← Back to context

Comment by mardifoufs

1 year ago

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. )

No where did I say I am for or against flouride in water. I'm just trying to see if they are against all government medical intervention or just this one.