It isn't JUST a fallacy fallacy when it isn't even correctly applying the fallacy itself in the first place, since the fallacy isn't valid to then apply the fallacy fallacy to.

Don't get me wrong, they will just throw out random fallacies they heard once on TV and then claim the statement is false because they "used a fallacy on it" which I agree with you in this point.

But my point is, on a proper level, and not just by their nonsense, they are not even using the fallacy correctly in the first place.

They have tried to redefine the fallacy over the years to just include everything even if it was an inductive argument that is reasonably likely, but then that is a meaningless objection when they redefine it that way. You will often see this definition on academic seeming logic websites now, which is totally absurd because by that new definition it is a meaningless fallacy [or more correctly stated, not even one at all the way they have tried to redefine it...].

There is nothing logically wrong with an inductive argument saying if x happens it is likely y and then z will happen, if [when taken to the full account of probability, which often people do ignore the multiplication rule in probability and how dramatically that can effect a result] it is actually likely to.

However, most people use the "slippery slope" fallacy to mean that, and if it truly did mean that then it is a meaningless fallacy and phrase [just like about every word they redefine..... change it to apply to a more general group, but then keep the previous negative connotation that no longer should apply].

So yes, I do agree they are using the fallacy fallacy, but on a more important fundamental level they are not even applying the fallacy they are using the fallacy fallacy of correctly in the first place, which cuts off the fallacy fallacy from their arsenal if you can show that to them [good luck getting them to think lol jk :P]. The actual misuse of the fallacy destroys the fallacy fallacy unless they claim another fallacy that is disputed [but then it would still probably be the fallacy fallacy possibly]

It isn't JUST a fallacy fallacy when it isn't even correctly applying the fallacy itself in the first place, since the fallacy isn't valid to then apply the fallacy fallacy to.

Don't get me wrong, they will just throw out random fallacies they heard once on TV and then claim the statement is false because they "used a fallacy on it" which I agree with you in this point.

But my point is, on a proper level, and not just by their nonsense, they are not even using the fallacy correctly in the first place.

They have tried to redefine the fallacy over the years to just include everything even if it was an inductive argument that is reasonably likely, but then that is a meaningless objection when they redefine it that way. You will often see this definition on academic seeming logic websites now, which is totally absurd because by that new definition it is a meaningless fallacy.

There is nothing logically wrong with an inductive argument saying if x happens it is likely y and then z will happen, if [when taken to the full account of probability, which often people do ignore the multiplication rule in probability and how dramatically that can effect a result] it is actually likely to.

However, most people use the "slippery slope" fallacy to mean that, and if it truly did mean that then it is a meaningless fallacy and phrase [just like about every word they redefine..... change it to apply to a more general group, but then keep the previous negative connotation that no longer should apply].

So yes, I do agree they are using the fallacy fallacy, but on a more important fundamental level they are not even applying the fallacy they are using the fallacy fallacy of correctly in the first place, which cuts off the fallacy fallacy from their arsenal if you can show that to them [good luck getting them to think lol jk :P]. The actual misuse of the fallacy destroys the fallacy fallacy unless they claim another fallacy that is disputed [but then it would still probably be the fallacy fallacy possibly]

It isn't JUST a fallacy fallacy when it isn't even correctly applying the fallacy itself in the first place, since the fallacy isn't valid to then apply the fallacy fallacy to.

Don't get me wrong, they will just throw out random fallacies they heard once on TV and then claim the statement is false because they "used a fallacy on it" which I agree with you in this point.

But my point is, on a proper level, and not just by their nonsense, they are not even using the fallacy correctly in the first place.

They have tried to redefine the fallacy over the years to just include everything even if it was an inductive argument that is reasonably likely, but then that is a meaningless objection when they redefine it that way.

There is nothing logically wrong with an inductive argument saying if x happens it is likely y and then z will happen, if [when taken to the full account of probability, which often people do ignore the multiplication rule in probability and how dramatically that can effect a result] it is actually likely to.

However, most people use the "slippery slope" fallacy to mean that, and if it truly did mean that then it is a meaningless fallacy and phrase [just like about every word they redefine..... change it to apply to a more general group, but then keep the previous negative connotation that no longer should apply].

So yes, I do agree they are using the fallacy fallacy, but on a more important fundamental level they are not even applying the fallacy they are using the fallacy fallacy of correctly in the first place, which cuts off the fallacy fallacy from their arsenal if you can show that to them [good luck getting them to think lol jk :P]. The actual misuse of the fallacy destroys the fallacy fallacy unless they claim another fallacy that is disputed [but then it would still probably be the fallacy fallacy possibly]