Penny for Your Philosophical Thoughts?
Welcome to the CSUN Student Philosophy Society Blog. This the site devoted to those of us who will sink so low as to blog for philosophy. If you are one of those people , do us a favor and sign up to be a contributor. We would love to hear anything you have to say, even if it is via the internet. Oh, and if you have shame, you can feel free to just leave comments. We know you have a reputation to live up to.

Remember, we did it all for the philosophy.

Much Love,
The Student Philosophy Society.
Cal State University, Northridge.

Note: If you do not have an internet connection, submissions are also accepted through the thinking power of thought. Be aware, these submissions will only be viewable through the thinking power of thought.

Request An Invite:

The SPS blogspot is a space we like to keep casual and supportive. Do us a favor, and remember what your mother told you:
If you don't have something nice to say, there is an entire internet out there waiting for you to make an ass out of yourself. Go there.
Also, make that face long enough, it'll stay that way.

The SPS official Web Site.
They disavow any affiliation.

Cal State Northridge Philosophy Home Page.
They deny our existence.

Sign In

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Reading group

I think an interesting topic for the next reading group (after the argument from design group) would be something having to do with marxism, and maybe it's life in the present day world. I have a friend who really knows a lot about marxism, and is willing to come and talk to us about it, if we so desire.

Monday, March 28, 2005

APA Meeting Recap--what did YOU leave in San Francisco? Hopefully not your heart?!

Hi all,

I managed to be a part of the group of students who traveled up north to the APA meeting in San Francisco this past weekend. I just realized that it would have been "nice" if all those involved with the SPS and/or Phil in general at CSUN could have planned a meeting place/time, but oh well huh?

I had a grand time--got to see/hear a lot of folks I admire and/or wanted to meet. But I'm afraid I left my good health in San Francisco! :( Came down with a nasty cold and touch of bronchitis--but it didn't dampen my spirits at least. Saturday was a bomb for me--I returned to my hotel room about 11 am, along with all the books I'd accumulated and then hibernated until we left about 7:30 am Sunday morning.

Andrew was in our crew--along with three other folks that I think would make DANDY SPS members! Perhaps we could send invites to them? :)

So, who learned what? Who saw whom? Whom did you meet? I saw Chris V. sauntering through the lobby on Saturday--I was too sick by then to call out a hello. I practically fell into Jessica, her boyfriend Danny, and Tim when I was coming through those horrible revolving doors at the Westin and some dummy behind me shoved the door in order that he could get in--thus practically throwing me out of the doorway and into Jessica, Danny, and Tim's little group meeting! I didn't any of those folks again during the meeting. I ran into Weimin Sun a few times, caught a glimpse of Doug Portmore, Dave Shoemaker (the traitor), and Takashi a couple of times. Only managed to speak with Weimin.

Leemon McHenry was our professor at the wheel for the drive up and back; and he was great with conversation and filling us in on some philosophical issues and schools and such. It was rather enlightening (though I was kinda "dead" on the drive back).

Perhaps I'll write more if/when I get better. I need to crash tonight but thought I would drop a note and see who else may have attended the meeting.


Mel Mel
Melanie Teller

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Intelligent Design Flyer

Ok, here is ONE of the TWO flyers I am making:

Hot Pam. Get her while she's hot!!! (<--- Link)

Is it too much to make a (not to subtle) joke about wanking?

I think so.

Does that stop me?

I think not.

Monday, March 21, 2005

No Longer Using Phil Society List?

Hi all,

Well, I'm still trying to add a picture to my name, but so far no go. So I'm editing this 'mistake' and putting a message here.

I wanted to inquire as to whether the SPS has chosen not to utilize the Phil Society List that was built up over the past four years? I'm finding people write to me asking what's going on with events, etc. as I myself have not been sending any emails out either.

Just curious. This is the csunsps-g list that was made up some time ago and has around 60 people on it I believe it is at last count. If it's not being used, I'd question why not--as many people who might otherwise be interested in the Society are not getting information (and they don't check the website often either--which still isn't being updated on a timely manner--mostly due, I'm sure, to CSUN's computer server issues--which is ANOTHER reason that the website should/could be linked to an outside source so that it CAN be updated regularly.

Thanks all!

See whomever at the APA meeting!

