Using the Argumentum ad Consequentiam makes for unpleasant discussions. Hence, it must be a logical fallacy. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid.
Ancient wisdom teaches that the argumentum ad antiquitatem is invalid.
An argument is emotional and no substitute for reasoned discussion. But proof by equivocation is a kind of argument. Thus, a proof by equivocation is no substitute for a valid proof. If we accept slippery slope arguments, we may have to accept other forms of weak arguments. Eventually, we won't be able to reason at all.