Child Euthenasia proposal in Britain

[Isana Kadeb]

I've already read it. Are you saying that you support extending this euthanasia policy to include people who could lead productive lives, rather than the permanent-care semi-vegetables described in the opening post? You place no value at all on social utility? What exact system of ethics do you subscribe to? And don't just say "consequentialism" again; that is not a system of ethics because it doesn't explain how you value these consequences.

You're missing the point, it supports my position that people with serious genetic disabilities are reproducing. Hence my assertion about the "detereorating gene pool".

So according to your logic, if X% of an intellectually superior group A belongs to group B, then X% of group B must also be intellectually superior? You honestly don't see the flaw in this logic?

No, I just want to know the logic behind exterminating the one of the most intellectually productive groups within humanity, for the good of humanity.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I sense the ban hammer coming... to deal with the local village idiot/neo-Nazi/whatever you want to keep adding.

[Isana Kadeb]

You wouldn't know a slippery slope fallacy if you shat it and it smacked you in the ass, you dishonest retard;

That must be why your whole argument is a big, giant, flying slippery slope fallacy.

sterilizing poor people (and disabled people and people with "bad genes") is, in fact, a direct consequence of your argument that if it's bad for the human race overall, it ought not be permitted to reproduce. Are you simply trying to use this thread as an excuse to throw in as many pretentious insults as you can without making any arguments of substance?

Who said anything about sterilising poor people, you psychotic dipshit. I realise you're most probably a low- iq delinquent, so I can understand your defensiveness, but stop shovelling your fecal matter in others mouths. And do google up "the slipperly slope fallacy", moron....

I grow weary of your habit of answering points by flaming but not directly addressing the points. Start answering some points right now, asshole. Give us your definition of "slippery slope".

Hi Mr. wong. This is my understanding of the slippery slope fallacy - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

[Patrick Degan]

Anyone want to take bets on how long until this thread ends up in HoS?

Done —5000 quatloos that this gets flushed into the sewer by midnight CST.

[Darth Wong]

I've already read it. Are you saying that you support extending this euthanasia policy to include people who could lead productive lives, rather than the permanent-care semi-vegetables described in the opening post? You place no value at all on social utility? What exact system of ethics do you subscribe to? And don't just say "consequentialism" again; that is not a system of ethics because it doesn't explain how you value these consequences.

You're missing the point, it supports my position that people with serious genetic disabilities are reproducing. Hence my assertion about the "detereorating gene pool".

No, YOU are missing the point. You cannot mix and match incompatible arguments and pretend that you have a coherent case. If you believe that the euthanasia should only be applied to the extremely disabled, then it is totally irrelevant whether they would represent a good contribution to the gene pool because they will not reproduce.

The fact that people who are capable of functioning in society can reproduce with technical assistance is a red-herring to that argument.

So according to your logic, if X% of an intellectually superior group A belongs to group B, then X% of group B must also be intellectually superior? You honestly don't see the flaw in this logic?

No, I just want to know the logic behind exterminating the one of the most intellectually productive groups within humanity, for the good of humanity.

Obviously, you are not familiar with this whole concept of "debating", beyond your creative use of flames which, as I have stressed several times already, is a valid decoration for an argument but not a valid substitute for one. You claimed that Jews are intellectually superior. You produced a hasty generalization fallacy in order to back up this claim. You will have to either do better than that or concede that this claim is unfounded. You can't simply repeat an argument which presumes the truth of that claim, fool.

Hi Mr. wong. This is my understanding of the slippery slope fallacy - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

Apparently, I did not make myself sufficiently clear. You will explain the slippery slope fallacy IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Googling a link which may or may not support your case is totally inadequate.

[Spin Echo]

I've already read it. Are you saying that you support extending this euthanasia policy to include people who could lead productive lives, rather than the permanent-care semi-vegetables described in the opening post? You place no value at all on social utility? What exact system of ethics do you subscribe to? And don't just say "consequentialism" again; that is not a system of ethics because it doesn't explain how you value these consequences.

You're missing the point, it supports my position that people with serious genetic disabilities are reproducing. Hence my assertion about the "detereorating gene pool".

Isn't spina bifida not a genetic disorder, but caused by a lack of folic acid during pregnancy?

[Surlethe]

That must be why your whole argument is a big, giant, flying slippery slope fallacy.

Don't throw around words you don't understand, child.

Who said anything about sterilising poor people, you psychotic dipshit. I realise you're most probably a low- iq delinquent, so I can understand your defensiveness, but stop shovelling your fecal matter in others mouths. And do google up "the slipperly slope fallacy", moron....

Nobody said anything about sterilizing poor people, you illiterate pond-scum. Its morality is simply necessary for your argument, a fact which you don't seem to realize. I realize that it's sometimes difficult to make the connection between two analogous situations, but I assure you that once you reach puberty and start moving into the adult world, it will become quite necessary for functioning.

[Patrick Degan]

That must be why your whole argument is a big, giant, flying slippery slope fallacy. Who said anything about sterilising poor people, you psychotic dipshit. I realise you're most probably a low- iq delinquent, so I can understand your defensiveness, but stop shovelling your fecal matter in others mouths. And do google up "the slipperly slope fallacy", moron....

