A few days ago, I read this hysterical article — Should You Send a Lady a Dick Pic? A Guide for Men — which includes gems like the following:

Scenario 1: You’re on OKCupid and you have been exchanging messages with an attractive woman who you strongly believe is interested in seeing your penis. She hasn’t exactly come right out and asked you about your penis, but you’re pretty sure she wants to see it. Like, 60% sure. Also, you’re drunk.

Should you send the lady a dick pic? No.

And:

Scenario 5: You’re so mad at your ex girlfriend and you want to remind her that there’s no possible way her new boyfriend’s penis could measure up to your penis, which is great. Also, you’re drunk. You’re so, so drunk.

Should you send this lady a dick pic? God, seriously? No.

I was thereby inspired to create a handy flowchart for any man considering sending a picture of his man-parts to a lady:

On a more serious note, I recommend this blog post by the always-fabulous Katie Granju: Carlos Danger: I’ve Touched That Hot Stove, And I Can’t Recommend It. Here are the first few paragraphs:

Like most Americans, I love a good comeback story. And those who know me personally will tell you that my Pollyanna-ish willingness to believe people when they swear up and down to me that they’ve changed, that they want to change, is pretty much unlimited. I am a sucker for a sincere sounding apology along with promises to forge ahead with fresh insights and honorable intent.

Yep, I’ve always been the girl who will touch that hot stove more than a few times just because someone – and let’s be honest here and admit that in my life, I’ve most often been taken in by those someones of the he persuasion – seems sincere when he tells me that he’s changed, and when he swears on all that’s holy to me that it’s gonna be different this time.

The scars on my hands from all those burns in years past are good reminders to me of how poorly that strategy always seems to work out. But they also require me to own up to the fact that I definitely have a personal history of allowing the Carlos Dangers of the world to yank my chain again and again and again, with generally disastrous consequences.

In recent years, however, I’ve toughened up a bit, and I believe that I have become better able to spot trouble as it heads toward my table to ask whether it/he can buy me a drink.

Go read the rest!

I’ve been thinking along these same lines lately — particularly about the “red flags” seen in friends that should motivate me to add some distance — if not cut ties completely. In the past, I’ve not been tuned in to those red flags — or I’ve dismissed them as personality differences or aberrations — or I’ve bought into the person’s commitment to change. As a result, I’ve been burned, often quite badly. I will maintain my benevolence, but I won’t be such a sucker in future. As a matter of justice, I will notice those red flags, then keep my distance from people unwilling to meet the basic standards for “sane” and “decent.”

As it happens, I’ll be discussing this very issue on Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio… so be sure to tune in!

Jul 312013
 

As today is the last day of July, I wanted to remind you that you can support my work via Philosophy in Action’s Tip jar. I love the messages that I get with contributions, so I thought I’d share a few with you. First:

Last month I decided to start contributing $10 a month via Dwolla to your show. I’m about to be “poor” as you’ll see below, but I felt you deserved at least that much for the value I have, and will continue to receive in the future.

This last week I noticed I spend at least $5 a week on food that is less than good for me, and I heard you mention the idea of contributing $5 a week rather than a lump sum once a month. Sounded like a good idea, so now I am eating healthier and contributing your suggested amount. You definitely deserve it. I hope one day to be able to bribe you with even more and get some super-meaty questions answered.

I love that win-win… and as I told this person, that amount is certainly enough to bribe me to answer his preferred questions. (I have so many questions pending in the queue now that bribery via the tip jar — or supporting my work by sharing it on social media — is pretty much the only way to ensure that your question will be answered anytime soon!)

Second:

I’ve written you before and mentioned that I really like your show, but that doesn’t quite tell the whole story. The simple truth is that your show helps me be a better thinker. I’ve always been proud of my ability to use my head as more than just a mobile hat stand, so the fact that your show helps me improve that capability means a lot to me. A lot of the time, I will find myself agreeing with the things you say and the reasons you say them. But there are a lot of times where I sit back and say, “huh, I had no idea this issue was that complex. I’ll have to remember to consider X, Y, and Z when I think about these kinds of things.” And there are also quite a few times where I will realize that I was confused about some issues, and that hearing a different perspective let’s me take the step back I need to consider things from other angles and reach clarity.

