Branford shelter says Hope continues to make progress – WTNH Connecticut News (press release)

Posted on by

Related Coverage

BRANFORD, Conn. (WTNH) Officials at the Dan Cosgrove Animal Shelter in Branford have provided an update on Hope, the dog they have been nursing back to health.

On Monday, a woman saw a dog struggling to walk near the Big Y Plaza on Route 1 in Branford. She brought the dog to the shelter where officials say she had been starved for two to three months. They named her Hope.

The community has rallied for Hope, sending donations to the shelter and sharing her story in the hopes of finding who is responsible for leaving her in such terrible condition.

The shelter has been seeing progress in Hopes health. On Friday afternoon, they posted another update. They said Hope is maintaining her body temperature, is eating and drinking, and is continuing to gain weight.

She is still under 24/hour care and will be for awhile.

There is a $9,010 reward for any information leading to the arrest and conviction of the responsible party. If you want to donate, you can do so online here or mail in checks, with Hope in the memo, to 749 East Main Street, Branford, CT 06405.

Like Loading...

WTNH NEWS8 provides commenting to allow for constructive discussion on the stories we cover. In order to comment here, you acknowledge you have read and agreed to our Terms of Service. Commenters who violate these terms, including use of vulgar language or racial slurs, will be banned. Please be respectful of the opinions of others. If you see an inappropriate comment, please flag it for our moderators to review. Also, you can now block any inappropriate user by simple selecting the drop down menu on the right of any comment and selection "Block User" from there.

Go here to see the original:

Branford shelter says Hope continues to make progress - WTNH Connecticut News (press release)

Progress: Following Chaos and Assault at Conservative Event, Middlebury Professors Defend Free Expression – Townhall

Posted on by

Here's something you don't see all that often in the wake of an 'End of Discussion' anti-speech debacle on a college campus: Positive, constructive news. We wrote about thedisgrace at Middlebury college last week, noting that dozens and dozens of students knowingly violated school policy by disrupting and derailing an event featuring a controversial scholar and author. They were reminded of the rules and warned not to break them prior to the attempted speech, then they did so anyway. Some in this anti-intellectual mob also broke the law, vandalizing an administrator's car and sending a (liberal) professor to the hospital after a violent scrum. The predictable national backlash in the conservative media was swift and predictable -- thankfully, however, strong push-back is also coming from other quarters. We told you about the assaulted professor'spublic statement of disgust and dismay, as well as asearing op/ed from an Iranian Middlebury professor. Since then, the school announced an investigation into the incidents, promising consequences for those responsible. And dozens of Middlebury faculty members signed a strong statement in support of free expression. From Daniel Menninger's excellent Wall Street Journalcolumn on the contretemps:

The letter he mentions is outstanding. It is clear-eyed and principled, and itbats down lazy arguments employed by the outrage mob to justify their behavior. An excerpt:

Bravo, bravo, bravo. And even the New York Times editorial boarddenounced the spectacle in relatively harsh terms, even if they couldn't resist taking a potshot at conservatives (accusing them of playing faux victims by"flopping" like soccer players. Mary Katharine and I use this exact analogyin our book, applying it to the Left's culture of endless grievance. The thing is, right-wing speakers have been genuinely victimized by this silencing phenomenon, almost always at the hands ofLeftists pretending that uncomfortable words are akin to physical or emotional injury. So the Times gets that piece totally backwards). In any case, this could be a sign of an important shift. On that score, I'll leave you withsome recommendations from a University of Chicago'free expression'task force devoted to combating illiberal trends in campus culture -- on which U of C, to its immense credit, has been a principledpioneer:

More institutions of higher learning should follow this lead, and faculty members from across the ideological spectrum should embrace the statement of principlearticulated in the Middlebury letter. Plus,this recent speech from Stanford's former provost is right on the mark.Taken together, thisfeels vaguelylike -- what's the word? -- oh, yes, progress.

Read the original here:

Progress: Following Chaos and Assault at Conservative Event, Middlebury Professors Defend Free Expression - Townhall

Chautauqua Amphitheater Project Making Swift Progress – Jamestown Post Journal

Posted on by

Page One

Mar 11, 2017

Construction workers pictured this week as the Chautauqua Institution Amphitheater project continues at a quick pace. The amphitheater is expected to be ready for events this season. P-J photos by Katrina Fuller

CHAUTAUQUA The new Amphitheater is shaping up according to plan thanks to the temperate weather.

According to a recent update from Chautauqua Institution, the steel work for the structure is nearly complete; the back-of-house area is completely enclosed; and the concrete is curing.

The Amp is well on track to being ready for the 2017 season, said Jordan Steves, director of communications. As the forecast calls for cooperative weather in the coming weeks, the construction team continues to evaluate and improve the project sequencing and schedule. A major upcoming milestone is the completion of the steelwork. As the large steel-swinging cranes exit, they will open several routes on the site for other trades.

The team is also anticipating other project elements like bench manufacturing and making sure the work is properly progressing. The construction crews generally begin work at 6 a.m. and work as late as 10 p.m. six days a week. Some crews even work seven days a week, Steves wrote.

For those who live on the grounds or plan to visit during this time, the South Lot is currently being used as a staging area for materials and parking for workers, however, parking is available for visitors and residents at the Hall of Christ just down the road. The main gate is temporarily a two-way road, and the bus gate is also open during construction hours.

A worker looks on as the amphitheater takes shape.

The next update on the project will be released in early April, however, progress of construction can be seen at ciweb.org/amp-cam. Still photography can be viewed on the website and on Chautauquas Facebook page. The photos accommodate for what is blocked from view on the video by the roof.

For more information, visit http://www.ciweb.org.

FREWSBURG Frewsburg Central School District could be facing a budget gap of over $300,000. At Thursdays ...

MAYVILLE With the defense resting in the second-degree murder trial of Barbara J. Redeye, all that stands now ...

County residents are still without power after Wednesday's fierce winds brought down trees, large limbs and power ...

Excerpt from:

Chautauqua Amphitheater Project Making Swift Progress - Jamestown Post Journal

The Reality Principle – Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

Posted on by

Amongst the criticisms often directed at transhumanist ideas, one of the most common is the prediction that access to the technologies on which it depends will mostly be limited to a small affluent minority. This veritable apartheid by technology would create a divide into the commonality of the human race, and produce two or more human classes moving at different speeds, which would be the source of inequality and new forms of exploitation.

Originally published in French on Technoprog

The proponents of a democratic transhumanism, or technoprogressivism who claim that access to the largest number of NBIC technologies is possible, are in turn accused at best of wishful thinking [1], naivet [ 2] or, at worst, literal collusion with the interests of the ruling oligarchies. [3] Actually, they would tend to be a straw man, or a sort of Trojan horse, whose objective is to convince restive populations to changes intimately felt as an attempt at collective manipulation.

And, I consider the latter risk real. I would like to strongly draw the attention of those of my friends who recognize in technoprogressivism the necessity of being guided by a principle of reality. One common characteristic of nearly all of the transhumanists I know is an unbridled enthusiasm for technology. This is a source of dynamisme, often of creativity, of fulfillment, and dare I say, sometimes of happiness. But it mustn't be forgotten that, for the forces involved - the masses around the planet; social and cultural groups; to ruling oligarchies, an eventual transhumanist evolution of humanity is a key issue. Each of these actors is going to do everything in their power to affect the outcome.

Changing things so everything stays the same!

In 2006, Jacques Attali published a prospective essay: A brief history of the future. Written within a wide historical context, it leads us through a perspective of an evolution in two phases. To start, he posits a paroxysmal collapse of the current system ( "hyper-empire"), after dissolution of States; then a global democratic renaissance. During this evolution, one of the emerging trends in society would be transhumanism.

Reflecting on the possible sources of hope, he offers a silver lining. Being outside the mainstream today, he could prepare a conceptual alternative for tomorrow. Yet barely a year later, he chaired a commission convened by N. Sarkozy, whose work advocated a strengthening of the current system: 300 ideas to change France? Is it some Attalie mysteries or a Marxist sense of history: is it necessary to reach the absurd endpoint of a given economic system before the conditions are met for the emergence of another system?

History teaches us that a longstanding and effective system of power (slavery, monarchy (especially absolute), the capitalist oligarchy, ...) has virtually no ability to transcend itself. At best (at worst), it seeks to mutate to adapt to new circumstances, to survive for its own sake. "Changing things so everything stays the same," said Giuseppe di Lampedusa, via the hero of The Leopard, an old aristocrat witnessing the collapse of the old regime. And the aristocracy married the triumphant bourgeoisie.

Another generation, another technocrat. I am an admirer of the work done for years by Jean-Paul Baquiast (Intelligent Machines; Philosciences; and many other written works [4]). I owe him a thinking, among other things, from his thesis on anthropotechnic" companies, and according to which, collectively, we are still essentially blind and irresponsible about the decisions we make. In other words, there is no captain at the helm of the ship of humanity, while icebergs abound on the horizon.

Continuing the metaphor: It's not that the ship has no direction. Looking out from the bridge, it seems that there has been, especially in the last three centuries, a definite trajectory, thanks to technological progress and the Enlightenment .... Is that due to a great and ceaseless accumulation or concentration of wealth and power? Or is it due to an ever increasing and more important liberation of human beings, as much in a philosophical sense as a biological one? Whatever the case, no one single driver has chosen consciously. To be sure, I do not believe in conspiracy theories of how those in power want again to shift things in their favor. The situation is actually, in a sense, more agonizing than if the leaders really were manning the helm, because in this vessel of humanity, where different crews of sailors haul the lines to and fro, the risk of shipwreck is considerable.

However, no one wants to smash into the rocks.

This huge risk alone justifies a change in approach to a more planned one, to the greatest degree possible. If it is not possible to restrain how everyone, and each and every cultural or social group, utilizes technological advances, it is perhaps conceivable to instead channel their intent.

But once again, the Reality Principle obliges, lets not forget, faced with the ideas of technoprogressivism - that of a democratic transhumanism, for all, chosen, progressive, measured, respectful of humanity in transition, respectful of the necessary ecological and social balance, etc. stands the logic of the systems of power currently in place.

But it is obvious that this system promotes a transhumanism in his image, from the origins of this movement, to serve his purposes. And the system in question puts all his weight, colossal, to develop transhumanism that suits him.

This is perhaps something which Jacques Attali did not expect to see coming so soon. That transhumanism would immediately be used by the Empire. That it would be so quickly taken out of the fringe to be cast as a new source of power or a new method of control. We see as soon as today how its first achievements are reflected in new mainstream consumption, new weapons, or new means of surveillance. [5]

In fact, every major technological development carries essentially two possibilities: acquisition by the largest number or acquisition by the elite. And at the root of the extremely complex social, ethical, psychological causes, etc., that determine this outcome is the tension between the need for solidarity in a social species, and the desire for selfish gain - a contradiction that runs through all of us. For almost the entire history of humanity, this tension has played out mainly around material advantages: from food, to warmth, to security. These material advantages then became associated with social symbols which themselves have become issues of contention: titles of nobility, celebrity, ...

Today, a growing part of the world population makes choices primarily on the basis of symbols and perceptions, to obtain material, moral, social, psychological prestige .... while actual access to material goods gradually becomes of secondary concern, because basic goods are accessible to many. Because of global technological progress, the last two centuries have been marked by increasingly broad access to basic goods and a subsequent decrease in differences in this regard[6] and, contrary to common perception, by a decrease in the use of violence. [7]

But unfortunately, this relative abundance has not, or hardly, diminished the desire or the need for dominance. [8] The desire to "maintain the upper hand" persists, even while in 2014, countries in the Northern hemisphere, and the majority of Southern hemisphere nations, have at least a smaller proportion of their populations who are still forced to live in deep poverty.

In this way, a necessary and inevitable outburst is coming, one leading to a reconstruction which replicates in general terms the same structural inequalities of the past. That is in any case what is predicted by a good number of those people who venture to look through the crystal ball at our uncertain future [note: ultimately, is alarmism not a comforting refuge?].

Pessimistic question: Is there really anything we can do?

Technoprogressive transhumanist perspectives?

So, what will be left in the fringes to come up with genuine alternatives?

Some old fashioned ways to go, undoubtedly, but thats just the beginning. Free distribution of knowledge on a mass scale, open sharing and non-commercial in general. Peer to peer support, solidarity. Hacking, in the form of an unexpected and subversive diversion of the machine of consumerism. Revolt 2.0 also, which can mobilize a huge number of people around definitive or symbolic actions within days using the speed of digital networks, catching political or media elites off-guard and leaving them dumbfounded. The reappropriation of the means of production? Who knows...

Many people today dream of the complete reshuffling of the cards enabled by the widespread adoption of 3D printing. What economic and social consequences will the dissemination of this technology have? In a classic Marxist analysis, control of the means of production is a key factor in the social order. Will this translate into a genuine democratization, or will the dominant system succeed again in seizing global control, by putting its hand on the key levers: raw materials, and especially algorithm design?

From the perspective of social mobilization, widespread automation is both a source of concern and a source of hope. Designed by the global oligarchy, it can - through the organization of unemployment, economic dependence, combined with the dictatorship of entertainment - lead our societies to a further decline of real freedoms. But via the freeing up of a large amount of time, it can conversely allow the flourishing of creativity, and a diversification of our experiences. Devoted transhumanists would waste no time in taking the opportunity to explore all avenues of techno-biological evolution.

In fact, if history is any guide, we can imagine that these various trends will play out at the same time.

Finally, I will mention one last source of individual and social transformation which is much less discussed - probably because it is still primarily scientific and philosophical speculation - that of moral enhancement. A possible "moral enhancement" by technology will be possible only after considerable progress in our understanding of brain function. We can already foretell some of the ethical issues that the technology will pose regarding freedom of conscience. As with any technology, we can easily imagine that it will involve the same issues of power relations. In a neoliberal and capitalist context for example, I think the pursuit of maximum profit will surely be a motivator to discover the most effective methods of controlling individual behavior. Moral enhancement, taken as an ideal endpoint of advertising logic, could result in veritable mind control. This logic would probably find favor with government policy makers in light of their concern for order and security. A bit of dystopian imagining takes us quickly to conjure scenarios from Orwells 1984.

However, it is possible to use such technology positively, such that it is useful to everyone, liberating, and truly progressive. One could say that it is precisely because of our still primitive moral evolution that we continue to perpetuate predatory behavior that causes so much ill. At our core, we are probably all more or less predisposed toward dominating behaviors, and eventually aggressiveness, hence an intrinsic inability to show real empathy for what goes beyond the narrow circle of our "clan" [8], which is perhaps a result of our Darwinian adaptation to survival in the pre-Neolithic world. A wisely managed dampening of biological factors that play an important role in the development of our most negative attitudes might get us out of this seemingly endless cycle: endless accumulation of power, harsh challenging, perpetual recreation.

One member of Technologos, an organization that is usually very critical of what they consider to be a headlong technological rush, recently pointed out to me that in his view transhumanists have not taken into account the considerable ideological role they have taken on and which they will still have to play.

The challenge seems to me enormous. A priori, the poorest and the weakest may sense that they have little hope of escaping the clash having come away with something. The power of the multinational billionaires of NBIC, allied with that of governments may seem unstoppable. Yet I hardly see another alternative. We must continue this fight if we want the essence of our humanity to be preserved through the transhumanist evolution to come.

Instead of remaining prisoners of an insurmountable reality principle, we must start to build right now another reality.

Marc Roux

For AFT:Technoprog

(Thanks to Didier Coeurnelle and Cyril Gazengel, among others, for their collaboration)

[1] Jean-Didier Vincent, Bienvenue en transhumanie [Welcome to transhumanism], 2011

[2] Jean-Michel Besnier, in the context of a debate on Newsring: Faut-il condamner le transhumanisme ? [Should transhumanism be denounced?]

[3] Notably, this is the position of the association Pice et Main dOeuvre.

[4] Jean-Paul Baquiast, Pour un principe matrialiste fort [Toward a robust materialist principle], Ed. JP.Bayol.

[5] Despite the international scandal provoked by the revelations of E. Snowden, the Obama administration is considering only a minor reform of the NSA

[6] Rapport du PNUD sur le dveloppement humain 2011 [UNDP Human Development Report]

[7] Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature, 2011

[8] The need for dominance was notably theorised by Henri Laborit who said: Tant quon naura pas diffus trs largement travers les hommes de cette plante la faon dont fonctionne leur cerveau, la faon dont ils lutilisent et tant que lon naura pas dit que jusquici que cela a toujours t pour dominer lautre, il y a peu de chance quil y ait quoi que ce soit qui change. [Until we have widely disseminated to the men of this planet the workings of their brains, the manner in which they use them and as long as we havent said that until now it has always been to dominate others, there is little chance that anything will change.]

[8] Ingmar Persson And Julian Savulescu, Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement, 2012

See the article here:

The Reality Principle - Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

One of Trump’s treasury assistants is a survivalist who invented a bizarre techno-bow – The Verge

Posted on by

Yesterday, ProPublica published a massive list of Trump administration officials, including over 400 names. Among the individuals it highlighted is a man named Jon Perdue, a special assistant at the Treasury Department. Perdue is the author of a book on the nexus of Latin American radicalism and Middle Eastern terrorism and a member of a relatively obscure think tank. Hes also a self-described expert in guerrilla warfare who invented a survivalist gadget bow to use after the apocalypse.

The product in question is called the Pack Bow, and it was apparently featured on CNBCs Make Me a Millionaire Inventor in 2015. Its site is currently accepting preorders in the form of mailing list signups, and yes, thats the only shot we could find of the Pack Bow in action above. The sites ad copy is like the start of a D&D session set in Cormac McCarthys The Road.

The worst has occurred. You always knew it was possible, but never dreamed it would happen so soon. The power grid is down, and you are surrounded by chaos. Theres not much time you can only grab a handful of things, so as you head out the door, you grab the Pack Bow.

Not only is it a bow (with a self-containing quiver), its a compass, adjustable hanging rod, tent pole, walking stick, fishing pole, spearfishing rig and is wrapped in paracord. It also holds emergency supplies like bandages, matches, and water purification tablets so that when you need them, and you likely will, youll be prepared.

You never know whats ahead. With the Pack Bow you have a better chance of surviving it.

Theres also a helpful diagram.

Few of us at The Verge would describe ourselves as experts on survivalism, guerrilla warfare, and archery. But we do love gadgets, and we have questions.

While were pondering these, you can enjoy some of the incredible feats of archer Lars Anderson, a man who unlike this bow we would 100 percent pick for our apocalyptic RPG party.

Read this article:

One of Trump's treasury assistants is a survivalist who invented a bizarre techno-bow - The Verge

Mereological nihilism – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Mereological nihilism (also called compositional nihilism, or rarely simply nihilism) is the mereological position that objects with proper parts do not exist. Only mereological simples, those basic building blocks without proper parts, exist. Or, more succinctly, "nothing is a proper part of anything."[1] Mereological simples can be both spatial and temporal. Mereological nihilism also asserts that objects existing in time do not have any temporal parts.

The concepts of parts and wholes are used to describe common objects. For example, a ball is made up of two halves, so the ball is a whole that is made up of two parts. Every single object we experience in the world outside of us and around us is a whole that has parts, and we never experience an object that does not have parts. For example, a tail is a part of a lion, a cloud is a part of a greater weather system or, in visual terms, the sky, and a nucleobase is a part of a DNA strand. The only things we know of that do not have parts are the smallest items known to exist, such as leptons and quarks. These fundamental particles cannot be 'seen' and are not directly experienced. They may, however, be experienced indirectly through emergent properties. Thus all objects we directly experience have parts.

