Speculating on how the Ship would deal with conversations we haven’t had yet – and may never happen – seems really unhelpful.
I think they’re helpful in uncovering unconscious biases that we might be operating under.
If, with half a moment’s thought, we’d honestly answer that kind of dehumanising / killing arguments that have been made were made about black people, gay people, women or any other group where discrimination is more obvious, then at the very least, we should be thinking about why we think those arguments are different when applied to disability. Some have tried to give reasons - I don’t find them super persuasive. That’s why I’ve been waiting for something from the admins to explain why what for any other group would seemingly unacceptable is acceptable here.
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 ?
I think the point is this:
The law allows for the termination of a foetus diagnosed with certain medical conditions at any point up until birth. You I think agree with that.
The law does not allow for the euthanasia of a newborn diagnosed with those same conditions immediately after birth. You strongly agree with that.
However:
The point at which a baby is born is not dictated by its development in the womb. In fact there is considerable leeway.
So it is not true to say that a baby just out of the womb is automatically more developed than a baby just before it is born.
So bearing that in mind, what is so significant for you about the act of birth that it completely changes our attitude to the baby overnight?
And I am not continuing this debate here, because see admin posts passim.
Fair enough - although I think it's hard to put a clean split between the debate itself, and the discussion of whether the debate should be permissible, when some of the arguments are the same.
That comparison rests on the deeply flawed assumption that what we are trying to do here is in any meaningful way comparable to what Twitter is trying to do.
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?
Murder is a legal term and if the law permits the killing, it cannot be murder. From a purely utilitarian POV, killing a newborn isn't functionally different to killing it a few days prior to birth. But there is no definitive line in the process, no specific time at which a person appears. Birth is the only point that is completely defined. You are part of your mother's body, squirt, you are now a discrete individual.
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?
Murder is a legal term and if the law permits the killing, it cannot be murder. From a purely utilitarian POV, killing a newborn isn't functionally different to killing it a few days prior to birth. But there is no definitive line in the process, no specific time at which a person appears. Birth is the only point that is completely defined. You are part of your mother's body, squirt, you are now a discrete individual.
I think you are fetishishing birth. The issues are the medical problems, the long-term prognosis, and the degree of care of for and required by the infant. Its whereabouts at any one point are not relevant.
You seem to be implying that we don't sanction viewpoints. We do. Just that we sanction behaviours and perceived attitudes far more. 8 of the 10 Commandments are about behaviour. 1 of those 8 (C1) is about patterns of behaviour that might include viewpoints.
If all we did was sanction viewpoints, the Ship would become unusable within a day. Because our bar is much, much higher than Twitter, it means that discourse here on the Ship is significantly better and more meaningful.
OK, fine, whatever you say - but, why do you believe describing peoples as subhuman, and advocating for the killing or people on the grounds of disability should be tolerated on this site ? And do you honestly believe you would permit the same kinds of statements about black, Jewish, lgbtq, Muslim And other groups ?
OK, fine, whatever you say - but, why do you believe describing peoples as subhuman, and advocating for the killing or people on the grounds of disability should be tolerated on this site ? And do you honestly believe you would permit the same kinds of statements about black, Jewish, lgbtq, Muslim And other groups ?
That is very much a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase it.
OK, do you believe describing people as not human, and advocating for the killing of people on the grounds of disability should be tolerated on this site ?
And do you honestly believe you would permit the same kinds of statements about black, Jewish, lgbtq, Muslim & other vulnerable groups ?
OK, do you believe describing people as not human, and advocating for the killing of people on the grounds of disability should be tolerated on this site ?
And do you honestly believe you would permit the same kinds of statements about black, Jewish, lgbtq, Muslim & other vulnerable groups ?
Saying that some very specific people should in certain circumstances have the right to do 'X' is not the same as advocating for 'X'.
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?
Murder is a legal term and if the law permits the killing, it cannot be murder. From a purely utilitarian POV, killing a newborn isn't functionally different to killing it a few days prior to birth. But there is no definitive line in the process, no specific time at which a person appears. Birth is the only point that is completely defined. You are part of your mother's body, squirt, you are now a discrete individual.
I think you are fetishishing birth. The issues are the medical problems, the long-term prognosis, and the degree of care of for and required by the infant. Its whereabouts at any one point are not relevant.
