Keeping a child as child forever

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Again someone who does not understand, or does not want to understand, the difference between a slippery slope argument and the path a societal development takes. I was of course referring to the latter and the way irrational reasoning, all sorts of red herrings and a landscape of appeals to pity, like in remora's post, are being used in the context of the debates which preceed these societal developments.

So tell me, how exactly does using medical techniques to enable a severely mentally disabled child to be cared for more easily lead to the killing of human beings?

How is that anything but a slippery slope?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Did you not read this:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

before you made your post that this case would lead to the killing of human beings?

No, I did not claim this. As I said I was referring to a societal development and the irrational reasonings used in the debates preceeding these developments.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So tell me, how exactly does using medical techniques to enable a severely mentally disabled child to be cared for more easily lead to the killing of human beings?

How is that anything but a slippery slope?

A Strawman is hiding in your question.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
A Strawman is hiding in your question.

No actually I am paraphrasing your post:
"At the end of the day these appeals to emotion and pity will be used to justify the killing of these human beings."
Interesting that you would call it a strawman.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
No actually I am paraphrasing your post:
"At the end of the day these appeals to emotion and pity will be used to justify the killing of these human beings."
Interesting that you would call it a strawman.

Then stop "paraphrasing".

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Then stop "paraphrasing".

Tell me exactly what you meant then ivanhoe. You said that these appeals to emotion would lead to the killing of human beings did you not?
And the appeals to emotion you mention are the ones Remora posted, specifically about how hard it is to care for a mentally disabled child?

So tell me, what exactly was different about the way I paraphrased you? Was the meaning different?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Tell me exactly what you meant then ivanhoe. You said that these appeals to emotion would lead to the killing of human beings did you not?
And the appeals to emotion you mention are the ones Remora posted, specifically about how hard it is to care for a mentally disabled child?

So tell me, what exactly was different about the way I paraphrased you? Was the meaning different?

Reread my posts and everything will be cristal clear.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"Now think about what would happen to her if she were put into the foster care system. She would probably be placed with a family that has aboslutely idea how to care for her (even if she doesn't have other medical problems)and probably can't lift her either, and she would probably be sexually abused."

This is absolutely ridiculous and most insulting to all foster parents.

ivanhoe, every time I post an arguement you couldn't otherwise defend you call it an appeal to sympathy. I'd like to here some other reasons why you're against this.

Most people who have a nine year old with 3 month old capabilities dumped on them would have no idea how to care for it. Most people can't lift their own weight. And given her disabilities, it would make her an easier target for paedophiles (I wasn't saying it was going to be the foster parents).

And I have no idea why you'd be against having her sex organs removed. It doesn't hurt her, and actually saves her some pain in the long run.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Reread my posts and everything will be cristal clear.

I have. And it still says exactly the same thing as it did the first time, that you believe that the same appeals to emotion that Remora used will be used to justify the killing of human beings.
I called this a slippery slope and you denied it saying that it was the natural way that society works. I am still waiting for any justification of that statement.

PS. crystal

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Remora91; "At the end of the day, you have no idea how hard it must be on the parents to care for a child with these problems."

At the end of the day these appeals to emotion and pity will be used to justify the killing of these human beings.

By the way, what ever happened to the mass murder of people in comas after Terri Schaivo?

Originally posted by Remora91
By the way, what ever happened to the mass murder of people in comas after Terri Schaivo?

Terri Schaivo? Now you're using strawmen!

Originally posted by Remora91
ivanhoe, every time I post an arguement you couldn't otherwise defend you call it an appeal to sympathy. I'd like to here some other reasons why you're against this.

Most people who have a nine year old with 3 month old capabilities dumped on them would have no idea how to care for it. Most people can't lift their own weight. And given her disabilities, ...[text shortened]... ex organs removed. It doesn't hurt her, and actually saves her some pain in the long run.

It would be a good thing if you would acknowledge that you indeed used Appeals to Emotion and Pity in your post. If you do not understand that making Appeals to Emotion in the context of determining whether a certain act is morally acceptable or not is a way of irrational, and therefore unacceptable, reasoning then I'm afraid we will not get any further.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
It would be a good thing if you would acknowledge that you indeed used Appeals to Emotion and Pity in your post. If you do not understand that making Appeals to Emotion in the context of determining whether a certain act is morally acceptable or not is a way of irrational, and therefore unacceptable, reasoning then I'm afraid we will not get any further.

I don't think it is. Because part of being a human being and talking about ethics and morality is placing yourself in someone elses shoes.

Hypothetically though, why are you opposed to this operation?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I have. And it still says exactly the same thing as it did the first time, that you believe that the same appeals to emotion that Remora used will be used to justify the killing of human beings.
I called this a slippery slope and you denied it saying that it was the natural way that society works. I am still waiting for any justification of that statement.

PS. crystal

X says `.... saying that it was the natural way that society works.`

Again a straw man.


X says ´ ..... that you believe that the same appeals to emotion that Remora used will be used to justify the killing of human beings.´

Now this interpretation is not a straw man and is therefore acceptable to me.

However, it has nothing to do with belief. These arguments are already being used to kill human beings. I´m talking about facts.

Originally posted by Remora91
I don't think it is. Because part of being a human being and talking about ethics and morality is placing yourself in someone elses shoes.

Hypothetically though, why are you opposed to this operation?

We were talking about your ways of reasoning which intend to make these medical acts morally acceptable. I objected to these ways of reasoning. If you insist on using these irrational Appeals to Emotion than I´m afraid we will never be on the same wavelength.

... and by the way, whose shoes ?