Tom Thompson wrote:
I guess that smoking must just be the first thing on the slippery slope of banning personal choices, or is it just that you have a personal aversion to one but not the other? Soon what, where and probably with whom we eat will be dictated by government. [Me]: I gotta address this 'slippery slope' argument, and also say that it is typically a last resort argument for many. That is, if we do this . . . then we will end up with this and, by god, next thing you know they'll be banning my wearing of plaid boxer shorts. But, the best argument I've seen to counter the 'slippery slope' argument is that WE all define how slippery that slope is, and reasoned arguments nearly always limit how far a regulation goes in one particular context. In other words, the 'banning' of a particular item or action has its own highly peculiar context, and that context does not readily translate over into another context. So, before you feel that we are on the road to ban the sun, perfumes, fragrances, cars, tanning, fast food, coffee, alcohol, plaid boxer shorts, false teeth, John Tesh CDs, and/or the ability to breath at all, take a breath and relax--it won't happen. Gregory Luce St. Paul REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
