You just have to remember that fallacious arguments can still be true, and most of the examples given in textbooks are pretending that the genuine implication isn't there.
If you say "Rising prices coming from printed money is a slippery-slope fallacy", you're pretending that the cause and effect relationship is either speculative or undefined, when in reality, it is well-established. The reactionaries on the right have fallen into the trap of letting the Left dictate terms for them.
Or in other words, the fallacy fallacy. Just because your opponent's logic falls within the bounds of a logical fallacy, does not mean their conclusions are necessarily incorrect.
Yes, it's still a fallacy.
You just have to remember that fallacious arguments can still be true, and most of the examples given in textbooks are pretending that the genuine implication isn't there.
If you say "Rising prices coming from printed money is a slippery-slope fallacy", you're pretending that the cause and effect relationship is either speculative or undefined, when in reality, it is well-established. The reactionaries on the right have fallen into the trap of letting the Left dictate terms for them.
Or in other words, the fallacy fallacy. Just because your opponent's logic falls within the bounds of a logical fallacy, does not mean their conclusions are necessarily incorrect.
Right.