British ethicist: Senile should be “put down”
posted at 9:00 am on September 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
In yet another revealing moment for nationalized health care, a highly respected British ethicist said that dementia sufferers should get euthanized in order to preserve resources for healthier people. Baroness Warnock, described as “Britain’s leading moral philosopher”, said that the government should license people to be “put down” and stop being a drain on society:
The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are “wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.
She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.
The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves. …
Lady Warnock said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.
“I’m absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there’s a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they’re a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.
“Actually I’ve just written an article called ‘A Duty to Die?’ for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself.”
Shocking? It shouldn’t be. When the State has the burden of providing “free” medical care, that care will get rationed in ways that are, unfortunately, all too predictable. Human life stops being sacred and instead becomes a commodity with a balance sheet. If bureaucrats decide that a particular life, or a class of life, has become a net negative, then eventually they will find ways to eliminate the liability.
Totalitarian governments have always worked this way; the shock comes from the same impulse occuring in supposedly enlightened democracies. We’re seeing a new kind of government these nanny states, though — a democratic totalitarianism that makes all of the choices for its subjects after they willingly give the bureaucracy the power of life and death over them. It’s a voluntary totalitarianism, and it starts by assigning government the role of caretaker from cradle to grave, the latter point coming at their choosing.
Western civilization built itself on the sanctity of human life and the rights of the individual. It doesn’t take much for Westerners to give up that birthright. The only incentive for voluntary slavery appears to be low-cost prescriptions and catastrophic hospital coverage. Once we buy into that system, all manner of personal choices get removed: the foods you can eat, the beverages you can drink, your pastimes, and apparently your right not to be murdered just to clear a hospital bed.
Resources will get rationed in one manner or another. Only air exists in such abundance that it needs no rationing. The question for any society is whether they will choose the efficient method of market-based rationing or the caprice of a top-down bureaucratic diktat. The former encourages more of the resource to be produced, while the latter restricts new resources and forces a shortage management system onto its community. We see this more clearly in Britain’s NHS than in any other Western construct, and Baroness Warnock’s monstrous demand is only the natural result.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Ain’t that the truth!
Anna on September 19, 2008 at 10:07 AM
As Reagan would say, “We’re here from the National Health Service and we want to
helpkill you.”T J Green on September 19, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Easy.
Whatever his professed theological beliefs were, his scientific assertions led to the moral relativism & the disrespect for life that are rampant today.
He also had a profound impact on Nietzsche & Hitler.
jgapinoy on September 19, 2008 at 10:07 AM
My Grandmother passed away 10 years ago.. she suffered from Dementia for the last 10 years of her life.. maybe longer..
she lived in California and finally moved to Arizona so my mom can help take care of her.. the new place, an assisted living condo, kinda brought her dementia to the surface.. back in Cali, she knew her home she lived it, the area, so the dementia wasn’t as pronounced..
She could recognize our family.. but I am not sure if she knew we were her family.. she knew my mom was her daughter but that was about it. we couldn’t take care of her at home (medical reasons) but found a nice private home for her to live at close by and she stayed with us most days.. I would drive her back to the home at night and she would ask if we are going back to the farm (where she grew up as a child in Missouri.. ) more often than not..
She passed away at the age of 92 (pretty sure of that age)
‘death with dignity’ was NOT an option at all..
I have a much better understanding of serving having helped her several times than I use too..
DaveC on September 19, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Dementia is non-recoverable. Some cells of your body can regenerate… brain cells cannot. You can’t get that person back.
With regards to the question of “how would I know”, you are correct, I cannot read anybody’s mind. However, take a brief poll of your non-demented friends, and see if they would want to live in physically functioning, but essentially brain-dead state, where they can’t remember anything about their life, their family, their hopes or dreams, they defecate and urinate in their clothes, they greatly burdon those that are left to take care of them… see how many of your friends want to live like that. I know I don’t.
There is simply not a good answer- I do not believe that we have the moral right to end somebody’s life, but on the other hand, who would want to live like that?
lionheart on September 19, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Here’s the train wreck I see coming.
