Anne Nicol Gaylor,Freethinker.

Originally posted by Black Lung
I believe that the Chicken means that it is irrelevant within the context of this discussion.

We can change the content of the discussion.
We are free to do so ..... Am i wrong ?
.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

We can change the content of the discussion.
We are free to do so ..... Am i wrong ?
.

When one is debating a point, it is pointless to put up lots of evidence without a uniting argument.

Originally posted by royalchicken
When one is debating a point, it is pointless to put up lots of evidence without a uniting argument.

Especially if you fear the evidence will not be to your liking and can undermine your position in another argument .......

I do not have a secret agenda, do you ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Especially if you fear the evidence will not be to your liking and can undermine your position in another argument .......

I do not have a secret agenda, do you ?

But you're not bringing up 'evidence' in support of a claim. There must be a logical thread joining your bits of evidence. I've got no agenda, but I do like to watch a properly done argument. I don't agree with some of what he says, but Pyrrho seems to be admirable in this regard.

Originally posted by royalchicken
But you're not bringing up 'evidence' in support of a claim. There must be a logical thread joining your bits of evidence. I've got no agenda, but I do like to watch a properly done argument. I don't agree with some of what he says, but Pyrrho seems to be admirable in this regard.

That's because you agree with him .... you are flattering yourself ...

Maybe if you can see through the mist and through the rubbish I sometimes write, you might even find a red thread in my postings .... but that's only if you want to .... some people find it very frightening to agree with or even to understand somebody with whom you should never agree ...

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Bbarr, do you have any knowledge of the concept of "Der Gnadentod" . The name the National Socialists used to introduce the idea of euthanasia, killing out of compassion, in Germany in the fourties ?
.

Yes, it means "mercy death", and it wasn't adopted in the Forties. Hitler made euthanasia legal in Oct. of '39.

Of course, Nazi policy is completely irrelevant to my moral views. Though I guess you could just ignore that and start talking again about the Slippery Slope. After all, why start paying attention now?

Originally posted by bbarr
Yes, it means "mercy death", and it wasn't adopted in the Forties. Hitler made euthanasia legal in Oct. of '39.

Of course, Nazi policy is completely irrelevant to my moral views. Though I guess you could just ignore that and start ...[text shortened]... ut the Slippery Slope. After all, why start paying attention now?

... getting nervous bbarr ?

Your personal moral views are not thát important , but they can be discussed in connection with the moral views of the Hemlock Society and a comparison with the Nazi ideas will not kill anybody, so don't worry ...... or are you afraid that we will find some striking resemblances ?
In that case it would be interesting to investigate how it is possible that an ideology that is generally considered to be irrational has in essence produced the same thinking results in this field as the ideology we call the Freethinker Ideology, that claims to be the opposite of irrational ...... that seems like an interesting project to me .......

That is my proposal gentleman, ....... I'm sure you are, just like me, very interested in finding out what is the truth in this matter .......

Originally posted by ivanhoe
... getting nervous bbarr ?

Your personal moral views are not thát important , but they can be discussed in connection with the moral views of the Hemlock Society and a comparison with the Nazi ideas will not kill anybody, so don't worry ...... or are you afraid that we will find some striking resemblances ?
In that case it would be interesting to in ...[text shortened]... just like me, very interested in finding out what is the truth in this matter .......

No Ivanhoe, your inability to provide arguments doesn't worry me. It is really immaterial that the Nazis supported euthanasia. Just because a regime is genocidal, it does not follow that all of their policies are morally unjustified. Suppose, hypothetically, that the Nazi's also supported free access to health care and education for citizens. Does it follow that this policy is incorrect? Does it follow that a different ideology that also supports this policy is morally bankrupt? This is just the same point Royalchicken made earlier. It is also a point to which you've failed to respond. Again, you may go about trying to link the Nazi regime with Freethinker ideology, and you may go about trying to link Freethinker ideology with my personal moral views merely because I'm a member of a chess club called the "Freethinkers", but this doesn't amount to anything but the fallacy of guilt by association. This isn't an argument, Ivanhoe, it is merely slander. This is such an elementary point, it really shouldn't take two pages of posts in order for you to see it.

