Café Philos: an internet café

Bimbo talk show hosts are notorious for sloppy reasoning. Well, actually not. It would be more correct to say bimbo talk show hosts should be notorious for sloppy reasoning, but many people still swear by them -- swear by them when they are not actually parroting them.

The question I've been wondering about recently is whether, or to what extent, bimbo talk show hosts might set the pace for what people believe is good reasoning in this confused world? That's to say, I've become suspicious that, for a very large number of people, the bimbo talk show host is their primary teacher when it comes to how to reason.

Years ago, when I was attending a school with 14,000 students, I took a series of courses in logic. The classes never had more than 30 or 40 students in them. I don't know if that's typical, but it seems to me that a few dozen students willing to study logic out of a school of 14,000 might indicate that most people learn how to reason from some source other than courses in logic.

Perhaps many people these days learn how to reason from bimbo talk show hosts.

What do you think?

Some day the conservative movement in the U.S. will wane, falter, and be overtaken by a liberal movement. When that happens, there will be a migration of opportunistic "intellectuals" from the conservative movement to the liberal movement.

It happened just that way in reverse a few years ago when many "intellectuals" on the left moved to the right to take advantage of the rise of the conservatives.

I don't fault them for changing their minds. We should all change our minds many times in the course of our lives as we gain knowledge and new insight. I only fault them for the fact that what changes their minds isn't knowledge, and isn't insight, but rather the opportunity to sell books, land jobs with foundations and governments, and be invited onto talk shows.

This morning, The New York Times is carrying a story of how many Iraqi refugees in Syria have been forced to turn to prostitution to survive. And so the war that "liberated Iraq" has yet another unintended consequence.

Unintended, but not unpredictable. Most -- perhaps all -- wars lead to such things as refugees and survival prostitution, among many even worse evils. Yet, how many people think of children with their arms blown off, sisters forced to prostitute themselves, infants dying from outbreaks of cholera and other diseases, average people forced to flee their homes, and on and on and on -- when the politicians, pundits, and bimbo talk show hosts are banging the war drums before the fighting begins?

Not even many opponents of a war point to those likely costs before the war begins. It seems we are surprised every time. Yet, why should we be surprised? Those evils are the consequences of nearly every war.

Are at least some mystical observations intersubjectively verifiable?

At first, it might appear the most truthful answer to that question is, "No, mystical observations are not intersubjectively verifiable." For one thing, mystical observations are not replicable at will. There appears to be no path or technique that guarantees someone employing it will have a mystical experience. And if you cannot replicate a mystical experience at will, how can you assert that what mystics observe during their experiences is intersubjectively verifiable?

On the other hand, there are some surprising agreements among mystics of different cultures and ages about the things they have observed during their experiences. For instance, mystics of different times and cultures have spoken about experiencing a sense, perception, or feeling that all things are profoundly interconnected. Since those mystics can have lived in cultures and times as separate from each other as 1200 A.D. Spain from 500 B.C. China, there is little chance that their agreement is a matter of their having influenced each other. In short, it's pretty clear that at least some mystical observations are intersubjectively verifiable even though they cannot be replicated at will.

At this point, however, we must be very careful not to take mystical experiences as irrefutable evidence of something they are not irrefutable evidence of. For instance, as stated above, mystics commonly enough experience a sense, perception, or feeling that all things are profoundly interconnected. Can we therefore conclude on that basis alone that all things are indeed profoundly interconnected? No. For to do so would overlook the possibility the mystics are experiencing a sort of common delusion. We know, for instance, that people of different ages and cultures can experience the same optical illusions. What is there to keep us from judging that a sense, perception or feeling of profound interconnectedness is not some kind of commonly shared illusion?

While mystic experiences might be delusions, and therefore cannot be taken as conclusive evidence that, say, all things are profoundly interconnected, it's also possible they are not delusions, for we have no independent evidence that they are indeed delusions. So, the jury is still very much out on whether such mystical observations as the profound interconnectedness of all things is a delusion or not.

Where the jury is no longer out is on the question of whether mystical experiences are intersubjectively verifiable -- I submit they are indeed intersubjectively verifiable, even though we don't know whether they are delusions or not, and even though we cannot replicate them at will. Of course, the main reason I might believe they are intersubjectively verifiable is because I haven't had enough good beer yet today to be thinking clearly. So, what do you think?

I have a guess. My guess is that so many Americans believed Iraq had something to do with 9/11 because to believe the alternative was more frightening. The alternative being that the president of their country was such an idiot as to invade a country that had nothing to do with the war he declared on terrorism.

