Rush Limbaugh is standing by his claim that Michael J. Fox is exaggerating the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, despite the recent, false claims by the media that he had apologized.
From the transcript: I stand by what I said. I take back none of what I said. I wouldn’t rephrase it any differently. It is what I believe; it is what I think. It is what I have found to be true.
It is completely disgusting to think that people actually listen to this guy, but this response isn’t exactly unexpected. Conservatives need to keep issues such as this in the abstract; Michael J. Fox put a face on stem cell research, and they don’t know what to do. Luckily, even many Republicans are admitting that Limbaugh went a bit over the edge with this one.
Perhaps he was upset because Fox was getting pills and he wasn’t.
108 Comments
Oh man, that’s messed up.
I would like to see him try and tell that to his face.
Rush did apologize.
rushlimbaugh.com
You can’t trust Media Matters.
Define apology…
I don’t think it matters weather he apologized or not. What he said is what he said and no one pressured him to say it. Therefore he meant it.
probabilityZero wrote: “Define apology…”
1. to offer an apology or excuse for some fault, insult, failure, or injury: He apologized for accusing her falsely.
Dictionary.com
Now how about you define “false claims by the media”?
He didn’t offer a full apology, as he’s still accusing him of exaggerating his illness. This recent “apology” was not what myself or media matters were writing about (it’s more recent), but, as NPC said, that’s not the point. His comments about Fox were horrible, and even this new half-apology isn’t much better.
The definition of apology is “to offer an apology”? You sure you looked up the right word?
This is what I got:
One thing is for sure: Limbaugh hasn’t expressed any regret, remorse, or sorrow.
That certainly isn’t what I would call an apology. Besides, he said it, didn’t he? Are you saying we should just let him off the hook because he sort-of apologized?
“He didn’t offer a full apology, as he’s still accusing him of exaggerating his illness.
Plainly, Fox’s symptoms were much more manifest than usual. How is that not exaggerating his illness?
This recent “apology” was not what myself or media matters were writing about (it’s more recent)
True, but there’s enough quoted at Media Matters to serve as an apology (”I stand corrected”).
His comments about Fox were horrible, and even this new half-apology isn’t much better.
Why were the comments “horrible” IYO?
The definition of apology is “to offer an apology”?
The term used was “apologized,” not “apology.” I used the definition of “apologized” since it was the term that had been used. Do you object to that?
One thing is for sure: Limbaugh hasn’t expressed any regret, remorse, or sorrow.
Why would he say “I need to apologize” if he felt no regret, remorse, or sorrow?
“That certainly isn’t what I would call an apology.”
And you are, after all, the boss of the entire English language.
Besides, he said it, didn’t he? Are you saying we should just let him off the hook because he sort-of apologized?
You can do whatever you like.
You might want to get all over PZ for saying he’s limited to three dimensions yet traveling through time while you’re at it.
Don’t let him off the hook if he apologizes or changes his self-description.
Do you understand Parkinson’s disease? Limbaugh himself said he was getting emails from neurosurgeons telling him his claims of Fox exaggerating his illness by taking too little medication were unfounded, and that Fox showed predictable side-effects of the medication he was taking. After this, almost in the same breath, Limbaugh accused Fox of taking too much medication.
He’s just trying to smear Fox because of his support for stem cell research, a cause that really shouldn’t be this partisan.
No, not really, I just thought posting a definition like you did would be a nice touch. But… why did you feel the need to post the literal definition of “apologize” in the first place, and why, then, did you quote me saying: “define apology”? (just asking)
Did you not read what he said? I quoted it above: Okay, I need to apologize, I was wrong because I speculated either he didn’t take his medication or he was acting. He hasn’t really apologized to Fox–he gave a half-apology on air, admitting he was not perfectly accurate, yet refusing to give up any more ground. That’s it.
Yeah, sorry, I was paraphrasing Vonnegut, and I should have asked a physicist like you if it was correct. You can understand how I’m confused, you know, thinking that I’m actually traveling forward (well, not really forward, but you know what I mean) through the fourth dimension just by sitting here.
Also, you still never answered unknowable’s question: Should he be forgiven if he does apologize? I don’t think so. He wouldn’t have said it in the first place if he didn’t mean it.
Anyway, I looked at your blog, and it seemed like nothing more than an attack on “Left Out in America.” Why are you wasting so much effort criticizing one blog? Is this all you do–troll liberal blogs trying to start fights?
Do you understand Parkinson’s disease?
I sure do. Why do you ask?
Limbaugh himself said he was getting emails from neurosurgeons telling him his claims of Fox exaggerating his illness by taking too little medication were unfounded, and that Fox showed predictable side-effects of the medication he was taking. After this, almost in the same breath, Limbaugh accused Fox of taking too much medication.
Rush didn’t mention too much medication until after Fox admitted that he had over-medicated, according to my recollection.
The accusation appears to stick, given Fox’s admission.
“The irony is that I was too medicated. I was dyskinesic,” Fox told Couric.
CBS
He’s just trying to smear Fox because of his support for stem cell research, a cause that really shouldn’t be this partisan.
Fox is the one making it partisan, by confusing (apparently) people like you into failing to make a distinction between adult stem cell research and fetal stem cell research.
Fox also contributed to an ad favoring Cardin over Steele in Maryland, stating that Steele opposes stem cell research. In fact, Steele favors stem cell research, and adult stem cell research has provided the most notable results between the two.
Harvesting from human embryos to benefit adults should give ethical pause.
But… why
To make clear what I was responding to.
Did you not read what he said? I quoted it above: “Okay, I need to apologize, I was wrong because I speculated either he didn’t take his medication or he was acting.”
He hasn’t really apologized to Fox–he gave a half-apology on air, admitting he was not perfectly accurate, yet refusing to give up any more ground. That’s it.
