Advocating for the freedom to kill someone, on the basis of a protected characteristic

245

Comments

  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Is the real issue whether Colin Smith was actually advocating that? Or simply pointing to an extension of pre birth rights to terminate?

    Here is a statement that I would personally nail under C1 if I were Admin.

    "I assert that parents of children born with congenital defects should have the right to kill them."

    But I don't think Colin Smith said that.

    I was not and am not advocating that parents should have the right to kill them at any point after birth. I am advocating for an extension of the existing right to abort a child diagnosed with congenital defects at any point up to birth into the period immediately following birth simply because diagnosis while the child is in the womb is not 100% accurate.

    For the final time, once birth has happened, it’s not called an abortion any more.
  • For me, it’s doublespeak. Even with the points that @HelenEva raised,

    “advocating for an extension of the existing right to abort a child diagnosed with congenital defects at any point up to birth into the period immediately following birth”

    is the same as

    "I assert that parents of children born with congenital defects should have the right to kill them."
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    .
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I do disagree, because I think this pushes the Overton window in an extremely dangerous direction.
    This. And because an affected person being willing to debate is different to that debate not being deleterious to the group.

    I would urge you to consider the risks of infantilizing the groups you champion. I for one prefer to fight my own battles in a fair forum—not to expect all such nastiness to be carefully kept from me.

    The fact you are able to use language, means you do not have a severe cognitive impairment. Most of the people in the group who @Colin Smith is advocating killing, and defining as not human, are not in a position to make that choice.
  • I would personally steer clear of any assertion that my able-bodied opinion is more valid than the disabled persons because the disabled person is not disabled enough.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    I look on Commandment 1 (and indeed all the other commandments) as being about how we on these boards treat each other. Not about limiting the range of opinions that we can express.

    Just for example, it should be permissible to opine that the world was in some respects a better place when a woman's role was Kinder, Kirche, Kuche. But a breach of the rules to respond dismissively to any post because the poster is female.

    We are all of us equal before the Captain of the Ship (who it has been said of other ships is next to God). The Ship does not and should not operate a policy which discriminates against any Shipmates. Free speech for all aboard; politeness to all aboard.

    But the commandments have no need to say anything about cognitive disabilities that prevent a person from functioning as a Shipmate because that is not their function. They only address how Shipmates treat each other.
    yohan300 wrote: »
    Who is actually advocating murdering babies. What kind of reductio ad absurdum nonsense is this?

    @Colin Smith is. Technically he's advocating that it should be legal to do it, not actually doing it, but that's distinction-without-a-difference territory as far as I'm concerned.

    No, it's an important distinction. If you were an anarchist, you might argue that nothing should be illegal. We live in a democracy; it is essential that citizens be able to discuss what the law should be. Many people think that there are morally wrong acts which the law should not prohibit.

    Say what you will about the world we live in; do it in a way that does not denigrate any of the people you're talking to.

    And no, disagreeing with your identitarian notions is not disrespecting you as a person.


  • I was not and am not advocating that parents should have the right to kill them at any point after birth. I am advocating for an extension of the existing right to abort a child diagnosed with congenital defects at any point up to birth into the period immediately following birth simply because diagnosis while the child is in the womb is not 100% accurate.

    For the final time, once birth has happened, it’s not called an abortion any more.

    I'm not saying it is.
  • For me, it’s doublespeak. Even with the points that @HelenEva raised,

    “advocating for an extension of the existing right to abort a child diagnosed with congenital defects at any point up to birth into the period immediately following birth”

    is the same as

    "I assert that parents of children born with congenital defects should have the right to kill them."

    They are not the same. My statement has a clear limit in the phrase immediately following birth. Your statement is open ended and implies the right continues throughout the child's or parents' life.
  • Russ wrote: »
    I look on Commandment 1 (and indeed all the other commandments) as being about how we on these boards treat each other. Not about limiting the range of opinions that we can express.

