*wakes up* I agree with Dawkins.
-
-
Replying to @SIN_Notung
@SIN_Notung No you don't! :) (Not the bit where he suggests that relevant moral distinction between autism & DS is ability to contribute...)1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp I'll have to read through the justifications (only just woken)... but isn't his conclusion a defensible one?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SIN_Notung
@SIN_Notung Of course. But how one gets to the conclusion is crucial (because of what the logic of bad argument will likely entail).3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp@SIN_Notung How is the conclusion that people who don't terminate DS fetuses are immoral defensible?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Humanisticus
@Humanisticus@SIN_Notung It would be defensible if it were true that on balance a DS life involves more suffering than quality, etc.4 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp@SIN_Notung Except it doesn't involve more suffering than quality, not even close, ergo it's not a defensible position.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@Humanisticus @SIN_Notung ...suffering (I've worked with them); (b) Non-existence if entirely unproblematic; (c) Questin is - is it right...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.