Reverse Slippery Slope Fallacy

Arguing that because a slippery slope has failed to appear, further travel down the slope is safe. Note that such arguments can actually legitimize a Slippery Slope Fallacy; the speaker has established a precedent of using previous travel down the slope to justify further travel down the slope; thus, one is justified in worrying that this new action will in turn be used to justify even more actions.

""Why shouldn't we put the Ten Commandments up at the courthouse? After all, as this dollar bill states "In God we trust".""
 * When one violation of the separation of the Church and State is criticized as bad, another violation, from recent history is cited.


 * This is despite the phrase being made official in 1864, in a violation of separation of church and state.


 * In Sicko, Michael Moore tries to allay worries about government-run health care by pointing out that we already have government-run schools and a government-run mail service.
 * You might say that this part of the slope has already been traveled in the abundance of countries which already have government-run health care, but although that is relevant to the government healthcare argument it is not relevant to the question of whether Michael Moore committed the fallacy.

Looks like this fallacy but is not:

 * One can make valid arguments that the failure of dangers to appear from similar circumstances should make us more confident in the safety of the new circumstances. But it can't be used to establish that the new circumstances will definitely be safe, especially if existing concerns about the current circumstances are ignored.