win·dow
ˈwindō/Submit
noun
noun: window; plural noun: windows
1.
an opening in the wall or roof of a building or vehicle that is fitted with glass or other transparent material in a frame to admit light or air and allow people to see out.
2.
a thing resembling a window in form or function, in particular.
See clearly it is literally a window in the sense of the definition of the word window that is a metaphor for an actual literal window
this is a stretch, even for your specious late night drug logic
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
win·dow
ˈwindō/Submit
noun
noun: window; plural noun: windows
1.
an opening in the wall or roof of a building or vehicle that is fitted with glass or other transparent material in a frame to admit light or air and allow people to see out.
2.
a thing resembling a window in form or function, in particular.
See clearly it is literally a window in the sense of the definition of the word window that is a metaphor for an actual literal window
this is a stretch, even for your specious late night drug logic
Could God make a burrito so hot even he could not eat it?
there is a legitimate smart-ass dilemma that is much better to try and skewer the Christians with.
When Jesus announced he was going to be crucified in the Garden the apostles (and Peter in particular) were horrified and objected. But Jesus said "No, this is what I have come to do". However, prior to this, they were wandering around preaching to the masses. What were they preaching? If it was the ostensibly message of the Gospels "Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, accept him and be saved" then they would not have been remotely surprised and accepted the need. On the other hand, if it wasn't that then what in the hell were they doing?
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
Could God make a burrito so hot even he could not eat it?
there is a legitimate smart-ass dilemma that is much better to try and skewer the Christians with.
When Jesus announced he was going to be crucified in the Garden the apostles (and Peter in particular) were horrified and objected. But Jesus said "No, this is what I have come to do". However, prior to this, they were wandering around preaching to the masses. What were they preaching? If it was the ostensibly message of the Gospels "Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, accept him and be saved" then they would not have been remotely surprised and accepted the need. On the other hand, if it wasn't that then what in the hell were they doing?
Um, wat? He was preaching all the stuff he was quoted saying, which included only hints of his death, the message of Christianity was figured out later.
Could God make a burrito so hot even he could not eat it?
there is a legitimate smart-ass dilemma that is much better to try and skewer the Christians with.
When Jesus announced he was going to be crucified in the Garden the apostles (and Peter in particular) were horrified and objected. But Jesus said "No, this is what I have come to do". However, prior to this, they were wandering around preaching to the masses. What were they preaching? If it was the ostensibly message of the Gospels "Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, accept him and be saved" then they would not have been remotely surprised and accepted the need. On the other hand, if it wasn't that then what in the hell were they doing?
I think the Catholic doctrine, paraphrasing from disuse, is that he went around preaching to people in order to give the sermons he gives in the gospel, and was crucified in order to take up the sins of the world/let souls back into heaven. I don't see a giant contradiction there unless I'm missing something obvious.
Could God make a burrito so hot even he could not eat it?
there is a legitimate smart-ass dilemma that is much better to try and skewer the Christians with.
When Jesus announced he was going to be crucified in the Garden the apostles (and Peter in particular) were horrified and objected. But Jesus said "No, this is what I have come to do". However, prior to this, they were wandering around preaching to the masses. What were they preaching? If it was the ostensibly message of the Gospels "Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, accept him and be saved" then they would not have been remotely surprised and accepted the need. On the other hand, if it wasn't that then what in the hell were they doing?
Um, wat? He was preaching all the stuff he was quoted saying, which included only hints of his death, the message of Christianity was figured out later.
This is considered a deep problem by apologists, so it is not quite so easily solved.
Could God make a burrito so hot even he could not eat it?
there is a legitimate smart-ass dilemma that is much better to try and skewer the Christians with.
When Jesus announced he was going to be crucified in the Garden the apostles (and Peter in particular) were horrified and objected. But Jesus said "No, this is what I have come to do". However, prior to this, they were wandering around preaching to the masses. What were they preaching? If it was the ostensibly message of the Gospels "Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, accept him and be saved" then they would not have been remotely surprised and accepted the need. On the other hand, if it wasn't that then what in the hell were they doing?
I think the Catholic doctrine, paraphrasing from disuse, is that he went around preaching to people in order to give the sermons he gives in the gospel, and was crucified in order to take up the sins of the world/let souls back into heaven. I don't see a giant contradiction there unless I'm missing something obvious.
Well, whatever was being preached was not about substitional atonement, or universal sin but plenty was spoken about the kingdom of heaven. There's more about how the text doesn't actually support the harmonised story that modern christianity suggests.
There's also good reason for all of this - the apostles are mostly there for rheotical reasons to ask dumb question and the reader can be addressed directly. But that then undermines claims of historicity.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
The person I went on a date with tonight had a secret compartment in her dashboard into which she put a snake skin and a particularly attractive pinecone. She was pretty neat, pretty danged neat.
Singer is, if nothing else, a consistent shining example of why academic freedom is important.
@MrMister
It feels strange to want to read and respond positively to comments on the internet.
I went and read the Barnes article as recommended and found no obvious link beyond the very general "disability is discussed".
I'm v opposed to shit that Tim Hunt said on a scientific basis because as a scientist he should present evidence for his claims other than the experiential. That being said, the attack on philosophers of late for doing philosophy is the dumbest goddamn shit and highlights why tenure is really damn important.
Read a good article by an anonymous author who was identified only as an adjunct professor at a large U.S. university (adjunct means no tenure for those not up on academia employment). He said that all his lectures are now prepared for the current environment where offending a student risks dismissal. This is a thing he agonizes over and loses sleep over because he needs his job. He also said other adjuncts he knows have the same fears.
