Censorship and Social Media

Wisbech Eagle said:
I vote for people I trust to consult expert opinion and then take appropriate decisions on what we need. Non of us are experts on everything!
Click to expand...
With many 'experts', you would be better off consulting a fortune-telling pig.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Do you regard them as mutilation?

Some being done for health reasons in any case.

No clinician would ever do a procedure that caused harm.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do regard non therapeutic male circumcision as a form of genital mutilation it is the permanent removal of healthy, functional tissue from a non consenting child.

Clinicians perform abortions too, and those undeniably cause harm and end life.
 
eaglesdare said:
Yes, I do regard non therapeutic male circumcision as a form of genital mutilation it is the permanent removal of healthy, functional tissue from a non consenting child.

Clinicians perform abortions too, and those undeniably cause harm and end life.
Click to expand...
An abortion being legal, in strictly regulated circumstances, it has been determined not to, on balance, cause harm. Thus allowing clinicians to perform them without conflicting with the Hippocratic oath. That some disagree with this is understood and respected but in a democracy like ours that doesn’t change the facts.
 
Back to the subject of the thread. I am sure many of you, like myself, have seen some surprising videos recently. Ones featuring well known personalities advocating investments that seem out of character. I have seen Martin Lewis imploring me to invest today in a “little known government scheme” which will generate unbelievable returns. Likewise Ed Balls. They appear completely authentic, apart from the messaging.

They are AI generated. The ability to produce such authentic looking content means we cannot trust anything at first sight. Just today I read of a US Olympian denying the video being circulated, including by the White House, of him apparently saying disparaging things about Canada.

This report by the BBC shows just how much the Russians are now involved in spreading disinformation. Something some posters here really need to heed. This is dangerousl stuff. You are being recruited as a 5th column.

www.bbc.com

How AI is supercharging Russia's online disinformation campaigns

Security experts have warned that Western governments are poorly equipped to counter a new frontier of online disinformation.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
An abortion being legal, in strictly regulated circumstances, it has been determined not to, on balance, cause harm. Thus allowing clinicians to perform them without conflicting with the Hippocratic oath. That some disagree with this is understood and respected but in a democracy like ours that doesn’t change the facts.
Click to expand...

Legality doesn't define morality. Slavery was once legal too and so to was segregation.

Abortion directly ends an innocent human life, causing irreversible harm, which absolutely conflicts with "first, do no harm".

No law erases that ethical fact.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Back to the subject of the thread. I am sure many of you, like myself, have seen some surprising videos recently. Ones featuring well known personalities advocating investments that seem out of character. I have seen Martin Lewis imploring me to invest today in a “little known government scheme” which will generate unbelievable returns. Likewise Ed Balls. They appear completely authentic, apart from the messaging.

They are AI generated. The ability to produce such authentic looking content means we cannot trust anything at first sight. Just today I read of a US Olympian denying the video being circulated, including by the White House, of him apparently saying disparaging things about Canada.

This report by the BBC shows just how much the Russians are now involved in spreading disinformation. Something some posters here really need to heed. This is dangerousl stuff. You are being recruited as a 5th column.

www.bbc.com

How AI is supercharging Russia's online disinformation campaigns

Security experts have warned that Western governments are poorly equipped to counter a new frontier of online disinformation.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
For once Wisbech I share your concerns, maybe more so.
AI is a big danger. From personal experience I have been on the wrong end of AI generated emails that have very cleverly rewritten my own words to try and connect me to some form of presumed scam. Luckily, I was awake enough to just about realise what was going on. Particularly when the 2nd, 3rd and subsequent similar emails arrived all slightly rewritten but saying the same thing.
Be warned.
 
eaglesdare said:
Legality doesn't define morality. Slavery was once legal too and so to was segregation.

Abortion directly ends an innocent human life, causing irreversible harm, which absolutely conflicts with "first, do no harm".

No law erases that ethical fact.
Click to expand...
Morality is a deeply personal and subjective concept. It guides your own view of what is right and wrong but it cannot be imposed by you on others.

Ethics are what society has collectively determined to be acceptable behaviour. Not by individuals like yourself. All of us. You hold personal opinions about morality. Legal abortion being ethically acceptable because society has decided that until a foetus has reached viability, the point at which survival outside the womb is possible, it has not become a human being. It is life that is human but not yet a human life.

There is great deal of misunderstanding about this by the strident anti abortion lobby, with many insults being tossed out. The truth is that no one is in favour of abortion. It’s a horrible thing to even contemplate, let alone go through. Many women are emotionally scarred for life so, from every viewpoint, it’s a procedure that must always be the last resort, the least worse option of a series of bad options.
 
Last edited:
Wisbech Eagle said:
Morality is a deeply personal and subjective concept. It guides your own view of what is right and wrong but it cannot be imposed by you on others.

Ethics are what society has collectively determined to be acceptable behaviour. Not by individuals like yourself. All of us. You hold personal opinions about morality. Legal abortion being ethically acceptable because society has decided that until a foetus has reached viability, the point at which survival outside the womb is possible, it has not become a human being. It is life that is human but not yet a human life.

There is great deal of misunderstanding about this by the strident anti abortion lobby, with many insults being tossed out. The truth is that no one is in favour of abortion. It’s a horrible think to even contemplate, let alone go through. Many women are emotionally scarred for life so, from every viewpoint, it’s a procedure that must always be the last resort, the least worse option of a series of bad options.
Click to expand...

We can debate the morality of abortion all day and in another thread. We all have our views and they most likely will not change.

The original point was that clinicians which you claim "do no harm" can do harm by killing the baby even if it is legal. Plus as you say the women is harmed by being emotionally scarred for life.
 
eaglesdare said:
We can debate the morality of abortion all day and in another thread. We all have our views and they most likely will not change.

The original point was that clinicians which you claim "do no harm" can do harm by killing the baby even if it is legal. Plus as you say the women is harmed by being emotionally scarred for life.
Click to expand...
Try actually reading and understanding the post! Clinicians performing legal abortions are not “killing the baby”. They are performing the legal abortion of a non viable foetus. Women who elect to undergo the procedure are taking their own decisions. They are not being harmed by the clinicians involved.

No clinician will ever do harm. It’s against their oath. Any clinician with your moral position would not involve themselves in abortion procedures. Their employers understand that.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Try actually reading and understanding the post! Clinicians performing legal abortions are not “killing the baby”. They are performing the legal abortion of a non viable foetus. Women who elect to undergo the procedure are taking their own decisions. They are not being harmed by the clinicians involved.

No clinician will ever do harm. It’s against their oath. Any clinician with your moral position would not involve themselves in abortion procedures. Their employers understand that.
Click to expand...

Legal or not, the procedure intentionally ends a human life and that is harm to the child. Essential the clinicians who carry this out are contradicting their oath to "do no harm"

If you want to continue this discussion feel free to create a new thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top