Preferred philosophy competition topics


I like to see a philosophy essay competition with these topics

  • How will our understanding of morality change?
  • Discuss the philosophy of a modern social phenomenon.
  • Which recent scientific discovery has have a significant impact on philosophy and why?
  • Ethics of modern medicine.
  • What will be the most significant philosophical question of the 21 century and why?

“Point of Order” epic trolling


[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0AQ5TjsEIM]

This is 52 minute and 41 second of epic trolling in one of its most elitist institution of United States. Its comedy gold, Larry David couldn’t write this.

Summery by a Redditor:

TLDS: Anthony Weiner (D – NY) says that the bill presented to the house does not fill the new requirement requiring that the bill establish Congress’ constitutional mandate to pass the bill. Joe Barton (R-Texas) claimed that Republicans filed the constitutional mandate required by the new house rules. Anthony Weiner says that the act does not reference any portion of the constitution.
John Dingell (D – Michigan) adds that the constitutional mandate papers aren’t even included with the Bill as its presented with the house. Counsel clarifies that the new rule never stipulated that the constitutional mandate papers had to be presented to the rest of the house, they just needed to be filed. Dingell insists that the rule now be changed so that the filed papers now be required to be presented to the House.
Barton pulls out his pocket copy of the constitution and says that the constitution says that the legislature is allowed to pass laws to amend other laws, therefore the law has a constitutional mandate. Dingell points out that you can’t just pull a mandate out of your ass, you have to point to the mandate that’s actually filed…and no one knows what was filed on the paper.
Counsel then says that the way the Weiner is making his objections (point of order) is not the right way to deal with the rule-violation (according to how the rule was written). It is up to debate, but not point of order. Weiner then argues that the House has to issue with the point of order because it’s a fundamental rule of the house.
Chairman is about to rule on the point of order and then unidentified congressman (can’t see his name plate, around 19:07) says it’s time for a showdown between the two sides. Unidentified congressman repeats Weiner’s point. Barton asks rhetorical question to the counsel about whether Congress has the right to pass laws and therefore whether the point of order presented by Weiner is valid. Counsel dodges the question and says that it’s up the Chairman.
Barton then gets frustrated and says that Weiner’s disagreement is invalid because the Republicans complied – Weiner just disagrees about what constitutes compliance. Barton also points out that the actual way of dealing with this debate is a 5-minute rule. Chairman is about to end debate, but then Frank Pallone (D – NJ) says that Chairman can’t end debate on point of order.
Weiner then re-iterates his point that the proposed legislation doesn’t really address the new house law. Barton gets really pissed and says that the Counsel has already stated that the point of order is not proper and that they must move to a 5-minute debate.
Jan Schkowsky (D-IL), who has been trying to get in a word over the past 20 minutes starts on a gigantic rant about how everyone has ignored her for the past 20 minutes. She was trying to make Pallone’s point that the point of order can’t be overruled without debate.
Pallone argues that you can’t just end debate on a point of order. Suggest they move to 5-minute debate.
Schkowsky objects to Chairman’s decision to rule on the point of order, and then a gigantic flame war goes on about whether they have the right to object about the motion to strike this debate from the record and rule on the point of order. No one’s really sure, however, what Schkowsky is specifically objecting to.
Chairman temporarily suspends debate, then Schkowsky comes in again and objects because as a woman she isn’t even being allowed to speak.
Weiner then comes in to defend Schkowsky and argues that Chairman can’t allocate time randomly. Barton then contacts the rules committee, and clarifies the meaning of the rule. States that the point of introduction is the only time at which the rule is enforceable. The question of whether the issue is a matter of debate can be decided during voting, but you can’t issue a point of order against the content of the filing. Barton says you have to move to 5-minute debate under this ruling.
Weiner says that the rules committee is all controlled by Republicans and starts on another rant about how the rules committee is wrong and that Pallone had made a motion for unanimous consent and that Schkowsky was recognized to speak but didn’t get a chance to speak.
Then…a bunch of arguing over who has the right to object and talk and whether the clock was on or not. Debate shifts towards arguing over the unanimous consent motion filed by Pallone…Schkowsky gets 5 minutes to rant about how the committee is managed and how no one’s conforming to the rules. Tammy Baldwin (D – Wisconsin) chimes in to say that all her constitutional filings include specific reference to actual clauses of the constitution.
Chairman then gets his 5 minutes to present the bill and presents the bill’s contents (which is to amend the health care act so that it doesn’t cover abortion). Pallone then goes back all the way back to the original argument about how they can’t establish the constitutionality of the bill.
TLDR of the TLDS: TIL that you can interrupt anyone in the House just by screaming “POINT OF ORDER!”

In short: (a) republican break the rule they introduce on day one of its effect, Weiner (D) painstakingly says “WTF”?

Modernized interpretation of reincarnation


From a Redditor:

[T]he components the make up “you” are broken down upon death and reused in other life forms.. thus causing parts of “you” to become worms, birds, snakes, etc. Thus rebirth.

…Buddhist doctrine of “anatta” which means “no-self” it states that there is/was never a single solitatary “YOU” that exists. It states that you are rather a multitude of things come together for a brief moment of time. A collection of things that decides to call itself “ME” and creates the illusion of the ego.

Under this understanding, “you” are a collection of billions of cells, or more precisely, trillions of chemicals, and even more precisely, quintillions of atoms….

So context is important here, “You” as in your identity, who you identify as.. dies permanently, because it was just an illusion, however your true nature (a massively complex configuration of the universe) does not die and instead takes upon new forms.

I like this view very much. Its very rational, enlighten and romantic to me, even if others may think of my impression as oxymoronic.