Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 1,14 (click to see context) from:
Arguing that because a slippery slope has failed to appear, further travel down the slope is safe. Note that such arguments can actually legitimize a SlipperySlopeFallacy; the speaker has established a precedent of using previous travel down the slope to justify further travel down the slope; thus, one is justified in worrying that this new action will in turn be used to justify even more actions.
Note that this fallacy [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant is not a slippery slope fallacy where the "bottom of the slope" is something positive.]] That's normally considered just a variant of the slippery slope.
!!Examples:
* As mentioned on the SlipperySlopeFallacy page, smoking one cigarette will not kill you or give you cancer. Nor will smoking a second cigarette. But that does not mean you should go for the third cigarette -- the addiction and habit will kick in shortly. (See also [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox the paradox of the heap]].)
* When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized as bad, another violation from recent history is cited.
-->Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? After all, as this dollar bill states "In God we trust".
** This is despite the phrase being made official in 1956, in a violation of separation of church and state (replacing "E Pluribus Unum").
* In ''Film/{{Sicko}}'', Creator/MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-operated healthcare by pointing out that America has already implemented government-operated schools and a government-operated mail service. You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-operated healthcare, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether Michael Moore himself committed the fallacy.
----
!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* Although one can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances, this fallacy can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
Note that this fallacy [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant is not a slippery slope fallacy where the "bottom of the slope" is something positive.]] That's normally considered just a variant of the slippery slope.
!!Examples:
* As mentioned on the SlipperySlopeFallacy page, smoking one cigarette will not kill you or give you cancer. Nor will smoking a second cigarette. But that does not mean you should go for the third cigarette -- the addiction and habit will kick in shortly. (See also [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox the paradox of the heap]].)
* When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized as bad, another violation from recent history is cited.
-->Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? After all, as this dollar bill states "In God we trust".
** This is despite the phrase being made official in 1956, in a violation of separation of church and state (replacing "E Pluribus Unum").
* In ''Film/{{Sicko}}'', Creator/MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-operated healthcare by pointing out that America has already implemented government-operated schools and a government-operated mail service. You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-operated healthcare, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether Michael Moore himself committed the fallacy.
----
!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* Although one can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances, this fallacy can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
to:
Note that this fallacy [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant is not a slippery slope fallacy where the "bottom of the slope" is something positive.]] That's normally considered just a variant of the slippery slope.
!!Examples:
* As mentioned on the SlipperySlopeFallacy page, smoking one cigarette will not kill you or give you cancer. Nor will smoking a second cigarette. But that does not mean you should go for the third cigarette -- the addiction and habit will kick in shortly. (See also [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox the paradox of the heap]].)
* When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized as bad, another violation from recent history is cited.
-->Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? After all, as this dollar bill states "In God we trust".
** This is despite the phrase being made official in 1956, in a violation of separation of church and state (replacing "E Pluribus Unum").
* In ''Film/{{Sicko}}'', Creator/MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-operated healthcare by pointing out that America has already implemented government-operated schools and a government-operated mail service. You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-operated healthcare, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether Michael Moore himself committed the fallacy.
----
!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* Although one can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances, this fallacy can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) :
Although one can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances, this fallacy can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
* In ''Film/{{Sicko}}'', Creator/MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-operated healthcare by pointing out that America has already implemented government-operated schools and a government-operated mail service. You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-operated healthcare, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether Michael Moore himself committed the fallacy.
to:
* In ''Film/{{Sicko}}'', Creator/MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-operated healthcare by pointing out that America has already implemented government-operated schools and a government-operated mail service. You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-operated healthcare, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether Michael Moore himself committed the fallacy.fallacy.
----
!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* Although one can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances, this fallacy can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
----
!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* Although one can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances, this fallacy can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
style is bad
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
!!!Examples:
to:
Although one can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances, this fallacy can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
!!Examples:
Changed line(s) 9,12 (click to see context) from:
* In ''Film/{{Sicko}}'', Creator/MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-operated healthcare by pointing out that America has already implemented government-operated schools and a government-operated mail service. You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-operated healthcare, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether Michael Moore himself committed the fallacy.
!!!Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* One can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances. But it can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
!!!Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* One can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances. But it can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
to:
* In ''Film/{{Sicko}}'', Creator/MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-operated healthcare by pointing out that America has already implemented government-operated schools and a government-operated mail service. You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-operated healthcare, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether Michael Moore himself committed the fallacy.
!!!Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* One can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances. But it can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.fallacy.
!!!Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* One can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances. But it can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
Note that this fallacy [[IThoughtItMeant is not a the slippery slope fallacy where the "bottom of the slope" is something positive.]] That's normally considered just a variant of the slippery slope.
to:
Note that this fallacy [[IThoughtItMeant [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant is not a the slippery slope fallacy where the "bottom of the slope" is something positive.]] That's normally considered just a variant of the slippery slope.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
Note that this fallacy [[IThoughtItMeant is not a the slippery slope fallacy where the "bottom of the slope" is something positive.]] That's normally considered just a variant of the slippery slope.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8,10 (click to see context) from:
* In ''Sicko'', Creator/MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-operated healthcare by pointing out that America has already implemented government-operated schools and a government-operated mail service.
