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
> appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is indeed an expert.

Sure it is.

The point of the fallacy is that an argument should stand on its own merit, and has nothing to do with the person making it. Guess what - experts can be wrong too (e.g. hand washing).

>>nordsi+wj
In practice it is about phrasing "expert said that, so it must be true" is a fallacy, reaching a consensus via a relevant authority is not.

>>afiori+hn1
> In practice it is about phrasing "expert said that, so it must be true" is a fallacy, reaching a consensus via a relevant authority is not.

Perhaps you could explain the difference?