    Just for example, it should be permissible to opine that the world was in some respects a better place when a woman's role was Kinder, Kirche, Kuche. But a breach of the rules to respond dismissively to any post because the poster is female.

    We are all of us equal before the Captain of the Ship (who it has been said of other ships is next to God). The Ship does not and should not operate a policy which discriminates against any Shipmates. Free speech for all aboard; politeness to all aboard.

    But the commandments have no need to say anything about cognitive disabilities that prevent a person from functioning as a Shipmate because that is not their function. They only address how Shipmates treat each other.

    Say what you will about the world we live in; do it in a way that does not denigrate any of the people you're talking to.

    And no, disagreeing with your identitarian notions is not disrespecting you as a person.

    I am not assuming you are defending me or any of my views, but thank you all the same. Last night I found the Commandments (they're not that easy to find) and agree with you. Commandment one is quite clearly about conduct towards other members and not about what can and cannot be discussed. The only commandments that even reference the world outside the ship are #7 and 9 and even then their concern is to protect the ship and its members.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I would personally steer clear of any assertion that my able-bodied opinion is more valid than the disabled persons because the disabled person is not disabled enough.

    Dear God do we have to come with a preprinted list now: I was born with a congenital malformation that nearly killed me and didn’t go above my birth weight for the first six months of my life (interestingly putting me in the @Colin Smith category of let’s give the parents the choice to bin this one and try again as they been told I might not survive, and might grow up cognitively impaired requiring a lifetime of care.)

    I currently have a chronic health condition and minor intermittent mental health problems.

    So I could describe myself as potentially affected by ableist thought.

    But I am not severely cognitively impaired, so currently Colin Smith would consider me human (offer expires on the occurrence of sufficiently severe brain damage).

    No one currently posting on this board, falls into the group of people he was specifying were not human - some of us have personal connections to those who do.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    You are arguing how bad something should be or might come to be considered. I said they are not the same and nothing in what you said changes this.

    No.

    The important thing, in the case of the n-word, is how its use by white people is perceived by black people. The fact that white people use "the n-word" to refer to it is a reflection of the fact that polite white society has understood this, but isn't directly related to how much hurt is felt by black people.
    No. Or really, not completely. The reason nigger is perceived badly by black people is because it is intended to and because it encapsulates several centuries of oppression, repression, murder, slavery, etc. Whilst the mentally disabled has been treated poorly, the treatment has not been as systematic and ubiquitous.
    The important thing, in the case of the r-word, is how its use by people without a mental disability is perceived by those with a mental disability, and their loved ones. Again, "how it is considered" by the wider society is irrelevant to this.
    Again, not completely. The way wider society uses a word affects how they treat the group affected and so this matters as well.

    Nigger is the nuclear option, just as Nazi and the holocaust are, and there are reasons for that. Most other bad things don't have the same qualifications.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I do disagree, because I think this pushes the Overton window in an extremely dangerous direction.
    This. And because an affected person being willing to debate is different to that debate not being deleterious to the group.

    I would urge you to consider the risks of infantilizing the groups you champion. I for one prefer to fight my own battles in a fair forum—not to expect all such nastiness to be carefully kept from me.
    It is not infantilising to point out that not everyone wants o debates the validity of their existence. Neither is it infantalising to point out that it can be wearing. You have complained about the conversations regarding conservatives, why is that different?

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I would personally steer clear of any assertion that my able-bodied opinion is more valid than the disabled persons because the disabled person is not disabled enough.

    Dear God do we have to come with a preprinted list now

    No, of course not, and that's the point.

    It remains you attempted to shut down @Lamb Chopped 's argument (that she didn't need to be protected from difficult discussions) because she didn't have the right sort of disability. But neither do you. And no, I don't want to see lists from anyone. Personal insights are always welcome, but they're not trump cards.

    The arguments we make here need to stand or fall on the nature of the argument, not the nature of the arguer. That's always been the case.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I would personally steer clear of any assertion that my able-bodied opinion is more valid than the disabled persons because the disabled person is not disabled enough.