Why are you continuing an argument you’ve been repeatedly asked to stop?
OK, do you believe describing people as not human, and advocating for the killing of people on the grounds of disability should be tolerated on this site ?
And do you honestly believe you would permit the same kinds of statements about black, Jewish, lgbtq, Muslim & other vulnerable groups ?
Saying that some very specific people should in certain circumstances have the right to do 'X' is not the same as advocating for 'X'.
I wish it would stop. As @Leorning Cniht said, "it's hard to put a clean split between the debate itself, and the discussion of whether the debate should be permissible, when some of the arguments are the same."
And it's specially hard when what I actually said is continually being misrepresented by @Doublethink
OK, do you believe describing people as not human, and advocating for the killing of people on the grounds of disability should be tolerated on this site ?
And do you honestly believe you would permit the same kinds of statements about black, Jewish, lgbtq, Muslim & other vulnerable groups ?
Again, you've begged the question that this is what is happening here. As has been pointed out, abortion of a (potentially) disabled (define) foetus up to full term is UK law. Neither is suicide illegal, in whatever context it happens.
We have already made a specific ruling regarding Epiphanies: what we move onto now is can we, and how do we, discuss sensitive and difficult topics which are discussed in our parliament, in our hospitals and hospices, and in our places of worship?
OK, do you believe describing people as not human, and advocating for the killing of people on the grounds of disability should be tolerated on this site ?
And do you honestly believe you would permit the same kinds of statements about black, Jewish, lgbtq, Muslim & other vulnerable groups ?
Saying that some very specific people should in certain circumstances have the right to do 'X' is not the same as advocating for 'X'.
I also disagree. This is evidently where you feel misrepresented, but if something is egregious, then is doesn’t matter if you advocate for it happening in one certain circumstance or in many circumstances.
“I think that on the third Thursday of every month, between the hours of ten and twelve pm, people wearing pink trousers should have the right to kill as many puppies as they want... but I’m not an advocate for puppy murder.”
OK, do you believe describing people as not human, and advocating for the killing of people on the grounds of disability should be tolerated on this site ?
And do you honestly believe you would permit the same kinds of statements about black, Jewish, lgbtq, Muslim & other vulnerable groups ?
Again, you've begged the question that this is what is happening here. As has been pointed out, abortion of a (potentially) disabled (define) foetus up to full term is UK law. Neither is suicide illegal, in whatever context it happens.
We have already made a specific ruling regarding Epiphanies: what we move onto now is can we, and how do we, discuss sensitive and difficult topics which are discussed in our parliament, in our hospitals and hospices, and in our places of worship?
Which part of what @Doublethink described do you think didn’t happen? The describing of people with severe disabilities as not human, or the advocating of killing them on the grounds of disability?
OK, do you believe describing people as not human, and advocating for the killing of people on the grounds of disability should be tolerated on this site ?
And do you honestly believe you would permit the same kinds of statements about black, Jewish, lgbtq, Muslim & other vulnerable groups ?
Again, you've begged the question that this is what is happening here. As has been pointed out, abortion of a (potentially) disabled (define) foetus up to full term is UK law. Neither is suicide illegal, in whatever context it happens.
We have already made a specific ruling regarding Epiphanies: what we move onto now is can we, and how do we, discuss sensitive and difficult topics which are discussed in our parliament, in our hospitals and hospices, and in our places of worship?
We are not talking about abortion, we are talking about people who have *been born*. Nor are we talking about people who are dying, we are talking about people born with a severe intellectual disability. We are not talking about consensual euthanasia, because we are talking about people who lack - and have always lacked - mental capacity.
(Caveat, @Colin Smith was talking specifically of the idea killing children just afterbirth if you found their disability too hard to deal with, because he doesn’t think they are yet human. Whilst has also stated repeatedly on this site that he thinks people are severe intellectual impairment, congenital or acquired are not human - he has not advocated killing adults in this state.)
We are not talking about abortion, we are talking about people who have *been born*. Nor are we talking about people who are dying, we are talking about people born with a severe intellectual disability. We are not talking about consensual euthanasia, because we are talking about people who lack - and have always lacked - mental capacity.
