Your first paragraph is as good example of how the concept of the slippery slope fallacy is often overplayed as outright gospel.
If you can lay out the steps from getting from A to B, then B to C, [as you have done here], the larger idea of how to get from A to Z isn't suddenly impossible, meaning it's not a fallacy anymore.
I completely agree. People often think the slippery slope fallacy applies to any statement that A could maybe lead to Z and Z is not the guaranteed outcome. In truth, it's only a fallacy when A cannot lead to Z at all (or at least, Z seems very implausible).
For example (for anyone still unclear about this):
"Developing nuclear weapons will lead to nuclear war" = Slippery slope fallacy. Nuclear war isn't guaranteed to happen just because a nation has nuclear weapons.
"Developing nuclear weapons could lead to nuclear war" = Not a slippery slope fallacy. Nuclear war could indeed happen if someone has nuclear weapons.
Your first paragraph is as good example of how the concept of the slippery slope fallacy is often overplayed as outright gospel.
If you can lay out the steps from getting from A to B, then B to C, [as you have done here], the larger idea of how to get from A to Z isn't suddenly impossible, meaning it's not a fallacy anymore.
I completely agree. People often think the slippery slope fallacy applies to any statement that A could maybe lead to Z and Z is not the guaranteed outcome. In truth, it's only a fallacy when A cannot lead to Z at all (or at least, Z seems very implausible).
For example (for anyone still unclear about this):
"Developing nuclear weapons will lead to nuclear war" = Slippery slope fallacy. Nuclear war isn't guaranteed to happen just because a nation has nuclear weapons.
"Developing nuclear weapons could lead to nuclear war" = Not a slippery slope fallacy. Nuclear war could indeed happen if someone has nuclear weapons.