Michael J. Fox on Stem cell research....

[Winston]

The whole point is that it's done for the sole purpose of inducing a shock effect. Otherwise, why would you have a severely stricken patient deliver the message?

[Dinner]

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Katie-Couric-MJFox.wmv

That is a copy of Michael J. Fox's response to Rush Limbaugh's attacks. Yes, it is hosted by Crooks & Liars which is a partisan website but the key part of the interview is there and uncensored.

[Winston]

Originally posted by dannubis
Thank you. Please come again.

Or rather don't.

Well, I have been known to not mince my words, on occasion.

Learn to deal with it. Or, post an obscene insult in response like you did originally..

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Winston
The whole point is that it's done for the sole purpose of inducing a shock effect.

No, that's your interpretation.

Emotional reaction is not always = shock.

Otherwise, why would you have a severely stricken patient deliver the message?

Because he's the guy who is suffering from the illness (that may be could be cured then)? And he probably wanted to do it (after all he did it), so why not? As said, he can try to promote his interests like anyone else can, with or without illness.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Winston
No, what it does is try to affect the outcome of an election, in this case for the U.S. Senate, by pandering exclusively to people's emotions on a sensitive issue.

The very reason it is a sensitive issue os because of emotions. If we all were calculating machines, stem cell research would be self-evident.

[SlowwHand]

Wouldn't a person that could possibly benefit from stem cell research be a better speaker to the subject than one who may not be as obvious?

[Winston]

Originally posted by BeBro
No, that's your interpretation.

Emotional reaction is not always = shock.

Shock, emotional reaction - the fact remains, its sole purpose was to to attain either, using a sick person in the process.

Shock and emotional reaction is not a proper basis for making political choices in a democracy; arguments, debate, the candidates' platforms are.

Because he's the guy who is suffering from the illness (that may be could be cured then)? And he probably wanted to do it (after all he did it), so why not? As said, he can try to promote his interests like anyone else can, with or without illness.

Why not? Because such appearances have nothing to do with the underlying political issues. This is not about the message itself, it's about having invalids deliver the message just because they're invalids, so as to induce the emotional reaction.

Again, if the candidate's arguments on the issue were strong enough, he or she need not resort to this type of campaigning. So why do it at all?

[Arrian]

Are you aware of the other side's argument?

It's kinda like an arms race.

-Arrian

[Winston]

Originally posted by Spiffor
If we all were calculating machines, stem cell research would be self-evident.

I feel the exact opposite is true.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Arrian
Are you aware of the other side's argument?

It's kinda like an arms race.

Are you asking me?

Yes, I have followed the debate (not necessarily the U.S. one in too much detail), out of my interest in the ethical aspects of the procedure, such as it is performed today.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Winston
Shock, emotional reaction - the fact remains, its sole purpose was to to attain either, using a sick person in the process.

The purpose was to gain attention and win support, like in any other political ad. That it's done via an appeal to emotion by a sick man is nothing to complain about. AFAIK there's no rule anywhere that says sick people can't promote their own interests on tv.

Shock and emotional reaction is not a proper basis for making political choices in a democracy; arguments, debate, the candidates' platforms are.

Why not? Because such appearances have nothing to do with the underlying political issues. This is not about the message itself, it's about having invalids deliver the message just because they're invalids, so as to induce the emotional reaction.

I agree that they alone are not the proper basis for making decisions, but as I already said, the fact that the ad appeals to emotion doesn't mean the audience decides purely due to emotion. Did the ad suddenly change your opinion on the matter just because you thought it was so shocking? Or are people actually able to consider what they see in tv?

Again, if the candidate's arguments on the issue were strong enough, he or she need not resort to this type of campaigning. So why do it at all?

He is not bound by any of your considerations. If he wants to appear in this ad it's his decision. I don't think it's our business to demand a justification for this decision.

[Dinner]

The Michael J. Fox ad was pretty straight forward. He said, millions of people have Parkinson's disease including myself, there is only one hope which shows promise to curing it. Politician A has worked to stop that hope while Politician B supports further research. Please vote for Politician B.

That's pretty factual and straight forward without resorting to much of an emotional appeal. Compare that to the GOP's ads from the 2004 race which were full of blatant lies and gross emotional appeals such as If the Democrats get elected there will be vastly more terrorist attacks, if the Democrats get elected then Mexicans will flood into the US and one of them will **** you daughter, and my personal favorite If the Democrats win then the terrorists win.

I'm seeing Fox presenting a fairly straight forward and honest choice while the other side is making completely false emotional appeals to the worst of humanity (racism, xenophobia, fear mongering, etc).

[Winston]

In reply to BeBro,

We're getting nowhere here.

I'm not saying he should be deported for doing the ads, I do however oppose the use of severely ill patients to get one's point across during an election campaign. It's not something I would like to see spread to our domestic political scene.

[BeBMan]

I think it's nothing special since ill people are part of the electorate too.

[Dinner]

Why should the sick and injured not be able to advocate thier plight?