We are talking about all those things, because it's very difficult to (to return to an earlier point) to discuss current UK abortion legislation otherwise. I note that you're currently in an argument with other shipmates in Hell regarding consensual euthanasia, when and how it might be permissible, and open to whom.
Also, everyone, please don't mistake the discussion of difficult subjects with 'advocacy'. There might be a continuum but they are different at the ends.
We are not talking about abortion, we are talking about people who have *been born*. Nor are we talking about people who are dying, we are talking about people born with a severe intellectual disability. We are not talking about consensual euthanasia, because we are talking about people who lack - and have always lacked - mental capacity.
We are talking about all those things, because it's very difficult to (to return to an earlier point) to discuss current UK abortion legislation otherwise.
This simply isn’t true. I’ve heard plenty of discussions on abortion, and this is the only one in which someone has advocated killing newborns as part of it.
I wish it would stop. As @Leorning Cniht said, "it's hard to put a clean split between the debate itself, and the discussion of whether the debate should be permissible, when some of the arguments are the same."
And it's specially hard when what I actually said is continually being misrepresented by @Doublethink
@Colin Smith I don't give a shit how hard it is. You are the only one on this thread who has persistently veered off-topic. Do not post on this thread again.
We are not talking about abortion, we are talking about people who have *been born*. Nor are we talking about people who are dying, we are talking about people born with a severe intellectual disability. We are not talking about consensual euthanasia, because we are talking about people who lack - and have always lacked - mental capacity.
We are talking about all those things, because it's very difficult to (to return to an earlier point) to discuss current UK abortion legislation otherwise.
This simply isn’t true. I’ve heard plenty of discussions on abortion, and this is the only one in which someone has advocated killing newborns as part of it.
I understand that's where you would draw the line. The issue facing the Ship is, if someone makes an argument that might permit that, and uses the current law to support their argument, should they be allowed to do so?
We are not talking about abortion, we are talking about people who have *been born*. Nor are we talking about people who are dying, we are talking about people born with a severe intellectual disability. We are not talking about consensual euthanasia, because we are talking about people who lack - and have always lacked - mental capacity.
We are talking about all those things, because it's very difficult to (to return to an earlier point) to discuss current UK abortion legislation otherwise.
This simply isn’t true. I’ve heard plenty of discussions on abortion, and this is the only one in which someone has advocated killing newborns as part of it.
I understand that's where you would draw the line. The issue facing the Ship is, if someone wants to make an argument that it might be permissible in very limited circumstances, and uses the current law to support their argument, should they be allowed to do so?
Drawing the line this side of arguing for killing disabled children because they are disabled and that is inconvenient, and because you don’t think babies are human, strikes me as reasonable. But then I would say that.
I think there is a fundamental difference between that, and the discussion of palliative care and abortion.
We are not talking about abortion, we are talking about people who have *been born*. Nor are we talking about people who are dying, we are talking about people born with a severe intellectual disability. We are not talking about consensual euthanasia, because we are talking about people who lack - and have always lacked - mental capacity.
We are talking about all those things, because it's very difficult to (to return to an earlier point) to discuss current UK abortion legislation otherwise.
This simply isn’t true. I’ve heard plenty of discussions on abortion, and this is the only one in which someone has advocated killing newborns as part of it.
I understand that's where you would draw the line. The issue facing the Ship is, if someone wants to make an argument that it might be permissible in very limited circumstances, and uses the current law to support their argument, should they be allowed to do so?
The question is not about where I would personally draw the line. It’s whether where the Ship draws the line is consistent - hence the questions about if similar arguments were used to advocate killing black or female or whatever other infants.
I can just about buy the ‘using current law’ thing to argue around the very first few days of a disabled newborn’s life, but when @Colin Smith advocated the killing a disabled child up to at least six months old, then surely you can see that’s way beyond using current law to argue, instead falling back on his dehumanising argument, which itself is also a problem.
Which is maybe why he reconsidered that opinion and later dropped it to a few weeks; no more than a few months.
Reflecting further: before all this, I would have assumed that arguing in favour of any kind of infanticide whatsoever would have fallen into a category that contained things like advocating paedophilia, advocating FGM, holocaust denial, and so on. Putting forward such viewpoints would be so far out of the Ship’s Overton window that they would be non-starters and immediately shut down, definitely in Epiphanies, but also anywhere else on the Ship.
