I HAVE MOVED TO: www.thethoughtcirlce.com

Concerns

I know it is late, but -as usual- I am unable to sleep. I have been busy thinking; which is suppose is the fulcrum of my plight. Nevertheless, if I am to sleep, I must write down these thoughts. About two weeks ago I commenced to study one of my introduction to logic books. I decided to do this so as to refresh my understanding of some of the more basic tenets of predicate and syllogistic logic. While examine a particular argument contained within the book that I was reading, a curious thought was spawned in the deepest parts of my mind. Due to such an occurrence, it was necessary for my sanity that I deposit those thoughts into something more manageable in my mind -thus, I began to obsess over, and extensively analyze, the meaning behind the argument that I was exposed to. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the book at the current moment, so I cannot provide a precise quote. However, I will, for the time being, provide what I can remember.

"And, as a last characteristic, we are told that this God, who prescribes forbearance and forgiveness of every fault, exercises none himself, but does the exact opposite; for a punishment which comes at the end of all things, when the world is over and done with, cannot have for its object either to improve or deter, and is therefore pure vengeance. So that, on this view, the whole race is actually destined to eternal torture and damnation, and created expressly for this end"

-Author Schopenhauer

When Reading this quote, what is it that comes to your mind? Perhaps, you feel anger and contempt for the words that your are reading on your monitor. Or, you may wish to react to Schopenhauer's claims by dismissal or pitiful justification. This quote is strong; I do recognize that it has much validity upon first glance. While we all live on this earth and experience a quantities upon quantities of injustices, we are left with the ever-looming preoccupation and wonder that manifest itself in the form of "why?". This quote demands a more substantial "why?". For if this quote is right, then you, me, and all other living creatures have been used like some type of puppet that was created out of pure hate and desire to witness the suffering and pains of conscious beings. God is all loving is he not? Does it not follow that there is a greater meaning? Is it not true that we have value? If not then why, when we move, interact, think, dream, and wonder, do we feel that there is something more something.... say.... unfathomable about existence? These were just parts of the many wholes that were crossing my mind as fast as my neurons were capable. I began to look at the structure of Schopenhaure's claim and I began to look for errors, perhaps something that he had missed or overlooked. However, before exposing to you what I might have found, take a moment and think about this quote and what it requires to be true -the scary thing is that most religions and spiritual beliefs that invokes or recognizes God, holds that there will be a judgment and the in that moment retribution will be executed and that justice in its totality will be satisfied in conjunction with the purity of mercy. But will it? If God is to judge us and provide any type of punishment how will that be possible? Is it even conceptually the case that finite beings -like ourselves- that are subject to desires, passions, and the causal conditions of this universe, are able to be judged and, in some cases, punished forever? Would God be good if he were to do so? I think that the answer is obvious. I began to provide some counter arguments like: well, since God knows all men and the individual propensities, then it must be such that God is able to assign a punishment based upon his understanding and knowledge. However, there is a very serious problem with this claim -if God is able to make such omniscient judgments, then why was the earth necessary? Why make men go thought hell and suffer? If he knew what I would do and how I react and how I think and choose and move and act and react and want..., then it appears that this earth is arbitrary and we should have just proceeded onward. So, their must be something more. Something more significant. Before proceeding, I want to make it explicit that I do not claim that I know God's will or mind. I believe such a feat is impossible. However, the claims that I make are what I have arrived at via deep thought and consideration... And will be completed at some future time -BUT NOT TONIGHT. (I do have them written down, I am just now to tired)

Obama and Health Care

In the current situation in which we find ourselves, one has to be suspicious of what is happening. Is it the case that Obama really wants to "save" some 40 million americans from the doom of not being insured? Or, could it be the case that Mr. Obama does not actually want to help like it appears he does? The vast majority of those 40 million americans are either collage-age and are in not desperate situation that would require health care, and the other 30% are people who do not want health insurance (usually, people that are following the pay as you go, have not serious health problems, or are suspicious of the insurance system. So, the number of people that may "need" health care arrives at about 10-15 million by some reports. The question that is not required is "should we sacrifice the rights of the wealthy and middle class to such a minority?" Especially when 290 million are insured?! I personally find Mr. Obama's actions disgusting and impulsive! To move at such a pace and demand that Congress provide a bill in less than 60 days, that is intended to change the entire broke health care system! Are you crazy? This is supposed to be a responsible action is it not? Is it not the case that Obama should want to make this action the Magnum Opus of his presidency? Of course he does, he wants to make this all those things -or does he? I dont believe it is about health care. Thats why he does not care about the type of legislation that is passed, nor does he care how effective and precise the plan is. He is merely attempting to shackle the men of wealth, ability, and efficiency, and by doing so he can rob the general society of its freedoms. I for one will not tolerate it! I have contacted my representatives and have sent letters to other congressional leaders to express my disapproval, but it may not be sufficient. Everyone needs to stop this tyrant from doing this! Send letters, call, or tell your friends about what is happening as soon as possible so that we dont have this happen.

I would listen to this carefully

Stupid Obama

Ayn Rand Rises Again

Here is a great link to an article about Rand and how her prophetic words are being literally resurrected from the grave.
AYN RAND
I would recommend reading it.
Thanks,
J.R.P

Molly's Anti-Mormon Rhetoric -Eventual Self-Defeating Hypocrisy?

Bloggers,
I usually avoid entering discussions which involve anti-mormon or similar rhetoric due to its nonsensicality and pharisee type sense. However, I have become quite frustrated by the disrespect and invasive attitude that some of these propagators of such rhetoric have; not only do they possess the false belief that their narcissistic and overly erroneous understanding is the "correct reality", but they also hold that they can go about their mission contrary to any of the Savior's fundamental teachings. So, in light of the former, I once again (after much time and over 22 baptized pastors later) take up arms.
In summary, this post will consist of a response to a certain individual named Molly; Molly has provided some arguments that she feels are sufficient to lay waste to the Mormon Church's position.

In a prior discussion with Molly, I had noted several sources with regards to some claims that I had made; I had made careful effort to insure that these sources were indeed neutral, or if they did have some indirect affiliation with my position, that those resources were backed up by scholarly evidence. Molly's retort in regards to my sources was, "If you want an intellectual debate regarding the church, it's claims, and [its] history, you really need to cite neutral sources that are NOT financed by the LDS church." Were all my sources financed by the L.D.S Church? Let us examine the sources...
1) William A. Ritchie, The Archaeology of New York State. ed 32
- Dr. Ritchie conducted field researches on more than 100 major sites in this country and Canada for both the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences and the New York Museum and Science Service. William Ritchie has written more than 150 articles and monographs on his findings at different archaeological sites. He was for many years the New York State Archaeologist; he has written a number of books on archaeology, and he has prepared informative pamphlets on the Indian History of New York State for grade school children. His great book that covers all of this study in thorough detail is The Archaeology of New York State first published in 1965, and then in a revised edition in 1980. He never had any affiliation with the L.D.S church, and it is important to note that his discoveries of New York were of pinnacle importance for the understanding of what type of ancient people had inhabited the U.S.A.
2) Neal L. Trubowitz, Highway Archeology and Settlement Study in the Genesee Valley (George's Mills, NH: Occasional Publications in Northeast Anthropology, 1983)
- This is an academic Journal! The work of Dr. Trubowitz are well know and very respected.
3) FairMormon.org
-This is a non-profit organization which in no way is directly affiliated with the L.D.S. Church. However, it is obvious what the intentions of the FAIR apologists are; so, that's why the responsibility is on you to verify the claims and sources cited by the scholars at FAIR. It is bad form to hold that: If X is associated with Y then X must be wrong no matter what. The former is what we Philosophers call a fallacy, specifically: Guilt by Association (In the case of the DNA article, FAIR sites several scientific research articles and sources that have shown that the prior studies that held a problem for the Book of Mormon due to DNA inconsistency and like grounds, have been largely "inconclusive").

Her next statement was,

"Find some substantial research that does NOT have ties to the church to support your claims and I'll take it into consideration"
- I guess I already answered this; as you can see many of the sources that I have sited (which were off the top of my head) are not affiliated with the Church, so you SHOULD -due to your own words- take them into consideration.

