I once used to post on a forum
which blasted all rules of decorum
All limmericks -- no meters
All furries -- no breeders
And still not a link to some porn'm!
I think that if we allow an exception to the general rule "don't kill homo sapiens" it needs to have a clear boundary with limited potential for abuse or misinterpretation.
"Infants aren't really humans because they're not smart enough" isn't remotely a clear enough boundary.
If infants aren't really humans then killing them is not an exception of that general rule
but that's stupid
the rule ought to be infants are humans that it's okay to kill
Well, as Podly reminded me above, and as he is totally correct in saying, it can be argued that not all homo sapiens are humans. (Or vice versa.) That's why I used the phrase "homo sapiens" above and not "humans."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
There once was a forum of goons
Whose main task was to tease warcraft toons
But between all the acne
and neckbeards to boot
They were widely regarded as loons.
depending on the severity of retardation I would support infanticide
Part of the problem here is one of definition. "Retardation" of infants is something of a meaningless concept, since 'retardation' means that mental development has not kept pace with chronological age.
But I know that what he really means is 'infants who are born with diseases that cause severe mental retardation.' Of course, that brings up the questions - how do you know the mental retardation is going to be severe; how do you know how severe it is going to be; what is the benefit of killing it?
If a baby is born with morbid hydrocephalus - where literally it's entire cerebrum doesn't develop and it just has fluid where that part of the brain would be - then there is for all intents and purposes zero chance that baby will ever show anything remotely approximating human thought. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with letting that baby die.
But I don't trust us to enforce that standard appropriately.
The problem with standards is that they can never cover everything; I'm comfortable with trusting the parents and their physician to Do The Right Thing on a case-by-case basis because the truth is that most of the time nobody acts out of anything other than compassion in these cases.
There once was a forum of goons
Whose main task was to tease warcraft toons
But between all the acne
and neckbeards to boot
They were widely regarded as loons.
There once was a forum of goons
Whose main task was to tease warcraft toons
But between all the acne
and neckbeards to boot
They were widely regarded as loons.
So decided I would go look at the cost of getting new paints for my warhammer army since well I have thing and it is pretty much dead. And they got rid of midnight blue! That is the main color of my Chaos Space Marines! ANGER! RIGHTEOUS ANGER!
The problem with standards is that they can never cover everything; I'm comfortable with trusting the parents and their physician to Do The Right Thing on a case-by-case basis because the truth is that most of the time nobody acts out of anything other than compassion in these cases.
It hasn't been that long, historically, since doctors have not acted out of compassion. Eugenics, Tuskegee, etc. And there are some edge cases right now (not so much in the first world) that are questionable - third world babies with HIV used as control groups given placebos instead of HIV medication, for instance.
So yes while I generally agree that most of the time doctors and families should exercise their best judgment to do the right thing, I also think that all such cases should be carefully scrutinized - if not by law enforcement, then at the very least by state medical boards.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The problem with standards is that they can never cover everything; I'm comfortable with trusting the parents and their physician to Do The Right Thing on a case-by-case basis because the truth is that most of the time nobody acts out of anything other than compassion in these cases.
It hasn't been that long, historically, since doctors have not acted out of compassion. Eugenics, Tuskegee, etc. And there are some edge cases right now (not so much in the first world) that are questionable.
So yes while I generally agree that most of the time doctors and families should exercise their best judgment to do the right thing, I also think that all such cases should be carefully scrutinized - if not by law enforcement, then at the very least by state medical boards.
Yeah I was going to mention something about review boards etc.
Posts
porn'm? I hardly knew'm!
Well, as Podly reminded me above, and as he is totally correct in saying, it can be argued that not all homo sapiens are humans. (Or vice versa.) That's why I used the phrase "homo sapiens" above and not "humans."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Whose main task was to tease warcraft toons
But between all the acne
and neckbeards to boot
They were widely regarded as loons.
The problem with standards is that they can never cover everything; I'm comfortable with trusting the parents and their physician to Do The Right Thing on a case-by-case basis because the truth is that most of the time nobody acts out of anything other than compassion in these cases.
BRZZZZZZZZT NOT A LIMERICK
until we get new VB's
rhyming his name was pretty fucking hard
It's not the same as a rim lick.
Whose cock was a communist spear
It impressed all the ladies
Who wanted his babies
But he just wanted cock in his rear.
your mom
hey sorry the colossal flood wiped out our hangout this weekend
we should reschedule
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Well, you already give me those, my win twin.
kill 'em all
I don't need this shit from you, Mr. "porn'm."
It hasn't been that long, historically, since doctors have not acted out of compassion. Eugenics, Tuskegee, etc. And there are some edge cases right now (not so much in the first world) that are questionable - third world babies with HIV used as control groups given placebos instead of HIV medication, for instance.
So yes while I generally agree that most of the time doctors and families should exercise their best judgment to do the right thing, I also think that all such cases should be carefully scrutinized - if not by law enforcement, then at the very least by state medical boards.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
maybe in your wacky socialist pronunciation
ladies/babies is more of a stretch
They are a tawdry form.
KAH kos pre MEER
COM u nist SPEER
it aint happening.
Yeah I was going to mention something about review boards etc.
What does kakos mean, anyway?
Because I like to think of it as the root word for 'kake' in 'bukkake.'
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
evil
Albert?
kakos, I think Pods might just have called you a nazi.
premyer
Only if you don't know how words work.
That... does not work
It's Greek meaning "bad, evil, ugly." It's where we get the words "cacophony" and "cacodemon".
There once was a dicket named Kakos
a commie like none since Glasnost
his hamer and sickle
he'd use to tickle
the boys passed out on the asphalt
There once was a man named Inquis
In ladies he shot lots of jizz
Of poon he got sick
And chopped off his dick
And now is a lady named Liz
Oh! That makes total sense! Okay!
I still like my interpretation, though. :winky:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Look at this. The tawdriest.
Prem ee er doesn't rhyme with Speer. If you leave the emphasis on the first syllable you can sort of fudge it, though.
yeah, I'm just gonna bitch about your rhymes all day