I grow weary of your habit of answering points by flaming but not directly addressing the points. Start answering some points right now, asshole. Give us your definition of "slippery slope".

Hi Mr. wong. This is my understanding of the slippery slope fallacy - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

So, when asked to give your personal, intellectual understanding of "slipery slope", you instead Google it up, which shows nothing except that you're an evasive little asshole.

I don't see you lasting too much longer around here.

[Surlethe]

Anyone want to take bets on how long until this thread ends up in HoS?

Done —5000 quatloos that this gets flushed into the sewer by midnight CST.

I'll up to 7500 that it's in there by 12:30 EST.

[Darth Servo]

Isn't spina bifida not a genetic disorder, but caused by a lack of folic acid during pregnancy?

Thats ONE cause. There does seem to be a genetic cause/component as well.

Spina bifida is one of the most common severe birth defects, historically occurring in 1 live birth per 1000 in the United States. The rates of spina bifida are higher in Hispanics and whites of European descent than in Ashkenazi Jews, Asians, and African Americans. Rates are also higher among mothers with certain health problems, such as diabetes or seizure disorders (taking certain anticonvulsants), and significantly higher among couples in which at least one has spina bifida, and among couples who have already had a child with spina bifida.

[Isana Kadeb]

No, YOU are missing the point. You cannot mix and match incompatible arguments and pretend that you have a coherent case. If you believe that the euthanasia should only be applied to the extremely disabled, then it is totally irrelevant whether they would represent a good contribution to the gene pool because they will not reproduce.

I see.... I think I'll take some time to reconsider my position here. Thank you for the stimulating discussion Mr. Wong.

The fact that people who are capable of functioning in society can reproduce with technical assistance is a red-herring to that argument.

Yes, I think you may be right. It does smell like a red herring

Obviously, you are not familiar with this whole concept of "debating", beyond your creative use of flames which, as I have stressed several times already, is a valid decoration for an argument but not a valid substitute for one. You claimed that Jews are intellectually superior. You produced a hasty generalization fallacy in order to back up this claim. You will have to either do better than that or concede that this claim is unfounded. You can't simply repeat an argument which presumes the truth of that claim, fool.

I think you may have misunderstood the actual chain of events. Some hapless moron compared my arguments to the Nazi position on the Jews, which of course doesn't make sense, Mr. Wong, since the Jews are a very intellectually productive group. If I implied that they were inherently so, then it is my mistake.
Apparently, I did not make myself sufficiently clear. You will explain the slippery slope fallacy IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Googling a link which may or may not support your case is totally inadequate.

But its got a very simple definition there, its pointless for me to creatively paraphrase it:

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

[Patrick Degan]

But its got a very simple definition there, its pointless for me to creatively paraphrase it:

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

My my... A line-by-line quotation of the defintion given at the linked site.

No, I don't see you lasting very long around here at all.

[Spin Echo]

Isn't spina bifida not a genetic disorder, but caused by a lack of folic acid during pregnancy?

Thats ONE cause. There does seem to be a genetic cause/component as well.

Spina bifida is one of the most common severe birth defects, historically occurring in 1 live birth per 1000 in the United States. The rates of spina bifida are higher in Hispanics and whites of European descent than in Ashkenazi Jews, Asians, and African Americans. Rates are also higher among mothers with certain health problems, such as diabetes or seizure disorders (taking certain anticonvulsants), and significantly higher among couples in which at least one has spina bifida, and among couples who have already had a child with spina bifida.

Now I know. I had it drilled into me as a kid that you should take folic acid during pregnancy to ensure against spina bifida. It appears the statement was over-simplified.

[Darth Wong]

No, YOU are missing the point. You cannot mix and match incompatible arguments and pretend that you have a coherent case. If you believe that the euthanasia should only be applied to the extremely disabled, then it is totally irrelevant whether they would represent a good contribution to the gene pool because they will not reproduce.

I see.... I think I'll take some time to reconsider my position here. Thank you for the stimulating discussion Mr. Wong.

The fact that people who are capable of functioning in society can reproduce with technical assistance is a red-herring to that argument.

Yes, I think you may be right. It does smell like a red herring

Obviously, you are not familiar with this whole concept of "debating", beyond your creative use of flames which, as I have stressed several times already, is a valid decoration for an argument but not a valid substitute for one. You claimed that Jews are intellectually superior. You produced a hasty generalization fallacy in order to back up this claim. You will have to either do better than that or concede that this claim is unfounded. You can't simply repeat an argument which presumes the truth of that claim, fool.

I think you may have misunderstood the actual chain of events. Some hapless moron compared my arguments to the Nazi position on the Jews, which of course doesn't make sense, Mr. Wong, since the Jews are a very intellectually productive group. If I implied that they were inherently so, then it is my mistake.

OK, but the nature of the exact group under discussion is irrelevant to the comparison, which was in regards to the logical mechanism employed in your argument: an attempt to improve the gene pool by murdering those deemed unworthy of propagation.