    Dear God do we have to come with a preprinted list now: I was born with a congenital malformation that nearly killed me and didn’t go above my birth weight for the first six months of my life (interestingly putting me in the @Colin Smith category of let’s give the parents the choice to bin this one and try again as they been told I might not survive, and might grow up cognitively impaired requiring a lifetime of care.)

    I currently have a chronic health condition and minor intermittent mental health problems.

    So I could describe myself as potentially affected by ableist thought.

    But I am not severely cognitively impaired, so currently Colin Smith would consider me human (offer expires on the occurrence of sufficiently severe brain damage).

    No one currently posting on this board, falls into the group of people he was specifying were not human - some of us have personal connections to those who do.

    I understand now where a lot of your hostility to my proposal is coming from. May I ask, had your condition been diagnosed before birth would you have had any problem with your parents choosing abortion?

    I am in a slightly similar position. My mother was twenty and unmarried when she had me and her mother wanted to throw her out of the house (my grandfather persuaded her not to). My mother later confided in me that had abortion been available in 1960 she may well have had one. So I could read any defence of abortion as a proposal that I should have been aborted or at least that my mother should have had the right to abort me.

    Of course I don't see it like that. I understood my mother's position and supported it and I support abortion on demand.
  • .
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I do disagree, because I think this pushes the Overton window in an extremely dangerous direction.
    This. And because an affected person being willing to debate is different to that debate not being deleterious to the group.

    I would urge you to consider the risks of infantilizing the groups you champion. I for one prefer to fight my own battles in a fair forum—not to expect all such nastiness to be carefully kept from me.

    The fact you are able to use language, means you do not have a severe cognitive impairment. Most of the people in the group who @Colin Smith is advocating killing, and defining as not human, are not in a position to make that choice.

    I was actually addressing the question of whether posters on the Ship outwith Epiphanies should also have their sensibilities shielded by Adminly fiat. I don't want to see the Ship turned into a playpen.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I do disagree, because I think this pushes the Overton window in an extremely dangerous direction.
    This. And because an affected person being willing to debate is different to that debate not being deleterious to the group.

    I would urge you to consider the risks of infantilizing the groups you champion. I for one prefer to fight my own battles in a fair forum—not to expect all such nastiness to be carefully kept from me.
    It is not infantilising to point out that not everyone wants o debates the validity of their existence. Neither is it infantalising to point out that it can be wearing. You have complained about the conversations regarding conservatives, why is that different?

    I have, in fact, utilized the existing Ship mechanisms in a (mostly vain, but I have hopes) fight against that particular brand of illogic. I have taken it to Hell, and I have used logic on various threads. I have even started an example thread based on personal experience. Where do you see me appealing to the Admins to create a new ruling making it illegal to slang off conservatives?
    And why must Epiphany style rules (intended to prevent one having to "debate the validity of their existence", as you put it) be extended to cover the entire Ship, including Purg and Hell? If that is the case, I see no reason for the continued separate existence of Purg, Hell or All Saints. Merge them all into one.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    It remains you attempted to shut down @Lamb Chopped 's argument (that she didn't need to be protected from difficult discussions) because she didn't have the right sort of disability.

    I disagree with your interpretation of my reply to LC’s comment.

    The statement:
    I would urge you to consider the risks of infantilizing the groups you champion. I for one prefer to fight my own battles in a fair forum

    Implies it would be possible for the people Colin is defining as not human, to know about and engage with some kind of debate here or elsewhere - and that the fact of the hypothesised ability to do so changes the balance of issues in question on this thread.

    My point was none of us fall into that group here and now, these people can not speak on their own behalf.

    (Crossposted with LC.)
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I would personally steer clear of any assertion that my able-bodied opinion is more valid than the disabled persons because the disabled person is not disabled enough.

    Dear God do we have to come with a preprinted list now

    No, of course not, and that's the point.

    It remains you attempted to shut down @Lamb Chopped 's argument (that she didn't need to be protected from difficult discussions) because she didn't have the right sort of disability. But neither do you. And no, I don't want to see lists from anyone. Personal insights are always welcome, but they're not trump cards.