He didn’t apologize directly to Fox, and nobody said he did, AFAICT. He apologized to his listeners for wronging Fox with his earlier-stated opinion.
For some, that apparently doesn’t constitute apologizing at all.
It’s called an opinion, and I have lots of them (as do you, I’m sure).
Rush is avoiding giving an actual, direct apology, but even if he does finally apologize (I’m sure he’ll have to soon) it will not change the fact that he tried to smear Fox for advocating stem cell research.
I know, how about we just assume Rush gave an apology, and go from there? Maybe then you can enlighten us as to why you oppose stem cell research so fervently, and why you are so quick to defend Rush on all the liberal blogs you troll.
BTW, you can use the blockquote tag to quote in comments (makes it more readable).
Yeah, sorry, I was paraphrasing Vonnegut, and I should have asked a physicist like you if it was
correct.
Heh. Blame it on Vonnegut.
You can understand how I’m confused, you know, thinking that I’m actually traveling forward (well, not really forward, but you know what I mean) through the fourth dimension just by sitting here.
The question is what you meant by being limited to three dimensions.
Also, you still never answered unknowable’s question: Should he be forgiven if he does apologize?
My answer was that I don’t care if he forgives Limbaugh for it or not. It doesn’t really matter much. Same goes for your minor faux pas.
I don’t think so. He wouldn’t have said it in the first place if he didn’t mean it.
… and one cannot apologize for or regret having said something that was sincerely meant at the time?
What planet you from?
Anyway, I looked at your blog, and it seemed like nothing more than an attack on “Left Out in America.”
The purpose of that blog it to criticize bad blogs. Did you bother to read the description?
Should I apologize for not having more entries after starting it a few weeks ago?
Why are you wasting so much effort criticizing one blog?
Because the truth matters.
Is this all you do–troll liberal blogs trying to start fights?
Are we fighting, or are we having a discussion?
You missed the point of what he was asking, but I can answer for you. You posted a literal definition because you were trying to be a smartass, and he noted you defined the wrong form of the word as a response to that. It was an attempt at sarcasm, I imagine, but it was lost on you.
There are thousands of them that would otherwise just be thrown out. Besides, you oppose stem cell research on Christian grounds, and the government was designed to be secular. Embryos aren’t sentient, and you don’t feel bad about testing on animals, so there is no reason, other than religious, to oppose stem cell research.
I have no problem with either.
Or you could pay attention to the argument. Maybe PZ can reach over and slap you awake.
Do I oppose stem cell research?
Would you like to rephrase your question?
I think this is the first occasion I’ve had to defend Rush while visiting a liberal blog (it may be the second time).
Are you so uncomfortable entertaining an opposing view that you need to call it trolling?
We’ll see.
Should Foley be forgiven for the emails he sent? He’s apologized…
I just checked it as well, and it seems it’s been there almost an entire month, yet you have only found one blog to attack. I could name more than that right now. What did that blogger do to earn your hatred?
You are becoming quite aggressive, but at least you haven’t resorted to name calling yet. I’ve seen worse.
Was I?
Wasn’t the issue the Media Matters report that other media outlets had misreported as fact that Limbaugh had apologized?
Did Media Matters intend a non-literal definition of “apologized”? If so, why?
I defined the term that had been used, and I only excluded the alternate definition (”To make a formal defense or justification in speech or writing.”) since it appeared inapplicable. Should I have made up a definition to match what you were thinking instead of going by the book?
You’re right.
I didn’t think he was being sarcastic.
Still don’t, FTM.
You don’t even seem certain of it, given that you allude to your imagination.
I actually like having opposing view points comment here. It means that what I’ve said is worth commenting on, and, in unknowable’s case, defending. Plus it provides a bit of a challenge for me.
Yeah, I technically should have said I only had control over my movement in three dimensions. A minor detail, sure, but worth noting. Maybe I should change it to “with conscious movement limited to three dimensions?”
Unknowable meant embryonic stem cell research, and yes, I’m pretty sure you do oppose it.
I used both, so that’s not really fair. You quoted me, however, using “apology.” Beyond all that, the different definitions aren’t really what’s important here, as both apply.
Most doctors I’ve talked to (mostly at Stanford hospital, some more locally at UC Davis) say that embryonic stem cell research is much more promising, and I tend to believe them.
That looks good, but IMO what you have now is good enough.
Hay, what’s up, did I miss anything? LOL
Seems like the sort of thing you would remember…
Right on, brotha! You can’t let these blogs get away with expressing opinions anymore, especially since you know your opinons are the truth!
My question to you, Bryan, is: do you think that the government should be allowed to make policy decisions based on religious beliefs? That’s what opposition to embryonic stem cell research is.
You mean the IM conversations? I don’t see the parallel.
No, I’ve found about a solid half-dozen to attack, and I’ve mentioned two so far. A third is in the works in draft form, and you might have noticed the disclaimer in the initial post stating that I wouldn’t have much time to devote to that blog for now. Or you might not have noticed that.
My hatred? Why do you think I hate “liberalprogressive” of “Left Out in America”?
AFAICT, I do not hate the blogger at all, but I do oppose the false notions she popularizes with her blog.
In what way am I being aggressive, other than sticking up for my side of the argument?
As if to imply that I’m bad, even though others might be worse than me?
Thanks, chief.
I don’t think you’re being aggressive at all, actually. I’ve been in worse arguments about video games before.
When pz said “define apology” he was saying that Rush hadn’t really given an apology, yet you decided to take what he said literally and give the definition. Sort of like “Say hello to the radio host, bryan” “okay, hello to the radio host, bryan”
Sony > Nintendo (don’t kill me, zero, I don’t mean it! I’m just illustrating a point!)