As the baby boom moves into the last stages of life, there will be a very high demand for organ transplants. Today we have a system where exceedingly generous people offer their organs for transplant programs, and these folks have a place in heaven carved out, if you ask me.
And while demand exceeds supply today, people are generally understanding and see organ donors as a miracle, as a gift. But demand will very soon increase exponentially, and the dying and helpless will come to be seen as “wasted organs” and I fear there will be enormous pressure, even legislation, to deny health care to someone who clings selfishly and stubbornly to life, thus depriving someone else a needed organ.
Human nature is capable of unspeakable evil, and I sense there will be trouble down the road.
jeff_from_mpls on September 19, 2008 at 10:15 AM
It starts with the demented but will eventually include anyone who’s health is poor enough to be deemed “too expensive” to be allowed to live.
Guardian on September 19, 2008 at 10:15 AM
While you’re at it, ask them how many of the want to live with cancer, blind, deaf, crippled with arthritis, paralyzed, etc. Then take a trip to you local hospital, seek out people with those conditions and ask how many of them want to die instead.
TheBigOldDog on September 19, 2008 at 10:17 AM
The Lord God made mankind in His image. He alone has the authority and power to give and take life.
This ethicist started with the denial of these precepts and replaced them with her own: (1) There is no God. (2) There is no objective difference in the value of mankind, animals and inanimate matter. (3) The natural rule of survival of the fittest must be applied among society ignoring all subjective reasoning.
Ed is very correct to say that her statement is predictable but I would say for a different reason. Her reasoning starts at the wrong place and comes to rest at its inevitable (yet also incorrect) conclusion.
For it is written, “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.” So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. – Romans 14:11-12
shick on September 19, 2008 at 10:23 AM
My mom suffered from dementia, and by the end she was completely gone. There was nothing behind her eyes but confusion, fear, and anxiety. She did not know anyone anymore (even her husband of 50 years), could not speak, could not feed herself, etc. And her care was obscenely expensive and burdensome to us and the state. I know for a certainty she would have signed a euthanasia request before she developed dementia if someone had told her that’s the way she would finish out her life.
Even with such certainty, I would never have been able to carry out such an order. Which is more unfair and unethical? Imposing the burden of your dementia care on your family, or imposing the burden of killing you on your family?
aero on September 19, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Well you have to give her an A in logic.
This may be the only way Socialized medicine can work.
Save the whales, save the trees, save the poor starving aides infected rabble of the world, BUT FETUSES AND OLD FOLK GOTTA DIE!
TheSitRep on September 19, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Thanks for the quote. I agree with it completely. As you may have noticed my ball was already going down the hill.
shick on September 19, 2008 at 10:28 AM
So the interpretation of his message by others implicates him?
Are the Beatles responsible for the Manson murders because he found a message in Helter Skelter?
MadisonConservative on September 19, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Still waiting for Baroness Warnock to lead by example.
SKYFOX on September 19, 2008 at 10:31 AM
So socialized medicine is now being used as a metaphor for government sanctioned killing. Liberals like to used the word euthanasia which translates to “good death”. Whatever that phrase really means. Under different conditions don’t the libs call this genocide? And isn’t that a bad thing?
So who in the government is qualified to determine who is worthy to live and must die for society. Are there enough Solomons out there to cut the babies in half? (for the stem cell of course)
I guess it’s not that people are dying, but that the correct (didn’t want to use the word right here) people are dying in a timely and orderly manner. And the correct (didn’t want to use the word left here) people are making those decisions. But hey, this is what Barry O wants for us. Can hardly wait.
Tommy_G on September 19, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Yipes – Looks like I could be in trouble.
I forget where I put my keys sometimes.
Occaisionally I’ll walk into a room and forget why I came there for a minute or two. Might have to retrace steps to really get the …..
what was I talking about?
tru2tx on September 19, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I’m very sorry to read of your mom’s & your family’s torment. May the Lord of comfort & healing give you the daily grace to carry on.