    The arguments we make here need to stand or fall on the nature of the argument, not the nature of the arguer. That's always been the case.

    I'm not really fussed, though--I mean, at least it's an attempt to argue, and that's what I hope to see more of. Me, I think it was a misunderstanding of what I was trying to say.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I would personally steer clear of any assertion that my able-bodied opinion is more valid than the disabled persons because the disabled person is not disabled enough.

    Dear God do we have to come with a preprinted list now: I was born with a congenital malformation that nearly killed me and didn’t go above my birth weight for the first six months of my life (interestingly putting me in the @Colin Smith category of let’s give the parents the choice to bin this one and try again as they been told I might not survive, and might grow up cognitively impaired requiring a lifetime of care.)

    I currently have a chronic health condition and minor intermittent mental health problems.

    So I could describe myself as potentially affected by ableist thought.

    But I am not severely cognitively impaired, so currently Colin Smith would consider me human (offer expires on the occurrence of sufficiently severe brain damage).

    No one currently posting on this board, falls into the group of people he was specifying were not human - some of us have personal connections to those who do.

    I understand now where a lot of your hostility to my proposal is coming from. May I ask, had your condition been diagnosed before birth would you have had any problem with your parents choosing abortion?

    I am in a slightly similar position. My mother was twenty and unmarried when she had me and her mother wanted to throw her out of the house (my grandfather persuaded her not to). My mother later confided in me that had abortion been available in 1960 she may well have had one. So I could read any defence of abortion as a proposal that I should have been aborted or at least that my mother should have had the right to abort me.

    Of course I don't see it like that. I understood my mother's position and supported it and I support abortion on demand.

    Why are we having this argument in the Styx?

  • Why are we having this argument in the Styx?

    Good question. I think it's because the argument about what should or can be on The Ship or on various boards on The Ship is based partly on reason and interpretation of the commandments but driven by strength of feeling which is influenced by individual's experiences.

    I'd rather not be part of this discussion but I got name-checked a couple of times and then felt that what I had said was being exaggerated out of all proportion and used to justify shutting down some areas of discussion across the entire forum..
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Why are we having this argument in the Styx?

    An excellent question!

    Everyone: I appreciate the difficulty of staying on topic in this kind of discussion. Please do your best.

    Ruth, Styx host

  • I was actually nodding in agreement with most of this post, but Russ, you lost me at the end:
    Russ wrote: »
    .... And no, disagreeing with your identitarian notions is not disrespecting you as a person.

    I have no idea what you mean by identitarian notions, but if the persons in question feel disrespected, what about this?
    I look on Commandment 1 (and indeed all the other commandments) as being about how we on these boards treat each other ....

    And this?
    .....Say what you will about the world we live in; do it in a way that does not denigrate any of the people you're talking to. ...

    It seems like the post started off saying saying we shouldn't hurt each other, and ended with reserving the right to gaslight the people who say they have been hurt.

  • For me, it’s doublespeak. Even with the points that @HelenEva raised,

    “advocating for an extension of the existing right to abort a child diagnosed with congenital defects at any point up to birth into the period immediately following birth”

    is the same as

    "I assert that parents of children born with congenital defects should have the right to kill them."

    They are not the same. My statement has a clear limit in the phrase immediately following birth. Your statement is open ended and implies the right continues throughout the child's or parents' life.

    To be clear, I think that killing newborns with disabilities immediately after birth is totally morally wrong, for a whole host of reasons which are not apt to elaborate in the Styx.

    However, as I also linked to earlier in the thread for @Barnabas62: when I asked you the specific question, you said would extend that to at least six months, if the parents so wished. That is where an even bigger problem lies, and you seem to be acting as if you didn't say it.

    If you're retracting that, or changing your mind on it, that would go a long way.
  • For me, it’s doublespeak. Even with the points that @HelenEva raised,

    “advocating for an extension of the existing right to abort a child diagnosed with congenital defects at any point up to birth into the period immediately following birth”

    is the same as

    "I assert that parents of children born with congenital defects should have the right to kill them."

