Scott Adams' BlogWheelchairs in Space
The other day a friend suggested building orbiting space stations for folks with mobility problems. Wheelchairs and walkers are optional in zero gravity. Grandma could fly around the space station all day long.
0 CommentsIs The Slippery Slope Real?
Is the Slippery Slope argument EVER rational?
One example of a slippery slope that I keep hearing is seat belt laws. Seat belts started out as optional equipment but eventually became mandatory.
But that seems like a reasonable change. Are we afraid of reasonable changes?
0 CommentsRobots Read News - About Scientology
If your firewall is blocking this image, see it here on @ScottAdamsSays.
#scientology,#HBO
0 CommentsVoluntary Parent Tests
Humorists have often pointed out that you need a license to go fishing but you don’t need a license to create a human being and ruin its life through bad parenting.
I can’t imagine my government requiring a license for parenting, no matter how sensible the idea sounds. To do so would be incompatible with basic freedom.
But what about a voluntary test for parents?
0 CommentsThe Sameness Illusion
Today I read an opinion that I didn’t understand, criticizing the media for not understanding a study. So I read that study. I didn’t understand it. And I still have an opinion. Because this is the Internet, damn it.
The topic of the study is whether or not the amount of time a mother spends with a kid matters to the outcome. Seems important to know, right?
0 CommentsRationality Engine for Assisted Dying - Prep Phase
Update 4/7/15: New questions added from comments. I will ask Jimmy Akin to add any questions of his own and begin responding.
This post is strictly to prep for an upcoming “verdict” from me on the topic of assisted dying, using the Rationality Engine I have been testing in this blog.
The Rationality Engine attempts to turn the uninformed and irrational opinions of the public into a coherent verdict via a system that has the following features:
0 CommentsEnd War Forever with a Chip
War seems like a permanent part of the human condition. It has been with us forever and there is no obvious end in sight. So I think you would agree that if we had a reasonable plan to end war in 200 years, for example, that would be an amazing accomplishment for humanity.
So this is a 200-year plan for ending war. Hold your objections until you see all the parts. Then feel free to fix it or fail it in the comments. How close can we get to ending war? You never know…
0 CommentsRobots Read News 27 - Donald Trump’s new project.
If your firewall is blocking the image you can see it here on Twitter.
California Debate on Assisted Dying - Search for a Unicorn
California’s politicians are considering legislation on assisted dying. I plan to get involved in the debate but I have one problem: I can’t find anyone who is against it.
Can you help me find a human with an opposing opinion? If such a human exists, he or she must be as rare as a unicorn because I can’t find that person.
My understanding is that at least two organizations oppose the legislation. The AMA is opposed to doctors being in the business of assisting death. I certainly understand that from the organization’s perspective. But organizations are not people.
Likewise, the Catholic Church opposes assisted dying on religious grounds. I get that too. A church needs to be consistent. But a church is not an individual.
I am looking for any California citizen who believes the government should be allowed to prevent his or her own loved ones from dying in comfort instead of suffering in agony for months. Is anyone on that side? Anyone?
My understanding is that the vote in California might be close. Half of our elected representatives might be under the mistaken impression that voters are in favor of the government making their loved ones suffer in agony for months for no reason. The reality (which I am testing here) is that there is no real opposition from citizens. The opposition comes from organizations with a self-preservation motive. And organizations are not people. They do not suffer with people. They do not have loved ones. They do not pay property taxes in California.
The last time I asked this question I discovered exactly two people in the entire United States who were opposed to assisted dying. They were married to each other and both earned a living (in part) by writing articles about this sort of thing.
Over the course of my entire life, I have never met anyone who wanted the government to make personal decisions about their level of pain. It is a myth that such people exist. And yet the laws of the land seem to imagine these unicorns are the majority of voters.
My ideal debate partner on this topic would be a Catholic Bishop living in California. But any California-based representative of the church would be good too. My offer is to debate this topic with a worthy spokesperson from the other side, in any forum. I would be happy to include an opposing argument in this blog as well.