That said, there is no way to stop the proverbial slippery slope once killing is legalized. First, with permission only. Then, “she would have wanted it” (Terry Shaivo). Eventually, “for the good of society”.
jgapinoy on September 19, 2008 at 10:32 AM
…disagree…a totalitarian is a totalitarian, an atheist is an atheist.
A totalitarian hasn’t sufficient courage to allow people sovereignty over their own lives and decisions. An atheist merely fails to recognize any sovereignty beyond himself.
This person is described — and seems to be regarded in some circles — as both an ethicist and a philosopher. She’s held in high esteem by folks who’ve enjoyed her books, apparently. It’s imperative when assessing someone’s pronouncements to consider the source. This person’s background is education. I don’t see where this sets her up specifically to a seat among the immortals by itself, but then I’ve not read any of her books.
Philosophy has become “religion without a god”. Ethics, as a field, has generally been “the laws of religion with or without a god”…although in my church they teach that the law (ethics) aren’t salvific…do all the “thou shalts” and don’t do all the “thou shalt not’s”, and do them to save yourself, and you’re still screwed.
So, once again, Ed’s right.
The secularization of society, and the rationing out of societal entitlements (“freebies”) means that the society can decide to stop your allotment, so to speak. Those who’re the most vulnerable can become inconvenient — inconvenient pregnancies, inconvenient elders, what Mr. Hitler’s social engineers called “Lebensunwertes Leben”…life unworthy of life.
Life is reduced to economics. If your life becomes a “bad risk” or is too costly to maintain, you’re written off. I can’t think of anything more…well…ungodly….
Christians are often criticized for not listening to their Savior, not taking him seriously, and simply not being Christian. All of that criticism is valid…all of it. “Be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:38), and that is a tall order…and no one is excused. The same can be said for Muslims who pervert their holy text and go galvanting around, blowing things up willy-nilly (although some may argue that the Koran is a bit more bellicose, even than some of the most bellicose parts of the Old Testament).
Still, human imperfections, human history, church failings (churches being filled as they are with imperfect humans) and the unattainability of the godly ideal is no excuse for throwing out the whole religious playbook — including a belief in a sanctity of life bestowed by someone waaaaaaay “above our pay grade” — setting ourselves up as representatives of the Divine Judge and determining who among the vulnerable has the most negative impact to what some bureaucrat has determined is the health system’s bottom line.
This is an infamous utterance, up there with anything ever to come out of the foul mouth of Peter Singer, will be reported as a curiosity, will be denounced in some quarters, sad to say will be defended in other quarters, and then be forgotten…the noise of the human race spiraling down the drain drowning it out in the end….
Puritan1648 on September 19, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Mansonites “found a message”.
Baroness Warlock carries Darwin’s unmistakable message to its logical conclusion.
jgapinoy on September 19, 2008 at 10:34 AM
What I find interesting is that this brings the “sanctity of life” argument full-circle vis-a-vis abortion. When homicide is justified because a fetus is ‘not viable’, why not consider the demented similarly? At any age.
It seems as thought ‘the left’ have utterly abandoned the core concept of a human right to life, and now view the human race as a herd to be culled in accordance with their management policy.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Starting with the one who first suggested it….
CynicalOptimist on September 19, 2008 at 10:37 AM
They obviously can’t, I don’t agree with the proposal by Barones Warnock, I was merely pointing out the difference between what she said and what Ed posted.
If someone creates a living will, asking to be euthanized in the event that they develop a serious, incurable disease, I would not say they were being selfish. Quite the opposite, in fact.
thisaintnopicnic on September 19, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Point by point:
1) Mankind is an accident, & of no more value than a paramecia.
2) Species become stronger through the “survival of the fittest” principle.
3) As Nietzsche might say, we weaken our species when we show compassion to the weak.
jgapinoy on September 19, 2008 at 10:39 AM
When birth control was pushed in the 20th century, you heard the same whining. “We’re not forcing you to use birth control, it’s just a lifestyle option.”
