Wine snobs...take that!
http://twentytwowords.com/2011/02/25/beer-and-food-pairing-chart-easy-reference-guide-to-keep-with-your-recipes/
Friday, February 25, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
"I believe in Science" and the Narrow Inductivist View
Helpful considerations via Steve N:
http://snemes.blogspot.com/2011/02/narrow-inductivist-view-of-science.html
http://snemes.blogspot.com/2011/02/narrow-inductivist-view-of-science.html
"Man is homo religiosus, by 'nature' religious: as much as he needs food to eat or air to breathe, he needs a faith for living." -Herberg
Shame: The new tool for healthy youth development ;)
Two Jewels: "Its the job he wants, might as well let him start now," and "In the long run..."
Hog wash, there is no long run. Only the existential experience of the now has any meaning. Duh.
PS, I see a fun game to play at the next youth shindig in this. Hmmmmm...
Via: Tastefully Offensive
Hog wash, there is no long run. Only the existential experience of the now has any meaning. Duh.
PS, I see a fun game to play at the next youth shindig in this. Hmmmmm...
Via: Tastefully Offensive
Monday, February 21, 2011
Angry Birds Fans? This is awesome.
This dad is for the win. Plus, nifty British accents.
HT: Tastefully Offensive
HT: Tastefully Offensive
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Russians, the Sun, and Dinosaurs
Tee-hee. Volkov.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/11/science-us-russia-poll-education-science-idUKTRE71A5B920110211
Ooops, Hat Tip to Steve Hays
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/11/science-us-russia-poll-education-science-idUKTRE71A5B920110211
Ooops, Hat Tip to Steve Hays
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Bill O'Reilly's Non-miscommunicative Teleological Argument: Ha!
So good. Paley be one jealous hunk o'dust.
HT: Tastefully Offensive.
HT: Tastefully Offensive.
Consider the Soul: Chase is not a vegetable, leaving doctors bewildered and experts rethinking what they thought they knew about the human brain.
No detailed argument here, just an inductive suggestion that what we know about 'de anima' is NOT reducible to purely natural-material explanations.
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/12/chase-britton-boy-without-a-cerebellum-baffles-doctors/?ncid=webmail
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/12/chase-britton-boy-without-a-cerebellum-baffles-doctors/?ncid=webmail
Friday, February 11, 2011
Ha! 'thesaurus fallacy' (for Theo nerds only)
Paul Manata make me laugh. The last line is priceless.
I'm reposting his entire post here:
D.G. Hart says,
"I understand and have commented before on the scare word, neutral. The followers of Abraham Kuyper regard nothing as neutral; everything is either for or against Christ and so no secular or neutral realm exists. This has obvious appeal in Sunday school or at a political rally. But someone going to court, even to protest a parking ticket, is hoping that some realm of neutrality exists. If everything is partisan, then so much for impartial judgment by police, justices, reporters, or even plumbers (“Fox opines, you report”)."
Of course, I don’t hope the judge is neutral; rather, I hope he is objective. Like, I rather hope he’s partial to my video tape evidence that me and my car were 25 hours away at the exact time my car was supposedly downtown getting ticketed!
He then quotes Vos saying that there are some things that are not sinful in themselves, they are morally indifferent. Hart engages in th unfortunate thesaurus fallacy and claims that since “indifferent” has been used as a synonym for “neutral,” then neutrality is a viable category. But note well, Vos’ position isn’t a morally neutral one, it takes a moral stance. Vos brings up the category of intrinsic goods and evils and claims that the proper moral stance on piano playing is that it is not, in the abstract, intrinsically good or evil. It is morally permissible, then, to play, or to refrain from playing, the piano. This isn’t a neutral position, it is to place piano playing in the moral category of moral permissibility and not in the categories of morally impermissible or morally obligatory. Ethicists don’t consider moral permissibility a neutral category. Rather, it’s the right position to take on the matter. Some ethicists have placed things like suicide, euthanasia, and abortion in the categories of moral permissibility. I’d say Hart is against all three, and hence he should be able to see that calling something morally permissible isn’t to take a morally neutral stand on the topic.
More philosophy, less history, less conceptual muddle-headedness.
I'm reposting his entire post here:
D.G. Hart says,
"I understand and have commented before on the scare word, neutral. The followers of Abraham Kuyper regard nothing as neutral; everything is either for or against Christ and so no secular or neutral realm exists. This has obvious appeal in Sunday school or at a political rally. But someone going to court, even to protest a parking ticket, is hoping that some realm of neutrality exists. If everything is partisan, then so much for impartial judgment by police, justices, reporters, or even plumbers (“Fox opines, you report”)."
