I really do not understand why some people argue that slippery slope arguments are fallacious. If there is no compelling force and no oversight that prevents an organization from doing something then by entropy alone you would expect that it will eventually be done, much less when there is a huge incentive to use it because it requires less work and red tape.
Slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily fallacious. Their quality depends on how strong of a case you can build for why/how <initial-event> will lead to <predicted-stopping-point> rather than <alternative-stopping-points>.
You're being downvoted because there's a certain passive-aggressive subset who'd rather take the easy way out and just suppress an opinion they disagree with by pushing it into graytext territory than attempt to do the constructive thing and type out a thoughtful response to it.
Anyway, you're correct that slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily fallacious. A well-crafted one which demonstrates that sliding down the slope is inevitable can be quite compelling. One that I've always thought was particularly impressive is the line of reasoning that the political philosopher Robert Nozick employed in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia to argue that an anarchist political system would not be viable.
Well, arguments of the form 'if we allow X then we must also allow Y' is a fallacy in the strict sense that it does not follow with logical necessity when X and Y are different things. While if you accept the premises that say X leads to Y and Y leads to Z, then it does follow logically that X leads to Z.
The word 'fallacy' is often used as synonym for 'wrong' but that is misleading.
