Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Your GP comment was already unsubstantive, which is the main reason why we're getting a flamewar in this subthread, and it's also not cool to feed it as you're doing here. If a parent comment is breaking the site guidelines (which https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30432570 was), the thing to do is flag it, not reply by fueling the flames.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: we've also had to ask you this kind of thing in the past.

Many long term political goals are achieved through incrementalism which others might call the "slippery slope." Incrementalism is a political tactic that is extremely effective. To dismiss it purely as an argumentative fallacy in all cases demonstrates naivety and the person who pointed out that you probably don't understand government was right to do so.

There are probably very few cases where the government implemented a rule or regulation or tax or anything where it was eventually rolled back. The government has a long and documented track record of incrementally expanding its reach and power.

The US homeland security act will never time out. The Canadian emergencies act will likely also continue on forever, but the act doesn't actually have to get worse to BE worse. The act is already dictatorial. The controlling government will just figure out how to apply the emergencies act more liberally against political opponents. That's how it will get worse.

You do realize that this is, in fact, very similar to what the people who stumped for "just letting us have bike lanes" have progressed to advocating, right? Totally car-free roads, roads that technically are car-usable but have been rigged so that they won't support normal traffic, various pushes to force (or "nudge" or "encourage") people to ride bikes or take mass transit instead of driving... etc.

And they even helped with convenient tax credits for taking their preferred modes of transportation! (spending tax dollars)

It seems pretty weird to try to equate an absurd scenario around bikes, to a situation where governments with track records of accumulating and abusing power might... accumulate and abuse more power. Asserting that "this time will be different" feels a bit naive, no?

> "If you allow bike lanes in our city, in a few years these bike commies will be trying to spend tax dollars on buying everyone bikes, and then make it illegal to drive your car in the road!"

strawman fallacy (or "whataboutism" if you prefer (I don't))