Good. I like folks who argue their point–even better if it’s a good argument. I’m letting the dimensional thing drop, since it’s a peripheral issue I brought up only to make a tangential point to unkno.
Since I support stem cell research otherwise, wouldn’t it be preferable to make the distinction?
On the contrary (as I mentioned above), I had in mind the context of the conversation, which concerned my contradiction of the Media Matters claim that media outlets falsely gave Limbaugh credit for giving an apology. PZ’s view of it is essentially irrelevant. PZ can think all he wants that Rush didn’t provide a “real” apology–however he wishes to define it. The issue of interest to me is the Media Matters claim, which is immune to the effects of PZ’s personal views.
I don’t argue only as a visitor to liberal blogs, and I’ve done a great deal of arguing.
Right on, brotha! You can’t let these blogs get away with expressing opinions anymore, especially since you know your opinons are the truth!
Wow, you’re right! I’d better start hacking their blogs instead of just adding my own speech to the mix.
After botching the formatting so sensationally on that last post, I discern that it’s time to take a break.
Why are you debating in the comments of my post on my blog if you don’t care what I think?
They basically have the same meaning, and I felt the dictionary definition of “apology” would be more apt, given the wording it used; you are entirely right, however, that I used “apologize” in the original post. IMO it doesn’t really matter at all, as the dictionary definition of “apologize” uses “apology” anyway, so both apply equally.
This isn’t just an argument between us. When people hear “stem cell research” most assume it’s embryonic (given that’s what the debate is about), so it makes perfect sense to simply say “stem cell research.”
ARG! PDF file!
What each has accomplished up to this point isn’t really a very good argument for suppressing embryonic stem cell research, given all the controversy and problems with limited funding.
What I would like to hear is why you think embryonic stem cell research is wrong.
By far the best pro-life argument I’ve ever heard came from a vegetarian.
Embryos aren’t sentient, therefore I have no problem in general with using them for medical testing, just as I have no problem with animal testing. However, I don’t think I’d want them taking my dog. You’re right in that it’s a bit abstract, but the deciding factor for me is that the embryos aren’t taken by force, they were already extracted and are lying around–it’s not like they’d grow to be humans if the tests aren’t performed on them.
Okay, we’ll be waiting.
I also noticed that there were a bunch of deleted comments on the “Left Out in America” blog, and I’m assuming some were yours. Were you being insulting, or is this a case of censorship? (if it’s the latter, then I understand why you chose to write about it)
your right bryan, rush did apologize, but its obvious fox was exagerating to make his illness seem worse, and he even admitted he had taken too much medication at the time! the dems just want to push their secular agenda, and if they have to kill babies they will.
O.O
I’ve heard that excuse before: start an argument on a forum or blog, then, after a while, give up and say “I don’t care what you think anyway”
I’m not even going to touch that…. okay, fine, just one: How do you make a dead baby float? Add ice cream.
When I tell you what I’m interested in, it does not necessarily indicate that I am uninterested in what you think.
Try it sometime and you’ll see what I mean.
You might very well be interested in the opinion of one who thinks the moon landings were a hoax, but the opinion of that person does not determine whether or not the landing did, in fact, take place.
Right, so it’s past time for that aspect of the argument.
Why do you suppose so many people assume that “stem cell research” means “embryonic stem cell research” when so much significant work has been done with adult stem cells?
It may make perfect sense to you, but it seems pretty flatly misleading to many of us.
Kind of the way “pro-abortion” seems okay to one group and unfair to another group, if you get my meaning.
2002, concerning the unexpected plasticity of adult stem cells. More versatile than anticipated, that is, and plasticity is (was) the primary advantage of using embryonic stem cells.
Nobody is “suppressing” embryonic stem cell research. The issue concerns limitations on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Michael J. Fox can start his own Embryonic Stem Cell Research Institute if he wants and donate as much money for the research as he wants. So can you.
NIH
(not a .pdf)
I don’t think it’s wrong across the board. I think that it leads to ethical problems like intentional pseudo-procreative activity designed to serve adults at the expense of embryonic humans.
That is morally repugnant, and government regulation is appropriate to help avoid ethical problems stemming (pun partially intended) from this issue.
The president’s compromise on the issue was reasonable, IMO.
I posted three replies, all of which were removed. I think it was intentional because (IINM) liberalprogressive added highlighted emphasis to a post after I made my comments.
I didn’t do any namecalling, but I did suggest that she should apologize to Hayden regarding the 4th Amendment issue.
Some might find that insulting, I suppose.
How do you know that animals, plants, and embryos are not sentient? Not that I disagree–I’m just interested in the rationale behind your religious beliefs.
How about a humpback whale embryo? Okay with that?
If an astounding breakthrough occurs using fetal stem cells, then the demand for the raw materials may increase. You want to go down that road?
Denying federal funding seems like a means of suppression to me. There would be outrage if federal funds were denied to cancer research.
True, just because I think something doesn’t make it true (same goes for you, and all Republican fundies), but it might be more productive to argue this over at the daily kos, or any more popular blog, as the only reason I can think of for you being here is that you care about what I wrote. I take this as a compliment.
Perhaps I wasn’t really clear with what I meant. I see the reasoning behind opposing embryonic stem cell research, but IMO if you are not personally effected (ie they aren’t using your embryo) then you should have no problem with it. No one forces people to have abortions, you know, it’s their choice.
I don’t think that should be classified as religious in nature, as it is the most supported by evidence. If you were going to claim that all embryos have souls, and life begins at conception, then I would say it’s a religious belief, given that it deviates from what we actually know into matters that require faith. Just because you hold that faith doesn’t mean the government should be required to legislate it, just as if your religious belief taught that you need to eat live babies, the government shouldn’t be required to allow you to do so; the government isn’t supposed to legislate based on any religion.
