mdegges

@Jaskn: Sorry if my tone was affrontive. I was challenging the implication that those who believe Cyrus' recent behavior is negative blame sex for corrupting an otherwise innocent little girl. That's what I meant when I said "Blaming sex for the way Miley treats it is like blaming vodka for the way an alcoholic abuses it" - that point of view, which you call "the modern view of sex," just doesn't make sense. In my mind, sex is not the problem, but Cyrus' and others use of it is. I think it's perfectly rational to find many overly-sexual things negative, while not accepting the common view that sex is some sort of evil, corruptive force.

Let's bring this down to an individual level, because I don't want to get into "society's view of sex." If I see Cyrus' music video and react to her humping a wrecking ball nude, or licking a hammer, in a negative way, does that mean I "stigmatize sex"? You said yourself that every kid grows up, goes through puberty, dyes their hair, has sex, gets married, (goes to rehab, in the case of celebs), etc. Cyrus is certainly not excluded from this. Blaming sex for the way Miley treats it is like blaming vodka for the way an alcoholic abuses it. I don't have to stigmatize sex to know that the way Miley treats sex on camera is.. cheap and unmeaningful.

I don't think so- what pisses people off is the nauseating oversexualization of everything: commercials, billboards, song lyrics, music videos, movies, etc. It's crept upon pretty much every type of entertainment available. I see Cyrus as a scapegoat for this position.

@Crow, that is a great description. Just to expand on this a bit, being rational does not mean that you are never going to change your mind about anything. IF new information comes up that causes you to question/rethink your stance on an issue, you have to deal with that information (or store it away and deal with it as soon as you can). This happens to me a lot. I think, yes, I am for XYZ, but then I read a paper or hear a new argument that causes me to question my stance. Sometimes I can't think of a counter-argument right away- other times it takes me a long time to realize there isn't one- and I have to wait until I can work through it before I make up my mind. Even then, there is always the very real possibility that I have gotten something wrong, or don't have all the information necessary to be absolutely sure of myself. Anyways, being rational about your beliefs means that you must continually question them when a new argument appears. If you can easily counter it, that's great, and you can more sure about your position. But if you can't, you either need to do more studying until you CAN counter it or find a logical counter, or you need to rethink your position altogether.

To the second question, I would say yes. Obviously you didn't mean to be neglectful, but you were anyway. As you said, you got preoccupied with other things and didn't make sure that your mom's laptop was returned to her bag. I don't consider this a moral error because you weren't being neglectful on purpose (ie: with the intention of malice), but you should try to be more careful with other people's things.

There have been sanctions against Syria since 2004. Here is one of the more popularly cited executive orders written in 2011, which pretty much bans all business with Syria. The reason these executive orders were written are clear: Syria supports terrorists, is inhumane towards its people, and the US will not deal with such a regime. 9 years have passed since the first sanction against Syria was put into place, but Syria is still up to no good. If the goal is to hurt Syria, these sanctions don't seem to be doing it.

I would be most interested in #'s 1 and 2. As for #1, I wonder how much new information you could contribute to the topic (ie: how would your book be different from other books about atheism, or other books about seminarian-turned-atheist?) As for #2, novels are everyone's favorite. I like the idea of multiple books (ie: Stephen King's Dark Tower series) with meaningful themes that are written over the course of years. I mention King because he's written some epic novels that are so unbelievably interesting and hard to put down- DT is like that over the course of 7 books.

I read an interesting paper about this retributive model (which the author says is based on the writings of Kant and Hegel). This paragraph in particular stood out to me as a good argument for the death penalty:

@Strictly: Contrary to what is shown on TV, no one can be forced to take a polygraph test. Of course there are certain jobs that require you to take one during the application process, but the decision is ultimately yours.

You mean police that stand outside bathrooms and monitor kids going in, checking under their pants to see which sex organs they have? No. Nothing like that happened before this bill was passed, and it won't happen now, either.

