I just finished vigorously fapping to Brave New World chapter 3. I really enjoyed how the narrator shifts the point of view between the people engaging in promiscuity, to the world controller discussing the destruction of the nuclear family.
However, would you consider this to be a slippery slope fallacy?
People wanted to be whores and have sex with everyone, so they went about destroying the nuclear family to receive instant gratification from promiscuous behavior.
OR
Can it simply be argued that the destruction of the nuclear family came from the idea that everyone should be allowed to fuck the person that they desire. Hence the motto “everyone belongs to everyone.”
If you let women fuck who they want with no consequences they will inevitably fuck the same top percentage (some say 20, but even in that 20% there are different tiers).
The idea that the average or below average man benefits from promiscuous behavior is incorrect.
>>8963235
doesnt sound so much like slippery slope as catch 22 or chicken or the egg, aye?
What has become of this board
>>8963820
I dont know man, I'm trying my best. I guess it's not enough. I think this thread is a little bit better than those where people just post an image of a book and only say "discuss" tho.
>>8963820
Are you retarded asking this here when most of the threads are "is x worth reading?" Or shit like that? Who the fuck cares if the book they discuss is read in school by many anons?
>>8963235
>would you consider this to be a slippery slope fallacy?
It's a novel, bruh, not a thesis.
Also your two 'options' look essentially the same to me. Also also, unless I'm remembering wrong, neither of those is what happened in the book's setting anyway- the system was imposed after a world war by a dictatorial government seeking order.
>>8963812
>wondering if an /r9k/ meme is true