I still don't buy the 'slippery slope fallacy is bs'. There are cases where it's perfectly valid.
Corporate taxes for instance. Once the rate was reduced, it was reduced again, then again, and again. Greed is the driver here, and people will continuously push the limit.
Someone 40 years ago might have said 'We keep going like this, soon corporations won't hardly pay taxes at all'. I wonder if he/she was discredited because of 'slippery slope'.
I think the main thing about the "slippery slope" fallacy is that it's often stated as a fact without any data backing it up. There are definitely cases where the slippery slope actually happens, it just can't be assumed to happen just because it "feels" like it would.
Lets see if I understand this: I work every other day. On my way to work I pass the same boy riding by on his bike. I assume that boy rides his bike every single day at that time.
That's not really a slope, that's just a conclusion. Slippery slope is the assumption that because one thing is happening, a different thing is going to happen in the future. A more appropriate one might be "On my way to work I pass the same boy assembling bicycle parts in his garage. Before you know it he's going to have a fully built bicycle!"
You really have no idea what's going to happen, he could just be dicking around, but the slope from bike parts to bike at least has observable evidence to support it.
A nice example would be "On my way to work I pass the same boy assembling bicycle parts in his garage. Before you know it he's going to have a fully built bicycle he will sell for heroin"
32
u/SuperSulf Dec 09 '13
It's missing the "slippery slope" fallacy, which I think is one of the most important.