Foehammer's Blog

People 'still willing to torture' Subjects were apparently given electric shocks

Decades after a notorious experiment, scientists have found test subjects are still willing to inflict pain on others - if told to by an authority figure.

US researchers repeated the famous "Milgram test", with volunteers told to deliver electrical shocks to another volunteer - played by an actor.

Even after faked screams of pain, 70% were prepared to increase the voltage, the American Psychology study found.

Both may help explain why apparently ordinary people can commit atrocities.

It's not that these people are simply not good people any more - there is a massive social influence going on.
Dr Abigal San
clinical psychologist

Yale University professor Stanley Milgram's work, published in 1963, recruited volunteers to help carry out a medical experiment, with none aware that they were actually the subject of the test.

A "scientist" instructed them to deliver a shock every time the actor answered a question wrongly.

When the pretend 150-volt shock was delivered, the actor could be heard screaming in pain, and yet, when asked to, more than eight out of ten volunteers were prepared to give further shocks, even when the "voltage" was gradually increased threefold.

Some volunteers even carried on giving 450-volt shocks even when there was no further response from the actor, suggesting he was either unconscious or dead.

Similar format

Dr Jerry Burger, of Santa Clara University, used a similar format, although he did not allow the volunteers to carry on beyond 150 volts after they had shown their willingness to do so, suggesting that the distress caused to the original volunteers had been too great.

Again, however, the vast majority of the 29 men and 41 women taking part were willing to push the button knowing it would cause pain to another human.

Even when another actor entered the room and questioned what was happening, most were still prepared to continue.

He told Reuters: "What we found is validation of the same argument - if you put people in certain situations, they will act in surprising and maybe often even disturbing ways."

He said that it was not that there was "something wrong" with the volunteers, but that when placed under pressure, people will often do "unsettling" things.

Even though it was difficult to translate laboratory work to the real world, he said, it might partly explain why, in times of conflict, people could take part in genocide.

Complex task

Dr Abigail San, a chartered clinical psychologist, has recently replicated the experiment for a soon-to-be-aired BBC documentary - all the way up to the 450-volt mark, again finding a similar outcome to Professor Milgram.

"It's not that these people are simply not good people any more - there is a massive social influence going on."

She said that the volunteers were being asked to carry out a complex task in aid of scientific research, and became entirely focused on it, with "little room" left for considering the plight of the person receiving the shock.

"They tend to identify massively with the 'experimenter', and become very engaged and distracted by the research.

"There's no opportunity for them to say 'What's my moral stand on this?'"

Stories like this remind me of a bad movie.  I never did like Hostel, the movie.  Nor did I ever get into any of the Saw movies.  But this article reminds me so much of those movies.  I just can't believe people are willing to do things like this.  But then again...it is a terrible world we live in.  What do you think?

You know...I have always wondered about something...perhaps you all could enlighten me on this:

While drinking a bottled water, I noticed along the side of the container that in certain states (HI, IA, MA, ME, NY, OR, CT, VT, DE and MI) a deposit would be paid if the empty container were to be turned in at a designated location.

The question is:  Why is this not being done in all states?

I would think that this might help many people and ease some current problems.  For example...the people who are homeless and in need of something warm to eat.  A few bottles and cans and a person would at least be able to have a bite to eat.  I know this is the smallest possible thing in the larger scheme of things.  But it is something.

I would think that this might promote less trash being thrown out of vehicles as well.  After all...these days, people are cutting every corner.  I know people who save cans to take for recycling to earn some extra cash.  This would be even better, in my opinion.

I'm just curious.  Does anyone know why some states offer deposits and some don't?

 

Bratz loses battle of the dolls Bratz dolls have taken market share from rival Barbie.

Bratz dolls are facing removal from all shops after a US federal court banned parent company MGA Entertainment from making the Barbie-rival.

The court issued the order after Barbie-maker Mattel, won a landmark copyright-infringement case against MGA in August.

Bratz designer Carter Bryant had been found guilty of developing the Bratz brand while still working for Mattel.

MGA has appealed the ruling, which severely undermines its business model.

A federal judge in California banned MGA from selling and making all 40 multi-ethnic dolls in the Bratz line.

But it allowed the company to wait until after Christmas to begin removing dolls from the shelves.

'Dire scenario'

The ruling "underscores that MGA should not be allowed to profit from its wrongdoing", said Mattel, the world's biggest toymaker,

Mattel was awarded up to $100m (£68m) in August, in the ruling of the initial copyright infringement case.

"In the most dire scenario, MGA can't sell Bratz at all and a humongous chunk of their business disappears," said Sean McGowan, analyst at Needham & Co.

"But it's likely they will work out a way for MGA to stay in business and Mattel to profit," he added.

The Bratz brand has been blamed for falls in Barbie sales since being first sold in 2001.

