[freeeee]

I would stop using slippery-slope arguments as a means of debate. Regardless of their merit, they are rather unconvincing.

"We would never make seatbelts mandatory, we just want to make auto manufacturers install them in all cars."

"We want kids to have to buckle up, but we'd never make adults do so."

"We need adults to buckle up, but don't worry, you won't get pulled over just for that, and it won't count against your insurance rates..."

It seems you are correct, slippery slope arguments aren't convincing...

[mtngrl@vrwc]

Great example, Freeeee.....

[ladyinred]

The seat belt laws were one of the first things that came to my mind too. Not that I don't think wearing them is a good idea, but we should not be forced to do so! You know, "land of the free" and all that.

[chudogg]

Yeah the slipper-slope arguement works for anything.

"We would never make customers pay extra taxes for cigarettes, only the large corporations"

"The customer should be paying taxes for the medicare costs the smoker will be using later in life"

"Smokers should pay extra taxes since it is an anti-social behavior and they need motivation to stop"

"Cigarette taxes should be raised to discourage teen smoking"

"Smoking puts non smokers at risk, and therefore should be banned in all public places."

"Smoking should be banned"

"We would never make customers pay extra taxes for fast food, only the large corporations"

And on and on the cycle continues!

[JohnGalt]

Slippery slope arguements appeal to the converted but not the unwashed.

[martian_22]

I remember a slippery slope example.
"All we're asking for is no-smoking on continental domestic flights under two hours. It's common sense and for the public health. Please be reasonable, that's all we want."