ITT: "Fallacies" that are legitimate arguments

Whataboutism is a valid retort. Tired of pretending it isn't. It's bullshit if Bob does X all the time, and Sally does X all the time, and Steve does X all the time, but then Bob, Sally and Steve criticise me if I do X? fuck outta here with that logic. Every human being who has ever lived and every society that has ever existed has been judged and judges others by the standards of the time and place in which they existed.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy if the person can give a coherent explanation as to why if we move from A to B that it will stop at B. If they can't give a reason as to why it will never proceed to C, then D, etc, it's a valid question to ask. History is replete with things that happened gradually over time that wouldn't have occurred if people didn't become accustomed to the change gradually.

Slippery slope is real.
Rememeber when faggots wanted to simply "do as they please in the privacy of their own bedroom"?

>>507704359
That's my point, it's a logical argument.
You're not going to win normies with gays as an example. Use the classic holocaust one about "First they came for the communists, but I was not a communists so I didn't say anything, then they came for the trade unionists..." That's a slippery slope.

Context matters. Some of these only apply situationally.
What matters most is trying to understand the other party, and your ability to make them understand (You).