A number of philosophers have argued that objects that have parts do not exist. The basis of their argument consists in claiming that our senses give us only foggy information about reality and thus they cannot be trusted. For example, we fail to see the smallest building blocks that make up anything. These smallest building blocks are individual and separate items that do not ever unify or come together into being non-individual. Thus, they never compose anything. According to the concept of mereological nihilism, if the building blocks of reality never compose any wholes, then no composite objects exist.

This seems to devolve into an error theory. If there are no composite objects, how can we make sense of our ordinary understanding of reality which accepts the existence of composite objects? Are we all deceived? Ted Sider (2013) has argued that we should think of composition as arrangement.[2] According to Sider, when we say "there is a table", we mean there are mereological simples arranged table-wise.

Mereological nihilism entails the denial of what is called classical mereology, which is succinctly defined by philosopher Achille Varzi:[3]

Mereology (from the Greek , part) is the theory of parthood relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of part to part within a whole. Its roots can be traced back to the early days of philosophy, beginning with the Presocratic atomists and continuing throughout the writings of Plato (especially the Parmenides and the Theaetetus), Aristotle (especially the Metaphysics, but also the Physics, the Topics, and De partibus animalium), and Boethius (especially In Ciceronis Topica).

As can be seen from Varzis passage, classical mereology depends on the idea that there are metaphysical relations that connect part(s) to whole. Mereological nihilists maintain that such relations between part and whole do not exist, since "wholes" themselves only exist at the subatomic level.

Nihilists typically claim that our senses give us the (false) impression that there are composite material objects, and then attempt to explain why nonetheless our thought and talk about such objects is 'close enough' to the truth to be innocuous and reasonable in most conversational contexts.[citation needed] Sider's linguistic revision that reformulates the existence of composite objects as merely the existence of arrangements of mereological simples is an example of this.[4] Tallant (2013) has argued against this maneuver. Tallant has argued that mereological nihilism is committed to answering the following question: when is it that a group of mereological simples is arranged in a particular way?[5] What relations must maintain among a group of mereological simples such that they are arranged table-wise? It seems the nihilist can determine when a group of objects compose another object: for them, never. But the nihilist, if he is committed to Sider's view, is committed to answering how mereological simples can be arranged in particular ways. No compelling answer has been provided in the literature. Mereological nihilism seems to pose the same amount of questions as it purports to answer. In fact, they are the very same questions re-formed in terms of arrangement.

The obvious objection that can be raised against nihilism is that it seems to posit far fewer objects than we typically think exist. The nihilist's ontology has been criticized for being too sparse as it only includes mereological simples and denies the existence of composite objects that we intuitively take to exist, like tables, planets, and animals. Another challenge that nihilists face arises when composition is examined in the context of contemporary physics. According to findings in quantum physics, there are multiple kinds of decomposition in different physical contexts. For example, there is no single decomposition of light; light can be said to be either composed of particles or waves depending on the context. [6] This empirical perspective poses a problem for nihilism because it does not look like material objects neatly decompose in the way nihilists imagine they do. In addition, some philosophers have speculated that there may not be a "bottom level" of reality. Atoms used to be understood as the most fundamental material objects, but were later discovered to be composed of subatomic particles and quarks. Perhaps what we take to be the most fundamental entities of current physics can actually be decomposed, and their parts can be further decomposed, on down the line. If matter is infinitely decomposable in this respect, then there are no mereological simples. This is a problem for nihilism because it then follows from their view that nothing exists, since they assert that only mereological simples exist. [7]

Philosophers in favor of something close to pure mereological nihilism are Peter Unger, Cian Dorr, and Ross Cameron. There are a few philosophers who argue for what could be considered a partial nihilism, or what has been called quasi-nihilism, which is the position that only objects of a certain kind have parts. One such position is organicism: the view that living beings exist, but there are no other objects with parts, and all other objects that we believe to be compositechairs, planets, etc.therefore do not exist. Rather, other than living beings, which are composites (objects that have parts), there are only true atoms, or basic building blocks (which they call simples). The organicists include Trenton Merricks and Peter van Inwagen.

Peter Van Inwagen maintains that all material objects are mereological simples with the exception of biological life such that the only composite objects are living things. Van Inwagens view can be formulated like this: Necessarily, for any non-overlapping xs, there is an object composed of the xs iff either (i) the activities of the xs contstitute a life or (ii) there is only one of the xs. In other words, Van Inwagen contends that mereological atoms form a composite object when they engage in a sort special, complex activity which amounts to a life. [8]

One reason why Van Inwagens solution to the Special Composition Question is so attractive is that it allows us to account a conscious subject as a composite object. Nihilists have to maintain that the subject of a single consciousness is somehow the product of many discrete mereological atoms. Van Inwagens argument against nihilism can be characterized as such:

1. I exist

2. I am not a mereological simple

3. At least one object exists that is not a mereological simple

4. So, nihilism is false [9]

In addition to allowing for the existence of trees, cats, and human beings, Van Inwagens view is attractive because it inherits nihilisms elegant solutions to traditional problems in mereology like the Ship of Theseus and the problem of the many.

One objection that can be offered against Van Inwagens view is the vagueness of the category of life and the ambiguity of when something gets caught up in a life. For example, if a cat takes a breath and inhales a carbon atom, it is unclear at what point that atom becomes officially incorporated into the cats body.[10]

Even though there are no tables or chairs, van Inwagen thinks that it is still permissible to assert sentences such as 'there are tables'. This is because such a sentence can be paraphrased as 'there are simples arranged tablewise'; it is appropriate to assert it when there are simples arranged a certain way. It is a common mistake to hold that van Inwagen's view is that tables are identical to simples arranged tablewise. This is not his view: van Inwagen would reject the claim that tables are identical to simples arranged tablewise because he rejects the claim that composition is identity. Nonetheless, he maintains that an ordinary speaker who asserts, for instance, "There are four chairs in that room" will speak truly if there are, indeed, simples in the room arranged in the appropriate way (so as to make up, in the ordinary view, four chairs). He claims that the statement and its paraphrase "describe the same fact". Van Inwagen suggests an analogy with the motion of the sun: an ordinary speaker who asserts that "the sun has moved behind the elms" will still speak truly, even though we accept the Copernican claim that this is not, strictly speaking, literally true. (For details, see his book "Material Beings".)

Read the original:

Mereological nihilism - Wikipedia

Stand on Tradition – The Weekly Standard

Posted on by

"To put it in a nutshell, Joo Carlos Espada tells us, his book "aims at providing an intellectual case for liberal democracy." This aim puts The Anglo-American Tradition of Liberty on a crowded shelf of mostly desiccated husks. What gives his work vitality is his wish to clarify why European democracy differs from England's and ours, and his search for what is common among various figures from the past 60 years whom he admires, and earlier thinkers similar to them.

These goals lead him to defend the substance and conditions of our Anglo-American life of liberty, not to attempt to explore freedom's deathless merits. To accomplish his task, Espada briefly discusses a large number of philosophers, statesmen, and scholars. This breadth means that he does not attend to scholarly minutiae, chains of philosophical abstraction, or detailed questions of policy. Each of his discussions is interesting, although some are more telling or reliable than others. I would especially recommend his remarks on Karl Popper, Michael Oakeshott, and Edmund Burke. His discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville is as good a 20-page presentation of what matters in him as one is likely to find.

Espada's concern is more with tradition than principle. John Locke's principled arguments promoting free government were useful in Britain and America because they entered countries that already practiced or defended limited government and the rule of law. In France, however, the "effect of the importation of Locke's doctrines," Espada tells us, quoting Anthony Quinton, "was much like that of alcohol on an empty stomach." Lockean principles came to light there as a wholesale reordering or destruction of traditional ways.

In general, indeed, the Europeans made themselves dizzy with rationalistic schemes. Their hope, stemming from Descartes, not to ground politics and morals on anything that we merely assume is, however, doomed to fail. In fact, it leads finally to relativism. For if all is not completely rational, then it seems that nothing is. Along the path to such relativism, however, came the disasters of the Marxist and Nazi attempts at total amalgamation and control. These were liberty's very opposites.

If the Anglo-American tradition of liberty is vital to liberty's existence, how can liberty prevail where this tradition never existed, or is now withering? Espada's answer to this pressing question is not simple, partly because of what he has in mind with "tradition." Sometimes he points to matters that were, or are, primarily English, quoting John Betjeman and T.S. Eliot on peculiar English tastes that range from "boiled cabbage cut into sections" and dartboards to Tennyson's poetry and Elgar's music. Other times he includes American practices advocated or instituted by Madison or noticed by Tocqueville. Occasionally, he points to tradition as attachment to one's own familiar routines. But we can see that such attachments could, in many places, as easily be illiberal as liberal.

What we most usefully learn from Espada's approach is that liberty requires (or is strongly aided by) a public and private disposition to allow competitive spheres of social, political, and economic influence rather than social and political monoliths; a proclivity to let people lead their lives without much interference from others; and support of government that is "limited and accountable." These dispositions and their objects are broader than "traditional" ways simply, and we can see how several concrete practices could be compatible with them. Espada, however, does not explore the varied ways to advance these liberal dispositions.

To what degree are these dispositions the seedbed or material of liberty, and to what degree are they liberty itself? Espada's intelligent discussion of liberty's tradition leads him to downplay some of its concrete institutions and principles. There is occasional mention, but little discussion, of religious toleration, a free and responsible press, free speech, good character, and the rule of law. There is mention, but little analysis, either of the place of expanding economies in modern liberal countries or of their disruptive effects on traditional ways.

