@Humanisticus @SIN_Notung It would be defensible if it were true that on balance a DS life involves more suffering than quality, etc.
-
@SIN_Notung@PhilosophyExp Well from a factual standpoint, it's an indefensible position.
@Humanisticus @SIN_Notung It clearly isn't indefensible, since I'm defending it, and I don't think you're doing particularly well! :)
-
-
@PhilosophyExp@SIN_Notung Well the holocaust is defensible if you want to get pedantic about it. -
@Humanisticus@SIN_Notung But, as I said to Notung, Dawkins's arguments supporting his case are weak. -
@PhilosophyExp@SIN_Notung For Dawkins argument to be sound, the suffering of DS must outweigh quality for a significant percentage. 1/ -
@Humanisticus@SIN_Notung ...significant suffering justifies the claim that carrying to term is immoral. The argument is defensible. -
@PhilosophyExp@SIN_Notung Defensible from a philosophical standpoint, then again so is the holocaust. -
@Humanisticus@PhilosophyExp I don't see how the holocaust is defensible... -
@SIN_Notung@PhilosophyExp Thus improving quality of life for future generations. Fuck it, no facts, false assumption, but "defensible". -
@Humanisticus@PhilosophyExp "Defensible" IMO just means there's a reasonable case to be made. Not necessarily a successful one. - 6 more replies
New conversation -
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.