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.
It has been specifically stated that severely intellectually disabled people are not human, on these boards. Not foetuses, people who have been born after nine months gestation including adults.
And it has been stated that newborns are not human, and therefore in addition to abortion infanticide should be an option for parents in some circumstances. One of those circumstances being them not wanting to raise a disabled child.
Note, not because the child is suffering or dying - because they are disabled.
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?
Of course it can be discussed, and I already specifically differentiated withdrawing life-support from consciously killing an infant previously in this discussion. Ultimately withdrawing life support that is artificially keeping someone alive, who will otherwise probably die (but not always) is so far different from what has been advocated in actively killing disabled infants.
I’ll be as concise as possible. I don’t think anyone that saying murder is ever fine should get a free pass on this site, especially when it’s targeted towards a vulnerable minority group.
However, I accept that I don’t make the rules up. So, if it is decided that it is fine to advocate for murder in discussions here, then I think that where and how that can happen should be carefully considered, to ensure that no one vulnerable or minority group (in this case, those with disabilities) is treated differently than others.
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?
Of course it can be discussed, and I already specifically differentiated withdrawing life-support from consciously killing an infant previously in this discussion. Ultimately withdrawing life support that is artificially keeping someone alive, who will otherwise probably die (but not always) is so far different from what has been advocated in actively killing disabled infants.
And yet, there are prominent philosophers who would argue quite forcefully that the claim that those are 2 completely different things is a total fiction we make up to feel better about a situation where the intent is that someone will die, and the difference is just the selected means. While also forcing them to die more slowly.
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’ll be as concise as possible. I don’t think anyone that saying murder is ever fine should get a free pass on this site, especially when it’s targeted towards a vulnerable minority group.
However, I accept that I don’t make the rules up. So, if it is decided that it is fine to advocate for murder in discussions here, then I think that where and how that can happen should be carefully considered, to ensure that no one vulnerable or minority group (in this case, those with disabilities) is treated differently than others.
It's already been pointed out that "murder" is a legal concept. Any killing that is permitted is, by definition, not murder. If the law as to what killing is permitted changes, something becomes murder that wasn't previously murder / something that was previously murder is no longer murder.
For example, the government putting people to death is not murder in the USA in situations where it would be murder under the law of many other countries.
Are you arguing that it shouldn't be fine to advocate for law changes? That honestly seems to be the case. And now while reluctantly conceding the possibility that yes, people CAN advocate for law changes, you want to say that they can't pick a basis for law changes that you don't like.
IMHO you'd do far better to actually, in the relevant conversations, argue convincingly as to why using disability as a criterion for killing is a terrible idea.
Whereupon I would most likely start interrogating you as to why letting highly disabled people die by withdrawing their life support is morally different.
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?
Viability ≠ convenience
I honestly don't have the faintest idea what you mean by this. Because you've used two words, neither of which are words that I've used.
Try writing in fucking sentences? Many people find it helpful.
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.
No. It’s nothing to do with that, or a yuck factor. As I said, it’s to do with the Overton window of the Ship, and what kinds of things are so clearly unethical to the vast majority of us, and those running the Ship, that they fall out of the range of being acceptably advocated for.
I thought that infanticide, i.e. murder, would clearly be one of those things. As I said, it surprises me that it’s hasn’t been.
I’d actually be more open to having it argued that any of those other things in that list (bear in mind, it was a off-my head bunch of examples) were acceptable things to advocate for here, as I don’t think that any of them as bad as actually arguing for killing people.
But the Admins are continuing their discussions, and I have made my opinions perfectly clear. So I see little point in restating them over and again.
I’ll be as concise as possible. I don’t think anyone that saying murder is ever fine should get a free pass on this site, especially when it’s targeted towards a vulnerable minority group.
In very recent memory, a Shipmate opined they would murder someone who abused their children.
They were called to Hell (or it was already in Hell) and roundly roasted for it. I have no idea whether the fact that they faced no official sanction constitutes a 'free pass' by your lights, but there were community consequences that other shipmates availed themselves of.
