Michael J. Fox Stem Cell Research Ad Ben Cardin Maryland

[ayeshamcat]

Michael J Fox = my hero. Its fantastic how he still lives his life to the full even with this horrible condition - my grandad has it, i know how restricting and stressful it is.

MJF FOR LIFE!!!! :) :) :)

[MrCombine]

LOL

[KeanuReeeves]

mjf, what a loser, killing babies to save himself.....even the famous get tested

[woodtothechuck]

You do know that they don't kill babies right?

[KeanuReeeves]

all sins will be forgiven except those against the Holy Spirit. Thou Shalt Not Kill.

[woodtothechuck]

Stem cell research = Thou did not kill. Thou used what someone else wasn't gonna use. Dumbass. Religion over Science, Science would absolutely kick Religions ass.

[KeanuReeeves]

all sins will be forgiven except those against the Holy Spirit

[McJesus007]

These embryos are clusters of undifferentiated cells, they are not sentient at all. Stop using religion to justify your attacks on science. One is based on logical deduction and empirical observation while the other is based on faith. They have nothing to do with each other so you can't use one to disprove or discredit the other.

[KeanuReeeves]

the Lord said first seek the Kingdom of God, obortion is an obamination to the Lord

[MSMRU]

you know how i know your a religious hillbilly fool?

you can't spell words like ABORTION or ABOMINATION

[KeanuReeeves]

because of obortion obama is an obamanation

[KeanuReeeves]

you are endanger of hellfire....proverbs....when you call someoone a fool

[MSMRU]

seriously. please keep it to yourself.

[KeanuReeeves]

you first

[MSMRU]

your still a religious stupid hillbilly fool. I'm okay with religion, but please, keep it to yourself, because i don't think you realize how much of an ASSHOLE you are making the christian community out to be be. seriously

[KeanuReeeves]

feel sorry for you mjf, because you would take an innocent life to protect your own

[Miketheguitarman]

ohai! xD msg me. id is on my profile.

anyone reading this? msg meeH! js

[ATrue13thknight]

All of us who suffer from Parkinsons need to unite and as a group have our voice heard.

[mattrett]

Yeah! What bat200 said! :0) I coulda used ya 100 comments ago.

[bat200]

With nearly a 35 year advantage over embryonic stem cell research, you would hope that adult stem cells have more to show at this point in time.

[mattrett]

"I pity you" is funny. It's a lie that you pity me; you have contempt for me and apparently anyone who disagrees with you on this issue. You "any questions?" and "sigh" and "wow. just...wow" betray your lack of an ability to argue without feeling God-like. I don't pity you. I just think you're wrong and contemptuous. My bullshit detector works great. It's been pinging since you first replied to my post.

[EWTHeckman]

And to say the ad is a lie, is the "real" lie, even when supported by evidence and logical questions which you won't/can't answer?

I pity you. Your BS detector is so badly broken that it has truth and lies completely backward. I really hope you fix it before life breaks you just as badly.

[EWTHeckman]

"So what if you argue non-ESCR is closer?"

Sigh. I've said it before, and I guess I have to say it at LEAST one more time: See Point C above for why it matters.

[EWTHeckman]

Wow. Just... wow.

So this ad is true in spite of the fact that you won't (because you can't) answer my challenge to explain how anyone could not possibly think it's referring to anything other than ESCR? So it's true because merely because you say so, even though you haven't offered a lick of evidence or logic? All you have done is make bald, UNSUPPORTED assertions that it's true!

(continued)

[mattrett]

So what if you argue non-ESCR is closer? My argument is that we should do both/everything not one or the other, and that since ESCR is the one with less of a track record is de facto the one with the more hope/promise. Anyone who honestly believes the ad is a "lie" is living in a world of lies where nothing is true unless it fits his or her own pre-conceived notions. The ad is beyond reproach from a lie/truth angle.

[EWTHeckman]

"You'll stick with facts and reality...that doesn't leave much room for hope...faith...religion."

Still trying to bring this in, eh? I'll say this: It is my firm opinion that any hope, faith and religion which does not conform to reality is false and must be discarded.

[EWTHeckman]

I've shown that research on non-ESCR treatments is closer to producing results than ESCR. You have offered no counter-evidence. That means that on the basis of point C, the ad is clearly a lie.

