Slippery Slope "Fallacy"

[Pong Messiah]

If you can defend them without using extreme hypotheticals, slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily fallacies. But I almost never see reference to the "slippery slope" except as fallacy. Why all the hate?

 

Assuming my experience is not unique, my guesses for this would be:

• Too many people use ridiculous examples in defense of their slippery slopes ("What? They want to raise the minimum wage? Bad idea. Next thing you know, we'll be paying teenagers $30 an hour to work at McDonald's, and all the small businesses will be dead!")
• Too many people attack reasoned slippery slope arguments against their position as "NUH UH YOU CAN'T SAY THAT! SLIPPERLY SLOPE!" as a lazy, get-out-of-argument free card, to shut down the discussion -- labeling the other person's argument as a fallacy, even though it might not be.

Thoughts?

[NumberSix]

"Slippery slope" points pop into my head all the time, but usually on subjects where I'd be pilloried into oblivion if I spoke up, so I shut up and stick to lurking. They're tricky to articulate without bringing down the wrath of Internet upon you.

[Darth Krawlie]

I'll slip your slope

[Guest]

Very few people make reasoned slippery slope arguments. I can only think of a handful of times I've seen it. Even people who could make reasoned arguments tend to go for shorthand and end up with extremes.

[Good God a Bear]

My thought is you have to much time to think about stupid things.

[Burt]

I guess your second point would be a fallacy fallacy, if an argument is rejected merely because it is presented as a fallacy.

 

If I'm in a conversation where a fallacy fallacy is brought up, I throw open the door, tuck, and roll to get out as soon as possible. Any meaningful outcome to the conversation is doomed, at least in a real-life, face-to-face setting.

[Ms. Spam]

I don't if this is what you are thinking about Pong, but I get slippy slope argument from conservatives and gay marriage in Texas. "If we allow gay marriage then people will want to marry their pets!" Which to me is the lamest. Articulate a valid reason or get out. People already want to marry their pets without gays being involved.

[DANA-kin Skywalker]

The only problem with "slippery slope" arguments is when people with unqualified opinions on subjects they know little about start abusing it.

 

It is essentially a prediction of the future, which makes it a "maybe", and therefore hinges upon its probability of actually coming true.

 

Unless the person is arguing within a field of their expertise, and have actually done some research (qualitative and quantitative/statistical) they have no clue just HOW likely the prediction actually is. Just because you make a point that makes sense that doesn't necessarily make it possible, likely, or definitely.

[The Kurgan]

The slippery slope argument is NOT a fallacy if the slope is indeed that slippery.

 

Burt makes an interesting observation. I'll add that the propensity to get worked up about logical fallacies is much greater when we disagree with the conclusions they support. The fallacy is then trotted out to distract conversation from the deeper point being made. This is done on the internet all the time.