5 ms·

Please HN don't disappoint me with "slippery slope" and "it's too complicated" arguments. I want to continue to believe the level of discourse here is better th

Please HN don't disappoint me with "slippery slope" and "it's too complicated" arguments. I want to continue to believe the level of discourse here is better than that. Its not just do-able ... doctor-assisted suicide is right.

eitland 13y ago
Yes, because slippery slopes doesn't exist. Or because we should not discuss the implications of a possible slippery slope? Note I'm not telling you what is right or wrong but I insist on the right to discuss relevant issues, in ethnic as well as in technical questions.
- stickhandle 13y ago
  Slippery slopes certainly exist. However, the use of "slippery slopes" as a counterpoint is not useful. In fact, its harmful as it is posed as an end to the argument. We can certainly all agree its a complicated issue that requires a complicated solution, but our discourse should be on the solution, not simply stopping calling it slippery.
alan_cx 13y ago
Ooooooh, this really makes me angry.............. How dare you? Those two arguments are very valid and absolutely need to be included in any serious discussion about this. Just because you so arrogantly dismiss them, does not mean that other people wont, worse still cant have those concerns. To suggest that mentioning these two issues means one is not "better than that", what ever you mean by that but clearly it is intended to put down and dismiss any one who is concerned about them, is frankly vile. You have loaded your statements outrageously.Especially in such a fundamental question of life, where people will be at their most vulnerable. Essentially you are saying that unless people agree with you, they are some how stupid. Worse still, the idea that some how doctors are so special that they can be wholly trusted alone with this is insane. Heh, here in the UK, one of our most frighting and notorious serial killers was a family GP. Oh, and one of the London bombers was also a doctor. Doctors are a flawed as the rest of us. BTW, I fully support the idea that in some cases ending life humanely is the best thing to do. I would want such for me, and any one else who wants it. I too think that is right. However, with such a serious fundamental issue like this, we almost have to be guided by the serious concerns people have first. We must get people who are deeply worried by the implications to also go along with any solution. Its like drilling for oil with the consent of environmentalists. We need solution that satisfies all, or all we will have is a god almighty mess. We much not have such a mess when it comes down to legally killing people. I can accept people being divided on war, welfare, economics, which programming language is best, etc, etc, fine. But the sanctity of life is a little more important than that. Its too fundamental to humanity. Its about how we regard life it's self. This is one debate no one gets to lay down the rules on. (Deep breaths............ calm.............hmmmmmmmmm happy place......)
- stickhandle 13y ago
  >>Those two arguments are very valid and absolutely need to be included in any serious discussion I do indeed arrogantly dismiss them. These are not arguments, they are statements that serve only to delay the conversation from moving to a discussion of solutions. >>To suggest that mentioning these two issues means one is not "better than that", what ever you mean by that but clearly it is intended to put down and dismiss any one who is concerned about them, is frankly vile. I do indeed dismiss any one who is concerned about them. If you think its vile, so be it. I agree whole-heartedly with the author that vacuous "arguments" designed to filibuster are truly vile. >> you are saying that unless people agree with you, they are some how stupid No, I'm saying that arguments counter to the urgent need for medically assisted suicide are stupid >> the idea that some how doctors are so special that they can be wholly trusted alone with this is insane Agreed. The solution shouldn't rest with the doctors. (there good -- now we are talking about the solution) >>This is one debate no one gets to lay down the rules on Disagree - true leadership should always try to frame the debate. I think this issue is so important and so fundamental that it shouldn't be mired in the search for consensus. The need for euthanasia policy is no longer a question. The discussion should centre on how.
ketralnis 13y ago
You don't want a website of thousands of diverse people to "disappoint" you by disagreeing with you on a complex issue?
- bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  Maybe he likes them to use arguments instead of the nasty insinuations commonly used by those opposed to assisted suicide for deeply ideological reasons.

eitland 13y ago

Yes, because slippery slopes doesn't exist. Or because we should not discuss the implications of a possible slippery slope? Note I'm not telling you what is right or wrong but I insist on the right to discuss relevant issues, in ethnic as well as in technical questions.

stickhandle 13y ago
Slippery slopes certainly exist. However, the use of "slippery slopes" as a counterpoint is not useful. In fact, its harmful as it is posed as an end to the argument. We can certainly all agree its a complicated issue that requires a complicated solution, but our discourse should be on the solution, not simply stopping calling it slippery.

alan_cx 13y ago

Ooooooh, this really makes me angry.............. How dare you? Those two arguments are very valid and absolutely need to be included in any serious discussion about this. Just because you so arrogantly dismiss them, does not mean that other people wont, worse still cant have those concerns. To suggest that mentioning these two issues means one is not "better than that", what ever you mean by that but clearly it is intended to put down and dismiss any one who is concerned about them, is frankly vile. You have loaded your statements outrageously.Especially in such a fundamental question of life, where people will be at their most vulnerable. Essentially you are saying that unless people agree with you, they are some how stupid. Worse still, the idea that some how doctors are so special that they can be wholly trusted alone with this is insane. Heh, here in the UK, one of our most frighting and notorious serial killers was a family GP. Oh, and one of the London bombers was also a doctor. Doctors are a flawed as the rest of us. BTW, I fully support the idea that in some cases ending life humanely is the best thing to do. I would want such for me, and any one else who wants it. I too think that is right. However, with such a serious fundamental issue like this, we almost have to be guided by the serious concerns people have first. We must get people who are deeply worried by the implications to also go along with any solution. Its like drilling for oil with the consent of environmentalists. We need solution that satisfies all, or all we will have is a god almighty mess. We much not have such a mess when it comes down to legally killing people. I can accept people being divided on war, welfare, economics, which programming language is best, etc, etc, fine. But the sanctity of life is a little more important than that. Its too fundamental to humanity. Its about how we regard life it's self. This is one debate no one gets to lay down the rules on. (Deep breaths............ calm.............hmmmmmmmmm happy place......)

stickhandle 13y ago
>>Those two arguments are very valid and absolutely need to be included in any serious discussion I do indeed arrogantly dismiss them. These are not arguments, they are statements that serve only to delay the conversation from moving to a discussion of solutions. >>To suggest that mentioning these two issues means one is not "better than that", what ever you mean by that but clearly it is intended to put down and dismiss any one who is concerned about them, is frankly vile. I do indeed dismiss any one who is concerned about them. If you think its vile, so be it. I agree whole-heartedly with the author that vacuous "arguments" designed to filibuster are truly vile. >> you are saying that unless people agree with you, they are some how stupid No, I'm saying that arguments counter to the urgent need for medically assisted suicide are stupid >> the idea that some how doctors are so special that they can be wholly trusted alone with this is insane Agreed. The solution shouldn't rest with the doctors. (there good -- now we are talking about the solution) >>This is one debate no one gets to lay down the rules on Disagree - true leadership should always try to frame the debate. I think this issue is so important and so fundamental that it shouldn't be mired in the search for consensus. The need for euthanasia policy is no longer a question. The discussion should centre on how.

ketralnis 13y ago

You don't want a website of thousands of diverse people to "disappoint" you by disagreeing with you on a complex issue?

bowlofpetunias 13y ago
Maybe he likes them to use arguments instead of the nasty insinuations commonly used by those opposed to assisted suicide for deeply ideological reasons.