Points A and B are based on the viewer's KNOWLEDGE and OPINION which can obviously differ from yours. Or do you consider "silly things like other people's opinions" to be irrelevant?

[EWTHeckman]

You argued that Mr. Fox meant ESCR based on the words "most promising." The basis for that judgement was that IN YOUR OPINION, ESCR is the most promising. What you did not address was how those words COULD NOT POSSIBLY mean anything other than ESCR in these cases:

A) The viewer doesn't know there is a difference

B) The viewer's opinion is that non-ESCR is more promising

C) Based on actual experimental results to date.

(continued)

[mattrett]

You'll stick with facts and reality...that doesn't leave much room for hope...faith...religion. I've already argued the ESCR vs. all SCR point; won't keep doing it. You're harder to shake than Parkinson's, which will be history before you or I are presuming we live life-expectancy lifespans. Oh, I asked you why supporting ESCR meant NOT supporting other SCR. You've argued as if it's one or the other.

[EWTHeckman]

"It's all irrelevant to you, silly things like other people's opinions."

Opinions are to facts as daydreams are to reality. I'll stick with facts and reality, thank you.

[EWTHeckman]

"You've never answered anything I've asked."

Really? Point it out and I'll answer it.

While you're at it, try getting back to the central point of this whole thing and answering my question. In order for this ad to be anything other than a lie, it MUST be unmistakably about ESCR. I'm still waiting for you to explain how it could not possibly be taken as saying that Bush & Steele oppose non-ESC research.

[mattrett]

You've never answered anything I've asked. It's all irrelevant to you, silly things like other people's opinions. It may turn out that ESCR doesn't yield all the cures in the world one day, but nothing—in my opinion—will have been wasted for trying. Financially, we've wasted more money on less important, less potentially useful things. I guess we'll begin to see after November 7th, when Cardin wins easily.

[EWTHeckman]

Maybe you're the one who needs to check your memory. You did not say anything at all about him opposing any portion of the bill, just that he didn't think it went far enough.

You haven't ever answered any of the other challenges in my previous message either. It's not like you answered them and your answers were forgotten. The ENTIRE argument is RIGHT HERE for review at any time.

[mattrett]

Nothing's been cured to be again-cured. And I'm sure I don't have to explain why someone would vote against something despite being for parts of the bill at hand. Sigh. I've explained it. Your arguments are very MEMENTO. I'm serious that you could benefit from some ESCR.

[EWTHeckman]

You have yet to explain how the words "most promising" COULD NOT POSSIBLY mean anything other than ESCR. That's the ONLY way this ad could be honest.

Do you have PROOF that ESCR is closer to finding a cure for Parkinson's than any other research? I've repeatedly referred to evidence to back up my claims. So far you have only posted unsupported assertions. Actual evidence that ESCR is closest to finding a cure for Parkinson's would move your argument from wishful thinking into objective reality.

[EWTHeckman]

You TRIED to explain away his vote with the lame excuse that he agreed with it, but it didn't go far enough. But you didn't explain why he voted AGAINST something he supposedly AGREES with.

As for one rider winning, why would you continue pouring money into searching for a second cure once one has been found? Should we start searching for a second Smallpox cure?

[mattrett]

It's a stupid analogy because while everyone is racing for a cure, in a horse race, not everybody wins—only one rider wins. That is how you and people like you (I guess, the "non-dense minority" is how you'd see it) think—us vs. them. The ad is 100% honest. Cardin's vote has already been explained. Move on to a new line of argument besides sputtering the same tired ones that will be out-voted November 7th.

[EWTHeckman]

I will say it again for the reality challenged: This ad is a lie because it implies that Bush & Steele oppose research that they actually fully support and that Ben Cardin supports research that he actually voted against!

[EWTHeckman]

Man, you are as dense as a post!

The point is that everyone is anxious to find a cure as soon as possible. That is what makes it like a race—there's a rush to reach the finish as soon as possible. The "winner" is those people who get the cure once the finish line is crossed.

You keep claiming this ad is honest because ESCR is the "most promising" when in fact, ASCR is far closing to developing a cure for Parkinson's.

[mattrett]

Finding a cure is nothing like a horse race! That is your problem. You see it as an us vs. them with a "winner." It's not an either-or. No one is recommending doing away with everything BUT ESC. You're really off "track" with this horse-race thing. Glue factory awaits.