But that was just to get a foot in the door, our society today marginalizes those who have more than two children. That is a fact. Ask any mother of more than two kids.
You’re free to cover your eyes and see no evil in the case of euthanasia. But you are horribly naive if you don’t see which way the wind’s blowing. In our lifetime we will see the exact same social pressure to kill your parents and family members who become a “burden” on what remains of our “culture.”
jeff_from_mpls on September 19, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Very true. In fact, I would argue that in a sense thee two issues are linked together. The decline in birth rates due to the ubiquitous use of birth control is creating a demographic time bomb, an increasingly aging population where it might become impossible for a relatively diminishing work force to support a growing elderly population. It is easy to imagine how mandatory or voluntary euthanasia could become an accepted necessity.
neuquenguy on September 19, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Like on “Logans Run”, keep an eye on your dot!
Bicyea on September 19, 2008 at 10:41 AM
You still haven’t resolved this with his Christian beliefs.
3) As Nietzsche might say, we weaken our species when we show compassion to the weak.
jgapinoy on September 19, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Disagreement with these principles seems to indicate a favor for socialism and an aversion to capitalism.
MadisonConservative on September 19, 2008 at 10:41 AM
…tell me something: since when does the fact that the burden of the sickness of a parent or child, spouse or even a pet — however great — relieve a person of their debt to that parent, child spouse…or even pet.
Who said life was supposed to be easy?
Pets can be euthanized, and I’d hope that it would be in extreme cases only. Then again, we can in other extreme cases eat our pets. It is a naturally repellant notion that we might draw straws, like folks in a bad lifeboat movie, and chow down on Junior or Grandma.
Who said that our government, in nations where political parties have sold their citizens a bill of goods, having taken on the burden of providing and managing national health care, can at some point of convenience begin denying service to folks on account of some pre-existing condition: human fragility and mortality? If the government takes on the job of providing medical services, it takes on responsibility of the foot soldiers of health care, Hippocratic Oath and all. First, do no harm….
This entire subject is positively Orwellian.
Puritan1648 on September 19, 2008 at 10:43 AM
There’s a huge difference to me between someone getting a diagnosis of dementia and deciding with what intelligence is left to them that they don’t want to live that way and having a second person decide that they don’t want to take care of that dementia patient. I made the very difficult decision to “put down” a chronically ill cat that was days away from a lingering death. My cat was never able to choose for herself. Women currently have the legal right to choose to abort a fetus diagnosed with a serious impairment. Both are cases where the life being extinguished possesses fewer legal rights from the start.
This proposal suggests that once someone becomes inconvenient to society their personal legal rights should be assigned an expiration date at another person’s discretion. I support that for violent criminals, but not for honest citizens whose only “crime” was to get old or sick.
Jill1066 on September 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM
there is the social security bomb waiting to go off when the boomers start to retire en mass..
either the age will have to be rolled back or taxes raised.. or.. what’s been talked about above.
DaveC on September 19, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Irrelevant and a non-sequitur. One might as well say that a Muslim is a Muslim and a terrorist is a terrorist and never shall the twain meet. This patently absurd. There is very real and very definable connection between Islam and terrorism – just a surely as there is a very real connection between atheism and contemporary totalitarianism.
Hence my wondering if she was atheist.
Some “may argue”? There is no argument: the Koran IS a bellicose text and Islam is the only monotheistic religion that exhorts its followers to kill non-believers. To say otherwise is to profess inexcusable ignorance of Islam and the Koran.
ManlyRash on September 19, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Obviously, if his proposal was to gain ground,
which it will not – the UK government is a dead man walking,
the first to be put down should be him himself, as he is obviously demented himself.
The Cheech and Chong Clowns with the Big Cyanide Pie should
get him first.
