zlacker

>>Xordev+(OP)
I guess this is the reason lot of corporates try to stay out of politics. Because once you set a precedence then people will use that as to push their own political agendas. I personally don't like the slippery slope argument since it's very lazy and justifies inaction in many cases. But at the same time when I see news like this, I just wonder how long it will take two different subgroups trying push their own conflicting agendas and how the company should react in such a case.

>>johnce+bg
Slippery slopes are not always a fallacy, roughly the same way appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is indeed an expert.

Relevant: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kbm6QnJv9dgWsPHQP/schelling-...

>>Kinran+Ag
> when the authority is indeed an expert.

can someone be a considered authority without being an expert.

edit:

I am using authority from the example in wikipedia

"One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[20] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[21][22] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[23] scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority"

Painter presumably was an expert. So not sure why you are saying why its ok if the person is an expert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority