PhilosophyMonkeyFranzKafka

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg
Showing posts with label jurisprudence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jurisprudence. Show all posts

Monday, 17 June 2013

Blowing the Whistle on Whistleblowers

Posted on 07:17 by Unknown
Whistleblowing and information leaks have been spearheading news headlines recently. Among the highest profile cases in America we've had Bradley Manning and, most recently, Edward Snowden. Many have jumped on the character assassination wagon, calling them traitors, cowards, and a lot of other things, even calling for their heads!, all of which tends to distract from the more pressing issue: the information leaked, what it tells us about the sources that were trying to keep it secret, and the implications going forward.

Directly or indirectly, both men did work for the government, so a case could potentially be made that they betrayed our government. Though I disagree with that position, I'm willing to grant it for the sake of argument. What they did not betray, however, is their country. They saw that the government was violating human rights, the constitution and the principles upon we always claim our nation was founded, and they decided to stand up to power so that we could rescue our country back from the forces that want to corrupt it for their own purposes. These men are American and moral heroes. Few have the courage to stand up and risk so much when it would be so much easier to just stay silent and look the other way, and now, in their time of need, we ought to stand by them and support them.

Yes, the information they revealed is shocking and damaging to our reputation, no doubt, but our reputation ought to be based who we are, not on what we hide. And claims regarding national security, at least in these two cases, have been completely fabricated or at least blown way out of proportion. Unlike the previous administration, which actually outed individual secret agents and put their lives at real risk (all in the name of politics, I might add), Manning and Snowden have leaked information about highly questionable programs and practices that have been institutionalized without having gone through the proper checks and balances (you know, pesky little things like the Constitution and such)...

But of course, how you feel about and refer to these folks depends on where you're coming from, as the hilarious Samantha Bee beautifully and succinctly shows:


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

And just to give you a taste of the backward twilight zone world we seem to be living in, here's an example of those in (financial) power trying to silence those who report on their corruption by trying to turn the law on them! (and apparently without noticing the irony and contradiction):


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Ok, this is going to sound horrible, so be warned, but was it deliberate that the public relations spokesperson sort of looks like a piggy, to make it look like they sympathize with the plight of animals, or was it just an unfortunate and ironic coincidence?
Read More
Posted in animals, corruption, ethics, free speech, hilarious, Jon Stewart, jurisprudence | No comments

Friday, 15 June 2012

This Is the Best Sermon You'll Hear Today. Amen!

Posted on 06:46 by Unknown
I know I sometimes tend to rant against religious dogmatism and bigotry, but credit has to be given where it's due, and the following sermon by Pastor Frederick Haynes III absolutely deserves props, so kudos!

Why? Well, consider this... he's a black man and a Christian Baptist minister. So if he's talking about homosexuality, you'd think he'd go the double-whammy homophobic route and preach to the intolerant choir (sorry, but come on, you know that's how it goes).

Instead, however, he delivers one of the clearest, bravest and most eloquent articulations of the idea behind the separation of church and state I've seen religious commentators make, all before getting into the theological question of what Christian attitudes ought to be toward homosexuality given what Jesus said about it. If you declare Jesus Christ to be your lord and savior, you might want to pay attention to his teachings before you start passing judgment or throwing stones at other people  Can I get an Amen!? :)


Hallelujah!
Read More
Posted in corruption, ethics, gay stuff, jurisprudence, logic, religion, sex | No comments

Thursday, 29 March 2012

Sam Harris on Free Will

Posted on 19:25 by Unknown
The religious instinct is not merely limited to belief in God and supernatural agents. And to varying degrees, even hard-core atheists tend to be religious in this sense, since they still adopt beliefs that may be religious in origin. It's a little too convenient that when one denies the existence of God, most other beliefs are not similarly rejected, but why should this be the case?

If we reject God, we can't simply assume the reality of the continued identity of the self (or even its very existence), an objective basis for morality, a rational basis for science, the existence of free will, the reality of the external world, the very idea of objective truth, etc. We need to mount arguments and evidence in support of these ideas if we want to be able to have a right to such beliefs.

