The slippery slope fallacy.?

Question

Group X has stated that they will work to remove the small things they dislike from the government so that it will be easier to remove the bigger things at a later date, and this is semi-public knowledge.

Then someone not affiliated with group X makes a statement about how they want the small things removed from the government and you argue that it will only lead to the larger things being removed as well, because of how tirelessly group X works towards their goal.

would this be fallacious? Is it a slippery slope if its true?

Just so I don't confuse anyone, for my hypothetical scenerio the "Group X" name I used is a completely fictional group. I didn't think till later to google the name but sure enough some groups have claimed it.

Answer 1

Not really, the argument needs to go to some outrageous length. For instance, if they want all of small things removed then it will only lead to the bigger things being removed and soon we won't have anything at all because there would be nothing left in the government for anyone to like or dislike. Keep going from there if you can.

Answer 2

The "slippery slope fallacy," in terms of debate and public speaking, is a 'falseness of truths.' The idea here is that one thing leads to another, leads to another. It can be described more poignantly as 'opening a can of worms.'

A fallacy is 'a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning'

Under this idea, both sides are fallacious. The reasoning of Group X is that the 'small things' are holding up and supporting the 'big things' and by removing the 'small things' the 'big things' will be easier to remove because they no longer have the support of the 'small things.' The flaw in reasoning on Group X's point is that Group X never demonstrated HOW the 'small things' are related to and support the 'big things.' For now, this is only a fallacious argument; BUT if resulting consequence is illustrated to have repercussions two, three, and four instances down the line, that is when the 'slippery slope fallacy' is achieved.

Answer 3

It is fallacious - the "slippery slope" has less to do with how tirelessly a group works, than it has to do with people's ACCEPTANCE of the changes, occuring in small increments.

The so-called "bigger things" don't often fall as a unit, but rather are slowly chipped-away until they are unrecognizable and become invisible.

Answer 4

This is VERY fallacious.

To meet the definition of 'Slippery Slope' the proposed changes MUST be of a questionable morality, with a trend toward increasingly unacceptable oppression or diminishment of freedom.

E.g. Hitler will sterilize the seriously retarded. Then the mildly retarded, then the insane, then the criminals, then the Jews, then anyone who disagrees with him, then anyone besides Aryan Nazis.

Dedication to small, achievable change by itself is not considered 'Slippery Slope' We did not slide down the slippery slope to good roads.

Answer 5

Not at all. If group X publicly says that that is its intention then it couldn't be considered a fallacious argument.