A friend of mine is one of those liberals to whom the word "foolish" might be applied. She is so focused on the world of ideas, she trips over the world she lives in. That's to say, her principles get in the way of her feet.

So, for instance, she loves humanity, but doesn't love very many flesh and blood people. She hates the powerful people she's read about who oppress the Latin American poor, but adamantly defends a real life friend of her's who is a cruel bully.

Another friend of mine is one of those conservatives to whom the word "foolish" might be applied. He also is so focused on the world of ideas, he trips over the world he lives in.

So, for instance, he is so opposed to public charity in principle, he even opposed Federal assistance to Katrina victims. Because the Bible tells him the Jews are God's chosen people, he cannot see the injustice of Israel's settlements on the West Bank.

Ideas are more like maps than anything else. Just like maps, their truth value is in whether they are sure guides. But some people are more in love with the maps they make than they are with the terrain the maps are supposed to be guides to. They are like undisciplined cartographers who would sooner have an especially attractive map that's wrong than they would have a plain but useful map that's accurate.

A friend recently lost her job and is short on money this month, so I'm sending her a few dollars to ease the situation.

I seem to recall that when I was much younger, giving was more problematic to me. That's to say, I thought when I was young that I had to somehow justify it. It is, after all, considered a moral act to give, and morality is something that ought to have a reasoned basis, right? So, when I was young, I seldom gave anything without trying to reason out why I was giving something.

At some point, it became tiresome to always wonder what grounds there were for giving, and I dropped any effort to do so. And that's when it became fun to give.

I think for most of us, it's just as natural to us to give when we see a need as it is for us to eat when we are hungry. We usually don't need to rationalize eating, so why do we sometimes feel we need to rationalize our giving? The effort takes the fun out of giving, just as it would take the fun out of eating.

Sleep, health, and food. My late aunt used to say that if you have two out of three of those, you can get by for a while at least, but if you lack more than one, you're likely to run into trouble.

She told me that when I was a college student. I think she was suspicious of all college students: Suspicious that they went short on sleep, were in poor health, and didn't eat right.

Of course, there's some truth to that. Students are notorious for going short on sleep, not eating right, and winding up with colds, flues and worse. Looking back, I think my aunt was onto something.

A young man recently asked me, "In a universe with no observers, would anything exist?"

I've been wondering now whether that's an epistomological question or a metaphysical one. At any rate, such questions have a way of revealing what we think truth is.

The other day, I posted a thread on a popular forum that asked, "What Does Israel Do For the U.S.?" One of the forum's more frothing members promptly accused me of having an anti-Israel agenda on the mere grounds that I had asked that question.

I don't consider myself anti-Israeli, but the thought has occurred to me Israel could do more for the States than it does. For instance, it could dismantle all the illegal settlements in the West Bank. It seems to me that dismantling the illegal settlements could be a step towards peace in the region -- something that would benefit the U.S.

Have you ever wondered why the Palestinians have yet to create as powerful a political lobby in the United States as the Israelies have?

I'm curious if I have any readers who like to draw, either professionally or as a hobby?

I indulge myself in drawing nude figures, abstract doodles, and portraits. Does anyone else like to draw?

Lately, I haven't been able to keep up with my promise of "fresh posts nearly every day" due to a lingering illness, so I've removed that promise from the blog's banner. I'll put it up again after I start posting more frequently.

Are people born to sin?

From a Christian standpoint, the question is meaningful -- and not only meaningful, but significant. If we are born to sin, then we need salvation. If we need salvation, then the Christ story makes sense.

For many people, the notion we are born to sin has even broader meaning. Folks like James Dobson not only believe we are born to sin, but also believe that we are born selfish, rebellious, power hungry, unruly, undisciplined, and uncivilized. That's to say, we are not only born to break God's law, but we are also born with a "will" that makes us unfit to live as decent citizens of society. Like all bad ideas, that one has some truth to it.

Yet, it would be more true to say humans are born with some traits more developed than others. Our earliest memories are typically from around the age of two and a half to three. That's because most of us until then lacked the neurological structure necessary to fix such memories. And, just as it takes two to three years to develop the neurological structure for certain kinds of memory, it takes some time to develop the neurological structure for such human traits as empathy and compassion. So, it's not so much true that we are born bad, or born good, but that we are born "scarce half made up".

Of course, the Christian concept we are born to sin isn't quite the same thing as the secular concept we are born bad (or born good). Sin, so far as I understand it, is either breaking God's law, or offending God, or both. While it might be bad to sin, the notion of "bad" includes a lot of things that are not, strictly speaking, sins.