I also would not have assumed that whether or not such arguments used current law to bolster their perspectives would be the key litmus test to acceptability. For example, PIE used current law to argue their validity.
Essentially, count me extremely surprised in finding my assumptions inaccurate.
OK, do you believe describing people as not human, and advocating for the killing of people on the grounds of disability should be tolerated on this site ?
And do you honestly believe you would permit the same kinds of statements about black, Jewish, lgbtq, Muslim & other vulnerable groups ?
Can we agree that describing any Shipmate as subhuman and advocating their death would be a C1 violation ?
Can we agree that it is at least conceivable that our society has got it wrong in its assessment of the set of beings to which human rights should apply ? And therefore that discussion of moving the boundary is legitimate ?
C1 does not set out forbidden viewpoints. It is not (or should not be) a restriction on free speech. It's about how we treat each other. (And, as Tubbs has pointed out, by extension how we treat any non-registered persons who may happen to be reading this stuff. Potential Shipmates-to-be, if you will).
I expect the Crew to be able to distinguish between someone posting hate-driven nonsense about Muslims being subhuman and someone putting forward a reasoned and reasonable point of view as to what attributes of a human being we are valuing when we talk of human rights (would you grant such rights to ET etc).
You seem to be implying that we don't sanction viewpoints. We do. Just that we sanction behaviours and perceived attitudes far more. 8 of the 10 Commandments are about behaviour. 1 of those 8 (C1) is about patterns of behaviour that might include viewpoints.
Can you quote any precedent, Doc, for someone being sanctioned purely for the unacceptability of the content of what they've said, and not because of any issue with how they've gone about expressing it ?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited August 2020
Dumplin Jeff. (Hope I spelled that right.). Curious Buddhist and related sock puppets. Lots of jerks, too many to name, who have splurged hate in a few posts and been banned in short order. Spammers by the dozens seeking self advertising or promotion.
Can we agree that it is at least conceivable that our society has got it wrong in its assessment of the set of beings to which human rights should apply ? And therefore that discussion of moving the boundary is legitimate ?
No. Human rights are very well defined all over the world as applying to everyone, everywhere from birth until death.
Which is why I don't buy the 'tweaking current law' thing. @Colin Smith's proposals would require a fundamental revision of human rights legislation, which is huge.
Also, given that late term abortion legislation is a weighing of 'do least harm', deciding what course of action causes least harm (emotional and physical) to the mother, and that becomes irrelevant post-birth, I don't think tweaking abortion legislation is a goer either, as the justification for post-birth euthanasia would have to fundamentally different than abortion legislation.
This is a quick summary, as I'm aware that arguing these points is not appropriate in the Styx. But since the reason given for allowing these viewpoints is that they're just a tweaking of existing legislation, I would challenge that assertion as well.
This is a quick summary, as I'm aware that arguing these points is not appropriate in the Styx. But since the reason given for allowing these viewpoints is that they're just a tweaking of existing legislation, I would challenge that assertion as well.
This is not the reason given. It is simply an example of how a more proscriptive ethos on the Ship will shut down discussion.
Personally, I would rather give people rope and see whether they made ladders or nooses out it, than watch them for proscribed knot-tying techniques. We are, as a crew (despite assertions to the contrary), mindful of both our legal and moral obligations. We don't just want to obey the letter of the law, but engage with the spirit of it. Sometimes, in a court of law, a line of questioning is extended that has the opposing counsel leaping to their feet to object - but the judge can allow it, potentially with caveats or a warning, to see where the arguments leads, acknowledging that such a line would not normally be permitted, but in this case, it is, for now.
This is where, I'm afraid, trust comes in. We trust the Hosts to be wise to both close down deliberate and gratuitously offensive arguments, and hold those open where they may develop into something else. Sometimes, it's obvious, and sometime it's often after considerable discussion backstage. But this has been the case for as long as I've been permitted to see behind the veil.
That we are stress-testing the Ship's rigging on this issue is new, but we've tested it on other issues before, often causing us to trim our sails as a result. But (again, personally) would rather see us continue our ocean-going voyage out of sight of land, than hug the coast and seeking safe harbour.
