Speaking with reporters at the end of his visit to the capital Kiyv, Justin Trudeau accused Putin of “executing” opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
Speaking with reporters at the end of his visit to the capital Kiyv, Justin Trudeau accused Putin of “executing” opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
Why tf does it matter what the protests were about? You disagree politically so it’s okay for the government to do that? That’s a slippery slope.
I don’t disagree politically bro, I disagree scientifically, and logically. Our government had a responsibility to remove you terrorists, they just did it a way that allows you twats to act like your oppressed.
You? I’m just a Yank who sees injustice. I don’t know anything about it other than a person in power froze the people’s bank account of some of its citizens and that’s wild asf. If they were Nazis I wasn’t aware but it’s still not okay to take money someone earned. Make a law that fines Nazis if you have to but don’t just freeze people’s bank accounts, that’s fucked up.
Most frozen accounts were organizers and people who were receiving money from others to continue with their “protests” or people espousing violent rhetoric. If you just believe the ticktoks you’re never going to see reality. These fucking idiots are still protesting all over our country, afraid of digital IDs ,vaccines, demanding mandates be dropped, people be rehired. Like dude they crazy and don’t mesh well with reality.
So let the idiots yell, don’t stop them from being able to pay for necessities.
“Slippery slope” is a logical fallacy.
The antivax cowards had many peaceful protests previously without issue. They weren’t getting their demands met because their demands were idiotic.
So they escalated to disrupting the functioning of the government. Using psyops tactics against civilians. Harrassing civilians. Disrupting emergency services.
And for what? It wasn’t to increase awareness of covid restrictions. These restrictions were placed on the entire population, we were all aware of them. No it was an attempt to affect a change using extortion. Changes contrary to the democratic will of the country.
Since you love the slippery slope fallacies, consider the slope in the other direction. If an organized crime outfit used intimidation tactics to get their way, could they declare it as a “protest” and get off scot free? Where do you draw the line in that direction?
Not commenting on the argument, but just FYI: “Slippery Slope” actually refers to an argument that could include a slippery slope fallacy, but not necessarily. A slippery slope fallacy is an informal fallacy, meaning that any errors are in the content and not the format of the argument (i.e. the slippery slope argument itself).
He either knows that, or it was on that list of logical fallacies he read the names of and thinks you can just say “Slippery Slope” and win.
“Slippery slope is a logical fallacy” is a phrase parroted by people who usually don’t understand why it can sometimes be a logical fallacy. And sometimes not. You can’t just say “Slippery slope is a logical fallacy” and then follow up with “Some motherfuckers always trying to ice skate uphill”. Everything you said is deliberately disingenuous and not a good faith argument, and that’s either intentional or you’re not capable of better,