I’ll be as concise as possible. I don’t think anyone that saying murder is ever fine should get a free pass on this site
Well that's the thing, isn't it? "Murder" means a killing that isn't legally permissible, and what people are arguing is that there should be a change in the law to permit certain killings that are currently prohibited. They are not saying murder is fine.
As I said, it’s to do with the Overton window of the Ship, and what kinds of things are so clearly unethical to the vast majority of us, and those running the Ship, that they fall out of the range of being acceptably advocated for.
I thought that infanticide, i.e. murder, would clearly be one of those things. As I said, it surprises me that it’s hasn’t been.
Whereas it surprises me that you so readily treat the delineation between 'active' killing and 'passive' killing (as if, say, withdrawing a feeding tube isn't an action?) as so utterly definitive, to the point where one of those things is perfectly legal and ethical and yet the other is so beyond the pale that you think it's outside the Overton widow.
I’ll be as concise as possible. I don’t think anyone that saying murder is ever fine should get a free pass on this site, especially when it’s targeted towards a vulnerable minority group.
In very recent memory, a Shipmate opined they would murder someone who abused their children.
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?
Viability ≠ convenience
I honestly don't have the faintest idea what you mean by this. Because you've used two words, neither of which are words that I've used.
Try writing in fucking sentences? Many people find it helpful.
Apologies for giving too much credit.
Viability is generally the question regarding withdrawing life support. Convenience is the consideration in position raised by Colin Smith.
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?
Viability ≠ convenience
I honestly don't have the faintest idea what you mean by this. Because you've used two words, neither of which are words that I've used.
Try writing in fucking sentences? Many people find it helpful.
Apologies for giving too much credit.
Viability is generally the question regarding withdrawing life support. Convenience is the consideration in position raised by Colin Smith.
I would have thought it blindingly obvious that withdrawing support from someone affects "viability". For example, I think you'll find that otherwise perfectly healthy human beings will eventually die if you stop their supply of food.
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?
Viability ≠ convenience
I honestly don't have the faintest idea what you mean by this. Because you've used two words, neither of which are words that I've used.
Try writing in fucking sentences? Many people find it helpful.
Apologies for giving too much credit.
Viability is generally the question regarding withdrawing life support. Convenience is the consideration in position raised by Colin Smith.
I would have thought it blindingly obvious that withdrawing support from someone affects "viability". For example, I think you'll find that otherwise perfectly healthy human beings will eventually die if you stop their supply of food.
The problem is that I can see no good reason not to count fetuses past implantation as members of the species homo sapiens. So if 'advocating treating members of the biological species homo sapiens as less than human' is the criterion then abortion would be out.
Slightly relatedly I rather agree with Colin Smith's reasoning that there is no meaningful difference in moral status between the fetus before birth and the baby after birth. (Any difference in moral status is due to the rights of the mother, not of the child.) I just think that means its problematic to kill the fetus. Now if it's inadmissible to advocate killing the baby after birth under any circumstances, then it seems rhetorically mean to argue that. To say, your position logically imo entails this position, which I think is morally wrong, is a fair argument; to say, your position logically imo entails this position, which is so morally wrong it may not be expressed on these boards, is rhetorically cheap.
I am going to remind people yet again that the Styx is not Hell and personal attacks are not permitted. It is also not a space to discuss anything other than Ship's business. Your opinions on abortion etc do not belong here. I am even going to stick Admin tags on in the hope that this time you might take the hint.
When the Ship was founded, it was about "lively, intelligent discussion" and almost anything went provided it could be argued. The world's changed a great deal since then. Like all social media channels, the Ship is walking the incredibly fine line between allowing free speech, keeping people safe, operating within various legal frameworks and maintaining a sense of community.
Whilst we aim to always remain on the right side of that fine line, we sometimes don't. A combination of extreme views and extreme insensitivity meant it took us longer to identify where the line should be in this instance. If @Colin Smith continues this line of argument, there will be be swift action. This has also been posted on the Hell thread. We can only apologise for the fact it took so long to come to this conclusion.
We can't list every offensive view or legislate for how tactlessly it can or can not be expressed but we can aim to do better when it's obvious that someone is combining an extreme view with complete indifference to the impact on other posters.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited August 2020
So you don’t recall Dumplin Jeff, Russ? Lucky you. I had to read his stuff.