This is where, I'm afraid, trust comes in. We trust the Hosts to be wise to both close down deliberate and gratuitously offensive arguments, and hold those open where they may develop into something else. Sometimes, it's obvious, and sometime it's often after considerable discussion backstage. But this has been the case for as long as I've been permitted to see behind the veil.
Saying otherwise *is* gratuitously offensive and obviously so. My trust in the decision making about this it evaporating rapidly - not least because the first time this was stated on the boards a couple of months ago it was treated as largely unproblematic - but that was before the suggestion of killing infants with severe disabilities. And now it is still being treated as fundamentally different from labelling other minority groups as non human with lives that, as a result, are considered totally worthless.
And now it is still being treated as fundamentally different from labelling other minority groups as non human with lives that, as a result, are considered totally worthless.
Allowing somebody to post an opinion that implies that some human lives are worth less than others, or indeed worthless, does not mean that these forums or the Ship are promoting such a view or that collectively we are entertaining it.
Prohibiting all opinions which could be taken as implying some human lives were worth less than others, on the other hand, would very quickly result in us having virtually nothing to discuss. And discussion is what we are about here.
Dumplin Jeff. (Hope I spelled that right.). Curious Buddhist and related sock puppets. Lots of jerks, too many to name, who have splurged hate in a few posts and been banned in short order. Spammers by the dozens seeking self advertising or promotion.
Just off the top of my head.
Spamming and sock puppeting are clearly prohibited in other commandments. These seem to be matters of fact rather than matters of doctrine or manner.
"Splurging hate" seems like an objectionable manner of behaving rather than a particular doctrine or belief that has been judged unutterable.
Neither of those seems like a particularly strong precedent for judging a reasoned belief to be beyond the pale.
And now it is still being treated as fundamentally different from labelling other minority groups as non human
It's not non-human, it's non-person. A foetus is human, but not yet a person - that's an argument with which you appear to agree. There are many who would strongly disagree with it, but you presumably wouldn't argue that we should allow their feelings to dictate what we can and can't discuss on these boards.
I would have assumed that arguing in favour of any kind of infanticide whatsoever would have fallen into a category that contained things like advocating paedophilia, advocating FGM, holocaust denial, and so on.
I for one would be perfectly OK with Purgatorial discussion about any of those subjects. In the case of the latter it would be a pretty short discussion given the sheer volume of evidence that it did, but we allow climate change denial to be expressed despite similar levels of evidence that it's happening.
I don't understand why some people are so afraid of certain subjects that they can't even bear to hear or read them being discussed.
And now it is still being treated as fundamentally different from labelling other minority groups as non human
Wanting the same special protection for the disabled as for other minorities seems totally reasonable.
The Commandments should of course make no special provision for minorities. The same standards of behaviour should apply to all Shipmates in their dealings with all Shipmates.
This is where, I'm afraid, trust comes in. We trust the Hosts to be wise
No. We trust the Hosts to be reasonable, thoughtful and introspective. We trust that the collected H&As are more balanced than the individual might be.
Most of us expect you to get it right (over time, at least) more often than not.
But part of that process is this very discussion.
"You just have to trust us" is not why Styx exists.
Reflecting further: before all this, I would have assumed that arguing in favour of any kind of infanticide whatsoever would have fallen into a category that contained things like advocating paedophilia, advocating FGM, holocaust denial, and so on.
Which is a very weird assumption. It's an assumption that all the things you find egregious are egregious for exactly the same reasons. They're not.
It's necessary to unpack what the yuck factor is, rather than just rely on the 'yuck' reaction, to form a basis as to the difference between things which make you uncomfortable but which should be able to be talked about, and things which simply aren't acceptable to talk about (and note, here on an internet forum we are only talking, not doing).
It's been recently highlighted to me that doctors regularly, legally withdraw medical treatment and no-one bats an eyelid. Including from disabled infants. No-one labels passively letting a child die as 'infanticide'. Why? To me that's an interesting, albeit difficult question. To you that's a subject that can't be discussed?
I'd also add that the heading to this thread is wildlyy misconceived. Discrimination laws don't exist in the abstract. They prohibit discrimination in particular ways, such as in employment or in provision of services.
