|
Page 1 2 3
Anti-Cloning Pussies and the People Against Cloning Cats
by Jason Roth
So now let's look at all the bogus pseudo-arguments against cloning and play another edition of "name that fallacy":
- "'It's morally problematic and a little reprehensible,' said David Magnus, co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University. 'For $50,000, she could have provided homes for a lot of strays.'"
First of all, "Dr. Magnus" sounds like the name of a pornographic comic book villain. How's that for a logical refutation, doc? Second of all, the inclusion of this phallic fiend's comment on what this lady might or mightn't have done with her $50,000 is what's known as ignoratio elenchia, specifically: a red herring. An emotional appeal for the purpose of distraction. You might even call this a double-header, with a dose of argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity) thrown in for good measure. The cloning "debate" that I've heard sure hasn't had anything to do with its cost. It's been about whether human beings should do it at all, at any price.
- Next: "Animals rights activists complain that new feline production systems aren't needed because thousands of stray cats are euthanized each year for want of homes."
They aren't "needed", huh? Needed by whom? This lady didn't want the strays, and obviously the complaining animal rights activists didn't either, otherwise all those cats wouldn't be getting the death penalty. (I picture Garfield and Heathcliff in electric chairs. No, Heathcliff was too cool for that. I bet he would have broken out of cat prison long before the executioner said "Here, kitty, kitty.") I'm going to go out on a limb here and identify this fallacy as a straw man. It presumes that the purpose of cloning is the mere "production" of cats, then goes on to argue that an ample supply of cats already exist. The point fails to address the actual reason why this particular cat ("Little Nicky", in case you care) was cloned. No shit, the woman could have found another cat. I think we can safely assume that maybe it occurred to her that she could have gotten another cat for less than fifty grand.
- Here's another classic: "Critics also complain that the technology is available only to the wealthy, that using it to create house pets is frivolous and that customers grieving over lost pets have unrealistic expectations of what they're buying. In fact, the first cat cloned in 2001 had a different coat from its genetic donor, underscoring that environment and other biological variables make it impossible to exactly duplicate animals."
Ok, you raving, fucking lunatic journalist, let's take your idiocy one piece at a time.
Whether the technology is only available to the wealthy (or any other group) doesn't address whether the use of that technology is good or bad. If the technology is good, then what we'd want is more people using it, not fewer. Heart surgery and Rolls Royces cost a lot of money, too. If you can't afford heart surgery, Rolls Royces, or $50,000 kittens, you're perfectly free not to fucking buy one. Arguing that the technology is bad because its use is limited to the wealthy is an argumentum ad invidiam (argument from envy). I.e., "if poor people can't have it, then god dammit, no one should!" Calling cloning "frivolous" is another appeal to emotion.
|
