3 ms·

It's absolutely a fallacy according to any course on logic because it is impossible to refute. https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions

It's absolutely a fallacy according to any course on logic because it is impossible to refute. https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Slippery-Slope.html https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definit...

colordrops 5y ago
For the narrow formal definition in your link, that being an assertion without evidence, then yes, it's a fallacy. In the colloquial language we are using here, there is absolutely evidence, tons of it, that this will take the same downward trend of previous infractions.
- etchalon 5y ago
  Are you under the impression that people who teach logic are unaware of real world evidence that "things change and some of the those end up being bad"?
  - colordrops 5y ago
    No, I am under the impression that in this thread we are using the term "slippery slope" to mean something else that the one you provided in the link. Also your characterization of "things change and some of the those end up being bad" is not the nature nor specificity of the evidence in this case. Lastly, perhaps you should remain consistent and not utilize the "appeal to authority" fallacy.
    - etchalon 5y ago
      A slippery slope is a logical fallacy. There's not a colloquial version of that term that means something different. It's a style of argument, where you asset that one action will lead to another action without any evidence of a direct casual link between the two. Second, I'm not appealing to authority. You said a slippery slope isn't a fallacy. I provided a link which makes the case as to why a slippery slope is considered a fallacy. We are not using "slippery slope" in any way which is different from the examples given. That one thing has lead to a bad thing in the past is not evidence that this thing will lead to this specific bad thing in the future. Yes, sometimes, slippery slopes end up being slippery, and sloped. But that doesn't mean anyone has to take it as a given that any other specific slope will be slippery, nor slippery in some specific way which leads to some specific outcome.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    See my explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28084044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28084044
- minsc__and__boo 5y ago
  Slippery slope has almost always meant a fallacy, because it typically invokes "the sky is falling" examples that have no evidence to support it coming to pass - even here.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    While I see the point, "slippery slope is a fallacy" seems to have been abused far more than "slippery slope" on HN over the decade I've hung around here.
    - minsc__and__boo 5y ago
      That's because nobody makes an argument by starting with "I'm making a slippery slope argument" - it's always identified by someone else. Same with whataboutism, no true scotsman, etc. by their nature.
      - skinkestek 5y ago
        No, it is because people invoke slippery slope fallacy for actual, real slippery slopes. The slippery slope fallacy us real - but so are the slippery slopes.

colordrops 5y ago

For the narrow formal definition in your link, that being an assertion without evidence, then yes, it's a fallacy. In the colloquial language we are using here, there is absolutely evidence, tons of it, that this will take the same downward trend of previous infractions.

etchalon 5y ago
Are you under the impression that people who teach logic are unaware of real world evidence that "things change and some of the those end up being bad"?
- colordrops 5y ago
  No, I am under the impression that in this thread we are using the term "slippery slope" to mean something else that the one you provided in the link. Also your characterization of "things change and some of the those end up being bad" is not the nature nor specificity of the evidence in this case. Lastly, perhaps you should remain consistent and not utilize the "appeal to authority" fallacy.
  - etchalon 5y ago
    A slippery slope is a logical fallacy. There's not a colloquial version of that term that means something different. It's a style of argument, where you asset that one action will lead to another action without any evidence of a direct casual link between the two. Second, I'm not appealing to authority. You said a slippery slope isn't a fallacy. I provided a link which makes the case as to why a slippery slope is considered a fallacy. We are not using "slippery slope" in any way which is different from the examples given. That one thing has lead to a bad thing in the past is not evidence that this thing will lead to this specific bad thing in the future. Yes, sometimes, slippery slopes end up being slippery, and sloped. But that doesn't mean anyone has to take it as a given that any other specific slope will be slippery, nor slippery in some specific way which leads to some specific outcome.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  See my explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28084044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28084044
minsc__and__boo 5y ago
Slippery slope has almost always meant a fallacy, because it typically invokes "the sky is falling" examples that have no evidence to support it coming to pass - even here.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  While I see the point, "slippery slope is a fallacy" seems to have been abused far more than "slippery slope" on HN over the decade I've hung around here.
  - minsc__and__boo 5y ago
    That's because nobody makes an argument by starting with "I'm making a slippery slope argument" - it's always identified by someone else. Same with whataboutism, no true scotsman, etc. by their nature.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      No, it is because people invoke slippery slope fallacy for actual, real slippery slopes. The slippery slope fallacy us real - but so are the slippery slopes.