Reasoning that if someone is in a protected class, you can't say things about them... wow, where was this reasoning all these years I had to listen to discussion about homosexuality? Clearly there've been some new developments in thinking around here. I know people weren't generally advocating killing me because I was homosexual, but show me a discrimination law that actually says "you can't kill someone because they're in a protected class".
They don't say that, because we have a general law that says you generally shouldn't be killing people. You don't need to be in a protected class for us to think that killing you is wrong. We actually need special reasons to justify killing people.
This is where, I'm afraid, trust comes in. We trust the Hosts to be wise
No. We trust the Hosts to be reasonable, thoughtful and introspective. We trust that the collected H&As are more balanced than the individual might be.
Most of us expect you to get it right (over time, at least) more often than not.
But part of that process is this very discussion. "You just have to trust us" is not why Styx exists.
Comments
If, with half a moment’s thought, we’d honestly answer that kind of dehumanising / killing arguments that have been made were made about black people, gay people, women or any other group where discrimination is more obvious, then at the very least, we should be thinking about why we think those arguments are different when applied to disability. Some have tried to give reasons - I don’t find them super persuasive. That’s why I’ve been waiting for something from the admins to explain why what for any other group would seemingly unacceptable is acceptable here.
The part where it's OK to kill disabled foetuses, but not non-disabled ones?
And I am not continuing this debate here.
I think the point is this:
- The law allows for the termination of a foetus diagnosed with certain medical conditions at any point up until birth. You I think agree with that.
- The law does not allow for the euthanasia of a newborn diagnosed with those same conditions immediately after birth. You strongly agree with that.
However:So bearing that in mind, what is so significant for you about the act of birth that it completely changes our attitude to the baby overnight?
Fair enough - although I think it's hard to put a clean split between the debate itself, and the discussion of whether the debate should be permissible, when some of the arguments are the same.
That comparison rests on the deeply flawed assumption that what we are trying to do here is in any meaningful way comparable to what Twitter is trying to do.
[edited for clarity]
I think you are fetishishing birth. The issues are the medical problems, the long-term prognosis, and the degree of care of for and required by the infant. Its whereabouts at any one point are not relevant.
You seem to be implying that we don't sanction viewpoints. We do. Just that we sanction behaviours and perceived attitudes far more. 8 of the 10 Commandments are about behaviour. 1 of those 8 (C1) is about patterns of behaviour that might include viewpoints.
If all we did was sanction viewpoints, the Ship would become unusable within a day. Because our bar is much, much higher than Twitter, it means that discourse here on the Ship is significantly better and more meaningful.
That is very much a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase it.
And do you honestly believe you would permit the same kinds of statements about black, Jewish, lgbtq, Muslim & other vulnerable groups ?
Saying that some very specific people should in certain circumstances have the right to do 'X' is not the same as advocating for 'X'.
Why are you continuing an argument you’ve been repeatedly asked to stop?
Tubbs
Styx Hosting
I disagree.
I wish it would stop. As @Leorning Cniht said, "it's hard to put a clean split between the debate itself, and the discussion of whether the debate should be permissible, when some of the arguments are the same."
And it's specially hard when what I actually said is continually being misrepresented by @Doublethink
Again, you've begged the question that this is what is happening here. As has been pointed out, abortion of a (potentially) disabled (define) foetus up to full term is UK law. Neither is suicide illegal, in whatever context it happens.
We have already made a specific ruling regarding Epiphanies: what we move onto now is can we, and how do we, discuss sensitive and difficult topics which are discussed in our parliament, in our hospitals and hospices, and in our places of worship?
I also disagree. This is evidently where you feel misrepresented, but if something is egregious, then is doesn’t matter if you advocate for it happening in one certain circumstance or in many circumstances.
“I think that on the third Thursday of every month, between the hours of ten and twelve pm, people wearing pink trousers should have the right to kill as many puppies as they want... but I’m not an advocate for puppy murder.”
Hmm, no, it doesn’t fly in that situation.
Which part of what @Doublethink described do you think didn’t happen? The describing of people with severe disabilities as not human, or the advocating of killing them on the grounds of disability?