And then there’s your podcast from this past December (I think) where you talked about the good in American culture. [DH: Yes, that's here.] I’ve listened to that podcast at least three times, and I think I’m due for another listen. I can’t begin to tell you how much I needed to hear that and didn’t realize it. It’s sooo easy to get yourself in a funk when you focus on everything that’s going wrong these days. Listening to that podcast was a total eye opener. It was like someone walked up to me, smacked me on the arm, and said, “Hey! Haven’t you noticed? The world is a pretty awesome place!” And then I looked around and saw that it was true. So far, that one is my favorite podcast. Maybe that’s the “secret weapon” to advocacy: the life’s-pretty-good-but-applying-rational-principles-makes-it-better approach. Or something like that. I’m still thinking on that one. And I’m so glad I setup a recurring monthly contribution. In fact, I think you deserve a raise; I’ll have to do something about that.

That comment makes me feel… well… darn visible! I don’t aim to just give “The Right Answer” in my broadcasts. That’s not helpful to listeners: it teaches dogmatism and rationalism, and the world already has enough of that, including from Objectivists! That would be downright boring for me too. Instead, what’s interesting to me and helpful to my listeners is for me to untangle the complexity required to judge rightly and choose wisely in various facets of life. By doing that again and again — in a supportive and positive way — my listeners will be better able to do that for themselves.

Third, here’s an example of just that:

Hey, Diana! I was wandering through your archives today and came across the question about prayers for atheists from March 2012. [DH: That's here.] This is a sticky subject that I have pondered over how best to handle for a long time, and I really appreciate the advice you gave. I have often wanted to respond with more honesty and integrity to theists after offers of prayer, but have been advised by many friends to just “let it go” and thank them. I now see why this is not beneficial for either party, and will feel free from now on to present my authentic feelings on the situation. So thankful you took the time to answer that question, and left a little love in your Tip Jar for it. Keep up the good work!

If you enjoy my blogging and radio shows but you’ve not yet contributed (or you’ve not contributed lately), please consider throwing some love in the tip jar. That really makes a dig difference to me, financially and spiritually.

You’ll find the buttons to contribute below. You can contribute via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail. (I recommend that you use Dwolla: it’s a payment system with lower fees, stronger security, and better interface design than PayPal. A Dwolla account is free and easy to create.)

However… I know that some of you aren’t financially able to contribute, even though you enjoy and appreciate my work. In that case, please know that I notice and cheer whenever you share the announcements of upcoming shows, as well link to podcasts of past shows and blog posts, on Facebook and Twitter. That helps grow my audience, and I appreciate that show of support too.

Contribute Via PayPal

Using PayPal, you can make a one-time contribution or create a monthly contribution:

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link.

Contribute Via Dwolla

Using Dwolla, you can make a one-time contribution or create a recurring contribution in any amount.

You can adjust the amount and frequency of your contribution on the next page — or you can use this link. You can cancel a monthly contribution at any time using your list of Recurring Payments.

Contribute Via U.S. Mail

To contribute via check or money order, please mail it to:

Diana Hsieh
P.O. Box 851
Sedalia, CO 80135

Please write “P/A Radio” in the memo field.

Again, my hearty thanks to everyone who has contributed to Philosophy in Action in July… and before! You make my work possible, and I appreciate that more than I can properly express!

Horse, Agent of Justice

 Posted by on 30 July 2013 at 2:00 pm  Animals, Funny, Horses, Justice
Jul 302013
 

Normally, I don’t enjoy videos of people being hurt, but I’ll make an exception for this jackass who tried to play a mean joke on an already-agitated horse… from behind.

