Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by XorNot on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:20AM (#11157169)

This is step by step slippery slope fallacy.

You are not addressing the issue at hand. You are instead arguing that if we somehow don't take your side here, then there will never be another point at which we can argue the pros and cons of possible subsequent escalations or refusals.

Which is why it's a fallacy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by Angostura on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @08:08AM (#11158575)

Alternatively, it may be an example of an actual slippery slope - and therefore not a fallacy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by altitudinous on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:11AM (#11157337)

I hadn't heard of this fallacy before, I agree that what I wrote may be interpreted as a good example of it. I shouldn't have used the word inevitable.

I don't think that if the FBI wins the current battle then all is lost. But I do think that the FBI intends to fight all the battles until they win the long game.

That said, I don't hold any side in the argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by lifeisstillgood on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:29AM (#11157392)

This is a valid pointing out of a common fallacy, and I do not think merits the downvotes.

The OP is using fallacious reasoning, even if it is accurate reasoning :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]