the beautiful thing about this is that at least they're having this type of conversation

imho, people should be able to come together and practice social interaction (as a group in a specific geographic area) as long as it is voluntary and free of the initiation of violence, aggression and coercion

miamizsun wrote:
Good way to start the day - thanks for the reminder

aflanigan wrote:

harris is on the path to 'getting it'

he's still got some dogmatic baggage of his own

the good news is that he's open to having a conversation about it

hopefully daniel dennett will influence him a little more

miamizsun wrote:

Sounds like Mr. Harris, like many others, read some of Krishnamurti 's talks when he was a young man.

Renowned philosopher Martha Nussbaum addressed a packed auditorium Friday afternoon, berating Western Islamophobia , a problem Nussbaum said continues to plague the country today.

“Once, not very long ago, Americans and Europeans prided themselves on their enlightened attitudes of religious toleration, although everyone knew that the history of the West has actually been characterized by intense religious animosity and violence,” she said.

Nussbaum, a service professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago, said blatant legislative discrimination against Muslims in the United States, France, Belgium, Germany, and Spain, among other countries, requires examination.

“Our situation calls urgently for critical self examination as we try to uncover the roots of ugly fears and suspicions that currently disfigure all Western societies,” Nussbaum said. (...)

Reconsidering Obama the Pragmatist - NYTimes/The Stone

Public Health versus Private Freedom?
PRINCETON – In contrasting decisions last month, a United States Court of Appeals struck down a US Food and Drug Administration requirement that cigarettes be sold in packs with graphic health warnings, while Australia’s highest court upheld a law that goes much further. The Australian law requires not only health warnings and images of the physical damage that smoking causes, but also that the packs themselves be plain, with brand names in small generic type, no logos, and no color other than a drab olive-brown.

The US decision was based on America’s constitutional protection of free speech. The court accepted that the government may require factually accurate health warnings, but the majority, in a split decision, said that it could not go as far as requiring images. In Australia, the issue was whether the law implied uncompensated expropriation – in this case, of the tobacco companies’ intellectual property in their brands. The High Court ruled that it did not. (...)

John Stuart Mill, Internet Trolls & the Principle of Charity, Part II
In Part I , I introduced the idea that we should employ the principle of charity when engaging with ideas (particularly online) – especially from new and unknown interlocutors. Many problems could be prevented from occurring – such as using emotive, threatening, bullying tactics – if we read others' statements, arguments and ideas as genuine inquiries, not subversive tactics. I will now conclude why this argument, based on John Stuart Mill, is essential to intellectual inquiry.

Undermining Truth

The problem with all vitriol is the danger it imposes on truth. This is a problem that persists not only for blog commenters and trolls, but everyone – including the blogger herself. As Mill said: “Unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them”. If we create spaces of reasoned debate – websites, magazines, blogs – in which we always praise the prevailing opinion {of that space, not of society} and disregard with “unmeasured vituperation” anything other than full-throated acquiescence, it is no longer a space for inquiry but of dogmatic following, of uncritical agreement. (...)

RichardPrins wrote:

In previous columns for The Stone, I argued that the public’s trust in public speech, whether by politicians or in the media, has disintegrated, and to such a degree that it has undermined the possibility of straightforward communication in the public sphere. The expectation is that any statement made either by a politician or by a media outlet is a false ideological distortion. As a result, no one blames politicians for making false statements or statements that obviously contradict that politician’s beliefs. I believe that the unfolding presidential campaign provides a compelling demonstration of my previous claims. (...) The Ways of Silencing We might wish politicians and pundits from opposing parties to engage in reasoned debate about the truth, but as we know, this is not the reality of our political discourse.

Instead we often encounter bizarre and improbable claims about public figures. Words are misappropriated and meanings twisted. I believe that these tactics are not really about making substantive claims, but rather play the role of silencing . They are, if you will, linguistic strategies for stealing the voices of others. These strategies have always been part of the arsenal of politics. But since they are so widely used today, it is worth examining their underlying mechanisms, to make apparent their special dangers. (...)

