nope. slippery slope is basically “bad thing can happen, so it will happen” without evidence to support that outcome. here, we have a trajectory. there’s a pattern. it has momentum at this point. it hasn’t changed corse. it’s followed a predictable and proven pattern. It’s done so because the the pressures exerted on this particular system guide the outcome in predictable ways.
that is entirely different than the slippery slope dismissal
No, entirely incorrect. “bad thing can happen, so it will happen” is essentially a mangling of Murphy’s Law.
In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected [eg: this minor law] because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends [eg: loose claims of a pot getting hotter implying further details will be demanded next].
The boiling pot goes up 1C, then another 1C
https://www.britannica.com/topic/slippery-slope-argument
nope. slippery slope is basically “bad thing can happen, so it will happen” without evidence to support that outcome. here, we have a trajectory. there’s a pattern. it has momentum at this point. it hasn’t changed corse. it’s followed a predictable and proven pattern. It’s done so because the the pressures exerted on this particular system guide the outcome in predictable ways.
that is entirely different than the slippery slope dismissal
No, entirely incorrect. “bad thing can happen, so it will happen” is essentially a mangling of Murphy’s Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
More “thin end of the wedge”.