I was standing within earshot of the computer for about 90 seconds. Within that span of time, I heard her defend her stance that human cloning is wrong by repeating, "IT JUST IS!" These three words were chanted over and over like a mantra with rising speed, volume, and pitch. It was as if she was trying to raise her whines to a pitch that would summon dolphins and whales to her aid. When her impression of Aquaman failed, she turned to invoking the mighty name of God. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not how you argue your case.
Next time you find yourself being assailed by someone that is brazen enough to have an opposing view to yours, I want you to resist the urge to scream out something like, "IT JUST IS!" or "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO!" Instead, I'd like you to take a breath and think for a moment about why you feel the way you feel. Think of good supporting evidence or theories that you can use to defend your position. If you don't do this, you're going to look like a spoiled 8-year-old girl arguing that Rainbow Brite is cooler than Strawberry Shortcake. "IS TOO! IS NOT!" You know the routine.
Arguing is just like writing an undergraduate paper, except that you have to make it up as you go along. So, I guess it's exactly like writing an undergraduate paper. Form your thesis. This is what you believe to be true. Then, think about why you feel that way. If you don't have any good reasons - like maybe you were raised to believe the Bible is the Word of God, but you've never thought about it for yourself - maybe it's time you rethink your position.
OK, so Miss Britt believes human cloning is wrong. Let's look at what she should have done instead of squealing like bad microphone feedback:
Avitable: Why do you think cloning is wrong?
Miss Britt: Because, I believe that each human is unique and that each of us has a soul. I don't believe that a clone would have a soul.
See how easy that was? She presents evidence that cannot be empirically refuted. Therefore, no one can say with certainty that she's right or wrong. This is an ontological argument - it relies on itself to prove its validity. According to my homey Immanuel Kant, this is bad philosophy and I am inclined to agree. But, using this would have been better than nothing and I would have been more likely to take her seriously.
« Hide Post
