Some progress, finally.

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

  • Flax
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 days ago

            Canada literally did it

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 days ago

              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.