this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
95 points (98.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4138 readers
20 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Some progress, finally.

Edit: for the benefit of the tinfoil hat wearers, assisted dying is not the same as euthanasia.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not a fallacy. It literally happened in Canada.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It literally is a fallacy. This is not up for debate. The slippery slope fallacy is a real fallacy, and this is an example of that fallacy.

And again, this is nothing like the protocols Canada has.

You need to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, of sound mind, have the go-ahead from two unaffiliated doctors, and it needs to be reviewed and signed off by a judge.

You're advocating for real, horrific, suffering to continue because hypothetically the law could be changed in future in a way that could be bad.

I've worked in care homes full of people who barely sleep, and spend their entire days in agony that you and I cannot even conceive of. They begged to die. They begged us to covertly kill them. But our job was to forcefully keep them alive against their will, prolonging their suffering for as long as we possibly could. No attention given to their comfort or quality of life, just ensuring they are kept alive as long as possible. That's what we had targets for. Seriously harrowing stuff.

If you had seen that, day in day out, I doubt you'd have this "we need to make them suffer, because hypothetically in X years we could be like Canada, where some doctors made a recommendation they really shouldn't have."

Regardless, it's pointless talking about. Your viewpoint has been rejected by the populace and most importantly, by MPs.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It literally is a fallacy. This is not up for debate. The slippery slope fallacy is a real fallacy, and this is an example of that fallacy.

Circular reasoning fallacy

I've worked in care homes

Anecdotal fallacy

Your viewpoint has been rejected by the populace

Ad populum fallacy

and most importantly, by MPs.

Appeal to authority fallacy

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Lol you're just trolling now. You don't even know how those work.

Calling out the slippery slope argument for being the nonsense that it is is not an example of circular reasoning.

Me sharing my experience and saying that I think you'd have a different view if you had seen what I've seen is not an anecdotal fallacy - that is where you use anecdotes and try to represent them as objective facts.

I didn't dismiss your view via ad populum fallacy, I just said it's pointless moaning about the idea of people dying painlessly if they choose because the debate has already been settled by MPs and the public don't have the appetite to have them backtrack on it.

The appeal to authority fallacy is about dismissing an opinion as being invalid because an authorative figure days otherwise. That's not what I said. I said the debate has been settled, so it's pointless campaigning against right now.

Why do you want people to suffer for as long as possible? What evidence do you have that the law will become so lax that doctors will aggressively push people to being euthanised? Is there any evidence? Because "they just will mate. Slippery slope innit." isn't one IMO.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What evidence do you have that the law will become so lax that doctors will aggressively push people to being euthanised?

Canada

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Because "they just will mate. Slippery slope innit." isn't one IMO.

^^

You're just back at the "it's a slippery slope" argument.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Canada literally isn't the UK.

The motion that was passed is nothing like the framework Canada has.

Plenty of countries ban drinking alcohol. You may as well be saying that having restrictions on alcohol for under 18s means it's a slippery slope and it'll be banned here. After all, Saudi Arabia literally did it. America literally did it. Qatar literally did it. Etc.

Like I said, I want evidence. Not slippery slope fallacy. Show me MPs saying they intend to implement the system Canada has.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago

Moving the goalposts