I always harboured this underlying feeling that Twitter was a place for hard of thinking fuckwits. Step forward CarlRaincoat, the author of the CiF piece I referred to in my original post. He brings us this little gem on the presumed consent debate, and in so doing demonstrates admirably that I am correct in my assessment:
CarlRaincoat @handandmouse a very good post. Thanks for adding to the debate, your man Longrider is on the fastline to idiotville
So, having a different opinion to Carl Packman on the matter of whether the state should presume to make decisions on our behalf, makes me an idiot, does it? Can we suppose that this throw-away epithet applies to those commenters who happened to agree with me, as well?
Clearly Carl fails to grasp what the word debate means. Without disagreement, there is no debate. Disagreement does not infer idiocy, whereas labelling someone who has a different point of view as an idiot, most certainly does. Carl Packman appears to be of the ilk that only those who agree with him have something to add to the debate. If so, this makes him an idiot, not me, and not those others who have also given considered reasons for opposing presumed consent.
What an arsehole.
—————————————————-
Update: Timmy has Mr Raincoat in his sights.
I think Twitter performs a valuable public service. It reveals to us the extent of control-freakery in the public at large, as well as identifying individuals who should carry a health warning. Know thy enemy!
And anyone who has the word ‘raincoat’ in their screen nick is already more than a bit odd. Sweet self-relevation.
Er, Longrider, pots and kettles come to mind.
You’re hardly a stranger to insulting people for the views they express (e.g. here, in which a commenter is called “stupid”, a “fuckwit” and a “moron”).
“Clearly Carl fails to grasp what the word debate means.”
Yes, CarlDirtyMac is a classic example of the Righteous.
H&M – there is a subtle difference between comments that are clearly stupid and ill thought out (and the one you cite is a classic example) and a reasoned objection. On reflection, the individual who argued that giving to animal charities should be “restricted” (i.e. state interference in personal decisions) is not dissimilar to Mr Raincoat’s assertion that the state should be involved in our decision making because people are dying. Yes, people die. People will always die. That does not place any obligation on others. Nor does it give the state the right to treat us all as potential spare parts. Advances in medical science does not and never should confer any rights to extended life. It’s a bonus and if people are altruistic that’s good. If you want access to more spare parts, then put more effort into that sense of altruism, don’t step down the road to totalitarianism by putting aside basic ethics and taking without asking.
You might want to consider the views of the dialysis patient who has take the time to comment on this. He neatly explodes the myth that transplant is some kind of cure.
There is nothing idiotic about objecting to an opt-out model, no matter how much you or Mr Raincoat feel that the end justifies the means. It does not and it never will.
Mr Raincoat deserves the contempt I have thrown at him as my objection has been reasonably argued and is far from idiotic.
PTB and Julia: Quite.
The first part of that is a long-winded way of getting to the same weak slippery slope argument you and PT made in the comments of the earlier post.
Is the success rate of transplants relevant? If the success rate were to approach 100% would you rethink your opposition to the opt-out model?
The slippery slope is only a logical fallacy where there is no slippery slope. State intervention in personal decisions on giving is a slippery slope and is therefore not a fallacy. To point this out and to maintain a consistent ethical position is far from “the road to idiotville”.
No, 100% success wouldn’t make any difference to my objection – because the principle is precisely the same – I merely mention it in passing, that it is not some kind of panacea as is frequently implied. Opt-out is always unethical. The only ethical position is informed consent.
As an aside – because it was raised on the other thread- what is your position on organ trading for reward?
I’m really not going to waste my time with someone trying to score points, you really should take my tweet with a pinch of salt and stop your moaning. If you have anything substanital to say, by all means post it on your blog or offer it up to other CiFers on my article.
No one is scoring points here. However, thanks for your sanctimonious offering anyway.
I have no plans to register with or comment on CiF. I have made my case – repeatedly – here. Nothing the presumed consent lobby has said changes the basic unethical nature of attempting to deny informed consent.
I took your tweet in exactly the way I should, as rampant idiocy – and I if wish to moan, I will, thank you very much.
And I’ll ask the same question of you that I asked of H&M – where do you stand on organ trading?
—————————
Update I see that the final question has already been answered in response to Tim. Although it’s not entirely clear whether you are actively in favour given the obfuscation about wealthy people outbidding poor people, which wasn’t the question.
‘I’m really not going to waste my time with someone trying to score points, you really should take my tweet with a pinch of salt and stop your moaning. If you have anything substanital to say, by all means post it on your blog or offer it up to other CiFers on my article,’ so sayeth Carl.
Boggling stuff. You wander into a stranger’s place (for want of a better metaphor), overhear them saying something you don’t like, go out into the street with a megaphone and tell anyone listening that they’re an idiot. Then, when they say something about you doing this, you come back into their place, tell them to stop moaning or come over to your place and say it there. Absurd.
Can’t argue your case in a dignified and proper manner? Nah, better to kick the messenger than risk having your arguments shown up to be far down that slippery slope towards our bodies being stamped ‘Property of HM Govt’.
Over my dead body. Oh…
Telling people what to do is what Carl does. He’s telling Timmy how to run his blog at the moment…
Organs from live donors for money? This is a different matter entirely and IMO much more ethically troubling than ‘presumed consent’ for the simple reason that in the latter case we’re talking about dead bodies – There can be no consequences years down the line for a corpse.
I am not in favour of ‘organ trading’ because I worry it would lead to exploitation and be beset by corruption because of the imbalances in wealth & power we have in our society. At the same time, I do accept some of the arguments in favour, and with very tough regulation and oversight, and strict assessment of competence of the would-be donors, I might just about be convinced that it could work.
I realise that Timmy usually cites the Iranian example, but trading can also be for post mortem organs in order to benefit the donor’s estate.
Frankly, I have no problems with the principle providing there is no coercion and the donor is fully informed before making the decision.