    They are not the same. My statement has a clear limit in the phrase immediately following birth. Your statement is open ended and implies the right continues throughout the child's or parents' life.

    To be clear, I think that killing newborns with disabilities immediately after birth is totally morally wrong, for a whole host of reasons which are not apt to elaborate in the Styx.

    However, as I also linked to earlier in the thread for @Barnabas62: when I asked you the specific question, you said would extend that to at least six months, if the parents so wished. That is where an even bigger problem lies, and you seem to be acting as if you didn't say it.

    If you're retracting that, or changing your mind on it, that would go a long way.

    Without checking I think I said that in direct response to a specific situation where a child with disabilities had survived for six months before (I believe) dying of natural causes relating to those disabilities. In other words, that was an unusual situation that doesn't have direct bearing on what I'm endorsing.

    Bearing in mind my knowledge of congenital disability and conditions in newborns is not extensive, I would assume that most if not all major conditions can be diagnosed very soon after birth, as in within days rather than weeks, either by observing symptoms or through genetic tests. I would not envisage a situation where it is uncertain how well a newborn will progress with a disability of any kind and it living under a sort of suspended sentence for the first six months. Nor would I accept a situation where the parents take months to make up their mind whether to keep the child.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Styx host hat firmly on
    Ruth wrote: »

    Everyone: I appreciate the difficulty of staying on topic in this kind of discussion. Please do your best.

    Ruth, Styx host

    @goperryrevs and @Colin Smith: Take discussion of when and why it might or might not be okay to kill children elsewhere.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Styx host hat firmly on
    Ruth wrote: »

    Everyone: I appreciate the difficulty of staying on topic in this kind of discussion. Please do your best.

    Ruth, Styx host

    @goperryrevs and @Colin Smith: Take discussion of when and why it might or might not be okay to kill children elsewhere.

    Happily. Frankly I'd rather drop it altogether.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    I am going to restate my op question for minimum ambiguity, now that this has happened on three SoF boards.
    • Is ableism covered by commandment 1 ? (If not, why not ?)
    • Does arguing someone’s level of cognitive functioning means they are not human, constitute ableism ? (If not, why not ?)
    • Does arguing for the choice to kill a disabled person for the convenience of others constitute ableism ? (If not, why not ?)
    • How does SoF’s answer fit with the 2010 Equalities Act ?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I am going to restate my op question for minimum ambiguity, now that this has happened on three SoF boards.

    • Is ableism covered by commandment 1 ? (If not, why not ?)
    I've not been following much of this thread and don't know which thread started the debate off. However, Commandment 1 primarily says
    "Don’t be a jerk".
    I read what follows as examples of jerkery. Also 'ableism' isn't a term of art. So directly, I'd say, No. However, I'm not a Host.
    • Does arguing someone’s level of cognitive functioning means they are not human, constitute ableism ? (If not, why not ?)
    No idea for the reason just given. I would, though, regard arguing so as both unpleasant and unChristian.

    However, citing 'ableism' as one's reason flatly to forbid even polite discussion on how one looks after and cares for those with very severe impairments and whether, even if one personally disagrees strongly with the idea, there are ever compassionate arguments in favour of letting them die, I'd have thought is equally unacceptable.
    • Does arguing for the choice to kill a disabled person for the convenience of others constitute ableism ? (If not, why not ?)
    Ditto.

    • How does SoF’s answer fit with the 2010 Equalities Act ?
    I don't think one can legitimately argue that the 2010 Act either forbids discussion of whether some sort of discriminations that are currently illegal in the UK should be altered or fine tuned, or, on an international board applies extra-territorially.

    If it did have that effect, it would also mean one could not argue that it's scope should be extended.

    Also, the 2010 Act doesn't refer to 'ableism' directly. It refers to 'disability' and discrimination on that basis.

