Once in a while you hear people opine that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Let's investigate this idea.
Oftentimes, such a discussion involves analysis of gay couples and their potential impact on children.
However, a fair analysis would analyse not only the impact of gay parents on children, but the impact of heterosexual parents on children, for comparison. One should never just assume that the status quo (in this case, heterosexual parents) is the ideal simply because of historical dominance.
Sunday, November 28
Saturday, November 20
New site launched
I've just launched a new site titled You Rank Them!
Readers can do two things:
1)Read matched-up arguments, and vote as to which argument is better, or
2)Submit a post yourself, and have others vote on your post.
For those who want to know what others think of their logical ability, now's your chance!
Readers can do two things:
1)Read matched-up arguments, and vote as to which argument is better, or
2)Submit a post yourself, and have others vote on your post.
For those who want to know what others think of their logical ability, now's your chance!
Thursday, November 11
Should everyone be allowed to vote?
Should some people in society (other than those in jail or otherwise restricted) be restricted from voting? This is a topic I’ve thought about before. It was brought to my attention again by a reader in the comment section of this thread:
http://nosuchthingasanopinion.weebly.com/1/post/2010/11/obamas-surprising-anti-terror-campaign.html#comments
The reader wondered whether the tendency of women to vote differently than men might be harming society overall. So, I decided to tackle this issue, looking not just at women, but looking at other groups, including men.
At this point, some people might be offended by the idea of even restricting voting. It’s not something you hear often. But I will argue that once you think about the logic, it’s a very logical argument.
http://nosuchthingasanopinion.weebly.com/1/post/2010/11/obamas-surprising-anti-terror-campaign.html#comments
The reader wondered whether the tendency of women to vote differently than men might be harming society overall. So, I decided to tackle this issue, looking not just at women, but looking at other groups, including men.
At this point, some people might be offended by the idea of even restricting voting. It’s not something you hear often. But I will argue that once you think about the logic, it’s a very logical argument.
Sunday, November 7
Obama's surprising anti-terror campaign
Is anyone else surprised by how genuinely Obama, at times, seems to want to end terrorism?
Let's review a bit of his history in this regard:
1) Soon after Obama took office, reports suggested that the number of US drone attacks on terrorists in Pakistan increased noticeably.
2) Recently Obama went public with the declaration that Pakistan was slow in fighting terror:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/07/india.obama.pakistan.comment/index.html?hpt=T2
I'm surprised at his attempts to stop terrorism because he has demonstrated a clear history of anti-US behavior, and I'm shocked that he would suddenly demonstrate pro-US behavior by going out of his way to promote the fight against terrorism.
Some of his anti-US behavior is outlined here:
Let's review a bit of his history in this regard:
1) Soon after Obama took office, reports suggested that the number of US drone attacks on terrorists in Pakistan increased noticeably.
2) Recently Obama went public with the declaration that Pakistan was slow in fighting terror:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/07/india.obama.pakistan.comment/index.html?hpt=T2
I'm surprised at his attempts to stop terrorism because he has demonstrated a clear history of anti-US behavior, and I'm shocked that he would suddenly demonstrate pro-US behavior by going out of his way to promote the fight against terrorism.
Some of his anti-US behavior is outlined here:
Friday, November 5
Reader Request: Climate change issues. Part One.
A reader asked for my views on climate change and the environment.
Of course, there is a need to determine the cause of any climate change that may exist.
But this is clear: such a need is important mainly to determine whether mankind is in danger, and if so, to determine what environmental steps should be taken.
What is not emphasized enough is this: it is likely beneficial to phase some environmentally friendly solutions into everyday life regardless of whether mankind is threatened.
Why? Well, it's a simple weighing of benefits versus the costs.
Of course, there is a need to determine the cause of any climate change that may exist.
But this is clear: such a need is important mainly to determine whether mankind is in danger, and if so, to determine what environmental steps should be taken.
What is not emphasized enough is this: it is likely beneficial to phase some environmentally friendly solutions into everyday life regardless of whether mankind is threatened.