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on social contract theory, romanticizing historical figures in art, mental illness as an excuse for wrongdoing, fervent hatred for President Obama, and more. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:


Whole Podcast: 28 July 2013

Listen or Download:

Remember the Tip Jar!

The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life… far and wide. That’s why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.


Podcast Segments: 28 July 2013

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction

My News of the Week: Kelly Elmore, Aaron, and Livy are here! I got Philosophy in Action’s channel set up on Libsyn, the new podcast host. Also, the updated RSS feeds are now in play!

Question 1: Social Contract Theory

Question: Is a “social contract” the proper basis for government? The idea of a “social contract” is often used to justify all kinds of government interventions for the so-called “greater good.” What does it mean to say that society is founded on a social contract? What are the practical implications of that approach to politics? Was John Locke a proponent of this view?

My Answer, In Brief: Social contract theory is an attempt to justify basic political principles and government based on (usually) a tacit or hypothetical agreement between all members of the society. It’s thoroughly subjective, so it’s simply a recipe for violations of rights.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Romanticizing Historical Figures in Art

Question: Are there moral limits to romanticizing historical figures in art? For example, a writer might romanticize Robin Hood as the Ragnar Danneskjöld of the Middle Ages. If this is proper, is there an ethical limit as to what kinds of persons one may or may not romanticize, or as to how far one may stretch the historic truth? For example, does it matter if there are still contemporaries of that historic person alive who suffered unjustly because of him? Would it be wrong to ignore some unpleasant facts in order to present a fictionalized heroic character?

My Answer, In Brief: The basic facts and moral nature of any historical figure should be respected, although rough edges might be smoothed away to create a more consistent character in literature. Inventions should not be represented as historical fact.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Mental Illness as an Excuse for Wrongdoing

Question: Does mental illness excuse wrong behavior? Recently, a friend of mine apologized for making hurtful and unfair comments to me. (It’s not the first time she’s done that.) She said that she’s been struggling with depression, and she’s now on anti-depressants and in therapy. I’m not sure how to take that. I feel for her, yet I also feel like I’m being manipulated into overlooking her bad behavior because she’s “sick.” How should struggles with mental illness figure into explanations and apologies for wrong behavior – if at all?

My Answer, In Brief: A person can struggle with mental dysfunctions in an honest and honorable way, without inflicting harm on others. That’s to be commended, but keep your distance from people who use such as a crutch and an excuse.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 4: Fervent Hatred for President Obama

Question: How should I respond to friends who fanatically hate President Obama? As a free-market advocate, I’m distressed about President Obama’s policies. However, I’m increasingly worried about some of my friends in the free-market movement exhibiting an alarming level of hatred for President Obama. I have seen my friends latch on to every “juicy”-sounding accusation against the President, which they spread all over Facebook, such as spurious claims that the administration violently threatened Bob Woodward, or that the President conspires to grant himself a third term. I think a reasonable discourse on Obama’s faults is necessary, but the conspiracy theories and outright hatred cloud people’s judgments. I want to ask my pro-free-market, Obama-hating friends that they not bring up their dubious accusations in conversation, but I don’t know how to do that without offending them. Is there a solution to this dilemma?

My Answer, In Brief: Many people hate Obama in a very non-objective way, and that is discreditable to the cause of liberty and it can be socially awkward. The key is to ask such people to respect your boundaries – and add distance between yourself and them if they refuse.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • Many commonly used positive adjectives (e.g. fabulous, fantastic, miraculous) have mystical undertones; should rational people avoid using such words?
  • Is there something wrong with the Turing Test? What made me think of it is knowing several people who I think wouldn’t be able to pass it.
  • You’ve stated before that you’re a GTD fan. What does your GTD implementation look like? How do you execute GTD?
  • Has Aristotle been marginalized? When I was in high school the only things I came across about him were the silly parts of his cosmology.

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 59:04
  • Duration: 6:44
  • Download: MP3 Segment

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!