First I'll start off by saying that I agree with your last 2 paragraphs- I have found no good reason for the existence of marriage benefits. However, this is the crux of your argument, as I've read it. It's a fair line of reasoning, but you need to dig deeper. You said that "[Marriage] benefits arise from the fact that mother-father child rearing is biologically natural, and tends to ultimately result in the best result for a child. " I can agree with your claim that heterosexual child rearing is (or was, 50 years ago) biologically natural (in modern society). But how do you know that this setup "ultimately results in the best result for a child"? What is your proof? Do you know of any studies that support this claim? You also don't explain why benefits are granted to heterosexual couples. (Obviously they can reproduce- but is merely having the ability and means to reproduce a good reason to grant them benefits?) You imply that marriage benefits somehow 'help' their children.. but again, is this a good reason to grant them benefits? I really don't believe that the ability to reproduce, or find a monogamous partner, is grounds for any special privileges (ie: marriage benefits). But as long as these benefits exist, I don't believe they should be granted exclusively to heterosexual couples. Some heterosexual couples cannot (or choose not to) have children. Why do they still recieve marriage benefits? Some homosexual couples adopt children. Why do they not recieve marriage benefits?

Yes! It took me a long time to get through OPAR- I'm not used to reading dense philosophy texts on my own. It takes a lot more concentration and effort to not only get through non-fiction texts, but to understand, decide if you agree/disagree with what's being said, and eventually try to integrate the concepts you agree with into your life. I generally prefer fiction ('light reading') because it illustrates points in an interesting and easy to understand way, as opposed to dense, dry, textbook-style formatting that I often find in non-fiction books.. but it's definitely rewarding to get through a non-fiction book like OPAR. You really see that Rand's fiction is just the tip of the iceberg, and there's a lot more to philosophy than 'selfishness is a virtue' and 'big government is bad.'

At first glance I agree with Nicky on this one, but it's really a decision you need to be certain about; it will affect the rest of your life. First you need to figure out why the idea of being a parent to a teenage girl makes you feel uncomfortable. (Are you concerned about your ability to be her father? Do you think her mother doesn't want your relationship with 'her' daughter to continue? Do you just want to get as far away from your ex-girlfriend as possible? Are you worried about being a single dad? ..not up to the continued responsibility? What are the reasons?) Based on your honest response, you can go from there. One option that came to mind while reading your post was custody under common law marriage. If you live in a state which allows CLM and (of course) meet those requirements, you may be able to file for some sort of legal custody. If you decide you do want to continue being her father (but are worried about her mother forbidding it or something), it's worth a shot since you've been a father figure in her life for the past 11 years.

The child in question has turned 18 (or gone through the emancipation process, etc) and become an adult- so the concept of child abuse could not apply. Now obviously it would be immoral to send a kid-just-turned-adult out into the world without any money or belongings. But would it be legal? Remember the child has been forcibly removed from his home and all of his possesions have been taken away from him. If children DO have property rights (see Nicky's post for more on this), then this would not be legal- parents would not have full ownership of their children's property. That is the legal solution- the recognition that children do have property rights.

@Crow, here's my understanding of your position: P: Children have possesions P: Parents have full ownership of their children's possesions- (or in other words, children are not in full control of the items that they have) C: Parents can choose to do whatever they want with their children's possesions (because they have full ownership) It follows that it would be legal for a parent to "strip his child of all his clothes, money, & other possessions, kick him out of the house, and send him out into the world with only the hair on his back the moment he turns 18." Doesn't sound right at all.

Hmm- Since we're discussing ethics and not just ownership, I wonder if it would be moral for a parent to strip his child of all his clothes, money, & other possessions, kick him out of the house, and send him out into the world with only the hair on his back the moment he turns 18. If children truly can't own anything of their own, I believe the answer would have to be yes. Would you agree?

Is it? Does this include gifts specifically given to a child (on his birthday, at christmas, etc)? Or money that he's earned by doing chores around the house? How about the items he buys with this money? Obviously parents can discipline their children and take away items that they believe are messing with their child's health (computer games), grades (computer games), social skills (computer games), & things of that sort. But if an item is specifically given to a child, I believe it belongs to him and him alone. As you said earlier, the reason these things can be taken away is because parents are guardians of their children and children live on their property and must abide by certain rules. But I don't see how this makes the idea of a child's ownership artificial.

@Harrison: Are you arguing that it's just as effective to kill a person with [bare hands, knives, crowbars, etc] than with guns? If that were true, guns wouldn't be necessary tools at all- not even for our military. @FeatherFall: Is there a thread about when a person is justified in shooting another person? My understanding is that if X initiates force against Y, X has forfeited his rights and Y has the right to defend himself- but to what extent? (By any means necessary, until Y is safe or X is no longer a threat?)

While I agree with the gist of this article (that it's good to recognize and praise achievement, especially when it directly affects you), "owe" is the wrong word to use here. The poor do not owe the rich anything, and the rich don't owe the poor anything. The point Biddle should be making is that we are not indebted to each other.

^ It's been corroborated by Martin's friend who was on the phone listening to the confrontation. No, Martin's actions only appear irrational because we don't know what his motivations were.

More on Adam & his charges:

I don't think it's that far-fetched. The strangest part about this trial is trying to figure out why Martin attacked Zimmerman. Maybe it's as snerd says, maybe not. To me, it doesn't make sense that Martin would attack Zimmerman to 'teach him a lesson' or because he was 'thirsty for blood.' Notice that Martin didn't get violent until Zimmerman reached for a concealed item. (Zimmerman said he reached for his cell phone, but who knows if that's what he actually did. He could've gotten scared and reached for his gun, and when Martin saw it, he attacked him. Unfortunately, the evidence does not tell us the whole story, and we only have Zimmerman to fill in the gaps.)

Why? Because men never rape boys? Or hispanic men never stalk and kill black men?

Thanks Nicky- that is a great post. But are you saying that I can't defend myself from what appears to be a rapist (who stared at me in his car, followed me as I continued walking, then running, and finally got out of his car and appeared to be looking around for me) when he reaches for a concealed item as I approach him to ask wtf he's doing? Do I have to wait for him to pull out a gun or a knife before I react? By then it will be too late for me to do anything since I have no weapons myself.

That's fair. I agree that no one should 'drop' anyone unless it's in self-defense.. which it may have been in this case, but we'll never know (see para 2). Zimmerman had the right to follow Martin, who appeared to be a suspicious individual. He also had the right to carry a concealed weapon. Martin had the right to confront the "creepy" individual who was following him, who he thought might be a rapist (says Jeantel). Up until this point, everyone was within their rights. Then Martin and Zimmerman exchanged words. (We can't be sure as to exactly what was said.) Zimmerman reached for his cell phone (to dial 911, he says) and moments later, Martin attacked Zimmerman. (Obviously the reason why Martin did this can only be speculated. To me, the most realistic account is this: As Zimmerman reached for his cell phone, Martin thought he was reaching for a weapon. If true, Martin was within his rights to immobilize Zimmerman, as is taught in self-defense 101.. punch the nose, bang em up. According to Zimmerman, Martin saw his concealed weapon when he was on the ground and continued to beat him, perhaps fearing that Zimmerman intended to shoot him, or hold him at gunpoint, etc.) Zimmerman, of course, also feared for his life and eventually shot Martin. (Legally okay, but morally right? Could the situation have been handled in another way?) Hindsight is 20/20. Imo Zimmerman was unprepared to handle a 'suspicious individual' and should have just met the police at the mailboxes or gone home. (I have seen it argued that Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his car if he didn't have a gun on him, meaning the 'suspicious individual' scared him enough that he should not have persisted. Again, speculation, but it's interesting to think about.)