I was contacted a couple days ago by the folks who run the acluprocon.org webpage. It's an interesting page, devoted to presenting both sides of the debate over various issues and the ACLU position on those issues. They came across my writings on the subject and added my biography and some links to various essays I've written on the subject. It's actually part of a larger project called ProCon.org, which defines its goal as "Promoting informed citizenship by presenting controversial issues in a simple, nonpartisan pro-con format." A worthy goal, I'd say.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I've been having an amusing exchange with John Lofton, the theocrat who owns The American View. You'll recall that he left a comment at Positive Liberty with his phone number and asked me to call him. I politely said no, but that he is welcome to leave a comment objecting to anything I've said that…
A couple days ago, I received an email from a correspondent named Nick, a man I've encountered in a political chat room before as well. He's one of those really hardcore religious right types who, as you will see, absolutely glories in his ignorance, and he was bound and determined to "educate" me…
Here in California, I had hoped we might be safe from the high school Intelligent Design follies playing out in other states. Turns out, not so much.
Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, California, part of the El Tejon Unified School District, offered a class called "Philosophy of Design" which…
Via Gene Expression I came across this post, at the Discovery Institute's blog, from erstwhile ID lackey Casey Luskin. It's title: Mathematicians and Evolution. Hmmmm. Sounds like something I should read.
Luskin writes:
As recently highlighted here, mathematics is an academic locale where…
Sure, worthy goal, but if it turns into a he-said she-said site... well we already get that from the media. If it's actual objective pros and cons, then great.
Yeah, looks like just a bunch of sound bites from "both sides". If I wanted something that useless, I'd watch mainstream media.
The immediately recognisible problem, of course, is that there are rarely simply two sides to an issue - nor is it a simple matter to say whether something is 'pro' or 'contra.'
Take, for instance, a rising number of divorces. Is this a good or a bad thing? Do those figures mean that more people get out of unhappy relationships, or that more relationships turn sour? From the divorce rate alone, this is impossible to tell.
I'll take nuance over simple formatting any day of the week.
- JS
I disagree with the critics here. I think there is something valuable in having both sides presented, side by side, particularly if what is posted represents the most eloquent and defenses of those positions. If you're going to really understand a dispute, I think it's good to read the best arguments that can be made for both sides so you can be thorough in your analysis.
Ed,
There is something valuable in having pros and cons explained, if the issue lends itself to binarity. But the media -and by consequence, I think, most of America- reduce everything to two sides, even complex issues incapable of such reduction (the Middle East conflict). The media also tend to create a second side for "balance," even when the second side is absurd or clearly the wrong solution (Roy Moore comes to mind).
Of course, there's always someone who thinks the irrational is rational, but presenting all issues as if they have two sides tends both to eliminate some rational perspectives and to present as rational some of the irrational ones.
I think this natural tendency (day and night, good and evil, up and down) is aggravated by our two-party system.
CP