Calling out Mt. Ivanhoe...

You claim that my views on euthanasia are similar to those advocated by the Nazis prior to WW2. So, I challenge you to cite one proposition that meets the following three criteria:

1) The proposition has something to do with the moral status euthanasia broadly construed.

2) The proposition is one that both I accept and that there is good evidence that the Nazis accepted during the interval in question.

3) The proposition is such that there are good reasons for thinking that it is false.

Until you can do this, I don't think anybody here will be disposed to take your ravings seriously.

Originally posted by bbarr
You claim that my views on euthanasia are similar to those advocated by the Nazis prior to WW2. So, I challenge you to cite one proposition that meets the following three criteria:

1) The proposition has something to do with the moral status euthanasia broadly construed.

2) The proposition is one that both I accept and that there is good evidence that ...[text shortened]... il you can do this, I don't think anybody here will be disposed to take your ravings seriously.

Why do you adress me as "Mt Ivanhoe" ?

If you wanted a serious discussion the thread's title was badly chosen. But all right, let's continue in the same spirit then ... BigBoyBbarr .....

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Why do you adress me as "Mt Ivanhoe" ?

What proposition meets the criteria above?

Originally posted by bbarr
You claim that my views on euthanasia are similar to those advocated by the Nazis prior to WW2. So, I challenge you to cite one proposition that meets the following three criteria:

1) The proposition has something to do with the moral status euthanasia broadly construed.

2) The proposition is one that both I accept and that there is good evidence that ...[text shortened]... il you can do this, I don't think anybody here will be disposed to take your ravings seriously.

I present historical facts in the thread "First they came ..... "

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I present historical facts in the thread "First they came ..... "

Then you should have no problem answering the question.

Originally posted by bbarr
What proposition meets the criteria above?

Why is it you choose such a dominating and forcing approach when you are cornered ? As I said earlier I present historic facts which prove the resemblance between your ideas and the Nazis' regarding the killing of certain disabled people.

What proposition do you have in mind ? I do not know what you are trying to prove. Since when is the issue in the thread "First they came ... " your stance on euthanasia as such ? The thread is about killing disabled people.

Originally posted by bbarr
You claim that my views on euthanasia are similar to those advocated by the Nazis prior to WW2. So, I challenge you to cite one proposition that meets the following three criteria:

1) The proposition has something to do with the moral status euthanasia broadly construed.

2) The proposition is one that both I accept and that there is good evidence that ...[text shortened]... il you can do this, I don't think anybody here will be disposed to take your ravings seriously.

Your criteria are not clear to me I must say. In particular the first and the last ones are rather foggy .... to say the least.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Why is it you choose such a dominating and forcing approach when you are cornered ? As I said earlier I present historic facts which prove the resemblance between your ideas and the Nazis' regarding the killing of certain disabled people.

What proposition do you have in mind ? I do not know what you are trying to prove. Since when is the issue in the th ...[text shortened]... y came ... " your stance on euthanasia as such ? The thread is about killing disabled people.

But that's just it, they don't prove a resemblance, you infer the resemblance.

Originally posted by bbarr
Then you should have no problem answering the question.

Ivanhoe: "But I do, please read my posts."

What I meant was that I do have problems answering your question. What "proposition" do you have in mind ? ... and please keep in mind that criterium #1 and #3 are rather foggy.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
But I do, please read my posts.

I'm afraid I'm not convinced, Ivanhoe, and I've read all of your and
Bbarr's posts.

Obviously, you opine that you are right and that the connection is clear,
so perhaps you will offer a refresher rather than refer us back to what
we feel is obscure and specious reasonsing.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Starrman
But that's just it, they don't prove a resemblance, you infer the resemblance.

Verb: infer (inferred,inferring) in'fur
Reason by deduction; establish by deduction
- deduce, deduct, derive

Draw from specific cases for more general cases
- generalize, generalise [Brit], extrapolate

Conclude by reasoning; in logic
- deduce

Guess correctly; solve by guessing
- guess

Believe to be the case
- understand
Derived forms: infers, inferred, inferring

See also: inference

Type of: believe, conclude, figure out, lick, puzzle out, reason, reason out, solve, work, work out

Encyclopedia: Infer
********************************************************

I infer the resemblance ? Can you elaborate ?

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm afraid I'm not convinced, Ivanhoe, and I've read all of your and
Bbarr's posts.

Obviously, you opine that you are right and that the connection is clear,
so perhaps you will offer a refresher rather than refer us back to what
we feel is obscure and specious reasonsing.

Nemesio

If you think certain statements or comments are "obscure" or "specious" you can adress this in the thread "First they came .... ", where I posted them.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm afraid I'm not convinced, Ivanhoe, and I've read all of your and
Bbarr's posts.

Obviously, you opine that you are right and that the connection is clear,
so perhaps you will offer a refresher rather than refer us back to what
we feel is obscure and specious reasonsing.

Nemesio

... since when are you speaking in this debate on behalf of a collectivity called "we". Who is that "we" ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you think certain statements or comments are "obscure" or "specious" you can adress this in the thread "First they came .... ", where I posted them.

I did. You ignored them.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
... since when are you speaking in this debate on behalf of a collectivity called "we". Who is that "we" ?

The WolfPack (TM), of course!