4 ms·
> The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. If you can prove why x > y means y > z, then it isn't a fallacy. "If you start blocking one thing that do
by ReverseCold 8y ago
> The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy.
If you can prove why x > y means y > z, then it isn't a fallacy.
"If you start blocking one thing that doesn't fit your buisness values, you will likely block this other thing because it doesn't fit your buisness values." might not be fallacious. The issue is proving that link (kind of like induction).
- throwawayjava 8y ago> If you can prove why x > y means y > z ...let x=2,y=1,z=1. Gotta be more specific on those quantifiers ;-) More seriously, the issue is that "transitive causality", or whatever we want to call it, is sometimes not universally a good model of reality. It's not really a fallacy. It's just a method of reasoning for which there exist errant applications, and therefore you should "use with caution".