01 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis is not fair, Ivanhoe. The case that I am discussing is the very
You want to discuss a constructed case in which you hold all the trumps. This is called "game theory". I never participate in it because I find it to be manipulative and misleading. Sorry.
sort of case which is addressed in the Groningen protocol. You've
objected that the specific terms of this protocol are unethical, right?
What trumps do I hold, Ivanhoe? I'm simply making the sort of
case which fits the mold of the Groningen protocol.
I'm not trying to play 'game theory.' If you wish to make another
example which fits that protocol, that would be fine with me.
However, you are unwilling to address your objections to those
specific terms. You keep introducing new criteria -- that is, you
move down the slippery slope which the protocol explicitly prevents.
If you are going to express an objection to specific terms, then
you need to explicate the nature of your objection of those specific
terms, not something which those specific terms actively seeks to
forbid.
Nemesio
02 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioJust to make things clear: I will not discuss a constructed case.
Bump for Ivanhoe.
The term "Slippery Slope" is used in two ways:
1) As a term referring to a specific fallacy in formal reasoning.
2) As a term referring to a complex social, cultural and political development in society.
If the term "Slippery Slope" is being used in connection with the abortion-euthanasia question it always refers to societal development described under 2) except when it is clear that is being referred to the meaning as described under 1).
Everybody who is au courant with the developments in the abortion-euthanasia debate knows that the advocates use the confusion about the term to score points and to obscure things even more.
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by Nemesio
This is not fair, Ivanhoe. The case that I am discussing is the very
sort of case which is addressed in the Groningen protocol. You've
objected that the specific terms of this protocol are unethical, right?
What trumps do I hold, Ivanhoe? I'm simply making the sort of
case which fits the mold of the Groningen protocol.
I'm not trying to play ...[text shortened]... specific
terms, not something which those specific terms actively seeks to
forbid.
Nemesio
By the way, "Game theory" is applied not played. It is not a term I invented. You can google on it and you'll find what I meant.
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI meant 'play' as in 'play it as a card' as you play the 'Slippery
By the way, "Game theory" is applied not played. It is not a term I invented. You can google on it and you'll find what I meant.
Slope' card. It was a sort of idiomatic thing. Sorry for confusing.
Nemesio
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeBut you could say that 'self-defense' is a Slippery
Just to make things clear: I will not discuss a constructed case.
The term "Slippery Slope" is used in two ways:
1) As a term referring to a specific fallacy in formal reasoning.
2) As a term referring to a complex social, cultural and political development in society.
If the term "Slippery Slope" is being used in connection with the abo ...[text shortened]... e advocates use the confusion about the term to score points and to obscure things even more.
Slope to permitting murder. Certainly you aren't
against self defense, right?
There can be no Slippery Slope if the Groningen
Protocol is followed, for there are provisions against
any 'slippage.'
If the sum total of your argument against the GP is
that there 'might' be a Slippery Slope -- that is, one
might later change the rules of the GP -- it's not an
argument at all! Any rule can be changed, and every
single law can be a Slippery Slope.
That's why I presented you with a real-life case. If
you feel that the case is a loaded question, then I ask
you to present an imaginary case of your own choosing
within the parameters of the GP which explicates why
the GP is flawed.
Nemesio
02 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYou keep inviting me to do exactly that what I do not want to do. I explained this and it seems you do not want to take notice of, let alone consider and accept my responses. In fact you invite me to obscure the different meanings of the "Slippery Slope" notion I presented here. I will not participate in such debates, whether the constructed case is constructed by you or by me. The latter is completely irrelevant as I hope you'll understand.
But you could say that 'self-defense' is a Slippery
Slope to permitting murder. Certainly you aren't
against self defense, right?
There can be no Slippery Slope if the Groningen
Protocol is followed, for there are provisions again ...[text shortened]... eters of the GP which explicates why
the GP is flawed.
Nemesio
02 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, do you realize that you are expressing that you are unwilling
You keep inviting me to do exactly that what I do not want to do. I explained this and it seems you do not want to take notice of, let alone consider and accept my responses. In fact you invite me to obscure the different meanings of the "Slippery Slope" notion I presented here. I will not participate in such debates, whether the constructed case is constructed by you or by me. The latter is completely irrelevant as I hope you'll understand.
to debate the very point that you are making? You haven't debated
anything, you've only asserted. You've basically said 'Voluntary
Euthansia according to the GP is wrong because it might lead to
Involuntary Euthanasia not according to the GP.'
If this is inaccurate, please state precisely why you feel that
Voluntary Euthanasia according to the GP is wrong.
If you cannot do this, then you aren't debating anything, you are
simply asserting something as fact. As such, you will never compel
anyone that your point of view has any merit.
Nemesio
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioIvanhoe,
Ivanhoe, do you realize that you are expressing that you are unwilling
to debate the very point that you are making? You haven't debated
anything, you've only asserted. You've basically said 'Voluntary
Euthansia according to the GP is wrong because it might lead to
Involuntary Euthanasia not according to the GP.'
If this is inaccurate, please ...[text shortened]... fact. As such, you will never compel
anyone that your point of view has any merit.
Nemesio
Are you going to provide a defense for your claim that
Voluntary Euthanasia is unethical, or shall I assume that you
are just asserting it?
Are you going to provide a critique of the GP or are you
just going to assert that it is wrong?
Nemesio
03 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio
Ivanhoe,
Are you going to provide a defense for your claim that
Voluntary Euthanasia is unethical, or shall I assume that you
are just asserting it?
Are you going to provide a critique of the GP or are you
just going to assert that it is wrong?
Nemesio
Please read the thread... and please do read my posts carefully and you will find a lot of answers. You are simply ignoring the things I wrote.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioTake a guess.
Ivanhoe,
Are you going to provide a defense for your claim that
Voluntary Euthanasia is unethical, or shall I assume that you
are just asserting it?
Are you going to provide a critique of the GP or are you
just going to assert that it is wrong?
Nemesio
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI've read every single one of your posts, Ivanhoe.
Please read the thread... and please do read my posts carefully and you will find a lot of answers. You are simply ignoring the things I wrote.
I've responded to many of them.
Your argument seems to be, 'We should not adopt
the GP because it might be altered and lead to
Involuntary Euthanasia.'
If this is your argument, then I can proceed with
debating it.
If this is not your argument, then could you reiterate it,
because this is all that I see of substance?
Nemesio
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by Nemesio
I've read every single one of your posts, Ivanhoe.
I've responded to many of them.
Your argument seems to be, 'We should not adopt
the GP because it might be altered and lead to
Involuntary Euthanasia.'
If this is your argument, then I can proceed with
debating it.
If this is not your argument, then could you reiterate it,
because this is all that I see of substance?
Nemesio
The GP IS unvoluntary euthanasia.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeEvery action involving an infant is involuntary, Ivanhoe.
The GP IS unvoluntary euthanasia.
An infant relies on its parents to look out for its best
interests. What you are saying is, when a parent decides
to 'give the baby peace' from its unrelenting pain, you
are saying that this decision is not in the baby's best
interest.
Why do you come to that conclusion?
Nemesio
03 Mar 05
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Every action involving an infant is involuntary, Ivanhoe."
Every action involving an infant is involuntary, Ivanhoe.
An infant relies on its parents to look out for its best
interests. What you are saying is, when a parent decides
to 'give the baby peace' from its unrelenting pain, you
a ...[text shortened]... best
interest.
Why do you come to that conclusion?
Nemesio
I'm spreadin' the word throughout this thread, but thanks for remindin' me.
Nemesio: 'give the baby peace'
I like eufemisms. This is a particularly charming one .......