We are not talking about abortion, we are talking about people who have *been born*. Nor are we talking about people who are dying, we are talking about people born with a severe intellectual disability. We are not talking about consensual euthanasia, because we are talking about people who lack - and have always lacked - mental capacity.
(Caveat, @Colin Smith was talking specifically of the idea killing children just afterbirth if you found their disability too hard to deal with, because he doesn’t think they are yet human. Whilst has also stated repeatedly on this site that he thinks people are severe intellectual impairment, congenital or acquired are not human - he has not advocated killing adults in this state.)
We are talking about all those things, because it's very difficult to (to return to an earlier point) to discuss current UK abortion legislation otherwise. I note that you're currently in an argument with other shipmates in Hell regarding consensual euthanasia, when and how it might be permissible, and open to whom.
Also, everyone, please don't mistake the discussion of difficult subjects with 'advocacy'. There might be a continuum but they are different at the ends.
This simply isn’t true. I’ve heard plenty of discussions on abortion, and this is the only one in which someone has advocated killing newborns as part of it.
@Colin Smith I don't give a shit how hard it is. You are the only one on this thread who has persistently veered off-topic. Do not post on this thread again.
Ruth, Styx Host
I understand that's where you would draw the line. The issue facing the Ship is, if someone makes an argument that might permit that, and uses the current law to support their argument, should they be allowed to do so?
I understand that's where you would draw the line. The issue facing the Ship is, if someone wants to make an argument that it might be permissible in very limited circumstances, and uses the current law to support their argument, should they be allowed to do so?
I think there is a fundamental difference between that, and the discussion of palliative care and abortion.
The question is not about where I would personally draw the line. It’s whether where the Ship draws the line is consistent - hence the questions about if similar arguments were used to advocate killing black or female or whatever other infants.
I can just about buy the ‘using current law’ thing to argue around the very first few days of a disabled newborn’s life, but when @Colin Smith advocated the killing a disabled child up to at least six months old, then surely you can see that’s way beyond using current law to argue, instead falling back on his dehumanising argument, which itself is also a problem.
Which is maybe why he reconsidered that opinion and later dropped it to a few weeks; no more than a few months.
I also would not have assumed that whether or not such arguments used current law to bolster their perspectives would be the key litmus test to acceptability. For example, PIE used current law to argue their validity.
Essentially, count me extremely surprised in finding my assumptions inaccurate.
Can we agree that describing any Shipmate as subhuman and advocating their death would be a C1 violation ?
Can we agree that it is at least conceivable that our society has got it wrong in its assessment of the set of beings to which human rights should apply ? And therefore that discussion of moving the boundary is legitimate ?
C1 does not set out forbidden viewpoints. It is not (or should not be) a restriction on free speech. It's about how we treat each other. (And, as Tubbs has pointed out, by extension how we treat any non-registered persons who may happen to be reading this stuff. Potential Shipmates-to-be, if you will).
I expect the Crew to be able to distinguish between someone posting hate-driven nonsense about Muslims being subhuman and someone putting forward a reasoned and reasonable point of view as to what attributes of a human being we are valuing when we talk of human rights (would you grant such rights to ET etc).
Can you quote any precedent, Doc, for someone being sanctioned purely for the unacceptability of the content of what they've said, and not because of any issue with how they've gone about expressing it ?
Just off the top of my head.
Which is why I don't buy the 'tweaking current law' thing. @Colin Smith's proposals would require a fundamental revision of human rights legislation, which is huge.
Also, given that late term abortion legislation is a weighing of 'do least harm', deciding what course of action causes least harm (emotional and physical) to the mother, and that becomes irrelevant post-birth, I don't think tweaking abortion legislation is a goer either, as the justification for post-birth euthanasia would have to fundamentally different than abortion legislation.
This is a quick summary, as I'm aware that arguing these points is not appropriate in the Styx. But since the reason given for allowing these viewpoints is that they're just a tweaking of existing legislation, I would challenge that assertion as well.
This is not the reason given. It is simply an example of how a more proscriptive ethos on the Ship will shut down discussion.