This bright Spring morning, I'm wondering whether that secular concept that we are born bad (or, for that matter, born good) has any meaning whatsoever in an age of science?

Science says nothing about whether sin exists or what its nature might be. But it does have a lot to say about human development. And it's very difficult to fit what it says about human development into either the notion we are born bad or the notion we are born good. So, I suspect folks like James Dobson and many others, who broaden the Christian concept of being born to sin into a secular concept of being born bad, might just be living in a confused world of their own.

The secular view that we are born bad has consequences, of course. For Dobson in particular, the notion we are born bad means that it is a primary duty of parents to break the "wills" of their children, and a primary duty of society to restrain and limit the "wills" of its members. That's to say, it's the human "will" that's corrupt and bad from birth.

I happen to think that's a fairly petty and incomplete view of what it means to be human.

Last weekend, I managed to get up into the mountains. Spring was just coming to them. The peaks were still snow capped, but the days were warm and bright, and some tiny wildflowers were in bloom. I would have liked to stay for a week or two, because it can take me that long to get into the rhythms of the wilderness.

You don't notice it too much when you're in the city, but your senses go to sleep in the city.

You notice it when you're in the mountains for a few days -- then your senses wake up again, sharpen, become more alert than you had imagined they could be.

I figure your senses go to sleep in the city to protect you from all the noise, odors, confused movement, and subtle chaos that are the nature of cities. If your senses were really awake in the city, you'd be overwhelmed.

When I have spent a long time with nature -- enough time to feel a part of it, rather than just feel myself a visitor -- I often have found in myself a sense that the pace, the rhythm, the sights, the sounds of nature are what we are really born to understand. Deeply understand. It seems so much easier, up there in the mountains, to understand life, to accept it for what it is, to want nothing more than what it offers.

I don't mean to trivialize nature. A life lived in nature is hard, difficult, often short, frequently pained. Yet, for all that, our species did not evolve for cities, but for the wilderness. And part of us shall always be asleep in the city.

I recently came across a thread on a forum that asked the question, "If your children had to see one or the other in a movie, would you prefer them to see violence or nudity?"

I humbly submit that any morally sane person, given that choice, would prefer their children to see nudity, rather than violence. Yet, some people responding to the question stated they would prefer their children to see violence. Apparently, the myth that nudity can be equated to violence, or is even worse than violence, is still with us.

All of history shows that moral sanity does not come to a society without a struggle. Therefore, none of us can expect society to take a morally sane position on nudity unless we are willing to struggle out of our clothes each Monday to blog in the nude. The logic is irrefutable! All that remains is for you to participate in the rapidly growing Nude Blogging Movement today!

On Sept. 11: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' "

On AIDS: "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals."

On homosexuality: "I believe that all of us are born heterosexual, physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual. But I believe that we have the ability to experiment in every direction. Experimentation can lead to habitual practice, and then to a lifestyle. But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual."

On Martin Luther King Jr.: "I must personally say that I do question the sincerity and nonviolent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations."

On Martin Luther King Jr., four decades later: "You know, I supported Martin Luther King Jr., who did practice civil disobedience."

On public education: "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again, and Christians will be running them."

On the separation of church and state: "There is no separation of church and state."

On feminists: "I listen to feminists and all these radical gals. ... These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem."

On global warming: "I can tell you, our grandchildren will laugh at those who predicted global warming. We'll be in global cooling by then, if the Lord hasn't returned. I don't believe a moment of it. The whole thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability."

On Bishop Desmond Tutu: "I think he's a phony, period, as far as representing the black people of South Africa."

On Islam: "I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life, written by both Muslims and non-Muslims, that he was a violent man, a man of war."

I've slacked off a bit on blogging over the past three or four days because I've been feeling a bit under the weather. However, I'm now feeling on the mend, so I should be up to snuff soon. I apologize to anyone who's been inconvenienced by this.

How would you define pornography? One way to look at pornography (pun intended) is to see it as essentially the same as racism, sexism, and other attempts to demean people by reducing them solely to a trait, characteristic, or concept.

In the case of pornography, the reduction is to no more than a sex object. In the case of racism, the reduction is to no more than a race or ethnic group. In the case of sexism, the reduction is to no more than a gender. And so forth. But in every case, what's at work here is the reduction of someone to no more than a trait, characteristic or concept.

Pornography demeans because it says in effect, "This person is only a sex object". The "only" is crucial here. There is nothing inherently wrong in representing someone's sexuality in art. What's wrong is art that reduces someone to their sexuality alone.

