This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I agree with you philosophically. I have a son the same age who is healthy, but if he were suffering severely in the manner described in the article I would feel compelled to at least seriously consider every lawful option to alleviate that suffering.
However, I think there might be good practical arguments against euthanasia, especially in a system where the government bears the cost of healthcare. There is a strong financial incentive for the government to use euthanasia as cost-saving tool, and this incentive might erode whatever checks are in place, such that people who should not be euthanized are getting euthanized anyway. I'm not sure if I fully believe this argument, but it's the only counterargument that seems at all convincing to me.
I agree that this incentive exists. At present, it's hard to imagine it having effect - the taboo on euthanasia on economic grounds seems too strong. But as previously stated, I wouldn't even call that a problem in itself - at some point you need to make the call on how much a nonviable life is worth to you in cold hard numbers. And when the state provides all health care and euthanasia, then you can hardly expect the state to have to say in it. The problem, I'd say, is that states in general aren't trustworthy or even competent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link