NR:
When you say something is a slippery slope fallacy, you aren't making any qualitative statements about the person's conclusion. You are making a statement about their logic. As in, not the end, but the means. Your conclusion could very well come true, but that doesn't mean the argument you gave for it was rational and not fallacious.
Basically, an argument uses the slippery slope fallacy when they state that a - > b -> c -> d -> e, and e is bad, therefore we shouldn't do a. It's when you give a long trail of
possible events, but which quite easily could not occur. So the reason why your "counter examples" don't matter is becuase it's irrelevant to what is fallacious about a slippery slope. A
could lead to b, which
could lead to, which
could lead to d, which
could lead to e, but there's no reason why it
has to lead to e. If you start giving reasons why each one
has to lead to the other, than you're not being fallacious. A good example of a slippery slope fallacy in today's world is the idea that legalizing gay marriage is somehow going to lead to legalizing bestiality and animal marriages. Could such a series of events play out? I can't say they can't, but it's also absurd to think that they will.
And if you could list one of your "counter examples," in full, I could possibly try and answer your question more fully.