Twitter locks out Irish Bishop after he criticized euthanasia

Post by slowmovintarget » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 3:32 PM UTC

franciscop wrote: post #120

jkingsbery wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The offending tweet was arguing against all forms of suicide, assisted or otherwise. I'm trying to understand your point charitably, but it escapes me how arguing against suicide could be interpreted as arguing for suicide. I understand that there's a consequentialist argument ("it is going to happen anyway"), but that seems to accept something as inevitable which is not.

Going against legal abortion yields more illegal abortions. Going against legal alcohol yields more illegal alcohol. Going against legal X yields more illegal X. Same concept, going against legal suicide (euthanasia) yields more suicides. Sure overall the number of suicides might go down , maybe even very noticeable, but the quality of care would suffer tremendously. I'm not arguing on suicide vs suicide, but on the…

Post by mod » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 3:35 PM UTC

flerchin wrote: post #138

mensetmanusman wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assume you are right, the way it is being implemented is by threatening doctors to pull the trigger. Humans are too stupid to implement this without horrifying consequences. In the Netherlands a ‘hilarious’ scene occurred when a doctor showed up and killed a patient who was screaming not wanting to die in front of their family. Apparently the patient was not in a mental state to decide not to die after previously bei…

Link or GTFO

Post by swebs » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 3:50 PM UTC

lepton wrote: post #52

corty wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily enough, Das Schloss is often interpreted to be a criticism of the church and organized religion in general. The castle and its workings are seen to be like the clerical teachings, arbitrary, incomprehensible and illogical, but nonetheless highly respected by the plebs.

There was a time when the clergy was Catholic, but might various "scientific experts" be filling that role today?

Post by chiefalchemist » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

DangerousPie wrote: post #22

chiefalchemist wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no, but likely mostly no. Keep in mind, the "intelligence" of those AI algorithms comes from datasets of previous behaviors. Given the popularity (?) of the cancel mindset on this particular platform it's reasonable to expect a bias in said data; and in turn the algorithm. Rinse and repeat.

So you actually believe that Twitter's AI is smart enough to detect that this statement is critical of assisted suicide, and that the data it has been trained on was so heavily biased in favor of assisted suicide that it ends up classifying this as "undesirable content"? That sounds incredibly unlikely to me based on what I know about these kinds of algorithms.

Post by pas » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #42

franciscop wrote: post #17

> And even if euthanasia is just that – and Twitter is very proud to toot its horn as the sensitive and sensible, woke platform that clamps down on promotion and encouragement of self-harm, including its ultimate form, suicide – the tweet, even though it opposed it, got banned. This is such an interesting topic, because while euthanasia can be considered a way of suicide, advocating against it can also be considered…

I had a long and interesting conversation with my father about this. He's retired now, but was a family lawyer (solicitor in the UK). He is vehemently opposed to euthanasia purely on the grounds of his experiences with ailing/aging parents and greedy children - he's had clients tidy up their wills, often with their children looking over their shoulders, and then kill themselves to stop "being a burden" on their famil…