** You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-operated healthcare, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether Michael Moore himself committed the fallacy.
** You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-operated healthcare, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether Michael Moore himself committed the fallacy.
to:
* In ''Sicko'', ''Film/{{Sicko}}'', Creator/MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-operated healthcare by pointing out that America has already implemented government-operated schools and a government-operated mail service.
**service. You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-operated healthcare, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether Michael Moore himself committed the fallacy.
**
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
* As mentioned on the SlipperySlopeFallacy page, smoking one cigarette will not kill you or give you cancer. Nor will smoking a second cigarette. But that does not mean you should go for the third cigarette -- the addiction and habit will kick in shortly.
to:
* As mentioned on the SlipperySlopeFallacy page, smoking one cigarette will not kill you or give you cancer. Nor will smoking a second cigarette. But that does not mean you should go for the third cigarette -- the addiction and habit will kick in shortly. (See also [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox the paradox of the heap]].)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
* In ''Sicko'', MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-operated healthcare by pointing out that America has already implemented government-operated schools and a government-operated mail service.
to:
* In ''Sicko'', MichaelMoore Creator/MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-operated healthcare by pointing out that America has already implemented government-operated schools and a government-operated mail service.
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
* One can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances. But it can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
to:
* One can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances. But it can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
* When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized as bad, another violation, from recent history is cited.
to:
* When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized as bad, another violation, violation from recent history is cited.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* As mentioned on the SlipperySlopeFallacy page, smoking one cigarette will not kill you or give you cancer. Nor will smoking a second cigarette. But that does not mean you should go for the third cigarette -- the addiction and habit will kick in shortly.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
::This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation of separation of church and state.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
!!! Examples:
to:
Changed line(s) 5,10 (click to see context) from:
-->"Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? After all, as this dollar bill states "In God we trust"."
:: This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation of separation of church and state.
* In ''Sicko'', MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-run health care by pointing out that we already have government-run schools and a government-run mail service.
** You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-run health care, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether MichaelMoore committed the fallacy.
!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
:: This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation of separation of church and state.
* In ''Sicko'', MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-run health care by pointing out that we already have government-run schools and a government-run mail service.
** You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-run health care, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether MichaelMoore committed the fallacy.
!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
to:
:: This
::This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation of separation of church and state.
* In ''Sicko'', MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about
** You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Pointless natter that is, at it states itself, beside the matter, that only risks political arguments.
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
:: This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation of separation of church and state. Of course, this assumes we accept that there is or ever was something called 'violation of church and state,' but that's another argument entirely.
to:
:: This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation of separation of church and state. Of course, this assumes we accept that there is or ever was something called 'violation of church and state,' but that's another argument entirely.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
:: This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation of separation of church and state.
to:
:: This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation of separation of church and state. Of course, this assumes we accept that there is or ever was something called 'violation of church and state,' but that's another argument entirely.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 7,9 (click to see context) :
!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* One can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances. But it can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:
** You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-run health care, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether MichaelMoore committed the fallacy..----
to:
** You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-run health care, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether MichaelMoore committed the fallacy..----fallacy.
!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* One can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances. But it can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
!!! Looks like this fallacy but is not:
* One can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances. But it can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 10,12 (click to see context) from:
* In ''Sicko'', Michael Moore tries to allay worries about government-run health care by pointing out that we already have government-run schools and a government-run mail service. By itself this could have been an example of this trope (even though it is perhaps closer to ShiftingTheBurdenOfProof), but the abundance of countries which already have government-run health care means this part of that slope has already been travelled.
** Although that's not actually the argument he made, so he could simply be [[FallacyFallacy right for the wrong reason]].
----
** Although that's not actually the argument he made, so he could simply be [[FallacyFallacy right for the wrong reason]].
----
to:
* In ''Sicko'', Michael Moore MichaelMoore tries to allay worries about government-run health care by pointing out that we already have government-run schools and a government-run mail service. By itself service.
**You might say that thiscould have part of the slope has already been an example of this trope (even though it is perhaps closer to ShiftingTheBurdenOfProof), but traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-run health care means this part of care, but although that slope has already been travelled.
** Although that's not actuallyis relevant to the government healthcare argument he made, so he could simply be [[FallacyFallacy right for it is not relevant to the wrong reason]].
question of whether MichaelMoore committed the fallacy..----
**You might say that this
** Although that's not actually
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I\'m sure a lot of other logical fallacy articles have the extra title left on. Is YFLF an index?
