“what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to call you stupid.”

^^^
Arguing with people like this is pointless. And endless.

“words are defined by their use.”

This, however, is debatable and highly contested by many in semantics. Although it does represent the most contemporary view.

“If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to…”

I don’t disagree with this at all. That’s why I avoid arguing with people on the internet.

“Fallacy” is a technical term, not simply a derogatory one.

@chicken There is very little actual logic on the internet, absent its coding.

@chicken @boonhet It’s a difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy because it doesn’t actually PROVE its conclusion. That doesn’t mean the conclusion is wrong, just that the argument doesn’t prove it (though it may insinuate many possible conclusions). Other corroborating evidence can lend itself to a reasonable suspicion, or even a strong inductive argument, but it falls short of logical certainty.