4 ms·
There’s a difference between “no new construction with gas stoves” and “seizing all gas stoves” lol
by CardenB 3y ago
There’s a difference between “no new construction with gas stoves” and “seizing all gas stoves” lol
- ihatepython 3y ago[flagged]
- CardenB 3y agoThat’s a fallacy. You can make anything into a slippery slope.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoIt seems to me that every time people reference the slippery slope fallacy, the people claiming slippery slope get proven right 10 years down the line. Even in this case, banning gas in new buildings implies that gas will be banned in the future!
- localplume 3y ago[dead]
- nonethewiser 3y agoIt makes no sense to call the slippery slope a fallacy. Some things are a slippery slope, others are not. But it’s not fundamentally impossible to have a slippery slope.
- icehawk 3y agoThe boiling frog strategy only works on frogs when the frog's brain is removed. https://archive.org/details/studiesfrombiol00martgoog/page/388/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/studiesfrombiol00martgoog/page/3...
- PM_me_your_math 3y agoNo, you're just saying "you can't have a gas stove, gas heater, or gas water heater because we said so."
- nonethewiser 3y agoRead the article. They arent just “debunking” the seizing. How can people arguing for the merits of banning gas and also pretend they don’t want the government to do it?