Deleted line(s) 1 (click to see context) :
!! '''The Reverse Slippery Slope Fallacy''':
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) :
* Most things mainstream economists have to say about the consumption of natural resources fits this trope; the typical claim takes the form "Since world consumption of X has increased 3% each year during the last decade, it can certainly continue to do so." where X might be oil, copper, coltan, water, or whatever. The claim is obviously false in the long run — any fixed percentage growth is exponential, and will asymptotically exceed what is physically possible — although it may well continue to hold for the rest of said economist's career.
** To be fair, economists around the middle of the 20th century did worry about the possibility of running out of natural resources. It was only after a few decades of worrying where the worries never quite materialised that the current carefree attitude became prevalent.
** To be fair, economists around the middle of the 20th century did worry about the possibility of running out of natural resources. It was only after a few decades of worrying where the worries never quite materialised that the current carefree attitude became prevalent.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Although that's not actually the argument he made, so he could simply be [[FallacyFallacy right for the wrong reason]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
* Most things mainstream economists have to say about the consumption of natural resources fits this trope; the typical claim takes the form "Since world consuption of X has increased 3% each year during the last decade, it can certainly continue to do so." where X might be oil, copper, coltan, water, or whatever. The claim is obviously false in the long run — any fixed percentage growth is exponential, and will asymptotically exceed what is physically possible — although it may well continue to hold for the rest of said economist's career.
to:
* Most things mainstream economists have to say about the consumption of natural resources fits this trope; the typical claim takes the form "Since world consuption consumption of X has increased 3% each year during the last decade, it can certainly continue to do so." where X might be oil, copper, coltan, water, or whatever. The claim is obviously false in the long run — any fixed percentage growth is exponential, and will asymptotically exceed what is physically possible — although it may well continue to hold for the rest of said economist's career.
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
* When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized as bad, another violation, from recent history is cited. "Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? After all, as this dollar bill states "In God we trust". This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation of State and Church.
to:
* When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized as bad, another violation, from recent history is cited. "Why cited.
-->"Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? After all, as this dollar bill states "In God wetrust". trust"."
:: This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation ofState separation of church and Church.
state.
-->"Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? After all, as this dollar bill states "In God we
:: This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation of
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
deleting irrelevent information and Appeal To Authority
Changed line(s) 7,9 (click to see context) from:
* When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized as bad, another violation, from recent history is cited. "Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? After all, as this dollar bill states "In God we trust". This is despite the phrase being made official in 1955, in a violation of State and Church.
** Actually 1955 was just the year when In God We Trust was made the official motto of the United States. The phrase appeared on US coins and currency as early as 1864. Furthermore, all attempts to have the phrase declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment have been rejected by the courts.
** Actually 1955 was just the year when In God We Trust was made the official motto of the United States. The phrase appeared on US coins and currency as early as 1864. Furthermore, all attempts to have the phrase declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment have been rejected by the courts.
to:
* When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized as bad, another violation, from recent history is cited. "Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? After all, as this dollar bill states "In God we trust". This is despite the phrase being made official in 1955, 1864, in a violation of State and Church.
** Actually 1955 was just the year when In God We Trust was made the official motto of the United States. The phrase appeared on US coins and currency as early as 1864. Furthermore, all attempts to have the phrase declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment have been rejected by the courts.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Actually 1955 was just the year when In God We Trust was made the official motto of the United States. The phrase appeared on US coins and currency as early as 1864. Furthermore, all attempts to have the phrase declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment have been rejected by the courts.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
* In ''Sicko'', Michael Moore tries to allay worries about government-run health care by pointing out that we already have government-run schools and a government-run mail service.
to:
Added DiffLines:
* In ''Sicko'', Michael Moore tries to allay worries about government-run health care by pointing out that we already have government-run schools and a government-run mail service. By itself this could have been an example of this trope (even though it is perhaps closer to ShiftingTheBurdenOfProof), but the abundance of countries which already have government-run health care means this part of that slope has already been travelled.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Providing better first example
Added DiffLines:
* Most things mainstream economists have to say about the consumption of natural resources fits this trope; the typical claim takes the form "Since world consuption of X has increased 3% each year during the last decade, it can certainly continue to do so." where X might be oil, copper, coltan, water, or whatever. The claim is obviously false in the long run — any fixed percentage growth is exponential, and will asymptotically exceed what is physically possible — although it may well continue to hold for the rest of said economist's career.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Not really constructive
Deleted line(s) 6 (click to see context) :
** [[FridgeLogic He's saying that government-run healthcare will be as efficient as the post office and as effective as the public school system? And here I thought he was in favor of socialized healthcare...]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Poorly phrased, bad example- ceremonial deism. Best fix I can see short of deletion.
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
* When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized, often other violations are used as justification. "Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? This is, after all, one nation under God".
to:
* When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized, often other violations are used criticized as justification. bad, another violation, from recent history is cited. "Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? After all, as this dollar bill states "In God we trust". This is, after all, one nation under God".
is despite the phrase being made official in 1955, in a violation of State and Church.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** [[FridgeLogic He's saying that government-run healthcare will be as efficient as the post office and as effective as the public school system? And here I thought he was in favor of socialized healthcare...]]