Some of these practicessay, religious tolerationcould perhaps be dealt with within the general dispositions I just discussed. Some omissions might also be explained by Espada's wish not to identify liberal democracy with any current political party or movement, or to allow figures who range from Hayek to Oakeshott to near-socialists and social democrats such as Raymond Plant and Ralf Dahrendorf exemplify the Anglo-American tradition. Liberal democracy covers a wide range. Nonetheless, it is important to discuss these practices because instituting them clarifies areas where the limits, accountability, competition, and variety in authority that Espada connects to liberal democracy must be won and defended, and cannot merely grow. Tradition, habit, or "political culture" are not enough to support them, whatever their importance. This is especially clear with religious toleration and competitive economies.

In general, Espada downplays the place of principles, or the revolutionary ground, of American and even British liberty. He is taken with Hayek's notion of spontaneous order, and is wary of the schemes of founding and constructing that he believes belong to the hyper-rationalism that is one of liberalism's enemies. Yet the United States was founded explicitly, England had its own principled revolution in 1688, and the Locke (or Lockean) principles that thrived in welcoming Anglo-American traditions or practices are not identical with those traditions. The meaning and benefits of equal rights, religious toleration, voluntary action, liberated acquisitiveness, and limited government all needed to be rationally explained, justified, and defended, even in welcoming situations.

Indeed, relativism or irrationalism arises not only from an extreme reaction to reason's disappointed hopes but from eschewing reason in favor of guidance from race, nation, tribe, or other identities. From Nietzsche on, in fact, relativism is defended by some thinkers themselves. Liberal democracy deserves (and its founders present) an intellectual defense that can bring out what is true in it, even if this is not the whole truth about human affairs. Espada offers little defense of liberty itself, or even of the liberal way of life, beyond its moderation and the growth in economic and other information it might provide. He writes thoughtfully about the possibility of truth in the absence of comprehensive certainty, but he reaches no firm conclusion.

We should also point out that liberal democracies do not rely completely on already-friendly soil. They also produce resources with which to buttress their traditions, and favor practices that are conducive to them. Among these are virtues of character such as responsibility, tolerance, and industriousness that citizens need in order to live successfully in liberal democracies, and the attraction of friends and family that reasserts itself even amidst liberalism's geographic dispersal. In this regard, restless American individualism buttresses free government somewhat differently from the mixture of tradition, respect for authority, limited government, and "inner contentment with life which explains the Englishman's profoundest wish, to be left alone, and his willingness to leave others to their own devices."

It is not clear why the basic goals of liberal democracy could not be approached within several "traditions" were these virtues and natural charms to assert themselves, within limited, accountable institutions. Liberal principles must be asserted and defendednatural rights examined as true guides not arbitrary onesif one is to see why we should protect them, and how, when their traditional soil seems increasingly barren.

One virtue of Espada's wariness of rationalistic schemes is his distrust of experts and his keen sense of the current gap between ruling elites and many of the people they purport to help. This view informs his discussion of the European Union. Here we should remind ourselves that "experts" do not understand better than their clients the ends they serve, that much specialization is false, and that legalistic or pseudo-philosophic expertise in "just" distribution and "correct" behavior is often mere political imposition.

We cannot take freedom for granted todayanywhere. Liberalism cannot rely on practices, traditions, or dispositions alone, but also requires reasonable, convincing argument. Still, Joo Espada is correct to point to the importance of liberal traditions, and to the importance of the writers and statesmen who defended them. This thoughtful book will be valuable for all lovers of liberty.

Mark Blitz is Fletcher Jones professor of political philosophy at Claremont McKenna College and the author, most recently, of Conserving Liberty.

Read the original here:

Stand on Tradition - The Weekly Standard

Abortion Debate Poisoned By ‘Pro-Choice’ And ‘Pro-Life’ Labels – Huffington Post Canada

Posted on by

"Women should have the right to kill children, as long as they are still inside of them. But, it is killing children. It's just that it is OK if they do."

These are the words of comedian Louis CK when he performed last month in Toronto at the Air Canada Centre. The 20,000 people in attendance applauded and laughed, pushing down any evidence of being offended and basking in the hilarious logic, wavering in their own minds as to whether it was offensive, non-fictional or both.

Pro-life marchers go to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. to mark the Roe v. Wade decision, Jan. 22, 2015.

Abortion is probably the most divisive, complex issue in modern times. It ensnares every other polarizing conversation like religion, gender, socioeconomic conditions, class warfare, politics, even race. A collision of emotional anguish and legalese envelops all those who dare engage with the impassioned teams from the other side -- the enemies of truth, the hypocrites too drunk on ideology to engage sensibly.

I always believed that as a man I should just keep my head down when tempted to weigh in on the abortion debate. A part of me still feels that way, but after my partner and I brought two kids into this world I felt an incorrigible, nagging voice that will not go away. This voice, when I allow it to speak, feverishly runs through the typical pro-life and pro-choice mantras, arguing with itself until I am mentally exhausted from the mutual blind spot of each side. I only knew two things for certain: if my wife had had an abortion a year and a half ago, my daughter would not be on my lap as I type this piece, and she should never lose the right to end a pregnancy.

There are several contradictions embedded within the two accepted positions of abortion politics. In the pro-choice camp, the definition of a fetus changes depending on whether or not the mother wants to keep the baby. If she doesn't, a fetus is just a bunch of mingling cells, an organic compound that does not constitute an actual living thing. But if she does want to start a family, that fetus becomes a miracle, something to be protected at all costs. This malleable definition is understandable, given the enormous magnitude a decision like having an abortion carries, but is still impossible to reconcile considering the deference to logic and consistency we must give the definition of a singular thing.

Meanwhile, the pro-life camp continues to place religious people front and centre to articulate the notion of a fetus being a living thing. After decades of losing the argument by putting god before science, religion before logic, they still appear unable to grasp why theocracy is not an effective starting point if your goal is to increase the support for preventing abortions in the first place. Add to that a vehement tendency to place abortions side-by-side with strangulations and drive-by shootings, and you have a camp unwilling to adjust their dogma to the detriment of society itself.

Anti-Trump demonstrator protests at abortion rights rally in Chicago, Jan. 15, 2017. (Photo: Kamil Krzaczynski/Reuters)

Everything about this issue makes my head explode. First and foremost, there is an unhealthy prerequisite of undying support for one group or the other, a destructive starting point steeped in deliberate polarization that works as a barometer and an albatross for both groups.

You are either with us, or you are a murderer.

You are either with us, or you hate women.

Lovely, I know, but also an accurate depiction of the insanity that grips this issue. Accusations of misogyny are a typical ruse by pro-choicers when describing pro-lifers, a fallacy of epic proportions as it ignores one obligatory fact: far more women are against abortion than men. In fact, if it were not for men co-signing a woman's right to choose, abortion laws would have been challenged more fiercely a long time ago.

But in our hyper-chivalrous society, men are being asked to shut up and nod politely as they help hold the abortion door open, a cynical reality given the vital role they play in the debate. And while there is some fodder to spotlight where old men attempt to be the sole arbitrators of women's health, by and large men are the most valuable allies in the fight to keep abortion legal.

All of this leads me to believe that we need to scrap the pro-life and pro-choice labels so we can usher in a new era of rationalism and honesty. Taken on its face, I am more inclined to side with a pro-choice argument from a legal standpoint, but the branding of that label has been poisoned, commandeered by radicals who are disinterested in discussing real ancillary issues such as mental health and the societal impact of abortion. If you've ever known a woman who has had a miscarriage or who has given birth to a stillborn baby, you know the emotional toll both those situations carry. Abortion, from what I am told by women who have had to make that difficult choice, is nearly identical.

On the other hand, from a biological perspective, I am more inclined to side with a pro-life position; abortion means ending a life. But again, this label has been politically poisoned and is a paradoxical position if you do not believe in forcing women to give birth, or in punishing them if they do.

Once you really boil down the dominating talking points and focus on the scientific, emotional and legal realities, you come to a fairly uncomfortable conclusion: Louis CK was right. Abortion should remain legal, and it is literally like ending a life. Our society, for better or worse, has decided that this is a self-defence issue, in the realm of justifiable homicide where a woman is given the authority to destroy another human being in the early stages of life, and I believe as a society we should strike the balance between supporting this right and labelling it accurately. By doing so we can probably better educate men and women on birth control, mental health, and the impact abortion has on relationships between mothers and their families.

And perhaps, by erasing the pro-choice/pro-life labels, we can succumb to a more rational, less polarized dialogue where demonization becomes a relic from the past.

Also on HuffPost:

Close

REALITY: Over 99.75 percent of abortions do not cause major medical problems. Less than one-quarter of 1 percent of abortions performed in the United States lead to major health complications, according to a 2014 study from the University of California, San Francisco, that tracked 55,000 women for six weeks after their abortions. The researchers note that this makes an abortion statistically about as risky as a colonoscopy. If that fact seems surprising, consider how American pop culture misrepresents the risks of abortion: Nine percent of film and television characters who have abortions die as a direct result of the procedure, according to another 2014 study from UCSF.

REALITY: About one in five abortions are medical abortions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 19 percent of abortions in 2011 were medical abortions and that 28.5 percent of those took place in the first nine weeks of pregnancy. The Guttmacher Institute also found that medical abortions increased substantially from 2008 to 2011, meaning more women have ended their pregnancies with this alternative to surgery.

REALITY: Most women will not regret their decision, and are no more likely to experience mental health problems than women who carry an unplanned pregnancy to term. While many women experience mixed emotions after an abortion, 95 percent of women who have abortions ultimately feel they have made the right decision, according to an August 2013 study from UCSF. "Experiencing negative emotions postabortion is different from believing that abortion was not the right decision," the researchers explained. Furthermore, while unplanned pregnancies often cause emotional stress, there is no evidence to suggest that women who choose to terminate their pregnancies will be more likely to suffer from mental health issues, according to a 2008 report from the American Psychological Association that investigated all relevant medical studies published since 1989. The APA found that past studies claiming abortion causes depression and other mental health problems consistently failed to account for other risk factors, particularly a woman's medical history. The APA accounted for these factors and found that, among women who have an unplanned pregnancy, those who have abortions are no more likely to experience mental health problems than those who carry the pregnancy to term.

