Stefan MolyneuxVerified account

the basis of progressivism is the implementation of slippery slope

It's especially galling to be told it isn't real when you've spent your life watching it happen.

Robert Cialdini's work has shown that a small offer and acceptance will lead to a larger ask AND a greater willingness to accept next time. Slippery slope is real.

'Slippery Slope' is a formula for an argument. It's only logically fallacious if the person using this argument claims that the end result he's presenting *necessarily* follows from the from first step. As Stefan says, that part of the argument has to be evaluated empirically.

Also, it's only a fallacious argument if it's a theoretical assumption about something that has yet to happen.

Lighting the curtains on fire is likely to result in burning the whole house down (unless stopped). Lighting a fire in the fireplace is not likely to burn the house down.

The slippery slope is a fallacy, but it stops being one after it's been proven. When someone mentions a slippery slope, you need to look at the entire context before judging whether it's a fallacy or not.

Landslides do happen.

*9/10s of the way down the slope* "Uh, this Google search says 'slippery slope' is a fallacy."

Isn’t a fallacy something that even if true does not invalidate the argument?

In other words, just because a slippery slope is proven true and used against an argument, it doesn’t invalidate the argument.

These people are like robots. "Stefoutput.exe=argument Rundiagnostic ... Slippery slope detected *whirring noise*" So boring. It's like the classic, "Jazz is terrible because it doesn't follow traditional part writing conventions"

There’s always the fallacy fallacy, that states that just because something is a fallacy, doesn’t mean it’s false.

A "slippery slope" is only a fallacy if someone can show what stops the sliding down the slope. They have to draw a bright line of distinction and say "we could never go past this point because ____ prevents it".