[EWTHeckman]

Which is more cruel? To point out that there is a horse nearing the finish line, or telling people to bet on the crumpled heap in the first turn by telling them he could be really, really fast, if he could just stay on his feet?

[EWTHeckman]

Finding a cure for a disease is very much like a horse race. Once a cure is found, it doesn't matter what the also-ran was.

In the case of Parkinson's, the ASC horse is rounding the final bend with human trials in progress. Meanwhile, the ESC horse just fell down in the first turn with tumors formed in all the test rats.

(continued)

[mattrett]

"Today on ABC, Fox responded, "What is crueler? To not have hope or to have hope?" He pointed out that "it's not false hope, it's a very informed hope. I mean, it's hope that's informed by the opinion of our leading scientists, almost to the point of unanimity" that embryonic stem cell research offers tremendous potential for treating and and even curing a wide range of diseases and injuries."

[mattrett]

You're Rush, I'm Fox. From ThinkProgress.org: "Last week, Rush Limbaugh called Michael J. Fox "cruel" for giving people "false hope" that stem cell research will lead to medical breakthroughs:

When you start telling them there's a cure around the corner if only somebody gets elected, you are misleading them. You are creating a false hope scenario and that is cruel."

[EWTHeckman]

BTW, are you aware that Ben Cardin voted AGAINST funding research which might make it possible to do ESCR WITHOUT destroying embryos? Success at such research would remove the major ethical barrier to ESCR.

Check the House web site (clerk dot house dot gov) and look for vote # 380 in 2006.

That certainly does not count as fully supporting stem cell research!

[mattrett]

Sigh, this argument is so far beyond the ad now...as I originally pointed out. But anyway, I'm sure you know why he voted against it—it was bc it didn't go far enough. Now who's lying by omission?

[EWTHeckman]

Bwaahahahahahahah!!! What a load of hooey!

A step in the right direction is a step forward, no matter how big or small it actually is.

Lame. Lame. Lame.

So even though the ad is "honest" because it really means ESCR even though it never once mentions ESCR vs. non-ESCR, it's still "honest" even when the candidate who "fully supports" ESCR has voted against ESCR?

What a sad, twisted world you live in.

[EWTHeckman]

So where does the definition for the words "most promising" come from? The ad itself? The viewer? How about the results of scientific experiments?

The article is direct evidence about the result of science experiments, therefore it is directly relevant to how science defines "most promising."

I am VERY curious to see how you explain how the ad itself and scientific results cannot possibly define what the "most promising" research is.

[EWTHeckman]

"I don't see why anyone on the opposite side of the issue from you could benefit from "misleading.""

What? You mean the purpose of a political ad endorsing a candidate is NOT to convince people to vote for them? Who knew?

"I just have hope for people afflicted with diseases."

Why did you say this? Do you think that I don't have such hope?

[mattrett]

"Mislead" = to deliberately lead in the wrong direction. What I meant was people on my side of the issue have nothing to gain by "lying." We're just arguing what we honestly believe. Not misleading, LEADING. I have no clue if you have hope.

[EWTHeckman]

"people on my side of the issue have nothing to gain by "lying.""

You hope to gain more votes for Ben Cardin. In fact, you pointed out earlier that this ad is accomplishing just that.

Or are you saying that you don't gain anything if Mr. Cardin gets more votes? Now THAT is hard to believe!

[EWTHeckman]

"I have no clue if you have hope"

Then why did you make that comment?

[mattrett]

"I just have hope for people afflicted with diseases" = My hope leads me to be willing to try anything reasonable. I think ESC is very reasonable. Your hope is bounded by other concerns (you think ESC doesn't work, so...time, money,or unspoken reasons). I have nothing much to gain directly by Cardin winning, no. I prefer Dems. (Fox is bipartisan, having stumped for Specter. Just as an aside.)

[EWTHeckman]

Are you aware that Specter is called a RINO by most conservatives? (RINO=Republican In Name Only)

You may not gain anything personally from Cardin winning, but then again, he is the one who paid for the ad and he is the one who benefits from the votes it gains for him.

[mattrett]

No, your Yahoo news link was off topic. We were discussing the merits of what's said in the ad. You seem to feel anyone with a different take than yours is lying or distorting. It's very Bill O'Reilly. I don't see why anyone on the opposite side of the issue from you could benefit from "misleading." I have no stake in it. I just have hope for people afflicted with diseases. So does Fox. We feel that hope is worth the moolah. ("That's rich!" went out with, "Oh, you kid!")

