One things that bugs me is the seeming inability or unwillingness of some to clearly differentiate positions on some issues. Two examples:
1. Stem cell research. There are two different strands of this research going on: one using “adult” stem cells, which are available from any person, and the second using “embryonic” stem cells which come from the destruction of a baby boy or girl to use these cells that are harvested. If a person expresses concern or objection to embryonic stem cell research, that person is painted as “against stem cell research.” No! Just that one kind. Why is it so hard to make that distinction? Why does such a broad brush need to be used?
2. Immigration. This is a big issue right now, but why does everything have to be: you are either for or against immigration? Why can’t the argument be more nuanced, so that you can be for legal immigration, but against illegal immigration? Why is it all one or all the other?
Yes, I know perhaps some will do this for political reasons, but I think it’s bigger than that. Are we just that intellectually lazy?
1 comment:
A further important distinction on immigration is whether one is in favor of the immigration standards before the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, or after.
Post a Comment