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

[mrmitchell]

But it's obviously a side issue, at least to me it is.

Then you should understand that you're throwing in in favor of the side in which some hold that he was faking it. Therefore, you risk raising the ire of any who are disgusted by such a base statement.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Spec

Originally posted by Winston

...not by prying into the heartbreaking medical condition of celebrities who forgot to take their pills.

I understand your point of view Winston, and I somewhat agree. But if you read the article, the fact is that if he "acts" that way its because he IS on medication.

I was making a broad and general statement by saying "celebrities who forgot to take their pills". It was not intended to refer to Michael J. Fox specifically. If it had been, I would have named him instead of wording it the way I did.

Like I mentioned, I see this as a side issue to the main point of attention, which is whether this type of campaigning should be encouraged. But let me just say that I could conceive of a situation in which Michael J. Fox did take his medication to avoid going rigid, yet was still able - and inclined - to exaggerate his symptoms. All for a good cause, naturally..

And the reason he made that add imo, is to demonstarte the result of the illness, which can not always be done, or be as clear as when you use rational arguments like you propose.

In my view, you don't need to demonstrate the result of illnesses in politics. It panders to the emotional, and the resorting to emotional pleas is a sign that your rational arguments don't quite cut it.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by dannubis


Very funnny you should mention emotional aspects as not an appropriate part of politics.

Let's not forget that the only reason Fox appeared in this TV ad is because the "pro-lifers" so unemotionally argued that stemcell research constitutes a mortal sin. Does it get any more emotional than that ? Politics is made by people, and hence emotions are inherently included.

The only difference I see in this case is that the GOP uses fear and the Dems use pity.

But that is besides the point. Fox is sick and knows what he is going through. It is not your place or Limbaughs to publically cast doubts on his suffering. Take the consequences of your political actions/beliefs and do not try to discredit the debate by smearing the opponent.

Yep.
It is interesting that those people (Repugs and their supporters) who always seem to claim that they are the only ones who care for moral values, are at the same time those, who often, like no one other, don´t care for morals if it goes against their political opponents or if it is useful for them to reach their goals (and/or if they think that noone does see their behavior)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I question the effectivity of the ads regardless of faking or otherwise. Ming or other Ad agency types, (do you have any market research that might suggest) does making your target audience purposely uncomfortable generate any benefit for your cause?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I question the effectivity of the ads regardless of faking or otherwise. Ming or other Ad agency types, (do you have any market research that might suggest) does making your target audience purposely uncomfortable generate any benefit for your cause?

Why are you assuming that it makes the target audience generally uncomfortable?

[Winston]

Originally posted by BeBro
But I think it is

Great, but I think you'd agree that there's a difference between emotional aspects of political arguments occuring just as they do in everyday conversation - and engaging in a campaign ad that serves no other purpose than to evoke an emotional response from voters on an issue where rational decision and ethical considerations should be at the forefront, not emotions.

Furthermore, I was trying to keep the discussion on this particular ad, not shoot off into other areas of politics which I see as irrelevant to.. you know, this ad that we're discussing.

You are quick to throw unsubstantiated claims around. Earlier you spoke of "celebrities who forgot to take their pills". I take it you're a medical expert who can judge his behaviour in the ad as indeed being a result of him not taking pills, so purely done for effect? Or did you just made that up?

See my reply to Spec on much the same point.

Now he's - according to you - "parading his illness". How's he supposed to appear in public, or is your position that he should not appear in public at all due to his illness?

He is parading his illness, in the midst of a political campaign for the purpose of political gains. How else would you describe it?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Winston
Great, but I think you'd agree that there's a difference between emotional aspects of political arguments occuring just as they do in everyday conversation - and engaging in a campaign ad that serves no other purpose than to evoke an emotional response from voters on an issue where rational decision and ethical considerations should be at the forefront, not emotions.

I don't see how it would be illegitimate to provoke a emotional response, it's done over and over in politics by all sides, just take any election campaign. It doesn't mean that there is no room for rational arguments anymore, or that the audience purely decides on emotional grounds.

See my reply to Spec on much the same point.

Your reply was:

"I was making a broad and general statement by saying "celebrities who forgot to take their pills". It was not intended to refer to Michael J. Fox specifically. If it had been, I would have named him instead of wording it the way I did."

This thread is all about MJF, so if your comment was not about him I don't understand its purpose. But fine.

Your general statement however is then an even more unsubstianted claim, since it's then about an unknown number of unknown celebrities who - you claim - forgot to take their pills. Since you seem to be keen on limiting the debate to the "relevant" points I wonder what such a vague claim has to do with the debate.

He is parading his illness, in the midst of a political campaign for the purpose of political gains. How else would you describe it?

He is making his case in a way he wants. Does his illness even allow it to do it differently?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Winston


Great, but I think you'd agree that there's a difference between emotional aspects of political arguments occuring just as they do in everyday conversation - and engaging in a campaign ad that serves no other purpose than to evoke an emotional response from voters on an issue where rational decision and ethical considerations should be at the forefront, not emotions.

I agree,
but it is of no use if oen side doesn´t use emotions
whereas the other does.
This would give the victory in the election with almost 100% cernatinty to the side which uses emotions in its ads.

The best thing would be if all parties in their election campaigns are forbidden to use any emotions, but just rationally have to present their plans for the time when they get elected, as well as have to present plans on how to pay for the projects they wish to start during this time.

But I doubt that you´ll see such thing in any state on the modern world.
The election campaigns today have degraded into a battle of PR agencies

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
The best thing would be if all parties in the elections are forbidden to use any emotions, but just rationally have to present their plans for the time when they get elected, as well as have to present plans on how to pay for the projects they wish to start during this time.

No, the best thing is for whoever's running to campaign however the hell s/he wishes, and for the voters to decide whether appeals to emotion are tasteless or not.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by BeBro


Why are you assuming that it makes the target audience generally uncomfortable?

[generalization]
No one likes seeing impaired people. It reaffirms their own mortality.[/generalization]

[BeBMan]

I personally hadn't a prob seeing him. But of course, I'm not the target audience

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by BeBro
I personally hadn't a prob seeing him. But of course, I'm not the target audience

Yeah well your a cold hearted german nazi then aren't you.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Winston
I don't believe I would, nor do I think that it is relevant to the issue at hand. In this case of a severely ill person parading his illness for a purely emotional reaction, certainly.

I believe Christopher Reeve did the same thing a while back. I had the same reaction then.

They're trying to use their celibrate status to attract attention to worthy causes which effect millions of people. This really does increase funding and ends up helping people with these conditions.

[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.

But Ogie brings up an interesting point; will it backfire if people find the ads to be unsettling and overly shocking?

[Proteus_MST]

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.

Which seems to be a worthy cause,
as they try to increase the chances of winning for a party which supports research which can help people like MJ Fox.
(In contrast to another party which would lower the chances that people like MJ Fox will get a cure for their illness as they will try to prohibit this research)