Now, I have gone to the Hemlock Society's webiste (www.hemlock.org) and looked over their policy statement. They claim that they provide assistance in the drawing up of Living Wills and that they organize and lobby for legislation to make active euthanasia legal. These are the constraints they urge for a person's having a right to die.

1) They must have a terminal disease that is also irreversible and progressive. This is from their brochure.

2) The patient must be mentally competent. This is from the fact sheet.

I guess if you show that the Nazis had similar constraints, then you will have succeeded in showing that all the people in the Freethinker clan are Nazis! 🙄

Originally posted by bbarr
No Ivanhoe, your inability to provide arguments doesn't worry me. It is really immaterial that the Nazis supported euthanasia. Just because a regime is genocidal, it does not follow that all of their policies are morally unjustified. Supp ...[text shortened]... showing that all the people in the Freethinker clan are Nazis! 🙄

Now, now, now. You are jumping to conclusions !

I hope we are having a free discussion about how things work in reality. Your project is as you've stated a theoretical one. I want to look at what happened in reality and as we saw in my description of the political process of the Euthanasia process in the Netherlands reality does not obey the demands of your Freethinker method, the demands of your "Logical Thinking Machine". That is one of my claims. You agreed on that one, didn't you .... you stated that your project was a theoretical one as philosophical projects tend to be .......

"My inability to provide arguments doesn't worry me." Well, my ability to confront you with the idea that an ideology that claimes to be rational, the Freethinker ideology, comes up with the same ideas concerning life and death as an ideology that is widely seen as irrational does worry you, otherwise you would not react in such a way as you did ... Did the Nazis use the same "Logical Thinking Machine" or did they use an entirely different "method" to reach the same ideas.

I hope you will agree that the teachings of the in your view irrational Catholic church has come up with somewhat different ideas. They certainly did not use your "Logical Thinking Machine" and therefore you accuse them of being dogmatic and irrational.

You can go in all kinds of directions with the Logical Thinking Machine and I must admit sometimes even in a morally correct direction, but it all depends on what you put into the machine. You know that bbarr. That is why you so desperately try to prove the unprovable idea that God does not exist ... sorry correction ... that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does not exist. That's what it all boils down to and you are aware of that. You want your "Logical Tinking Machine " to produce just that idea, but the machine is not capable of doing that. It has its limitations. Part of the limitation is that the Machine cannot prove that logic is logical.
In the heart of the matter the Nazis also denied the existance of the God of Abraham, except in their propaganda, were it suited their political purposes to mislead the people.

Thirty years ago the ideas of the nazis about life and death were considered to be irrational, including their ideas about euthanasia. What has happened in the meantime .... Do you see my problem ?

I don't have a definite answer to that, but I dó know that something is going on in society and you cannot dismiss that by saying that investigating this is a form of slander .... what I want is to investigate how this political proces is possible and whether we want this to happen yes or no .

Royalc tried to intervene in what I was going to put forward because he saw what was coming and that would not be in the interest of the Freethinker ideology. It is indeed a very difficult subject, not easy at all.
I understand very well your reasoning about not everything being evil just because the Nazis said so .... but that is not exactly my problem. It is far more complicated than that. My objection to your reasoning is that you "chop" up reality into controlable bits that fit into your "Logical Thinking Machine"("LTM" ) and start reasoning from there. If the results do not match with the facts you either dismiss the facts. ( "My project is a theoretical one) or you chop up reality in a different way so it will fit eventually into your "LTM" . Maybe we will come to that when we will compare the ideas and reasoning of the Freethinker ideology about euthanasia and abortion. Rational ? ... it all depends ....

Reading the above you cannot possibly think that I'm using the faulty reasoning of guilt by association.

[i]Originally posted by bbarr

Now, I have gone to the Hemlock Society's webiste (www.hemlock.org) and looked over their policy statement. They claim that they provide assistance in the drawing up of Living Wills and that they organize and lobby for legislation to make active euthanasia legal. These are the constraints they urge for a person's having a right to die.

1) They must have a ...[text shortened]... rom their brochure.

2) The patient must be mentally competent. This is from the fact sheet.

It is very interesting to investigate the (rational?)reasoning of the lawyers of the husband, supported by the Hemlock Society.