(In the 60′s, when that Cheech and Chong comic came out,
it was just a comic, nobody thought it would be taken seriously.)
davem on September 19, 2008 at 10:49 AM
People like Baroness Warlock are ignoring Darwin’s professed Christian beliefs & are taking his scientific doctrines to their logical conclusion.
jgapinoy on September 19, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I see a somewhat more fundamental issue than government health care at play. This lady has a lot in common with the guy yesterday who thinks it’s a shame Trig Palin wasn’t aborted, i.e. the assumption that morality is a human product and, therefore, subject to critique and even wholesale revision. So just because an idea sounds horrible doesn’t mean it’s not entirely logical and defensible on economic or public interest grounds.
Johnathan Swift, call your office.
John on September 19, 2008 at 10:50 AM
very true, following a long line from Darwin to Galton to Sanger….
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 10:51 AM
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)
right4life on September 19, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Agreed. The irony is that if someone deemed that she was “wasting people’s lives” regardless the reason she would have no grounds to complain if the state found doctors “licensed to put others down”.
Foolishness is its own demise.
shick on September 19, 2008 at 10:56 AM
In fairness, I believe Darwin went on in that passage to mitigate his statement by calling for compassion. However, Darwin’s disciples–like Nietzsche, Hitler, Sanger, & Baroness Warlock–have ignored that call for compassion.
jgapinoy on September 19, 2008 at 10:59 AM
The bright side of this is, that in our country, the people with the guts and the brawn to do things like this (murder the elderly), are exactly the people who WOULDN”T do this.
Our leftists are about as scary and as able to act on their totalitarian fantasies as this old hag is.
You give some athiest lefty a license to kill old people in America, and he’s going to get his ass capped before he offs his first granny. That’s how we ‘mericans roll.
NoDonkey on September 19, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Uh…one question, Ma’am…if a person is demented how can they be competent to make an informed decision to “opt for enthenasia”
Catseye on September 19, 2008 at 11:01 AM
The killer argument amongst those who wish to legalize one drug or another is: “Hey! Who’s life is it, anyway??”
With Government Health Care, that question will be answered – but not in a way you’d like.
kurtzz3 on September 19, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Women currently have the legal right to choose to abort a perfectly healthy baby
fetus diagnosed with a serious impairment.because they don’t want to look fat at the prom.John on September 19, 2008 at 11:04 AM
These so called “ethicist” are a morbid bunch. They are attempting to replace morals and respect for human life with…. NOTHING. Its difficult to imagine a more self-deceived or despicable group.
Maxx on September 19, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Not with nothing. With reason. That’s the key thing here. These arguments are all very sensible once you get past your mental gag reflex.
John on September 19, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Yes, you’re right. Wasn’t dissing your point at all, and sorry if I didn’t make the context of that quote clear. Always glad for an excuse to quote Cavanaugh-O’Keefe in any case. :)
inviolet on September 19, 2008 at 11:13 AM
It’s God’s life. All life comes from God.
FiveWays on September 19, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I see nothing wrong in Darwin’s assessment, the truth of it is readily apparent.
The problem I have is with people that have formed a religious cult around his words, justifying to themselves the righteousness of imposing themselves as the shepherds of man. Taken as a blueprint for such a role, Darwin’s words have an horrific conclusion – the likes of which only Hitler et al have fully realized.
Given the revulsion at such historic atrocities, it is unsurprising that similar ends should be sought through subversive means – hence the Sangers of the world, convincing ‘the undesirables’ to cull their offspring.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM
And kill all those that gave him such a license.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 11:17 AM
How does one get the title of “ethicist” anyways? Is it self-appointed? Is there a degree/work-study program and what kind of oversight is there? Seriously, WTF?
I don’t want to stoke the religious/atheist debate here at all, but this is exactly the slippery slope you climb when religion is marginalized. Who is the moral authority then if not God? THIS woman, or anyone of her ilk?
People can argue the merits of religion all they want but they can’t change what they stand for (unless you’re San Fran Nan). When one does not have an outside moral authority, namely from any number of religions, things like this are bound to happen because people can then just make up what is right and wrong.
And yes, certain religions are better than others.
Right-brained on September 19, 2008 at 11:23 AM
…a serious man requires a serious response:
…atheists and totalitarians: one can be both. Agreed. I was saying that one does not predispose you to be the other…although we are up to our nipples in atheist, amoral, technocrat totalitarians, n’cest pas?
