Is the following as slippery slope.
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
So this is an omnipresent all-seeing, all-knowing group, and its members are informants. Sounds like Nazi Germany to me. Citizens passed on information about their neighbours, family, and friends to the Gestapo. This was called informing.
The information provided was not always based on fact and could often be rumour or suspicion.
Informers had various motives including amongst other things, fear, personal gain, professional gain, and personal disagreements (e.g. in response to a personal dislike or argument with that person). Basically, like you lot, any science that does not fit your narrative, you inform FB, because you believe you are always right.
Comments on Question
Answers
4I don't see the argument, so there's no visible fallacy. It's just a (disturbing) pattern of behaviour.
EDIT: See Dr Bo's reply. Can't believe I missed it! Yes, comparing things to Nazi Germany is generally a weak analogy.
I suggest you read The Question of German Guilt by Jaspers. Maybe you will find your answers there but there is guarantee.
So this is an omnipresent all-seeing, all-knowing group, and its members are informants. Sounds like Nazi Germany to me.
This is a weak analogy as well as reductio ad hitlerum . The whole argument is essentially the same as this first line. I don't think it would qualify as a slippery slope, because they are not arguing that you (your group) will be like Nazi Germany; they are arguing that you are like Nazi Germany.
It has been my real life experience that the so-called Slippery Slope is NOT a FALLACY!
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I am sorry but this entire post, like so many here at LF.com, needs clarification. Beginning with the typo in the header ("As"). What group is being referred to? And how does one move past the seemingly obvious ad hominem swipes at the group's credibility to address the complaintant's allegations? The final sentence makes unsubstantive and presumptuous claims about "the group" which, taken in context, are really quite inflammatory. But I am at a loss to understand what group is the target of these incendiary charges? Please, someone clarify this?