They claimed it's a horrible precedent, except it isn't a precedent. They then went full slippery slope fallacy jumping from Assange to a mythical future (appe

They claimed it's a horrible precedent, except it isn't a precedent. They then went full slippery slope fallacy jumping from Assange to a mythical future (appealing to emotion) Watergate journalist. Watergate type journalists were and are explicitly protected in the US. So the US trying to extradite a journalist for something akin to Watergate is purely nonsense. "And after that, anyone who dissents" - that is full on FUD. Assange is not some gatekeeper between current judicial systems and fantasy dystopian extremes. So this as an endpoint for a slippery slope fallacy is a perfect example. The slippery slope fallacy, to not be a fallacy, needs not only the ends of the slope (which this poster failed at both ends), but an explained or obvious causal mechanism to move from one to the other (also not present - despite going from today to a fantastical extreme). So I don't think I ignored any valid points. Now I'm sure if someone used the above arguments with a "think of the children" to move from one claim to another, you'd rightfully call the argument crap. That Assange's case likely is important to you does not make the above argument any more correct. Feel free to tell me which points were valid.