Speech, Lies and Apathy We are all familiar with the “fact checkers” of the presidential campaign. Proud to be part of the fourth estate, these well-intentioned wonks uncover and unpack the various claims made by candidates, determining their veracity. But what if these efforts are in vain? And what if the campaigns themselves are not to be blamed? Is it possible that we are all culprits perpetuating this culture of “truthiness” on the political stage? Is it possible to lie in a political campaign where there is no expectation of truth?

In previous columns for The Stone, I argued that the public’s trust in public speech, whether by politicians or in the media, has disintegrated, and to such a degree that it has undermined the possibility of straightforward communication in the public sphere. The expectation is that any statement made either by a politician or by a media outlet is a false ideological distortion. As a result, no one blames politicians for making false statements or statements that obviously contradict that politician’s beliefs. I believe that the unfolding presidential campaign provides a compelling demonstration of my previous claims. (...) The Ways of Silencing We might wish politicians and pundits from opposing parties to engage in reasoned debate about the truth, but as we know, this is not the reality of our political discourse.

Instead we often encounter bizarre and improbable claims about public figures. Words are misappropriated and meanings twisted. I believe that these tactics are not really about making substantive claims, but rather play the role of silencing . They are, if you will, linguistic strategies for stealing the voices of others. These strategies have always been part of the arsenal of politics. But since they are so widely used today, it is worth examining their underlying mechanisms, to make apparent their special dangers. (...)

RichardPrins wrote:

Wow, talk about not loving your child, "She would have aborted her child if she knew." I have a friend whose only 20 and taking care of a 4-5 year old child thats not genetically his but he loves her just the same! Where his money?! I don't understand how these people can sue for that much (or even sue at all) when it was their choice to bring a new life into the world, despite the fact that there could be something that goes wrong. I understand that the genetic screen test was suppose to account for this and that it may have had a misreading, but still, if you're not willing to take the responsibilities of being a parent, THEN DON'T HAVE KIDS! A child thats perfect healthy and a child with down syndrome is still a child and still deserves the same amount of love and care (even if the child with down syndrome technically needs more care). I have a sister who just has OCD and I've seen how much thats costs my parents between meds and others things that they've need to get to help her, but they never even considered blaming it on anyone. Its just part of life! And life is something too many dont truly understand. Woo... ok thats enough of my rant for now.

Somewhat related to the previous post w.r.t. morality and birth...

Jury awards nearly $3 million to Portland-area couple in 'wrongful birth' lawsuit against Legacy Health The case was one of just a handful of so-called "wrongful birth" suits estimated to be filed each year in the United States, bioethics experts say. It was one of an even rarer few to go to trial — and garner a multi-million dollar verdict. In the process, the case stirred passionate public debate nationally and even internationally. The judge prohibited media in the courtroom from photographing or recording images of the couple, whose attorney said had received death threats .

Peter Singer Weighs In on Infanticide Paper - Percolator - The Chronicle of Higher Education (...) I expect that it is because the authors saw their article as a contribution to a discussion that goes back 40 years, that they were taken aback by the virulence of the reaction to it, and especially by the death threats they received. Of course, 40 years ago no articles were published online, and there were no pro-life Web sites, so since that time it has become much easier to stir up opposition to articles published in academic journals.

The moral status of newborn infants is a real issue, and it is proper for academic journals to publish articles that, like this one, discuss it in a serious and well-reasoned manner. People who wish to defend the traditional view of the sanctity of all human life should respond to the authors’ arguments, not by mere abuse. And it is ironic that some seek to “defend” the sanctity of human life by threatening to kill those who question it! (...)

NYT/The Stone : Spinoza's Vision of Freedom, and Ours
More than three centuries ago, Spinoza recognized that the unfettered freedom of expression is in the state's own best interest. Have we forgotten?

i say we embrace the non-aggression principle

stop initiating force against innocent people

please join me

give peace a chance

NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: Now,that is funny !
..or put some rice in it.

borrowed from another thread:

oldslabsides wrote:
fascinating init? We select what we want to see to confirm the theories we have already established.. and not just theories.. also behaviour patterns, morals, ethics, emotions, moods, etc. It's all part and parcel of a big self-reinforcing exercise in solipsism called mind.

Thank God for the school of hard knocks is all I can say.



alternatively I could just take the battery out and let it dry for three days.