ROFL @ unknowable and scene 111
Opposition to embryonic stem cell research is based on religion, thus it shouldn’t influence the government. That’s all, end of story.
Oh noes! What’ll happen? Will they start stealing embryos or something?!?! OH CRAP!!!!!!
Wait, wait… nothing bad will happen…. nvm
Maybe you should look up “suppression” in a dictionary or something.
There are some types of cancer research that would cause outrage if the government funded them (such as using Jews as human guinea pigs). It’s not legit to compare two classes of research unless there is a comparable ethical issue involved.
Correct, I’m interested in what you think, but stating my own interest does not imply that I’m not interested in what you think. This is another point that isn’t worth wasting many words over, IMHO.
People aren’t typically forced to use crack, either.
It is appropriate to oppose choices that are destructive to society.
Larry Niven wrote about a society that used the organs of convicted killers to replace those of law-abiding citizens whose own organs were failing. Over time, the increased demand for organs resulted in the death penalty for a parking ticket.
You should think about what happens when more fetal stem cells are required. Will a woman perhaps sell a sixteen-week preemie to help with the down payment on a Lexus?
What is the evidence that carrots are not sentient (for example)?
I’m slowing down the conversation here (delaying my answer to the rest of what you wrote) until you answer my question regarding the type of belief you have in non-sentience. I know now that you think that beliefs supported by evidence are not religious, but it isn’t clear what evidence you have that anything at all (including your keyboard) isn’t sentient.
You wouldn’t be concerned if the government forced women to have abortions in order to provide the raw materials for a stem-cell treatment program?
IMO the person making the claim that it is sentient should provide the evidence. I can’t prove the tooth fairy isn’t real, but that doesn’t mean it is.
Research on embryos should not be permitted if there is any possibility that the embryo is capable of suffering, but arguing that an embryo could be capable of suffering is just ridiculous. A developed brain and nervous system are prerequisites for the capacity to suffer. Why does the fact that the embryo could develop into a human mean there is any obligation on us to refrain from destroying it, especially when it may lead to the cures of deadly diseases?
Just because fundamentalists think something is detrimental to society doesn’t mean it is. Gay people marrying doesn’t threaten your marriage, or the institution of marriage, but that isn’t stopping them from going ballistic over the marriages in Massachusetts.
Why do you think that embryonic stem cell research will hurt society?
Like I said, I don’t really have a problem with it, not to mention people are already selling eggs and sperm.
What evidence do you have that they are? The rational thing to do is to start with the assumption that they aren’t sentient, as there is no reason to think so, then try to prove that they are (which no one has done, obviously).
Why is the fetus so important? It’s a mass of cells that could, maybe, someday, become a human. People sell sperm, they sell pets, they sell automatic weapons… why not fetuses?
Why, other than the fact that it relieves you of the burden of proof for your earlier claim (”Embryos aren’t sentient, therefore I have no problem in general with using them for medical testing”)?
Don’t forget, you affirmed that religious beliefs were those not supported by evidence, yet this particular belief seems established as a default where you have adduced no supporting evidence. So, is it a religious belief, or no?
You could probably collect significant evidence that parents concocted the tooth fairy as a legend with which to console children who lost certain of their first set of teeth. You do not (AFAICT) have comparable evidence that carrots lack sentience.
They have never shown signs of sentience, and in fact have shown the opposite, in that they don’t respond to outside events in a way that you would expect from something that is sentient. Beyond that, it’s impossible to prove they’re not sentient, but that shouldn’t matter as no one has given any good reason to think they are.
Sure, but what if there actually is a real tooth fairy somewhere. I don’t know, there might be, but I’m not going to assume so (as there is reason to believe the contrary, given everything I heard about the tooth fairy as a child wasn’t true), just as I shouldn’t assume carrots are sentient just because I can’t prove they aren’t.
I consider the fact that a carrot has never shown signs of sentience as evidence that it isn’t sentient.
No, it isn’t. The argument you are trying to make is very rare among the pro-life crowd, as it doesn’t really work. They tend to go straight for the “It’s my faith that life begins at conception.”
You want evidence that fetuses aren’t sentient? They haven’t shown us any reason to think they are, they regularly act as if they aren’t, and no one has given any evidence that they are. If it’s your faith that abortion is wrong, fine, but if the embryo is already extracted and ready for research then why the hell would you object?!?! Wouldn’t your energy be better spent fighting abortion itself?
What does the sentience of embryos have to do with stem cell research? It’s not like they’re going to be born if we don’t use them for research. They’re just sitting around.
If you really think embryos feel pain when you abort them, then you’re not only retarded, you’re also wasting your time arguing about stem cell research.
Explain why the “rational thing to do” appears to involve the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance.
Shouldn’t the “rational” thing avoid committing logical fallacies?
Because pursuing embryonic stem cell research where adult stem cell research provides comparable results cheapens human life.
For example, it has you saying that you’re not concerned over a mother selling a 16-week-old human fetus for $.
Well, you just might not be smart enough to understand what the carrots are saying.
That has nothing to do with the legality and funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Unknowable could have worded that better. There is evidence that carrots aren’t sentient, as they have never shown signs of sentience. You, however, have yet to show any evidence of your own to counter this.
Embryonic stem cell research has much more potential than adult stem cell research. It is certainly more of a mystery, however, and much more research must be done to understand it before it is directly applicable.
As I have said before, the embryos have already been extracted; they have lost the potential to become human, which is the only rational reason for not using them in medical research. What reason do you have to ignore them completely?
Complex sensory organs and expressions of self-awareness, but I doubt you’ll find that in automobile tires.
Yes, if non-sentience provides the rationale for allowing them to be killed with little or no question.
