Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23675)	7/11/2006 4:13:00 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541573

If there's only one reason, then there's only one group. No amount of "painting" will make multiple groups out of only one reason if we are grouping by reason, which I am. 1 - People oppose federal funding of fetal stem cell research for reasons other than an absolutist concern for the life or rights of embryos, so even by that criteria there is more than one group. 2 - Even within your one reason there are different groups. For example those that oppose federal funding of fetal stem cell research but don't care about embryos destroyed during or after IVF, would be a totally different group in Kinsley's initial argument (which you concurred with) than people who where upset about the destruction of embryos related to IVF. There are different levels of concern and reasons for the level of concern on on the opposition on the stem cell issue and on the embryo destruction during IVF issue. Combine the two issues, different reasons for concern, different levels of concern etc. and you have a lot of groups, that can't IMO reasonably be swept in to one or ignored with comments like "there may be a few rare exceptions" or "the Catholic church doesn't count because they also have other reasons to be against IVF. Re: "the issue isn't really about opposing stem cell research as much as it was about opposing federal funding for fetal stem cell research which is not the same thing" For my purpose it's the same thing I don't think that is very reasonable, unless you are telling about your purpose to oppose them politically to make sure their side doesn't win. In terms of the battle yes maybe the reasons don't matter. In terms of understanding, properly classifying or describing them, or making rational statements about how logical, consistent, or knowledgeable they are the distinction is an important one. Recognizing the real differences is essential to have any useful analysis of these things, it isn't a matter of creating useless clutter any more than looking at how some people opposed Iraq because they are pacifists, and others opposed it because they thought this specific war would do more harm to American interests than good. If your just looking to make the case for the war you can lump them all in to one group that you oppose, but if your trying to understand them or make reasonable statements about them, what you call "clutter" is much better than an unreasonable simplicity.