If A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D, and D is undesirable, and on that basis we conclude that we shouldn’t do A, then we have a legitimate chain argument—if indeed A does lead to B, B leads to C, and C leads to D.
If, however, one or more connections between the links in the chain are untenable (suppose, for example, B doesn’t really lead to C) and we still conclude that because D is undesirable, we shouldn’t do A, then we’ve committed the
Slippery Slope fallacy.
QUOTE
If you train people to think for themselves, you get problems like the occupy movement. Strikes when owners and managers grabs most of the profits and pay workers a pittance. People voting out their government. People questioning government leaders at every turn, instead of simply doing what are asked of them.
Slippery slope fallacies often play on our deepest fears. The links in this alleged chain are not strong, but this is not to say that challenging government is a risk-free practice. It is only to say that, logically speaking, when causal connections are claimed, there needs to be sufficient evidence that the connections are genuine.
And to claim that teaching Critical Thinking in young children across the curriculum, will one day when grown up ultimately cause them to question the government is plainly to make a claim that is insufficiently supported by the evidence. (i.e.
Who are these “People”? Are they overgeneralized? Are they representative enough?)
OK, I won't delve deeper as it tends to go off-topic. In general, we are aware of the possibility of this tendency, and in specific, we agreed the intention of this thread is to suggest some good curriculum activities to wanzulfikri.