Well, then, it’s their own fault if we kill them. We gave them a chance to prove they were sentient.
Seriously, your argument above is an appeal to silence. As a deductive argument, it’s fallacious. As a probabilistic (inductive) argument, it’s of debatable strength–and that’s where I’d like to see some attempt to distinguish between religious belief and non-religious belief.
What would you do to appear sentient if you were kept in the dark immersed in liquid all the time inside some lady’s uterus and you hadn’t yet learned to speak?
That’s a repeat of the appeal to silence. It’s a probabilistic argument, not much different at all from those used to justify religious belief. If you know of a difference, I’d like to hear you describe it.
Why isn’t it your faith that abortion isn’t wrong?
Or is it?
I’ve already addressed that question.
Let’s suppose that you think that the future will be better with fetal stem cell research and I think that it will not be better. Why is my view religious faith and your view not religious faith? Can you explain it to me?
I don’t think that will work until people start to think more deeply about epistemology and ethics.
Are you saying that sentience isn’t possible without complex sensory organs?
Isn’t that a faith-based expectation?
You don’t seem to have answered the question, in fact.
What kind of expressions of self-awareness would you expect from an automobile tire that was self-aware?
Can you imagine being deprived of all external sensation and all motor activity?
Would your sentience end with your experience of the outside world?
What evidence do you have that the grass is green? You observe it as it reflects light, you see the color, others attest to seeing the same thing, that should be enough to demonstrate that it’s green, correct? What if grass is actually bright purple, and we just haven’t seen it yet? Does that mean that the belief it is green is equal to the belief that it is bright purple? Does that mean that when you see color it’s just your religious belief?
No, it just means someone dug themself into a hole and we need to put up a “don’t feed the troll” sign.
You’re getting pretty close to saying everything is a religious belief.
This argument is bordering on ridiculous. Carrots regularly show signs of non-sentience, such as just sitting there in the fucking dirt until they’re eaten. There is no evidence, however, to say they are sentient. Thus, the logical conclusion is that they aren’t sentient, they aren’t self-aware, and you can eat them without guilt. Saying that carrots could be self aware, yet they have not shown any signs, is akin to saying carrots might actually be celery, but they haven’t revealed themselves to us, and those two assertions are obviously not equal.
I mean, come on, he’s not just trying to argue that it’s impossible to know if anything is sentient, he’s basically saying that all observational evidence is worthless. I’m telling you, he’s just a troll. He’s just trying to get a reaction out of others online by starting arguments.
It does to the extent you embraced it as a potential outcome of pursuing embryonic stem cell research.
If a euphemism is wording it better, then I guess your statement of the reasoning is better.
Again, my point is not to argue for the sentience of carrots–I do not believe that carrots are sentient. My point is to induce in you a self-examination of your own reasons for belief. If you believe various things because I haven’t proven them wrong, I would find that singularly unimpressive.
As it stands, the rationale for killing embryonic humans (one rationale, anyway), stands on the assertion that the embryonic humans are not sentient. The evidence that they are not sentient consists of a probabilistic appeal to ignorance (we have no evidence that they are sentient, therefore we will assume that they are not sentient).
That is not a particularly strong inductive argument. What sets it above religious belief?
Why is that, given my journal-supported citatation showing that adult stem cells have have comparable plasticity while also providing an avenue to avoid tissue-rejection problems?
The argument that embryonic stem cells hold more potential seems to have been based on an expectation of greater plasticity. That advantage appears to have eroded. Could it erode further?
Hmm. Sounds like you’re ready to donate all cadavers to science via government initiative.
I’ve provided a rational ethical reason for preferring adult stem cell research over embryonic stem-cell research.
Killiing human embryos should be an ethical concern, and using currently-available embryos for that research tends to create a market for an ethically questionable product.
Should I repeat my stance that the president’s compromise on the issue seemed sensible?
Not really, since I don’t find “religious belief” a particularly useful term except perhaps when referring to a set list of doctrines explicit to a particular sect. The Immaculate Conception doctrine would be sensibly called a religious belief under that view.
By comparison, the belief that bipedal intelligent Martians dwell on the planet Mars has no more evidence in its favor, yet would not warrant the term “religious belief.”
The term becomes relevant because of the assertion in this discussion thread (not from me, mind you) that the government cannot appropriately act based on religious beliefs. Given that assertion, it is appropriate to find out what is meant by “religious belief” since there is no particular religious doctrine that prohibits using embryonic stem cells for research (or none that I’m aware of, anyway).
Scientists are also finding some stem cells in adults which appear to have the ability to grow into several different types of tissue. There seem to be more limitations with adult stem cells than with embryonic ones, because the adult stem cells found so far are limited in the cell types they can develop into.
Adult stem cells are less flexible and can’t transform into as wide a range of alternate tissue.
Adult stem cells differ from ES cells in a variety of ways. First of all, they are not known to exist for all cell types, thus decreasing their versatility for research and therapy. They also do not grow well (or at all) in vitro, which presents a serious hindrance to research. Additionally, adult stem cells have a reduced potential for growth. This is because they are cells taken from adult organisms, which have already spent a portion of their telomeric extremities that are necessary for self-renewal.
f) Adult stem cells from the patients own body might not be effective in treatment of some disorders, where the cause of the ailment might be present in the adult’s DNA. In addition, the adult stem cell might not divide fast enough to offer immediate treatment.
g) adult stem cells have numerous DNA abnormalities, which are caused by exposure to toxins and sunlight, as well as errors from DNA replication. This may make adult stem cells unsuitable for treatment.
That’s just from the first two pages of one google search…
It might be your first venture into epistemology.
It’s not ridiculous.
That isn’t logical, pZ. Carrot A might be the most highly-advanced thinker in the universe, but given similar motor-function abilities to carrot B, which has no thoughts whatsover (all for the sake of argument), their actions when buried in the dirt and under the threat of being eaten would be identical.