REALITY: Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 24th week of pregnancy. Experts ranging from Britains Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree with that timeline. In fact, research from UCSF found that fetuses can't perceive pain before 29 or 30 weeks of development. Then why have so many states banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy? Perhaps misrepresentation of research is partly to blame: Many of the researchers most frequently cited by pro-life politicians told The New York Times that their research does not prove anything about fetal pain.

REALITY: Most Americans support a woman's right to choose. According to a Gallup poll from 2014, 78 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances. (Fifty percent said "some circumstances," while 28 percent said all.) What's more, in 2012, Gallup found that 61 percent of Americans think abortions that take place during the first trimester of pregnancy should be legal. (Nine out of 10 abortions in the U.S. do take place during that time period, according to Guttmacher.)

REALITY: The abortion rate in the United States is the lowest it's been since 1973. The abortion rate has been on the decline for years, and hit its lowest level in 2011, according to the latest data available from the Guttmacher Institute. The study's author partially credited the decline to better contraceptive use and more long-term contraceptive options, such as the IUD.

REALITY: Women face a growing number of barriers to accessing abortions. More than 57 percent of American women live in states that are hostile or extremely hostile to abortion rights, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That represents a marked increase from 2000, when 31 percent of American women lived in such states. In 2011, 89 percent of counties in America had no abortion clinics. This is no accident: Across the U.S., lawmakers have enacted 231 new abortion restrictions over the past four years, according to a Guttmacher analysis from January 2015. As a result, many women have to travel great distances to reach an abortion clinic, where they may face 24-hour wait periods. These barriers particularly affect women living in rural areas and low-income women, who often can't afford to take time off work and pay for gas and a hotel room. Other laws force women to go through potentially distressing procedures, such as viewing their own ultrasound photos, in order to move forward with an abortion.

REALITY: Women rarely cite pressure from family or partners as leading to their decision to abort. A 2005 study from the Guttmacher Institute found that less than 1 percent of women surveyed cited such pressure among their main reasons for having an abortion. A 2013 study from UCSF reached a similar conclusion, and found that while women rarely cited partner coercion as a reason they sought an abortion, many did cite the desire to escape a bad relationship or domestic violence.

REALITY: Most women who have abortions are already mothers. Sixty-one percent of women who had abortions in 2008 were mothers, and 34 percent had two or more children, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That number only increased after the 2009 financial downturn. The National Abortion Federation told Slate that between 2008 and 2011, 72 percent of women seeking abortions were already mothers. A study from Guttmacher found that mothers typically have abortions to protect the children they already have; they simply cannot afford to raise another child.

REALITY: Requiring abortion clinics to meet these standards does little to improve patient safety and forces many to shut down. Currently, 22 states require abortion clinics to meet a set of restrictive and often arbitrary standards, dictating that they be close to hospitals and that their hallways and closets meet certain measurements. Clinics often need to undergo expensive renovations in order to comply, and leading doctors' groups say the laws do little to improve patient safety. What's more, 11 states now require that doctors at abortion clinics obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, but many hospitals flat-out refuse to grant these privileges. As a result, hospitals essentially have the power to shut down nearby clinics.

Read the rest here:

Abortion Debate Poisoned By 'Pro-Choice' And 'Pro-Life' Labels - Huffington Post Canada

Book World: In a robot showdown, humanity may happily surrender – Prince George Citizen

Posted on by

Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow

By Yuval Noah Harari

Harper. 449 pp. $35

---

Many people fear that the path of artificial intelligence will eventually lead to a standoff between humans and machines, with humans as the underdogs. Confrontation looms in the forecasts of futurists and in the narratives of science fiction movies such as "The Matrix," "The Terminator" and "Westworld." But there's another way our demise could go down. We could begin wondering what makes people so special, anyway, and willingly give up the title of supreme species - or even the preservation of humanity altogether. This is the path explored by historian Yuval Noah Harari in his new book, "Homo Deus." There's no need for a Terminator to come after us when, instead of fighting the network in the sky, we assimilate into it.

At stake is the religion of humanism. Whereas theists worship gods, humanists worship humans. Harari, whose previous book, "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind," foreshadows this one, defines religion as any system of thought that sees certain values as having legitimacy independent of people. "Thou shalt not kill" derives its force from God, not from the mortal Moses. Similarly, humanists believe in "human rights" as things earned automatically from the universe, whatever anyone else says. The right not to be tortured or enslaved exists outside human convention. (Philosophers call this bit of magical thinking moral realism.)

We may take for granted the right not to be tortured or enslaved - or various other humanist doctrines, such as the idea that we're all inherently valuable individuals with the free will to express our authentic selves - but we have not always done so. People were seen as property even well after that bit about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was inked to parchment. As Harari argues, we've lived with alternatives to humanism, and we can again. And ironically, he writes, "the rise of humanism also contains the seeds of its downfall."

That's kind of a fudge, one of a few in the book. It's not the humanist revolution per se that planted those poison seeds. It's more the (somewhat symbiotic) scientific revolution. You don't need universal rights to study electricity and invent computers. Or to apply our inventions toward the evergreen pursuits of health, happiness and control over nature (or as Harari calls them, "immortality, bliss and divinity"). Nevertheless, scientific and technological progress might eventually undermine the humanist ethos.

On the scientific front, research is pushing back on the idea of free will (as philosophers have for ages). The more we can explain human behavior with neuroscience and psychology, the less room there is for some magical human soul.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is rendering us useless, taking the jobs of taxi drivers, factory workers, stock traders, lawyers, teachers, doctors and "Jeopardy!" contestants. And, Harari argues, liberal humanism rose on the back of human usefulness. It advanced not on moral grounds but on economic and military grounds. Countries such as France offered dignity to all in exchange for service to the nation. "Is it a coincidence," Harari asks, "that universal rights were proclaimed at the precise historical juncture when universal conscription was decreed?" But with robots making and killing things better than we can, who needs people? Intelligence will matter more than consciousness. "What's so sacred about useless bums who pass their days devouring artificial experiences" in virtual reality?

Even if the human species does continue to serve the system meaningfully, we might not matter as individuals. Harari suggests that algorithms might get to know us better than we know ourselves. As they collect data on our Web searches, exercise routines and much more, they'll be able to tell us whom we should date and how we should vote. We may happily take their advice, literally ceding democracy to databases. Once our authentic, enigmatic, indivisible selves are exposed as mere predictable computations - not just by philosophers and scientists but by our every interaction with the world - the fiction of free will might finally unravel. (Personally, I'm not sure our brains will allow this.) We'll enlist as mere specialized processors in the global cyborganic network.

Harari presents three possible futures. In one, humans are expendable. In a second, the elite upgrade themselves, becoming essentially another species that sees everyone else as expendable. In a third, we join the hive mind, worshipping data over individuals (or God). "Connecting to the system becomes the source of all meaning," he writes. In any case, he says convincingly, "the most interesting place in the world from a religious perspective is not the Islamic State or the Bible Belt, but Silicon Valley."

I enjoyed reading about these topics not from another futurist but from a historian, contextualizing our current ways of thinking amid humanity's long march - especially a historian with Harari's ability to capsulize big ideas memorably and mingle them with a light, dry humor.

In "Homo Deus," Harari offers not just history lessons but a meta-history lesson. In school, history was my least favorite subject. I preferred science, which offered abstract laws useful for predicting new outcomes. History seemed a melange of happenstance and contingency retroactively cobbled into stories. If history's arcs were more Newtonian, we'd be better at predicting elections.

Harari points to an opposing goal of his field. He writes that "studying history aims to loosen the grip of the past," showing that "our present situation is neither natural nor eternal." In other words, it emphasizes happenstance. That's a useful tactic for the oppressed fighting the status quo. It's also a useful exercise for those who see the technological singularity as a given. We have options.

It's possible we'll choose to avoid our loss of values. On the other hand, it's possible we'll choose to accelerate it. Harari, a vegan who disputes humanity's reserved seat atop the great chain of being, briefly ponders this option: "Maybe the collapse of humanism will also be beneficial." Indeed, don't we owe a chance to animals and androids, too?

---

Hutson is a science and technology writer and the author of "The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking."

The rest is here:

Book World: In a robot showdown, humanity may happily surrender - Prince George Citizen

‘Can we all get along?’ Apparently not – Miami Herald (blog)

Posted on by

Miami Herald (blog)
'Can we all get along?' Apparently not
Miami Herald (blog)
So this driver is stopped at an intersection. A pedestrian is dawdling in the crosswalk. Driver leans out the window and yells, Get out of the street, you damned liberal! It's been years since I read that in a magazine. I can't remember if it was a ...

Excerpt from:

'Can we all get along?' Apparently not - Miami Herald (blog)

Noted secularist Zuckerman to speak here Monday – Ashland Daily Tidings

Posted on by

By John Darling For the Tidings

Is the world gradually moving into a post-religious phase? Are millennials dropping religion in large numbers? Are evangelicals a driver in our politically divided society?

Phil Zuckerman, a professor in secularism at Claremont Graduate University and author of Society Without God, says "yes" to all these questions and will explain why at a talk starting at 7 p.m. Monday, March 13, at Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, 87 Fourth St., Ashland.

Secularism means doubting and deconstructing religion in any political claims, he says. Philosophically, it means debunking religious claims. Its a large umbrella that includes agnosticism and atheism and other isms, but the most important one is humanism. Whatever problem is out there, whether in global warming, poverty, illness, you are taking a rational stand for all sentient beings and not relying on saviors, gurus or magical beings.

