lemm.ee

-3 points

1 year ago

A hypothetical is not a falsehood. Seriously.

What pro-life baseless arguments are you referring to?

report

DarraignTheSane@lemmy.world

[ - ]

4 points

1 year ago

A “hypothetical” in this case is no different than JAQing off, which is itself a modern version of playing devil’s advocate, but in bad faith.

You began (as you said in your original comment) with a losing premise, in that every argument you can put out there to try to lend any validity to pro-life views can and will be dismissed as baseless drivel that ignores the rights of the women that would be forced into organ donation slavery.

I will agree with the one premise that every argument that isn’t “the government can’t force people into organ donation slavery” can also be dismissed out of hand as being irrelevant to the only aspect of this topic that matters.

report

[ - ]

-3 points

1 year ago

No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency. If you agree that people should be free to refuse vaccinations with no negative consequences, then you are logically consistent when you leverage the “my body, my choice” stance. Is that your stance, for vaccines? Many people in this thread insist that there should be consequences to refusing a vaccine (no interaction with society, for example), but that is not really a choice then.

Dismissing points out of hand does not dispute those stances; it does not move to convince the people that hold those stances that the stances are flawed.

report

DarraignTheSane@lemmy.world

[ - ]

4 points

1 year ago

No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency

Yes, just like JAQing off. That’s all that they want to do right? Just ask questions that point out logical inconsistencies? What’s so wrong about that? Who would possibly say that Tucker Carlson didn’t always have the best of intentions using this exact same method?

If you want to push the vaccine angle, then yes, sometimes, nuance exists in life. Government workers and military should absolutely be required to choose between vaccination and being let go. That does not mean that women should be forced into organ donation slavery by the government, and you continuing to try to link the two is absolutely JAQing yourself the fuck off.

No one who’s in favor of government-forced organ donation slavery is going to change their mind. The only way to fight fascism is to dismiss it out of hand. Giving it any amount of validity is letting it win.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

1 year ago

Who would possibly say that Tucker Carlson didn’t always have the best of intentions using this exact same method?

Tucker uses whataboutism. He would never strive for logical consistency; that would ruin his entire stance. You do want logical consistency, right? That is something you strive for? Or are you like Tucker?

Government workers and military should absolutely be required to choose between vaccination and being let go. That does not mean that women should be forced into organ donation slavery by the government, and you continuing to try to link the two is absolutely JAQing yourself the fuck off.

It means that “my body, my choice” isn’t the argument people pretend it is. Because in some situations, “my body, my choice” doesn’t apply. So now you need to defend why it applies to pregnant people and not anti-vaxxers. Logically. And you know what? I bet you could do it if you really tried-- but what’s the point? Why bother with the “my body, my choice” defense at all, if the defense itself needs a defense?

No one who’s in favor of government-forced organ donation slavery is going to change their mind.

This is untrue. After Roe was struck down, polls indicated rising support in nationally-available abortion. People can change their mind, but it’s very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it.

report

DarraignTheSane@lemmy.world

[ - ]

2 points

1 year ago

It means that “my body, my choice” isn’t the argument people pretend it is

On this I am in agreement with you, and have never used that argument. The only valid argument is “government can’t force people into organ donation slavery”.

but it’s very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it

Those people who have “changed their mind” on abortion haven’t done so through rational discussion with those who know that forced organ donation slavery is wrong. Like any conservative, they had to see the results of their lack of concern for others have an impact on themselves or others that they care about, or at least others who look the same as they do.

Once white forced-birth mothers started dying, being forced to give still births, and crying on the witness stand, some of the “centrists” (i.e. conservatives who want to pretend they’re not) began to see the monsters they had become.

report

[ - ]

-2 points

1 year ago

On this I am in agreement with you, and have never used that argument. The only valid argument is “government can’t force people into organ donation slavery”.

As I said elsewhere, I’ve had success by crafting a hypothetical wherein a person is forced by the government to provide a liver transplant to “save a life” and comparing it to forcing a pregnant person to give birth to “save a life”. I think many people don’t realize what power they’re granting the government.

You should probably dial it back a little with the slavery part. While I’m sure you could justify it being there, it’s not going to convince anyone that isn’t already in agreement with you. Makes you seem a little out there. Just a tip.

Those people who have “changed their mind” on abortion haven’t done so through rational discussion with those who know

While it’s entirely possible I was lied to, I have had people admit that I have changed their stance on abortion. Not a lot, but also not zero. You give up too easily.

Once white forced-birth mothers started dying, being forced to give still births, and crying on the witness stand

Undoubtedly, but wouldn’t it be worthwhile to try and mitigate this instead of cynically waiting to take advantage of it?

report