I've been bothered for a little while now by the slipper

prople that wanted equality in the old days were called radical for a reason, and it's really just because since fascism died, universities have been filled with left wing lecturers

>>925078
The issue isn't really left or right, it's more about whether it should be a fallacy or not.

>>925019
Its an informal fallacy. it is not a fallacy if you use it in a very nuanced way
It works like this. saying sodomy is bad could lead to gay marriage which is bad is a mistake, because it artificially conflates the two positions. Just because you dont care if gays have sex does not mean you support gay marriage. Unless you can show that one directly leads to the other, its a fallacy

>>925223
>Unless you can show that one directly leads to the other, its a fallacy
In most cases the cause isn't immediately visible. For instance, a law that decreased tax benefits for marriage could have the very direct result of less marriages occuring, but could also have much further, indirect results like a lower GDP or societal decay, or some other far-flung outcome.
An English MP, voting on raising the taxes from the American colonies, might have been shot down by "muh slippery slope" for saying it would lead to a revolution.

>>925019
Logical fallacies are not rules of thumb. You need razors for that.
"It happens most of the time" =/= "It will definitely happen". The converse is the claim being made, and it doesn't always follow. Therefore it is a fallacy.