The thumbnail was the logical choice.

Yes but it made me sad that one of the two constant tropes for mirror universe logic videos was dropped - there was no "...IF I may continue."

Return to your duties, or spend an hour in the agony booth.

I think some private lessons between me, I mean Spock and Uhura, would be the logical choice.

I felt the same. I think Commander Spock has gone soft.

Then he would be guilty of argument ad baculum.

I was totally waiting for spock to request their agonizers.

Norman just blew a fuse again. Wow, It's been too long. I should remember the names of the other android series.I might have gotten Norman's name wrong. -- Funny, it was too early for anyone to think of the app restarting or the androids rebooting. -- "Stella! Stella!" "Nothing...thing...thing..." :D

A statement may be correct even if correctness of the statement does not follow from the argument supporting the statement. A "slippery slope" that is based on a set of successive established inferences or causal conditions can be a correct argument. A slippery slope, however, that is an extrapolation of a statement to a condition where it is not proved to be true is not a correct argument, and does not necessarily support or refute a statement. In a world of imperfect and incomplete information, where arguments can not always be made deductively, sometimes extrapolation or inductive logic is the only option.

@@profdc9501 However, if it is shown that A leads to B and that the reasoning that let was used to go from A to B if used with B as the starting point has a high likelyhood of leading to C and if C is the starting point for it to lead to D, all that can be said is that we are at B and that is the end. If you attempt to state when arguments that we need to move from B start that if not careful we could end at D your entire argument can be dismissed and ignored without even addressing the extrapolation by simply labeling it "Slippery Slope Fallacy". Similarly any us of hyperbole, edge case that you are not sure has been considered, or simple misunderstanding making an issue seem larger than intended can simply be shouted down with "strawman" and safely ignored. Thus I still maintain that simply declaring something as being on a list of logical fallacies because it is (or you simply choose to interpret it as) following the form renders it utterly invalid can itself be a fallacy.

@@profdc9501 I have found that, particularly in internet arguments, that any use of an argument wherein an extrapolation to a future condition that is undesirable is frequently labeled as "slippery slope" even when concrete examples are given and dismissed out of hand without addressing any of it and no attempt being made to show how a does not lead to b. As an example: Mr. Jefferies has a class and in that class there is a rule that no student is to chew gum during class without a doctor's note. Bill through a combination of reasonable points and insistent nagging causes Mr. Jefferies to grant an exception. Given the frequency that such bending of rules leads to future bending in other cases Mrs. Okuda could caution him quite rightly about further exceptions but chooses to hold her tongue. Jimmy, then sees that there is a way to wear down the rule and eventually gets an exception for himself. Mikky notes that neither Bill nor Jimmy have any more real need to chew gum than she does and presents her case. Mrs. Okuda, seeing an old pattern repeat itself, decides to speak to Mr. Jefferies cautioning him that if yet another exception is made he risks damaging the validity of the rule and if care is not taken soon the whole class may be excepted and the rule might as well not exist. Mr. Jefferies rebuffs her for using a slippery slope fallacy and rather bluntly informs her that the only question is that of Mikky chewing gum and ignores the argument entirely as it is "invalid". To my mind, Mr. Jefferies has committed what I term the "fallacy fallacy" in that he countered a well reasoned argument with precedent by slapping a label on it and dismissing it wholesale without consideration.

This thread seems like it would be better for the slippery slope video. My understanding is there are two classes of Slippery Slope arguments: fallacious and non-fallacious. Non fallacious means that if A is allowed to happen then B _COULD_ happen. Fallacious says B _WOULD_ happen. It could be a matter for scientific models of future activities like climate change. Greenhouse gas pollution leads to raising the Earth's temperature leads to the Greenland ice sheet melting leads to sea level rise and coastal flooding. But mainly this is used in political arguments to attack policy A by saying it would inevitably lead to policy B. The example I remember is that if people have the right to "gay marriage" then a marriage equality ruling by the court would lead to legal polygamy. A funny example was in the show _WKRP in Cincinnati_ where Herb says that if the Big Guy doesn't stop Jennifer and Les from going on a date this will lead to "sex in the halls."

Yes!!! That would be awesome!!!! PLEASE!!!!

Indeed. Now, return to your duties.

But how many would dare to complain about Mirror Spock?

Your agonizor

I'm glad you liked it!

This is the one video that I understood without having to watch it a second time, read comments for more information and look it up online. It's kind of like how "to assume is to make an *ass* out of *u* and *me"*

If your need for medical services is urgent and imminent then you don't have time to compare quality, price and customer service for a doctor, surgeon or hospital. If you need a surgery _sometime_ this year but not immediately, then you can look around. Same for seeking a 2nd opinion, GP practice, psychiatrist, etc.

Good points. If the individual members of the chemistry did not consistently do good work the department could not because the work of the department as a whole is the work of the individual members.

@@markhorton3994 I feel like the one detail that makes this fallacy less of a fallacy is that the task was assigned by the chemistry department, at which point the chemistry department's ability to assign tasks to the right individuals becomes a factor. If it were a matter of, say, a chemist who found himself stranded on that planet with the duranium shelters, and they were asserting that he would be well-suited to analyzing the material composition of the duranium plates, that might not hold. Just because he's a member of the Enterprise's award-winning chemistry department doesn't mean that he is an expert in this particular corner of chemistry. Maybe he's an organic chemist, and duranium plating isn't his wheelhouse.

@@kingbeauregard Yes, in your example the fallacy applies.

Saying it _will_ be a good shelter, and the chemist _will_ produce good work is the fallacy. Saying it _should_ be a good shelter based on materials, and the chemist _should_ produce good work based on the past record of the team, is non-fallacious, I think.

The mirror universe is not the bizarro world. The counterpart of our Spock simply exists in a universe where the Federation was not peaceful, not in a place where logic is not useful.