No. A slippery slope in all its glory would not involve me injecting the confirmation of personal opinion. Plus there's no real "if A then B" scenario. [i]If it devolved into full-blown socialism then no one would agree on anything?[/i] [i]If it was a hybrid then no one would agree on anything?[/i] [i]If it was a hybrid then it would devolve into full-blown socialism?[/i] (even though I never claimed this - I'm just reaching for the potential in your argument) None of it really screams slippery slope fallacy. Maybe a hint but not "all it's glory" for sure. I would never use my statement as an example of a slippery slope when explaining the concept to someone else. I would, however, use yours when defining the fallacy fallacy. The Fallacy Fallacy - You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

I will concede it's not in all its glory. I still believe it's a slippery slope argument to assume it would devolve into full blown socialism

What I was saying was that it would not devolve into full-blown socialism as a result, but that it would need to in order to work. This is what I mean by word play. The word "devolve" has a negative connotation and my use of it caused you to react defensively and and misinterpret my statement. Politics are all about word play. If I had said, "It could be a hybrid but the only way I see that working is if it [i]righteously transformed[/i] into full-blown socialism," you may have received it differently.

I don't think so because I also believe full blown socialism is a bad thing. I don't want that. The second sentence implies I would receive socialism positivity

Hence my use of the word "may." I don't actually know what your views on anything are. I only know that you got defensive. Edit: Nix the word "defensive." Just read your last post. It just seemed that way to me.

Hmm. I do agree that word play is extremely relevant. I believe though that "socialist" is a demonized word that scares many people