Personally, I would rather give people rope and see whether they made ladders or nooses out it, than watch them for proscribed knot-tying techniques. We are, as a crew (despite assertions to the contrary), mindful of both our legal and moral obligations. We don't just want to obey the letter of the law, but engage with the spirit of it. Sometimes, in a court of law, a line of questioning is extended that has the opposing counsel leaping to their feet to object - but the judge can allow it, potentially with caveats or a warning, to see where the arguments leads, acknowledging that such a line would not normally be permitted, but in this case, it is, for now.
This is where, I'm afraid, trust comes in. We trust the Hosts to be wise to both close down deliberate and gratuitously offensive arguments, and hold those open where they may develop into something else. Sometimes, it's obvious, and sometime it's often after considerable discussion backstage. But this has been the case for as long as I've been permitted to see behind the veil.
That we are stress-testing the Ship's rigging on this issue is new, but we've tested it on other issues before, often causing us to trim our sails as a result. But (again, personally) would rather see us continue our ocean-going voyage out of sight of land, than hug the coast and seeking safe harbour.
These people are human: https://youtu.be/Hp4PW17U_h8
Saying otherwise *is* gratuitously offensive and obviously so. My trust in the decision making about this it evaporating rapidly - not least because the first time this was stated on the boards a couple of months ago it was treated as largely unproblematic - but that was before the suggestion of killing infants with severe disabilities. And now it is still being treated as fundamentally different from labelling other minority groups as non human with lives that, as a result, are considered totally worthless.
Prohibiting all opinions which could be taken as implying some human lives were worth less than others, on the other hand, would very quickly result in us having virtually nothing to discuss. And discussion is what we are about here.
Is the salient point. You appear to have misunderstood “considered” as referring to sof not the poster.
I don't understand who you think is considering whom as worthless.
That helps. Thank you. Going backstage for further discussions.
Spamming and sock puppeting are clearly prohibited in other commandments. These seem to be matters of fact rather than matters of doctrine or manner.
"Splurging hate" seems like an objectionable manner of behaving rather than a particular doctrine or belief that has been judged unutterable.
Neither of those seems like a particularly strong precedent for judging a reasoned belief to be beyond the pale.
I don't recall Dumplin Jeff.
It's not non-human, it's non-person. A foetus is human, but not yet a person - that's an argument with which you appear to agree. There are many who would strongly disagree with it, but you presumably wouldn't argue that we should allow their feelings to dictate what we can and can't discuss on these boards.
I for one would be perfectly OK with Purgatorial discussion about any of those subjects. In the case of the latter it would be a pretty short discussion given the sheer volume of evidence that it did, but we allow climate change denial to be expressed despite similar levels of evidence that it's happening.
I don't understand why some people are so afraid of certain subjects that they can't even bear to hear or read them being discussed.
Wanting the same special protection for the disabled as for other minorities seems totally reasonable.
The Commandments should of course make no special provision for minorities. The same standards of behaviour should apply to all Shipmates in their dealings with all Shipmates.
That’s clearly not my motivation, as I wouldn’t have been so determined in arguing against them in the first place.
I never intended to suggest it was.
Most of us expect you to get it right (over time, at least) more often than not.
But part of that process is this very discussion.
"You just have to trust us" is not why Styx exists.
Which is a very weird assumption. It's an assumption that all the things you find egregious are egregious for exactly the same reasons. They're not.
It's necessary to unpack what the yuck factor is, rather than just rely on the 'yuck' reaction, to form a basis as to the difference between things which make you uncomfortable but which should be able to be talked about, and things which simply aren't acceptable to talk about (and note, here on an internet forum we are only talking, not doing).
It's been recently highlighted to me that doctors regularly, legally withdraw medical treatment and no-one bats an eyelid. Including from disabled infants. No-one labels passively letting a child die as 'infanticide'. Why? To me that's an interesting, albeit difficult question. To you that's a subject that can't be discussed?
Reasoning that if someone is in a protected class, you can't say things about them... wow, where was this reasoning all these years I had to listen to discussion about homosexuality? Clearly there've been some new developments in thinking around here. I know people weren't generally advocating killing me because I was homosexual, but show me a discrimination law that actually says "you can't kill someone because they're in a protected class".
They don't say that, because we have a general law that says you generally shouldn't be killing people. You don't need to be in a protected class for us to think that killing you is wrong. We actually need special reasons to justify killing people.
Then it's a good job that's not what I said.