The formal position re C1 is that jerk covers all sorts of irredeemable obnoxiousness and is applied at the discretion of Admin. I doubt whether there is complete consistency of application but complete consistency is a target rarely achieved in practice by any organisation. Some may try harder to pretend complete consistency than the Crew do.
I’m pretty sure that if someone wanted to do a critical parsing of all my rulings they would be able to say “you did this here but you didn’t do the same thing there”. Well whoop de do.
Personally I dislike intensely the posts which led to this thread but I try to avoid Hosting on the basis of my own disgust.
I’ll be as concise as possible. I don’t think anyone that saying murder is ever fine should get a free pass on this site, especially when it’s targeted towards a vulnerable minority group.
In very recent memory, a Shipmate opined they would murder someone who abused their children.
*waves*
Hi Marvin!
Thanks Doc Tor, your post did stop and make me think, and reminded me that turning values into rules, as you have to do, is no easy work. As I've said before, I appreciate the hard time you all put into it.
However, I accept that I don’t make the rules up. So, if it is decided that it is fine to advocate for murder in discussions here, then I think that where and how that can happen should be carefully considered, to ensure that no one vulnerable or minority group (in this case, those with disabilities) is treated differently than others.
This is tantamount to saying it's fine to discuss killing protected minorities, as long as we're open to killing people from all of them.
Not how I intended it. And, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it should be clear by now that I don't think it's fine to discuss killing any protected minorities.
However, I accept that I don’t make the rules up. So, if it is decided that it is fine to advocate for murder in discussions here, then I think that where and how that can happen should be carefully considered, to ensure that no one vulnerable or minority group (in this case, those with disabilities) is treated differently than others.
This is tantamount to saying it's fine to discuss killing protected minorities, as long as we're open to killing people from all of them.
That’s pretty much the world we’re in these days, where how you treat people is less important than whether you treat everyone else the same way. So killing everyone is now a more moral position to argue than only killing those from a certain group. Funny old world, innit?
I googled "parents who kill disabled children" and this is just a random selection:
... when parents do kill disabled children, the media almost always presents one of two narratives: the harried-but-saintly parent who couldn’t bear the terrible burden and (understandably) snapped one day, or the saintly parent who killed out of the tenderest of mercies....
It does seem as if a lot of people who would never, ever "advocate for the right to kill" a disabled newborn are still able to rationalise killing disabled children of any age (eta) after the fact. Are the narratives that appear in the media (above) hate speech?
(Sorry, but the link button seems to have disappeared.)
I googled "parents who kill disabled children" and this is just a random selection:
... when parents do kill disabled children, the media almost always presents one of two narratives: the harried-but-saintly parent who couldn’t bear the terrible burden and (understandably) snapped one day, or the saintly parent who killed out of the tenderest of mercies....
It does seem as if a lot of people who would never, ever "advocate for the right to kill" a disabled newborn are still able to rationalise killing disabled children of any age (eta) after the fact. Are the narratives that appear in the media (above) hate speech?
(Sorry, but the link button seems to have disappeared.)
It is the same way black people are represented in the media. People who are different are other and therefore less valuable. We couch things in prettier language, but that is the base of it.
And not to dismiss the difficulties of caring for severely disabled people, but this is about convenience as the examples of people who have support available but still kill their children demonstrates.
Sorry, I am having a hard time wording what I am puzzled about. If a Shipmate posted something along the lines of what the media writes about this topic, would that be flagged as ableism?
Sorry, I am having a hard time wording what I am puzzled about. If a Shipmate posted something along the lines of what the media writes about this topic, would that be flagged as ableism?
Or (sticks head above parapet) if we assume, with good reason, that the various media outlets write what their intended readership wish to read and broadly agree with, then is it true to say that culture as a whole is inherently ableist to some degree and any defence of that cultural norm is ableism?
It would be a little odd if the only acceptable position on the ship is to condemn a societal norm.
then is it true to say that culture as a whole is inherently ableist to some degree and any defence of that cultural norm is ableism?
It would be a little odd if the only acceptable position on the ship is to condemn a societal norm.
