Not Skeptical. Not Politics. Just Brilliant.
The Rational Moderate
Monday, February 9, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The War on Drugs is Stupid Reason number #368
Let me get this straight, Michael Phelps won the most olympic gold medals of anyone ever, and he did so while being a pot head. He does a drug that makes you lazy, slow, and want to eat every unhealthy thing you can get your grubby little hands on, and he STILL WON MORE GOLD MEDALS THAN ANYONE. ELSE. EVER. This little bit of news does give us an opportunity to examine a logical fallacy: The Slippery Slope.
Ever heard arguments like these? If you do drugs like pot, then your life will be ruined because you will only care about getting high and nothing else.
If you smoke pot, then when that kick wears off you will go out and try worse drugs that will eventually ruin your life.
If we legalize pot, then everyone will be smoking it and we could end up being operated on by a doctor who is high.
If we legalize gay marriage, then that will open the doors for incest and pedophilia and before you know it someone will be marrying a goat.
The slippery slope is basically where one step leads directly to worse and worse outcomes, ad so the conclusion is you should never take the first step. Some actually try to use slippery slope as a valid logical argument by stating that you shouldn't take the first step because it is a slippery slope. It's not. It is a logical fallacy.
The problem with the slippery slope argument is that the next steps never necessarily follow from the first. Either the person making the argument has missed some crucial difference between the situations to make it unlikely (for example, with gay marriage the difference is in consent - adults can, children and animals cannot) or that the first step isn't really what will lead to the others happening (for example, with pot being illegal a) it doesn't mean I will - never have, never will - and b) this hasn't stopped people from smoking it and so it is already likely that a doctor has performed an operation while high.)
So we need to avoid slippery slope arguments or we will end up believing all kinds of fallacious arguments and before you know it civilization will collapse as a whole.
The Rational Moderate
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Reason Why Alternative Medicine is Bad #2753
I'm not a fan of alternative medicine in the sense that I don't think there is any such thing. If it works, it's medicine. If it doesn't work, it's nonsense. But you sometimes get this argument from proponents: "If it seems like it is helping the person taking it, and it isn't harming them, why not let them take it?" Well, one of the main reasons stems from their taking some type of alternative medicine to begin with. The average partaker of alternative medicine never looks at a plant and says to themselves, I should ingest this to help with my shin splints. No, they get testimonials from others- word of mouth leads them to believe that x will help with y. But once you start believing in testimonials as a good reason for trying a certain *cough* treatment *cough* then you are more likely to rely on this in other cases than your shin splints.This leads to problems such as believing that the bones, skin, hair... of albinos will help cure what ails you because others claim it does. Yes, in Tanzania, witch-doctors are kidnapping and killing and/or mutilating albino people to use their body parts for medicine. The government of Tanzania has banned the practice, but when your dealing with people who (not completely at their own fault) believe this alternative medicine works you should not be surprised when the witch-doctors ignore the ban. If you have the testimonial of your neighbors and from those who are supposed to be an authority on the matter (witch-doctors) and you are in the habit of not critically thinking about the problems of blindingly believing such things, or of the errors of reasoning that people are prone to about their own experiences, then you shouldn't be suprised when you end up with this kind of horror show.
The Rational Moderate
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Solutions: Your Shrinking Investments
When we go through economic downturns, be it recessions or what not, people tend to spend less money on frivolous things which means going out to dinner less and maybe skipping that new movie and perhaps just spending more time at home... bored...
*wink wink nudge nudge*
I coined the term "Bailout Baby" as soon as I heard that the government was considering stepping in to prop up the failing banking institutes during the presidential election and stuck with that term as "TARP Baby" lacks the alliteration and sounds like some sort of sticky disease. Come June we are going to start to see the outcome of this recession in maternity wards across the nation. So my solution for those who are looking at the rock bottom stock prices and are thinking that there must be something worth while investing in and holding on to for a rainy day: any large company that specializes in baby necessities such as food and diapers (ala Procter and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson...)
Keep in mind the necessities bit and avoid such nonsense as Baby Mozart or Einstein or DeSade or whatever nonsense they are trying to sell as that leg up your kid needs to get into Harvard. If people are trying to tighten their wallets they become a little bit better informed about products and will recognize snake oil for its slither.
The Rational Moderate
(Oh, the picture of that beautiful baby is of my Best Man Pat's new little girl Katherine Anne. Congratulations Pat!!!)
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Two Great Things Even Better Together
I have long held that Outkast's "Hey Ya" is the best written song in the past 15 years (I might even go to 20 if you push me on it). Combine that with Peanuts - Gold, I tell you Gold!
Don't worry we'll get back to writing about bleepin Bagojevich and throwin bleepin shoes soon.
The Rational Moderate
Friday, December 12, 2008
K&B Toys is Closing
So long K&B, the 12 year-old me will miss you.
The Rational Moderate
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Supreme Court Accepts "Enemy Combatant" Case
There is a lot of interesting things happening right now, which I suppose is to be expected given the abuse of powers that has infected the country for the past eight years will soon be if not cured than at least we've made it to the waiting room.The Supreme Court, despite Bush and Co.'s objections, will hear the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who was designated an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration and held in a military brig for the past five years. He was originally arrested for credit card fraud, but some where along the lines this was changed by executive order essentially ejecting him from the American legal system.
The question the Supreme Court will examine is whether the President has the authority to arrest and imprison a person/civilian indefinitely without and part of the judicial branch of the government getting involved. In other words, no trial, no reading of charges, no defense, no appeal... All of this because Bush labeled him an "enemy combatant."
It's surprising that the Supreme Court will hear this for a couple of reasons. First, there is a new administration coming in which will, it seems likely, change this stance. If it seems like the issue will go away, the SC is likely to let it happen. They could have postponed ruling on viewing the case until the new administration. Second, I expected Bush to change the status of this person so he would be tried in a criminal court to avoid having this case come before the SC and therefore establishing some amount of precedent for it. Since the SC would have then had no reason to review this case, they would have chosen to not and the US Court of Appeals in Virginia's ruling in favor of Bush would have stood.
However, it is really good news that they will hear this case since it seems really, really unlikely that the SC will rule in favor of Bush and this needs to be nipped in the bud. Since the case won't be herd until March it will fall under Obama's presidency. Here is what he should do: keep al-Marri labeled as an enemy combatant and get this thing to a ruling. The only way to squash this as a precedent is not through executive order but through the courts. If Obama changes this notion, it will only apply for his administration and if another lunatic with no regards for the constitution comes into power, the precedent will be there for the President to make this decision. If Obama is against this, he needs to fight to keep that power in the courts. Some of you might be thinking, "But what if he wins and this becomes a recognized legal practice?" The problem is, if it doesn't go to court now, this will be a recognized legal practice. The only way to tank it is to take it all the way.
The Rational Moderate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
