You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.
你搞得好像如果A发生了，那么Z也一定会发生会，以此来表示A不应该发生。
你不讨论现下的事物(A)，而是把讨论重心转移到了意淫出来的极端事物(Z)。因为你没能给出任何证据来证明A的发生一定会造成极端事物Z的发生，所以这是一种诉诸恐惧的谬误，也影响了人们讨论A时候的客观性。
例子：小红反对同性恋婚姻，因为她认为如果我们允许同性恋结婚，那么就会有人想要和桌子、椅子结婚。小红犯了滑坡谬论。
常见24条逻辑谬误
没有评论:
发表评论