[Kazan]

argumentum ad verecundiam

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/aa.php


you have no idea what you're talking about

/me desubscribes from this thread so he can do work

[mikhael]

From you source, Kazan.

 While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:

   1. the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
   2. experts in the field disagree on this issue.
   3. the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

1. You have not shown that your sources are qualified to have an expert opinion.
2. other experts in the field disagree with your experts. These experts were put forward by several other people through the course of the thread.
3. Well, three doesn't apply here.

In summary, you do not know what you are talking about. Your future silence will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[01010]

Originally posted by mikhael
From you source, Kazan.

1. You have not shown that your sources are qualified to have an expert opinion.
2. other experts in the field disagree with your experts. These experts were put forward by several other people through the course of the thread.
3. Well, three doesn't apply here.

In summary, you do not know what you are talking about. Your future silence will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I must admit, I was having incredible amounts of fun watching you debate circles around Mr stroppy pants.

[Flipside]

Ok, well, I'm not going to get involved in this personally, but it does bring up this question in my mind..... Steven Hawkins would have had to have been euthanised for 'his and our' own good?

Flipside

[01010]

Originally posted by Flipside
Ok, well, I'm not going to get involved in this personally, but it does bring up this question in my mind..... Steven Hawkins would have had to have been euthanised for 'his and our' own good?

Flipside

You are IN MY BRAIN. I was going to raise this EXACT SAME POINT, but never saw an opportunity to slide it in. I've been thinking this all day.

I think to call all deformed people a burden upon humanity is pretty ****ing arrogant to be fairly honest especially considering there's more than enough "normal" (like that term ever means ANYTHING applied to humanity) people to carry the slack from these "lesser" humans.

[Devils_Hitman]

dont cut the pe-pe.

And any person that talks about forskin for more than 300 comments is fruity

who cares, it dont kill no-one, if parents want to have it done to there kids, let them. been goin on for long enough.

[Flipside]

Originally posted by 01010


You are IN MY BRAIN. I was going to raise this EXACT SAME POINT, but never saw an opportunity to slide it in. I've been thinking this all day.

I think to call all deformed people a burden upon humanity is pretty ****ing arrogant to be fairly honest especially considering there's more than enough "normal" (like that term ever means ANYTHING applied to humanity) people to carry the slack from these "lesser" humans.

I'm glad you put 'lesser' in quotes LOL

Well, all I can say is this, having a withered arm or leg, or a deformed back, or the inability to speak, once upon a time was a truly fatal disadvantage, but, as Stephen Hawkins (and Joey Deacon before him) proved, the failure is not on the part of the disabled person for being disabled, the failure is on the part of the rest of us for only seeing the disability. It raises the terryfying prospect of 'out of sight, out of mind' I think humanity is better than that.....well....sometimes Are we suggesting destroying lives because we truly KNOW they will not achieve anything other than pain with their lives, something that Steven Hawkins already disproved, or is it more because having to look at people with disabilities makes us feel awkward and uncomfortable and it is 'we' who don't know how to deal with it?

Flipside

[vyper]

Is this a good time to point out that maybe some people just like thier dick in one piece?

[Flipside]

LOL It's ALWAYS a good time to point that out

Flipside

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Flipside
Ok, well, I'm not going to get involved in this personally, but it does bring up this question in my mind..... Steven Hawkins would have had to have been euthanised for 'his and our' own good?

Flipside

No, he didn't get his disease until he was in his 30s.

[01010]

Originally posted by Flipside


I'm glad you put 'lesser' in quotes LOL

Well, all I can say is this, having a withered arm or leg, or a deformed back, or the inability to speak, once upon a time was a truly fatal disadvantage, but, as Stephen Hawkins (and Joey Deacon before him) proved, the failure is not on the part of the disabled person for being disabled, the failure is on the part of the rest of us for only seeing the disability. It raises the terryfying prospect of 'out of sight, out of mind' I think humanity is better than that.....well....sometimes Are we suggesting destroying lives because we truly KNOW they will not achieve anything other than pain with their lives, something that Steven Hawkins already disproved, or is it more because having to look at people with disabilities makes us feel awkward and uncomfortable and it is 'we' who don't know how to deal with it?

Flipside

I personally have disabled people within my family (huge family, something like 2nd cousin) and I don't think that a disability is as bad for the sufferer (going from birth this is) because if it's all you know, it is impossible to compare their normality to somebody elses. The real problem with the disabled in my view is in interaction with so called "normal" society, but that's because of intolerance on behalf of "normal" people.

Actually, getting quite personal here but, an aunt of mine was told that her child was to be born with three holes in the heart, cerebal palsy and downs syndrome, it would've required almost permananent attention (they had 6 kids already, rabbits) and it would've been in constant pain for the entire three years of life that it was predicted it would have lived. My Aunt had an abortion and she and my uncle were devestated by it, despite the work and attention that the child would've required they wanted to keep it more than anything, the only factor that pointed them down the road they took was that it wasn't fair for both child and family, there was no (benefits not the word i'm looking for) point, I guess, though I don't think thats the right word either, in subjecting both parties to the pain that wouldv'e been caused.

I'd say that "social engineering" would make people believe it's right to kill their child (no matter how malformed) is completely ignorant of how strong the paternal bond between a parent and (even an unborn) child at best.

[01010]

Originally posted by vyper
Is this a good time to point out that maybe some people just like thier dick in one piece?

One piece of what? Fish? Cake? Pie?

You've piqued my interest and I require elaboration on this subject matter.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by Devils_Hitman
dont cut the pe-pe.

And any person that talks about forskin for more than 300 comments is fruity

who cares, it dont kill no-one, if parents want to have it done to there kids, let them. been goin on for long enough.

Female genital mutilation doesn't kill women, but it's illegal.

Torture doesn't necessarily kill people, but it's illegal.

Rape doesn't always kill people, but it's illegal

Punching someone in the face won't result in his death, but it's illegal.

Should they be legalized?

There are lots of things that don't kill people that are both wrong and illegal. Circumcision is painful, reduces sexual sensitivity, and is just wrong when it is done to someone who cannot possibly consent to it.

[01010]

Unfortunately it's very hard to find anyone that actually *has* a foreskin who cares.

Probably too busy out enjoying all the extra sensations or something.

[Kazan]

01010 -- i already told someone else this that "steven hawking" argument doesn't work - that's a false dilema -- if he wouldn't have thought it someone else would have

[mikhael]

   False Dilemma

Definition:

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

Examples:

   1. Either you're for me or against me.
   2. America: love it or leave it.
   3. Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
   4. Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.

Proof:

Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option.

Please show how this is a false dilemma. Further please show proof that someone other than Hawking would have done his work. If you can do neither, 01010's point stands and your thesis (re: eugenics) remains invalid.

[Woolie Wool]

It's more like a non sequitur because Hawking did not fall ill with this disease until well into his adulthood. Hawking's condition is irrelevant to Kazan's argument.

[Flipside]

Possibly, but surely after Mr Hawkins got horribly ill and was 'no more use to society' he should have been put out of our misery if we follow this route?

I am not saying there is no situation where an abortion is not only advisable, it's actually kind, but this was a thread started about people making choices for children without regarding their consent, their belief or their wishes or wants.
How can we sit here and agree that this is wrong, and then suggest something that makes circumsision look like a day out in Disneyland?

Flipside

[mikhael]

Now, Flipside, THAT is the slippery slope argument.

[Flipside]

And I said I wasn't going to get involved in this thread too!
Sorry Mik, you've genuinely lost me there for a second, if there is a fault with my argument, can you point it out?


Flipside