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 think the point is UK courts will rule that letting a child die might be best for the patient and override parental wishes, but they will also override parental wishes to save a child if they deem that best for the patient (With Jehovahs Witnesses and blood products most commonly I think).
So they don't have a, "always preserve life as much as possible" rule, or a "always end life early" rule, but they choose depending on the circumstances.
Papal infallibility is a dogma, even when what the pope says is pretty nuanced. This is just "healthcare system infallibility".
I don't think that makes sense,because we don't allow doctors to make the choice on their own. And multiple witnesses and doctors were called before multiple judges, including up to the ECHR which isn't even British.
When we lock up a criminal after a trial is that dogma because we're assuming "justice system infallibility"? Or that we know its not infallible but decisions have to be made in the best interests of people anyway, even though it could be incorrect?
Sure, if a jurisdiction outlaws, say, gender affirming care, it would be a claim on infallibility if you not only prevented people from providing it within the jurisdiction, but also prevented the from going where it's legal.
No, I think you're wrong there. You don't have to think you are infallible to stop someone doing X, you just have to think you are more likely to be right than they are. It might be a claim that you know better than them, but that's not the same thing as thinking you are infallible.
If I forbid you to take cocaine (assuming I am in a position to do so, and care about you), and when you tell me you are going round to your friend's house to do coke and I lock you up instead, I can freely acknowledge that it is possible that it will be a positive healthy experience for you with no downsides. I just have to think the cost/benefit is tipped too far into the negatives. But it isn't a claim to infallibility. You can ask me "Isn't there a chance you are wrong SSCReader?" and I will say, "Yes, I might be". Yet I still won't open the door. I know I am not infallible, yet, if I think your judgement is (for whatever reason) too badly compromised, I just have to trust it MORE than yours.
It's comparative, not absolute in other words.
Sorry, can you stay within the bounds of my hypothetical instead of changing it so that it no longer applies to the situation?
Just swap the words over. It applies exactly the same. I don't have to think my judgement is infallible to prevent you from doing X (whatever that might be), just that it is enough better than yours to stop you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Normally people are free to take their baby to Italy if they want though -- the UK health system choosing not to treat the baby due to hopelessness seems fine, but actively preventing the family from seeking other options is a bit nuts. (and reflects a high degree of egotism on the part of the UK justice/health system, if not quite 'infallibility')
It's not just due to hopelessness, the treating specialists claimed that treatment was not just useless but causing pain and therefore further treatment was not in the best interests of the patient. As long as you accept that is on the balance of probability true, then the choice is allowing further torture. You don't have to think you're infallible for that. Indeed it went to what, at least 4 different courts (one of which was the ECHR and not controlled by the UK), all of which are checking the work of the other.
It may still be wrong of course. But if you have double checking built into the system, it seems clear the system has at least taken some steps to try to minimise mistakes.
It's the extension of jurisdiction to Italy that is key here -- if Italy (or Vatican City I guess) thinks that the treatment is literal torture, they could ban it.
What even are the mechanics of this -- is the state taking over custody of this kid? ie. if the parents show up with an ambulance and a bunch of Vatican doctors, the police will prevent them from moving the child?
Well the child was a UK citizen and the Italians only gave citizenship as part of this issue, so whether Italy thinks its torture or not may or may not be relevant depending on your point of view. If you can find a jurisdiction that allows you to beat your child with a coathanger to death (clearly not the case here, of course) and Childabusetopia offers you and your child citizenship so that you can take your child there, should the UK government allow you to do it, if it thinks such a thing is torturous?
Just as with all exercises of state power it would in theory be enforced with violence. If the parents had attempted to flee with the child to Vatican City, I imagine they would have been arrested, should the police have been aware of it in time. In general the courts don't have to take full custody, they can simply mandate certain decisions are made (or not made), and only take full custody if the parents continue their course of action.
For example where Jehovah's Witness children were treated with blood products (after doctors going to court), the child is still generally left with the parents. The courts aren't saying all your decisions are harmful to your child, just that this one is. For example in this case, treatment was rendered but full custody was not sought or given by the court.
Moylan said he hoped that the boy’s parents would understand. “I am extremely grateful to [the boy’s] father for so clearly and calmly explaining to me the position held by himself and [the boy’s] mother,” said the judge. “I have no doubt at all that they love their son dearly. I also have no doubt that they object to the receipt by [their son] of a blood transfusion because of their devout beliefs. I hope they will understand why I have reached the decision which I have, governed as it is [their son’s] welfare.”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link