Be the first to share with friends!
Who are we doing this versus? Some old news I only just heard about: PETA is offering to pay the water bills for needy Detroit families if and only if those families agree to stop eating meat.
Predictably, the move has caused a backlash. Of course, this is par for the course for PETA, who have previously engaged in campaigns like throwing red paint on fashion models who wear fur, juxtaposing pictures of animals with Holocaust victims, juxtaposing pictures of animals with African-American slaves, and ads featuring naked people that cross the line into pornography.
Vegan Outreach is an extremely responsible charity doing excellent and unimpeachable work in the same area PETA is. Nobody has heard of them. PETA creates publicity, but at a cost. Vegan Outreach can get everyone to agree in principle that factory-farming is bad, but no one will pay any attention to it.
The University of Virginia rape case profiled in Rolling Stone has fallen apart. In doing so, it joins a long and distinguished line of highly-publicized rape cases that have fallen apart.
Studies often show that only 2 to 8 percent of rape allegations are false. Yet the rate for allegations that go ultra-viral in the media must be an order of magnitude higher than this.
As the old saying goes, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action. So why are the most publicized cases so much more likely to be false than the almost-always-true average case?
Several people have remarked that false accusers have more leeway to make their stories as outrageous and spectacular as possible. But I want to focus on two less frequently mentioned concerns. The Consequentialism FAQ explains signaling in moral decisions like so: When signaling, the more expensive and useless the item is, the more effective it is as a signal.
On the other hand, a large diamond is an excellent signal; no one needs a large diamond, so anybody who gets one anyway must have money to burn. Certain answers to moral dilemmas can also send signals. For example, a Catholic man who opposes the use of condoms demonstrates to others and to himself!
Like the diamond example, this signaling is more effective if it centers upon something otherwise useless. If the Catholic had merely chosen not to murder, then even though this is in accord with Catholic doctrine, it would make a poor signal because he might be doing it for other good reasons besides being Catholic — just as he might buy eyeglasses for reasons beside being rich.
It is precisely because opposing condoms is such a horrendous decision that it makes such a good signal. But in the more general case, people can use moral decisions to signal how moral they are. In this case, they choose a disastrous decision based on some moral principle.
The more suffering and destruction they support, and the more obscure a principle it is, the more obviously it shows their commitment to following their moral principles absolutely. For example, Immanuel Kant claims that if an axe murderer asks you where your best friend is, obviously intending to murder her when he finds her, you should tell the axe murderer the full truth, because lying is wrong.
In the same way, publicizing how strongly you believe an accusation that is obviously true signals nothing. Even hard-core anti-feminists would believe a rape accusation that was caught on video. A moral action that can be taken just as well by an outgroup member as an ingroup member is crappy signaling and crappy identity politics.
If you want to signal how strongly you believe in taking victims seriously, you talk about it in the context of the least credible case you can find. The more controversial something is, the more it gets talked about.
A rape that obviously happened? On the other hand, the controversy over dubious rape allegations is exactly that — a controversy.
At each step, more and more people get triggered and upset. Some of those triggered people do emergency ego defense by reblogging articles about how the group that triggered them are terrible, triggering further people in a snowball effect that spreads the issue further with every iteration.Are today's superstars really role models for today's youth?
I think they are! So many people in the entertainment business set great examples for our youth to strive for the best and most out of life. Take musicians they really come through in times of need. Take this past few weeks with the. Kids should have role models, but parents want to be the person that they look up to, not some over-paid athlete.
But, kids should be able to look up to athletes like Jackie Robinson, who broke. They should. Celebrities become celebrities because there is something about them that catches the public’s attention.A celebrity is almost by definition a role model. Anyone who’s become a celebrity has something that made them famous, something that other people desire to be or have.
The Verb Recognize a verb when you see one. Verbs are a necessary component of all ashio-midori.com have two important functions: Some verbs put stalled subjects into motion while other verbs help to clarify the subjects in meaningful ways.
This is an example page. It’s different from a blog post because it will stay in one place and will show up in your site navigation (in most themes). What’s the Best Dating Site for You?
Are you ready to try online dating? Thousands of singles join online dating sites every day. With seemingly endless options, the list below can help you find a dating site that fits your lifestyle.