Comment by BadHumans

So because one type of intervention is "forced" all types can be? Are you trying to give the "slippery slope" argument more credit or? Just because vaccines are more or less required doesn't give any argument for doing so for other stuff. Unless you want even more opposition considering you are literally using it as a slippery slope to justify more requirements.

(I'm not saying I oppose fluoride in water, I think the attention it gets is insane for what is probably not much effects on cognition even if those claims turn out to be true. I have naturally bad teeth so I'm very happy to get fluoride, and use medical toothpastes with very high concentrations of it. But I really dislike when this type of argument is made. It only provides more arguments that slippery slopes are real, and that a certain compromise or requirement will lead to more inevitably. Just argue about the merit of fluoride in water, on its own. )

> Do you hold the same belief when the government requires kids to get certain vaccines before entering school?

What an odd inference to attempt to draw. There's no comparison. Can parents decide to NOT send their children to school because they don't want to comply with entry requirements? If the answer is yes, then your question is obviously a complete non-sequitur.