[EWTHeckman]

The actual scientific results which show this ad are misleading (at best) are off topic? That's rich!

[mattrett]

I respectfully disagree with your assertion. I believe we're a bit o.t. now, too...

[EWTHeckman]

Furthermore, when you compare the words "most promising" to Parkinson's research funded by the "Michael J. Fox Foundation" you will find that ESCR just smacked hard into the wall again: cancer. (Search Yahoo news for Steven Goldman dated 10-22-06.)

By comparison, ASCR into a Parkinson's cure is already in human testing.

By any definition I can think of, that means non-ESCR fits the definition of "most promising".

[mattrett]

I think your last two comments are filled with all weasel words except for about three of them. I also think you're very invested in this to argue the point so strongly; with all the ads out there, you've picked the most honest one...ever?...to attempt to discredit. Sadly, it's not working.

[EWTHeckman]

In this case, those "weasel words" mean ESC to you because that's what you define them to mean.

But to someone who doesn't know there is a difference between ESCR and non-ESCR, those words mean "ALL stem cell research". And to someone who does know the difference and believes that non-ESCR is more promising, those words mean "non-ESC research."

[EWTHeckman]

I borrowed the phrase "weasel words" from my lawyer. It means "words that mean anything you want them to mean." "Weasel words" are frequently used when the speaker wants the listener to think the speaker means one thing when the speaker actually means something different.

[mattrett]

Sorry, off all day. Yes, that is what I believe. Minus the "weasel words." I can't agree that Fox is a weasel. Jim Caviezel might have uttered a few weasel words in his stem-cell ad, but I don't speak yesteryear languages of the devout.

[EWTHeckman]

So you're still convinced the weasel words "most promising" clearly mean *embryonic* SCR and not some other type of SCR?

[mattrett]

I've already done this. (I think you might be in need of the benefits of some ESC...not trying to scare you but...

[EWTHeckman]

If he wasn't talking about ALL stem cell research then you should have no trouble pointing out where he specified which kind of stem cell research he was talking about.

[mattrett]

The ad does not "talk about ALL stem cell research." It simply does not say that. This ad does not lie or misstate anything. Do you expect an ad to make the argument against itself and then rebut it in order to be completely honest? That's ridiculous.

[EWTHeckman]

The issue at hand is "What does the ad say?" It only talks about ALL stem cell research. Then it says Bush and Steele oppose stem cell research.

Bush and Steele's positions are based ENTIRELY on the difference between ESCR and non-ESCR. To ignore that distinction (as the ad does) is to misstate, i.e., lie about their position.

[mattrett]

The issue at hand is not about whether or not there is a diff between ESC and non-ESC. It's not bold at all. I'm talking about the quotes you manufactured about "All Republicans are against it..." etc. You just made those up, no?

[mattrett]

You did NOT discuss the clear implications of the ad. You invented quotes and said that they were what the ad was saying. You just made it up.

[EWTHeckman]

That's a bold assertion. Tell me again where he specified that there is a difference between ESC and non-ESC in the ad?

[mattrett]

By the way, the "any questions?" line is perfect. It's exactly the neo-con vibe, the know-it-all attitude that loses elections. It's funny that right-wingers think left-wingers are "elites" and yet they are the ones who speak down to anyone who disagrees. I think November 7th will show there have been plenty of questions! :0)

[EWTHeckman]

And when you've been proven wrong, revert to the ad hominem attack again. You are just too predictable.

[mattrett]

I'll take ad hominem over dead wrong, deceptive or biased.

[EWTHeckman]

Fine you do that.

I, on the other hand, will continue to take logical, fact and evidence based beliefs over wishful thinking. I hope you decide to do the same before life smacks you too hard.

[EWTHeckman]

You accused me of lying because I discussed the clear implications of the ad, implications which were clearly understood by those who changed their minds.

Then you stated that the ad is "honest" based on facts which were not even hinted at in the ad. I.e., the ad is "honest" because of facts which are more hidden than the implications I noted based solely on the ad's content.

I thought the definition of "hypocrisy" was to hold someone to a different standard than you follow yourself.

