Some more ways to find my blog:
"jan cover" philosopher hair
Well, last I knew his hair was pretty long, but what was this search supposed to be trying to find?
support group against home school children
First of all, isn't a support group a group to support some group of people, not a group against a group of people? Second, why would anyone possibly form a group against a group of children, even if you don't like what people are doing to those children?
paul pierce sportron
Heh. It seems my shameless plugs for my dad's business have pulled in a hit from someone trying to find him. Of course, if they weren't willing to find where on my page the links they were looking for are then it wasn't worth it. It's kind of funny that the 'paul' comes from John Paul II, the 'pierce' comes from my name, not his, and the 'sportron' comes from the link that this person was looking for. They wouldn't have found me if they knew how to search within quotes. I can see that my links have done their job, though, because his pages are at the top for this search. Search engines really like blog links. It makes me wonder why this person clicked on my blog rather than the other sites, though. Weird.
This week's Christian Carnival, #71, is at TechnoGypsy. I'm glad to see that my post has finally been included
Laurence Thomas criticizes the claim that something is wrong only if it's harmful. Someone might be thoroughly opposed to having sex with children on the grounds that it harms them but really like the idea of it enough to want to have virtual reality sex with children. It doesn't harm anyone. At least it doesn't harm anyone in the way that people mean when they say something is wrong only if it's harmful. I agree with Laurence that the examples he gives are truly harmful, but I think he's right that the people he's criticizing don't count that as the kind of harm they mean.
Laurence also has an interesting post on parental love and morality that gets into some more technical philosophy than what I like to post on this blog, which has a much broader audience, and I usually post my more in-depth philosophical posts at OrangePhilosophy or Prosblogion, depending on the topic. I ended up writing Is Parental Love Transparent? and Parental Love and Kantian Duties at OrangePhilosophy in response to two claims that he makes in that post. These posts aren't all that technical, but I didn't write them for an audience with no familiarity with philosophy. If I get some more time when I don't feel obligated to do something else, I might write something further at Prosblogion about God's love in relation to these issues, because I kept thinking about that as I was writing these, but those elements would have distracted from my main point in each post, so I kept steering away from them.
Finally, his most recent post refutes the claim that young black people are rehabilitating the N-word. When a word is rehabilitated with a positive connotation and without the negative connotations, anyone should be able to use it in that sense without complaint. He gives a couple examples of when exactly this has taken place. With the N-word, the one thing black people who use it of each other won't allow is for white people who obviously mean well to use it in exactly the same way. It won't be a rehabilitated word until that happens, but that seems to be the one thing the so-called rehabilitators won't allow.
Another Man's Meat argues that compromise is good, and the only people who are disappointed about the Senate compromise over filibusters are just being partisan. I'm not sure I agree, but I think his reasons are worth reading. There's always something refreshing about reading Phil when he takes both parties to task.
For a different kind of balance, see Wallo World on whether it's better for Christians to be in hostile or comfortable surroundings.