Reasoned Consideration

Miscellaneous: •  How not to talk about human trafficking » Related: -  Sex Slave Story Revealed to be Fabricated » -  Campaigners too readily accept inflated figures for trafficked women -  Figures behind child prostitutes overinflated? -  Falsely inflated statistics about sex trafficking in the U.S. make bad policy and laws -  Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution • I'm not sure it's possible to convey with words just how bad this article manages to be in five short paragraphs: Murder hits more black homes [News24] » •  Video of motorist punching cyclist » - I suspect this assault is a consequence of the rising "hurr hurr I hate cyclists!!1!1 derp" mentality that seems to be spreading virally lately. In some sense, are cyclists the 'new Jews'? It's almost as if humans can't help but collectively select some group of people to dehumanize and target ... whether it's "witches", bl...

New version 2013 of our  TLex Suite now available » (TLex lexicography software, tlTerm terminology software, etc.)

(For those familiar with the BHL blog, where they are known to sneak in justifications for using force): The very phrase ' Bleeding Heart Libertarian ', if you think about it, is 'in and of itself' actually a subtle contextual ad hominem and ' poisoning the well ' attack on 'actual' (i.e. non-force-advocating) libertarians ... the only way it makes sense to prefix the "bleeding heart" adjective at all is if you're sneaking in a sort of suckerpunch claim that your opponents ('normal' libertarians who presumably, we are to take it, don't have 'bleeding hearts') are 'heartless'; it is essentially a claim that much pain and suffering would be allowed and ignored if 'ordinary' 'non-bleeding-heart' libertarians were ever in charge - it automatically frames all subsequent discourse and debate within this mindset, and it's 'smart' but sneaky in that it puts debate opponents immediately on...

Durban beach sand art bulldozed “Durban Metro Police have removed dozens of unlicensed sand sculptors from the beachfront today ...  the move is part of ongoing efforts to ensure that only traders with permits are allowed on the beach-front ...  Those wishing to make sand sculptures are required to pay a monthly permit fee ” So you now need a "permit" to create sand sculptures on Durban's public beaches (presumably if you expect someone might tip you), and poor people trying to earn a living are having their livelihoods bulldozed by the government. Meanwhile, taxpayers foot the bill for expending police resources on this, instead of on real crime. It should seem like common sense to say, but provided you aren't interfering with anyone else, you should have a natural right to create a sand sculpture on a public beach. And if a passerby wants to give you a bit of spare change, that too is his/her natural right - neither party should have to ask anyone's "p...

A 'bad philosophy' can be more incapacitating than an actual handicap.

An Aquatic Ape I think the strongest 'circumstantial evidence' supporting a partial form of the (controversial)  aquatic ape hypothesis * is something I don't think I've seen mentioned before: The simple fact that we find  wet Homo sapiens sexually attractive. If you think about it, doesn't it seem a bit arbitrary? E.g. would gorillas find other wet gorillas sexy, or would rats find other wet rats sexy? How universal is this? If we consider the concept of sexual choice ** in evolution, then if our ancestors were once partially evolving "in that direction", then we might expect that they may have felt  a mate choice preference  for the entailed characteristics of a hypothetical "aquatic ape" (such as the 'wet look', as well as finding smooth, hairless skin comparatively more attractive, as we do). To consider this argument, look at a picture like the one above (or  this ,  this ,  this ,  this , or  this ) ... then (for...

TIME's 'senior national correspondent' Michael Grunwald accidentally tweets what he's really thinking: Michael Grunwald: "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange" Not only does he advocate murder, he is gleefully excited about writing up propaganda to justify it. His "apology" is no better: The big problem you see with your comment is that it was "dumb"? Not maybe 'immoral', no 'hey, I see now extrajudicial murder is wrong'? There seems to remain no real  moral concern -  only regret at having made a PR blunder.