Firstly there is a lot of controversy of what is the actual health state of Terri Schiavo.
Secondly the patient in question is not mentally competent and
Thirdly the patient has not produced a Living Will during the time she was mentally competent.

There are a lot of issues that can be discussed here, maybe we will get to that later, but now I want to emphasize the fact that the patient did NOT write a living will. I want to look at the way the Hemlock Society is dealing with that. Do they therefore say: All right, we agreed that there must be a written living will in such a case. There isn't such a living will, therefore we cannot end this life. No, they do not. They argue that the husband and a few friends "heard" that she did not want to live under these present conditions and therefore we can end the life of this patient. The lawyers claim in the media the following: "We want the patients wishes to be executed." Regarding the fact that the husband has material and immaterial interests concerning the death of his wife, how can we be sure that he and his friends aren't lying ?
How can the lawyer claim to know what the patients wishes are when that is a big questionmark ? Rational reasoning ? Not in my view ...

Originally posted by Black Lung
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer

just a thought Ivan.

That's why I want to investigate .....

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Now, now, now. You are jumping to conclusions !

I hope we are having a free discussion about how things work in reality. Your project is as you've stated a theoretical one. I want to look at what happened in reality and as we saw in ...[text shortened]... at I'm using the faulty reasoning of guilt by association.

I'm going to go slow this time, point by point, to show you your error. Please pay attention:


You say:

"I want to look at what happened in reality and as we saw in my description of the political process of the Euthanasia process in the Netherlands reality does not obey the demands of your Freethinker method, the demands of your "Logical Thinking Machine". That is one of my claims. You agreed on that one, didn't you ...."

Response:

I know you want to look at the political process. In my posts I have claimed that it is not an objection to a view that it gets misunderstood and misapplied by politicians. If I have a moral theory that imposes constraints on the practice of euthanasia, and a government or a political movement tries to do away with those constraints through faulty reasoning, then that does not show that the initial moral theory was a bad one. Additionally, my method is not the "Freethinker Method", whatever that means. If you think that a method that employs reason is, by definition, a "Freethinker Method", then you also employ a "Freethinker Method" whenever you try to argue. Furthermore, the only "Logical Thinking Machine" I employ is my mind. To the extent that you use your mind, you are also using a "Logical Thinking Machine". To the extent that you don't use your mind to argue, you are being irrational. Perhaps you are employing the "Bible Thumping Machine".

You say:

"Well, my ability to confront you with the idea that an ideology that claimes to be rational, the Freethinker ideology, comes up with the same ideas concerning life and death as an ideology that is widely seen as irrational does worry you, otherwise you would not react in such a way as you did ... Did the Nazis use the same "Logical Thinking Machine" or did they use an entirely different "method" to reach the same ideas.

Response: No, it does not bother me. It does not bother me because of the counter-argument that both Royalchiken and I presented above. Just to refresh your memory... Suppose, hypothetically, that the Freethinkers and the former Nazi party both thought that all citizins should receive free access to health care and a free education. Does this mean that the Freethinker position on health care and euthanasia is unjustified, merely because an evil regime has arrived at the same position. Of course not. A rational method and an irrational method may come to the same conclusion on a particular matter. This does not mean that, paradoxically, the rational method must have actually been irrational or that the irrational method must have been, paradoxically, rational. Here is another example, because you seem to be having some difficulty with this idea. Suppose that my firend and I are both given a math problem. Suppose the problem is 10 + 15 + ?. Now, when I get this math problem I perform addition. I add 10 to 15 and get 25. My friend uses a completely different method. Whenever he gets a math problem he counts the dollars in his wallet, and however many dollars he has he writes down as the answer. On this occasion, suppose he has $25.00 in his wallet, and thus writes down '25' as his answer to the math problem. Now, we have both come up with the same answer, but I've used a rational method and he has not used a rational method. What does this show about the validity of addition. Absolutely nothing. What does the Nazi's policy of euthanasia show about the Freethinker movement's support of euthanasia? Again, absolutely nothing.

You say:

"I hope you will agree that the teachings of the in your view irrational Catholic church has come up with somewhat different ideas. They certainly did not use your "Logical Thinking Machine" and therefore you accuse them of being dogmatic and irrational."

