<P> Conceptual slippery slopes, which Trudy Govier calls the fallacy of slippery assimilation, are closely related to the sorites paradox so, for example, in the context of talking about slippery slopes Merilee Salmon can say, "The slippery slope is an ancient form of reasoning . According to van Fraassen (The Scientific Image), the argument is found in Sextus Empiricus that incest is not immoral, on the grounds that' touching your mother's big toe with your little finger is not immoral, and all the rest differs only by degree ."' </P> <P> Decisional slippery slopes are similar to conceptual slippery slopes in that they rely on there being a continuum with no clear dividing lines such that if you decide to accept one position or course of action then there will, either now or in the future, be no rational grounds for not accepting the next position or course of action in the sequence . </P> <P> The difficulty in classifying slippery slope arguments is that there is no clear consensus in the literature as to how terminology should be used . It has been said that whilst these two fallacies "have a relationship which may justify treating them together", they are also distinct, and "the fact that they share a name is unfortunate". Some writers treat them side by side but emphasize how they differ . Some writers use the term slippery slope to refer to one kind of argument but not the other, but don't agree on which one, whilst others use the term to refer to both . So, for example, </P> <Ul> <Li> Christopher Tindale gives a definition that only fits the causal type . He says, "Slippery Slope reasoning is a type of negative reasoning from consequences, distinguished by the presence of a causal chain leading from the proposed action to the negative outcome ." </Li> <Li> Merrilee Salmon describes the fallacy as a failure to recognise that meaningful distinctions can be drawn and even casts the "domino theory" in that light . </Li> <Li> Doug Walton says that an essential feature of slippery slopes is a "loss of control" and this only fits with the decisional type of slippery slope . He says that, "The domino argument has a sequence of events in which each one in the sequence causes the next one to happen in such a manner that once the first event occurs it will lead to the next event, and so forth, until the last event in the sequence finally occurs...(and)... is clearly different from the slippery slope argument, but can be seen as a part of it, and closely related to it ." </Li> </Ul>

Explain the slippery slope fallacy and give an example