That's like reducing someone to their race alone. It's like reducing someone to their gender alone. Ms. Greene is a thousand things, but the racist sees her as merely Black, the sexist sees her as merely a woman, and the pornographer sees her as merely a sex object.

Moral insanity is a terrible thing. It can be especially terrible when the morally insane person attempts to impose their moral confusion on other people.

Now, that's exactly what happened a while back. Some morally insane police arrested a grandmother for taking nude pictures of her grandchildren. But that indecent arrest was followed by a morally insane prosecutor charging the grandmother with a sex crime:

In early 2000, Marian Rubin's granddaughters, Amy, then 8, and Kayla, then 3, were dancing naked on her bed before bath time, strutting their best Britney and Christina moves. In still photos, they must have looked posed.

Rubin is the basis of an urban legend, the 65-year-old granny taken to jail for snapping innocent bathtub pictures of her beloved grandkids. Except her case was real, and the headlines in the Trentonian screamed, "Granny Busted/Cops Think She's a Perv."

The night that she was arrested, after picking up the nude pictures of the girls at a local MotoPhoto outlet -- Rubin, an experienced and award-winning art and children's photographer, insists that she never intended to publish these photos -- Montclair, NJ, police went to the girls' home and had their parents wake them up.

"They asked totally inappropriate questions," says Rubin, who is now 72. "'Did Granny get undressed, too? Did Granny touch you? Did Granny touch herself?' They threatened my son and daughter that, if they didn't cooperate, the kids would be taken away."

Rubin wrote a book, Naked Truths (www.naked-truths.com), detailing her outrage at what she calls vigilante film processors, and she excoriates cops and prosecutors for being unable to admit they'd made a mistake.

On her lawyer's advice, she took a deal called a "Pretrial Intervention" that amounted to conditional probation but left her with no criminal record. She now regrets not taking the case to trial. Even though a federal judge later found the pictures to be "totally inoffensive," Rubin is still paying off the $30,000 debt.

"I haven't taken a nude picture since," says Rubin, who has won awards for nude bodyscape photography. "Portraiture was my thing. They took away my innocence, constricted my vision, brainwashed me into seeing things differently. They definitely changed my pictures of children."

The fact is, we live in a society where some folks just freak when they see nudity. Even some people who are in positions of authority freak. They freak and cannot make a morally sane decision about nudity -- even though the quality of people's lives depend on their making a sane decision.

So it's up to you and me to make a difference. The only way the morally insane can be successful in their efforts to impose their insanity on the rest of us is if the rest of us fail to stand up to them. Surprisingly, it's not hard to stand up to them. Sanity is on our side.

Even a journey of 10,000 miles begins with a first step. And the first step towards moral sanity in this country is to publicly declare your allegiance to the Nude Blogging Movement. Today, Monday, is Nude Blogging Day. Won't you join the rapidly growing Nude Blogging Movement today?


Reference

Although I'm no more of a religious person than is Sam Harris, I don't share his view that faith has always and merely been detrimental to humanity. Nor do I share the views of Richard Dawkins and many others that religion has more readily lent itself to evil than to good through-out human history. Instead, I subscribe to the view that religion has acted like an enabler.

That's to say, religion -- so far as I understand it -- doesn't create new motivations in people. Or, if it does create new motivations, that's a very small and insignificant part of what it does. Instead, it facilitates, encourages, or enables motivations that are already there.

For instance: I don't think religion creates a desire for power in people. But it is certain that religions have often facilitated for some people the realization of their desire for power. Again, I don't think religion creates a desire to be charitable. But it is just as certain as before that religions have often facilitated for some people the realization of their desire to be charitable.

So, as I see it, Harris, Dawkins, and many others miss an essential point here. They talk as if faith or religion creates motivations. I think it would be more correct to say that faith and religion enable motivations. Moreover, I believe they enable both good and evil, at least historically.

Given my view, the problem facing anyone concerned about the effect of religion on humanity is not to abolish religion, as Harris et al might wish to do, but to figure out how to make religion a wholly positive -- or at the least a benign -- influence on humanity.

As everyone knows, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and a handful of other atheists have recently published books taking religion to task for its crimes against reason and humanity. And one of the ways some (but not all) religionists have responded to those books is to call the authors "whiners".

As you know: Besides being tacky, it's also a classic fallacy of logic to dismiss someone's arguments by attacking the author of the arguments. Yet, such is the habit of many people these days, and I sometimes think the popularity of logical fallacies must have something to do with the fact so many people listen to bimbo talk show hosts. Presumably, a goodly number of those people learn what logic is all about from listening while the bimbos routinely commit genocide against sound logic and reason. That at least is what I think some days.

