The Daily Show mocks the "personhood" movement:
| The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Bro-Choice | ||||
| ||||
Man jailed for using chloroform to rape his new bride:
A husband who raped his new wife after knocking her out with chloroform when she refused him sex has been jailed for eight years.Just eight years?!? Read more...
The man, 35, tied her to a bed with a scarf and used the anaesthetic twice during their six-week marriage. His wife, a Bangladeshi immigrant, 23, first turned him down on their wedding night because she was too nervous.
The husband had denied the two rapes in Poplar, East London.
At the Old Bailey, prosecutor Richard Hearnden said: “She says she was forced to marry him. “The period of time between the defendant first meeting her and the marriage ceremony was extremely short.”
I got a laugh out of this image demonstrating the creation of a person:
(Via Rational Hub.)
There's a very real war against girls and women going on in Afghanistan:
At least 140 Afghan schoolgirls and female teachers were admitted to a local hospital Tuesday after drinking poisoned water, said local health officials, who blamed the act on extremists opposed to women's education.It's not the first time: "In 2010, more than 100 schoolgirls and teachers were sickened in a series of similar poisonings." Read more...
The victims range in age from 14 to 30 and were taken to a hospital in Afghanistan's northeastern Takhar province after their school's water tank was contaminated, according to provincial health department director Dr. Hafizullah Safi.
No deaths were reported, but more than half the victims partially lost consciousness, while others suffered dizziness and vomiting
Pro-tip: Don't attempt to dismiss concerns of environmentalists by claiming that the earth has been around for 6000 years, and that's a long time, so surely this mine won't cause any problems. I kid you not.
I love this quote by John Lewis, from his 2006 post Theocracy and Precedent:
But while explicit calls for socialism remain among only a small group of leftists, our country has nevertheless adopted socialist policies impossible three generations ago. The encroachment of religiously-based laws can accomplish a similar theocratic result in less time, if not opposed in a principled way. Fines against the media for 'indecency,' and 'faith-based' initiatives, are cases in point; all such censorship and religious socialism set precedents for even greater attacks on our freedom in the future. The price of a secular society is eternal vigilance against such laws, and intransigent opposition to the ideas and people that make them possible.Check out the blog of The Objective Standard here. Read more...
In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed public breastfeeding. The question was:
Is breastfeeding children in public wrong? My wife and I want to have kids, and one question we have concerns public breastfeeding. Is it immodest or improper to breastfeed in public? Should stores permit or forbid it on their premises? Should public breastfeeding be restricted or banned by law as indecent?My answer, in brief:
People ought to support public breastfeeding, even if they prefer not to look at it. It's not a sexual act, and mothers should be able to feed their babies when they're out and about.Here's the video of my full answer:
Lately, I've been re-reading the Greek Bible (a.k.a. "The New Testament") while listening to Prof. Luke Timothy Johnson's lecture course, Jesus and the Gospels. Johnson is a believer, unlike Bart Ehrman. But he's a scholarly, thinking Roman Catholic -- not a knee-jerk Biblical literalist. So I'm enjoying the course far more than expected.
When William Stoddard recommended the poem "The Disciple" by Rudyard Kipling on another comment thread, I was intrigued! Better yet, I was not disappointed on reading the poem.
The DiscipleIn the years that I've been studying the history and texts of early Christianity, I've grown to love and appreciate the Gospels as literature. They're rich, complex, and philosophical. I've also developed some sympathy for Jesus -- as much as I disagree with every bit of his preaching -- because his message was so quickly and wildly distorted by his followers. To use Bart Ehrman's language, there's a gap between the religion proclaimed by Jesus and the religion about Jesus. And it's huge. Read more...
Rudyard Kipling
He that hath a Gospel
To loose upon Mankind,
Though he serve it utterly--
Body, soul and mind--
Though he go to Calvary
Daily for its gain--
It is His Disciple
Shall make his labour vain.
He that hath a Gospel
For all earth to own--
Though he etch it on the steel,
Or carve it on the stone--
Not to be misdoubted
Through the after-days--
It is His Disciple
Shall read it many ways.
It is His Disciple
(Ere Those Bones are dust )
Who shall change the Charter,
Who shall split the Trust--
Amplify distinctions,
Rationalize the Claim;
Preaching that the Master
Would have done the same.
It is His Disciple
Who shall tell us how
Much the Master would have scrapped
Had he lived till now--
What he would have modified
Of what he said before.
It is His Disciple
Shall do this and more....
