 jklugman says: "[Bush] cares more about frozen embryos than he does about Lebanese civilians." This is absurd, intellectually dishonest, the worst sort of cynicism, despicble. It's David Corn. But even for him, a new low. Extracting stem-cells from frozen embyros (and in the process, killing them) holds great promise to advance medical technology and save lives. The long-term consequences of bombing Lebanon & Hezbollah (and in the process, killing hundreds of civilians and inflicting great suffering on the survivors) are more ambiguous, and do not guarantee a long-lasting peace. I do not see how one can oppose the former but not the latter. I'm aware that you don't, JK, you wouldn't have been in agreement with Corn otherwise. That you don't see the worlds apart difference between these two issues is truly mysterious to me. Now the U.S. is the big bully....why doesn't any other country get a bad rap...you don't see them swooping in to save the day... I have to agree with JK. How can one vigorously oppose stem cell research <b> because it "takes innocent lives" </b>, yet do nothing to stop a military action--one with little chance of positive outcome-- that also takes innocent lives? Do I think we should get involved in Hezbollah? I don't know. But I have a difficult time understanding the contradictions in ideology that our current president displays. The Daily Show just ripped into Bush over this. Bush has repeatedly said he is against destroying life to save life (1). It is impossible to square that principle with his endorsement of Israel's bombing of Lebanon. The Daily Show? Comedy? You're actually seriously referencing the wiseass smartalec in the back of the class on a serious topic like this? He is going to purposely miss the point for the sake of cynical humor; the only type he knows. Good grief, JK, what's your excuse? You are an intelligent guy, why engage in such intellecual dishonesty? You can be against Israels actions and for embrionic stemcell research and vice versa and all possible combinations of opinion because the two are not related in the slightest. Surely you can see that. Presumably, we value political actors who act on principle. Bush articulated a principle: don't destroy life to save life. This allegedly guides his stand on federal funding for stem-cell research, but it certainly does not guide his stand on letting Israel bomb Lebanon (nor, as the Daily Show pointed out, his tolerance for the tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq). This hypocrisy suggests in fact that Bush does not in fact believe in the principle he elucidated. [i]don't destroy life to save life[i] You have taken this entirely out of context, and you know it, and therein the dishonesty. In the absurd context to which you've shifted this stated principle, one could not defend one's family against an intruder bent on their murder. All wars would be impossible. The earth would be ruled by evil. So elementry. So simple. Think things though. [i][edit : the italics were meant to end at the end of the first line] That's the thing about principles. They are supposed to stand apart from context. "In the absurd context to which you've shifted this stated principle, one could not defend one's family against an intruder bent on their murder. All wars would be impossible. The earth would be ruled by evil. So elementry. So simple. Think things though." This just begs the question, what is the principle that guides Bush's decisions? I think your exhortation would be better addressed to President Bush than to me. Stem cells is an American topic, Lebanon situation is Israeli problem and they're dealing with it. pyrogyne stated that the conflict there will have 'little chance of positive outcome'... I wonder where she's got that erroneous notion from? Bush's endorsement isn't with Israel bombing Lebanon, but with Israel defending itself after an unprovoked attack, killing and kidnapping of its citizens. "Bush's endorsement isn't with Israel bombing Lebanon, but with Israel defending itself after an unprovoked attack, killing and kidnapping of its citizens." Then why can't Bush allow research for stem-cell funding, not endorsing destroying embryos, but endorsing scientists using stem-cells to research cures for diseases like Parkinson's? klugman at it again. The US can do no right. ANd he has never met a terrorist or dictatorship he did not like. JK, I just cannot believe how either utterly oblivious or doggedly intellectually dishonest you are being on this. What is the principle that guides Bush's decisions? You're suggesting there is one principle for all things? "That's the thing about principles. They are supposed to stand apart from context. " Say what?! What you may be confusing here, is the broad context to which the priniciple applies, with the situational circumstances within that context. Circumstances within the context rarely if ever effect the principle, true, but the principle has no business in application outside the context to which it applies and is intended. Again, so simple. First of all, I suspect your understanding of principle is the exact opposite of practically every English-speaking person in the world. But I leave that up to readers to decide for themselves. I suspect there is no dictionary entry for "principle" that gives it such a qualifier-heavy definition that you do. If you find one, let me know. Second of all, I am surprised that you agree with me that Bush is not consistently following the principle he stated with regard to stem-cell research. Third, this "explanation" evades the questions I posed earlier and begs new ones. My original question still stands: (a) What is the principle behind Bush's stand on stem-cell research? Here are the new questions your explanation raises: (b) What is the "situational circumstance" and the "broad context" of the stem-cell issue? (c) What is the "situational circumstance" and the "broad context" of the issue of Israel attacking Hezbollah and in the process harming civilians? (d) What is the principle behind the Bush administration's allowing Israel to bomb civilians in the course of attacking Hezbollah? (e) What is so different about the "broad contexts" of the stem-cell issue and the Israel-... Wow, when you don't get the basics the confusion that follows becomes exponentially vast. If you expect that I am going to untangle this mess simply to teach you that the principle held to re SCR is entirely independent from and not related to the principles applied as related to the response of nations to attack or support for nations doing so or whatever the hell else you would like to attempt to connect to SCR, you would be wrong. Your tact seems to be if nonsense isn't working, apply more nonsense. If you want, I would settle for answers to questions a, d, and e. After all, this is basic stuff according to you. Well, I will aswer e, as it's the only one relevent to my initial objection, but it won't be for minimum of an hour. jklugman, the man's wrong (Bush that is) on this issue. Just like you, he does make mistakes here and there, this is one of them in my opinion. |
View the Top Clips from July 21, 2006
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
