On Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Bill @ INDC journal is for government funding, and seems to be arguing the ethics of the research instead of what I believe is the more fundamental issue of the limits of federal government.
I very simply yet strenuously disagree that taxpayer dollars should be spent on pharmaceutical research, especially considering there is a thriving market of private researchers working with stem cells.
I find it to be disingenous and highly hypocritical, not to mention quite rank with the stench of political opportunism, for so many to spend so much lobbying for this, instead of spending their money on pure research of their choosing.
I personally find the ethical slope involved with embryonic stem cell research to be quite slippery indeed, and worthy of its own debate; but I can say with a clean conscience that that bias does not inform my motivation to limit the scope of the government, particularly when such an endeavor fundamentally is at odds with the free-market success story that is the U.S.
Bill, in what has increasingly become his style, responds to my and other's responses with thinly veiled insults and references to his own superiority.
Suffice it to say, your deep ignorance on the topic of how scientific research is conducted and funded is showing.
More grumpy, strictly reactionary conservative bs.
What is wrong with you people? Why is this so hard for you to understand?
It's like banging my head against a wall; I keep addressing these points with logic and sourcing (like funding percentages)...
In short, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Which is sad, as he is obviously intelligent enough to carry on a debate rationally, but chooses not to.
Ah well, the blogosphere is vast and replete with excellent analysis and opinion. I shall not miss INDC, and I am sure Bill will not miss me.
To be completely fair, I left my own dig. I can't really work up any feelings of remorse for stooping to his level. Sometimes it is cathartic to return a little steam:
Not without one parting shot however, just to indulge my own ego, and since you opened the door to such lowbrow response.
I said: "This seems like a simple enough debate that doesn't really
require a lot of deep thought."
To which you replied:
Wrong and unintentionally hilarious.
The fact that you consider a simple cost-benefit analysis on the virtues of taxpayer funded research (in a science that has run into a dead end so far) to be a deep and complex issue speaks far more of your own lack of comprehension than mine.