Moving on...
Her next claims are as follows:
"Many doctrines which were once taught by the LDS church, and held to be fundamental, essential and 'eternal', have been abandoned. Whether we feel that the church was correct in abandoning them is not the point; rather, the point is that a church claiming to be the church of God takes one 'everlasting' position at one time and the opposite position at another, all the time claiming to be proclaiming the word of God. Some examples are:

- The Adam-God doctrine (Adam is God the Father);

- the United Order (all property of church members is to be held in common, with title in the church);

- Plural Marriage (polygamy; a man must have more than one wife to attain the highest degree of heaven);

- the Curse of Cain (the black race is not entitled to hold God's priesthood because it is cursed; this doctrine was not abandoned until 1978);

- Blood Atonement (some sins - apostasy, adultery, murder, interracial marriage - must be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner's blood, preferably by someone appointed to do so by church authorities);

All of these doctrines were proclaimed by the reigning prophet to be the Word of God, 'eternal,' 'everlasting,' to govern the church "forevermore." All have been abandoned by the present church."

First, I think that it is important to point out an element of hypocrisy  that is contained in Molly's first four lines of the prior quote, which is that "one 'everlasting' position at one time and the opposite position at another". Anyone who has read the Bible can attest to the many changes in doctrine and rituals from the book of Genesis to the Revelations. However, as we find in the Bible in Mal. 3:16: For I am the Lord,  and I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

So, what right did the New Testament have in changing God's prior laws and commandments? Some argue that, as Paul did, as Christ died, the law changed by being fulfilled in him (Heb. 13). But, philosophically, this is bad reasoning, one must admit that God is all-knowing and all-good, so he would NEVER require any type of change, because if he had to change something -like what we consistently see in the Bible- then we are confronted with the cold worry that maybe God is not what the Bible says he is, he might just not exist, be not all-powerful, or maybe not all-good. So, to say that there are changes and contradictions and alterations are not permissible in the presence of the claim that God has made a everlasting statement or decree, you must then hold ipso facto that the Bible is not permissible (ouch!).

The next claim, the Adam-God Doctrine
This theory has been tossed around by the anti-Mormon community for so long that I am almost exhausted to even consider responding to such a pathetic subject, (Molly I was hoping better from you). This subject has been misconstrued as the idea that L.D.S members, at one time, worshiped God as their father in heaven. The proponents of this corruption point out, as support, certain quotes made by Brigham Young that Adam is our God and our Father and the only God with whom we have to do. This idea is contingent upon the concept of the ability to "bind" humanity together as one large family. So, to analyze it by itself you are only getting the part of the actual claim. The Church holds that via the sealing of progressive family units will eventually lead to all of humanity as one whole, and that Adam, being the Father of humanity -via his seed and copulation with Eve- he will act as patriarch or a type of God, if you will. This seems to present no logical nor practical violation such that I would be demonstrated false.

The Unity Order.
That is a misquote, the unity order is a descriptive term for "consecration." This is a type of communal governing system that runs along the lines of common-wealth doctrine for governments (See: robert Noskik, Anarchy State and Utopia). This system is actually not any different from the practices of the Israelites in the Old Testament. It should be noted that the Unity Order would act as an officiating body much like the Auditing Department or Human Resources. 

Polygamy
This is nothing new to the Bible, and no it is not a requirement to have more than one wife -one is sufficient. (Molly you might want to try and qualify your argument here more, it is to vague and nonsensical maybe you could order Argumentation for Dummies to aid you in your refinement). If anyone requires it, I am more than willing to engage in a conversation solely about Polygamy.

Curse of Cain.
Wow! To answer this objection, one should just read Joshua's accounts in the Bible. For example, the Genocide of all the Canaanites because God saw them as an abomination (You do know that at the time the Canaanites were Black -right? And Joshua destroyed them because God said that due to the sins of their fathers and brothers they were to be purged). The fact that the Church was able to give Blacks the priest-hood, something that the Bible implicitly holds as impossible, actually demonstrates that God is merciful and wishes all to take advantage of his blessings. Additionally, it demonstrates that God is able to reveal new and relative things to men via revelation -just like in the Bible.

Blood Atonement
This is a complete corruption and falsification. There were, however, certain reports the some elderly church members in 1860 were speaking about some similar subject, but the Church has never practiced such a idea or instituted it. Additionally, there is no historical evidence for any part of the church espousing such an idea. Before dismissing this, I would like to say that the doctrine of "Blood Atonement" is actually derived from the Old Testament and the idea that if certain sins like murder are committed it will make it such that the individual suffers and makes amends by his own blood -this is commonly called Hell in the New Testament, but in the Old they practiced this by killing adulterous women or murders. Basically, this is a type or retributive idea.

The last comment made by Molly is as follows:

...The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period...LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story....

This is very humorous (nice cut and copy), and presents only an infantile attempt to make a point. You see, essentially, religious claims, like the ones made in the prior quote, are notoriously bad because they are just as incomplete as they claim the opposing view is. So, here are some great articles that make the case against Molly's prior claim:
1) fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html
2)William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1990), 26
3)Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," 162 ----> this guy really kicks the pants off the anti-mormon claim via scientific evidence!
4) T. Patrick Culbert, “Maya-Treasures of an Ancient Civilization,” Archaeology, March/April, 1985, 60.

In conclusion, we would like to make aware that we have qualified Molly's objections, and, in doing so, we have shown that they are largely fallacious and misleading. Such misleading claims are standard talking points in most anti-mormon (and due to the diversity and vagueness of such social institutions this type of occurrence appears frequently)  rhetoric and fail to provide any substantial evidence that could lead to their validation. Furthermore, we have been able to provide scientific sources that back our claims, and I have shown that my prior claims are indeed substantial. So, in closing ACCIPE HOC!

JRP

Another Day in Paradise... Are you sure?

For the last 2 years I have grown a desire to focus on humanitarian efforts. I think that we have lost the value of what life is, as a nation that is, and perhaps... humanity has. I also feel strongly that the economic perversion that has perpetuated itself and integrated into virtually every society has caused more pain than pleasure. WE MUST CHANGE! We must go back to the roots of capitalism and adapt them to the needs of society. WE MUST help and educate those that were raised or have experienced adverse conditions that have caused their suffering. This desire has been one of the main reasons for my desire to educate myself - I pray that I may one day be a tool to bring about the improvement and benefit of at least some of my fellow men.

Here is a great song that you should listen to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiQNyIB_5kY

Leave a comment about your feelings.

Is God Free?

This post may not be as long as I would like, but I will attempt to make it as precise as possible. While sitting in church on Sunday, I was contemplating the ability of God to be able to preform some action. While thinking about the later, I came to the conclusion that God is not a free agent. This was supprising to me, and I quickly attempted to find justification that would negate my conclusion. Nevertheless, my attempts proved to be utterly unavailing. Thus, I obviously decided to continue my analysis of why it is that God was not free. This is what appears to support this claim:

1. God is all-knowing (omniscient).
2. God is all-good (omnibenevolent).
3. If (1) then God always knows what it is the he will do.
4. If (2) then God always does that which promotes or allows for the greatest good.
If (1) and (2), are true then from (3) and (4) we deduce:
5. God is not free.

So, the proof (1-5) holds that God can only do that which he knows to be good and consequently he already knows that which he is going to do. If that is true, despite the obvious obscurity about whether or not God can choose that which is future or possible, then it must be the case that God is not free with regards to some action. The additional result is that God can not even choose amid some set of options; like: a set of choice's say, A and B. As per A is always better than B or B must always be better than A for God.
Some may make the objection that some set of options say, C and D are exactly equal both quantitatively and qualitatively, then God could make the choice amid C and D base upon some ability of preference. However, for those who make this claim they must understand that if C and D are numerically identical (in terms of properties) then they run into Leibniz's law, which states: if any two objects A and B possess exactly the same properties then A and B are exactly the same thing. This means that if A=B and B=A then the result if some type if tautology such as: A=b and B=A the AB=BA and BA=AB --> A=A and B=B (B&A+A&B)=(A&B+B&A). So it does not matter which is chose as per A and B are the same thing.

Obama and HONOR

President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m (£102m). This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993 -according to a report made in The Guardian.

We are currently experiencing a sever recession, which could be or is the worst financial crisis since the depression. Additionally, the world has been struck with problems that have never before been so prolific and sever. Nevertheless, as bailouts span our financial sector and americans are loosing jobs and homes, President Obama will spend at least 150 million on a "party". I remeber why Ex-president Bush took office and the media (and several democratic leaders) critizied him for excessivness for example:

“Many have wondered whether, given the war and all of our security challenges right now, it’s appropriate to have a lavish and expensive inaugural celebration?”
— ABC’s Claire Shipman to Laura Bush in a taped interview shown on the January 20 Good Morning America.

“President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?
■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.

If Bush's inauguration cost sufficient for 200 humvees and health treatment for 22 million children, what would Obama's inauguration do for us as a nation and the world? I suppose we could say that it could buy 610 humvees, and help over 66 million children! It is utterly ridiculous that the man of "change" would damage even further the current stress placed on the taxpayer! How ungrateful and unhonorable. Roosevelt, during his inauguration felt that it would be a dishonor to do anything "excessive" he merely served cold salad and gave a short speech! If Obama wanted to be about "Change", he would merely provide a speech and then get his ass to work. If this is going to be a example of what is to come with a democratic congress and president, then may his 4 years pass quickly and may he be kicked out of office -or impeached!

Questioning Egalitarianism

This will be a short post. I am very busy studying for certain things relative to my education. This post will question on of the principle components of Egalitarianism: that every person is entitled to equal opportunity. This view is a very westren-specific one, and is derived from similar views, such as: Autonomy, equal-rights, or free will. However, can we really hold a rational belief that people can really have equal opportunity?

The majority of human existence has been filled with suffering and strife, so how are we to hold that there really is equal opportunity when some of those that suffer choose not to suffer - and those who do not suffer have some how evaded the quintessential situation that haunts society?

Many may feel the temptation to respond by way of an appeal to some type of belief that we have "access" to the same "ability" to make life what it is. BUt this is completely false; can we really say that there are those who actually have access to the same ability that I have or you? And more so, what about those that have even more "access" than I or you? It seems that to respond in this way would be obviously a mistake.

Perhaps, we could hold that we were all "endowed" with certain unalienable rights and that among those are the equal chance to success relative to each person. But, if the former is true, then are we to say that the children born in Africa and suffer immensely have had their rights violated? And if so, then by whom? Maybe, God? - however that does not seem right, we wont blame that on him (even though some might). So, is it the REST of humanity that has violated the rights of this child by not aiding it to have the same opportunity or same situations that are some of us possess that are necessary to the correct perpetuation of one's ability to obtain the correct state of affairs to create "opportunity?"

So, what is it? What is it that make some feel that we are indeed equal? What makes us want to assert something that is obviously not the case?

Just some simple questions,
J.R.P

Philosophy

Kripke's Puzzle

To proceed, let us first list in detail what compromises Kripke’s Puzzle. Consider Pierre, a native French speaker that does not speak a word of English or any other language, one-day hears or considers the city of London. Upon considering this famous city, he utters the statement, in French, “Londres est jolie.” The translation of this utterance is, to some extent, London is beautiful. Following the Pierre’s utterance, we are able to conclude via the Disquotational Principle (which holds that: If a normal English speaker, on reflection, sincerely assents to ‘p’, then he believes that p) that Pierre believes that London is beautiful. So,
(1) Pierre believes that London is pretty.
Latter in Pierre’s life, he decides to relocate to London, and during some unspecified amount of time he learns English by way of “direct method”. However, upon moving to London, he is unfortunately placed in a part of London that is less than admirable. Pierre is then inclined to make the statement that:
(2) London is not pretty.
And as Kripke points out: he is under no inclination to assent to:
(3) London is pretty.
Suppose further, that Pierre is under no immediate inclination to abandon or revise his former beliefs that he held in France about the city that he knew as ‘Londres.’ From this we arrive at the folcum of Kripke’s puzzle. Kripke states that,
If we consider Pierre’s past back ground as a French speaker, his entire linguist behavior, on the same basis as we would draw such a conclusion about many of his countrymen, supports the conclusion ([1] above) that he believes that London is pretty… but then on the basis of his sincere assent to ([2]), we should conclude:
([4]) Pierre believes that London is not pretty.
How can we describe this situation? It seems undeniable that Pierre once believed that London is pretty – at least before he learnt English. For at that time, he differed not at all from countless numbers of his countrymen, and we would have exactly the same grounds to say of him… [However] it [now] seems that we must respect both Pierre’s French utterances and their English counterparts. So, we want to say that Pierre has contradictory beliefs (emphasis mine).
So, to reiterate the basic aspects of the puzzle deals with the idea that we have two contradictory utterances –in different languages- of X, and that via the Disquotation Principle, it follows that if those utterances were sincerely assented to, then the person P must believe X. If the prior is the case then P must possess contradictory beliefs.

I don't know what to make of this. Upon first glance, it compels me to hold Pierre to the fact that he seems to have contradictory beliefs. And at times, it makes me hold him to the fact that Pierre is just irrational. I think that there is a response to Kripke. Consider my solution:
Let us again suppose that at T1 Pierre holds x, and at T2 he holds ~x; but at T2 Pierre holds both x and ~x. That is to say that the properties that composed x at T1 hold relative to T1, or that x is “rigidly” fixed to T1. This means that there is some property or set of properties that composed x and that those properties are fixed to the states of affairs that were actualized at T1. So, even if he holds ~x at T2, he can still hold x relative to the states of affairs at T1 –and ~x is able to also hold for the states of affairs at T2.
This seems to work for Pierre, and we would hold that he just thinks that from one perspective London is beautiful and from another it is not.

I "might" wright more about this someday...
Best,
J.R.P

"Higher" Education and America's Future

In the USA we have fallen behind in the number of students who finish their proposed collage major. We also have the fourth lowest collage participation among competitive countries. Additionally, there seems to be a growing anomaly that has self-perpetuated since the late 1980s -that anomaly is what type of collage majors are actually graduating and entering society. The vast majority of collage graduates are located primarily in the discipline of Business (marketing, financing, accounting, and economics). Nevertheless, the USA -and much of the world- has seen a large slow-down in certain technological advances compared to prior decades. Additionally, we have seen a change in the total world population being considered in a state of "extreme" poverty, which has increased slightly since 1990 - but also there has been a jump in the number of people who are impoverished. Finally, there have been more economic problems since 1980 to 2008 than in the last 110 years combined! Who are we to thank? Is it not true that our society and its functioning depends on the younger generation which educates itself to become the leader? Yes, but why all the problems? One of the reasons for the problems we are experiencing, is the sever polarization of higher-education toward business majors and business related majors.
Why is such polarization bad? This answer is quite simple; as we progress toward one side of the spectrum of education we experience a imbalance of the collective and progressive thought of society, which also leads to less people (especially intelligent and productive people) participating in studies that could produce great beneficial discoveries for mankind. Nevertheless, those people have opted-out and have joined the dark and greed infested world of the merchants, and thus, we have seen a incredible -and unjustifiable- growth in world economies. This augmented growth in business majors is relative to other aspects (I am aware of this), but it has been principally generated by this idea that "business is the only way to go to make money." Of course I am aware that we must make "money" to survive -but do we make money to enrich our selves, to help others, or to use resources unnecessarily?
As I had noted earlier, there has been a reduction in extreme poverty in the recent ten years, but there has been an increase in poverty. This increase in poverty is partially due to the proliferation of large companies into third-world nations that take UNFAIR advantage of the lives of some of the desperate populations. Some may hold that such companies are doing a favor, and that the proliferation of business majors has lead to the increase from Poverty X to Poverty Y (Y being somewhat better than X). This is not a valid argument. The number of impoverished people has risen disproportionally to the amount that has left extreme poverty, so that means that some people have actually lost economic status.
Moreover, we have personally witnessed what happens to world economies when you let some ignorant money-savvy chump sit behind a desk and make millions of dollars a year by only knowing how to manage some company. Those men -and their greed- have caused a down fall of many american and human lives. This is unacceptable!
We have also seen a decline in human morality/ethics. It has been reported that white collar and 'simple' crimes have increased 20% in the last decade on a world-wide scale!
Now, all you economic majors should be aware of these states -after all you are a "Social Science" rigt? Yes, you are, but what has happened is that one of the most solid social studies has degenerated into the field of business. You see businessmen are cunning, and they know that economic majors should have some knowledge of how things move in society. Since their product deals with society it is logical to higher them -right? (By the way, I don't actually believe that many businessmen are logical)
The problem is that economics has taken its rank with finance guys, marketing people, and the exploitative sales jerks. Many economic majors that I speak to don't know @#!! about @#!! This is sad, and is the result of people thinking they can get a degree and go work for some major financial investment bank or firm and become rich! What good will that do, I ask? Going and sitting behind a desk making far more money than many of the worlds people, at the cost of the workers of society? Is that ethical?
So, I guess you could say that I shame you business majors. I shame what you have done to society, and you completely wastefulness. I also spit upon your misconceived notion that -if I am a businesses degree-holder, I will some day have my big company that makes me lots of money- in realty the majority of you guys run companies for guys that never went to school or studied something else.
We need, as a nation, revert back to the basics, the classics. Things that will allow us to survive are: Science, mathematics, physics, philosophy, sociology, engineering, chemistry and the like.

To bad that human egoism is so prevalent... God bless america.
J.R.P

P.S.
It is important to note that universities are, traditionally, the place of "higher-learning," and that should and would not usually include business studies; so, I think that we should just put all business studies in junior colleges or tec-schools (oops again.. they already do).
Here are some sources.
1) Major stats.
2) Major state 2
3) Poverty

Obama and Compulsory service?

Obama has proposed that there should be a type of "civil service" imposed upon the youth of america. I personally think that some aspects of this are great; except for the compulsory requirements that it might have to demand. Bellow is a copy of what certain members of his future cabinet aims to propose. You can read it here.

"We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...

Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs."

- First I would like to know what all of you think about this type of establishment, but before concluding, let me explain to you how this is a standard socialist conception. Most socialist feel that this is something that is beneficial to the society at large. Now, if being subject to a large and powefrul government is good, then I guess they are right. Also, how can they pass this reform with the following "wall" in there way (and I am not talking about the GOP minority). 

Section 1. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

The former is from the thirteenth amendment, which I like to call the freedom amendment. This amendment seems to prevent any type of compulsory service or obligation that may be imposed upon its people.

Thanks,

J.R.P

And here's to change!

The Disquotational Principle

I am preparing on writing a paper on Kripke and his essay, A Puzzle About Belief. In this Puzzle he raises (this is off the top of my head, so if I am wrong then forgive me) some problems about How we hold certain linguistically statements and how they associate with one's beliefs.  So, consider one of his puzzles

There is a man named Pierre, and Pierre learns that Skaowsky  is a famous polish pianist. He also learns that Skaowsky refers to a famous politician. Now, Pierre believes that no politician can produce good music, and thus, since Skaowsky is a politician he therefor cannot be a great pianist. 

This argument depends upon something called "the Disquotational Principle." This principle holds:

If S means P and a speaker understands and sincerely accepts (assents) to S, the the speaker believes P. 

DO ANY OF YOU THINK THAT THE PREVIOUS PRINCIPLE IS VALID? HOW WOULD ADJUST IT?

Mormon Church and Pro 8

There was recently "news-speak" about members of the LDS church leaving their position and affiliation with this church because of its opposition to gay marriages. You can read about it here.

I would like to speak out against those members who are leaving the LDS church and criticize them for their complete disregard for their former faith's positions and the knowledge that they should have possessed if they had previously even considered themselves members. The LDS church -to my understanding- has always opposed gay marriages and homosexuality in  all of its forms. It has been on record about describing such actions as, "contrary to God's plan" and as, " an abomination." So, why, first, would any member leave his or her church for the reason that their church decided not to change its mind in accordance with that particular member's view?

I think that any one person who feel that some religious institution, especially one that propounds the view that they are the true church - as the Mormon church does- should never have become member as per their faith was vain.  Moreover, if such an institution is true and of God, then should it change? Should God change his views on gay marriage? Perhaps, those mormon members of whom felt that they could not associate themselves with such a church should take a long walk and think about themselves and maybe read the Bible and see what will be the inevitable end to such supporters of evil. 

It is ridiculous that any member would leave their faith for such a trivial and stupid thing. Don't they know that since the beginning of the Bible and most organized religion, for that matter, have opposed Gay activities of all sorts? Don't they know that in the end, the Bible holds that such people will be burned as stubble? 

I admire the valor and strength of the LDS chruch to keep true to their word and doctrine. This shows that they are not another wishy-washy and fly-by-night non-denominational church that feels that they can adapt their doctrine to allow for they gay community to be accepted - or should I say, that they adapt to keep the offering basket full...

Anyway, shame on those ex-members, and I hope that some of them read this, shame on your lack of investigative capabilities, and I think that the LDS church is better off without your weakness; especially, since the purpose of the gospel is to cleanse the earth from all evil though the blood of the lamb, and getting rid of those week links is part of that.

Best, 

J.R.P

Homosexual Marriage Rights- a Possible Slippery Slope?

Recently it was found that Proposition 8 was verified and the ability for homosexual couples to get married in California is now not possible -from a legal aspect. However, there is much debate that is continuing to grow. There have been several appeals that have been made that hold that this (prop. 8) is a violation of civil rights and equal protection under the law. It has been argued that if gay marriages are not approved we will have negated some group of individuals some inherited unalienable right that they possess. I think that the equal protection argument is contained in the civil rights argument, so I will just set my sights on the civil argument for the time being. There is a serious issue here, and I have noticed that, not only from an academic perspective, but also a practical one, when you begin to say, "I am opposed to gay marrages" you are dubbed a Bigot or a "gay hater". I think this is wrong on several grounds, but the proponets of gay "rights" must answer some of my questions if they are to be able to hold that some group X has some type of civil right that some similar group Y cannot have. An example is polygamy. Should we allow polygamy? Many proponets of homosexuality claim that we should not! But why? Is it because there are some set of rights R that are possessed by gays and not heterosexual couples that wish to engage in polygamous relationships? And if so, what are they? Moreover, (here is where it gets slippery) if gays are to get married on the grounds that they have some set of rights similar or the same to those of 'normal' couples then we must be able to logically conclude that those right are such that both X and Y share R, and if that is the case then polygamous couples must also be able to share R, as per they are similar to X and Y. Additionally, if it is a civil and consent issue then why can some person P not marry his or her sibling? It seems that such an act falls under the same R (rights claim). Moreover, what if some animal and some human were to desire union, what would we say then? Perhaps, we would be tempted to say, "no". However, that cannot be right because the same basic claim that some P has and should possess R must hold to some relative extent. Thus, if we allow homosexuals to marry, then there must be concessions given to all the other prior instances listed above. So, I guess we can safely conclude that it can't be a basic human rights violation that we are talking about here, but rather some perverse tolerance claim.

Best,
J.R.P

Hail Obama...Hitler?

This is what you are going to get with this man in the office here. I would also like to say that while he (Obama) may have crushed the so-called "racial" barriar that has existed in politics, he  will also go down in history for being the most radical president yet. I almost would like to think that I should send him a copy of John Stuart Mill's, On Socialism  and see if that helps the poor Mr. Socialist President Obama out. May God have mercy on us, and may, if we are to fail, God speed the end. 

Contra Homosexuality

This is the first "official" post on this blog. Prior to it, I have been writing/pontificating about some school related stuff, but now I will get down and dirty -yes that is right, we are talking DIRTY.

With the major contoversy and squabble about the recent approval of the California highest court to legalize  same-sex marriages (if we can call them that), we have been even more bombarded by the current attempts to thwart the court's approval by way of a constitutional amendment, Proposition 8. For those of you who do not know much about the situation in California, or what Proposition 8 stands for, let me give you a quick overview via some links:

1) Gay marriages 

2) Prop 8

Since, I am just starting things off, I would not like to dig that deep into the controversy. However, I will ask for the opinion of anyone who reads this post, and I will give a -short- introduction into where I stand. 

First,  I think that Homosexuality is destructive and should be considered nothing less that a sever type of social neurosis. The reasons I have for this are based upon, I guess you could say, telos, and nature. The nature/telos claim is founded upon the fact that in order for the correct production and perpetuation of the human race, it is not only necessary, but also essential in all aspect that there exist a bond amid one part and its counter. This is further compounded by the socio-psychological importance of the stability and existence of a balanced familial unit. In such a unit, the correct lessons of everything from gender roles to complicated task are learned; the removal of the heterogeneous familiar structures creates a problem for our future generation to establish the correct roles and task that have allowed mankind to crawl from the primordial mud -unscathed. Also, there is not function or natural instrumental value -in terms of effectivity and intent- amid one part/gender that is the same as the other. 

It is interesting, as a society, we treat things like: sickness, rape, social prejudices, racism, and other dangerous problems with contempt, but homosexuality is not on our list -at least from a modern liberal view it isn't. The problem is that we have accepted it as "normal" or if not that, then what we have done is hold some passive perception of it. Moreover, we would not want to say  anything like, "It is wrong" or "we should punish them" or  "they need medicine." The majority of our society holds conceptions like: "its there decision to do as they wish" or "who am I to judge them" or "they love each other, let them be."

Whatever the claim may be, I don't feel that we should allow the acceptance of homosexuality in our society. However, I welcome any ideas that are contrary -just be prepared for a commend.