[WikiEN-l] Straw man (was: Proposed: stop all deletes for6months, then reconsider)

[The Cunctator]

On 11/11/03 2:04 AM, "Andrew Lih" <alih at hku.hk> wrote:

>> Yes, they are. By definition it is a fallacy. Slippery slope
>> arguments, by definition, are missing the connecting tissue.
> 
> Well I guess it is now that you've changed the Wikipedia entry for it
> and changed "argument" to "fallacy."

Changed it back, you mean.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

> The slippery slope argument only becomes a fallacy if you make an
> unreasonable conclusion connecting happening A and happening B.  Folks
> were debating the merits of including ~3,000 victims of 9/11
> individually as articles in Wikipedia. Asking what this means for other
> victims of other disasters and crimes around the world and in history is
> not a far stretch. That is why "rounding up" all arguments of this type
> to fallacy is not fair.

I did not call those questions straw men. Now you're changing the subject.
 
>> You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of logical fallacies.

> "The slippery slope argument is usually used as a commentary on social
> change, not as a point of logic."
> 
> (which used to be in the Slippery Slope article)

It may be a nice commentary, but it's not a logically valid argument.