[mattrett]

Yes, lots of questions...like..."ad hominem fallacy"...I think you must mean to say my assertion that your rejection of ESC is Bible-based is false. It's possible you mean it's a "logical fallacy" (sounds like you consult Wikipedia before replying to YouTube videos). I have already argued why I believe you're wrong on every point at hand, pointing out your bias is the only route left. Unless you want to start over? I'm here.

[mattrett]

Your arguments are very typical of your side of the fence; they are based in the idea that people who honestly disagree with you are lying or just don't 'get' what you 'get.' I disagree with you, Fox disagrees with you, the majority of the American electorate disagrees with you. Does everyone disagree with you? No. But the issue will be resolved by people on opposite sides of it who will vote in this and other elections.

[mattrett]

You clearly don't understand "ad hominem." I am not personally attacking you for what I presume is your religious basis in your opposition to ESC. I'm pointing out that that is the reason you're against it, and you're using other arguments that you feel will be more effective. If it's false, tell me it's false. But don't tell me that because I disagree with you, it's because I just want to believe opposite of you so badly I'm delusional. That is childish.

[EWTHeckman]

"I'm pointing out that that is the reason you're against it,"

from Wikipedia:

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy."

(continued)

[EWTHeckman]

more from Wikipedia:

"Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way."

Any questions?

[EWTHeckman]

BTW... you are only ASSUMING you know what I believe. Arguing a fallacy based on an assumption is weak. Very weak.

[mattrett]

It's a logical leap, it's an intuition. But since I'm not looking for points in debating class and instead and using my common sense to divine this divine bias...I still think I'm right about it. If it weren't true, you'd have said so right away to further bolster your non-religious arguments.

[EWTHeckman]

Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. The reason I'm not discussing it is because it has no relevance to the accuracy of this ad. That lack of relevance is why ad hominem arguments are a fallacy.

[EWTHeckman]

Why do you keep trying to use that ad hominem fallacy?

[mattrett]

I'm glad you've realized the fatal flaw in thumping the Bible in order to advocate public policy in the realm of science.

[EWTHeckman]

"nor does Fox claim that."

Sigh... I guess when you really truly want to believe something bad enough, it really doesn't matter what the evidence proves...

[mattrett]

I don't claim nor does Fox claim that. I haven't talked to anyone who would ever admit one ad would change their minds. Study was by HCD Research and Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion.

[EWTHeckman]

Do you claim that either Bush or Steele opposes non-embryonic stem cell research?

Have you talked to anyone who changed their mind because of this ad to find out what perception the ad gave them? I haven't been able to, but I would love to.

[mattrett]

Seriously, you're reaching so hard...I'm not a Fox or Couric groupie so I missed the interview. But I know what is in the ad, and that ain't. What is a lie is to suggest Fox is lying. He's not. You simply disagree with him. Consult your Bible on what constitutes lying.

[EWTHeckman]

Did you see Mr. Fox's interview with Katie Couric? He said, "People that are against stem cell research, embryonic or otherwise, whatever..." He explicitly included non-ESC research as something there is supposedly opposition to. That is consistent with his statements in these ads.

There is NO SUCH OPPOSITION to non-ESC research, something he claims Mr. Steele, et al, does oppose. That is the lie of the ad.

[mattrett]

BTW, there is a study out showing how effective this series of ads is...and it's EFFECTIVE. I would argue that is because most people who understand all the facts would come to the decision that Fox is on the right side of the issue. You apparently think it means the ad has successfully tricked them. I just find the American voter's cognitive abilities more "promising."

[mattrett]

So you feel the ad is condescendingly targeting the "ignorant" and trying to fool them? If you honestly feel the only conclusion possible from this ad is "Repubs oppose all sc cures," I can't agree with you. Nancy Reagan doesn't...quite a few Repubs are on the side of Michael J. Fox. But not the ones whose opponents Fox is endorsing.

[EWTHeckman]

If "everyone knows" it's about ESC, then why bother with the ad? Those who do know about the debate and the positions already have the facts. That would make the ad worthless and a waste of money.

They spent the money, therefore the ad is targeted at someone. The only people left who could be swayed by this ad are the ones ignorant of the debate. Because the ad only specifies ALL SC research, then the only conclusion possible from the ad is "Repubs oppose ALL SC cures," which is a pure lie.

[EWTHeckman]

BTW, with a 500 character limit, I do NOT have space to list every single candidate Fox opposes or any other candidates who could be (and probably are) painted with his overly broad brush. I'm sticking with Republicans for shorthand purposes. Your argument on this point is meaningless, so just drop it.

