Friday, 13 November 2015

Attacks in Paris in multiple locations

French security moves people in the area of Rue Bichat

Comments from the author 

Thoughts go out to families and friends of the victims of this Friday 13th attacks on Paris. In the days to come we will no doubt seek answers as to why and how these events have come to pass.

International Response coming in

Now: Germans take to the streets chanting "Germany Stands With You France"
#Paris  #PrayForParis

This is breaking news.

Confimed 129 dead over 300 injured..  , 8 hostage takers dead.

  • At least six locations in Paris
  • Paris under state of emergency!
  • Borders of France now closed.


Live Feed


This post is being updated

Sunday, 31 May 2015

Free Speech or Not

Image result for what is free speech 2015

Free speech does not include the right to (falsely) yell “fire!” in a crowded theater

There seems to be increasing polarization between those who view freedom of speech as an absolute, unfettered necessity for free society, and those who argue that since speech can cause harm, and the job of government is to protect its citizens from harm, the government should be allowed to limit speech in some (perhaps restricted) way.
Philosophically, where do you fall on this issue?
Do you think speech is fundamentally different from other potentially harm-causing actions? Should the government ever be able to limit speech in pursuit of the greater good?

New Communication Technology

Services like Twitter and Facebook are severely blurring the line between privately-owned spaces (where they have complete control over what speech is permitted) and public forums (where they do not).
Do you think the law needs to “catch up” in how it handles these quasi-public forums?
Image result for free speech

Rules around free speech

In terms off free speech everyone works under whatever rules regarding free speech their countries have. By and large, particularly in Western countries, this means quite a lot of leeway in what one is legally able to express, but there are limits (generally) which are more strenuous than those in the United States, and obviously there are other countries where these limits are even more strenuous than that.

A quote from Readers Request week

Personally speaking, I tend to be, both philosophically and as a political actor, a believer in the value of a robust definition of “free speech” as it applies to governments and public institutions, not just in the United States but worldwide. This belief in a robust definition of free speech means that I acknowledge that hateful, hurtful, triggering and generally awful speech must be given a place by the government in the public sphere. Racists, sexists, homophobes and other assorted bigots cannot have their soapboxes in the square removed — not just for the defensive measure of “and then the government will come for me” but because, simply, I believe in the end you acknowledge a human right to express yourself, even if that other human is wrong, or you don’t. The limits I would place on speech are pretty high and of the “imminent harm” level — exhorting a mob to violence against someone and giving them directions to their house is an example I would give as speech that crosses that line. Short of that: It’s got to be allowed by the government.
Rights are what one can do; but it’s what one should do that is equally important.
Reader Request Week 2015 #1: Free Speech Or Not
The Authors View
We have heard in the news , new Bills proposed by the Conservative Party.
Image result for what is free speech 2015
We know about the tragic incidents in both Paris and recently in Texas.
Image result for what is free speech 2015
Should the Government intervene and police free speech?
If so, and under what Right?
 I would like to hear the views of my fellow bloggers and blog readers.

Sunday, 11 January 2015

The Charlie Hebdo debate


       Here is a clip from an article I have read on the Charlie Hebdo story

CANADALAND sided with bigotry, not freedom.


On yesterday’s SHORT CUTS Jesse Brown and Jen Gerson argue that, in the wake of Wednesday’s attack on the magazine’s office in Paris, news outlets ought to share Charlie Hebdo’s racist caricatures of Mohammed.
Alongside many publications at home and abroad, CANADALAND has reproduced a selection of Charlie Hebdo’s most racist cartoons.
Love and respect to Jesse, Jen and CANADALAND, but they’re full of shit.
Jesse’s justification for running the racist cartoons aligns with two common arguments we’ve heard over and over this week.
First, there’s the belief that reproducing the cartoons is vital to news consumers’ understanding of the Paris attack. Second, there’s the belief that running the racist cartoons shouldn’t be a question because it is a simple matter of freedom of speech.
Neither of these beliefs holds up.
Seeing Charlie Hebdo’s racist cartoons is not vital to understanding Wednesday’s attack.



#CharlieHebdo #Paris
Of course one will never support violence being used as a form of protest and everyone mourns the death of the twelve people who were killed on Wednesday.


I would like to get readers views on recent events happening in Paris?
What are your views on the Charlie Hebdo cartoons?

Thursday, 8 January 2015

Delaying Sex Makes Better Relationships

Delaying sex makes for a more satisfying and stable relationship later on, new research finds.
Couples who had sex the earliest — such as after the first date or within the first month of dating — had the worst relationship outcomes.
"What seems to happen is that if couples become sexual too early, this very rewarding area of the relationship overwhelms good decision-making and keeps couples in a relationship that might not be the best for them in the long-run," study researcher Dean Busby, of Brigham Young University's School of Family Life, told LiveScience.

The intricate nature of sex

Past research on sex and its link to relationship quality has revealed two different paradigms. In one, sex is considered essential to a developing relationship since it allows partners to assess their sexual compatibility. Following this line of thinking, couples who marry before testing out their sexual chemistry are at risk of marital distress and failure later on.
The opposing view posits couples who delay or abstain from sexual intimacy during the early part of their relationships allow communication and other social processes to become the foundation of their attraction to each other. Essentially, early sex could be detrimental to a relationship, skewing it away from communication, commitment and the ability to handle adversity, this thinking suggests.
And past studies have shown the sex-relationship link is a complex one. For instance, a 2004 study of nearly 300 college students in dating relationships showed that when couples were highly committed, sex was more likely to be seen as a positive turning point in the relationship, increasing understanding, commitment, trust and a sense of security. However, when commitment and emotional expressions were low, the initiation of sex was significantly more likely seen as a negative event, evoking regret, uncertainty, discomfort, and prompting apologies.

Can I get your Comments : do you agree or disagree?

#sex #delay