As everyone who cares about these things knows by now, Michael J. Fox has made some ads supporting embryonic stem cell research. And Rush Limbaugh indelicately stated that Fox might have been off his medication and was an actor. The accusation, while sounding harsh, isn't entirely off-base. Fox has stated previously that he went off his medications before speaking before a Congressional hearing on embryonic stem cell research. The point, of course, is for people to see the unvarnished Parkinson's in all the uncomfortableness it causes for others to witness.
There's been a lot of dishonesty about what Limbaugh said. He spent 4 hours talking about this on Tuesday, and at least another hour Wednesday. Limbaugh's argument is that anyone who thrusts themselves into a political argument is not immune from criticism simply because they might be a victim in one way or another. People on the other side decried Limbaugh's comments as attacking an innocent victim. But honestly, how is it fair for Fox to run compelling political ads on a hotly debated topic without expecting any argument?
Over at Echidne of the Snakes, the discussion took a particularly nasty turn after I pointed out that both sides are prone to use emotionally-laden arguments. The discussion veered off into arguments that those against embryonic stem cell research should volunteer to be impregnated and give birth to all those embryos (I'm not making this up). But is that actually a useful argument for embryonic stem cell research? It didn't seem so to me, but merely the latest way of trying to shut off discussion. Along the way, I was accused of thinking I was perfect, of enjoying the fact that Fox has Parkinson's because he must have brought it on himself (a most peculiar argument), and at least 2 calls for me to be banned. And to think, it all started because I pointed out that both sides of that discussion use emotion to try to sway opinion! Just another day in the life of this gold-plated witch on wheels. :)
Congratulations on your spanking-new blog. "I'm not making this up."
ReplyDeleteThat was funny. I didn't realize you are such a concrete thinker that you can't distinguish between thought games which are done to clarify and sharpen logic and actual proposals.
:)
Thanks, Echidne.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that I'm such a concrete thinker but that your challenge was put in a concrete way and so I chose to answer it that way. Your "thought game" wasn't designed to "clarify and sharpen logic." It was designed to shut off objections by pro-lifers to embryonic stem cell research. This is similar to other pro-choice arguments used against anyone against abortion (i.e., "if you don't like abortion then you should adopt every child"). It's not just a thought game. It's just a way of shutting off debate.