…Lady Warlock an atheist: sort of sounds like it, I’d have to admit…and, given the drift of Britain, I’d say that it’s likely….
…the Koran: I used soft language because I’m only passingly familiar with the Koran…every time I try to go into it to find out more, the damned thing scares the daylights out of me. It’s religious dogma as written by Stephen King or Lovecraft…I keep expecting to run into Cthulhu.
Puritan1648 on September 19, 2008 at 11:24 AM
You and Hitler could have been on the same team, he thought his methods were “reasonable” too.
Read all about it here:
Maxx on September 19, 2008 at 11:25 AM
The Nazis were not the first, nor will they be the last, people to engage in such activities. That is their lesson to history.
Godwin’s Law in this thread too!
Right-brained on September 19, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Absolutely true. All we can do is be vigilant that such future atrocities do not happen within our civilization. North Korea and China are currently looking very dire….and never forget the institutionalized horror of Islam.
Sometimes a reference to Nazism/Hitler is justifiable without raising the “Godwin” flag. Sometimes.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 11:31 AM
My impression of John’s statement is that reason shouldn’t be the final word because it’s faulty.
shick on September 19, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Exactly, murdering the sick and the defenseless were the first things the Nazis did upon seizing power.
Once you get people to accept that, it’s a short walk to “what other unproductive people are using too many of our precious resources?”
I notice that the people who think assisted suicide is such a hot idea, rarely seem to think it’s a good idea for their personal circumstance.
But that’s the classic leftist mentality – force unto others which thy cannot do themselves.
NoDonkey on September 19, 2008 at 11:32 AM
So called “Godwin’s Law” is a silly attempt to dismiss vital lessons of history.
Maxx on September 19, 2008 at 11:35 AM
It wasn’t mine.
Maxx on September 19, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Lady (ILsa) Warnock is setting a fine example,
should this 84 year old,be first in line,I’m
sure there must be something wrong with her!
Doesn’t her attitude alone,qualify her!
Ya know,sumpin old,is new again,me thinks,a hem!
canopfor on September 19, 2008 at 11:39 AM
It is often abused to stifle debate, true.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 11:41 AM
…very true…
…this is as close to Sanger, “racial hygiene” and Mr. H from Berchtesgaden as you get.
This isn’t a drift into emotionalism when one runs out of arguments and into hysterical name-calling…and a drift away from cold reason…
…this is a moral gut-check.
Puritan1648 on September 19, 2008 at 11:43 AM
As a young man he was very religious but he fell away from it later in life.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Tastes like chicken…..
CynicalOptimist on September 19, 2008 at 11:45 AM
No it’s not, it’s there to prevent silly attempts to compare your debate opponents to Hitler. The lesson was still there in your post but the comparison was totally not needed to make your point.
Well, at least in my opinion.
Right-brained on September 19, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Consider Charles Darwin’s own rejection of God and the transcendent, a rejection that Darwin soft-pedaled in his published writings but that was in fact radical,
As John G. West demonstrates in the first chapter of Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science Charles Darwin rejected God and the transcendent, a rejection that he soft-pedaled in his published writings but that was in fact radical. West writes:
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 11:47 AM
There is a terrific series of posts on this site titled “Blogging the Quran.” It analyzes the text in a sura-by-sura format and is well worth digging through the archives. If memory serves, the pot appears on Sundays. And yes, you will find Cthulhu in the Koran: his earthly name was Mohammed.
ManlyRash on September 19, 2008 at 11:48 AM
“In the last days, perilous times shall come. For they shall call good evil, and evil good.”
-That’s all there is to say in response to this.
Sackett on September 19, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I work part time at a retirement community. There’s a feisty 96 yr. old lady there who jokes all the time about being “ready to go any day, God just won’t take me.” I doubt she thinks her life should end because she has days when she loses things or repeats herself, or that sometimes she has to depend on her son to help her out. I’m ready to go whenever it’s my time too, but not when some crotchety old know it all “moral philosopher” decides I’m useless.
scalleywag on September 19, 2008 at 11:51 AM
At the age of 84 is she volunteering to be the first to be put down? I’ll even break her leg if that will help.
