Originally Posted by Reggae_Mangle
I'm just stressing that there's isn't necessarily linearity between cause and effect.
The reason a butterfly effect is a non-acceptable form of reason is because cause and effect are linear. Like I said earlier, it is a slippery slope. A slippery slope is fallacious in reasoning, because it tries to take a random series of events and link the first to the last. You can't do that logically.
If you heard me tell my kid that if they left their matchbox cars on the stairs we would be homeless, you would probably think I was nuts. But yet if they leave their cars on the stairs, I could fall down the stairs. If I fell down the stairs, I could break my neck. If I broke my neck, I could spend months in the hospital. If I spend months in the hospital, I could lose my job. If I lose my job, I don't get a paycheck. If I don't get a paycheck, I can't pay the bills. If I can't pay the bills, we will get evicted. If we get evicted, we will be homeless.
In no way does leaving toy cars on the stairs guarantee homelessness. This is why the butterfly effect is fun, but not a good argument. Too many ifs.