Back

@renwillis @StillIRise1963 it's not a slippery slope argument if you are just taking someone's actual logic and working out the full implications of it. Something is only a slippery slope argument if you can't demonstrate a mechanism for movement down the slope. Maybe before swing around logical fallacies you should actually learn what they mean.

Speaking of which, if you want to argue that way, you're shifting the goalposts. None of your original logic was actually about education or providing Social Services. It was about controlling behavior. And all of it was more broadly applicable than in whatever specific healthcare's case you're thinking of here. You literally said "Personal freedom to be stupid is never actually “personal”." Your initial argument was a justification for controlling the behavior of people (not letting them make poor personal health decisions if they want to in this case, but there's no reason it should be limited to that) because you somehow think that will be "contagious" to the people around them, and because it will put strain on society to support them and so society gets to determine what they should be able to do, and you concluded by saying that everyone is connected and therefore we should be able to control even the personal bodily autonomy of individuals with regards to their health care even in the absence of evidence of a direct harmful effect on other people. Now you're changing the argument to just be about one about education. I'm sorry but I don't buy that. Especially since this is the exact same argument that conservatives use against personal choice and bodily autonomy in everything from tattoos and piercings to abortion and trans health care.

Also, your argument is just wrong, because if the stupidity does somehow "spread", people are conscious beings who make their own choices, it's not like if someone is stupid around you you'll just be helplessly converted to their cause. If other people around someone who's being stupid choose to do what they're doing too, that is their own choice as well. So your argument is circular in that it assumes personal autonomy doesn't exist in order to prove that it doesn't exist.

I'm not pro Ivermectin or Homeopathy at all or any of the other shibboleths that you probably have in mind (and being masked and vaccine is not actually a personal choice in the sense I'm talking about since it greatly affects the people around you in a direct and clear manner so this isn't a stalking horse argument against that stuff before you make assumptions) but I recognize authoritarian logic when I see it.