Dr. Dog on September 19, 2008 at 11:51 AM
So called “Godwin’s Law” is a silly attempt to dismiss vital lessons of history.
Maxx on September 19, 2008 at 11:35 AM
No it’s not, it’s there to prevent silly attempts to compare your debate opponents to Hitler. The lesson was still there in your post but the comparison was totally not needed to make your point.
Well, at least in my opinion.
Right-brained on September 19, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Godwin’s law simply states “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one”. It is not an “attempt” to do anything, but an observation that in online arguments, references to Hitler and the Nazis are inevitable.
thisaintnopicnic on September 19, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Ares,
True I guess. Barring mind downloading technology, a person with advanced dementia is lost to the world. Still there will hardly be new and effective treatments to combat the onset of dementia if the medical community just starts “putting down” anyone who shows symptoms of it.
Mike Honcho on September 19, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Actually, Soylent Red.
unclesmrgol on September 19, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Two men in white coats evaluating citizens for lack of orderly cognitive expression in order to determine whether to put them out of their misery or not.
Attendant number one asks, “What is your opinion when life begins?”
Subject answers, “Um, er, if society in general, er, um and the church or to say organized, um er religion has um stated that er, differing opinions mean that the layman can, or maybe not, then, er I mean that they formed an opinion, then uh maybe it er above my pay grade to say.”
Second attendant, “Hook him up!”
Kidding! Let’s just hope it’s not above “their” pay grade.
hawkdriver on September 19, 2008 at 11:57 AM
No. I think you’re missing Maxx’s point.
The stupid fallacy of throwing “just like nazis/hitler” accusations around is an attempt to shout down debate. It’s very adolescent and immature and annoying.
Godwin’s Law recognizes the tendency of people to resort to this tactic.
The unintended consequence of being sensitized to such a phenomena has been that people intentionally do not talk about nazism or hitler out of fear of being accused of such objectionable behaviour.
The long-term effect of such suppression may well be that we dismiss (or perhaps a better word would be “forget”) an extremely vital lesson…..and relegate it to a footnote in an encyclopedia.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:00 PM
We need to master brain-transplants and brain reprogramming along with brain downloads.
Mwah ha ha
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:01 PM
…sounds interesting….
One of the best sources I’ve found was a two-part interview with Sam Solomon, a sharia-law student and then a Christian convert, conducted by Mike Horton and aired on his “White Horse Inn” program. They discuss the differences between Christianity and Islam…the theological differences, among others, and Mr. Solomon goes to “chapter and verse” from the Koran, including reciting the suras in Arabic.
There’s a short bit on YouTube I found by Googling Mr. Solomon’s name, 10:46 minutes, listed as “part 1″. Can’t find part 2.
Highly recommended!
Puritan1648 on September 19, 2008 at 12:04 PM
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!
/too lazy to read thru 2 pages of comments to see if this was covered already.
GISAP on September 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Well, in that case so called “Godwin’s Law” is not only a silly attempt to marginalize vital history, its also dead wrong. You can find thousands of long threads at HotAir that never mention Hitler. So if you want to continually marginalize the lesson of history and adhere to an obviously fanciful “law,” then go ahead, we all have that right.
Maxx on September 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM
So, she’s saying we can put down all the liberals?
VolMagic on September 19, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Soylent Green and Logan’s Run are our future
DerKrieger on September 19, 2008 at 12:06 PM
What actually is the role of the British Monarch?
#1 Lead by example, teach by example, repudiate what is evil. It is Queen Elizabeth’s responsibility to publicly repudiate Baroness Warnock’s socialist eugenics.
Baroness Warnock, assign yourself your own doom and spare us your further burdens. Your outworn aristocracy is so completely out of touch with validity, truth and righteousness as taught in the Bible.
