> The fallacy pertains to people who argue that a causal chain will necessarily play out, or that a particularly implausible chain will play out with high proba

> The fallacy pertains to people who argue that a causal chain will necessarily play out, or that a particularly implausible chain will play out with high probability. Isn't this exactly what I described in that comment? I'm confused. Or maybe I was just not clear in my writing. Re-emphasized: > not all things vaguely similar to previous paths to X result in X, obviously [=> even though some things do] Also, I didn't really introduce slippery slope as a strict logical fallacy. I said they were making a poor argument and identified it as being of slippery slope form. They responded to that talking about logical fallacies so we went on that tangent, but really I just found their specific instance not credibly inevitable.