  • Start Time: 1:05:48


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar


Activism Recap

 Posted by on 28 July 2013 at 10:00 pm  Activism Recap
Jul 282013
 

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine):

Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter.


This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard:

Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter.


This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo:

Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter.

Jul 272013
 

Last Saturday, Lila and I headed up to Triple Creek Ranch in Longmont for a schooling dressage show. (Dressage is a style of English riding, where horse and rider are doing precision movements on the flat, i.e. not over fences. A “schooling” show is for practice, not accumulating points or whatnot. It’s less formal in its demands about attire, which was much appreciated on that very hot day.)

We entered three classes for each of the three “training level” tests. None of the movements were beyond our capacity to do well. However, I’d only learned and practiced the three tests the day before, because that’s when I decided to enter the show. Really, I would have liked a few days to prepare. But… c’est la vie! I knew that the show would be great practice for our first three-phase event on August 11th. (The dressage test for that is easier than any of these three tests.)

So I set off on Saturday morning, feeling rather nervous and excited. It was the longest trailer ride ever for us at 1 hour and 40 minutes each way. Lila grumbled at me a bit upon arrival about that, but she quickly settled down to her usual relaxed state.

For each test, I’d spend some time memorizing the test, then I’d warm up Lila, then I’d memorize the test again, and then I’d ride the test. (Riders are given times for each test.) I found a very nice trainer to read my tests for me — thankfully, because I didn’t know them perfectly, so I was in danger of forgetting an element or otherwise doing wrong. (That’s only possible in a schooling show.)

I enjoy the precision demands of dressage: you see very clearly where the holes are in your training when you do a dressage test. Moreover, I like the method of judging and scoring, which is far more objective than, say, a hunter class on the flat. Each of the movements (13 to 16, in these tests) is scored from 0 to 10, plus six “collective marks” are given for overall qualities of horse and rider. Brief remarks are written with each score, plus you talk to the judge for a few minutes after each test about strengths and weaknesses.

Given where I’m at in my training and the difficulty of these tests, I should get 6s at minimum, 7s are darn good, and an 8 is amazing. Happily, that’s about what I did. My total scores were as follows. (Due to differences in the number of movements, tests add up to different numbers, so it’s the percentage that allows cross-comparison of tests.)

  • Test 1: 157 of 240: 65.4%
  • Test 2: 180 of 280: 64.2%
  • Test 3: 165 of 250: 66.0%

Lila and I could have done better in the second test, but we did pretty much as well as possible on the first and the third tests. We have lots of work to do, but now I have a much better sense of where we need work. Oh, and I’m particularly pleased that Lila stepped up her game whenever we entered the arena for our test: she was confident, forward, and willing. That’s my girl!

The result of those scores was two first place ribbons, plus a second place. The competition wasn’t fierce: I saw some barely adequate rides, plus one major meltdown from a lady who was, in fact, months or even years from being ready to compete. Still, I saw some good rides, including from the lovely young woman who beat me in the third test.

It’s been an amazing year for Lila and me.

I began training with Martha Deeds of Middle Ground Farm last August. Lila and I aren’t naturally gifted, so every small advance has come at the price of hours of mentally and physically demanding work. As a result, I’ve learned more than I thought possible over the past year, and I’m now riding at a level far, far above my best from years and decades past. That’s so exciting — and even better: I know that we’re nowhere near the top of our game.

I can’t wait to see what the future holds… particularly at our first three-phase event on August 11th! Yikes!

Link-O-Rama

 Posted by on 26 July 2013 at 1:00 pm  Link-O-Rama
Jul 262013
 

Best Crime Story of the Decade

 Posted by on 25 July 2013 at 2:00 pm  Crime, Funny, Love/Sex, Self-Defense
Jul 252013
 

This story just keeps getting better as you read: Man acquitted in romantic bear-spray squabble:

A San Francisco man was acquitted Thursday of breaking into his ex-fiancee’s house and assaulting her new lover before getting sprayed with bear mace by a shirtless neighbor. Jurors deliberated for just three hours before finding Christoper Hall, 31, innocent of the two felonies.

The “chaotic and confusing” night began on March 25 when Hall broke off his plans to marry his 34-year-old fiancee, said Deputy Public Defender Phoenix Streets. The two had met in a hacky-sack circle in early February and announced plans to marry just two weeks later, Streets said. But the relationship quickly turned tumultuous, Streets said, and the pair broke up on March 25.

Hall took his few possessions and moved out of his fiancee’s home and into a tree at Mclaren Park. But as Hall climbed the tree and attempted to sleep that first night, he became cold and returned home, Streets said. Hall’s former lover was not there, so Hall “curled up under a tarp under the woman’s backyard bushes,” Streets said.

Around 10 p.m., the woman, who had been at the movies with a “new male friend,” returned home. The man “happened to be a former U.S. Marine with extensive combat training,” Streets said. As the woman and her new friend talked in the kitchen, they heard noises outside and decided to investigate. The woman armed herself with a knife while the friend grabbed a frying pan, Streets said.

As the pair approached Hall, he looked up and began yelling and running after them, Streets said. “As the woman closed and locked the door in Hall’s face, his hand went through the window pane,” Streets said. Hall opened the door and grabbed the Marine, demanding to know who he was. The pair fell backward and scuffled for 90-seconds, Streets said. The Marine eventually put Hall in a headlock and encouraged him “to take deep breaths and relax,” Streets said.

During the fight, the woman fled and told a neighbor that Hall was going to kill the Marine, Streets said. The neighbor “ran out of his house shirtless and armed with an aerosol can of bear repellant,” Streets said. The group hauled Hall outside, and he kicked the door, prompting the neighbor to open the door and spray Hall in the face with bear mace, Streets said. Hall then picked up a rock and hurled it at the door before fleeing the scene, Streets said. He was arrested several hours later.

Streets said that jurors did not convict Hall because they did not find Hall’s ex-fiancee to be a credible witness. The Marine also suffered no apparent injuries, Streets said. “There was no doubt Mr. Hall had a terrible night, but this case was grossly overcharged,” Streets said. “You cannot commit a burglary if you have the right to be in a building. Mr. Hall had paid rent, made improvements to the house and still had some of his belongings inside.”

Hall was facing seven years in state prison for the felonies. He was found guilty of misdemeanor vandalism.

My favorite bit — and admittedly, it’s a hard choice — is when the guy moves out of his house and into a tree. Oh hippies, I love you so much.

 

On Wednesday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed hedge fund trader Jonathan Hoenig about “The Workings of Financial Markets.” The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:


Podcast: 24 July 2013

Financial markets are often vilified – and misunderstood. How do financial markets work? What impact do they have on the economy? Are they dangerous – or beneficial? What is the government’s current versus proper role in financial markets?

Jonathan Hoenig is portfolio manager at Capitalistpig Hedge Fund LLC. He appears regularly on Fox News.

Listen or Download:

Topics:

  • The nature and workings of financial markets
  • About hedge funds
  • The workings of trading
  • The purpose of the markets
  • The rationality of traders
  • The basis of prices
  • Traders as “speculators” and “greedy”
  • The risk of markets
  • Innovation in financial markets
  • The hours of markets
  • Labor theory of value and zero-sum trades
  • Government regulations on financial markets
  • The ban on advertising hedge funds
  • The negative effects of regulations
  • The ban on onion futures
  • The financial crisis
  • The proper role of the governments in financial markets
  • Government regulations on price
  • Limits on hedge fund investors
  • Bitcoin
  • “Greed Is Good: The Capitalist Pig Guide to Investing” and Ayn Rand

Links:

Remember the Tip Jar!

The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life… far and wide. That’s why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar


Walking Dead, Season 4: Preview

 Posted by on 24 July 2013 at 2:00 pm  Television
Jul 242013
 

Paul and I love The Walking Dead, and this preview suggests that Season 4 will be downright phenomenal.

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha