The fallacy wasn't ever slippery slope - it was always "no limiting principle". A "We need to do x b/c of reason y" B "But reason y implies you'll have to do a lot more than x" A "Nonsense - we're only saying that we need to do x" Person A not B is using a fallacious argument https://twitter.com/bimboubermensch/status/1434648184190603269 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
Would this be a slippery slope fallacy? A "We need to do x b/c of reason y" B "But x is part of a class of actions z that includes a lot more than just x" A "Nonsense - reason y does not necessitate any actions within z other than x"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Replying to @muhdernity
No. Add one more element and it's a perfectly valid argument - "we've never done anything in group z and there's an unspoken rule against it"
12:45 AM - 10 Sep 2021
0 replies
0 retweets
2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.