In terms of epistemology, you’re making an argument from analogy and finding the carrot unlike the things you consider sentient, yet without the capability of ruling out the carrot’s sentience (using dependable logic, that is).
In philosophy, this is the problem of personhood. In cybernetics, it is manifested in terms of the Turing test. The machine that fulfils the analogy to our subjective satisfaction receives the benefit of the doubt that it is self-aware.
Repeating the appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium–look it up) does not increase its logical appeal.
It’s a bit much to call that a “logical” conclusion–that seems to hint at deductive power or inductive strength that simply isn’t present in this case. It is reasonable to conclude that the carrot isn’t sentient (based on the appeal to analogy)–but you could certainly be wrong.
No, it isn’t. The former makes a relevant point about epistemology while the latter–at best–makes an parallel-but-irrelevant point about the level of trust we can place in sense-experience.
So, you would continue to oppose embryonic stem cell research even if the Christian conservatives started to support it? I seriously doubt that.
No, you’ve been arguing that it’s impossible to tell the difference between sentient and non-sentient things.
You aren’t using this term correctly. An appeal to ignorance would be: “there’s no evidence that the carrot isn’t sentient, so it must be.” Maybe you should look up auto-epistemic reasoning.
In terms of sentient, there are only two states something can be in: sentient or non-sentient. A claim of sentience involves specific traits, while non-sentience doesn’t require anything. Thus, if something does not show the traits of sentience, it is logical to conclude that it is not sentient. A carrot is not sentient, because sentience has specific traits that the carrot has not shown, and that we would have noticed if it had shown. I don’t know how to say it any more clearly than that.
I used Google Scholar to locate my reference.
You’re stacking up a daily newspaper and “the encyclopedia anyone can edit!” against a journal article.
Which do you think is most reliable?
I can’t completely rule out the slim chance that it isn’t sentient, but I really can’t rule out anything. Realistically, if something doesn’t show signs of sentience you should be able to assume it isn’t sentient, as if it was sentient we most likely would have noticed.
Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be.
There, National Institute of Health… Happy?
Your opinion on that is up to you (it appears indicative of an anti-religious bias).
I’ve done both, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, I am.
Fallacy Files
There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.
There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.
Are you happy with “thought to have”?
Well put.
Now, what’s the difference between probabilistic belief and “religious belief”? Where do we draw the line?
That seems to be the big issue here for you, and IMO yes, we would know if they were self-aware, as self-awareness is dependent on more complex biology and interaction with the outside world. I can see you disagree with this assessment, but you have yet to say how you would conclude if something was sentient or not.
I have a pencil. I bought it at the store, and sharpened it, and use it to write. Now, what if someone told me it was a magic pencil, and it had the ability to fly around in the air? Well, I’ve never seen it do these things, but I can’t conclude that it isn’t a magic pencil just becasue I have no evidence that it is… So… what do I do?
Well, I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that if the pencil had these specific traits and had not shown them it would be logical to conclude it didn’t have them, as the two possibilities (magic and non-magic pencil) aren’t equal in terms of plausibility.
Well, if it was part of your religion that all things can be magical, maybe you would look at the magic pencil controversy from a different perspective. Maybe you would say it’s not logical to assume the pencil can’t fly just because it hasn’t. But wait, isn’t believing that pencils can’t fly just as much dependent on faith as believing they can? OMG, you’re blowin’ my mind, man!
That question really gets to the heart of the abortion controversy, as who is to say that your “truth” is better than mine? Why do we classify one world-view as “religious” while another is not?
Well, observational evidence says embryos aren’t sentient. That doesn’t really prove anything by itself, but since the government cannot be influenced by religion (lol, remember the good old days when that was true?) we are forced to look at things scientifically, thus abortion should be legal nationwide, as sentience would be characterized by certain actions, and thus a universal lack of those actions would constitute evidence against sentience (not much, more than the alternative has). IMO this can be sidestepped fairly well, by leaving the choice up to states rather than the federal government.
As for stem cell research, I have to admit that your argument that embryonic stem cell research would harm society, due to the slippery slope of selling embryos, still seems ridiculous to me.
I can see carrots, and they show no behavior, which is opposite of that which we would tend to associate with sentience and self-awareness. That is evidence in favor of non-sentience. I’m not 100% sure they’re not sentient, but thinking so is more plausible than the alternative.
How do we discern between faith-based and non-faith based beliefs? I’d say it’s more of a spectrum, with creationism on one side and the scientific method on the other.
Your opinion on that is up to you (it appears indicative of an anti-religious bias).
their all anti-god, and they hate christians, its a proven fact
they just want to promote their agenda by lying to people and convincing them stem cell research is needed
look at michael j fox, not taking enough medicine so he can convince people that hes sicker than he is, and so the dems can get elected
How do we discern between faith-based and non-faith based beliefs? I’d say it’s more of a spectrum, with creationism on one side and the scientific method on the other.
yeah with science on the faith side and christianity on the fact side
Your solution is built on assumptions.
Would you accept similar reasoning from a Christian, allowing him to use the foundations of his worldview as premises on which to support claims he expects you to accept?
I’d do it the same way you’re suggesting–but I’m not the one saying that there’s a difference between religious belief and other types of belief (and I recognize the epistemic limitations of the approach).
I’ve consistently stated that this issue is important because of that rationalization. Otherwise, there’d be little reason to delve into it.
Observational evidence in this case builds on prior assumptions (religious assumptions?).
The deductive case for embryonic non-sentience is fallacious. The inductive case is uncertain by definition (as you subsequently acknowledged, if I read you rightly).
How can you call it “ridiculous” when you’re the one who readily accepted the resting point of the supposed “slippery slope”?
