4 ms·
If you look at it less as "if A then B" and more like "if A then possibly B" as it's usually intended then I think you can strip the fallacy. Almost anything i
by nkozyra 2y ago
If you look at it less as "if A then B" and more like "if A then possibly B" as it's usually intended then I think you can strip the fallacy.
Almost anything is possible, but even in this case it was never inevitable or inherently true that age verification for X meant age verification for Y. Which means the value - if any - for a slippery slope argument is "consider the possibilities X might open up"
- II2II 2y agoIt depends upon what Y is. If X and Y require age verification for in-person purchases and age verification is required to purchase X online, it is reasonable to assume that age verification for Y will follow. Some may call that a slippery slope. In reality it is simply a loophole in the law. Either way, it is reasonable to assume there is a bottom to that slope. It is not reasonable to assume that X opens up all possibilities. That said, I understand where the EFF is coming from. Data collection and "sharing" is rampant these days. Any meaningful form of age verification opens up the potential for abuse. What I don't understand is their failure to address how to handle restricted goods.