I had a difficult time explaining to my Mom why we were going to see The Vagina Monologues. She hadn't heard of it, and she didn't seem to grasp the concept. Before I read or saw any of it, I thought it was at least a good concept: interview hundreds of women about what is clearly a taboo subject, then turn that material into a series of performance pieces. It had one flaw I thought it would: the more distressing stories verged on (okay, into) being emotionally manipulative. Then again, I know I'm biased toward funny things happening in theatrical productions, so this could be a prejudice.
That capped an active day that included the purchase of a tin of Velamints. I haven't had a Velamint since I was maybe 15, and they're new to Lauren. But how lucky we are to have them! Why, just read:
And finally, it dawned on me this morning, reading an excerpt from an anti-gun-control pamphlet reprinted in Harper's, just how inane these arguments are. It's commonly pointed out by gun control detractors (and is featured in the exerpt) that disarmament has historically preceded genocidal atrocities. I don't know about the historical truth or falsity of this claim, but I can tell how much argumentative merit it has: zero. It commits the fallacy whose Latin nickname is post hoc ergo propter hoc: "after this, therefore because of this." The mere fact that something preceded another event doesn't mean it was even a proximate or contributing cause. (This was a pamphlet published by a Jewish organization, which makes this special pleading all the more disgusting.) Then it occurred to me that gun control proponents make a similar fallacy when they point out that gun violence is frequently within households that own guns, and overwhelmingly most common between people who know each other. While this is supposed to make a case against the old saw that we need to own guns to protect ourselves from random violence from strangers, it is also used to imply that owning a gun is causally related to domestic violence, or violence among acquaintances. Again, that's post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Seek the cause underlying, folks. I suppose in the end it's true, but not very useful or relevant, that "guns don't kill people; people kill people." Doesn't that imply that people intending to do harm to others will find some means? Is violence something we can't understand? I think the gun control arguments on both sides fatalistically suggest it is.
That capped an active day that included the purchase of a tin of Velamints. I haven't had a Velamint since I was maybe 15, and they're new to Lauren. But how lucky we are to have them! Why, just read:
Yeesh! I mean, yeah, these are in fact tasty little mints. But I don't know about the soft-core pornographic description. I had thought that, generally speaking, one uses mints to freshen breath. Perhaps I've been missing out all this time.Embrace the taste of life
Pamper your mouth with the smooth, indulgent flavor of vanilla mixed with subtle mint. Take a moment to enjoy the relaxing times of life as you place a vanilla mint into your mouth. Its unique square shape fits perfectly in your mouth. Relaxing flavor gently melts leaving behind a light feast of vanilla and mint. Say hello to Velamints Vanilla Mints. Experience a world of smoothness in a little vanilla mint.
And finally, it dawned on me this morning, reading an excerpt from an anti-gun-control pamphlet reprinted in Harper's, just how inane these arguments are. It's commonly pointed out by gun control detractors (and is featured in the exerpt) that disarmament has historically preceded genocidal atrocities. I don't know about the historical truth or falsity of this claim, but I can tell how much argumentative merit it has: zero. It commits the fallacy whose Latin nickname is post hoc ergo propter hoc: "after this, therefore because of this." The mere fact that something preceded another event doesn't mean it was even a proximate or contributing cause. (This was a pamphlet published by a Jewish organization, which makes this special pleading all the more disgusting.) Then it occurred to me that gun control proponents make a similar fallacy when they point out that gun violence is frequently within households that own guns, and overwhelmingly most common between people who know each other. While this is supposed to make a case against the old saw that we need to own guns to protect ourselves from random violence from strangers, it is also used to imply that owning a gun is causally related to domestic violence, or violence among acquaintances. Again, that's post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Seek the cause underlying, folks. I suppose in the end it's true, but not very useful or relevant, that "guns don't kill people; people kill people." Doesn't that imply that people intending to do harm to others will find some means? Is violence something we can't understand? I think the gun control arguments on both sides fatalistically suggest it is.
1 comment:
If you had ever had a chocolate mint Velamint, you would understand why they have err to the side of porn when describing the paroxysms of bliss that come over you when consuming one of those little devils!
Post a Comment