[EWTHeckman]

"Promising" before you begin experimentation is one thing. Continuing to hang on to "promising" after experiments have shown severe problems is quite another.

Have you ever heard the saying "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"? This saying is very true when it comes to research funding. Why are you so anxious to toss experimentally positive treatments in favor of one with major roadblocks?

Back to the ad hominem fallacy again, are we?

[mattrett]

So you've gone from "99% pure lie" to "deceitful." I'm making progress. Soon, you and I will be experimenting on embryonic stem cells for fun!

[mattrett]

He didn't say ESC bc it's obvious that that is what those two men share in common—anti-ESC. Everyone knows non-ESC is okay by Bush.

[mattrett]

Regardless of the candidate-specific ads Fox has done, this ad does not say ALL Repubs, even if I say more Repubs are anti-ESC than Dems. ESC *is* promising. Will its promise be realized? Fox is optimistic. He's saying that is his stance, Cardin is on his side, vote Cardin. Tells no lies and insults no person or party to make that point. If you feel ESC isn't promising, argue it...but I bet you're biased against it for religious reasons and using the sci to reinforce that bias...no?

[EWTHeckman]

Furthermore, if Mr. Fox was talking about ESC as being the most promising, then why didn't he say ESC? It's not like he did it off the cuff without thinking through every single word.

The reason is that they INTENDED to paint with an overly broad brush of "ALL Stem Cell Research". That is being deceitful and dishonest.

[EWTHeckman]

This ad is being used in other races. That's why I'm saying Republicans.

You had said that you "could argue" that ESC is more promising. But that is only true in a blue sky, first blush fashion. But in a rubber meets the road, "we've been experimenting and here are our results" hard science fashion, ESC is clearly NOT the most promising.

[mattrett]

I can't take you seriously when you say the ad "clearly says Republicans oppose all stem cell research." It targets TWO men, Bush & Steele, who "would put limits on the most promising stem cell research." That is not only technically true, it's true. You and they would argue "but it's not promising!" but that is the core difference of opinion. That is what's up to the voters. The ad is spotless. No political ad I've seen this year is as factual and direct.

[EWTHeckman]

(ACS for Parkinson's and non SC for the auto-immune that leads to diabetes plus whatever caused the islet cells to regenerate in experiments. ESC wasn't part of those experiments.) Based on only what is in the ad, it clearly says Republicans oppose all stem cell research.

[EWTHeckman]

The only way this ad is at all honest is if the viewer ALREADY KNOWS that there is a difference between ESC and all other kinds (because the ad doesn't mention it) AND, in the VIEWER'S judgement, ESC is the most promising. And for two of the mentioned diseases, ESC is NOT the most promising. (continued)

[mattrett]

it's why I support Ben Cardin. And with so much at stake, I respectfully ask you to do the same. [NOWHERE does it say all Republicans are against ALL stem-cell research. You may object to "life-saving."] No lies, no generalizing. It's probably the most honest political ad in existence.

[mattrett]

the freedom to explore it.] ]Fortunately, Marylanders have a chance to vote for Ben Cardin. Cardin fully supports [ie, no limits] life-saving stem-cell research [he strongly believes it's life-saving if it pans out]—

[mattrett]

[ALL] Stem cell research offers hope for millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. [HOPE = No guarantees. This is understood.] But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research. [They are against ESC, the "most promising" ie science needing further study &

[EWTHeckman]

Earlier you pointed out that the ad doesn't mention anything about ASC vs. ESC. Therefore, it only talks about ALL stem cell research. Do you deny that?

[mattrett]

That is not what the ad says. Yes, I can honestly say this is not what the ad is saying.

[EWTHeckman]

Do you think Republicans oppose ALL stem cell research? That's what the ad says. How is the ad truthful in this?

As for my "fake quotes", can you honestly say that they are NOT what the ad is saying? I could do a line by line breakdown of what he says and the clear implications of every statement, but 500 characters is far to little space.

[EWTHeckman]

I know Fox has Parkinson's. I'm not going to argue what someone else said about him.

As for hypotheticals, if there was a major breakthrough in ESC, then we would be back to a pure debate on ethics.

As for the ethics of this ad... (continued)

[mattrett]

I'm not a member of the ESC or bust crowd (is there one), but my position would be to try everything scientists agree is useful, and not to exclude ESC if the objections are Bible-based.