He that hath a Gospel
Whereby Heaven is won
( Carpenter, or cameleer,
Or Maya's dreaming son ),
Many swords shell pierce Him,
Mingling blood with gall;
But His Own Disciple
Shall wound Him worst of all!
In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed outing anti-gay politicians as gay. The question was:
Is it wrong to "out" a hypocritical anti-gay public figure who is secretly gay? Some conservative politicians have taken strongly anti-gay positions, but are secretly gay themselves. If one learns of this, is it wrong for gay activists to publicly "out" them? What if they don't engage in public hypocrisy, but are just quietly "in the closet"? Should activists respect their privacy in that case?My answer, in brief:
People who publicly advocate meddling in other people's private choices should not expect others to respect their private hypocrisy. They should be exposed, as a matter of justice.Here's the video of my full answer:
The latest issue of The Objective Standard was recently posted online. In it, Ari Armstrong and I replied to a letter from Walter Hudson on our essay in defense of abortion rights. Hudson is a writer for PJ Media and the chair of Minnesota's North Star Tea Party Patriots.
For the full story, first read Ari's and my essay: The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties. Then read Hudson's letter and our reply: An Objective Case Against Abortion?
Hudson's letter begins:
The thing I most admire about Objectivism is its uncompromising affirmation of life. No other philosophy I have encountered consistently holds thriving human existence as its chief value. I was therefore disappointed to read Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong's argument for an alleged right to terminate the life of the unborn ("The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties," TOS, Winter 2011-2012).Our reply begins:
In the interest of full disclosure, I confess that I am a Christian, and thus not an Objectivist. I nonetheless consider myself an advocate of Objectivism's prescriptions for civil society, and I am cognizant of the necessity for objective rational argument in the craft of public policy.
Walter Hudson's letter regarding our article neglects our central argument and relies on a faulty theory of rights.Now... go read the whole exchange: An Objective Case Against Abortion? Read more...
Hudson rightly recognizes that the philosophy we subscribe to, Objectivism, entails an "uncompromising affirmation of life"; however, this must be understood in its proper context. Each individual properly acts to sustain and advance his own life, neither sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself. As concerns pregnancy, the key question is whether an embryo or fetus is a person with the same moral and legal rights as a born infant (in which case abortion is murder) or not (in which case abortion is a woman's right).
In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed offers of prayers for atheists. The question was:
What should I do when other people offer to pray for me? Sometimes my friends and family members offer to pray for me – whether because I've got some problem in my life or because they know that I'm an atheist. How should I respond?My answer, in brief:
You should tailor your response to the context, but in most cases, you should be clear, firm, and kind in refusing the prayers of others.Here's the video of my full answer:
In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed requests for prayers. The question was:
What is the proper response of an atheist to requests for prayers? A relative of mine recently had surgery to have his appendix removed. I was asked by another relative to pray for the first relative, even though everyone in my family knows that I don't believe in God or the power of prayer. I tried to let it slide during the conversation, but she was insistent. How should I respond to such requests for prayers, particularly when I don't want to offend anyone or seem unconcerned?My answer, in brief:
You should tailer your response to the context, but in most cases, you should be clear, firm, and kind in saying that you do not pray.Here's the video of my full answer:
In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll be answering a question on requests for prayers that might be of interest. The question is:
What is the proper response to requests for prayers? A relative of mine recently had surgery to have his appendix removed. I was asked by another relative to pray for the first relative, even though everyone in my family knows that I don't believe in God or the power of prayer. I tried to let it slide during the conversation, but she was insistent. How should I respond to such requests for prayers, particularly when I don't want to offend anyone or seem unconcerned?Go to www.PhilosophyInAction.com on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET to watch me answer this question live and join in the text chat. If you're not able to join the live webcast, an audio recording of my answer will be posted in the webcast archives on Sunday afternoon or Monday morning. Be sure to check out the other questions on tap for this week's webcast too.
In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed consent in sex. The question was:
What constitutes consent in sex? Can a person give tacit consent by his or her actions? Is explicit consent required for some sex acts? Once consent has been given, when and how can a person withdraw that consent? Does the legal perspective on these questions differ from the moral perspective?My answer, in brief:
To consent to sex requires communicating a willingness engaging in the act, whether by word or deed. Consent can be withdrawn at any point, and for the other person to ignore that constitutes sexual assault.Here's the video of my full answer:
Back to TOP
Tweet
Share
Stumble
Reddit
Bit.ly