Are we to presume that few would possibly agree with your views and thus take solace in that fact?
I see no difference between selling embryos and selling eggs or sperm, thus I find your argument that it hurts society ridiculous.
unkno, I’ve been giving your arguments short shrift because I don’t think they’re quite as good as what I’m getting from pZ.
No offense. Just explaining why you’re getting less by way of reply.
That, in fact, is the scientific view. Scientific laws do not dictate the actions of objects, they predict those actions, and the better laws do so with a high degree of accuracy.
If scientific observations detect a flying pencil, they look for additional laws that might help explain future flying pencil events.
In short, scientific laws are descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Again, “logical” tends to suggest deductive certainty, and that’s what I’ve warned against. The truth of a universal prescriptive law for non-flying pencils guarantees that pencils will not fly. The same doesn’t hold for descriptive law.
It may be reasonable to predict overwhelmingly rare observations of flying pencils, however.
I wouldn’t say it’s equal, since past observations of (descriptively) non-flying pencils leads to a reasonable expectation of future observations of non-flying pencils. It’s fair to say that faith diminishes as the perceived probability increases.
I’d say that “blind faith” (a redundancy in the eyes of many, today) is foreign to the Bible concept of faith, by the way. Paul’s famous rundown of the notable figures of faith uniformly featured people who acted on the basis of past experience.
Good.
It’s good for you to think about this stuff even if you don’t end up agreeing with me on every point.
It’s not much of a “slippery slope” (in the derogatory sense) if the outcome is likely.
What determines what is good (moral) and what is not, in your view?
That’s saying every possible belief is equal in plausibility, which is a statement I don’t agree with (obviously), and I guess that is where our main disagreement is. But, assuming all beliefs are equal, how do you choose which are represented by the government? How do you discern which religiously-inspired morals to follow?
Fundamentally, everything is built on perceptions. I can’t prove that I’m actually sitting here in objective reality, typing on my keyboard. I don’t know for sure if you even exist. But I make those assumptions, given they are the most plausible answer for the limited information I’m getting.
You could argue that everyone’s opinion is fundamentally equal, and that the government should never make any choices given they would conflict with someone’s opinion, but that’s not practical. We have to have a set of guidelines, and our founding fathers chose representative democracy and separation of church and state.
It has been my experience that everyone who is opposed to embryonic stem cell research eventually cites either religious or political reasons. If you are the first exception, then congratulations, but the fact still stands that the pressure on the government to oppose destroying embryos is from the religious-right, and they do so not because they think embryos are sentient and have the capacity to suffer, but because they think god says life begins at conception.
My moral code is based on a mixture of my experiences, observations, and the influence of the society I live in.
“tend to”?
You implicitly recognize that your method is probabilistic.
What, everyone else is just going to ignore him? You’re making me deal with this? Fine…
Yes, my rational friend, Christianity is fact; why don’t you go take a trip to Iran or Iraq and spred the truth! Be sure to bring lots of American flags with you!
Sorry, my question was a tad ambiguous.
The “in your view” part wasn’t intended to restrict your answer to your personal morality. Rather, I’m asking you if your worldview supplies you with some foundation for morality in the broad sense.
Objectivists point to a “virtue of selfishness,” some naturalists posit an objective & absolute morality (at least in principle), and others hold to various forms of relativism (society determines what is right, for example).
I’m asking you to put a pin on the map so I have an idea where you stand. If you’re high-school age this stuff may be pretty new to you, so I’d understand if you were unclear about it or wanted to ponder before committing to an answer.
Don’t look at me. I’m already juggling a handful of conversations.
Remember, we did read Lord of the Flies, so moral relativism isn’t exactly new to me, and I’d say that would be where I am on your map.
People go through the bible, throwing out things they don’t like and keeping what they do. They aren’t using the Bible for morals, they already have a moral code and are interpreting the bible so that it fits with the society and time period they live in. The problem comes when religious institutions mandate the interpretations, for example claiming that the bible forbids gay marriage. IMO this is what’s responsible for the opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
you fucking idiot you didnt even answer my question because you know you cant and im right so you just insult me and tell me to go to iran or iraq which would get me killed
your going to burn in hell cuz you dont accept jesus christ
Exactly. Issues of morality become irrelevent when you look at the issue as a whole: separation of church and state mandates that religious influence cannot sway the government, thus abortion should be legal regardless of whether you think it’s right or wrong.
Big suprise there. Notice I’m here reading and commenting on his blog, rather than writing my own.
rational republican:
Please go away.
Nice to see this discussion is getting increasingly more civil, but it’s certainly gone off on a tangent. Anyway, if Bryan really thinks the destruction of embryos is wrong for reasons other than religious or political, then that’s great. However, we still live in a democracy (sort-of) and the the opposition isn’t coming from people like him, it’s from the Christian conservatives.
Back on topic: Limbaugh is a jerk and Bush is destroying separation of church and state.
Correct, if a breakthrough occurs using embryonic stem cells, the demand would go up. Are you saying that it wouldn’t have been worth it?! That we should avoid using embryonic stem cells because it might lead to helping people?!?! WTF!
er….. what?
Okay, see you there.
There’s a good chance you’ll become increasingly uncomfortable with moral relativism as you consider its consquences.
There are only so many ways to give it a face of respectability, and none of them work well (at least in my experience).
For example, consider the Nuremberg trials. The rest of the world tried Germans, who had followed their own nations laws, according to an outside standard. Should relativism have made German law okay for the Germans, or should relativism allow the dominant view to judge the minority view? Can relativism provide a correct path in a situation like that?
Within the framework of moral relativism, why is it a “problem” for religious institutions to mandate the interpretations? Do you judge it wrong from your personal perspective, or according to a dominant view from some segment of society? If the latter, isn’t it possible, in principle, that the view promulgated by the religious authorities is relatively correct (and if so, why is it a problem?)
