Putting GPS on cars that are paid for by the taxpayer and are used by people with more power than a regular citizen is hardly some far reaching nanny state, it is just good practice.
I'd go further and say that it's quite the opposite of a nanny state (or really, a surveillance state). I don't understand where chris_mahan is coming from, as this policy seems to allow the citizenry oversight over the government, instead of the other way around.
The slippery slope is called slippery _because_ it is slippery...
None of the other groups have so much responsibility and power where trust is so critical to their functioning.
I've is slippery, too, and it can take you in any direction you fall: how far are you willing to compromise a lack of oversight?
And firefighters 100% need this as well, it's better for dispatching.
What's so slippery? Yes, if you're driving someone elses vehicle on someone elses mission, then it's okay and beneficial to have GPS in it.
Mind you, I'm not sure what abuses of power schoolchildren go for, so I'm open to being educated on the matter.
The difference between the fallacy and the logical device is warrant (the logical chain of events) and lack of reasonable demarcation.
How does watching police lead to watching fire-fighters? The increased safety of the first, the already existing infrastructure, are all reasons that could happen (and may not be a bad idea, if like police, we only watch them during their job).
But how does that translate to teachers. Where is the chain of events that connects them? that makes the argument a logically valid slippery slope as opposed to a fallacy?
Consider gay marriage leading to bestiality and pedophilia. There is a reasonable demarcation point. Two legally consenting adults (humans obviously). Is a reasonable position somewhere along the slope. There is also no warrant. There is no link to gay people marrying and an increase in bestiality or pedophilia. Hence Logical fallacy.
Consider free speech and banning certain types of speech (specifically information and the banning of some types of information (rape porn as an example)) leading to censorship and violations of free speech and privacy. There is warrant here:
* Because we are already filtering for objectionable material, why not also read the information and look for terrorists, oh and criminals. Who reads and filters this data? How do we control it?
* Cryptography becomes illegal, or controlled, so that we can look for objectional material. Removing privacy and making free speech difficult.
* It becomes harder to report crime, since the crime of reading information about other crimes becomes more serious than the crimes themselves.
You know that "logical fallacies" are BS that have nothing to do with Logic (formal logic and reasoning) and are wrong in thelselves besides, right?
>Where is the chain of events that connects them? that makes the argument a logically valid slippery slope as opposed to a fallacy?
It's called the "Overton Window". Check it out.
Oh, and the "chain of events connecting them" is the all increasing deployment of surveillance since the mid 20th century. An actual "slippery slope" in action, if I ever saw one.