How come there’s prejudice…
…but not postjudice?
6 comments March 24th, 2006
Posts filed under 'Philosophy'
We kicked the Taliban’s tail for this?
Abdul Rahman, viagra generic buy 41, viagra buy case has been charged with rejecting Islam, a crime under this country’s Islamic laws. His trial started last week and he confessed to becoming a Christian 16 years ago. If convicted, he could be executed.
I thought we removed the religious fanatics from power in Afghanistan?
Are you telling me this is how NON-fanatical
9/11?
The Islamic cartoon riots?
How much Islamic intolerance are the rest of us supposed to tolerate?
1 comment March 22nd, 2006
Popcorn philosophy
 |
I think of this site as being full of popcorn Bite-size pieces of fluffy nothingness surrounding a kernel of truth. Of course, cialis buy sovaldi you might want to take everything you find here with a grain of salt. |
5 comments March 22nd, 2006
To address the Funeral protest law question, I went and dug up an old post.
I just realized that I had already written a post a few months ago that addressed why I’m OK with prohibiting protests at private funerals.
I’ve included it in its entirety below:
It occured to me that somone reading my recent posts defending the “offensive”
So I wanted to take the opportunity to explain why I don’t feel those two stances are in conflict:
1.) I believe you should be completely free to say absolutely whatever you want…no matter how offensive someone else might find it.
2.) But I don’t believe you have the right to say it whenever/wherever you want.
There is an appropriate place (and time) for speaking your mind.
Letters to the editor? Good.
Floor of the Senate? Excellent.
Internet: Always the right venue.
Funerals? State of the Union addresses? Oscar speeches? Not so much.
The reason is that while I believe everyone has complete and utter freedom to say what they want…
…other people have an equally inalienable right NOT TO LISTEN!
When you speak in front of a captive audience you are FORCING your speech on someone who can’t respond and can’t escape.
When you intrude on someone’s funeral, viagra usa look party, workplace, home, etc…to speak your piece, you are not leaving room for the other people to avoid your speech if they so choose.
Remember, freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom to force your speech on somebody else.
That’s my opinion…of course, you’re free to ignore it if you wish.
Add comment March 21st, 2006
Children and the fickleness of genetic immortality.
I think when people have a child, tadalafil seek it gives them a sense of continuity in the world.
As if a child guarantees that a part of them will survive, viagra generic pharmacy long after they are gone.
After all, a child is half you…half your spouse.
He has your eyes. Your spouses’ nose.
A child feels like the closest thing we can come to
But even so, forever is fleeting.
Your child has a child.
And now, if you’re lucky, you can see maybe a fourth of yourself in your granddaughter’s face.
Maybe there’s a bit of a twinkle in her look like the one you sometimes still see in your own mirror.
Another generation? 1/8th of them is made of 1/8th of you.
Your great, great grandchildren will contain just a string or two of what made you you…like a few strands of hair kept as a keepsake.
How long before anything that’s left of you is drowned in a sea of other people’s DNA…dispersed in an ocean of distant descendents?
Genetic immortality is an illusion. The faint feeling you have of your own family, your own blood, stretching forever into the future is a fantasy.
The best you can hope for is that the love you give your own children will echo down through the generations like the distant memory of a mother’s lullabye.
Add comment March 20th, 2006
Gay marriage and the slippery idea of a slippery slope.
Some of the arguments I’ve seen employed in favor of amending the Wisconsin constitution to prohibit gay marriage invoke the concept of the
In other words, viagra drugstore if we allow
But “slippery slope” is a slippery concept.
For example, most critics of same-sex unions seem to imagine the following
0: No marriage at all.
1: Marriage is one man and one woman.
2: Marriage can include two people of the same sex.
3: Marriage can be made up of one man and many woman. (My current favorite.)
4: Marriage can be one woman and many men.
5: Marriage can involve one very sick man and a variety of small, furry forest creatures.
Why is moving from position one to position two any more “slippery” than moving from position zero to position one?
If we can hold steady at position one, why can’t we hold steady at position two?
Plus, who is to say that’s even the right slope?
Maybe it actually goes:
0: No marriage at all – no men married to no women.
1: Same sex marriage – still no men married to no women.
3: Traditional marriage – one man married to one woman.
4: Polygamy – one man married to a bunch of woman.
In that case having one guy being married to one guy and NO women is actually moving away from polygamy.
So, in conclusion, if you’re against
4 comments March 15th, 2006
When it comes to allowing comments on blogs, Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger antes up!
Peter Digaudio of Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger has turned on his comments!
Go over there and say “hi.”
But be polite.
Lots of poker players keep a six shooter handy for people who raise a ruckus.
3 comments March 14th, 2006
Consenting adults actually lead to fewer abortions.
According to this cialis sales decease 8599,1171359,00.html?cnn=yes”>report in
(Big surprise there.)
And there may even be some correlation to fewer pregnant teens overall.
But then they say:
But the study has some disturbing news for supporters of the notification laws: 17-year-olds in the study had a higher rate of second-trimester abortions, which are both riskier and more ethically charged than
abortions done in the early weeks of pregnancy.
Does TIME really think pro-lifers would prefer MORE abortions overall to a few more later in the pregnancy?
Only
Add comment March 9th, 2006
Maybe I should change the name of this site to RealDebate?
(With apologies to the real RealDebateWisconsin.)
I love well-reasoned arguments from intellegent people.
Nothing pleases me more than when folks like Jenna of Right off the Shore come after me over something they disagree with.
It’s stimulating and it forces me to reexamine my point of view.
It shows that everyone on the right side of the
And we aren’t all slavishly devoted to a single point of view.
So I’d like to thank everyone who came to disagree with my opinions on:
The seperation of Church and State.
And the root source of
Of course, buy viagra doctor feel free to disagree with everything I just said.
3 comments March 7th, 2006
I wonder if I’ll find a horse head in my blog in the morning.
I don’t like to disagree with
(It makes me twitch.)
But I think he was a little off with his assessment of today’s
On the whole, viagra generic seek I agree with the conlusions of both Charlie and the Journal Sentinel: RAs should be able to lead bible studies on their own time.
Where I part ways with Mr. Sykes is when he lists the rights enumerated in the First Amendment and appends rights that are NOT protected:
There’s a right to free speech. There is no right not to be offended.
There is freedom of the press. There is no right not to hear or read ideas you don’t like.
There is a right to worship. There is no right not to be around people who worship.
There is a right of assembly. There is no right to feel coerced by the assembly of others.
I think Charlie gave short thrift to the the very beginning of the
It’s the one part of the amendment where a “no” right is mentioned.
I think that can be reasonably read as protecting a person’s right not to worship (and by extension a right not to be forced to be around people who are worshipping).
If the university (a government entity) had ordered its RAs to teach Christian bible groups, I think it would have been a violation of the establishment clause.
Because that was not the case, I believe there was no problem.
But I think Charlie was a little too forceful in his statement.
I’m off now to sleep with the fishes.
9 comments March 6th, 2006