My argument was the fact that society allows us to kill disabled foetuses shortly before birth, but does not allow us to kill them on grounds of sex or race, means that this is true - our society thinks that some level of prejudice against disability is OK.
Please explain how this applies to Ship's business in an actionable way.
Some people are saying an entire subject should be banned from the Ship. Others are defending our right to discuss it. It’s inevitable that in doing so some aspects of the subject itself will be brought up.
The Ship’s Business part is which side of the argument the Admins will fall on.
Sorry, I am having a hard time wording what I am puzzled about. If a Shipmate posted something along the lines of what the media writes about this topic, would that be flagged as ableism?
Or (sticks head above parapet) if we assume, with good reason, that the various media outlets write what their intended readership wish to read and broadly agree with, then is it true to say that culture as a whole is inherently ableist to some degree and any defence of that cultural norm is ableism?
It would be a little odd if the only acceptable position on the ship is to condemn a societal norm.
I do have to wonder what part of my instruction to you -- "Do not post on this thread again" -- was so hard to understand. Referring you to the tender mercies of the Admins.
I don’t think this ruling is good or in keeping with the ethos of the Ship as I’ve experienced it while here, or read on the old boards.
The Internet has changed since this website was launched, but this site isn’t 4chan or some noxious Subreddit. It’s a carefully moderated, self-selected group of people who join on the Internet for serious intellectual discussion. Colin Smith’s views are dumb, but they fall out of the abortion arguments advanced by many. Rather than saying those views can’t be expressed, why can’t people just argue vigorously against them? I’ve spent years working with disabled people and count several as my friends. I don’t like views like Colin’s, but mandating them not to be uttered doesn’t help anything.
I don’t understand how the Ship can claim to be about serious intellectual discussion if there are views prejudged to be beyond defense.
I also don’t understand why the H&A would apologize for taking their time to consider a decision.
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.
It has been specifically stated that severely intellectually disabled people are not human, on these boards. Not foetuses, people who have been born after nine months gestation including adults.
And it has been stated that newborns are not human, and therefore in addition to abortion infanticide should be an option for parents in some circumstances. One of those circumstances being them not wanting to raise a disabled child.
Note, not because the child is suffering or dying - because they are disabled.
Thank you for your post, especially that last sentence.
I posted that having read the post fromDoublethink from which I quoted. Having now read to the end, what I said may be infringing some of the Hostly and Adminly rulings intervening. If so, I apologise
Sorry, I am having a hard time wording what I am puzzled about. If a Shipmate posted something along the lines of what the media writes about this topic, would that be flagged as ableism?
Or (sticks head above parapet) if we assume, with good reason, that the various media outlets write what their intended readership wish to read and broadly agree with, then is it true to say that culture as a whole is inherently ableist to some degree and any defence of that cultural norm is ableism?
It would be a little odd if the only acceptable position on the ship is to condemn a societal norm.
I do have to wonder what part of my instruction to you -- "Do not post on this thread again" -- was so hard to understand. Referring you to the tender mercies of the Admins.
Ruth, Styx host
@Colin Smith, you have acknowledged, on this thread, that you've now read the 10 Commandments, which include Commandment 6: Respect the Ship's Crew.
As @Ruth points out, you have gone on to blatantly ignore a direct instruction from a host. We're tired of you running roughshod over Shipmates, Commandments, and Crew as you see fit.
Enjoy some shore leave.
Other Shipmates, please take note that @Colin Smith will be unable to take part in discussions while suspended.
I don’t understand how the Ship can claim to be about serious intellectual discussion if there are views prejudged to be beyond defense.
That ruling doesn't say that anywhere. To my mind the key phrase is combining an extreme view with complete indifference to the impact on other posters.
Sorry, I am having a hard time wording what I am puzzled about. If a Shipmate posted something along the lines of what the media writes about this topic, would that be flagged as ableism?
Society is ableist, just as society is racist. One of the words frequently used in this discussion is ‘egregious’.
Writing “those poor mothers, no wonder they snapped.” betrays ableism, as most wouldn’t accept that as mitigation for a parent who kills a non-disabled child; but isn’t egregious.