Maybe I am wrong, but I think the so-called “debate” on assisted dying is a complete fraud. Individuals all seem to be on the same side (in favor) and organizations such as the AMA and the Catholic Church are the only opposition. And organizations are not people. They get to speak on topics, but they do not get to vote.
Does anyone have a connection to a Catholic Bishop willing to take the side of putting the government in charge of managing my personal level of pain before I die? I would like to meet such a person for a public debate.
Update 8:00 AM PST
Okay, I feel I need to clarify my point. My hypothesis is that the existence of a debate over assisted dying is a mass illusion. And I mean that in a literal sense, not in the sense of winning an argument by clever wording. I am saying that in a literal sense, this is a mass illusion.
Do you realize how outrageous that claim is?
And yet how easy to disprove. All we need is one person to come forward and say some version of “I prefer that the government decides how much pain I suffer at the end of my death, not me.”
Here is my hypothesis for the cause of the mass illusion. I think that when the question of assisted death is posed in language that is unclear, reasonable people say they oppose it. It makes total sense to oppose an unclear proposition about life and death coming from your government. So what you really have is a normal risk-avoidance response from normal people.
But only when the question is unclear, or the details surrounding it are unknown.
What happens when you ask the question about assisted death clearly? It turns out that everyone is on the same page. So let me state the question clearly here:
Do you want the government to decide how much pain you or your loved ones should suffer before dying? (The alternative is that you, your doctor, and your loved ones would make the decisions without the government.)
There you have the question written clearly. Does anyone oppose it?
I realize that reasonable people can oppose laws based on the details. But in this case we have the example of states already doing similar things with no big problems and some surprising benefits. It turns out that a lot of people go through the process to get the end-of-life pills and don’t use them. Apparently it feels good to have the option in case things get worse.
So the question of whether a practical law can be fashioned has been answered by example. And there is literally no one in favor of the government deciding how much they should suffer.
The so-called debate about assisted dying is LITERALLY a mass illusion.
Prove me wrong by finding an informed person who disagrees.
Update 3/31/15
I have one volunteer (over on Twitter) to take the side that assisted dying should not be legal in California. If you see a better candidate, please upvote here so I don’t miss the comment.
Update 2 3/31/15
I am in conversation with Jimmy Akin (see his website) about taking this conversation to our respective websites. But keep in mind that I am still looking for the unicorn (an ordinary citizen with an opposing opinion). I conceded that organizations are opposed to assisted death laws for reasons that make sense for the organization but not citizens in general. And obviously the reps for those organizations will have views consistent with who pays their bills.
Update 3 4/1/15
I have traded a few emails with Jimmy Akin to see if we can get a conversation on this topic going but I haven’t yet found a point of disagreement. (This was my prediction, by the way.) So far I have seen two emails explaining why he would prefer having no option for assisted death, but no opinion yet on why that personal preference should be binding on me.
Update 4 4/2/15
Jimmy will be arguing from a “common good” standard. I will send him some questions to get things going and report back here in a few days.
—————————————–
In other news, how about a robot that swims ashore from a military ship to look around. Already here. Soon I expect robots and humans fighting side-by-side, with the robots having some autonomy even during a firefight.
And if FaceBook succeeds with its drones that provide Internet access to remote places, soon an African tribesman will be able to check his Instagram account. So, that’s like progress or something.
——————————————
@ScottAdamsSays (my dangerous tweets)
@Dilbert_Daily (Dilbert-related tweets)
My book on success: “I’m only about halfway through but can definitely highly recommend it to anyone, young and old. It’s a quick read…but who would have guessed that I’d be highlighting so much that I want to go back to?!“ - Sarah (Amazon 5-star review March 14, 2015)
Robots Read News of the Kraft/Heinz Merger
If your firewall is blocking the image, see it on Twitter here.
Humor Dimensions: Recognition, mean, clever, bizarre
Brevity: Good (could lose the word “have” in first panel)
Inappropriateness: High (bathroom humor)
0 Comments