On other days, I think the reason so many people employ logical fallacies must have something to do with how poorly community is felt and understood these days.

A sense of community is very likely one of the keys to moral behavior. It seems intuitive that if one thinks he or she is only in it for themselves, they are more likely than someone else to use what intelligence they have to fool others. But if you realize the truth we are all in this together, and that what happens to your neighbor in some way happens to you, then perhaps you are more likely to use your intelligence to help your neighbor understand things than you are to use your intelligence to make a fool of him or her. At least, that's what I think some days.

On still other days, I realize people have routinely massacred logic and reason since time immemorial and that nothing much ever changes about that. The person who 2000 years ago put into Jesus's mouth the words, "Whoever is not for me is against me", was just as much a bimbo as any talk show host of today. "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

So, I have at least three speculative views to dance between on the issue of why so many people resort to fallacies of logic. I suspect those three are my favorites because each in some way amuses me. Enough about me, though. Why do you think people resort to logical fallacies?

Perhaps I should begin by stating that I'm not in favor of folks cheating on their partners.

I'm not a chauvinist for monogamy either. But I believe that if you were so incomprehensibly foolish as to freely, and while sober, promise someone that you will remain faithful to them, then you should remain faithful to them. No excuses. You made the promise. Keep it.

That's Plan A.

In life, Plan A doesn't always work, and so most people always try to have a Plan B. Here, then, is Plan B: If you do cheat on your partner, then do so in the most ethical and responsible manner still possible. For instance:

• Don't bring home any STDs, babies, or psychotic lovers.
• Don't tell your partner you've cheated unless it's absolutely necessary.
• Don't tell anyone else you've cheated unless it's absolutely necessary.
  
• Put your partner first, ahead of your lover, for attention, gifts, resources and time. Give your lover the left-overs -- not your partner.
• Don't discuss your partner with your lover.
  
• Don't lie to your lover about where they stand with you.
  

Having seen a number of people cheat on their partners over the years, I've come to the conclusion that most people -- but not all -- are lousy cheaters. Once they start, they go to pieces, behaving much worse than needs be. Then, they wind up confessing everything to their partner and spending 10 years in therapy. And that's just for a drunken one-night stand. It only gets worse if there's more than one infraction.

Nietzsche was possibly the first philosopher to recognize "the death of God" opened the door to something beyond a one-size-fits-all morality.

Christianity had insisted for a couple thousand years that the same morality which applied to peasants applied to kings. The first Western thinkers to reject Christianity failed to reject the Christian notion there was but one legitimate morality for everyone. Nietzsche, however, was adamant that if you gave up the Christian deity, you were left with no basis for asserting the Christian claim everyone should be governed by the same moral code. Rather than look to God for a single morality, Nietzsche looked to human nature and found moral diversity.

In a sense, we have not gone beyond Nietzsche even today, for we in the West are still struggling with this strange notion that humans might naturally be as morally diverse a species as they are diverse in every other way.

Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure on frequency 124.7"

Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the way, after we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the far end of the runway."

Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702, contact Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report from Eastern 702?"

Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger; and yes, we copied Eastern... We've already notified our caterers."

Is it moral to advertise to children age 12 and under?

Should it be legal to advertise to children age 12 and under?

"Transform your thoughts into positive ones. It is a mistake to think that everyone is bad. Some people are wicked, that's true, but that doesn't mean everyone is. There are also many people who have a noble and generous spirit."

- Dalai Lama


Sometimes we fall in with the wrong crowd. If we are inexperienced, the crowd we hang with can seem to us the norm, no matter how petty or mean-spirited they are. We might not even know to expect better of people than the people we're with.

The path away from our false friends is usually difficult. Not only must we break off contact with them, but we must also change our expectations of people. It's that latter part -- changing our expectations -- that many people fail to accomplish.

Yet, if we don't change our expectations of people when we break away from a bad friend or a group of friends, we are so much more likely to wind up back with the same sort of people. You see that all the time. Someone you know leaves an abusive lover, for instance, only to find the same sort of lover again. Or, someone leaves a group of mean-spirited friends only to find another group of mean-spirited friends. When changing from a bad crowd to a better crowd, it is vital to change our expectations too.

Tony Blair announced today that he will step down from his job as Prime Minister on June 27th. His successor is expected to be Gordon Brown, the man who has run the British economy for ten years.

