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

United Kingdom

4117 readers
220 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
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 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 0 points 3 days ago (4 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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 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 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days 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 1 points 2 days ago

Moving the goalposts

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)