Attention people coming here to protest!

http://www.livejournal.com/community/anti_righty/406918.html

Enjoy.

...

Don't they do checks of people before allowing them to adopt?

Or something? How can she have just stopped paying their tuition? Why didn't she just leave them in the US with relatives here?

Did I tell you lately how much I loathe and detest Bush?

At this point, Kerry could practically be the anti-Christ, and I'd still vote for him.

Anyway. Now that this is settled. Interesting article about... um... the news.

(no subject)

"Even if I am not protected by the law, a fertilized egg is an innocent life," Mosher said in a phone interview. "If the law says that I have to dispense birth control, and that means taking an innocent life, they can take their license and shove it. Birth control is against what is written in the Bible."

No, it's not. God never came down and said "condoms are bad". There's a few passages I've seen which may indicate that birth control is a Bad Thing... or they may not. Barring an exact statement (such as "eating pork is bad, thank you"), everything is up to interpretation. And the tragedy is, you don't know if you're interpreting correctly, or if you're really just putting words in God's mouth.

If you really truly believe that birth control is sinful, get another job. I don't work as a stripper because I'd be uncomfortable doing that. When I finally answered that call from the recruiter, I said I couldn't join the army because I'm a pacifist, I did NOT accept the line that "not all jobs in the army require fighting" because the point of an army is to kill others, and I want no part of that. I'm not about to sign up and then say, after the fact, "Oh, no, I'm not okay with this part of the job". Not gonna happen.

And if you really, truly, believe it's your job to stop teh evul!!!111, do some research and find out how to persuade people. If you're right, you shouldn't have to resort to brute tactics like sending people on wild goose chases.

*hums*

More on Kerry, this time his newspaper habit

*shivers* They keep this library like an icebox, and I must go home soon and write.

And more linkylinks.

A suit against the government for extending service times past the time that a soldier's volunteer commitment has ended

Okay. No more links. I should go home soon. Really this time.

*stretch*

Two notes.

1. If I post/comment/reply/breathe again before 11:35am Thursday, smite me. I'm supposed to be working on my paper. Wait, no, strike the last one. I can breathe. *deepbreath*
2. I've been having too many typoes lately. You guys are my spellcheck, remember? If you don't, now you know. Stop slacking.

Djusk' a.

Oh, and 3. Anybody tempted to get pissed off at me before tomorrow should wait. I can't reply, and I just spent a week apologising to everybody! I don't want to do that again so soon, and all of you (there's no doubt more than the three I know of) can wait until I write this paper. Six pages, and I have no idea where to start.

I said I wasn't going to post...

But I need somebody to smack me into sense, and my sister isn't picking up the phone.

I'm almost done with my essay. I'm doing it on cultural relativism. He's already pre-written our outlines, so it's simple. At one point, we're supposed to explain "how a cultural relativist, like yourself, would defend cultural relativism against Rachels' argument (that the cultural differences argument is invalid because (example) it'd be silly to say there is no objective truth about the shape of the world just because two cultures say the earth is two different shapes). I assume he expects us to say that there's no reason to believe that moral truths are the same as truths about, say, the shape of the world... but he didn't realize that "myself" is crazy. I want to say that there's no reason to believe that all things MUST have objective truths! After all, if light can be both a particle and a wave depending on the observer, and Schrodinger's cat can be both dead and alive until you look in the box, why can't something be both right and wrong depending on the culture?

I'm not sure this is a good argument.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it's a stupid argument.
In fact, I'm positive that this will fail me.
But I want to say it anyway!
It's so cool!
And neat!
And it invokes physics!

Somebody hit me. Hard. Make me stop being crazy.

Hi all! I'm posting from my laptop today

Surprised? So was I. Anyway, I'm just waiting for Jenn to call me back. You know what this means! I'm almost done with my essay! Really and truly. I'm stunned, it usually takes me forever.

So, in honor of me being cooler than thee, I'll post another random link:

Random link. Click it. It's fun!

_{Am I the only one who wants to take a red pencil to that icon and make it say "as I am"? Yeah, thought so}

Hi Professor Lurz.

On the offchance that you see this, yes, this is your student, Connie Baker. Honestly. The only way I stole this is if I stole it from myself.

( Read more... )

( This hides no text, but will bring you to the end of the page )

It's not very good.

Oh, and here's the criteria:

Write a paper in which you defend cultural relativism against James Rachels' criticism of this theory in "Morality is Not Relative." In your paper you should do the following. First, clearly explain what the issue is over the status of moral truths. Second, clearly explain the three theories of moral truths: objectivism, cultural relativism, and subjective relativism. Third, clearly state the cultural difference argument in support of cultural relativism. Fourht, clearly explain Rachels' objection to the cultural difference argument. And fifth, clearly explain how a cultural relativist (such as yourself) could reasonable (sic) respond to Rachel's (sic) objection.

You must use appropriate quotations from the text to illustrate and support your ideas.

Well, crap. This guy HAS no appropriate quotations. He's completely unquotable! Seriously. *sighs*