4 ms·

This reply is certainly not up to HN standards, referring to a) the appeal to nature, and b) some vain appeal to purity. To show the absurdity of the position,

This reply is certainly not up to HN standards, referring to a) the appeal to nature, and b) some vain appeal to purity. To show the absurdity of the position, consider a person who undergoes Lasik surgery, or wears glasses, who need to have surgeries for scoliosis, consider color blindness. Under the appeal to nature, we should not be helping people for any of these issues precisely because we going against what nature intended. This also includes caesarean surgery, absence of which could leave millions of women and newborn children to die.

stareatgoats 5y ago
While I appreciate that you may have a fuller insight into what constitutes HN standards than me, it doesn't seem like that honestly. This is because you paint what we call a strawman view of my position, and argue against that. It is common among students probably because one has recently discovered the power of abstraction and reduction, but gets gradually more rare as you approach my age (approaching 70 years old), where these kind of argument tricks have been dismantled a thousand times or more. Instead of assuming that I'm an idiot, maybe you should assume that I have already considered the simplest counterarguments (see sibling reply). Come to think of it, isn't there there something along those lines in the HN guidelines?
- PartiallyTyped 5y ago
  I did not assume you are an idiot, perhaps you are projecting? Had I assumed you were one, I'd have pressed the downvote and ignored your comment because I would not have considered the discussion worthwhile. The image that you portrayed of yourself is that of a vain person, one that limits themselves to appearances instead of inner qualities such as a person's inner world, beliefs and views. You chose to express that your filter is first and foremost a superficial one, you chose to express that people who have corrections to their DNA for example are somehow less of a __real__ human here: > I should in future expect to have to differentiate between real people and synthetically and genetically enhanced such? The immediate implication of this position is that correcting a person's genes due to a slight error, e.g. androgen insensitivity due to AR mutations, makes them less of a human ergo do not deserve the same treatment and rights as everyone else. In contrast, correcting for such issues would reduce the probability of cancer in this case, enable the people to have children and avoid a whole class of DSD. You painted that portrait all the way through, nobody else. Perhaps the inability to grasp the consequences of such positions is an argument as to why I should not have bothered.
  - stareatgoats 5y ago
    Vain? Maybe you could consider that the derogatory labels that you seem fond of sticking to random strangers on the internet might be fraught with assumptions and tenuous conclusions. It is not conducive to rational discourse at least. Maybe next time we can discuss issues instead of figments of imagination. Until then, have a good day.

stareatgoats 5y ago

While I appreciate that you may have a fuller insight into what constitutes HN standards than me, it doesn't seem like that honestly. This is because you paint what we call a strawman view of my position, and argue against that. It is common among students probably because one has recently discovered the power of abstraction and reduction, but gets gradually more rare as you approach my age (approaching 70 years old), where these kind of argument tricks have been dismantled a thousand times or more. Instead of assuming that I'm an idiot, maybe you should assume that I have already considered the simplest counterarguments (see sibling reply). Come to think of it, isn't there there something along those lines in the HN guidelines?

PartiallyTyped 5y ago
I did not assume you are an idiot, perhaps you are projecting? Had I assumed you were one, I'd have pressed the downvote and ignored your comment because I would not have considered the discussion worthwhile. The image that you portrayed of yourself is that of a vain person, one that limits themselves to appearances instead of inner qualities such as a person's inner world, beliefs and views. You chose to express that your filter is first and foremost a superficial one, you chose to express that people who have corrections to their DNA for example are somehow less of a __real__ human here: > I should in future expect to have to differentiate between real people and synthetically and genetically enhanced such? The immediate implication of this position is that correcting a person's genes due to a slight error, e.g. androgen insensitivity due to AR mutations, makes them less of a human ergo do not deserve the same treatment and rights as everyone else. In contrast, correcting for such issues would reduce the probability of cancer in this case, enable the people to have children and avoid a whole class of DSD. You painted that portrait all the way through, nobody else. Perhaps the inability to grasp the consequences of such positions is an argument as to why I should not have bothered.
- stareatgoats 5y ago
  Vain? Maybe you could consider that the derogatory labels that you seem fond of sticking to random strangers on the internet might be fraught with assumptions and tenuous conclusions. It is not conducive to rational discourse at least. Maybe next time we can discuss issues instead of figments of imagination. Until then, have a good day.