It will be interesting to see what Brown does about the British nanny state. Will he move to reform it? Will he leave it as is?

Maybe it takes a lawsuit to get some folks to tell the truth.

For years, the Federal Government has funded various abstinence-only sex education courses for school children. At the same time, the Feds have a law on the books requiring that certain educational materials present medically accurate information about condoms.

It's been no secret that many of the taxpayer subsidized abstinence-only sex ed programs have been breaking the law by teaching kids false and misleading information about the effectiveness of condoms. But until now, no one has done anything about it.

Enter the American Civil Liberties Union. Today, eleven state chapters of the ACLU sent letters to the Federal Government's Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) demanding the Government enforce it's own law, stop various abstinence-only folks from lying about condoms, or be sued.

“We are taking action today because federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula across the country contain medically inaccurate information about the importance of condoms in preventing pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted disease,” said Julie Sternberg, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom. “Spreading misinformation about condoms in many abstinence-only-until-marriage programs violates federal law and endangers teens’ health.”

Today’s action comes on the heels of an April letter the ACLU sent to HHS, which said three federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula, Me, My World, My Future; Sexuality, Commitment & Family; and Why kNOw, along with HHS’s own 4parents.gov Web site and pamphlet, Parents, Speak Up!, all violate a federal law requiring certain educational materials to contain medically accurate information about condom effectiveness. In that letter, the ACLU called on HHS to immediately remedy the violations or face a legal challenge.

“The government has turned a blind eye to the misinformation in federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs,” said Sternberg. “It is time for the federal government to start properly monitoring the content of these programs.”

No response from the Federal Government yet. But some social conservatives must be howling this evening. After all, so far as many social conservatives are concerned, no good can come of telling kids the truth about sex.


Reference:

CommonDreams.org

Last night, I was listening to a bimbo talk show host broadcasting out of Denver, Colorado on a 50,000 watt radio station that reaches 38 states and three countries call for a moratorium on immigration to this country by Muslims.

According to the Bimbo, all Muslims should be prohibited from entering the United States until the President's "War On Terror" is over because every Muslim on earth is to some extent responsible for the actions of those few Muslims who happen to be terrorists.

Now, you and I both know there aren't enough electrons on the internet to write out all that's wrong with that one idea. We have to hand it to the Bimbo: It's almost like a form of genius to be that stupid. The idea is such a bad one from economics to foriegn policy to morality and beyond that I have no doubt I was hearing from a future Congressman last night.

Some years ago, when I was new in Colorado, I frequented a coffee shop near my apartment that was the hang out of kids from the local high school. Consequently, the first 200 or so people I met here were almost all of them between the ages of 15 and 19.

Several of those kids befriended me, and took to inviting me on road trips, or to parties, sleep-overs, concerts, plays, movies, rock climbing expeditions -- just about anything and everything they did together.

I came to know over time perhaps a 100 young men and a 100 young women, some of them quite well. And it seems to me that I noticed a difference between many of the young women who had fathers and many of the young women who didn't.

In general, the difference was this: The fatherless women were less self-confident around men than the women with fathers.

For instance: The fatherless women were less likely to assert themselves. They were less likely to let men know what their boundaries were. They were less likely to be strong individuals around men.

On the other hand, the fatherless women were more likely to be relatively obsessed with their boyfriends. They were more likely to be emotionally dependent on them. And they were more likely to cling to relationships in which they were being abused.

It seemed to me that one thing fathers tend to do for their daughters is help them be self-confident when dealing with men. Does that make any sense?

One of the ways the pseudo-science of eugenics differs from the honest evolutionary sciences is that eugenics claims there is an ideal human standard, an ideal type of human.

Anyone who has made a serious study of human nature knows that claim has little or no evidence to support it, and a weight of evidence against it. Yet, the notion there is an ideal human type persists not only in the pseudo-science of eugenics, but more broadly in our culture.

Hitler really didn't need the pseudo-science of eugenics to tell him there was an ideal human type ("Aryans"). In one form or another, the notion of an ideal human type permeated his culture, and he could have picked it up from nearly anywhere even had eugenics itself not been around for him to draw from. Yet, just as in Hitler's time, the notion, in one form or another, permeates our culture even today.

Perhaps the most obvious example of that notion at work today is in the fashion and entertainment industries -- industries that are notorious for promulgating a single standard of physical beauty. Yet, the realm of physical beauty isn't the only place in our culture where we can find the peculiar notion there is an ideal human type. Simply look at how often someone asserts a single, ideal morality for all humans! Or, an ideal religion. Or, even an ideal spirituality.