If I worked for a paper reporting like that, I’d be challenging whether our reporting was fair and balanced though, for the same reasons as your link highlighted.
I don’t understand how the Ship can claim to be about serious intellectual discussion if there are views prejudged to be beyond defense.
That ruling doesn't say that anywhere. To my mind the key phrase is combining an extreme view with complete indifference to the impact on other posters.
This.
As I said up-thread, thank you all for the ruling- from someone for whom the tone of certain posts had quite an impact
So you don’t recall Dumplin Jeff, Russ? Lucky you. I had to read his stuff.
The formal position re C1 is that jerk covers all sorts of irredeemable obnoxiousness and is applied at the discretion of Admin. I doubt whether there is complete consistency of application but complete consistency is a target rarely achieved in practice by any organisation.
Sure, you're only human. And acting unpaid. I don't have any problem with the principle of forgiving you if you come down a little too hard one day and let something slide the next. Nobody's perfect.
What I look for is a clear statement of the rules we're expected to play by, and a (reasonable fallible human) attempt by the Crew to apply those rules impartially.
One of the issues raised on this thread is whether those rules include censorship of content - views that may not be expressed. Or whether all views are welcome, but have to be expressed in a non-obnoxious way that treats all readers as the equal of the writer.
Seems like you're ducking that question by referring in the same breath to the view expressed and the insensentivity of its expression ("indifference to the impact on other posters").
My impression was that Doublethink's complaint was specifically about the point of view and not the way that it was expressed. About the belief and not about any tactlessness with which Colin Smith may have expressed it.
Would it be unfair to suggest that, perhaps in the absence of a true meeting of minds amongst the Crew, you've fudged the issue ?
My sense was that you personally tend to think it's better to ventilate the issue than to create "martyrs for truth" by banning ideas. If there is a current that is taking the Ship away from that position, isn't that a policy shift that should be debated ? Rather than a disciplinary matter in which a certain amount of "because I judge it so" is arguably necessary for good order ?
I don’t understand how the Ship can claim to be about serious intellectual discussion if there are views prejudged to be beyond defense.
That ruling doesn't say that anywhere. To my mind the key phrase is combining an extreme view with complete indifference to the impact on other posters.
But this is where I’m confused. The view in question isn’t extreme; it comes up regularly in undergraduate ethics courses. And Colin said multiple times that it was his own view, not something he was advocating for on behalf of all humanity. Was he supposed to apologize for having this perspective?
@ECraigR no, what got our attention, belatedly in this case, was the combination of a view which is extreme (in the sense that it deals with a life and death issue) with complete indifference to the impact on other posters (people with direct kindred ties to people for whom this view, if implemented, would constitute a death sentence) and persistence in that attitude.
To put it another way, the more extreme the view, the more care needs to be taken in expressing it.
Also, the Ship is not an undergraduate ethics course, and it's not what people have signed up for. I don't know how such courses are run, but I'd assume as a minimum, explicit consent, forewarning of topics, and heavy refereeing over the short period of the seminar or lecture.
Writing “those poor mothers, no wonder they snapped.” betrays ableism, as most wouldn’t accept that as mitigation for a parent who kills a non-disabled child; but isn’t egregious.
But it's also true, because in a lot of cases, raising a significantly disabled child is very much more work than raising a typical child - both in terms of physical labour, and in terms of emotional labour. And we accept this, as a society, when, for example, we permit a "late" abortion for a child that is expected to be disabled.
To put it another way, the more extreme the view, the more care needs to be taken in expressing it.
Also, the Ship is not an undergraduate ethics course, and it's not what people have signed up for. I don't know how such courses are run, but I'd assume as a minimum, explicit consent, forewarning of topics, and heavy refereeing over the short period of the seminar or lecture.
The issue arises fairly explicitly in arguments about abortion that are sometimes discussed in contemporary moral issues classes. In such cases the nature of the forewarning is the fact that the discussion is about abortion. I have never heard of the issue arising in any other context.
That said, the issue has to be discusssed sensitively if it is to be discussed at all. Which is the point of the ruling, as I understand it.
