2 ms·
That was not an appeal to emotion. That was pointing out that observing that some portion of humanity survives is blatantly talking past the stated purpose of t
by mumblemumble 4y ago
That was not an appeal to emotion. That was pointing out that observing that some portion of humanity survives is blatantly talking past the stated purpose of these kinds of measures, which is to reduce the size of the portion that doesn't.
If your floor on what is acceptable is, as the "we survived" standard implies, the base continuance of the species, then you're effectively allowing that even a situation like what happened in the movie Threads is acceptable and it would not be ethical to try and prevent such a situation from happening.
On the other hand, if that isn't actually what you believe, then you should construct rhetoric that is consistent with your actual position.
- ethbr0 4y agoThat's absolutely what you intended, or you wouldn't have reached to such a visceral example. You could have picked influenza to make the same point, but that wouldn't have been as theatrical. So if you want to play the high-standards-of-discourse card, it goes both ways. And now you're reaching for your own straw man by stating my "we survived" implies your "base continuance of the species", which is obviously an easier framing of my argument to argue against. My rhetoric is exactly what I said: we survived.