The sciences, on the other hand, tell us that we are a diverse species without an ideal type. Just as we show natural diversity in the sizes and shapes of our noses, or in our eye and hair colors, we also show natural diversity in a myriad more hidden ways. For instance: In the number of the various types of neurochemical receptors in our brains.

Perhaps it is time to look long and hard at the peculiar notion there is -- or ought to be -- an ideal human type. Perhaps, rather than look for a single standard of beauty, or advocate for a single economics, or propose a single spirituality -- perhaps, we should take a lesson from our own nature, for we are a naturally diverse species, and ask instead how to manage diversity.

About two years ago, a woman went to a drugstore here in town to pick up some photos she'd left to be developed. She was in a rush when she paid for her photos and didn't take a look at them until she got back home. That's when she discovered the drugstore had given her the wrong set of photos. Instead of the family pictures she expected, she found photos of a nude man.

Suppose you were the woman. What would you do?

Here's what the woman did: She called her lawyer, and he filed a lawsuit against the drugstore on her behalf alleging that she had been "traumatized" by the sight of the nude man.

Traumatized.

By nudity.

Remember that story the next time you think society is morally sane. It's not. In all likelihood, more people than you think believe mere nudity is traumatic. That's why it's important to support the rapidly growing Nude Blogging Movement by declaring that you blog in the nude on Mondays.

Each Monday, potentially millions of nude bloggers give the lie to the crazy notion that nudity is traumatic. Won't you do your part by joining them?

A while ago, a spam-prevention robot happened by this blog, took a look, and decided things looked suspicious enough to suspend publication. Consequently, when I tried to post early this morning, I was prevented from doing so.

I appealed the robot's decision and was told I might need to wait up to two business days before Cafe Philos could be checked out by a real, live human and pronounced a genuine blog (as opposed to a spam blog). Fortunately, someone was much quicker than that to take a look: It was only a matter of a few hours before I got an email from Blogger that this blog had been investigated and found valid.

At any rate, that's all over now, and I'm back to posting.

“We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

- Gary North


(Gary North is the son-in-law of Rousas Rushdooney, the founder of Dominionism, which is the theology behind Christian Reconstructionism. Christian Reconstructionism maintains, among other things, that the United States is a Christian Nation, has always been a Christian Nation, and is ordained by God to take over the world.)

Early this week, when the lady to the left heard that Mondays are Nude Blogging Days, she made a point of dressing up to blog.

Sadly, she's morally confused.

Due to an unfortunate head injury, she deeply believes that by dressing up to protest the possibly millions of people who blog in the nude on Mondays, she is saving her nation and society.

In her new, concussion-induced worldview, the sight of even a single naked nipple is fully capable of plunging society into a new moral dark age. She is no longer concerned with war, poverty, ignorance, environmental degradation, or disease. Those threats to society have paled for her ever since her accident. In their stead, she's discovered a dizzying conviction that somewhere, somehow, sometime, a naked nipple will emerge to usher in the apocalypse.

What can be done to help her? Scientists are even now attempting to reverse engineer the brick that smacked her on the head, but prospects for a full recovery are dim -- she's already applied for a high level job with Focus on the Family, and it looks like she'll be accepted now that she meets the mental qualifications for a vice president of that organization. So, at this point, her last hope on earth is you.

Yes, only you can help her now. By blogging in the nude on Mondays -- every Monday -- you and potentially millions of other nude bloggers give the lie to her delusion that nudity is a dire threat to society. That's to say, only by actually showing her nothing evil comes of nudity can you hope to help her. Won't you do your part to help her this coming Monday?

Won't you join the growing Nude Blogging Movement?

Perhaps the best way to understand the role certain neurochemicals play in our thinking and feeling is to get drunk.

Not only is that without a doubt the very best way to understand the role of those neurochemicals, it is surely the most fun way. So go ahead! Have a few glasses! By drinking yourself into a senseless stupor while reading this, you will prove to all the world how admirably dedicated you are to understanding neurochemistry.

As you drink, you will notice that alcohol changes both the way you think and the way you feel. That observation should rightfully astonish you. If it doesn’t, you are not yet drunk enough. Have another!

It should astonish you because the common wisdom is that thinking and feeling are two very separate things. On the one hand we have thought. On the other hand, we have emotions. And some say the two shall never meet. Yet, here we have evidence that a single substance – alcohol – changes both thinking and feeling. Thinking and feeling not only meet in alcohol, but they get married.