  • @Enoch this is not in regard to the relief of suffering - for context you might want to read the last few pages of the Epiphanies thread on abortion.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    Enoch this is not in regard to the relief of suffering - for context you might want to read the last few pages of the Epiphanies thread on abortion.

    Commandment #1 is solely concerned with acceptable and unacceptable forms of discourse on the ship. It has nothing to do with what subjects may or may not be discussed. The only commandments that even reference the world outside the ship are #7 and 9 and even then their concern is to protect the ship and its members.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    @Doublethink, My answer would be as follows. The Crew may or may not agree...

    "Ableism" isn't in my lexicon, but I'll try to understand what you mean by it in each context. However, using the same label for two different behaviours doesn't make them the same behaviour.
    [*]Is ableism covered by commandment 1 ? (If not, why not ?)
    Commandment 1 prohibits bullying and belittling behaviour to other Shipmates, regardless of whether the motivation for such behaviour is connected to race or sex or disability or anything else.
    [*]Does arguing someone’s level of cognitive functioning means they are not human, constitute ableism ? (If not, why not ?)
    [*] Does arguing for the choice to kill a disabled person for the convenience of others constitute ableism ? (If not, why not ?)
    You are free to argue on these boards that they do. Others are free to argue that they do not, or that these statements are meaningless. This is a discussion board; the Ship has no policy positions (even those in favour of motherhood and apple pie). The rules are there to induce a higher standard of debate.
    [*] How does SoF’s answer fit with the 2010 Equalities Act ?
    The Ship tries to treat everybody here equally. Nobody has the right to bully or threaten or demean other Shipmates. But equally nobody has the right to put the expression of any opinion off-limits by claiming that it's offensive to their identity.

    For example, if I say "all Guardian readers are morons" then you're within your rights to say that as a Guardian reader you take this as a personal insult and demand that I apologise and withdraw the remark. And I hope the Hosts would back you up on that, and warn me not to make a habit of it.

    If I say that the Guardian is not as impartial a newspaper as the Independent, and you complain to the Hosts that this is offensive to you as a Guardian reader, then I hope they'd give you short shrift.

    Labelling both comments as "Guardian-bashing" doesn't mean that they're in the same category.

    If your point is that by explicitly mentioning racism, the current drafting of Commandment 1 implies that racially-motivated bullying is less acceptable than bullying someone because of their disability, then it could be that a form of words that doesn't explicitly mention any "ism" would be better.


  • So it should be ok to argue for the legalisation of killing free speech absolutists on sight, so long as you do it politely?
  • Borrowed from @Alan Cresswell :

    C1 has never been just about how we treat other Shipmates - otherwise it would be not significantly different to C3 (no personal attacks). At the minimum it's about how we treat everyone reading the forums whether or not they're registered Shipmates. But, more generally if someone repeatedly posts shite that is known to be offensive to others they're a jerk - it doesn't require the people being insulted to be present in the discussion for people to see those posts as offensive.

    Tubbs
    Admin
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    @Russ I do not think hosting and publishing a discussion in which is ‘fine’ to argue groups of people are not human is ok - even less so if you were to argue that such an opinion could / should be used to support euthanasia.

    And I am absolutely sure that this site would not be tolerating such posting on the basis of race, gender, wealth, class, nationality or sexuality - so why are people behaving as if this is some kind of hugely intellectually challenging edge case they can’t quite form an opinion about without days and days of reflection ?

    Other positions that wouldn’t last 24hrs without a warning might include, raping people is ok and should be legalised because mean feel uncomfortable if they are celibate too long, race based chattel slavery should be reintroduced into the US so that law enforcement no longer have to worry about brutality complaints. You will notice saying these things “politely” doesn’t make them less of a problem.

    What is it about saying severely intellectually impaired people are not human, or people should be able to murder disabled newborn babies if they don’t want to care for them that is so massively more acceptable ?
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Seems to me that you could put together a one-paragraph argument why raping people is not OK, that would command such widespread agreement that nobody would seriously disagree.

    Are you asking why issues of abortion and infanticide aren't in that category ?