And Sam Harris thinks we're lying to ourselves if we believe that our wills are free. His arguments are not particularly interesting or new here (and to many not even convincing). Harris may have just written a concise little book on the subject, but he's no Nietzsche, who clinched the case against free will and the self even more concisely, in less than a paragraph:
A thought comes when ‘it’ wishes, and not when ‘I’ wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say the subject ‘I’ is the condition of the predicate ‘think’. It thinks: but that this ‘it’ is precisely the famous old ‘ego’ is, to put it mildly, only a superstition, an assertion, and assuredly not an ‘immediate certainty’. . . . Even the ‘it’ contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the grammatical habit: ‘thinking is an activity; every activity requires an agent; consequently —’.
But where Harris is interesting (and I've subscribed to this line of thinking for at least a decade now) is in what he has to say about the implications of the denial of free will: it doesn't de-humanize us. This recognition humanizes us because it helps us to understand that instead of jumping to conclusions and throwing blame around, as we're wont to do, maybe we need to be more compassionate and understand that people are not fully free, and that their actions are at least partly to blame on circumstances and other causal antecedents...



While I agree with a good number of points made by Harris, there is at least one fundamental point on which he seems to be utterly confused: his denial of free will cannot be a scientific conclusion when he argues that there is no possible world in which free will could, even in principle, exist. If this is not a testable claim that could be decided by empirical evidence but simply by conceptual analysis (as I would be perfectly happy to do), then this is a philosophical conclusion... and people say philosophy doesn't make progress :)
Read More
Posted in ethics, free will, jurisprudence, mind, Nietzsche, philosophy, religion, Sam Harris | No comments

Tuesday, 27 March 2012

The Word - Hoodies: Dressed to Kill

Posted on 14:05 by Unknown
The unfortunate and sad story of Trayvon Martin, a Floridian teenager who was pursued and subsequently gunned down a month ago in broad daylight by what appears to be an unstable, racist vigilante, George Zimmerman, for the crime of wearing a hoodie and being armed with an iced-tea and some skittles while not belonging to the neighborhood, has rocked the nation, especially because Zimmerman, to date, has not even been arrested...

As is the now regrettably predictable outcome in these scenarios, politicians, the media and others will go to ridiculous lengths to exploit and squeeze every drop they can out of such a tragedy to score their own ideological points, and, as Stephen Colbert shows, to point fingers in all the wrong places...


The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

But it's not just conservative jerks who are being ridiculous... Jon Stewart has more:


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

And Cheney had a heart?!?
Read More
Posted in corruption, hilarious, Jon Stewart, jurisprudence, racism, Stephen Colbert | No comments

Monday, 20 February 2012

Bill Moyers - Freedom Of and From Religion

Posted on 12:07 by Unknown
As we've seen before, the Obama administration mandate that tax-exempt and government-funded religious institutions make contraceptives available to their employees, should the latter choose to use them, has resulted in outcries of religious persecution on the part of churches and political conservatives hoping to score political points.

In moments like these, it's always a good idea to pay attention to what cooler and reasonable heads make of the situation, and what more fair-minded person can one think of than Bill Moyers?

In the following short essay, Moyers makes the right case: the first Amendment to the Bill of Rights, or what Jefferson referred to as the wall of separation between church and state, guarantees both freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion. No one can impose their beliefs on you, but by exactly the same reasoning, neither should you be allowed to impose your beliefs on the rest of us.



RAmen!
Read More
Posted in ethics, feminism, Founding Fathers, health, jurisprudence, religion | No comments

Monday, 6 February 2012

Drug Testing Poor Pee-Ple

Posted on 09:39 by Unknown
There is a growing contradiction in American values: on the one hand, we like to think we are the best nation ever, full of great people, great promise, Christian family values, compassion and love for our neighbors, blah blah blah. On the other hand, we hate the idea of supporting and extending a hand to our brothers and sisters during their times of need (especially when they belong to minority groups), and we will go to great political lengths, often unconstitutional, to make sure we institutionalize the idea that the "other" is not to be trusted, and certainly not to be helped. And once this discrimination is institutionalized, we get to wash our hands of any personal responsibility for not helping our fellow man since we're now just being good "law-abiding citizens." It's a little too convenient if you ask me.

