GrumpyRabbit on Nostr: The point of the "slippery slope" fallacy is ONLY to distinguish between an absolute ...
The point of the "slippery slope" fallacy is ONLY to distinguish between an absolute proof versus what's probable, but not certain. Therefore, it's irrefutably valid to use any significant risk to either forbid or require action by others, in spite of the fact that the risk is not certain. Sure, one can dispute what level of probability justifies interference with the (in)actions of others, but that's a different issue.
That's why there are laws that criminalize "drunk driving" (just one example,) in spite of the fact that there is no absolute certainty that it will result in harm to anyone or anything in every case, nor even that in the absence of any proof that any particular person cannot reliably drive drunk safely.
Worse, in the case of what public schools may or may not do, the fact that whatever they choose to do is funded using involuntary taxation makes it a political question--which are rightfully decided by majority vote.
Given the fact that a child's attendance at school is required by law, and that public school educational activities are paid for by involuntary taxation, the fact of the matter is, as a matter of fundamental ethical principles, that forcing even one student to be subjected to "education" asserting things that the child's parents do not want their child to be taught, when such refusal violates no one else's rights, is evil. That means that each parent (and each child) has an ABSOLUTE, UNCHALLENGEABLE right (as a matter of fundamental ethical principles) to not be subjected to any such "education" (which they deem to be "misinformation," "disinformation" or "propaganda.")
The fact that others disagree is ethically quite irrelevant: Those who disagree can have their children educated as they see fit, using their own time and resources. Alternatively, public schools can structure their activities so that they do not expose any student to anything that the student's parents do not wish to have their child exposed.
That's why there are laws that criminalize "drunk driving" (just one example,) in spite of the fact that there is no absolute certainty that it will result in harm to anyone or anything in every case, nor even that in the absence of any proof that any particular person cannot reliably drive drunk safely.
Worse, in the case of what public schools may or may not do, the fact that whatever they choose to do is funded using involuntary taxation makes it a political question--which are rightfully decided by majority vote.
Given the fact that a child's attendance at school is required by law, and that public school educational activities are paid for by involuntary taxation, the fact of the matter is, as a matter of fundamental ethical principles, that forcing even one student to be subjected to "education" asserting things that the child's parents do not want their child to be taught, when such refusal violates no one else's rights, is evil. That means that each parent (and each child) has an ABSOLUTE, UNCHALLENGEABLE right (as a matter of fundamental ethical principles) to not be subjected to any such "education" (which they deem to be "misinformation," "disinformation" or "propaganda.")
The fact that others disagree is ethically quite irrelevant: Those who disagree can have their children educated as they see fit, using their own time and resources. Alternatively, public schools can structure their activities so that they do not expose any student to anything that the student's parents do not wish to have their child exposed.