How to counter "because what's next" logic

[toadspittle]

@Baracus

I am sure there are some old bigots out there that said, “Let Negroes marry whites?? What’s next? Men marrying men?”

Wonder if they feel vindicated?

Actually, for the OP, this might be the best comeback (since we’re dealing with someone irrational here, and what you need is not some way to rationally convince them that they’re incorrect, you need a smackdown).

They: “They shouldn’t allow gays to marry because what’s next?, people will be allowed to marry dogs and cats?!”

You (mock outrage): “I know! I mean, if they allow gays to marry, the next thing you know, they’ll let Negroes marry Whites!”

[DrDeth]

@msmith537

The counter is argue the merits of the particular item in question and to point out the absurdity of the argument and that A does not necessarily lead to B to C ultimately to Z."

But I think that the argument that A may lead to B, which can lead to C, can be legit. It’s when they skip over all the way to Z, then that’s a true “slippery slope”.

For gun control, it certainly can be argued that a ban on “assault weapons” could lead to a ban on handguns*. To then say it will lead to the UN taking over the US under martial law and a door-to-door warrantless search for guns is a bit extreme.

• as Stealth Potato pointed out, this is the goal of some Gun Control orgs.

[msmith537]

@Hari_Seldon

When I was a kid (more years ago than I want to think about, but it was befoe drugs were much of an issue) there was a frequently raised argument against chewing gum. If you chew gum, that will lead you to smoke and smoking will lead to drinking and drinking to sex, so if you chew gum you will become a sex fiend and that leads to damnation.

Don’t people chew gum to quit smoking?