Comments
It has been specifically stated that severely intellectually disabled people are not human, on these boards. Not foetuses, people who have been born after nine months gestation including adults.
And it has been stated that newborns are not human, and therefore in addition to abortion infanticide should be an option for parents in some circumstances. One of those circumstances being them not wanting to raise a disabled child.
Note, not because the child is suffering or dying - because they are disabled.
Those I individuals who chose to label a group of people not human, are by doing so implying the lives of those they label not human are worthless.
Of course it can be discussed, and I already specifically differentiated withdrawing life-support from consciously killing an infant previously in this discussion. Ultimately withdrawing life support that is artificially keeping someone alive, who will otherwise probably die (but not always) is so far different from what has been advocated in actively killing disabled infants.
I think @Ethne Alba has it right.
I’ll be as concise as possible. I don’t think anyone that saying murder is ever fine should get a free pass on this site, especially when it’s targeted towards a vulnerable minority group.
However, I accept that I don’t make the rules up. So, if it is decided that it is fine to advocate for murder in discussions here, then I think that where and how that can happen should be carefully considered, to ensure that no one vulnerable or minority group (in this case, those with disabilities) is treated differently than others.
And yet, there are prominent philosophers who would argue quite forcefully that the claim that those are 2 completely different things is a total fiction we make up to feel better about a situation where the intent is that someone will die, and the difference is just the selected means. While also forcing them to die more slowly.
It's already been pointed out that "murder" is a legal concept. Any killing that is permitted is, by definition, not murder. If the law as to what killing is permitted changes, something becomes murder that wasn't previously murder / something that was previously murder is no longer murder.
For example, the government putting people to death is not murder in the USA in situations where it would be murder under the law of many other countries.
Are you arguing that it shouldn't be fine to advocate for law changes? That honestly seems to be the case. And now while reluctantly conceding the possibility that yes, people CAN advocate for law changes, you want to say that they can't pick a basis for law changes that you don't like.
IMHO you'd do far better to actually, in the relevant conversations, argue convincingly as to why using disability as a criterion for killing is a terrible idea.
Whereupon I would most likely start interrogating you as to why letting highly disabled people die by withdrawing their life support is morally different.
I honestly don't have the faintest idea what you mean by this. Because you've used two words, neither of which are words that I've used.
Try writing in fucking sentences? Many people find it helpful.
No. It’s nothing to do with that, or a yuck factor. As I said, it’s to do with the Overton window of the Ship, and what kinds of things are so clearly unethical to the vast majority of us, and those running the Ship, that they fall out of the range of being acceptably advocated for.
I thought that infanticide, i.e. murder, would clearly be one of those things. As I said, it surprises me that it’s hasn’t been.
I’d actually be more open to having it argued that any of those other things in that list (bear in mind, it was a off-my head bunch of examples) were acceptable things to advocate for here, as I don’t think that any of them as bad as actually arguing for killing people.
But the Admins are continuing their discussions, and I have made my opinions perfectly clear. So I see little point in restating them over and again.
In very recent memory, a Shipmate opined they would murder someone who abused their children.
They were called to Hell (or it was already in Hell) and roundly roasted for it. I have no idea whether the fact that they faced no official sanction constitutes a 'free pass' by your lights, but there were community consequences that other shipmates availed themselves of.
Do you think there should have been more done?
Well that's the thing, isn't it? "Murder" means a killing that isn't legally permissible, and what people are arguing is that there should be a change in the law to permit certain killings that are currently prohibited. They are not saying murder is fine.
Damn, crossposts.
Whereas it surprises me that you so readily treat the delineation between 'active' killing and 'passive' killing (as if, say, withdrawing a feeding tube isn't an action?) as so utterly definitive, to the point where one of those things is perfectly legal and ethical and yet the other is so beyond the pale that you think it's outside the Overton widow.
*waves*
Viability is generally the question regarding withdrawing life support. Convenience is the consideration in position raised by Colin Smith.
I would have thought it blindingly obvious that withdrawing support from someone affects "viability". For example, I think you'll find that otherwise perfectly healthy human beings will eventually die if you stop their supply of food.