Why? Well, it's a simple weighing of benefits versus the costs.
Reader Request: Climate change issues. Part Two.
Continued from Part One
IS CLIMATE CHANGE MAN-MADE?
So, although I can’t offer a fully developed opinion, I will offer a strong opinion.
Without knowing to what extent, if any, climate change results from man-made factors, wouldn’t it be prudent to become more environmentally friendly anyway, in order to limit the chance that man-made factors don’t increase or expand and influence climate change in the future?
Although I might not know to what extent any existing climate change might result from man’s activities, I think I can safely say this:
Man likely is one of the causes of climate change.
Why? Well, I could be wrong, but I’ve never read anyone disagree that the following points are true:
IS CLIMATE CHANGE MAN-MADE?
So, although I can’t offer a fully developed opinion, I will offer a strong opinion.
Without knowing to what extent, if any, climate change results from man-made factors, wouldn’t it be prudent to become more environmentally friendly anyway, in order to limit the chance that man-made factors don’t increase or expand and influence climate change in the future?
Although I might not know to what extent any existing climate change might result from man’s activities, I think I can safely say this:
Man likely is one of the causes of climate change.
Why? Well, I could be wrong, but I’ve never read anyone disagree that the following points are true:
Typical liberal "logic"
Do you ever notice how some people change the facts depending on the situation?
Here's an example. Certain people tend to dislike racial profiling (I'll call them liberals, and I'll later explain why that's one of the better descriptions to use).
In the case of Muslims, liberals tend to make a claim that goes something like this: Not all Muslims are terrorists, so Muslims shouldn't be singled out for racial profiling of terrorists. In the case of Muslims, large percentages of them are more religious than non-Muslims, and hence they likely tend to become influenced by their religion, which is, of course, an environmental influence. The Koran has both negative and positive verses in its text. Some text directly advocates peace, some text directly advocates violence.
Here's an example. Certain people tend to dislike racial profiling (I'll call them liberals, and I'll later explain why that's one of the better descriptions to use).
In the case of Muslims, liberals tend to make a claim that goes something like this: Not all Muslims are terrorists, so Muslims shouldn't be singled out for racial profiling of terrorists. In the case of Muslims, large percentages of them are more religious than non-Muslims, and hence they likely tend to become influenced by their religion, which is, of course, an environmental influence. The Koran has both negative and positive verses in its text. Some text directly advocates peace, some text directly advocates violence.
Why rush to help older people?
Do you notice that people seem to think a violent crime against older people is especially egregious? Do you notice that people seem to want to assist older people with everyday activities more than they would want to assist a younger person?
USA's wealth: Shrinking 37 years straight?
Is it unlikely (or even impossible) for the USA to increase its wealth while it has a trade deficit?
It’s rare that commentators ask this. Yet I think the question is absolutely critical for the USA's future!
I really think that it is very unlikely for the USA (as a country, everyone combined, not just the public or the government) to increase its overall wealth as long as the USA has a trade deficit!
Why? Well, think about it.
It’s rare that commentators ask this. Yet I think the question is absolutely critical for the USA's future!
I really think that it is very unlikely for the USA (as a country, everyone combined, not just the public or the government) to increase its overall wealth as long as the USA has a trade deficit!
Why? Well, think about it.
Reader Request: Explaining my intelligence ranking
A few readers have claimed that my having placed 74th in the world on Facebook's intelligence test is not a good measure of intelligence. This claim is false.
In the interest of saving space on this blog page, I address the issue here:
http://nosuchthingasanopinion.blogspot.com/p/iq-results.html
In the interest of saving space on this blog page, I address the issue here:
http://nosuchthingasanopinion.blogspot.com/p/iq-results.html
Is baby speech BETTER than adult speech?
I was baby-sitting recently and suddenly realized: I think baby/toddler talk is nearly as efficient as adult talk!
Are lawyers as powerful as you THINK?
Lawyers have a prestigious, well-paid job. But do they really have power?
Athletes who thank God are insulting!
I don't like it when the winning athlete thanks God. If God helped the athlete to win, does that mean God dislikes the losing athlete? In that sense, thanking God for the win could be considered an insult to the loser!
What's the deal with hate crime punishment?
Why are hate motivated crimes punished with sentences that are harsher than the sentences given for other crimes?
Is stabbing someone multiple times somehow more admirable than shooting someone because of their race or sexual orientation?
Is stabbing someone multiple times somehow more admirable than shooting someone because of their race or sexual orientation?
Wasting life with illogical political beliefs
My blog has already mentioned that only one political ideology espouses more correct theories than the other does, based on the evidence. I won't say which yet. If you read my posts, it will become clear.
What isn't as clear, to most people, is that by advocating a certain political ideology they are actually wasting their life. Many people espouse the same, incorrect political views for dozens of years...and in every single year they are literally wasting their life, promoting an ideology that is either not the most helpful one out there, or an ideology that is just plain damaging to society!
What isn't as clear, to most people, is that by advocating a certain political ideology they are actually wasting their life. Many people espouse the same, incorrect political views for dozens of years...and in every single year they are literally wasting their life, promoting an ideology that is either not the most helpful one out there, or an ideology that is just plain damaging to society!
Thursday, November 4
Boxing vs. UFC misconceptions
I've noticed that many people, including boxers, have commented on the difference between the boxing ability of boxers and the boxing ability of mixed martial artists (for those who are unaware, mixed martial arts is the form of combat practiced in the UFC and other leagues).
By pointing out the superior boxing ability that boxers have, it appears that many are attempting to brand the mixed martial artists as second class; a notch below them.
The problem with that argument is that it's just plain wrong.
By pointing out the superior boxing ability that boxers have, it appears that many are attempting to brand the mixed martial artists as second class; a notch below them.
The problem with that argument is that it's just plain wrong.
To abort or not to abort? Costs and benefits of abortion.
In the past I didn't have any strong opinions about whether abortion was right or wrong. I hadn't thought about it much.
I now believe one could make a strong argument that abortion is wrong. Why? Logic. Let me examine some arguments.
If a woman has an unwanted baby, and decides to keep it, it's very true that her life will be altered radically. Proponents of abortion may mention this. Hence, in this sense, an abortion could be a benefit to the mother.
But benefits don't always outweigh the costs.
I now believe one could make a strong argument that abortion is wrong. Why? Logic. Let me examine some arguments.
If a woman has an unwanted baby, and decides to keep it, it's very true that her life will be altered radically. Proponents of abortion may mention this. Hence, in this sense, an abortion could be a benefit to the mother.
But benefits don't always outweigh the costs.
Liberalism is "progressive"?!
I haven't yet stated whether evidence tends to favor conservatism or liberalism. The evidence, however, greatly favors one of the two ideologies over the other. Once I've made enough posts on this blog, the answer should be clear.
In the meantime, let me say this:
I find it disturbing that I often hear liberals described as progressive, yet I don't hear conservatives described as progressive.
How can this be? I don't feel that there is anything about liberalism that makes it the exclusive domain of progressiveness.
In the meantime, let me say this:
I find it disturbing that I often hear liberals described as progressive, yet I don't hear conservatives described as progressive.
How can this be? I don't feel that there is anything about liberalism that makes it the exclusive domain of progressiveness.
Racial hyphenation is condescending!
Is it just me, or does it bother anyone else when they see groups of people being described with hyphenations?
African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, etc.
I suppose such terms came about as a result of political correctness, although I don't see their benefit.
What was the point of using hyphenation? Was it an idea that the term "blacks" didn't provide them with an American identity? Was it the idea that "African-American" is supposedly more patriotic? Perhaps that was the idea.
In reality, the term is very condescending and damaging. Here's why:
African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, etc.
I suppose such terms came about as a result of political correctness, although I don't see their benefit.
What was the point of using hyphenation? Was it an idea that the term "blacks" didn't provide them with an American identity? Was it the idea that "African-American" is supposedly more patriotic? Perhaps that was the idea.
In reality, the term is very condescending and damaging. Here's why:
Gay "marriage". Nobody ever mentions THIS...
I believe that gays should be allowed to have unions and have all the benefits that heterosexual couples would otherwise have. And why shouldn't they? Granted, I haven't seen any studies on the topic, but I think you could argue that something as basic as legal recognition of their union is, for lack of a better term, a human right.
I used to think that even though gays should have a right to a union, a strong argument could be made that their union should be called something other than "marriage".
After all, isn't one of the demons of a politically correct society the fact that some call for the actual change in definition of words? Isn't it wrong to change society so drastically? Of course it is.
The traditional definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
But the question one should be asking is this:
I used to think that even though gays should have a right to a union, a strong argument could be made that their union should be called something other than "marriage".
After all, isn't one of the demons of a politically correct society the fact that some call for the actual change in definition of words? Isn't it wrong to change society so drastically? Of course it is.
The traditional definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
But the question one should be asking is this:
Is being gay ok if it's in their genes?
Let's say that someone complains about homophobia, and says "You can't blame gays, it's in their genes, their lifestyle is not their choice".
I guess that's an OK thing to say, but I feel that the better thing to have said would be: "who even cares if gays did choose to be gay? It shouldn't be important!"
I guess that's an OK thing to say, but I feel that the better thing to have said would be: "who even cares if gays did choose to be gay? It shouldn't be important!"
Black-friendly money lending policies actually HARMED them! Who would have thunk it?
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, the administrations of Presidents Clinton and Bush promoted lending policies with the explicit intent to provide more mortgages to blacks, in order to raise their rate of home ownership.
Who would have thought that during 2010, the government policies would not only fail to raise the rate of home ownership among blacks but they would actually result in a decrease in home ownership among blacks, and an increase in blacks' financial hardship!
Who would have thought that during 2010, the government policies would not only fail to raise the rate of home ownership among blacks but they would actually result in a decrease in home ownership among blacks, and an increase in blacks' financial hardship!
Do women avoid corruption?
Articles often highlight how women are disproportionately represented in senior governmental positions.
For once, I'd like to see a poll ask whether women actually WANT to be in government. Perhaps, relative to men, they are more turned off by the corruption, bribery and favoritism endemic in politics.
Perhaps their under-representation is mostly reflective NOT of negative forces acting on women, but of women REFUSING to allow themselves to be influenced by negative (governmental) forces.
For once, I'd like to see a poll ask whether women actually WANT to be in government. Perhaps, relative to men, they are more turned off by the corruption, bribery and favoritism endemic in politics.
Perhaps their under-representation is mostly reflective NOT of negative forces acting on women, but of women REFUSING to allow themselves to be influenced by negative (governmental) forces.
IQ tests are flawed! But NOT due to bias...
Now don't get me wrong. IQ tests are a good measure of intelligence, and linked to many traits.
But there is a flaw with one part of some IQ tests (involving subjectivity). Because it involves subjectivity, they have no correct answer. There may be an answer that is commonly provided by most intelligent people, but what about extremely intelligent people who may see things differently?
But there is a flaw with one part of some IQ tests (involving subjectivity). Because it involves subjectivity, they have no correct answer. There may be an answer that is commonly provided by most intelligent people, but what about extremely intelligent people who may see things differently?
Generalization is "generally" ok!
How many times has this happened:
You make a comment about some group of people, and an overly sensitive person replies: "You can't generalize!"
Is that a logical response?
You make a comment about some group of people, and an overly sensitive person replies: "You can't generalize!"
Is that a logical response?
What if women were stronger than men?
I was watching Criminal Minds on TV, and I wondered: If women were physically stronger than men, would we see more cases of assault of men by women?
100 years of experience? BIG DEAL!
It nags at me when a company tries to promote itself by highlighting the number of years it has been in business, making comments like "leveraging 75 years worth of experience".
Perhaps blacks should be paid slavery reparations
Should blacks be paid reparations for slavery?
If you ask someone that question, I bet the chances are that they will answer with something like:
"Whites today didn't commit slavery, so why should they be punished?" or "Blacks today aren't slaves, so why should they be rewarded?".
The problem with those comments is that they have a perception problem. What they should be asking themselves is this:
If you ask someone that question, I bet the chances are that they will answer with something like:
"Whites today didn't commit slavery, so why should they be punished?" or "Blacks today aren't slaves, so why should they be rewarded?".
The problem with those comments is that they have a perception problem. What they should be asking themselves is this:
Celebrities: Who are the most intelligent & rational?
Here's a list of the most intelligent and rational personalities that I'm aware of. (Note that it's important to note that these people are rational; there are many intelligent people that don't appear to be rational, judging simply by the number of intelligent people that support opposing viewpoints. However, I believe the persons listed below are not just intelligent but extremely intelligent)
This list is subject to addition over time.
This list is subject to addition over time.
Geniuses flunk stats. Who would have thunk it?
Who would have thought that so many people in the business world apparently don't understand basic probability statistics?
The media has commonly stated that, prior to 2007, most people assumed that American home prices would continue to rise indefinitely, due to the fact they had never once fallen, on a national level, during 50+ years (although, to be fair, I don't recall particular executives being singled out).
Now, a 50 year history of the housing market may sound like a long time. It's actually a very SHORT time.
The media has commonly stated that, prior to 2007, most people assumed that American home prices would continue to rise indefinitely, due to the fact they had never once fallen, on a national level, during 50+ years (although, to be fair, I don't recall particular executives being singled out).
Now, a 50 year history of the housing market may sound like a long time. It's actually a very SHORT time.
Bush's popularity plunge. Who would have thunk it?
After 9/11 and Bush's 90% approval rating, who would have thought that:
Officers would testify in front of the Senate that one of the 9/11 Hijackers, Atta, had been under surveillance during the year 2000, as part of a data mining project named Able Danger,
Officers would testify in front of the Senate that one of the 9/11 Hijackers, Atta, had been under surveillance during the year 2000, as part of a data mining project named Able Danger,
Obama's anti-Americanism. Who would have thunk it?
Who would have thought that an American presidential candidate would:
Publically refuse to wear an American flag lapel pin
Publically refuse to place his hand over his chest while the Pledge of Allegiance was played
Be linked to a terrorist who 1) ran a group that caused explosions in a police station and the Pentagon
2)was banned from entering Canada after the election
Claim that he didn't know the terrorist, when he actually did
Publically refuse to wear an American flag lapel pin
Publically refuse to place his hand over his chest while the Pledge of Allegiance was played
Be linked to a terrorist who 1) ran a group that caused explosions in a police station and the Pentagon
2)was banned from entering Canada after the election
Claim that he didn't know the terrorist, when he actually did
How does a nation truly become wealthy?
Is it really possible for a nation to become wealthy (or is wealth just a temporary perception that ends up bursting like a bubble?)
The reason I ask is this: When you think about it, all revenue is simply a transfer of money. You can't earn money without taking it from someone. So can an economy really grow larger?
I have the answer to this, it will be in an upcoming post.
Editor's note: The issue has since been addressed in this article.
The reason I ask is this: When you think about it, all revenue is simply a transfer of money. You can't earn money without taking it from someone. So can an economy really grow larger?
I have the answer to this, it will be in an upcoming post.
Editor's note: The issue has since been addressed in this article.
Your vote is not equal to the next vote!
Is it illogical to vote? Here's the problem that I have.
All votes are not considered equal. Yes, you read that right.
All votes are not considered equal. Yes, you read that right.
Why don't all intelligent people vote the same way?
Have you ever wondered why there are intelligent people among both conservative and liberal groups? Why is that? After all, when you aggregate both liberal and conservative positions, wouldn't evidence almost always favor either the liberal position over the conservative, or vice versa?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)