Worst. Argument. Ever.

"But if we let a man marry another man,  what's next... a man marrying a dog?"

This,  ladies and gentlemen,  is the "Slippery Slope"  argument.   Also known as the worst and most illogical argument ever.  The slippery slope template is basically this:

"We cannot let A happen,  because if we do,  then it is absolutely positively an undeniable fact that B will happen,  we cannot stop B from happening if A has occurred,  and we can all agree that B is horrible and should never happen,  right?"

How is this quote any different than the first quote in this post:

"But if we let a man marry a woman,  what's next.... a man marrying a dog?"

Answer:  it's not any different - it's the exact same failure of logic and reason. It is the EXACT same argument:  If we let something happen,  then the other thing will happen.   But has anyone actually ever said "if we let a man marry a woman, what's next... a man marrying a dog?"  No.  And do you know why?  Because the only people using slippery slope arguments when it comes to things like gay marriage are people who are bigoted, hypocritical and ignorant.   And those people of course don't have any problem with men marrying women (and divorcing them when they get cancer,  and marrying a different woman,  and then cheating on that 2nd wife while publicly whining about someone else's affair).   So they never make that particular argument because they are cognitively unable to see that the flawed and failed argument can be applied to heterosexual marriages just as easily that they apply it to homosexual marriage.

Speaking of flaws,  the flaws of the slippery slope argument are quite obvious:

1. Prove that if A happens,  it is absolutely 100% positively true that B must happen. You can't. Therefore B is irrelevant to A. 
2. I support A but not B,  you assumed I support both.  You are wrong. 
3. And,  most importantly:  WE'RE NOT FUCKING TALKING ABOUT B,  WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A!   You cannot logically argue against A so you want to talk about B instead.  I will not allow that.  Logically explain to me why A should not happen based on the merits of A and only A.   You can't.  

Let's start with #3 (because it's most important and most powerful in my opinion):  We're talking about this not that.  We're talking about A, not B.   The relevancy to logical humans is of course this: you must not be able to argue against A,  since you're trying to make this about B instead -  and this is exactly why people use a slippery slope argument:  because they can't actually logically argue against A !   Call them out on this every time.  Every damn time.

Let's talk about #2 next.  The important point to note about #2 is that there is an assumption made on the part of the person making the slippery slope declaration.  If you claim to support gay marriage,  for example,  and someone on the other side of the argument says to you "but if we let a man marry a man,  the next thing you know someone will want to marry their dog,  or their toaster".   If this person knows you support marriage equality and is making this slippery slope argument to you - what they're really saying is that you must also support a man marrying his dog,  or a toaster.   Because what they're saying is if we let A happen, then it will absolutely positively lead to B happening.   And that is of course another flaw of the slippery slope argument because it requires that this be true:  every single person who supports A would of course obviously also completely support B as well.   Which is absolutely not the case,  ever.   My response to slippery slope is usually something like:

We're not talking about men marrying their dogs,  when someone proposes that perhaps you should ask me what I think about that rather than assuming I would go along with it.  Or,  if you want I can tell you right now that no I do not support that,  yet I do support a man marrying a man.   The reason for the difference is quite easy,  for starters a dog cannot give consent.   A dog is unable to satisfactorily and unquestionably consent to marrying a man.  But two adult males most certainly can give clear consent of their intention to marry each other. Having said that,  it is irrelevant why I would not support a man marrying a dog,  or a toaster,  because neither has anything to do with a man marrying a man.  They are completely unrelated to one another and I do not need to prove that I would support one but not the other,  and I do not need to logically state why I would not support a man marrying a dog - but I did anyway,  just because it's so easy to show how incredibly stupid your argument actually is.  

This effectively blows the slippery slope argument out of the water because what slippery slope says is "Under no circumstances must we let A happen,  because if we do,  it is an absolute fact that it will inevitably lead to B happening."   This is of course wrong because first there is no rule or law that says if A happens it means B happens automatically;  and it is also wrong because clearly there are people who support A but not B and thus,  a majority supporting this does not mean automatically that a majority support that.    You see, the power in destroying the slippery slope argument lies not in the person making that ridiculous argument,  but in the person the argument is being presented to.  Because the person making the argument is most obviously against both A and B!   And for their argument to be valid,  the recipient of such logical bunk must clearly support both A and B!   The argument only works if YOU agree that you would go along with both. That's the magic of the Worst. Argument. Ever.   The power is completely in the other person's hands.   All you have to do is say "Sorry,  I support A but I don't support B , so you're wrong".

And finally,  completing our trek backwards,  we have #1 which is the simplest and shortest route to shut down a slippery slope argument.  You simply say "Prove to me that if a man marries a man it means a man can marry a dog,  or that it will lead to the legalization of a man marrying a dog.  Prove this to me that it is absolutely true this will happen,  without question and without any shred of doubt.  Prove to me that it is a rule or law of physics that if one happens the other must follow.   Go ahead,  I'm waiting....."  And wait you shall.   It cannot be proven, why?  Because slippery slope is the Worst. Argument.  Ever.

I have never once heard a slippery slope argument that is not logically and completely broken.  Not once.  The reason is,  by definition it is already a failed argument.   We're not talking about that we're talking about this.   That alone is enough.   "We aren't talking about that".   Period.   All slippery slope arguments are logically broken by definition.  You cannot give me a slippery slope argument that cannot be destroyed by "we're not talking about that we're talking about this ".   Try it.  I challenge you to give me a slippery slope argument that is not fundamentally broken and invalid.

Here are some fun slippery slope arguments I made up just for the hell of it.  You may notice some are related to actual slippery slope arguments that have been made in the past,  with key changes on my part -  that is intentional to show just how ridiculous slippery slope arguments are.  Others are just nonsensical random comparisons that illustrate the stupidity of the slippery slope argument through exaggeration:

• If we let white people marry other white people,  what's next.... white people marrying white bread?
• If we let women vote,  what's next.... letting shoelaces vote?
• If we force people to have car insurance in order to legally operate a motor vehicle,  what's next.... forcing people to eat Skittles? 
• If you must be 18 to buy cigarettes,  what's next.... requiring people to be 18 to buy toilet paper?
• If we make it illegal to smoke in restaurants,  what's next.... making it illegal to eat in restaurants? 
• If we make it a law that you have to wear a seat belt while driving,  what's next.... making it a law you must sleep hanging upside down from the ceiling?
• If people are allowed to eat Skittles, what next.... forcing people to eat dog poop?

Worst.  Argument.  Ever.   

THB