I don't have Aspergers and I have a high IQ (whatever that means) and I won't die of measles, either. Ceteris Parabus......sorry about your luck @Mattie

@Say
1 in 30

But, whose counting? Since it has nothing to do with the subject matter.

The subject matter is......harm and the right to harm.....aka coercion. So, if you want to stray away from that, well, that won't help anyone.

@Say so, moral relativism.....

You think you are allowed a to force people to do things that may harm them, right?

@Mattie you enjoy all the statistics you want. The subject matter is harm, coercion.....like you said...informed consent.

@Say you think you're allowed to harm people .

That you're allowed to coerce people.

@Mattie not to this subject matter.

@Say so, you believe in coercion, right?

@Say "You might break a few ribs while giving CPR, but it’s worth it to save the person’s life"
Please stop with the strawman. You're not a real doctor, are you?

Strawman strawman strawman....

Coercion, yes or no?

It's impossible to create a strawman when sticking to the subject matter.

@Mattie um, no......it's not a valid argument. That's why

Inaccurate analogies are, though. False comparison.

Here we go.....the discussion has broken down to semantics. The first step towards impasse.

@Mattie
"The greater good outweighs the potential costs both societally and personally"
So, then your AREN'T about informed consent, are you? Since this contradicts what you said earlier....

@Mattie why don't you forget about the horse and repair your contradiction?

@Say because there is no consent.

@Mattie please explain how one can force ANYONE to do ANYTHING?

@Say says you.

The person needing CPR has no capability of giving consent. Therefore you are imposing an involuntary hierarchy over them. They are no longer ethical actors, but you are their caretaker now. That is why you can do that.

@Say and how is that dishonest?

But please, do run away if you can't handle it. I understand....

@Say nice. Youre trying to impeach me by using what I impeached you with. Try a little harder, will you?

@Mattie it's passed to a person willing to be their caretaker. No coercion.

@Say your appeal to authority means nothing. This subject matter is about morality. Please don't strawman.....AGAIN.

@Mattie exactly. That's why there's a thing called "caretaker"

@Say you've never heard of expert bias? Because you're doing it right now.

@Say once again....? The subject matter ISNT biology. It's morality. Your EXPERTISE is forcing you to put on your blinders and only argue what you want to argue and NOT the subject matter. If you can't adhere to the point at hand, please don't try to sabotage the discussion with your strawman positions.

@Say how many morality classes have you taken?

Ethics isn't morality. Neither is philosophy. Next.

I imagine, in your arrogance, you seem to think that spewing forth "statistics" and "biology" can be inserted into any conversation that is unrelated to that and that you feel it's relevant. But, anyone who knows about this subject matter would realize that all of your supposed experiences are not relevant and only serve to distract and are used as tools for those who choose to not discuss honestly.

@Mattie ethics and morality are not the same.

See....in all your infinite wisdom, the best you can come up with is the (as you both self avow, one a doctor and one with 146 IQ) "OK boomer" trope? Something doesn't fit.

*,I'm such a great intellectual, but I need to resort to stupid insults*
Yeah, riiiiight.

I'm glad to see that both of you had to resort to breaking down the discussion into semantics. I think it shows how disingenuous you both are.

You know things are going to go NOWHERE with stunted people when they start throwing out definitions they copy and paste from someplace and aren't brave enough to define their own terms, since that is how they're using them in the first place. Just more proof that they can't separate from their ego (which is just another way to say bias).

So, smell ya later.

Why is it so tough to stay on point and not distract? I mean, it's done in courts as a rule.

Shouldn't pro-choicers be anti-vaxxers (if they were intellectually honest)?

@GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
All you said was, "you're wrong", without any supporting factual evidence. Can you repair that, or will you continue with your same tact?

Well, that's not how it works. @Wretch HAS supplied factual evidence to back their claim. Your rebuttal, to the claim made, has been "you're wrong", which now is a claim and puts a reverse onus on you to provide factual evidence of YOUR claim. You could have provided rebuttal against Wretch's evidence, but you made a counter claim. So, could you provide factual evidence of your claim that Wretch is wrong?

@GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
yes, exactly. Where is your evidence?

Of your claim.

That Wretch is wrong (counter claim, reverse onus) and that the article is false (rebuttal to Wretch's evidence)

@GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE the article is evidence. Your response "If I published something saying that the moon is made of grape jelly Would you believe it Especially if it was published in grapejellymoon.com"
Is a strawman. Can you please address the article itself and stop distracting?

Rebuttal is NOT comparison. You need to address the evidence presented with factual evidence of your own and not a hypothetical.

If they "just say it", then it should be easy to rebut without the need for make-believe comparisons.

You haven't provided ANY factual evidence for anything you've said, or claimed. How do you expect to prove your point without anything more than you yourself saying "because I said so"? You're doing the EXACT thing you're accusing the other side of doing.

I, for one, would like to see a decent debate here that doesn't resort to the breakdown of critical thinking.

"If I published something saying that the moon is made of grape jelly Would you believe it Especially if it was published in grapejellymoon.com"
I believe that this is also a genetic fallacy.

@GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE#3275 you've had plenty of time to respond, yet you haven't. You have run away. I guess it's safe to say that you have been exposed as a troll.

@Wretch tell him about the double blind placebo studies. He thinks that there's proof they exist.