Of course, no one likes to sound like a bigot, so we mask our contempt for other groups under more exalted principles and values, such as justice, opportunity, freedom, etc.; and through sweeping generalizations, often false, we argue that those we don't want to help are irresponsible, opportunistic, lazy, undeserving, etc. That paints a picture that helps us rationalize our dislike for helping others, especially when they don't look very much like us.

So, when someone wants to argue that we should drug-test people requesting government assistance (probably because conservative fiscal policy destroyed the economy on which the poor previously relied for employment and an honest income), we all tend to jump on the bandwagon of "justice" and "merit," and recite that heartless cliché: "why should my hard-earned money go to some lazy, irresponsible junkie who's just going to blow it on drugs?" As if politicians' cocaine habits weren't also paid for with your tax dollars...

But if we are seriously going to argue that anyone who is going to receive money funded by tax-payers should be tested for drugs, the implications of that assertion go far beyond welfare applicants, as Aasif Mandvi hilariously demonstrates in this clip:


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook


But why require such conditions of the poor only? It can't be use only, since virtually every group has members who partake in the occasional festivities. But why only drug-test the poor? What about students who apply for financial aid? Or scientists who depend on government grants for their research? How about government and military contractors? Remember Blackwater? Didn't they go on killing sprees of innocent people while drunk, further endangering our troops abroad? How about the wealthy who are taxed at lower rates than their maids and secretaries? How about farmers who receive subsidies for producing all the corn that's contributing to our obesity and early onset diabetes epidemic? How about churches that receive tax exemptions (and government funding) while they openly discriminate against various other groups? Last time I was in church, the Padre was rosey-cheeked drinking wine in front of the entire congregation. :)

Is the welfare system open to abuse by free-riders? Or course, and I would never be rash enough to deny that. But do the 2% who might abuse the system justify violating the constitutional rights of the other 98% of welfare applicants? Should that 98% be automatically perceived with the contemptuous eyes that presuppose them guilty before any facts are in? Don't we in America believe in the principle that one should be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Not only that, the Constitution grants us all the right against searches not based on probable cause, and correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked 2% was not more probable than 98%.

Still, even if the percentage of drug users among welfare applicants were more probable than those who don't use drugs (and notice the equivocation this fallacious argument depends on), the very idea of rights implies that nothing can be done to you (as an individual) just because others who might superficially resemble you in some way might be guilty of some iniquity. If 98% of people like you are guilty of some crime, no one has the right to arrest you unless there is direct evidence tying you to that crime. Whatever the social utility that profiling might confer on society, the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights is that there are certain things that can't be done to you as an individual with "inalienable rights," regardless of their expediency or social utility.

But hey, if you're not going to demand that your politicians, stock brokers, bankers and investment managers be drug-tested so that they don't blow your hard-earned money on cocaine and hookers and lobbyists who are going to run the country to the ground just so they can buy yet another yacht and more blow to snort through hundred dollar bills that they will subsequently burn while lighting cigars and making fun of the poor, maybe you should be a little bit more compassionate toward people who are struggling, often because the other rich douchebags (whose outrageous fortunes are the result of financial speculation and political manipulation instead of real production of value, good or services, but that's a rant for another occasion) have created a system that furthers their own interests while perpetuating the poverty of the poor...

Thus spoke the Philosophy Monkey. :)

Now feel free to weigh in and tell me why I'm an idiot.
Read More
Posted in corruption, ethics, hilarious, Jon Stewart, jurisprudence, logic, philosophy | No comments

Thursday, 7 April 2011

Jon Stewart Nails Mike Huckabee

Posted on 05:15 by Unknown
As you may recall from previous occasions, whenever Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee have had a debate, their conversation has always been civil. I appreciate that, and while I disagree with Huckabee on most points, I respect a candidate who's able to engage in a respectful dialogue about differences of opinion.

