IntenseDebate - Chris MacDonald

12 years ago @ CPH providing flexible... - Is Allopathy Healing O... · 0 replies · +1 points

Love, this amazing site is certainly fabolous, i merely like it

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Want Harper to be less... · 1 reply · +1 points

Nope, I've read more than one Potter article. You're looking at...um, the forest, not the geography. The overall gist of Potter's writing is definitely not pro-Harper, unless you think there's a long string of flattery cleverly disguised as critique. Possible, I guess, but far from "obvious."

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Want Harper to be less... · 3 replies · +1 points

Read again, starting with Potter's opening sentence. There's nothing above that is actually pro-Harper. Quite the opposite, I'd say.

13 years ago @ http://www.themarknews... - Is that a cloned anima... · 0 replies · +1 points

This article is a lovely summary of the issue. But I don't see how you arrive at your conclusion, namely that consumers have a *right* to such information. Rights are potent rhetorical devices, but saying that consumers are interested in knowing X is not the same as saying they have a right to it. There are other ways to satisfy those concerns.

For an extended argument for why we *don't* have a right to know if food has been genetically modified, see MacDonald and Whellams, "Corporate Decisions about Labeling Genetically Modified Foods," Journal of Business Ethics, 74:4, 2007.

Or, for something less academic, see this blog entry: http://food-ethics.com/2010/09/28/the-right-to-kn...

13 years ago @ http://www.themarknews... - Are drug companies blo... · 0 replies · +1 points

Drug companies are not the barrier. The paucity of evidence suggesting the treatment is plausible is the barrier.

From what I understand about the evidence, there's insufficient reason to do clinical trials at this point. Any trial done at a Canadian university or hospital has to be approved by that institution's Research Ethics Board, and those boards will not approve testing just any old idea on human beings. I suspect that if a clinical trial -- funded by a drug company or through a government grant -- were brought to a Canadian REB today, it would very likely be rejected.

Chris MacDonald,
ResearchEthicsBlog.com

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Chilean miners: That f... · 1 reply · +1 points

Fuller's thought experiment had a real-life precedent, namely the 1884 English case of R v Dudley and Stephens, which was about cannibalism in a lifeboat at sea. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Steph... )

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Media War 2.0 · 0 replies · +2 points

Are you even going to try to explain why?

Evidence that real companies are finding real reasons to print news on paper, and are making money at it, has to be useful to figuring out whether there is a business case for doing so. Surely you don't find in McLuhan reason to think that evidence is not useful. Are we supposed to answer all questions a priori?

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Media War 2.0 · 2 replies · +2 points

e.g., what if it turns out that the answer is "hell yes! Lots of digital companies find it essential in certain circumstances, such as..."?

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Media War 2.0 · 3 replies · +2 points

So, too soon, eh? Shouldn't even ask the question? What if asking the question helps support *your* point of view. Would that be OK?

I never said the answer to the question would settle the matter. I just implied that it might be useful.

13 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Media War 2.0 · 0 replies · +2 points

That's why I only said it would be "one bit of data." I'd be curious to hear the details of any digital media company that suddenly said, "Hey, THIS bit of our business would work better in print."

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Chris MacDonald

People I'm following

Chris MacDonald