But its got a very simple definition there, its pointless for me to creatively paraphrase it:

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

And how does that apply to someone saying "your argument relies upon logical mechanism X, but logical mechanism X can also produce this other outcome?" Do you not realize that you just quoted a definition which totally undermined your claim?

[Darth Servo]

But its got a very simple definition there, its pointless for me to creatively paraphrase it:

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

Very good (although you failed to point out that the slippery slope fails to incorporate that A does not necessarly lead to B which does not necessarily neald to C, etc). Now would you care to explain how Surlethe's argument fits that definition?

[Surlethe]

But its got a very simple definition there, its pointless for me to creatively paraphrase it:

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

My god, he actually tried to answer a point! Color me stunned! Now, the next step is to admit that no, your understanding of the slippery slope is not correct: it is actually the case that if A -> B -> C -> ... -> Y -> Z, then A -> Z (this is how the "daisy-chain" method of showing a list of statements are equivalent works; you just complete the loop with Z -> A). If Z should not happen, and Z is necessary to A, then of course A should not happen, either.

[Darth Wong]

Indeed, that definition is actually too simple, by leaving out the fact that the sequence of events is chained together without establishing step-wise causality.

[Darth Servo]

Indeed, that definition is actually too simple, by leaving out the fact that the sequence of events is chained together without establishing step-wise causality.

Didn't I just say that?

[Isana Kadeb]

OK, but the nature of the exact group under discussion is irrelevant to the comparison, which was in regards to the logical mechanism employed in your argument: an attempt to improve the gene pool by murdering those deemed unworthy of propagation.

I suspect I may have been overly vague, you were also correct in that I was conflating two quite different arguments. I mantain that in the west that the gene pool is deteriorating due to advances in medical science, but I concede that euthanasia would be overzealous and also unethical in most cases. Though with cases of severe disailities, I think euthanasia is a valid and also humane option,

And how does that apply to someone saying "your argument relies upon logical mechanism X, but logical mechanism X can also produce this other outcome?" Do you not realize that you just quoted a definition which totally undermined your claim?

But poor people aren't so due to any general genetic disorder. Yes, my stupid people remark was in jest.

[Darth Wong]

I suspect I may have been overly vague, you were also correct in that I was conflating two quite different arguments. I mantain that in the west that the gene pool is deteriorating due to advances in medical science, but I concede that euthanasia would be overzealous and also unethical in most cases. Though with cases of severe disailities, I think euthanasia is a valid and also humane option,

It certainly is in the case of vegetables.

And how does that apply to someone saying "your argument relies upon logical mechanism X, but logical mechanism X can also produce this other outcome?" Do you not realize that you just quoted a definition which totally undermined your claim?

But poor people aren't so due to any general genetic disorder. Yes, my stupid people remark was in jest.

First, that does not substantiate your accusation of a slippery-slope fallacy. At best, you could accuse him of misrepresenting your argument, which is a totally different fallacy. Second, the correlation between low intelligence and poverty is at least as strong as your attempt to correlate Nobel prize winners to Jewish racial intelligence. Third, since you never actually described what particular outcomes your "consequentialist" ethics prescribe, it seemed reasonable (prior to your recent clarification/backpedaling) to assume that you wanted to improve the gene pool for the sake of benefiting human society, regardless of the impact on the victims. Ergo, it was reasonable to conclude that the elimination of other groups which are arguably harmful to overall social prosperity would also be acceptable according to this logic. Of course, this could have been erroneous and it may be that your system of ethics is based entirely around genetics, rather than any concept of social good. But that would make you an extreme form of eugenicist.

[Spin Echo]

And how does that apply to someone saying "your argument relies upon logical mechanism X, but logical mechanism X can also produce this other outcome?" Do you not realize that you just quoted a definition which totally undermined your claim?

But poor people aren't so due to any general genetic disorder. Yes, my stupid people remark was in jest.

But why else would they be poor if they weren't genetically inferior!?

Seriously though, while being poor may not be genetic, many things like autism, alcoholism, sickle cell anemia, Down's syndrome, etc are. Using your rationalisation that we should do what's best for the gene pool, why shouldn't we sterilse these people?

[Stark]

Sickle-cell anemia isn't that bad, and alcoholism has many causes. I'm autistic, and I have very little interest in inflicting my problems on children. Is that wrong?

[Darth Wong]

If one is going to be concerned about breeding patterns in society, then to be honest, the seriously disabled are the least of our problems. The much bigger problem is that the under-educated are rapidly outbreeding the educated. And while education may not be genetic, that doesn't really change the fact that the nation will get collectively dumber over time if a demographic which is unfamiliar with higher education and arguably hostile to it is allowed to dominate the political system through weight of democracy.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Sickle-cell anemia isn't that bad, and alcoholism has many causes. I'm autistic, and I have very little interest in inflicting my problems on children. Is that wrong?

I recall Churchill was autistis or something.

[Isana Kadeb]

Sickle-cell anemia isn't that bad, and alcoholism has many causes. I'm autistic, and I have very little interest in inflicting my problems on children. Is that wrong?

Many famous geniuses are now thought by some to have suffered from autistic spectrum disorders (probably Asperger's syndrome) including Einstein and Isaac Newton.