Response: You are correct, I think the Catholic Church is dogmatic and irrational. They use the "Bible Thumping Machine" and the "Infallible Pope Machine". This is why they committed the atrocities known as the Crusades and the Inquisition, respectively. On that account, they seem to have more in common with the Nazis than the Freethinkers. Now, should I start claiming that your views are in error because the Catholic Church burned people at the stake for no good reason? Of course not, that would be to commit the fallacy of guilt by association.

You say:

You can go in all kinds of directions with the Logical Thinking Machine and I must admit sometimes even in a morally correct direction, but it all depends on what you put into the machine. You know that bbarr. That is why you so desperately try to prove the unprovable idea that God does not exist ... sorry correction ... that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does not exist. That's what it all boils down to and you are aware of that. You want your "Logical Tinking Machine " to produce just that idea, but the machine is not capable of doing that. It has its limitations. Part of the limitation is that the Machine cannot prove that logic is logical.
In the heart of the matter the Nazis also denied the existance of the God of Abraham, except in their propaganda, were it suited their political purposes to mislead the people.

Response: I know the limitations of reason. Reason doesn't work without premises, but some premises are self-evident, some are completely contingent and must be settled by empirical investigation, and others are self-contradictory. I think that when you use the term 'God' you don't know what you're talking about. I think this because I don't think that nature of the divine can be accuratley represented by our concepts and thus can't be an object of our knowledge. If something can't be an object of our knowledge then we can't talk meanigfully about it. So, I don't think you can talk meaningfully about God. When you use the term "God", I think you are merely making noise. Incidentally, it doesn't concern me in the slightest that reason is of no use when it comes to our relation the divine. It would concern me if I thought that the only way to come into connection with the divine is by thought. But I don't think this. You think of the divine as something seperate and independent of you, as something that operates in the world and intervened in the course of history through incarnating itself as Christ. You think that God is something that judges you and offers you redemption. I think all that is meaningless, more a wish for some ultra-powerful father figure than any actual spirituality. I think Crist was an enlightened man, who had recognized that he is the same as the divine, just as Buddha and Lao-Tzu and Chams of Tabriz and Kabir Sahib and Guru Nanak recognized rightly that they were the same as the divine. Just as all of us are the same as the divine, though we operate under the illusion of being seperate, distinct individuals, egos in sacks of skin. This is why Christ said we are all sons of God, just as he was a son of God (though this point is obscured in Bible) Even this isn't the right way of putting it, there is no right way of putting this. This is why I don't talk about the divine.

Regarding the last part about the Nazis, see the refutation above.

You ask:

"Thirty years ago the ideas of the nazis about life and death were considered to be irrational, including their ideas about euthanasia. What has happened in the meantime .... Do you see my problem ?"

Response: Yes, you don't think there is anything to rationality other than what is fashionable and widely believed. What is rational and what is irrational is not determined by what the majority of people believe. It is determined on the basis of the validity of the reasoning involved and on the justifiability of the premises upon which that reasoning operates. If, thiry years ago, nobody believed that euthanasia was permissible in some circumstances, then thirty years ago everybody had an incorrect view about euthanasia.

You say:

"I don't have a definite answer to that, but I dó know that something is going on in society and you cannot dismiss that by saying that investigating this is a form of slander .... what I want is to investigate how this political proces is possible and whether we want this to happen yes or no."

Response: I never said that the investigation was a form of slander. I said that using the mere fact that there is agreement on the permissibility of euthanasia in some cases to create an association between my moral view, or the moral theory of Kant, or the Freethinker ideology (all different things, by the way) and the Nazis was to commit the fallacy of guilt by association, and it is a form of slander. It would be like me claiming that since the people who conducted the Inquisition believed in God, and you also believe in God, that you think heathens should be tortured. Unless you can show that my moral theory or the Freethinker ideology implies that genocide is O.K., you have no business trying to associate me or them with Nazis. It is a rhetorical trick and, again, is slanderous.

You say:

"Royalc tried to intervene in what I was going to put forward because he saw what was coming and that would not be in the interest of the Freethinker ideology. It is indeed a very difficult subject, not easy at all."

Response:

Royalchicken intervened because he thought he could clear up the obvious fallacy you were committing. Again, please pay attention to the refutation above. If it is unclear, please refer to the three other refutations of your fallacy of guilt by association that appear in the last couple pages of this thread.