It can be a technical term, but words are defined by their use. If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to call you stupid. A failure to provide reasoning beyond implied reasoning isn’t something most people see as a problem at all.
I think that if someone was arguing in good faith, instead of citing “slippery slope”, they would instead ask why you believe one thing will lead to another.
Well alright, you could consider them to be defined otherwise, but pragmatically you have to think about them that way if you want to effectively communicate with people, since they meant what they meant and you are able to know what they meant so pretending you thought they meant something different will just hold things up. If you don’t make a habit of arguing with people on the internet I guess that might be less of a concern.
“what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to call you stupid.”
^^^
Arguing with people like this is pointless. And endless.
Sometimes. It’s a spectrum; what people take seriously depends on their social environment, so you can get people who have absorbed arguments like that and maybe aren’t very rational but still are capable of listening and have worthwhile things to express.
“If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to…”
I don’t disagree with this at all. That’s why I avoid arguing with people on the internet.
It can be a technical term, but words are defined by their use. If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to call you stupid. A failure to provide reasoning beyond implied reasoning isn’t something most people see as a problem at all.
I think that if someone was arguing in good faith, instead of citing “slippery slope”, they would instead ask why you believe one thing will lead to another.
“words are defined by their use.”
This, however, is debatable and highly contested by many in semantics. Although it does represent the most contemporary view.
Well alright, you could consider them to be defined otherwise, but pragmatically you have to think about them that way if you want to effectively communicate with people, since they meant what they meant and you are able to know what they meant so pretending you thought they meant something different will just hold things up. If you don’t make a habit of arguing with people on the internet I guess that might be less of a concern.
“what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to call you stupid.”
^^^
Arguing with people like this is pointless. And endless.
Sometimes. It’s a spectrum; what people take seriously depends on their social environment, so you can get people who have absorbed arguments like that and maybe aren’t very rational but still are capable of listening and have worthwhile things to express.
“If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to…”
I don’t disagree with this at all. That’s why I avoid arguing with people on the internet.