Now, your astonishment at that revelation can only increase beyond all bounds once you reflect that it’s an actual physical substance producing the changes in your thinking and feeling. The way that works: There are neuroreceptors at various locations in your body that are specifically receptive to alcohol. When molecules of alcohol latch onto those neuroreceptors, you begin to think and feel in the ways you are currently experiencing if you’ve taken my wise advice and have been drinking as you read this.

Certain neurochemicals do precisely the same thing that alcohol does. Those neurochemicals have receptors at various locations in our bodies, and when they latch onto those receptors, those neurochemicals change both the way we think and the way we feel.

Good examples of neurochemicals that change both how we think and how we feel are oxytocin, testosterone, and the cortisols. Of course, by now, you should have drunk enough that you’d be inclined to amiably agree with me even if I said cat litter was a good example of a neurochemical that changes both how you think and feel.

So what does all this mean? Allow me to suggest that your last thought before passing out might be this: Since at least some emotions change both thinking and feeling, it is wrong to assume those emotions are mere feelings alone. Rather, we must believe them to have a cognitive aspect as well. And perhaps that cognitive aspect can best be described as a way of perceiving, a way of looking, a focus, or a perspective.

The April poll asked, "Is Nude Erotic Dancing Immoral?" Out of 40 votes cast, the results were:

Yes, it is always immoral -- one vote.

Yes, but only when done for money -- one vote.

Yes, but I still can't get enough of it -- two votes.

No, it's not immoral -- 13 votes.

No, it's not immoral and can be life-affirming -- 20 votes.

Other or Depends -- three votes.

"The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths. These persons have an appreciation, a sensitivity, and an understanding of life that fills them with compassion, gentleness, and a deep loving concern. Beautiful people do not just happen."

- Elizabeth Kubler Ross


At times, the last thing anyone of us wants to believe is that our suffering is meaningless. Everyone suffers. That seems to be an universal truth. And nearly everyone finds some meaning, some purpose in their sufferings.

Ross is not alone in suggesting that our sufferings are redeemed by their potential to turn us into more beautiful people. Many of us believe that. Or, as Nietzsche famously said, "What does not kill me makes me stronger." The impulse to find meaning in suffering is a strong one.

How many of us actually entertain the thought there is no meaning to suffering? Perhaps very few of us do. I know when I suffer, my first instinct is to look for meaning. I want my suffering to stand for something greater than itself. It is like swimming against a current to entertain the thought that it might be meaningless.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

~Sir Winston Churchill

Now, look you Kalamas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea; "this is our teacher'. But, O Kalamas, when you know for youselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala), and wrong, and bad, then give them up ... And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome (kusala) and good, then accept them and abide by them.


- The Buddha, From the Kalama Sutta

When we have sex, our bodies release certain neurochemicals that cause us to bond with the person we have sex with.

For instance, our bodies release oxytocin. Oxytocin is a neurochemical that does a number of things in humans, but it should be noted here that it is addictive. That is, oxytocin is as much of an addictive substance as is alcohol or nicotine.

Most people readily describe the emotional effects of oxytocin as having "a warm and fuzzy feeling towards someone". If you gave someone a shot of pure oxytocin, they would experience a rush of warm and fuzzy feelings, among other things.

So what does all this mean? It means that when you have sex with a person, your body releases an addictive chemical that you come to associate with that person. If you cease having sex with that person, you will be able to go a few days with no problem. Then the withdrawl symptoms will set in and you will yearn for him or her (you are really yearning for more oxytocin, but your mind doesn't know that).

This pattern is why so many couples break up, are happy with their break up for a few days, and then plummet into yearnings for each other. Not realizing that they are chemically addicted to each other, they think their yearnings mean they are in love with each other. So, they get back together again. Only to face the same problems that caused them to break up in the first place.

The moral of the story, if there is one, is this: Be careful who you sleep with. If you sleep with them often enough, whether inside marriage or outside of marriage, you will become addicted to them. That is especially true for women: Estrogen multiplies the bonding effect of oxytocin.

I am not making an argument here for restricting sex to marriage, but rather am merely saying that sex has consequences we don't always think about, but should. Sex, after all, is something that evolved in us not just for procreation, but (at least in humans) also for bonding us to each other.

"Each friend represents a world in us, a world possibly not born until they arrive, and it is only by this meeting that a new world is born."

- Anais Nin


Nin's words seem especially true to the extent we love our friends. When we love someone, we are open to them. That can allow us to see the world through their eyes. It can allow us to see how they see things. And in that respect, we can find a new world -- one we might not have become aware of otherwise.