Talk:Slippery slope/Archive 2

Incidental clean slate
If we just keep editing and editing this article, then eventually we're going to edit the whole article and then eventually we're just going to end up with a whole new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.161.151 (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. This has already happened. I've archived the old threads (2013–2013), the bulk of which are about sections and assertions that no longer exist in the article, complaints of no sources or only one source, which are no longer true, and personality conflicts between editors who are not longer even active on the project. Our expectations and practices with regard to how to source articles like this have significantly changed since this article was created in 2003. In particular, our tolerance for original research, and for claims that are supposedly source but not yet source, have dropped sharply with the effective demise of WP:Eventualism, and a lot of contentious material has been pruned out of this article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Under-utilized sources
There are a number of sources tacked on near the bottom which need to be WP:MINEd for information and cited inline in the article. There are probably additional things that can be sourced from the sources that are already used inline, too. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A "slippery slope analogy" is not a fallacy; it's an analogy.
Most people who point out slippery slopes are drawing analogies, and most people who scream "slippery slope is a fallacy" are wrong simply because they don't understand analogy. This article itself points out that US caselaw on free speech is filled with "legitimate" uses of slippery slope, but that's just POV bullshit along the lines of "when my side fearmongers it's ok, when your side does it's wrong". "Argument from analogy" itself is logical fallacy to the exact same extent that slippery slope is. 74.101.149.30 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion forum. Do you have some sources that support whatever argument you are making? It seems unclear to begin with, since you lead by declaring that the view that some slippery slope arguments are fallacious is "wrong", then conclude by declaring that the view that some slippery slope arguments are not fallacious is "bullshit", and thus appear to be arguing with yourself.  The article is pretty clear that slippery slope arguments may or may not be fallacious, and are neither inherently fallacious nor inherently cogent.  It is possible that over time we could split this article into "Slippery slope (law)", "Slippery slope (fallacy)", etc., but there is not enough content here to warrant such WP:SPINOFFs yet, per WP:SUMMARY.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This article mis-defines "slippery slope." Look it up, there's no mention of fallacy or anything pejorative. (If you want to discuss a "slippery slope argument", then that's what the article should be called. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/slippery-slope?s=t

"a dangerous and irreversible course: the slippery slope from narcotics to prison." Random House Dictionary

"A disastrous course; irrecoverable commitment: Active euthanasia brings with it many dicey procedural questions, and, ultimately, a slippery slope" (1951+) The Dictionary of American Slang

"A dangerous course, one that leads easily to catastrophe, as in He's on a slippery slope, compromising his values to please both the bosses and the union. This metaphoric expression alludes to traversing a slick hillside, in constant danger of falling." [ Mid-1900s ] The American Heritage® Idioms Dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.224.183 (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that we have sources for both interpretations, we do need our material based on the sources to make sense to our readers, so I agree with the anonymous commenter above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead and other content have been adjusted to resolve this usage conflict. However, the vast majority of in-depth source material treats it as a fallacy type not as a valid argument type, so the article reflects that, per WP:DUE. The primary non-fallacious usage is in law, but that is best explored in a separate thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-fallacious usage examples?
Are there examples of real-life slippery slope argument usage that has been accepted by many as non-fallacious? Are there examples from the past where the slippery slope has become true in real life events? --87.95.44.33 (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion forum. Answers to your question can be found in sources already cited in the article, e.g. . Biogeographist (talk)

I second this. -SimonRPGmaster (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is too vague to act on, though. Biogeographist is correct that this is not a forum for asking "Are there examples ..." questions. By extension, our article cannot become a catalogue of original-research claims that thus-and-such event is an example of a true slippery slope argument; nor should it become a list of event trivia that supposedly qualify. The of the term in specific fields for things that are not innately fallacious is something worth covering, though; see the newer "Usage in law" thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Consequentialist?
A prior version of the article called the slippery-slope argument 'consequentialist,' linking to an article saying as much. However, that introduced an ambiguity which makes the entry confusing. For philosophers (as the link from consequentialist indicated), to be consequentialist has to do with what matters ethically (consequences, as opposed to eg, motivations, though see the articles for more). The linked article, however, said only that the argument was consequentialist because it made reference to consequences -- that's a rather idiosyncratic definition, and it certainly shouldn't link to the philosophers' consequentialism. 2601:42:1:3950:F8EA:969D:4632:E4BC (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as you observed yourself, the article no longer uses that term, so there is nothing to fix.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)