Some people will find that great, as of course being offended is amongst the worst possible things. But consider that the line between being offended and being challenged is razor thin, varies from student to student, and for some students anything that challenges them is perceived as offensive. It is of course your right to take to the internet and attempt to get a mob going, which can cause not only dismissal of an unprotected professor but unemployability if a large enough stink is made.
And of course this offended student can be anyone. It needn't be a black, gay, or trans student. It can be a religious student (of any religion) a conservative student etc. None of these viewpoints can be safely challenged by an unprotected professor. It only takes one student to be super offended, take to the internet and get a dogpile going, and the university will drop you on your ass because you're an adjunct and they hired you into that position because you are pretty expendable.
So yes, tenure is super fucking important because we are quickly reaching the point where only tenured professors can say things that challenge students.
I think I read the same article. Was it on Vox?
The one I read went to great lengths to pin the blame on oversensitive students, even though it was obvious from the text that the crux of the issue is that adjunct professors are expendable.
I want to point out that "clearly the answer is that someone should spend more on all of us; see, we have no competing interests whatsoever" is facile, bullshit, and not prone to a glorious history of political success in the neoliberal era. Rather, the budget is just cut, and then it's up to the vigorous exercise of faculty democracy and administration maneuvers to distribute the short straw and lend a democratic veneer to the proceedings. At that point the pamphlets admonishing you to stand with the faculty against Scott Walker are a very poor sort of severance pay.
I actually think Singer is pretty safe; his political credentials are too well-entrenched, he has too many of the wrong pre-existing enemies (pro-lifers), and he's not an attractive target for opportunists. There's nothing you can say about purging disabled infants that can possibly be said louder than the conservative pro-lifer can say it, and if you ally with them then it is your respectability that is on thin ice. Barnes may have the "clearly our mutual enemy is Privilege; see, we have no competing interests whatsoever" treatment in her future.
@ronya@Apothe0sis to be clear, I don't think Singer is in any danger. He's too famous, important, and well-respected. And, additionally, very few philosophers aren't committed in some way to academic freedom--it's a tiny minority within his actual field that would censor him even given they think he's wrong (and, as noted, there is a significant minority that greatly admire him as right...). So the worst thing that happens to him is occasionally being disinvited to talks.
What it illustrates is not so much the danger of censorship happening (since it won't, here), but rather why it would be bad if it did--among other things, how stupid censorship can be. I thought this comment put it nicely:
Just a quick personal reflection. I have used Singer *Practical ethics* for more than two decades now. One reason I use it is that students respond so positively to it. Students often come into the class already in anti-Singer mode. (I even had one student complain–before taking the class–that the book was on the syllabus. They suggested I balance it with a book by Ann Coulter… I didn’t do that.)
Once they immerse themselves in the actual arguments, the students are (a) impressed with Singer’s intellectual fairness, and (b) nonplussed or even angry at the brainless criticism that Singer is subjected to on a regular basis.
It is a wonderful object lesson in the joys and pitfalls of doing philosophy.
MrMister on
+1
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I am so curious to understand the apparent equivalence between Singer and Coulter. I don't know how they correspond!
I wish I could find my old photoshop comic edits. I mean I found a bunch of old stuff I'd forgotten I'd done but not the thing I was actually looking for. Curse my past self for not sorting his files more easily.
Posts
this is a stretch, even for your specious late night drug logic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6MlaIe1ljs
You need to work with me here
Lesbianization is almost the worst superpower that a bro can possess.
The only worse superpower is prehensile butt tentacles.
Burritos arent burritos unless they can burn deities.
there is a legitimate smart-ass dilemma that is much better to try and skewer the Christians with.
When Jesus announced he was going to be crucified in the Garden the apostles (and Peter in particular) were horrified and objected. But Jesus said "No, this is what I have come to do". However, prior to this, they were wandering around preaching to the masses. What were they preaching? If it was the ostensibly message of the Gospels "Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, accept him and be saved" then they would not have been remotely surprised and accepted the need. On the other hand, if it wasn't that then what in the hell were they doing?
what, no way, you'd get so much work in porn
But naked housework is thrice as fast!
I ain't lamenting the sex of the individuals involved.
don't paint a picture with those shit stained pastels.
I think the Catholic doctrine, paraphrasing from disuse, is that he went around preaching to people in order to give the sermons he gives in the gospel, and was crucified in order to take up the sins of the world/let souls back into heaven. I don't see a giant contradiction there unless I'm missing something obvious.
The same baby Hitler over and over or a different baby Hitler each time?
This is considered a deep problem by apologists, so it is not quite so easily solved.
everyone knows when you press the button the pressure is released and the electromagnetic rift in the island is kept in check
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
White wine? With meatballs!?
Prison
Well, whatever was being preached was not about substitional atonement, or universal sin but plenty was spoken about the kingdom of heaven. There's more about how the text doesn't actually support the harmonised story that modern christianity suggests.
There's also good reason for all of this - the apostles are mostly there for rheotical reasons to ask dumb question and the reader can be addressed directly. But that then undermines claims of historicity.
Czar'd!
@ronya @Apothe0sis to be clear, I don't think Singer is in any danger. He's too famous, important, and well-respected. And, additionally, very few philosophers aren't committed in some way to academic freedom--it's a tiny minority within his actual field that would censor him even given they think he's wrong (and, as noted, there is a significant minority that greatly admire him as right...). So the worst thing that happens to him is occasionally being disinvited to talks.
What it illustrates is not so much the danger of censorship happening (since it won't, here), but rather why it would be bad if it did--among other things, how stupid censorship can be. I thought this comment put it nicely:
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Was it boddah?