Now that I read it more carefully, I see the parody.  I tend to read too quickly and was just noting the progression, but now I see the humor, such as it is.

Sometimes a situation has more than one fallacy at work.

Using Hurley’s list of numerous falacies available…

Let me, the schmoe, pick a couple…

Argument against the person (circumstantial): Arguer presents other arguer [or in this case, another person], as predisposed to argue [or in this case, to think and act] this way [the way given in the thread starter].

Hasty generalization.  Conclusion is drawn from atypical sample.
[I’m not sure this one applies to the thread starter.]

Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, page 171

I added the material in brackets.

Roland

Well???

What’s the official answer?

Nathan doesn’t actually know.  That’s why he asked us to figure it out for him. 

Pretty sure I’m gonna be hurt for that remark.

I think it’s a slippery slope.

There are hidden assumptions- they never say but definitely imply that one crime will lead to another, or more specifically, that a bigger crime will make it easier to commit a lesser crime.

Slippery slope sounds good also.

And maybe you could say that just because someone murders someone, then steals, the stealing wasn’t an effect from the murder, the drinking wasn’t an effect from the stealing, etc.  I know the argument isn’t meant to be taken that literally, but it could be.