My arguments against each do not reference the Bible, and I can briefly illustrate why your view is probably an oversimplicifation.
Our laws largely descend from the English common law, which bears imprints from Roman law and Christian culture. The common law allowed that a man’s male heir would inherit the bulk of his property–and that included an heir that wasn’t born until after the father had passed away. In effect, the embryo has property rights according to English common law (the law partly intended to protect unborn heirs from mischief intended by competing heirs, which happened not uncommonly in artistocratic circles).
These laws continue to undergird society and provide an overall framework for morality regardless of contemporary interpretations given from the pulpit.
Common law can’t just waive the embryo’s right to property according to modern social mores. The law doesn’t quite work like that (although that’s one of the key reasons why gay marriage receives such deep opposition–it is coming about as the result of the judiciary imposing legislation, thereby stepping out of its constitutional role).
So, you’re saying that if the American Secularist Society determines that throwing litter out of a car should be punishable by death they can stump for a law the matches their view, while the Church of Holy Highway Shoulders cannot engage in the same push for legislation (since the law would give voice to their religious views).
Can you explain how one group, in a nation founded on religious liberty, would have the right to have its views legisated while the other one could not where the exact same law would result?
Easy: if one religion is for it, and others are not, it’s probably not a good idea to write it into law. If observational or scientific evidence is in favor of one side, then that’s the one to go with.
First of all, you seem to totally change the subject every few replies (ie: you’re talking about moral systems whenwe started with Limbaugh and his apology) rather than try to actually support your opinion (saying all beliefs are equal doesn’t help your case much, as embryonic stem cell research is very popular), not to mention you aren’t the average conservative. Remember, we live in a democracy, so just because you can support your opinion without the bible doesn’t mean doesn’t mean the Christian-right’s arguments should suddenly be taken seriously. They do nothing but reference the bible.
Because religious institutions are outdated and undemocratic. The bible says we should stone people to death for working on Sunday, but that would be unacceptable in our society.
So, in your view, saying there is a god is equal in plausibility to saying there’s no reason to think so? Can you back this up? Last time I checked, all the things organized religions said god did in the past weren’t true, and there is no evidence for the existence of god. Why should we believe something exists when all the supposed evidence of it’s existence were disproven?
It’s amazing how quickly you abandoned the illustration.
In the illustration, an ideology favored law A and a religion favored law A. Your solution completely ignores the ideology, and thus fails to address the question.
Maybe not so easy after all?
I’ve had folks ask why I oppose stem cell research (related to Rush’s apology?) and if Mark Foley should be forgiven for sending e-mails, among other things.
I don’t think you have any room to criticize me for drifting off the topic.
If you think I’m trying to dodge any one topic by introducing other topics, feel free to point it out specifically. Otherwise, it just looks like you’re launching a subtle ad hom.
I don’t say that all beliefs are equal. I just say that I don’t find the religious/non-religious dichotomy useful, while at the same time I’m asking those who make the distinction to describe the line of demarcation.
Atheists sometimes get in the habit of shifting the burden of proof, in my experience.
Maybe I can change that.
Why shouldn’t they reference the Bible, if we really live in a democracy?
1) My position here is that I detect no useful distinction in referring to certain beliefs as “religious” vs. “non-religious” for purposes of legislation. I don’t think there is anything about any particular belief that renders it “religious” in a sense that has utility with respect to the operations of government.
2) No, I would not place those beliefs as equal at all. There are definitely reasons to believe in a god or gods, and the naturalist should be the first to admit it, otherwise he refutes his own worldview (positing an explanation for all phenomena–including belief in god–based on nature and nature’s laws. The view that God exists is a least plausible on its face, while the view that there is no reason to believe in god is ridiculous on its face.
Can I assume that you’re familiar with the Kalam Cosmological argument (KCA) and the Anthropic Principle (weak & strong)?
Have you been hanging around with skeptics who interpret the Bible in wooden-literal fashion, or what?
What’s your best example of an evidence for the existence of god that has been disproven?*
*If the forum administrators would prefer for the thread to avoid this digression, feel free to cut this short
Yeah, I think this discussion had enough twists and turns.
It seems nothing either of us say will convince the other of our opinion. I do see the logic behind your position (and I hope you see, to a certain extent, the logic behind mine), and it does seem to me that this is, fundamentally, a matter of opinion, which seems perfectly suited to our style of government here in the US.
Unfortunately, this post will be off the front page soon (tomorrow), so I’m probably not going to spend much time here debating, but I do find all of this interesting. Maybe unknowable can hang around for a while longer.
Hoo boy… lets not get into this, okay?
I can stick around, but 90% of this went over my head. Should I tell some dead baby jokes like unknowable did?
I’d expect to see you try before giving up.
Mine is a road-tested argument. I enter it with some expectation of the types of response I might receive.
Some people in this world are…well…nut cases.
NPC wrote: “Some people in this world are…well…nut cases.”
So you waited until you thought I was gone before offering a lame ad hominem attack devoid of any attempt to address the arguments?
Or maybe you just wanted a pat on the back for the graphic?
Nice graphic. Now get a life.
Sorry, I don’t take advice, yet alone listen, to inanimate objects.
Whatever. You’re pwned.
…By merely bugging you I can see that you’re simply a blog troll. Someone that will never stop posting until he has the last word no matter how little sense it may make and how far it has drifted from the original topic. Because of this all of your political arguments become void. There are two things that make up how you debate, one is what kind of arguments you have, the other is what kind of person you are. You are a troll, no matter what I say you will never go away or agree. If you don’t believe me, then I can keep bugging you without any political arguments to prove it further.