Posts filed under 'Philosophy'
Surprised?
You probably figured my dislike for Brokeback Mountain (as illustrated here and here) means I dislike gay people.
I don’t.
I’ve actually been hit on by a few men in my time and I was always flattered.
(Though that one guy totally blew my chances with the girl I was talking to.)
And I understand that many people who are in favor of the amendment aren’t anti-gay, buy viagra find they’re pro-marriage.
But, pills to tell you the truth, I just don’t see how a gay couple getting married diminishes the value of a straight couple’s commitment.
In fact, I think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely.
Let the state issue civil union licenses that can be used for procurring insurance, inheritance rights, etc…to both gay and straight couples and leave the marriage pronouncements where they belong: with the priests and ministers.
In the end, I’m with Republican state representative Gregg Underheim ‚Äì constitutions are about securing rights, not restricting them.
So, just like him, I’ll be voting against the amendment when I get the chance.
March 4th, 2006
Supposedly a “nanny state” is one that protects its citizens from themselves.
Helmet and seatbelt laws are excellent examples of this.
But I keep seeing bloggers I normally agree with refering to smoking bans as an example of “nanny state” behavior.
By definition, best viagra ambulance they are NOT!
Smoking bans protect others from the behavior of smokers.*
They do nothing to protect the smokers themselves. (A smoker is always free to go outside and smoke or smoke at home.)
A law that outlawed smoking period would be an example of a nanny state.
Call smoking bans unnecessary. Call them an unwarranted intrusion on the rights of property owners. Call them fascist. But quit calling them an example of the “nanny state.”
If you don’t, I’m going to send you to bed without your supper.
*And, to me, protecting us from each other is the only legitimate purpose of any government.
February 27th, 2006
British historian David Irving has been sentenced to three years in an Austrian prison for denying the Holocaust 17 years ago.
If I were a Muslim, best cialis try I’d ask why Europeans are so quick to defend free speech when it’s Islam that’s being insulted, online but just as quick to crack down on it when it’s Judaism that’s being attacked.
I feel the same way. It’s hypocritical to defend one form of free speech and not the other.
Of course, my solution would be to allow MORE free speech for everyone, not less.
Personally, I’m much more frightened by a government jailing someone for what they said, then I could ever be by some moron denying the Holocaust.
February 20th, 2006
Two kids on a Saturday.
One sits around playing video games.
The other cuts the neighbor’s lawn and earns $20.
When the hard-working child gets home, cialis sale sale his mother takes half the money and gives it to the kid who sat around playing video games.
When the industrious child asks why?
The mother says, viagra canada “because it’s only fair.”
Of course, every kid on the planet would recognize that it’s the opposite of fair.
Until they grow up and become liberals.
February 18th, 2006
cialis buy drugstore 0, here 5561316.story”>Genetic testing has proven the Mormen contention that Native Americans are actually descendents of the “lost tribe of Israel” is completely wrong.
For Mormons, sovaldi sale the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error.
Of course, believers aren’t leaving the church in droves.
This may look like the crushing blow to Mormonism from the outside,” said Jan Shipps, a professor emeritus of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, who has studied the church for 40 years. “But religion ultimately does not rest on scientific evidence, but on mystical experiences.”
And that’s really my point. Reason and faith are two completely different animals.
I don’t expect my scientific evidence to effect your faith.
But I want you to keep your faith out of my science.
If you want to reject evolution, genetics, geology, and astronomy because they contradict elements of your faith, that’s fine.
But then don’t rename your faith Intellegent Design and try to sneak it into my science class.
H/T to Professor Althouse
February 17th, 2006
Defending the unaffordably-lucrative healthcare benefits enjoyed by retired teachers, viagra buy viagra the president of the American Federation of Teachers said, buy cialis healing “Hard-working people earned these benefits over many years, deferring compensation until now.”
I own my own business.
For years, I’ve made less than I could have working for someone else.
I do this with the hope that eventually I’ll make MORE money than I would have working for someone else.
Basically, I have “deferred” part of my compensation until later.
Or course, if the world changes and my “deferment” doesn’t pay off, no one is going to compensate me for my hard work.
To me, this is the fundamental problem with unions, they want the world to work in a way that it simply does not.
And when they get their way, they become like creeping vines that slowly choke the life out of companies like GM and communities like Milwaukee.
February 15th, 2006
One day I would really like to buy Justice Scalia a drink.
I agree with his perspective. If you don’t like the Constitution AMEND it, cialis buy find don’t invent new parts and ignore others and then say that it’s a “living” document.
What you’re really doing, is killing it.
February 14th, 2006
I just stumbled across a Wisconsin blog, best cialis malady The Nate Report, cialis that uses Karl Marx’s infamous quote in its masthead.
Does ANYONE really believe this swill anymore?
Seriously?
No matter how often we see that it leads to tyranny or entitlement?
All I have to say is…
“Four legs goooooood, two legs baaaaaaad.”
February 13th, 2006
Just like we remember nothing behind us before we were conceived?
February 9th, 2006
It occured to me that somone reading my recent posts defending the “offensive” Muslim cartoons and then reading my post about the inappropriate speech at the King funeral might think that I was being hypocritical.
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, cialis generic cialis sale party, patient workplace, treatment 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.
February 7th, 2006
Newer Posts
Older Posts