Of course, I don’t hope the judge is neutral; rather, I hope he is objective. Like, I rather hope he’s partial to my video tape evidence that me and my car were 25 hours away at the exact time my car was supposedly downtown getting ticketed!
He then quotes Vos saying that there are some things that are not sinful in themselves, they are morally indifferent. Hart engages in th unfortunate thesaurus fallacy and claims that since “indifferent” has been used as a synonym for “neutral,” then neutrality is a viable category. But note well, Vos’ position isn’t a morally neutral one, it takes a moral stance. Vos brings up the category of intrinsic goods and evils and claims that the proper moral stance on piano playing is that it is not, in the abstract, intrinsically good or evil. It is morally permissible, then, to play, or to refrain from playing, the piano. This isn’t a neutral position, it is to place piano playing in the moral category of moral permissibility and not in the categories of morally impermissible or morally obligatory. Ethicists don’t consider moral permissibility a neutral category. Rather, it’s the right position to take on the matter. Some ethicists have placed things like suicide, euthanasia, and abortion in the categories of moral permissibility. I’d say Hart is against all three, and hence he should be able to see that calling something morally permissible isn’t to take a morally neutral stand on the topic.
More philosophy, less history, less conceptual muddle-headedness.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Speed: Texting or Morse Code?
I know it's an old video. I don't care. Apparently 'old' still has some fight left.
Old guys use Morse code vs. kids with text messaging from MPG on Vimeo.
Old guys use Morse code vs. kids with text messaging from MPG on Vimeo.
The Ron Paul Story: A heartfelt documentary
Hat Tip to Cody Garret
Also, some thoughts on the AMA and Capital Punishment via Brian Leiter's favorite philosopher, the Maverick: http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2011/02/medical-perversity.html
Also, some thoughts on the AMA and Capital Punishment via Brian Leiter's favorite philosopher, the Maverick: http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2011/02/medical-perversity.html
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
New Forgotten Foundation Promo Video...Serving the Karen people of Thailand
These guys are doing great work. Just think, a bunch of random 505 boys with nothing more than their own resources, God's grace, and heart to serve the persecuted Karen people. I like to talk a lot about love, service, and justice but here it is action. These guys inspire me.
Props to Josh M and James G on their video editing and production skills.
Props to Josh M and James G on their video editing and production skills.
Friday, February 4, 2011
A message to the Church (and myself), first and foremost, concerning the recently released Planned Parenthood videos
Have you seen (or heard about) the 2 recent undercover videos of PP employees agreeing to help a pimp get STD testing and abortions for underage (14-15 year old) prostitutes? Probably.
There's a lot of chatter on this subject from the right and the left. Let me surprise you.
First off, the videos are produced as persuasion pieces, no denying that. However, you can access the full recordings of both videos from liveaction.org and the videos themselves. IF the videos smack of 'Loose-Change' or 'Zeitgeist' to you, by all means watch the originals.
Second, what is offered by PP on these videos is inscrutable. Whether its a set up or not, and whether that sort of deception is ethical in football or polemics or war, does not change the rules under which PP self-consciously submits from being wantonly discarded.
Third, that taxpayer $ goes to fund these clinics escalates the issue to a point of concern for the general populace. This is not simply a 'shut up and don't buy it if you don't like it' situation. We're all buying it.
Now on to my surprise.
First, I am glad that groups are working to expose injustices at PP clinics and elsewhere. However, most of what PP does is lawful according to the jurisprudence of state and federal law. Should it be? That's a different question than the one I'm asking here.
Second, I really do believe that most underpaid employees at PP (and elsewhere) are trying to help curtail a societal problem of mass proportion. Are they doing it the 'right' way? Perhaps not, but any critique of their actions should be carful to not impune motives of explicit malevolence.
