Wednesday Highlights


  1. This is said a lot (that good teachers don’t insist a student “believe”, or pretend to believe, what the teacher believes to get a good grade). I don’t think it is true. A commentor remarks that this may not be true in science but is in philosophy. Let’s see a student decide that predicate logic is random nonsense and see how that flies. The point is, that even in philosophy or other “soft” sciences you can’t just believe whatever you want willy-nilly and pretend that’s just your opinion … so you should get a good grade no matter what you say. I’m not saying this well. The point being all fields have parts which are bedrock, which make up the framework of discussion and are not negotiable. Then there are those points on which reasonable people can differ. You can’t disagree that 1+1=2, but you can on the axiom of choice. Same goes for Philosophy, Econ and other such fields of study.
  2. Continuing with the right’s inability to grok what the left is all up in arms about with respect to Hobby Lobby, e.g., how is “not buying you something” an imposition.
  3. Of what interest would the justice department have in a parade (answer: Constitutionally speaking none at all). Y’all on the left can now explain.
  4. So. Does that conservative pass the liberal Turing test?
  5. Betcha it won’t be sold here.

Hmm. Slow news day?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

One comment

  1. Boonton says:

    #2 The problem with Hobby Lobby isn’t that they ‘aren’t buying you something’ but that they are demanding a tax break without doing something that’s required of the tax break on the grounds of ‘we don’t wanna’.

    Suppose I noted Mark gives 10% of his income to charity. I give nothing. As a result Mark gets a tax break equal to 2.5% of his income. I demand the same break. I argue that I have ‘religious beliefs’ against giving to charities of any type therefore I shall not be ‘mandated’ to give to charity.

    This is essentially what the HL arguement is. It might make sense if there was an actual mandate somewhere that I give 10% to charity. But there is none, only a tax incentive. Hence my demand to get the same tax bill as Mark even though I give nothing is an imposition in the sense that I’m demanding something I’m not entitled too. Not so much in the sense that charities have a right to demand I give them 10% of my income.