Slightly relatedly I rather agree with Colin Smith's reasoning that there is no meaningful difference in moral status between the fetus before birth and the baby after birth. (Any difference in moral status is due to the rights of the mother, not of the child.) I just think that means its problematic to kill the fetus. Now if it's inadmissible to advocate killing the baby after birth under any circumstances, then it seems rhetorically mean to argue that. To say, your position logically imo entails this position, which I think is morally wrong, is a fair argument; to say, your position logically imo entails this position, which is so morally wrong it may not be expressed on these boards, is rhetorically cheap.
Tubbs
Admin and Occasional Styx Host
Admin Tiara On
When the Ship was founded, it was about "lively, intelligent discussion" and almost anything went provided it could be argued. The world's changed a great deal since then. Like all social media channels, the Ship is walking the incredibly fine line between allowing free speech, keeping people safe, operating within various legal frameworks and maintaining a sense of community.
Whilst we aim to always remain on the right side of that fine line, we sometimes don't. A combination of extreme views and extreme insensitivity meant it took us longer to identify where the line should be in this instance. If @Colin Smith continues this line of argument, there will be be swift action. This has also been posted on the Hell thread. We can only apologise for the fact it took so long to come to this conclusion.
We can't list every offensive view or legislate for how tactlessly it can or can not be expressed but we can aim to do better when it's obvious that someone is combining an extreme view with complete indifference to the impact on other posters.
Admin Tiara Off
Tubbs
On behalf of the Admins
The formal position re C1 is that jerk covers all sorts of irredeemable obnoxiousness and is applied at the discretion of Admin. I doubt whether there is complete consistency of application but complete consistency is a target rarely achieved in practice by any organisation. Some may try harder to pretend complete consistency than the Crew do.
I’m pretty sure that if someone wanted to do a critical parsing of all my rulings they would be able to say “you did this here but you didn’t do the same thing there”. Well whoop de do.
Personally I dislike intensely the posts which led to this thread but I try to avoid Hosting on the basis of my own disgust.
Hi Marvin!
Thanks Doc Tor, your post did stop and make me think, and reminded me that turning values into rules, as you have to do, is no easy work. As I've said before, I appreciate the hard time you all put into it.
This is tantamount to saying it's fine to discuss killing protected minorities, as long as we're open to killing people from all of them.
That’s pretty much the world we’re in these days, where how you treat people is less important than whether you treat everyone else the same way. So killing everyone is now a more moral position to argue than only killing those from a certain group. Funny old world, innit?
https://medium.com/the-establishment/why-are-we-sympathetic-to-the-murderers-of-disabled-children-805a9bbadf98
It does seem as if a lot of people who would never, ever "advocate for the right to kill" a disabled newborn are still able to rationalise killing disabled children of any age (eta) after the fact. Are the narratives that appear in the media (above) hate speech?
(Sorry, but the link button seems to have disappeared.)
It is the same way black people are represented in the media. People who are different are other and therefore less valuable. We couch things in prettier language, but that is the base of it.
And not to dismiss the difficulties of caring for severely disabled people, but this is about convenience as the examples of people who have support available but still kill their children demonstrates.
If you cannot, consider taking philosophical musings about social signaling somewhere where you are free to let it run.
Or (sticks head above parapet) if we assume, with good reason, that the various media outlets write what their intended readership wish to read and broadly agree with, then is it true to say that culture as a whole is inherently ableist to some degree and any defence of that cultural norm is ableism?
It would be a little odd if the only acceptable position on the ship is to condemn a societal norm.
My argument was the fact that society allows us to kill disabled foetuses shortly before birth, but does not allow us to kill them on grounds of sex or race, means that this is true - our society thinks that some level of prejudice against disability is OK.
Some people are saying an entire subject should be banned from the Ship. Others are defending our right to discuss it. It’s inevitable that in doing so some aspects of the subject itself will be brought up.
The Ship’s Business part is which side of the argument the Admins will fall on.
I do have to wonder what part of my instruction to you -- "Do not post on this thread again" -- was so hard to understand. Referring you to the tender mercies of the Admins.