Warnock lends revolting merit to the French Revolution’s bloodbath.
The British elites actively pursue eugenics whilst endorsing Sharia law.
THANK GOD that our Founding Fathers saw fit to remove ourselves from remaining British subjects! Ancestral ties aside, time and again America saved the British and look what Britain has become, and what Britain spreads now upon the earth. DISTANCE! REBUKE!
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 12:07 PM
So, is there a law for debating Godwin’s Law?
Right-brained on September 19, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Well silly me. You see, when I see people advocating the same things Hitler advocated I have a tendancey to compare them with Hitler. That’s just the way I am.
Maxx on September 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Not if the machines don’t kill us first.
Mike Honcho on September 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Steady on Maxx….it’s only a “law” in the loosest tongue-in-cheek sense. An Internet lore ‘law’ of sorts.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM
No protection for the helpless, from the fetus to the aged/sick.
No God, no value for human life.
No God, man is left with just things. Makes him ‘happy’ for a while, but cannot extend his life.
A life in pursuit of none.
maynila on September 19, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Crud. Should read “If the machines don’t kill us first.”
Mike Honcho on September 19, 2008 at 12:13 PM
eyeroll Darwin’s work was about natural selection of species out in the wild, and how they responded/evolved over time to survive in their particular habitats.
nothing more, nothing less
you people who try to ascribe all kinds of bizarre medical ethics questions to Darwin should be embarrassed at your obvious lack of understanding of biology. In this particular case, the people in question are far, far past childbearing years, so they either succeeded or failed to pass on their genetic material to offspring many years ago. whether or not their genetic material provided a survival advantage to their descendants has nothing at all to do with dementia in old age.
and Darwin never advocated stepping in to try to affect natural selection in humanity or in animal populations in the wild.
The stampede to discredit a man with bizarre accusations like japingoy’s seems quite Stalinistic to me.
funky chicken on September 19, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Don’t rob Al Gore of the glory.
Earth will not survive within ten years if you don’t change your lightbulb.
maynila on September 19, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Dork’s Law – the probability that some pointless git will hijack a thread to debate the merits of Godwin’s Law.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:15 PM
You’ve misunderstood the role of the British monarch. On the contrary, the Queen has a constitutional duty to take the advice of the government of the day and also what to say in the course of it.
The Queen functions in effect as the mouthpiece of the government. Her speeches are written and approved in advance, down to the last comma, by the Home Office or, when on state visits to other countries, by the Foreign Office.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Did anyone mention the delicious irony of the headline with that photo? I have not read all the comments, so please forgive me if I missed it.
SKYFOX on September 19, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Hitleriffic, even.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:16 PM
How delightful! Marnock and her 1984/Brave New World approach to senior ‘care’ are the wave of the future, yet I would be more apt to follow her if she led by example…They won’t be happy until the gov’t medical system has replaced God.
Ed said: “Only air exists in such abundance that it needs no rationing.” If Gorebag gets his way, the gov’t will tax us for the use of the air and according to the size of each carbon footprint.
Christine on September 19, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I completely agree. Maxx said: “So called “Godwin’s Law” is a silly attempt to dismiss vital lessons of history.” I disagree with his statement that Godwin’s Law, which as you say “recognizes the tendency of people to resort to this tactic”, is in itself a silly attempt to dismiss vital lessons of history. It is simply an observation on the tactics used in online debates.
thisaintnopicnic on September 19, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Enlighten us, O great One.
Just don’t confuse biology with evolutionism.
maynila on September 19, 2008 at 12:18 PM
It’s a load of crap used to hi-jack a thread from the issues at hand, and used primarily, I would think, by those that don’t like seeing the lessons of history on display.
Maxx on September 19, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Salazarian and Francotisical.
aengus on September 19, 2008 at 12:20 PM
LOL … yep.
Maxx on September 19, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Clearly thisaintnopicnic interpreted you better than I.
LimeyGeek on September 19, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Without the British Monarchy’s aristocratic condescending English accent, that’s the gist of it.
maverick muse on September 19, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »