Not that anyone would notice, but I seem to have disappeared from the blogosphere for a time. Well, I'm back now. The dissertation proposal is drafted. The quizzes are graded. The new Rock Band II has lost just a bit of its initial shine. And so I'm back in the blogosphere to write posts that virtually no one reads. My apologies for being gone, but every once in a while even philosophers have to work.
More proof abstinence-only education doesn't work.
Creationists keep asking for evidence of evolution. Well, on top of all of this, now there is this.
And Priests plagiarizing sermons. Is it really that hard? The book's already been written for you!
Apparently, the French have lost their minds as well. Now, I'm no crazy Libertarian or anything, but it's my personal belief that a business owner should be able to make decisions about what goes on inside his own establishment. Just as some people decide that shoes must be removed in their homes in order to protect their carpet, and others couldn't care less if you walk around their house with big ol' dirty boots on, a business owner should be able to decide whether to allow smoking in his establishment. Potential employees can then choose whether or not they want to work there, and potential patrons can decide whether or not they want to give the place their business. It's simple. And businesses were already catering to non-smokers before most of the American smoking bans even went into effect.
Of course, I'm sure to hear a whole bunch from people about the potential dangers of second hand smoke, etc. Fine. Working in mines is dangerous too. You know this when you walk in. Eating hamburgers all the time will damage your health too. You know this when you walk into McDonalds. It's one thing to prevent people from having to deal with it in busses, trains, etc. That's fine. But when the market not only can but is taking care of something, there is no reason to take away business owner's rights over it.
H/T Heretic54
As many no doubt already know, it is not altogether clear that Jesus of Nazereth was actually born on, or even around, December 25th. And a consensus is lacking in the Christian faith on this issue. In fact, it is far more likely that this date was set such that it coincided with pagan festivals:
Emperor Constantine built the Basilica of St. Anastasia, where some believe Christmas was first celebrated on Dec. 25.
Constantine ended the frequent waves of anti-Christian persecutions in the Roman empire by making Christianity a lawful religion in 313. He played a key role in unifying the beliefs and practices of the early followers of Jesus.
In 325, he convened the Council of Nicaea, which fixed the dates of important Christian festivals. It opted to mark Christmas, then celebrated at varying dates, on Dec. 25 to coincide with the Roman festival celebrating the birth of the sun god, Andrea Carandini, a professor of archaeology at Rome's La Sapienza University, told reporters Friday.
Of course, if your goal is to spread your religious beliefs far and wide, this is the perfect way to do it. Putting your religion in line with the belief systems of those who you wish to convert is key to effective conversion. This is undoubtedly why Easter falls right around the Spring Equinox (when the pagans held festivals of fertility), and probably why the Virgen de Guadalupe has so much in common with the Aztec mother goddess Tonantzin. Since it is the Christmas season, a time celebrated by so many different cultures for different reasons, I think it is important to keep in mind the fact that this season is not a season of rejoicing and celebration solely for Christians. I, myself, spent last evening with my closest friend having some fun on the Solstice Eve.
So, if you celebrate Hanukkah, Christmas, Eid ul-Adha, Kwanzaa, Saturnalia, the Winter Solstice (under any of it's various names), Bodhi Day, Sadeh, Winterval, or any thing else I might have missed, I hope that your holiday is great. And for everyone, whether you celebrate something or not, I hope that this winter season finds you happy and well.
Apparently, the settings for comments were making it practically impossible for people to leave any. I've changed that. Anyone should be able to comment now. My apologies!
So, apparently, humans are not alone in their willingness to pay for sex. Macaques will provide grooming services in exchange for mating services. To those who seem to view humans as so much more advanced then our non-language using cousins, this would seem to be just one more bit of evidence to the contrary. We're not really that much different. Next we'll have to look and see if there's foot tapping going on between male macaques behind the bush.
But seriously, for those philosophers today who like to insist that since macaques and other monkeys do not use language, they couldn't possibly possess concepts (I'm talking to you, Brandomian inferentialists) this finding would appear to put a dent in your armor. These primates are engaged in a social practice, one which necessitates an understanding of certain social positions as well as entitlements and commitments. Now, I don't personally buy into the whole "social practice" bit when it comes to the origins of conceptual content, but isn't this enough, on your own terms, to say that these monkeys might actually have a concept or two?
