>presumer Eh. I've been using assumer and arse-sumer, for the exact same meaning. e.g. "the four donkeymen of Reddit: the assumer, the dichotomiser, the illite

>presumer Eh. I've been using assumer and arse-sumer, for the exact same meaning. e.g. "the four donkeymen of Reddit: the assumer, the dichotomiser, the illiterate, and the genetic fallacist". On-topic. The issue with slippery slopes is that, by chaining arguments, you're increasing the likelihood that your conclusion is incorrect. Lemme give you guys an abstract example: * Premise 1. if A happens, then B will happen. * Premise 2. if B happens, then C will happen. * [...] * Premise 6. if F happens, then G will happen. * Conclusion: if A happens, then G will happen. That only looks sensible until you ask yourself "how much do I trust each of those premises?". Even if you put 90% trust at each of those six premises, the conclusion has only (90%)⁶ = 53% trust, it's on the same level as a coin toss. (If this reminds anyone about Ockham's Razor: yup, it's the same reasoning.)