This leads me to my third and final point: the Church, and its members, watch videos such as these with appall. We cry for the unborn, break for the men and women driven to such desperate measures, and project our justified anger on to the likes of PP and others. Then, we pick up our coffee and go back to FB or blogging or conjecturing about the superbowl. We pick up our stones, throw them, and drop a few extra boulders into our pockets for the next time around. On the contrary, we SHOULD be finding creative ways, at the sacrifice of our own time, money, and talent, to mercifully minister to these people. Instead, we stand over 'sinners' with indignant condemnation. I am not being self righteous here. I fail at this worse than you...and I even work at a church. My point is simply this, to paraphrase Zach Nielsen, Planned Parenthoods exist because the church has failed to love, care for, adopt, minister to, and meet the needs of the people represented in these videos. The darkness swallows where the light is too weak. Whenever a pro-choice friend rallies the cry of 'what would you do, then, with all this poverty, with all the kids born into such abject circumstances, etc?' I feel the sting. Indeed, what do I do? I don't often do what Jesus did. He walked up to the PPs of his day and invited himself over for dinner. The religious people were pissed. Would he not decry the slaughter of the unborn? Sure, but no less would he put his feet and hands to action loving the weak, the needy, the ones in the hardest-lowest-poorest places. God help me to get to that business today. I dream of a day where the Church's strongest argument against abortion and for hurting men/women is that we're actually doing something constructive about it. Raising awareness and exposure-videos have their place. Yet is strong words/images fall on eager ears only to be greeted by limp legs and apathetic hands little has been accomplished.
Ps: here's the video if you're interested. For those of us who consider the sanctity of all life as a core value in our worldviews, may it drive us to mercy, love, and action.
There's a lot of chatter on this subject from the right and the left. Let me surprise you.
First off, the videos are produced as persuasion pieces, no denying that. However, you can access the full recordings of both videos from liveaction.org and the videos themselves. IF the videos smack of 'Loose-Change' or 'Zeitgeist' to you, by all means watch the originals.
Second, what is offered by PP on these videos is inscrutable. Whether its a set up or not, and whether that sort of deception is ethical in football or polemics or war, does not change the rules under which PP self-consciously submits from being wantonly discarded.
Third, that taxpayer $ goes to fund these clinics escalates the issue to a point of concern for the general populace. This is not simply a 'shut up and don't buy it if you don't like it' situation. We're all buying it.
Now on to my surprise.
First, I am glad that groups are working to expose injustices at PP clinics and elsewhere. However, most of what PP does is lawful according to the jurisprudence of state and federal law. Should it be? That's a different question than the one I'm asking here.
Second, I really do believe that most underpaid employees at PP (and elsewhere) are trying to help curtail a societal problem of mass proportion. Are they doing it the 'right' way? Perhaps not, but any critique of their actions should be carful to not impune motives of explicit malevolence.
This leads me to my third and final point: the Church, and its members, watch videos such as these with appall. We cry for the unborn, break for the men and women driven to such desperate measures, and project our justified anger on to the likes of PP and others. Then, we pick up our coffee and go back to FB or blogging or conjecturing about the superbowl. We pick up our stones, throw them, and drop a few extra boulders into our pockets for the next time around. On the contrary, we SHOULD be finding creative ways, at the sacrifice of our own time, money, and talent, to mercifully minister to these people. Instead, we stand over 'sinners' with indignant condemnation. I am not being self righteous here. I fail at this worse than you...and I even work at a church. My point is simply this, to paraphrase Zach Nielsen, Planned Parenthoods exist because the church has failed to love, care for, adopt, minister to, and meet the needs of the people represented in these videos. The darkness swallows where the light is too weak. Whenever a pro-choice friend rallies the cry of 'what would you do, then, with all this poverty, with all the kids born into such abject circumstances, etc?' I feel the sting. Indeed, what do I do? I don't often do what Jesus did. He walked up to the PPs of his day and invited himself over for dinner. The religious people were pissed. Would he not decry the slaughter of the unborn? Sure, but no less would he put his feet and hands to action loving the weak, the needy, the ones in the hardest-lowest-poorest places. God help me to get to that business today. I dream of a day where the Church's strongest argument against abortion and for hurting men/women is that we're actually doing something constructive about it. Raising awareness and exposure-videos have their place. Yet is strong words/images fall on eager ears only to be greeted by limp legs and apathetic hands little has been accomplished.
Ps: here's the video if you're interested. For those of us who consider the sanctity of all life as a core value in our worldviews, may it drive us to mercy, love, and action.
For all my book nerds..."don't you eva eva interrupt me while I'm reading a book."
I've seen and been the 'nasty me' a few times...today.
Disfruta lo mijos:
HT: 22 Words
Disfruta lo mijos:
HT: 22 Words
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The most illegal thing I've seen in the history of wrestling: Thank you James Burt
Hypnosis. So good. So stinking good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