Zuckerman, who created the degree-granting program of secularism atPitzer College, one of The Claremont Colleges in Southern California, says secularism means being non-religious on a personal level and on the political level means absolute separation of church and state.

There are no gods or gurus or magical beings who are going to help us. Its humans and humanism that are going to make this a better place in the here and now.

In a phone interview, Zuckerman said, Secularism as a moral vision is more suitable in the goal of treating people with humanness and guarding our planet against destruction.

The lecture of Zuckerman, 47, is called, "Secular vs Religious Morality in the Age of Trump." He pulls no punches in describing new president Donald Trump and his effect on our societys morality, as well as the impact of self-described evangelicals, 81 percent of whom voted for him.

Not only are we living in an era of alternate facts, under Trump, but alternate facts means lies and alternate morality, he notes. Immoral policies are being carried out under the guise of morality and were now in an era of true moral depravity.

He says white evangelicals are the base Trumps support and need to be singled out for heavy responsibility in the moral depravity of today. Theyve created pain and suffering all over this planet.

The religious right, he says, is the main reason younger people are turned off to religion, even disgusted by it. Its the opposition to gays, womens rights, other ethnic groups and if the younger people have a spiritual experience on their own, they embrace it and might say they believe in a higher power, but theyre not interested in taking it to a religious organization. They feel the awe but they wont put labels on it.

There are other causes to the long decline of Christianity. America has become a much more multi-cultural society and people are starting to get to know and like people of other religious traditions, he says.

When you have a monopoly on religion and its the only show in town, as it was in the past, it takes on an aura of reality and truthfulness, but now thats harder to maintain. People have a lot more education about the history of religion. The internet is another big factor and its correlated with losing faith. More women are working outside the home. Women are socializers and have always maintained engagement with religion and that has declined.

The Pew Research Center reports that three years ago, of the so-called Silent Generation, born 1928-45, 85 percent say they were Christian, tapering down with 78 percent of boomers, 70 percent of Generation X and 56 percent of younger millennials. Between 2007 and 2014, the Christian share of the population dropped from 78.4 to 70.6 percent, while unaffiliated climbed from 16.1 to 22.8 percent.

Zuckerman says a degree in secular studies is a good gateway to public policy, law, education, history, teaching or politics although, at this time, if you want to run for office in a red state with that on your resume, you are probably doomed, because they expect you to be a god-believer. But that stigma is going to fade as more and more of us come out. The degree was not created to get people jobs, but to enhance our world.

Noted thinkers in the secular tradition and the books he assigns in classes include Bertrand Russell, John Stuart Mill, David Hume, Emma Goldman and Epicurus.

In his Society Without God, Zuckerman points out Denmark and Sweden are the least religious countries in the world, maybe in the history of the world, but have the lowest violent crime rate and the least corruption in the world. He has commented that religion is often conflated with patriotism, and that secular people tend to vote for progressive causes.

He is the author of several other books, including Faith No More: Why People Reject Religion and Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions.

His talk is free and open to the public.

John Darling is an Ashland freelance writer. Reach him at jdarling@jeffnet.org.

Go here to see the original:

Noted secularist Zuckerman to speak here Monday - Ashland Daily Tidings

Commentary Open Forum: The real ‘Logan’ Movie slices through … – The Winchester Star

Posted on by

Justin Chaffee

Anyone disturbed or surprised by the content and presentation of Logan has never read any of the comics/graphic novels involving this character, aka Wolverine.

Concerned moviegoers should understand producers of previous films involving Marvels popular foul-mouthed, cigar-toting antihero were not only doing audiences a huge favor by omitting the realistic gore that would result from Logans slicing and dicing, but also protecting their own budgeting-butts, bub. Ever bothered to track the body count in other movies?

Logan is a womanizing, problem-drinking, pro-bone-oh curbside-ampu-surgeon. Mutate this with a soft spot for defenseless loners and a rageful disposition toward oppressive organizations, and the result is a perfect role model for any Generation X-er.

Previous films subtly portray the heros true attributes and abilities as best as PG-13 ratings would allow. In X-Men: First Class, 20th Century Fox grants Wolverine the only allowable f-word, in his brief 60 seconds on screen. The new release comforts true fans in that Hollywood is finally growing a pair (of claws) to show audiences the real Logan through Logan.

American censorship is just a manifestation of unnecessary fear. It was culturally necessary that the conservative, home-schooling mom accidentally took her kids to see Sausage Party, before realizing its content was not suitable for her family. She should have done her research first.

How does she protect her children from hearing what some people publicly blast through the car radio? A theater accidentally showing a red-ban trailer in front of a family feature holds slightly different circumstances, yet all children grow up and will experience similar themes in the real world eventually. These types of mistakes just expedite the process.

Its a brave new world, again. Endless possibilities.

Justin Chaffee is a resident of Winchester and Newport News.

Original post:

Commentary Open Forum: The real 'Logan' Movie slices through ... - The Winchester Star

Twitter Tests Censoring Entire User Accounts over ‘Sensitive Content’ – Breitbart News

Posted on by

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Mashable first reported on the feature when one of their contributors attempted to view the profile of tech analyst Justyn Warren but was unable to determine why or how the account was flagged. Warren was notinformed that his profile was hidden, nor understood exactly why Twitter imposed the measure on his account. Warrens tweets seem to contain some swearing, but nothing serious enough to seem to warrant a sensitive content warning. His profile has since been unflagged.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Soon enough, there were reports of other accounts being grayed out:

Twitter claims that this new feature is to make the experience safer for users, and that it follows similar steps to their other safety features. Media, such as photos or videos,can already be reported as sensitive, with Twitter having the ability to mark an entire users media posts as sensitive permanently if they so choose. However, this new step verges away from stopping everyone immediately seeing pornography or graphic images to something potentially more worrying.

Abhimanyu Ghoshal writing atTheNextWeb posited some of the negative outcomes, imagining if a potential employer looked up your profile and found that it was greyed out; its possible they could get the wrong impression about your online presence. Or, if you had an important idea to share, but people couldnt see your tweets because you cursed once [Twitter] needs to be careful that it doesnt end up censoring its users and stifl[ing] free speech.

Twitters safety features are done via an opt-out system, whereby users have to go into their profile and deliberately change their settings in order to ensure that they see everything they want to. There is merit to allowing people to avoid things they do not want to Gab, the free speech alternative to Twitter, implemented a word-filtering feature that Twitter lateradopted but this was the choice of the users, and not forced upon them as default.

This is not the first time Twitter has implemented new features that tend towards censorship. If accounts are seen to have potentially abusive behavior, they are locked out for a certain period of time.In February, Twitter announced safer search results, filtering out sensitive tweets, and collapsing abusive tweets from being seen as replies underneath a tweet.

Jack Hadfield is a student at the University of Warwick and a regular contributor to Breitbart Tech. You can follow him on Twitter @ToryBastard_ or on Gab @JH.

Read the original post:

Twitter Tests Censoring Entire User Accounts over 'Sensitive Content' - Breitbart News

Don’t like a point of view? Free speech protects it, anyhow – The Seattle Times

Posted on by

Mean-spirited, self-absorbed, holier-than-God attitudes are definitively with us. They did not arise out of nothing but out of modes of askew child rearing, cultural degeneration and too many postmodernist, leftist professors preaching what should never be practiced.

Charles Murray, someone who makes his living by thinking and appreciates its grandeur as a guiding force, recently had a firsthand encounter with a mob of college students insisting instead that fury should rule the day.

I am tempted to generalize about a sickeningly spoiled, intellectually betrayed younger generation out to announce its moral superiority by way of moral thuggery. That goes too far. Were talking about 100 people. But they symbolized more than themselves. Something significant is indeed going on. And it is pathetic.

The setting for this story is Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont. Murray, a libertarian author and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, had been invited to speak at the school by libertarian students, and no wonder.

A few years back, he had written an amazing book that as much as predicted what we witnessed in the 2016 presidential election. It was called Coming Apart and was about an upper-middle class more and more separated from a white working class letting go of self-reliance, industriousness, marriage and religion. A nation once unified in its norms was no more, and the result was gated communities over here and increased poverty, crime and family dissolution over there.

You could read the book and not be persuaded by every sentence while nevertheless feeling that, yes, it is crucial to restore the exceptionalism of earlier days. Worry about all of this grew in 2016 when we witnessed so much talk about the establishment masses growling at the elites who in turn looked down on the deplorables. Donald Trump then made vulgarity his calling card as he rose mightily against political correctness.

It was legitimate to do so. Political correctness can be incorrect to the point of pulling a professors hair, hurting her neck, making her fear for her life and sending her to a hospital. This was what happened to a woman who was on the scene to debate Murray after his talk. To its credit, the administration did its best to maintain peace and sanity, and the professor was there to assure another side got told. But the protesters were not about to permit something as civilized as an exchange of views.

So the students unleashed obscenities in chants and signs, pushed, threatened, banged on a car, roughed up the professor and left one thinking of what else we have seen lately: the violence, speech oppression and vandalism at Berkeley, still other frenetic, mindless protests, silly university speech codes, safe zones, microaggressions, trigger warnings and no-sombrero rules.

Look around and its clear mean-spirited, self-absorbed, holier-than-God attitudes are definitively with us. They did not arise out of nothing but out of modes of askew child rearing, cultural degeneration and too many postmodernist, leftist professors preaching what should never be practiced. To what extent could our future be shaped by those caught up in such a self-satisfied la la land of absurdist rationalizations and desires for collectivist control?

It is hard to say, but I am not just indulging ad hominem displeasure here. The main thing is the assault on free speech. Without it, there is no democracy. Truth becomes harder and harder to find. We do not grow. We do not learn. Without free speech, life shrinks, goodness shrinks, meaningfulness shrinks.

