Fallacy: Slippery Slope (The Camel's Nose)

The fact that I even have a need to Google different types of fallacies should be evidence enough that there is serious unchecked insanity in my life - and not all of it is directly doping related! If I had my druthers, I would just tell the idiots who come at me with these fallacies to go eff themselves, but nowadays the level of scrutiny that I'm subjected to is...too great. How I long to be but a dumb, pathetic bike racer hiding out in Europe.

Alas, by virtue of the definition, the arguments I face daily are often times devoid of logic and thus no response is necessary (other than to point out that my interlocutors are fucking insane), but intellectual curiosity and a man-crush on Sun Tzu leads me to hope to better understand my enemy by researching his preferred method of attack. To that end:

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples of Slippery Slope

• "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
• "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
• "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
• "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

Fallacy: Personal Attack (Ad Hominem Abusive)

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

Examples of Personal Attack

1. In a school debate, Bill claims that the President's economic plan is unrealistic. His opponent, a professor, retorts by saying "the freshman has his facts wrong."

2. "This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced by a doctor who is a known lesbian feminist. I don't see why we should extend an invitation for her to speak at the World Conference on Cancer."

3. "Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it must be wrong to do that."

4. "That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how morally repulsive he is."

5. "Bill claims that Jane would be a good treasurer. However I find Bill's behavior offensive, so I'm not going to vote for Jill."

6. "Jane says that drug use is morally wrong, but she is just a goody-two shoes Christian, so we don't have to listen to her."

7. Bill: "I don't think it is a good idea to cut social programs."
Jill: "Why not?"
Bill: "Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy. Others are born into poverty and..."
Jill: "You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head."

Source