Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8805032" data-attributes="member: 7023840">As I usually try to point out, it is almost always unhelpful to just refer to &quot;logical fallacies&quot; as if they were an actual rebuttal to people's concerns.First, and most importantly, people are almost always discussing informal fallacies, and even if they are doing so correctly, informal fallacies have a place in actual discourse; it is better to address the discussion than to simply blurt out &quot;strawman&quot; or &quot;slippery slope&quot; or whatever you think might be at issue.Second, slippery slope arguments (technically, these are usually versions of the continuum fallacy) do not have to be fallacious. It has long been recognized that, &quot;it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties,&quot; for a reason. Slippery slope arguments are neither necessarily fallacious, nor dispositive, but (like most arguments) have to be analyzed on their own merits.If concerns are unfounded, then they can be addressed as such. If, however, someone states a valid and reasoned concern that support of A will lead to B, then it is best to address why A will not lead to B*, instead of rubbishing the concern as an &quot;informal fallacy.&quot;*Or why B is not a bad outcome.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8805032, member: 7023840"] As I usually try to point out, it is almost always unhelpful to just refer to "logical fallacies" as if they were an actual rebuttal to people's concerns. First, and most importantly, people are almost always discussing informal fallacies, and even if they are doing so correctly, informal fallacies have a place in [I]actual discourse; [/I]it is better to address the discussion than to simply blurt out "strawman" or "slippery slope" or whatever you think might be at issue. Second, slippery slope arguments (technically, these are usually versions of the continuum fallacy) do not have to be fallacious. It has long been recognized that, "it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties," for a reason. Slippery slope arguments are neither necessarily fallacious, nor dispositive, but (like most arguments) have to be analyzed on their own merits. If concerns are unfounded, then they can be addressed as such. If, however, someone states a valid and reasoned concern that support of A will lead to B, then it is best to address why A will not lead to B*, instead of rubbishing the concern as an "informal fallacy." *Or why B is not a bad outcome. [/QUOTE]

Verification