A few incidents do not give us the end of the American creed but they do point to ways in which it is being subverted. An incident in which a powerful, creative thinker is shut up is all the more frightening because it tells us how much we would be hurt if the villains of this tale were to grow as much as they would like in their power and influence.

Whats needed is much ado about something very scary.

View original post here:

Don't like a point of view? Free speech protects it, anyhow - The Seattle Times

Free Speech Is Not Enough – Power Line (blog)

Posted on by

Not sure my next book will be Free Speech Is Not Enough, but Im thinking about it. Can the world really be ready for a Not Enough series? Or should this idea be Left Behind? (Classical reference there. . .)

Conservatives are making a big strategic mistake to repair behind the principle of free speech in response to the kind of suppression of speech weve seen like Charles Murray at Middlebury, Milo at Berkeley, etc. Put simply, todays ill-liberal left doesnt believe in free speech any more. To the contrary, they are openly contemptuous of the idea of free speech, and have an entire theory to justify suppressing speech in the name of justice.

But lets start with the superficial defects of the free speech redoubt. The left says America, and any defender of America, is racist, sexist, imperialistic, homophobic, transphobic, glutenphobic, and probably phobicphobic before long. To respond primarily with an appeal to free speech to is concede the premise of the left. Are we really sayingYes, I demand my right to free speech to defend racism, sexism, etc. . .? Lame.

The right response to demands for censorship of speech is to challenge the leftist narrative, and its underlying theory, directly. The left believes that the idea of free speech itself is a tool of oppression, which is why the left has no respect for the idea of free inquiry. This is not new at all; it is merely a revival of Herbert Marcuses doctrines from the 1960s. As Marcuse wrote back then, [T]he restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions. . . .

One person who gets this clearly is Stephen Carter of Yale Law School. He has a very good column up at Bloomberg News this week on The Ideology Behind Intolerant College Students. Worth reading the whole thing, but heres the best part:

I want to say a word about the ideology of downshouting. Students who try to shut down debate are not junior Nazis or proto-Stalins. If they were, I would be content to say that their antics will wind up on the proverbial ash heap of history. Alas, the downshouters represent something more insidious. They are, I am sorry to say, Marcusians. A half-century-old contagion has returned.

The German-born Herbert Marcuse was a brilliant and controversial philosopher whose writing became almost a sacred text for new-left intellectuals of the 1960s and 1970s. Nowadays, his best-known work is the essay Repressive Tolerance. There he sets out the argument that the downshouters are putting into practice.

For Marcuse, the fact that liberal democracies made tolerance an absolute virtue posed a problem. If society includes two groups, one powerful and one weak, then tolerating the ideas of both will mean that the voice and influence of the strong will always be greater. To treat the arguments of both sides with equal respect mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society. That is why, for Marcuse, tolerance is antithetical to genuine democracy and thus repressive.

He proposes that we practice what he calls a liberating or discriminating tolerance. He is quite clear about what he means: tolerance against movements from the Right, and tolerance of movements from the Left. Otherwise the majority, even if deluded by false consciousness, will always beat back efforts at necessary change. The only way to build a subversive majority, he writes, is to refuse to give ear to those on the wrong side. The wrong is specified only in part, but Marcuse has in mind particularly capitalism and inequality.

Opening the minds of the majority by pressing one message and burdening another may require apparently undemocratic means. But the forces of power are so entrenched that to do otherwise to tolerate the intolerable is to leave authority in the hands of those who will deny equality to the workers and to minorities. That is why tolerance, unless it discriminates, will always be repressive.

Marcuse is quite clear that the academy must also swallow the tough medicine he prescribes: Here, too, in the education of those who are not yet maturely integrated, in the mind of the young, the ground for liberating tolerance is still to be created.

Todays campus downshouters, whether they have read Marcuse or not, have plainly undertaken his project. Probably they believe that their protests will genuinely hasten a better world.They are mistaken.Their theory possesses the same weakness as his. They presume to know the truth, to know it with such certainty that they are comfortable indeed enthusiastic at the notion of shutting down debate on the propositions they hold dear.

A nice piece of work by Prof. Carter.

View post:

Free Speech Is Not Enough - Power Line (blog)

The start of something? An assault on free speech at Middlebury – mySanAntonio.com

Posted on by

Photo: Lisa Rathke /Associated Press

Middlebury College students turn their backs to author Charles Murray during his lecture March 2 in Middlebury, Vt. Later, the protest took on a more ominous tone.

Middlebury College students turn their backs to author Charles Murray during his lecture March 2 in Middlebury, Vt. Later, the protest took on a more ominous tone.

The start of something? An assault on free speech at Middlebury

At Middlebury College this month, Charles Murray needed a safe space literally.

In a significant escalation of the campus speech wars, protesters hooted down the conservative scholar in a lecture hall and then roughed up a Middlebury faculty member escorting him to a car.

The Middlebury administration commendably tried to do the right thing and stand by Murrays right to be heard but was overwhelmed by a yowling mob with all the manners and intellectual openness of a gang of British soccer hooligans.

If campus protests of speech begin to more routinely slide into violence, Middlebury will be remembered as a watershed.

First, there was the target. Charles Murray is controversial mainly for his book The Bell Curve, about IQ but he is one of the most significant social scientists of our age. He is employed by the prestigious conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, and his books are highly influential and widely reviewed. His latest, which was to be the topic of his Middlebury talk, is Coming Apart, a best-selling account of the struggles of the white working class that illuminated some of the social forces behind the rise of Donald Trump.

No one is bound to accept any of Murrays ideas, but they are inarguably worth engaging. He exists in a different universe from Milo Yiannopoulos, the alt-right provocateur infamous for saying or doing anything to get infamous. That Middlebury protesters cant tell the difference between the two shows that their endeavor to know or understand nothing outside their comfort zone has been a smashing success.

Second, there was the venue. No one has ever mistaken Middlebury, a small Vermont liberal arts college founded by Congregationalists, for Berkeley. It doesnt have a reputation as a hotbed and training ground for rabble-rousers, and yet it has given us one of the most appalling episodes of anti-speech thuggery in recent memory. If it can happen at Middlebury, it can happen anywhere.

Finally, there was the violence. The students who brought in Murray framed the evening as an invitation to argue and asked professor Allison Stanger, a Democrat in good standing, to serve as Murrays interlocutor. When chanting students commandeered the lecture hall, Stanger and Murray repaired to another room for a live-streamed discussion. Protesters found the room, pounded on the windows and pulled fire alarms. When Murray and Stanger exited at the end of the live-stream and headed for their getaway car, protesters shoved and grabbed Stanger, who later went to the hospital, and pounded on the car and tried to obstruct it.

Stanger wrote afterward that she feared for my life. And for what offense? Talking to someone who thinks differently from the average Middlebury faculty member or student.

Political correctness has been a phenomenon on campuses since the 1980s but now has become much more feral. The root of the phenomenon is the idea that unwelcome speech is tantamount to a physical threat against offended listeners. Shutting down a speaker and literally running him off campus is, from this warped perspective, an entirely justifiable action.

Of course, speech doesnt threaten anyone. The appropriate response to an erroneous argument is counterargument. And the free exchange of ideas always allows for the possibility that someone will actually learn something.

If campuses arent to sink further into the miasma of illiberalism, administrators will have to actively fight the tide of suppression. Its not enough to say the right things about free speech; they have to punish thuggish student agitators. Otherwise, college campuses may become increasingly unsafe spaces for anyone departing from a coercive orthodoxy.

comments.lowry@nationalreview.com

Follow this link:

The start of something? An assault on free speech at Middlebury - mySanAntonio.com

Dennis Baxley: Protecting free speech in schools – Ocala

Posted on by

By Dennis BaxleySpecial to the Star-Banner

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. This freedom from the establishment of a state religion and the protection of free speech establishes the protection of religious speech and expression as well. There have been many challenges by the ACLU and others at public schools across America and in Florida to sterilize the schools of religious expressions using the establishment clause; however, this clause was intended to declare religious freedom in the U.S. and to escape the establishment of state religion as was common in governments of the Old World.

After much case law, it is time to articulate in statute how Florida school policy will apply this free speech to our school administrators, teachers, staff and students. We owe them clarity.

This proposed bill, SB 436, Religious Expression in Public Schools, is not in response to a crisis or a high-profile case. The time to clarify is not in the middle of a crisis, but the trend is clear to people of faith. Expressions of faith have been stifled in our public schools. This proposal is not intended as a criticism of our school administration; we have left them without clarity on this issue. Free speech does not stop at the school property line, and this statute will give clarity and direction on how to preserve this constitutional right without authorizing disruption and disharmony.

Rep. Kimberly Daniels, a Democrat African-American House member from Jacksonville, brought this language to me, a Republican Caucasian senator. It is a bipartisan and bicameral proposal brought in harmony to the legislative body. It is much like an enabling bill often done to apply a constitutional amendment when added to the Florida Constitution by the voters.

How refreshing to work across the aisle and across the chambers to clarify how the free speech of our citizens will be protected at our schools.

Without this free religious expression, we are in fact establishing a state-sponsored religion secular humanism.

Let Freedom Ring!

State Sen. Dennis Baxley serves District 12 in the Florida Senate, which includes the southern third of Marion County.

View post:

Dennis Baxley: Protecting free speech in schools - Ocala

Stand up for everyone’s freedom of speech – STLtoday.com

Posted on by

Once in America, people stopped and listened to what others had to say. Once, freedom of speech was for everyone. Now the norm is to shout at people, interrupt them, call them names, bully them, censor them, threaten individuals' livelihood/reputation, berate them on social media, close ones mind before you have all the facts, or just dont bother to listen, all because they hold a different opinion.