Then again, I've always had the impression that Huckabee tailors his rhetoric with a perfectly good understanding of who the audience listening to him is. Yes, sly politician...

So, while he makes reasonable points to a liberal audience while talking to a progressive, he may go bat shit crazy while talking to what he would consider his more 'real' audience (like advocating the idea that the religious view of fundamentalist history distortionist David Barton be taught in public schools), but it's only a matter of time before someone like Jon Stewart calls him on his prestidigitation, and the result is some awesome ass kicking... in a civil manner, of course :)

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook


Here's part 2:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook


And part 3:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook


But don't worry, Mike Huckabee has the support and protection of Chuck Norris :)
.
Read More
Posted in corruption, debate, ethics, hilarious, Jon Stewart, jurisprudence, religion | No comments

Monday, 7 March 2011

Jury Selection Proving Difficult in Trial of "The Jury Killer"

Posted on 07:33 by Unknown
You may have concocted some strategy at some point to get out of jury duty, and if you've ever been prosecuted for some crime you (allegedly) committed, your lawyer may have had some say in the jury selection process, but only The Onion can come up with a plan to guarantee that no jury ever dares mess with you :)




Genius... :)
.
Read More
Posted in hilarious, jurisprudence, The Onion | No comments
Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Obama and Romney Laugh It Up
    With the upcoming elections, things have been heated up for the past few months. And though not to the same level, both major contenders, as...
  • Diane Kelly - What We Didn't Know about Penis Anatomy
    Penises... they're great. In my case, we're best friends. I never leave home without mine. Do you? It may seem pretty obvious what t...
  • The Punishable Perils of Plagiarism
    As we've seen before (in a case in which a professor discovered a massive collective case of cheating ), academic dishonesty is a seriou...
  • Tsumanis 101
    Sometimes when it rains, it pours. Japan has been recently devastated by the accumulation of horrendous circumstances due to the earthquake ...
  • Doodling in Math - Spirals, Fibonacci and Plants - 3
    Ok, so now that you've learned how the beauty and elegance of the golden ratio and Fibonacci sequence are instantiated all over the natu...
  • Sean Carroll - The Case for Naturalism
    If you follow current events in the world of public intellectualism, you probably know that over the past few decades, and increasingly over...
  • Stephen Colbert - America Again: Re-Becoming the Greatness We Never Weren't
    Sorry for the sparse presence recently folks, but I've been buried under a mountain of work with the end of the semester. Last night, fo...
  • Daniel Dennett - How to Tell If You're an Atheist
    The human mind is both beautiful and frustrating. We have minds that can contemplate the meaning of infinity and consciousness, on the one h...
  • Super Monkey Collider Loses Funding
    Though the longitudinal study on whether multiple stab wounds may be harmful to monkeys is not yet complete, The Onion reports that the ec...
  • Miss USA Contestants on Evolution
    Let's be honest: beauty pageants are about how hot the contestants are. I won't pass judgment on whether this is morally acceptable ...

