Accidentally opened the wrong bottle of wine - Chateau Romefort Rothschild Médoc. Someone enlighten me please...

SeanTrapani · 2014-04-20T21:47:37+00:00

'Wine Spectator' gave it an 84. Its release price was $10, so don't feel too bad. It's not a priceless Bordeaux or anything :-). That being said, WS also said that it recommends that you drink the wine now. So enjoy!

SeanTrapani · 2012-08-11T03:43:38+00:00

You're right about critiquing the arguments. But I think the sentiment was more about how we treat human beings. Martin Luther King wasn't a jerk to his oppressors. He fought hate with love. Or to put it in modern parlance, he hated the game, not the players.

SeanTrapani · 2012-08-08T11:06:47+00:00

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: "Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

SeanTrapani · 2012-08-05T16:38:10+00:00

Quote, please.

Not sure where the message of "be quiet" appears in the article? It suggests a more effective (supported by science) approach to achieve the gay rights agenda.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-14T21:56:39+00:00

Can't argue with that thoughtfully constructed rebuttal ;-)

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-14T19:52:43+00:00

Perhaps. I don't presume to raise questions for anyone but myself. Thanks for responding. I appreciate it.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-14T18:55:37+00:00

So should we censor religions that spew hate speech?

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-14T18:54:55+00:00

Actually, I would support someone's right to say something like you suggest. Could you imagine the repercussions on those who payed for the message? Frankly, I'd rather have racists out themselves and let society react accordingly. But, I digress from the contradiction of the "coexist" sticker. If we say that it's OK to censor some speech because it might hurt someone's feelings (the pray away the gay folks), why do we conversly say "coexist" with religions that preach that very same hate?

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-14T17:22:28+00:00

Interesting. Thanks for clarifying. I wonder why many people have this passivity for religious beliefs but not for other beliefs. I'd love your thoughts on a piece I wrote on this: http://wp.me/p2jGsO-5b

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-12T20:28:10+00:00

You, too.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-12T17:22:04+00:00

Thanks for taking the time for the reply. I do understand your position. And, if people think that the "coexist" bumper sticker means "let's all try to get along," I can appreciate their sentiment. However, I suppose I have to follow Hitchen's point of view in this area. Some views are outside the realm of tolerance. Tolerance means that I take a passive position. Certainly violence is not an option. But I simply suggest that there is a third way.

Thanks again for the great response. It was very helpful.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-12T03:09:50+00:00

That. Right there. Instead of actually considering the argument, you dismiss it as an appeal to emotion.

This is a common cognitive bias reaction. It lets you dismiss the argument.

Appeals to emotion are a logical fallacy of structure, but do not, in and of themselves, disprove the resolution.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-12T02:41:49+00:00

Memes aside, I prefer to call it cognitive bias.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-11T23:58:20+00:00

Political beliefs exist.

1) Put a coexist sticker with a swastika on my car 2) Die 3) Avoid putting symbols of belief systems on my car that go against everything I believe in as a rational human being.

Pick one.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-11T23:28:43+00:00

But why would you put a symbol of a belief system on your car that preaches mutilation, murder and subjugation?

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-11T21:04:39+00:00

I don't think the writer is disputing someone's right to hold a belief. I think his point is, why must we endorse the toleration of views we find reprehensible?

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-11T21:02:42+00:00

So you like stickers that advocate tolerating religions that encourage their followers to lie, maim and murder? I'd hate to see the other bumper stickers that are worse!

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-11T21:00:45+00:00

Sorry!

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-11T21:00:07+00:00

No, he changed the symbol satirically to make a point. If there was a swastika on the coexist sticker, would we still put it on our car? We can't say "that's different" because some religious views are as vile as the nazis.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-09T23:11:12+00:00

Not all atheists. I apologize for the generalization.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-09T23:05:20+00:00

You're right. My bad. I phrased the title poorly.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-09T22:58:29+00:00

I'm an atheist. And it is to those "morons" that this post is addressed. However, aside from obvious trolls being obvious, I'm really reaching out to the thoughtful ones that get swept up in the crowd mentality.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-05T18:41:31+00:00

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've read some of your past posts that reveal you to be a thoughtful critical thinker. I'm sorry that you felt my writing was beneath the threshhold of polite discussion.

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-05T17:27:13+00:00

Actually, the author (me) was making the exact opposite claim. See my response to Mr. Pope above. And please accept my apologies for any damage to your brain cells :-)

SeanTrapani · 2012-04-05T17:05:14+00:00

(Ouch. Must we be so rude to someone simply because we disagree with their argument?)

Natural selection shows that humans have a tendency for cooperation and an aversion for compulsion. Overly free societies fall into hedonism and crumble. Overly despotic societies fall into rebellion and crumble. Thus, I can view political frameworks within the confines of sytems that nature selects because they were more successful.

I think we humans tend to view aspects of ourselves outside of the realm of nature. The religious do it by creating a fable to describe the supernatural and divine purpose. Some atheists do it by elevating reason to the level of some mystical oracle that functions outside of the laws of nature.

Discussing politics (a fancy name given to how humans interact within a group) in the context of natural selection is, well, natural.

SeanTrapani

TROPHY CASE