Ruth, Styx host
The Internet has changed since this website was launched, but this site isn’t 4chan or some noxious Subreddit. It’s a carefully moderated, self-selected group of people who join on the Internet for serious intellectual discussion. Colin Smith’s views are dumb, but they fall out of the abortion arguments advanced by many. Rather than saying those views can’t be expressed, why can’t people just argue vigorously against them? I’ve spent years working with disabled people and count several as my friends. I don’t like views like Colin’s, but mandating them not to be uttered doesn’t help anything.
I don’t understand how the Ship can claim to be about serious intellectual discussion if there are views prejudged to be beyond defense.
I also don’t understand why the H&A would apologize for taking their time to consider a decision.
Thank you for your post, especially that last sentence.
@Colin Smith, you have acknowledged, on this thread, that you've now read the 10 Commandments, which include Commandment 6: Respect the Ship's Crew.
As @Ruth points out, you have gone on to blatantly ignore a direct instruction from a host. We're tired of you running roughshod over Shipmates, Commandments, and Crew as you see fit.
Enjoy some shore leave.
Other Shipmates, please take note that @Colin Smith will be unable to take part in discussions while suspended.
/admin mode
That ruling doesn't say that anywhere. To my mind the key phrase is combining an extreme view with complete indifference to the impact on other posters.
Society is ableist, just as society is racist. One of the words frequently used in this discussion is ‘egregious’.
Writing “those poor mothers, no wonder they snapped.” betrays ableism, as most wouldn’t accept that as mitigation for a parent who kills a non-disabled child; but isn’t egregious.
As @Doublethink said, there is a continuum.
If I worked for a paper reporting like that, I’d be challenging whether our reporting was fair and balanced though, for the same reasons as your link highlighted.
This.
As I said up-thread, thank you all for the ruling- from someone for whom the tone of certain posts had quite an impact
Sure, you're only human. And acting unpaid. I don't have any problem with the principle of forgiving you if you come down a little too hard one day and let something slide the next. Nobody's perfect.
What I look for is a clear statement of the rules we're expected to play by, and a (reasonable fallible human) attempt by the Crew to apply those rules impartially.
One of the issues raised on this thread is whether those rules include censorship of content - views that may not be expressed. Or whether all views are welcome, but have to be expressed in a non-obnoxious way that treats all readers as the equal of the writer.
Seems like you're ducking that question by referring in the same breath to the view expressed and the insensentivity of its expression ("indifference to the impact on other posters").
My impression was that Doublethink's complaint was specifically about the point of view and not the way that it was expressed. About the belief and not about any tactlessness with which Colin Smith may have expressed it.
Would it be unfair to suggest that, perhaps in the absence of a true meeting of minds amongst the Crew, you've fudged the issue ?
My sense was that you personally tend to think it's better to ventilate the issue than to create "martyrs for truth" by banning ideas. If there is a current that is taking the Ship away from that position, isn't that a policy shift that should be debated ? Rather than a disciplinary matter in which a certain amount of "because I judge it so" is arguably necessary for good order ?
But this is where I’m confused. The view in question isn’t extreme; it comes up regularly in undergraduate ethics courses. And Colin said multiple times that it was his own view, not something he was advocating for on behalf of all humanity. Was he supposed to apologize for having this perspective?
Also, the Ship is not an undergraduate ethics course, and it's not what people have signed up for. I don't know how such courses are run, but I'd assume as a minimum, explicit consent, forewarning of topics, and heavy refereeing over the short period of the seminar or lecture.
But it's also true, because in a lot of cases, raising a significantly disabled child is very much more work than raising a typical child - both in terms of physical labour, and in terms of emotional labour. And we accept this, as a society, when, for example, we permit a "late" abortion for a child that is expected to be disabled.
The issue arises fairly explicitly in arguments about abortion that are sometimes discussed in contemporary moral issues classes. In such cases the nature of the forewarning is the fact that the discussion is about abortion. I have never heard of the issue arising in any other context.
That said, the issue has to be discusssed sensitively if it is to be discussed at all. Which is the point of the ruling, as I understand it.
That said, @Soror Magna's article was thought-provoking, and a Purg discussion about it could be interesting.
Thank you for saving me a job ... Maybe we need pop-ups with the name of the board you're on and a short description of its purpose.