Categories

  • 3-minute philosophy (11)
  • 60 Second Adventures in Thought (8)
  • Alan Turing (3)
  • All Too Human (1)
  • amazing (6)
  • animals (25)
  • animation (77)
  • anthropology (4)
  • architecture (2)
  • Aristotle (13)
  • art (14)
  • atheism (41)
  • audio (21)
  • autism (2)
  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali (1)
  • Big Brother (4)
  • biography (9)
  • Bishop Berkeley (3)
  • Brainspotting (3)
  • Brian Cox (6)
  • Bryan Magee (1)
  • Carl Sagan (5)
  • Charles Darwin (9)
  • chemistry (6)
  • Christopher Hitchens (6)
  • cognitive science (5)
  • corruption (108)
  • Cosmos (3)
  • creationism (12)
  • Dan Ariely (1)
  • Daniel Dennett (4)
  • David Attenborough (3)
  • David Chalmers (1)
  • David Hume (17)
  • David Sloan Wilson (2)
  • debate (12)
  • Descartes (11)
  • dinosaurs (1)
  • documentary (45)
  • doodling in math (6)
  • E.O. Wilson (2)
  • economics (23)
  • education (43)
  • Einstein (11)
  • Elegant Universe (11)
  • Enemies of Reason (21)
  • environment (19)
  • Epicurus / Lucretius (1)
  • ethics (100)
  • evolution (55)
  • existentialism (13)
  • feminism (13)
  • Flying Spaghetti Monster (2)
  • Founding Fathers (13)
  • free speech (4)
  • free will (7)
  • Freud (1)
  • funny songs (12)
  • Galileo (6)
  • gay stuff (12)
  • geography (9)
  • George Carlin (2)
  • health (35)
  • Hegel (1)
  • Heidegger (1)
  • hilarious (163)
  • history (64)
  • Hobbes (8)
  • Inside Nature's Giants (6)
  • Jane Goodall (1)
  • Jim Al-Khalili (4)
  • John Locke (9)
  • John Searle (4)
  • Jon Stewart (48)
  • jurisprudence (8)
  • Kant (7)
  • Ken Miller (1)
  • Kierkegaard (2)
  • Kurt Vonnegut (1)
  • Large Hadron Collider (7)
  • Leibniz (5)
  • Leonardo da Vinci (1)
  • linguistics (11)
  • literature (25)
  • logic (60)
  • Lord Robert Winston (1)
  • magic (3)
  • Malcolm Gladwell (1)
  • Martin Luther King Jr. (2)
  • Marx (2)
  • Masters of Philosophy (19)
  • math (38)
  • Michael Faraday (2)
  • Michael Sandel (2)
  • Michael Shermer (1)
  • mind (34)
  • Mind control (1)
  • monkeys (8)
  • Monty Python (3)
  • movie (2)
  • music (7)
  • National Geographic (3)
  • Neil DeGrasse Tyson (7)
  • Newton (7)
  • Nietzsche (7)
  • Optical illusion (10)
  • Paradox (8)
  • Penn and Teller (1)
  • personal (5)
  • Peter Millican (10)
  • Peter Singer (7)
  • philosophy (111)
  • Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness (1)
  • physics (39)
  • Plato (7)
  • porn (7)
  • privacy (4)
  • problem of evil (4)
  • psychology (18)
  • public announcement (2)
  • racism (19)
  • religion (115)
  • Richard Dawkins (12)
  • Richard Feynman (7)
  • Ricky Gervais (1)
  • Robert Krulwich (1)
  • RSA Animate (16)
  • Sam Harris (3)
  • sartre (1)
  • science (79)
  • sex (19)
  • SNL (2)
  • Socrates (7)
  • space (32)
  • sports (4)
  • Stephen Colbert (40)
  • Stephen Fry (6)
  • Stephen Hawking (4)
  • Stephen J. Gould (1)
  • Steven Pinker (6)
  • Steven Weinberg (1)
  • technology (20)
  • TEDTalks (50)
  • The Human Sexes (4)
  • The Onion (24)
  • Tim Minchin (4)
  • time (5)
  • time lapse (10)
  • William Lane Craig (3)
  • Wittgenstein (3)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (49)
    • ▼  August (1)
      • The Terrors of Sleep Paralysis
    • ►  July (9)
    • ►  June (9)
    • ►  May (8)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (5)
  • ►  2012 (205)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (12)
    • ►  September (14)
    • ►  August (15)
    • ►  July (20)
    • ►  June (19)
    • ►  May (27)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (19)
    • ►  February (22)
    • ►  January (20)
  • ►  2011 (217)
    • ►  December (19)
    • ►  November (20)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (19)
    • ►  August (16)
    • ►  July (19)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (16)
    • ►  March (22)
    • ►  February (19)
    • ►  January (16)
  • ►  2010 (29)
    • ►  December (26)
    • ►  November (3)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile