Burglary is dangerous

By -
Burglars are often injured because they have to creep into houses in the dark, and sometimes they are even shot by homeowners.

Let's start a campaign for "safe, legal burglary"!


Comments

  1. Samson Corwell1:29 AM

    What?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sails11:14 PM

    I don't get it either. Is this an abortion analogy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah2:46 AM

      You DO get it!

      *IF* something is wrong, it is kind of fatuous to argue for legalizing it because people sometimes get hurt doing this wrong thing.

      And if it is not wrong, then it should not be illegal, and we can drop the "safe" argument!

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell10:36 PM

      Ah! You make much sense, Gene.

      Delete
  3. Samson Corwell3:23 AM

    I completely agree with you on dropping the "safe" argument. I'm pro-choice and from my perspective I think it partly concedes the argument to the pro-life side. Positioning it as a health issue is also irrelevant. The crux of the issue is whether or not a fetus constitutes and/or whether or not the autonomy of the woman is an overriding concern.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more