[mattrett]

I think it became de rigeur to use hypotheticals thousands of years ago, but I might have my dates mixed up! :0) Sorry, more seriously, it became good science or logic when you listed a handful of completely made up quotes that you hear when you hear this ad. Again, if you're against something because it's wrong, say so. I'd still disagree, but I'd respect that more than fake quotes or saying Fox is faking his illness (which I know you haven't said, I'm bringing Rush in).

[EWTHeckman]

"You're against this purely for ethical/moral reasons,"

And that is a classic ad hominem fallacy. The "ESC or bust" crowd has actually managed to slow down research into a very promising cure for diabetes. That should be enough to tick off anyone who is truly interested in cures.

BTW, since when is using some mythical "report" in an argument vs. looking at actual scientific results considered to be good science or logic?

[mattrett]

You're against this purely for ethical/moral reasons, and not because of the science (a new report comes in saying, "Yep, 100% that the kind of stem-cell research you're against is effective!" you'd STILL be against it) or because of the money. Both of those are just screens. The reason conservatives refuse to just come out and say, "I"m against it cuz it's wrong" is they know most people would say, "Uh...I don't buy that."

[mattrett]

Yes, he says "stem-cell research"—and says Bush & Steele are for LIMITING IT. That is a fact. Private/federal is not mentioned. None of what you're bringing up is in the ad.

[EWTHeckman]

"Private/federal is not mentioned. None of what you're bringing up is in the ad."

Exactly! That is what's wrong with it!

This ad is simply a classic straw man logical fallacy. It misstates the Republican's position ("opposes all stem cell research") then attacks the misstated position.

[EWTHeckman]

His ad merely says "stem cell research" meaning Republicans opposed all SC research. Do you deny this?

Privately funded ESC research is not restricted. Do you deny this?

Some ESC research is federally funded. Do you deny this?

It is not fair to claim Republicans oppose research beyond what is already happening. That is a broad assertion which must be backed up by evidence.

Do you think that all scientific research must proceed with no concern for the ethics involved?

[mattrett]

I would argue that "most promising" refers to research that could become valuable as opposed to research that is known to be beneficial. I think it's fair to state that Bush & Steele want to limit all research beyond what is already happening. Hardly a lie. I think conservatives would do better to be as plain-spoken as Fox is. How about, "We feel this is wrong?" Isn't the morality what makes conservatives against it? I don't believe it's just because they feel it's a money-waster...

[EWTHeckman]

He says, "George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research." Since Adult Stem Cell research is the most promising "stem cell research" and they have no intention of limiting ASC research. That makes his direct statement a bold, bald faced lie.

The previous quoted statements are the clear implications of this video, especially since he uses the overly broad brush of "stem cell research" which includes forms of SC research which conservatives fully support.

[mattrett]

The only lies are yours because you've put into quotes statements that ARE NOT MADE in this ad. Fox says the research offers "hope" and that he considers it "life-saving." He is advocating "respectfully" that people vote for the candidate who agrees with him on this issue, an issue he knows a lot about. You might not agree with him, but he is not lying. And he's also, which is refreshing and which is why this ad works and so many others fail, civil.

[EWTHeckman]

"Republicans don't want a cure" = lie

"Republicans oppose all stem cell research" = lie

"Republicans oppose all embryonic stem cell research" = lie

"ESC is the only possible cure for these diseases" = lie

"ESC is the most promising cure" = lie

Any questions?

[mattrett]

Oh, yes, since you disagree with it, it's a "lie." Why can't it be differing opinions? Why would anyone, let alone a person with Parkinson's, deliberately "lie" to get attention for research they knew was useless? I guess everything the right-wingers are against are "lies." Like global warming, right?

[EWTHeckman]

This is a 99% pure lie.

Adult Stem Cell research is far better than ESC, with 72 cures available now vs. ESC's 0 cures and cancer and immune system problems. There are NO federal limitations on ASC research.

The ONLY limitation on EMBRYONIC SC research is federal money cannot be used to create and destroy new embryos. ESC research with private funding has NO restrictions.

Sure, ESC *might* be able to cure Mr. Fox's Parkinson's in a few years, if he doesn't mind dying of the resulting cancer.

[Rickster018]

Thanks for posting.  Politics aside, Michael J. Fox is a hero.