Contrary to what some think, the Constitution has not changed. Freedom of speech is not based on gender, religion, race or even political party. It guarantees that each of us has the right to be ourselves, to have our own opinions and to voice those opinions. Nowhere does it state that if you dont think like or hold the same opinion as me, you are stupid, you should shut up, or you dont belong.

Citizenship in America isnt easy. You need to stand up and fight for what is right. You need to defend everyones right to free speech, even the opinions of those who you disagree with. You need to make your voice heard by communicating with those elected or by getting involved in our political system. You need to be civil.

I realize that there are those who hate that America is made up of different cultures, races and religions. I realize that these individuals not only fear the freedoms we have but would like to take it all away. But this should not stop us from exercising our rights and freedoms. What it means is that we need to stand up for what is right, and defend her against those who would deny these rights and freedoms both here and abroad. And to those who disagree with all that I said, I will defend your right to disagree.

Lois Clark Oakville

Continued here:

Stand up for everyone's freedom of speech - STLtoday.com

The KKK Canary: How We’re Losing Our Freedom of Speech – Observer

Posted on by

If Pastor Martin Niemllers poem First They Came was rewritten for todays free-speech battles, would the Ku Klux Klan be in the first line? Its hard to think of a more unsympathetic group, yet tyranny often starts small, sometimes targeting first those that are liked the least. A current court case involving the KKK serves as a warning: We are slowly, incrementally losing our freedom of speech.

At issue is the story of 22-year-old William D. Schenk, who spent five months in a Vermont jail after leaving Klan recruitment fliers at the Burlington homes of two women, one black and one Hispanic. Authorities accuse him of targeting the ladies, and in April 2016 he pleaded no contest to two counts of disorderly conduct, enhanced by a hate crime penalty based on prosecutors belief that Schenk was motivated by the victims race, reported the Burlington Free Press.

This plea was entered, however, under the condition that Schenk could appeal a judges decision to not dismiss the charges. That appeal is now being heard by the Vermont Supreme Court.

Unsurprisingly, the facts of the case are in dispute. Schenk claims he distributed the fliers to 50 homes; police say they found no recipients but the two minority women. Deputy Chittenden County States Attorney Aimee Griffin said it could be inferred that he targeted the women; Associate Justice John Dooley noted that theres no evidence Schenk knew the two women were minorities.Schenk is a North Carolina native and states that he conducted a similar recruitment drive in his home state.

Whats not in dispute is that if Schenk had been recruiting for the Republicans or Communist Party USA, he never would have landed in the dock. As the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)put it in papers filed on his behalf, [T]he government seeks to punish Schenk based solely on the content of his speech.

Furthermore, ACLU Staff Attorney Jay Diaz wrote in a prepared statement that while his organization considers the KKK a despicable hate groupthe Constitution does not allow the government to pick and choose which speech it will permit.

Another troubling aspect of this case is prosecutor Griffins insistence that, somehow, a government inference of motive makes otherwise lawful speech a crime. Its reminiscent of how the courts inferred that President Donald Trumps initial travel ban unfairly targeted Muslims based partially on comments he made in the past, on the campaign trail.

In other words, increasingly, the state is not judging acts and policies on their substance, but on what it divines their actuators motives to have been. But is this a government of laws or a sideshow telepathist routine? Its the thought that counts only applies to disappointed gift recipients.

Addressing the dangerous precedent suggested by Griffins inference that Schenk targeted the women, Associate Justices Harold Eaton and Marilyn Skoglund both asked whether, under Griffins argument, anti-abortion groups that distribute fliers to pregnant women could face charges, reported Seven Days.

Griffin rejected the analogy, stating that the KKKs history of violence created a more profound threat. Of course, given that left-wing groups have often unfairly, but successfully, portrayed pro-lifers as historically violent, the judges question was apt.

Lets try this on for size: What about Marxists putting recruitment literature on bankers stoops? Given that communists murdered 94 million people during the 20th centuryand target capitalists in particularcould we view this as a hate crime? And what if the New Black Panther Party put fliers on whites doorsteps?

Upon accepting the precedent that government can stifle speech based on content and motivation, playing mind reader, who will be allowed to say what would be determined by political favor.

Is this even remotely responsible, undermining our constitutional freedoms in the name of stifling the speech of a scorned and reviled .001 percent of the population? The First Amendments purpose is to protect unpopular speech; popular speechs popularity is usually all the protection it needs.

The Schenk case reflects the increasing acceptance of the notion of actionable hate speech, something explicitly criminalized in other Western nations. With hate always defined to be, quite curiously, synonymous with political incorrectness, such laws have claimed victims ranging from politicians to pundits to performers to pastors to peons, all targeted mainly for criticizing Islam and, less frequently, homosexuality. Worse still, were on the road to embracing these laws ourselves.

The problem began when the term hate speech originated (circa 1990) and then was cemented in our culture as a separate category of speech (years later). People would say things such as, to use the example of attorney Gloria Alreds hysterical 2006 shriek about a comedians epithet-laced, on-stage meltdown, This is not free speech; this is hate speech!

If you continually differentiate hate speech from free speech, people will begin to view the former as a separate species of speechnot protected by the First Amendment.

Now, for just about as long as weve had the hate-speech species, weve punished it situationallywhen associated with hate crimes. Consider: Something is generally identified as a hate crime by way of whats expressed during its commission. An example is assaulting somebody while directing racial epithets.

Its also considered an aggravating factor. For instance, if the assault would normally involve only four years incarceration, the hate-crime enhancement might bring an additional six. In other words, were already punishing hate speech within a certain context.

The problem is that upon establishing hate speech as a category and punishing it within one context, its just a short leap to punishing it within other contexts.

The Schenk case represents this (d)evolution. Where once the speech had to be uttered during a crime to implicitly be deemed unlawful, now the speech alone may be considered unlawful when directed at a certain type of person.

None of this is any surprise, with politics being downstream of an ever-degrading culture. When I was in elementary school we still heard the rhyme, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Oh, words can hurt feelings, draw tears or even start wars, but thats not the point. The saying instilled tolerance for unwelcome speech, a prerequisite for maintaining respect for free and open discourse.

Its clear that todays kidser, snowflakes, dont hear the rhyme much anymore. Instead, their fragility is nurtured as theyre taught about triggers, microaggressions, or whatever is the latest Oh, the humanity! term describing things that just shouldnt offend their ethereal ears. They are provided safe spaces where, at least momentarily, their delusive bubble wont be burst. Is it any wonder they want to turn the whole country into a safe space? (This recent survey finds growing intolerance for controversial speech among the young.)

It should be mentioned that hate-speech prohibitionswhether foreign laws or domestic campus codesrarely affect Klansmen, partially because there are so few Klansmen. Rather, they mainly stifle substantive debate over Islam, race, immigration and fashionable sexual agendas. Theyre also dishonest: Their main focus isnt hate, but what the Thought Police hate.

A good way to start draining the legislative swamp is to get the government out of the doubleplusgood thought business and rescind hate-crime law. Barring this, all we can do is ask: Whose principles will become tomorrows hate?

Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke)has written for The Hill, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily and American Thinker. He has also contributed to college textbooks published by Gale Cengage Learning, has appeared on television and is a frequent guest on radio.

More here:

The KKK Canary: How We're Losing Our Freedom of Speech - Observer

Freedom of speech is a precious right – Fort Madison Daily Democrat

Posted on by

A lot of folks in our society today dont seem to respect or fully understand our constitutionally protected right of free speech.

Ideologically-driven leftists who refuse to let those with whom they disagree speak at university/college campus events, town hall meetings, and other public venues epitomize that selfish lack of respect. And there are often no negative, personal consequences for their impudent (sometimes violent) behavior.

Fortunately, the silent majority prefers a saner society and wants no part of any movement that promotes and/or tolerates such flagrant disregard for constitutional principles (including the right to peaceably assemble, which does not cover looting, destroying property, throwing rocks at cops, etc.). Leftists will continue to lose support because of this.

Having the audacity to believe that none of us should be allowed to speak or write in a manner that offends others is simply delusional. Can you imagine what our society would be like if that idea were to somehow be enforced? Who would decide what is offensive? Communist dictatorship, here we come.

We should all cherish our First Amendment right of free speech. For example, I not only disagree with probably 80-plus percent of what William Windsor writes, I find much of it to be quite offensive. Does that mean I would advocate prohibiting him from expressing himself the way he does? Of course not!

Make a note, Linda Nash. Nobody can hurt my feelings (or yours) unless I (or you) allow it. Like it or not, we adults cannot legitimately blame another person for how we feel. Thats our responsibility. And nobody else can be held responsible if some adult stops talking or writing due to fear of being criticized in no uncertain terms.

Some would say that we should all be able to disagree without being disagreeable. What about those whose limited communication skills preclude their always being able to do that? Should they not be allowed to express their opinions? Walking on eggshells is (as often as not) ineffective, unhealthy, and unrealistic.

Attempts to control others via what is politely termed political correctness has been carried to ridiculous extremes by guess who? Leftists, of course. Another reason they are losing ground.

Freedom of speech is a very broad concept in America. Only certain narrowly defined categories of speech are considered illegal e.g., credible murder or terrorist threats, sedition (such cases are rare), and (sometimes) incitements to violence. Hate speech per se is actually legal.

Our First Amendment right of speech is precious. Its there to protect those with whom we disagree. And since nobody has ever had a single idea that we would all agree with, arent we lucky our constitution is there to protect us from tyrants would choose to stifle us?

A few of my favorite quotes:

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. Salmon Rushdie

So long as they dont get violent, I want everyone to say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me. Albert Einstein

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Benjamin Franklin

How brave a thing is freedom of speech, which made the Athenians so far exceed every other state in Hellas [ancient Greece] in greatness. Herodotus

Fred Bindewald

Fort Madison

Read more from the original source:

Freedom of speech is a precious right - Fort Madison Daily Democrat