    Or asserting that you'd like them to be in that category and want the Crew to run the Ship as if they were ? By imposing sanctions on those who post from a different viewpoint?
  • I think what I am asking is crystal clear from my posts on this thread.
  • I think what I am asking is crystal clear from my posts on this thread.

    I've read this thread twice and am still not entirely certain. Colin's arguments have been ruled off limits in Epiphanies and the guidelines amended to prevent others advancing similar dehumanizing arguments in the future. The examples you've supplied for comparison purposes seem, to me, to be covered under that.

    The argument continued in the Styx because Shipmates asked for clarification of what Colin had said and then discussed it. Despite being asked not too. Several times. The argument was continuing in Hell, but the discussion seems to have moved on.
  • What is it about saying severely intellectually impaired people are not human, or people should be able to murder disabled newborn babies if they don’t want to care for them that is so massively more acceptable ?

    The law currently says that people can murder disabled babies a few days before they are born, if they don't want to care for them. Is that really so different?

    Actually, I think you can divide the discussion in to two pieces - one part is to what extent you permit parents to walk away from their children (of whatever age) and say "I don't want to raise this kid / deal with this kid's issues / this kid is too hard for me", and abdicate all responsibility for the kid, and have the state take over.

    And the second part might be questions of euthanasia vs state orphanage or adoption etc.

    Someone brought up the uterine replicator earlier, asking what difference the ability to transplant a foetus to an artificial uterus would make to the abortion discussion. If you don't want the kid you're pregnant with, and transferring it to an artificial uterus is as safe as killing it, do you have any right to choose abortion over transplant?
  • I think @Doublethink's been pretty clear, especially here:
    • Is ableism covered by commandment 1 ? (If not, why not ?)
    • Does arguing someone’s level of cognitive functioning means they are not human, constitute ableism ? (If not, why not ?)
    • Does arguing for the choice to kill a disabled person for the convenience of others constitute ableism ? (If not, why not ?)
    • How does SoF’s answer fit with the 2010 Equalities Act ?

    The clarification I'd really like, and I've asked for a few times, is whether similar arguments based on race or gender rather than disability would be allowed Ship-wide - i.e. not just in Epiphanies. I've given the example of advocating killing female infants based on China's one child policy. @Doublethink gave the example of advocating killing an infant because they appeared too black and so would be unwanted.

    If they would be allowed, then I see no problem of inconsistency in the Ship's policy, and if that's the case, I'm happy to use the existing boards and rules to counter any argument I see as unethical.*

    If they wouldn't be allowed anywhere on the Ship, then that's where, like @Doublethink, I'd really appreciate an answer from the Admins* to her question "If not, why not?". @HelenEva went some way in clearly giving an answer to this, which was helpful. However, my opinion is that once we're talking even a few weeks or months into a newborn's life, then those distinctions aren't relevant any more, and the parallel with other -isms is exactly the same. Hence my surprise that advocating the right to kill a disabled infant up to a few weeks / six months into their life isn't a Commandment 1 violation.

    @Barnabas62 gave his opinion that advocating for the freedom to kill based on other -isms would be a Commandment 1 violation, but I appreciate that he's not an admin - it's still not clear to me whether those kinds of arguments would count as Commandment 1 violations or not. If they would, then I don't understand what makes disability so different that it falls into a category of its own, away from race or gender, etc.

    *With the comment that I think that @lilbuddha's comments on the Ship's Overton window are relevant, and should be taken into account.

    **Especially given her raising of the 2010 Equalities Act section saying that the level of moderation should be consistent across the board - i.e. that you can moderate as closely as you like, but all moderation should be consistent and you cannot treat one particular group differently for any specific policy. On the surface, it looks like this is the case here. But I appreciate I may be missing something, which is why I'd love the "If not, why not?" question to be answered clearly too.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    I am not asking for a ruling about epiphanies, I am asking for a ruling about the ship as a whole.

    Specifically, I am suggesting that describing any group of members of the species Homo sapiens Sapiens as non human should be considered as unacceptable as coming onto this board and stating all black people are useless n-words. Likewise advocating killing people on the grounds of such a designation.

    I think doing this on the basis of disability is egregiously ableist to a level that should not be tolerated, and amounts to a form of hate speech.

    I also think using C1 to ban overt blatant racism, but not overt blatant ableism is discriminatory.

    (I am using racism as an example because it is something at the front of everyone’s minds at the moment so I hope the analogy will be clearer - I’d consider it equally unacceptable re lgbtq folk etc)
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Ableism seems to be one of the -isms Homo Sapiens Sapiens tend to tolerate more than other -isms. Go figure.
  • I feel like I keep describing the same concept in different words, because everyone is acting like it’s confusing.

    In its most simple form, I am saying I believe that labelling a group of people as subhuman, and then saying that makes it ok to kill them is so extremely offensive, it should automatically be treated as a C1 issue.

  • (Crossposted with half the world it would seem.)
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited August 2020
    The problem is that they may not be the right questions. The Ship allows discussion of abortion and homosexuality – so yes, some ~isms are permitted on the Ship. Speculating on how the Ship would deal with conversations we haven’t had yet – and may never happen – seems really unhelpful.

    The Equalities Act is to do with access to employment and services so may not apply in this instance. As we allow other conversations that include ~isms to take place without moderation, then we are (probably) consistent.

    “Hate speech” is a legal term. The document @DoubleThink linked too, included a whole section with examples. One, random person voicing their opinion on the Internet doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. If the same person is voicing that opinion in another context then it might do.
  • In its most simple form, I am saying I believe that labelling a group of people as subhuman, and then saying that makes it ok to kill them is so extremely offensive, it should automatically be treated as a C1 issue.

    It is also, as has been pointed out, the current legal position as regards abortion in the UK. Past 24 weeks of gestation, you may legally abort a disabled foetus. Does that make defending the current state of UK law a C1 violation?

    (I think having a discussion board where defending the legal status quo in the country in which the board is hosted is banned would be a surprising choice.)
  • We do not currently allow people to post that gay people are subhuman and should be killed do we ?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    In its most simple form, I am saying I believe that labelling a group of people as subhuman, and then saying that makes it ok to kill them is so extremely offensive, it should automatically be treated as a C1 issue.

    It is also, as has been pointed out, the current legal position as regards abortion in the UK. Past 24 weeks of gestation, you may legally abort a disabled foetus. Does that make defending the current state of UK law a C1 violation?

    (I think having a discussion board where defending the legal status quo in the country in which the board is hosted is banned would be a surprising choice.)

    What part of that do you believe involves labelling a person subhuman and then advocating killing them ?
  • We do not currently allow people to post that gay people are subhuman and should be killed do we ?

    In pratice, we sanction behaviours and perceived attitudes far more than we sanction viewpoints, which I personally think is just as well.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    That is not really an answer is it ?
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    The problem is that they may not be the right questions. The Ship allows discussion of abortion and homosexuality – so yes, some ~isms are permitted on the Ship. Speculating on how the Ship would deal with conversations we haven’t had yet – and may never happen – seems really unhelpful.

    This is not a hypothetical question.
    The Equalities Act is to do with access to employment and services so may not apply in this instance.

    I think you are mistaken about that, but really you’d have to ask a lawyer.
    As we allow other conversations that include ~isms to take place without moderation

    But you don’t.

    “Hate speech” is a legal term. The document @DoubleThink linked too, included a whole section with examples. One, random person voicing their opinion on the Internet doesn’t seem to meet the criteria. If the same person is voicing that opinion in another context then it might do.

    You may be right that it doesn’t meet criteria for a criminal offence.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    We do not currently allow people to post that gay people are subhuman and should be killed do we ?

    In pratice, we sanction behaviours and perceived attitudes far more than we sanction viewpoints, which I personally think is just as well.

    You seem to be aiming for an even lower bar than Twitter: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy
Sign In or Register to comment.