Monday Highlights

Good morning

  1. A conspiracy theory considered.
  2. Yah, and what will we find out in the coming months and years. Betya waterboarding will come back … this time liberals will be defending it.
  3. Of life and freedoms.
  4. Another reason for the dismal label, a thing is and it isn’t.
  5. I suspect the real reason for the contraception kerfuffle is to act as distraction from other follies.
  6. Death, space, and an argument recalled.
  7. SSM and an argument against it outside of religious reasonings.
  8. Anti-drug adverts done right.
  9. High capacity mags.
  10. Microsoft suckage.
  11. A plane (not plain) contest.
  12. Border incursions.

4 Responses to Monday Highlights

  1. I suspect the real reason for the contraception kerfuffle is to act as distraction from other follies.

    1. for profit corporations are not ‘religious organizations’.

    2. tin ear? Hmmm, the whole contraception kerfuffle seems to be on the right. First it was interesting that Romney, a man willing to flip flop on anything if he thought it would get him elected, had little interest in articulating much of an argument with Obama over contraception. Second the election did appear to be a pretty clear rejection of the contraception criticism of the health plan.

    SSM and an argument against it outside of religious reasonings.

    As always, check out my devasting comments.

  2. Boonton,

    for profit corporations are not ‘religious organizations’.

    I see. If you own a for-profit company you can’t freely exercise your religion. How’s that work?

    Second the election did appear to be a pretty clear rejection of the contraception criticism of the health plan.

    Back to your imaginary world now? Where a close election means the tea leaves give strong indications?

    As always, check out my devasting comments.

    If I recall … your arguments against my similar arguments weren’t exactly devastating. Unless “I happen to disagree” is somehow devastating.

  3. Boonton
    But I will check out your comments (at FT)

  4. Boonton,
    She wrote:

    The argument in favour of same-sex marriage has mostly centred on rights. But this isn’t the only liberal philosophical perspective on the legislation. The more I considered this bill the more I was unsure about the state’s role. If an important reason for marriage is that it is a space for having and raising children, I can see the relevance for the state being involved in regulating it and encouraging stability for the good of society and for children’s welfare.

    You wrote:

    I think the only valid argument left is the ‘decoupling’ one. That if you associate marriage with non-procreative couples then procreating couples will cease to see any need to get married. This argument fails IMO for two main reasons: [...]

    I’m not clear how you dismiss her primary argument and go elsewhere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>