradual change leading to an eventual bad end. It's not about judging a thing on its origins, more about judging based on its past meaning or status.Īnother important thing about the slippery slope fallacy is that it isn’t a fallacy when there is precedent for the steps already have taken place somewhere else. I know OP didn't create this, but just to make sureĮDIT: came back to this post and saw the genetic fallacy. It's supposed to be 'appealing to popular viewpoint'. (Also if the slippery slope seems logically inconsistent, but has been shown to occur nonetheless in related areas or with related ideas, it may not be a fallacy either).Īlso the ad-populum one is simply incorrect. This fallacy grants an argument that may be correct but does not address the subject being discussed. For this purpose, an unrelated question is introduced in the conversation. There's an arguable link, which could be pointed out, whether you agree with the statement or not. The Red herring fallacy is a type of error that is used as a way of diverting people’s attention from the original topic under discussion. It's a vague fallacy and many people tend to think claiming a link between a certain chain of events must be an example of this fallacy.įor example, it's not specifically a fallacy to state that 'allowing self-driving cars could lead to the eventual removal of human-guided cars from the roads'.
It's important to note that the 'slippery slope' fallacy is only a 'fallacy' if the steps claimed in moving down the 'slope' do not relate logically, or cannot be argued to relate logically.
0 kommentar(er)
