Compulsory organ and blood donation for criminals?

[NJ5]

scottie said:

Ok, So the things required for my point

 

1) If you have a choice to save lives or not, with no negative effects for choosing to save lives, and you choose to not save lives, you are a murderer

 

The things required for your point, that are not required for my point

1) A world full of policemen (ie no farmers, doctors, researchers, teachers etc) would lead to less deaths

2) If you have a choice to dedicate your entire life to something, and that would save lives, then to not do that, you are a murderer.

 

My argument is logical and morally defensible (that's not to say that contrary beliefs aren't logical and morally defensible) The policeman argument is silly, illogical and impractical.

 

You made a silly argument that had some similarities to my argument, then you raised objections to the silly argument you raised, and then you claimed that those objections to your silly argument meant that my argument also was silly.

 

That is exactly what strawmanning is.

Your point is certainly not logical, since it violates the definition of the word murderer. Saying that it's "morally defensible" is nothing, everything is morally defensible according to some weird morals. The "no negative effects" part is also your own assumption, not implied by any logic. To some people with certain beliefs, having their loved ones losing organs after death is certainly negative.

Obviously my counter "argument" was silly, it's called reductio ad absurdum... The burden of proof is on you to show the lack of silliness in calling people murderers when they haven't murdered anyone.