I guess Barbie wasn't having any of that!  But seriously...I didn't realize that Bratz was in competition with Barbie.  The dolls are not even similar.  My youngest daughter loves the Bratz, but she never had an interest in Barbie whatsoever.

Honda poised to quit Formula One Honda were the lowest-placed of the points-scoring teams in 2008

Honda will quit Formula One on Friday, BBC Sport understands.

The Japanese company hopes to sell its team, which costs £200m a year to run, but is prepared to close the team early in 2009 if no buyer is found.

Sources told BBC Sport the team were "optimistic" they would continue, but no investor had yet been found.

However, according to the Reuters news agency, team bosses Ross Brawn and Nick Fry fear Honda could close the Brackley-based team within weeks.

According to a Reuters source, Brawn and Fry told a meeting of the Formula One Teams' Association: "They have a month to find a buyer, otherwise they are closing the team."

Honda appointed Brawn, the man who masterminded seven world titles for Michael Schumacher, as their team principal ahead of the 2008 season.

Britain's Jenson Button, who drives for the Honda team, will be left unattached for the 2009 season if the team folds - though some places with mid-ranking teams remain.

Honda, who recently cut road vehicle production as a response to the global economic crisis, is expected to make an announcement regarding the team's future at 0500 GMT on Friday.

A notoriously expensive sport in which to compete, teams have spent recent months in intensive discussions over cost-cutting measures.

I am told that for £1 you can now buy the Honda F1 team
Adam Parsons
BBC sports news correspondent Max Mosley, president of world motorsport governing body the FIA, recently urged teams to find ways to reduce costs.

"Formula One is becoming unsustainable," said Mosley in July.

"The major manufacturers are currently employing up to 1,000 people to put two cars on the grid. This is clearly unacceptable at a time when all these companies are facing tough market conditions."

In October, a deal was reached to reduce costs for smaller teams in 2009 and 2010.

However, Honda are considered a major player within Formula One, bankrolling more than 800 staff at the team's Northamptonshire base with the largest budget in the sport.

"I am told that for £1 you can now buy the Honda F1 team," said BBC sports news correspondent Adam Parsons.

BBC Radio 5 Live's F1 commentator, David Croft, said Honda's withdrawal would have profound implications for the sport as a whole.

HONDA IN F1 Honda team created in 2006 after BAR team was taken over Finished fourth in 2006 constructors' championship with 86 points, but struggled to eighth in 2007 (six points) and ninth in 2008 (14 points) Team costs Honda £200m annually with more than 800 staff at Brackley Honda runs F1 cars with minimal advertising, meaning more funding has to come from Japanese parent company British driver Jenson Button (above) would lose his place in the sport if the team were to fold "This has serious implications for F1, not just because there will be only 18 cars on the grid," said Croft.

"It's the start of the sport as a whole feeling the pinch. Williams are reported to be in financial difficulties, Toyota are trimming down their budget as well.

"Honda are a car company whose sales have dropped by 41% in the last quarter, they're closing their Swindon factory for two months at the start of next year, and obviously feeling the pinch on a global scale."

In November, Honda announced it would build fewer cars in Japan, Europe and the United States to reflect bleak economic prospects in the vehicle manufacturing industry.

It was reported on Thursday that sales of new cars in the UK suffered their biggest monthly drop in 28 years, while carmakers Ford, GM and Chrysler have asked the US Congress for multi-billion dollar loans to guarantee their survival.

The last team to leave Formula One were Honda-backed minnows Super Aguri, who folded for financial reasons in April.

Honda's own F1 team endured a deeply disappointing 2008 season on the track, earning just 14 points, leaving them the lowest of the nine points-scoring teams.

Button found himself ranked 18th in the drivers' list, contributing only three points.

Only four drivers, each without a point to their name, ranked below him. Team-mate Rubens Barrichello earned the remaining 11 points.

Honda initially entered F1 as a constructor in the 1960s, withdrawing at the end of 1968.

606: DEBATE Terribly sad for all concerned. Hopefully some sort of independent team can rise from the ashes
GordonMurray The company returned to F1 in the 1980s as an engine supplier, then purchased a stake in the BAR team from British American Tobacco in 2004.

Honda bought out British American Tobacco in 2005 to form the Honda team for the 2006 season.

While the team finished fourth in the 2006 constructors' championship, they have since struggled to make an impact.

The 2009 Formula One season begins on 29 March, in Australia.

Congresswoman hangs up on Obama Ms Ros-Lehtinen thought the call was a prank

US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen thought she was being hoaxed when a man who sounded a lot like Barack Obama called her - so she hung up on him.

In fact, the man at the other end of the line was indeed President-elect Obama himself.

It took two further phone-calls before Ms Ros-Lehtinen was convinced that the telephone call was genuine.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was recently fooled by a DJ pretending to be French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

'I won't be punked'

"I thought it was one of the radio stations in South Florida playing an incredible, elaborate, terrific prank on me," Ms Ros-Lehtinen told the Miami Herald newspaper.

"They've gotten Hugo Chavez and others to fall for their tricks. I said, 'Oh, no, I won't be punked'."

Mr Obama was calling to congratulate her on her re-election, and to say that he looked forward to working with her in her role as the most senior Republican on the House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee.

After a minute or so, Ms Ros-Lehtinen cut Mr Obama off, telling him she was not fooled by the hoax and that he was a better Obama impersonator than Fred Armisen, the man who does an impression of Mr Obama on the TV comedy show Saturday Night Live.

Shortly afterwards, Mr Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel called Ms Ros-Lehtinen back to persuade her to take the call, but she hung up on him as well.

It was only when Howard Berman, a fellow member of her committee, called her that she was persuaded to take the call.

"I asked Howard to tell me a private joke we share about colleagues in the House to make sure it really was him," Ms Ros-Lehtinen said.

"When he did, I realised it was the real deal."

Mr Obama then called her back, and was amused by the incident, according to Ms Ros-Lehtinen.

"He laughed a lot, saying 'in Chicago they do it all the time - I don't blame you for being sceptical'."

The pair then had a constructive discussion about foreign affairs, according to the congresswoman.

Well, Ticket My Funnybone! by Holly RIzzo 10/17/2008 Related Content

• American Drive-In Movie Theaters
• Top Ten Ugliest Cars in American History
• You'll Pay For Every Mistake

You can understand why some laws exist: no speeding, don’t run the stop sign, yield to pedestrians. But other laws may leave you scratching your head – right in front of the officer who pulled you over for violating them.

In many states, for example, it’s as possible to earn a ticket for lollygagging to look at the scenery as it is for speeding. The legal reasoning is that going too slowly impedes traffic.
  The reasons behind still other laws have been lost to history, and chances are you can get away with violating them. In Denver, for example, it’s illegal to drive a black car on Sunday. And in the foggy past, Minneapolis outlawed red cars on Lake Street. Here are 12 more unusual laws related to cars and driving. But we must warn you: Reading these means you’ll have to answer truthfully when the officer asks “Do you know why I pulled you over?”
Honk if you pass Rural New Jersey might sound like a never-ending New Year’s Eve party if everybody obeyed the law. State law requires drivers to honk the horn when passing another vehicle going in the same direction outside a business or residential district.
However, watch it in Little Rock, Ark., where the law says “no person shall sound the horn on a vehicle at any place where cold drinks or sandwiches are served after 9 p.m.”
Honking at sandwich shops is OK in University City, Mo. – so long as you honk in your own car. It’s illegal to honk the horn of someone else’s.
Kindly keep your cattle in the car Hey, city slicker – you’ll have to keep that cow in your vehicle in Topeka, Kan. The city has made it “unlawful for any person to suffer or permit any livestock owned or controlled by such person to run at large, or to drive any herd of cattle, horses, mules or hogs, or any flock of sheep, upon any street in the city.”   You’ll need permission to throw that brick In Mount Vernon, Iowa, you’re not allowed to shoot arrows or throw bricks onto any street or highway without the City Council’s written consent.
Clean up your act In San Francisco, it’s illegal to wipe a vehicle with used underwear and to pile horse manure more than six feet high on any street corner.
Unhand that nozzle! In Oregon and New Jersey, you cannot pump your own gas. Supposedly this practice keeps gasoline prices lower in those states, because insurance costs for gas stations go down if attendants instead of customers pump the gas – but, on the other hand, that attendant must be paid, whereas you pump for free. So the jury’s out on the reasons for this one.
Animal and vegetable antics Palm Springs, Calif., forbids anyone from walking a camel down the main street, Palm Canyon Drive, between 4 and 6 p.m. Hunting from moving vehicles is illegal in several states, including Connecticut and Tennessee, where only whale hunting by that method is allowed. Thou shalt not sow a vegetable garden in any public street in Chico, Calif. The law, however, does not forbid flower gardens.
No pillows on the roadbed No matter how sleepy you get, you are not allowed to snooze in the middle of any street in Eureka, Calif. Reno, Nev., won’t let you park yourself on a bench or chair in the middle of its roads, either. As long as we’re on a roll, here are a few more tips to the lawful:

• Yield to peacocks in Arcadia, Calif.
• Don’t jump into a passing vehicle in Glendale, Calif.
• Don’t change clothes in your car at the beach in Destin, Fla.
• Don’t keep a car door open longer than is necessary in Oregon.
• Don’t drive through playgrounds in Dublin, Ga.

How serious are they? Serious. Screeching your tires in Derby, Kan., could get you 30 days in Bad Boys’ Bed & Breakfast. And if you think switching back to a one-horsepower hay-burner might get you away from the long arm of the law, consider this: In Texarkana, Texas, it’s illegal to ride a horse at night without taillights.

Britons 'saving money with sex' Snuggling under the duvet could also save on those heating bills

As the credit crunch bites, Britons may be turning to sex as a cheap way to pass the time, a charity says.

A YouGov survey of 2,000 adults found sex was the most popular free activity, ahead of window shopping and gossiping.

The Scots were most amorous with 43% choosing sex over other pastimes, compared with 35% in South England.

Aids charity the Terrence Higgins Trust, which published the survey, also welcomed recent figures showing an increase in condom sales.

Around one in 10 respondents to the survey, carried in November, said their favourite free activity was window shopping and 6% chose going to a museum as the cheapest way to pass the time.

But the sexes differed on their priorities, with women preferring to gossip with friends while men had sex firmly at the top of their list.

Safe sex

Publishing the results to coincide with World Aids Day, the Terrence Higgins Trust reminded people to practise safe sex and pointed out that a packet of condoms costs a fraction of the cost of a night out.

Rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are on the up so when you snuggle down with a partner, make sure you do it safely
Lisa Power, Terrence Higgins Trust

Lisa Power, head of policy, said: We're glad that people are finding ways of relieving some of their credit crunch woes, but if there's one thing it's worth forking out for, it's condoms.

"Alternatively you can get them free from family planning and sexual health clinics.

"Rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are on the up so when you snuggle down with a partner, make sure you do it safely."

Rebecca Findlay, from the Family Planning Association advised: "If anyone's having more sex at the moment whatever the reason, do think about your contraception, your condoms and any testing you might need for sexually transmitted infections.

"And you can get all of these for free on the NHS."

 

I did like the fact that the article made metion of practicing safe sex.  Now...I wonder if I can get the wife to buy into this!

.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;
padding-top:0px;} .ExternalClass BODY.EC_hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} A VERY  INTERESTING  CONVERSATION

An Atheist Professor of Philosophy was speaking to his Class on the problem Science has
with GOD, the ALMIGHTY.  He asked one of his New Christian Students to stand and . . .

Professor:     You are a Christian, aren't you, son?
Student:       Yes, sir.
Professor:    So, you Believe in GOD?
Student:       Absolutely, sir.
Professor:     Is GOD Good?
Student:       Sure.
Professor:     Is GOD ALL POWERFUL?
Student:       Yes.
Professor:    My Brother died of Cancer even though he prayed to GOD to Heal him.
                   Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill.
                   But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?

(Student was silent )

Professor:    You can't answer, can you ?  Let's start again, Young Fella.

                  Is GOD Good?
Student:      Yes.
Professor:    Is Satan good?
Student:      No.
Professor:    Where does Satan come from?
Student:      From . . . GOD . . .
Professor:   That's right.  Tell me son, is there evil in this World?
Student:      Yes.
Professor:    Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student:      Yes.
Professor:   So who created evil?

(Student did not answer)

Professor:    Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness?
                   All these terrible things exist in the World, don't they?
Student:      Yes, sir.
Professor:   So, who Created them?

(Student had no answer)

Professor:   Science says you have 5 Senses you use to Identify and Observe the World around you.
                  Tell me, son . . . Have you ever seen GOD?
Student:      No, sir.
Professor:   Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student:      No, sir.
Professor:    Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD?
                  Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of GOD for that matter?
Student:      No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor:    Yet you still believe in HIM?
Student:      Yes.
Professor:    According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol,
                  Science says your GOD doesn't exist.  What do you say to that, son?
Student:      Nothing. I only have my Faith.
Professor:   Yes, Faith.  And that is the problem Science has.

Student:      Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?
Professor:   Yes.
Student:      And is there such a thing as Cold?
Professor:   Yes.
Student:      No, sir. There isn't.

(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events)

Student:      Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat, White Heat,
                  a Little Heat or No Heat.
                  But we don't have anything called Cold.
                  We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we can't go any further after that.
                  There is no such thing as Cold.
                  Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of Heat.
                  We cannot measure Cold.
                  Heat is Energy.
                  Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.

(There was Pin-Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre)

Student:      What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?
Professor:    Yes. What is Night if there isn't Darkness?
Student:      You're wrong again, sir.
                 Darkness is the Absence of Something
                 You can have Low Light,   Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light . . .
                 But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called Darkness, isn't it?
                 In reality, Darkness isn't.
                 If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Professor:   So what is the point you are making, Young Man?
Student:     Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.
Professor:   Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student:     Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality.
                You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD.
                You are viewing the Concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure.
                Sir, Science can't even explain a Thought.
                 It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.
                To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that
                 Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing.  
                Death is Not the Opposite of Life: just the Absence of it.
                 Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your Students that they evolved from a Monkey?
Professor:  If you are referring to the Natural Evolutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.
Student:     Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going)

Student:     Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and
                 cannot even prove that this Process is an On-Going Endeavor,
                 Are you not teaching your Opinion, sir?
                 Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?

(The Class was in Uproar)

Student:     Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor's Brain?

(The Class broke out into Laughter)

Student:     Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's Brain, Felt it, touched or smelt it? . . .
                No one appears to have done so.  
                So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol,
                 Science says that You have No Brain, sir.
                 With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures, sir?

(The Room was Silent. The Professor stared at the Student, his face unfathomable)

Professor:   I guess you'll have to take them on Faith, son.
Student:     That is it sir . . .  Exactly!
                The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH.
                 That is all that Keeps Things Alive and Moving.


NOTE:

I believe you have enjoyed the Conversation . . . and if so . . .
You'll probably want your Friends / Colleagues to enjoy the same . . . won't you?
Forward them to Increase their Knowledge . . . or FAITH.
That student was Albert Einstein.

I got this in an email...but it was very good and I thought I would share it.  I don't know if it was truly Einstein's conversation or not...but still...

Florida boy's suicide live on web Biggs killed himself after announcing his intentions in a blog

A teenager in the US state of Florida has committed suicide in front of a live internet audience.

Abraham Biggs, 19, from Pembroke Pines, near Miami, killed himself hours after announcing his intention to do so on his blog.

His family have condemned the website viewers and operators for failing to save him. Local police have launched an investigation.

Authorities say Abraham Biggs took an overdose of anti-depressive drugs.

He posted messages online telling people he was going to kill himself and then started streaming live pictures from his home.

Abraham Biggs's father and sister make their tributes

Reports say that some of viewers who logged in to watch began to encourage the teenager to commit suicide, others tried to dissuade him.

After several hours, when he had not moved some viewers finally notified the site's moderator, who then called the police.

The boy's sister said: "They got hits, they got viewers, nothing happened for hours."

It is unclear how many people watched the suicide unfold. Some reports suggest that some viewers thought it was a hoax.

The last transmission from the webcam is of a police officer bursting into Abraham Biggs's room, when he discovers his body and then he places his hand over the camera.

The footage has since been taken down and his father is now calling for more regulation of chatrooms.

 

 

---

Was enough done to prevent the death of Abraham Biggs? Should online communities be at all responsible for their members? What should be done to stop suicide online?

Four philosophical questions to make your brain hurt

Gauloise. Check. Expansive hand gestures. Check. Get that philosopher look
It's World Philosophy Day - an opportunity to contemplate one's very existence and whether computer monitors really exist, says David Bain.

 

People expect different things of philosophers. Some expect us to be sages. When these people meet me, my heart sinks, since I know theirs is about to. Others expect us to have a steady supply of aphorisms up our sleeves, such as that love is never having to say you're sorry (something no partner of mine has ever been persuaded of).

They too are disappointed when they meet me, especially when I say that the glass so beloved by optimists and pessimists is both half full and half empty.

Others expect of us not sagacity, but madness, or at least outlandish beliefs. And here, it must be said, some philosophers really have delivered. Thales believed that everything is made of water, for example, while Pythagoras avoided eating beans because he believed they have souls.

Students at the Sorbonne

As Princeton philosopher David Lewis once said: "When philosophers follow where argument leads, too often they are led to doctrines indistinguishable from sheer lunacy."

But beware. this is the same David Lewis who believed that, for each of the ways things might have been but are not, there is a world at which they are that way, eg a world at which your counterpart is spending today with the world's greatest sex god or goddess.

And, reassuring though it can be to think that at least that counterpart is having fun, even those impressed with Lewis's towering intellect have often found these other worlds of his hard to swallow.

Not all philosophers pin such striking colours to the mast, but there is a good reason why people associate the subject with surprising views. Philosophy involves standing back and thinking - intensely and rigorously - about aspects of our lives that are at once ordinary and fundamental.

And when the surface is scratched, what you find below is extraordinary - or, rather, extraordinarily difficult to make good, clear sense of. Lying in wait are arguments that lead to, if not sheer lunacy, then bullets we're loathe to bite.

So, with World Philosophy Day upon us, here are some pesky arguments to apply your minds to:

 

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)

If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.

But then why not kill Bill?

 

2. YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE

Consider a photo of someone you think is you eight years ago. What makes that person you? You might say he she was composed of the same cells as you now. But most of your cells are replaced every seven years. You might instead say you're an organism, a particular human being, and that organisms can survive cell replacement - this oak being the same tree as the sapling I planted last year.

But are you really an entire human being? If surgeons swapped George Bush's brain for yours, surely the Bush look-alike, recovering from the operation in the White House, would be you. Hence it is tempting to say that you are a human brain, not a human being.

But why the brain and not the spleen? Presumably because the brain supports your mental states, eg your hopes, fears, beliefs, values, and memories. But then it looks like it's actually those mental states that count, not the brain supporting them. So the view is that even if the surgeons didn't implant your brain in Bush's skull, but merely scanned it, wiped it, and then imprinted its states on to Bush's pre-wiped brain, the Bush look-alike recovering in the White House would again be you.

But the view faces a problem: what if surgeons imprinted your mental states on two pre-wiped brains: George Bush's and Gordon Brown's? Would you be in the White House or in Downing Street? There's nothing on which to base a sensible choice. Yet one person cannot be in two places at once.

In the end, then, no attempt to make sense of your continued existence over time works. You are not the person who started reading this article.

 

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?

What reason do you have to believe there's a computer screen in front of you? Presumably that you see it, or seem to. But our senses occasionally mislead us. A straight stick half-submerged in water sometimes look bent; two equally long lines sometimes look different lengths.

Are things always as they seem? The Muller-Lyer illusion indicates not

But this, you might reply, doesn't show that the senses cannot provide good reasons for beliefs about the world. By analogy, even an imperfect barometer can give you good reason to believe it's about to rain.

Before relying on the barometer, after all, you might independently check it by going outside to see whether it tends to rain when the barometer indicates that it will. You establish that the barometer is right 99% of the time. After that, surely, it's readings can be good reasons to believe it will rain.

Perhaps so, but the analogy fails. For you cannot independently check your senses. You cannot jump outside of the experiences they provide to check they're generally reliable. So your senses give you no reason at all to believe that there is a computer screen in front of you."

 

4. YOU DID NOT FREELY AND RESPONSIBLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE

Suppose that Fred existed shortly after the Big Bang. He had unlimited intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing the universe and all the properties of every particle that then existed. Thus equipped, billions of years ago, he could have worked out that, eventually, planet Earth would come to exist, that you would too, and that right now you would be reading this article.

After all, even back then he could have worked out all the facts about the location and state of every particle that now exists.

And once those facts are fixed, so is the fact that you are now reading this article. No one's denying you chose to read this. But your choice had causes (certain events in your brain, for example), which in turn had causes, and so on right back to the Big Bang. So your reading this was predictable by Fred long before you existed. Once you came along, it was already far too late for you to do anything about it.

Now, of course, Fred didn't really exist, so he didn't really predict your every move. But the point is: he could have. You might object that modern physics tells us that there is a certain amount of fundamental randomness in the universe, and that this would have upset Fred's predictions. But is this reassuring? Notice that, in ordinary life, it is precisely when people act unpredictably that we sometimes question whether they have acted freely and responsibly. So freewill begins to look incompatible both with causal determination and with randomness. None of us, then, ever do anything freely and responsibly."

 

IN CONCLUSION

Let me be clear: the point is absolutely not that you or I must bite these bullets. Some philosophers have a taste for bullets; but few would accept all the conclusions above and many would accept none. But the point, when you reject a conclusion, is to diagnose where the argument for it goes wrong.

Doing this in philosophy goes hand-in-hand with the constructive side of our subject, with providing sane, rigorous, and illuminating accounts of central aspects of our existence: freewill, morality, justice, beauty, consciousness, knowledge, truth, meaning, and so on.

Rarely does this allow us to put everything back where we found it. There are some surprises, some bullets that have to be bitten; sometimes it's a matter simply of deciding which. But even when our commonsense conceptions survive more or less intact, understanding is deepened. As TS Eliot once wrote:

"…the end of our exploring,

Will be to arrive where we started,

And know the place for the first time."

David Bain is a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Glasgow

The first question was the best one to me.  But, they all made me wonder about the possibilities.  Did any of you get a headache?

I'm sorry...I just can't take this anymore.  I am absolutely stunned by what I just saw in Vibe Magazine.

The most recent issue of this magazine arrived in my mailbox today.  I am absolutely ashamed to say that my wife subscribes to this trash.  On the cover of this magazine is a picture of a black man covered in tattoos, thick fake looking chains, nasty looking gold teeth (every visible tooth I must add), and a watch that said "goon" on it.  The person's name, and I use the term loosely, is Plies.

I'm sick and tired of black people glorifying this horrible looking lifestyle.  To many of our children idolize these public icons.  And yes...there is a such thing as free speech and such.  And sure, free speech does apply to how a person wishes to dress and express themselves.  And yes, we as parents should monitor what our children have access too...but how can you compete with this?  This is a publication that is nationwide.  They see this TRASH and want to look this way, act this way and talk the way these idiots talk.  And worse...they listen and hang on every word these terrible people say.

Terrible?  Yes...terrible.  Let me give you two direct quotes from the magazine, from this rapper's own mouth:  "I don't concern myself with anyone who's not coming to my funeral"
and "A true ni**ga, he ain't supposed to be a responsible father--the streets is all he's supposed to be focused on."

HOW DARE HE SAY THIS GARBAGE!  HOW DARE VIBE MAGAZINE PRINT THIS GARBAGE!

Our children are already faced with enough in life these days.  THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH PEOPLE OTHER THAN THOSE WHO ARE COMING TO THEIR FUNERALS!  It's this lack of concern that has them so lost and confused now.  If they had more concern about what society thought of them, many of them would not be in the penal system.  Many of them would not be covered in tattoos.  Many of them would be able to get jobs.  And so much more!  THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED!

And the second quote.  I'm almost speechless.  Not only does he refer to the general black populace as "ni**a(s)", but he says that they, "ain't supposed to be a responsible father(s)--the streets is all he's suposed to be focused on."

WHAT PLANET DID THIS FREAK GROW UP ON!  I can't believe he can face his own parents after being quoted as saying this!  And if he has kids...what does this say about his desire to raise them to be anything other than dead beat dads and hoods?

I can't believe that this public figure would say such a thing!  And worse is the thought that there are those who might agree with any of the trash he is preaching!

I won't lie...I can't stop this magazine from coming to my house because it is my wife who reads this trash.  She is an adult and her own person and I will not pretend to control her.  I expressed my distaste and that is all I can do.  But I will be writing a letter to Vibe magazine about this.  Will it get more than a smirk and a toss into the trash?  Who knows...but I have to speak up about this.

Black men are not like this.  Not all of us anyway.  We don't all feel that we should not care about the thoughts of society.  We are not all dead beat dads!  I could care less about the streets.  My only concern regarding the streets is whether or not there is traffic that will slow my drive to work and back home!

I'm often told that I am a, "sell out".  On one of my blogs, a black person actually said that, "You are a sorry excuse for a black man," and that they felt, "sorry for my children."  Well you know what...I'll accept that.  If being a responsible father means I'm a, "sell out," then you can buy me with a penny.  As for my kids...well, I will continue to raise them with the thought that they should want to be productive individuals in our great society.  I will continue to turn them away from the path of the idiots and negative examples of what VIBE magazine portrays as being the norm.

There was a very popular rap song that Black America rallied behind a little over a decade ago.  "Fight the Power."  And we should.  We should "Fight the Power" if ignorance.  "Fight the Power" of envy.  "Fight the Power" of laziness.  Indeed...we should, "Fight the power" of the darkness that so many black people have embraced as acceptable!

(Okay, Foe...exhale!)

The magazine I'm refering too is the December 2008 issue of Vibe magazine, just in case anyone wants to share in my anger.

Acid attack on Afghan schoolgirls It is not clear who carried out the attack

Attackers in Afghanistan have sprayed acid in the faces of at least 15 girls near a school in Kandahar, police say.

They say that the attack happened shortly before at least six people were killed in a bomb blast near a government building in the city.

Doctor say that the six girls were wearing Islamic burkas or veils which provided them with some protection.

Correspondents say the attack is likely to have been carried out by those opposed to the education of women.

The former Taleban government had banned girls from attending school.

'Not safe'

The AFP news agency quoted education ministry spokesman Hamed Elmi as saying that the attack took place outside the Mirwais Nika Girls High School.

"At about 8am local time, unknown people sprayed acid at girls with a toy gun," he said.

The girls said that the attack happened as they were on their way to school.

"Two men on motorbikes stopped next to us. One of them threw acid on my sister's face. I tried to help her and then they threw acid on me too," AFP quoted 16-year-old Atefa as saying.

"We were shouting and people came to see what was going on, then the two men escaped," she said.

It was not immediately clear who carried out the attack.

Atefa said she did not know why anyone would have attacked her and the others.

"I don't know why they did it," she said. "Kandahar is not safe. But we can't stay home, we want education. We need help from the government."

Nato-led forces in Afghanistan condemned the attack as cowardly.

I just find it amazing that in some places...this still goes on.  Women have contributed to our world just as much as any man.  To think otherwise is short-sighted, in my opinion.  And the concept of keeping a woman uneducated is just unbelieveable.  Come from a guy (me), I can say that these were cowards to have done such a thing to these young girls.

I do hope that this country's government steps in to put an end to this.

EU slices up 'ugly fruit' rules Fruit and vegetables have to comply with detailed EU rules

The European Commission has scrapped controversial rules that prevent oddly-sized or misshapen fruit and vegetables being sold in Europe.

The EU's agriculture commissioner called it "a new dawn for the curvy cucumber and the knobbly carrot".

Marketing standards for 26 types of produce were scrapped, in a drive to cut bureaucracy.

The rules were introduced to ensure common EU standards, but are regarded by critics as examples of Euro-madness.

Some 20% of produce is rejected by shops across the EU because it fails to meet the current requirements.

'Good news'

The Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mariann Fischer Boel, said Wednesday's vote by the EU's fruit and vegetable management committee was "a concrete example of our drive to cut unnecessary red tape".

Rules designed to enforce a uniform common market aren't exactly the EU's thing any more
BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell
Blog: Rule change bears fruit

"We simply don't need to regulate this sort of thing at EU level. It is far better to leave it to market operators," she said.

The 26 types are: apricots, artichokes, asparagus, aubergines, avocadoes, beans, Brussels sprouts, carrots, cauliflowers, cherries, courgettes, cucumbers, cultivated mushrooms, garlic, hazelnuts in shell, headed cabbage, leeks, melons, onions, peas, plums, ribbed celery, spinach, walnuts in shell, water melons and witloof/chicory.

The rules will remain unchanged for another 10 types of produce, which account for 75% of EU fruit and vegetable trade: apples, citrus fruit, kiwi fruit, lettuces, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, sweet peppers, table grapes and tomatoes.

However, the commission says shops will be allowed to sell these products provided they are labelled appropriately. So an apple which does not meet the standard could still be sold, as long as it were labelled "product intended for processing" or equivalent wording, the commission says.

HAVE YOUR SAY I appreciate the theory of this type of thing but surely there are greater issues for the organisation? Richard, Brimingham Send us your comments

 

The new rules are expected to come into force on 1 July 2009.

In an interview with the BBC's Newshour programme, the agriculture commissioner's spokesman Michael Mann said: "I have spent the last four years dealing with headlines about bendy cucumbers and oversized, undersized kiwi fruits and God knows what.

"So, yes it has been a cause of much criticism towards the European Union, and let's be frank, that is also a factor in why we are getting rid of it."

Neil Parish, a Conservative MEP and chairman of the European Parliament's agriculture committee, said: "Food is food, no matter what it looks like. These crazy rules have to go immediately.

"To stop stores selling perfectly decent food during a food crisis is morally unjustifiable. Consumers care about the taste and quality of food, not how it looks."

Over the years the commission's regulations on fruit and vegetables became more restrictive - until stories about straight bananas became part of European folklore, the BBC's Dominic Hughes in Brussels says.

He adds that it should be good news for hard-pressed consumers who will see cheaper - if slightly misshapen - vegetables appearing in the shops.

Okay, maybe it's just me, but I thought there was a food shortage around most of the world.  This being said, I don't think that a carrort with two stems instead of one should be scrapped!  I mean...I've had gardens in my backyard before.  I remember having cucumbers that were not the normal shape at times, but they tasted great on my salad nonetheless.  Why would a perfectly good veggie be tossed when the world is in a crises simply because it has a few lumps or an extra stalk?

Uruguay moves to allow abortion Moves to decriminalise abortion have provoked fierce debate in Uruguay

The Uruguayan Senate has voted to decriminalise abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy - a rare step in a Latin American country.

The measure, approved last week by the lower house, passed by 17 votes to 13.

The bill's backers say it will reduce the number of women dying because they have to resort to illegal abortions.

But President Tabare Vazquez, himself a doctor, has said he opposes abortion on medical and ethical grounds, and he is expected to veto the bill.

Under the current law, women who have an abortion and the people who assist them face prison.

Abortion is only allowed in the case of rape or when the life of the woman is in danger.

The new legislation would allow women to terminate their pregnancies in the first 12 weeks for these reasons but also under certain other circumstances, such as extreme poverty.

'Milestone'

However, the measure is unlikely to take effect as President Vazquez has said he will veto the bill.

It would need a three-fifths majority in Congress to override a presidential veto.

The Roman Catholic Church in Uruguay had warned lawmakers voting for the bill that they could face ex-communication.

But the bill's backers said the vote was a "milestone" for women's rights in Uruguay.

"Whether the president vetoes it or not, it's important that Congress has established this right," Margarita Percovich, a senator from the governing party, told Reuters.

Recent opinion polls suggest a majority of Uruguayans favour easing restrictions on abortion.

Most Latin American countries allow abortion only in cases of rape, when the woman's life is in danger or if the foetus is severely deformed.

But both Cuba and Mexico City (though not the rest of Mexico) allow abortions without restriction in the first 12 weeks.

I honestly didn't know that this was a world wide thing.  I guess I was naive enough to believe our country was the only one having the debate on this issue.  Shows you just how out of touch we can be at times!

Okay...I just wanted to chime in on something.

We are all wondering if Obama will be successful or not.  Well, I can't say for sure either way.  I will give you this though...it is my opinion that Obama will turn on the Democratic party.  Why you ask?  Because he will have to do so to be successful.  Let me explain:

Right now, the parties are divided.  Democrats won't budge an inch and Republican's won't move a muscle.  So how do you get all the kids in congress to play nice?  You give them all a bit of what they want to get them to start "kicking the ball" again.

Take health care.  Obama will give a boost to health care.  But only to the very old and the very young.  Why?  Because in doing so, he will be giving the democrats some of what they want.  But by not opening the free healthcare up for those people who should be out there making a living...and not opening it up for illegal immigrants...he will be appeasing the republicans as well.

Abortion?  Pretty much the same thing.  There will be pro-choice in action...but there will be limitations.  I would dare say it will be more difficult monetarily to obtain a legal abortion.  I would wager there would also be long, manditory counciling classes that would have to be attended.  This will land two fish with the same hook.  Republicans will see a drop in the abortion rate beause it would not be as easy as it is now to get an abortion.  Democrats will be happy because the choice will still be available to those women who wish to have an abortion.

What do yout think?