Mel Mel

Saturday, March 19, 2005

Signed, Your Trepidatious Representative

Just wanted to banter a few ideas about with everyone, offer them for your perusal. I've been a features writer for a (arch-conservative) local newspaper for a few months now, and I've been asked to write a column on "the relevance of classical studies like philosophy on 'today's world'." If I had a nickel... Anyway, I'm considering a rather inflammatory approach, and wondered if any of you might have any recommendations- I've never been asked to be a formal representative of my esteemed colleagues, teachers and their Gordian body of thought and history in general, after all. I'm thinking of a "if you studied philosophy, you'd know..." format including the abortion debate not being about life, but either personhood or individual freedom; creationism and evolution being compatible, and neither being logically able to give an account of First Cause; religious problems with the existence of evil; inadequate ethical systems- read relativist- leading to colonialism, as the cause of modern political conflicts; and issues of existential freedom and absurdity in recent films; among others. Anything I have a representative responsibility to mention? :)

Thursday, March 17, 2005

SPS Meeting 3/16/05 RECAP

First off, Thanks to EVERYONE who was there. I know Chris missed class to join us, so thanks Chris. And I am happy to welcome Steve to the SPS. Which is not to discount Josh and John and Nick and Tim and Tammy and Joe and Dana and Bernie and Drew. I appreciate all of you guys (and gal) too. : )

Ok, here is what needs to be done, and who is signed up to do it (mostly):


Dana is the MAN of the hour. He is going to book the Sierra Center Room (?) On the second floor of “The Marketplace.” (that glass room we have had some phil presentations in before...) Double check we will have mikes and chairs.

Dana if this costs money still book the room. Then me to get Josh’s number. Josh, see if A.S. will pay. If not, see if the department will pay.

DEADLINE: Friday, March 18th.

Nick is the MAN of the next hour. He is going to seal the deal for the Grad School presentation in the Philosophy Seminar Room. That room is SH224, fyi.
DEADLINE: Monday April 11th

Joe, you didn’t volunteer, but I am appointing you for a very important job. Contact whoever needs to be contacted and find out what it would take to get a both like those crazy La Rouche people get (right outside Sierra Tower, at the north west end of “the quad”). If you still don’t know where it is, have Nick point it out to you. Anyway, your idea about promoting the debate was good. We will get you flyers and a partner or two and you all can pass out flyers for an hour or so.
DEADLINE: Monday March 28. (You can call me if you have questions, Joe. (818.606.3235)


Jes needs to chat with Amanda Porter and see if we can 1.) Advertise the blog in the paper 2.) Promote the debate in the paper with a large add. Also, how much will it be?
DEADLINE: Thursday, March 17th.

Josh needs to get announcements into the paper promoting the debate (aside from any sort of advertisement we may put in the paper)
DEADLINE: Monday, March 28th.

Jes will create the flyer for the debate (unless anyone else wants to either make their own, or help me.
DEADLINE Friday Night, March25th.

Jes,& Tim will run off some flyers. Anyone who has a printer and a ream of paper can also help in this department!!!
DEADLINE: Tuesday March 29th (to give to everyone handing out flyers)

FLYER HAND OUTS for the DEBATE (by department)

Jes: Phil
Bernie Sociology
Josh D. English
Drew History
JohnReligious Studies
General Campus flyer Posting Nick and Mike



Should we go to kinkos and simply enlarge the flyer? Who will pay? Department?

Tim, can you see if the department will pay for that sort of thing? Will the department help us out at all with the debate?
DEADLINE: uhh Soon?
DEADLINE (for the poster): Tuesday, April 5th.

* * *


The Reading group will be on Saturday, April 2nd @ 2:00 pm. We will discuss the arguments surrounding the debate, which for anyone who doesn’t remember (or wasn’t at the meeting) is

“The Argument from Intelligent Design”

The Pro Side: Joe, Drew, John (for the argument for Intelligent Design)
The Con: Jes, Nick, Dana, Steve (against the argument for Intelligent Design)

Make sure you come to the meeting with some sort of argument or information on an article that you think would make the debate more interesting and involving. We will discuss them in depth.

The meeting will be at my apartment: 19143 Victory Blvd #230. Reseda, CA 91335.
Write me and I will give you directions. OR you can see a map here <— link.

Ok, that is it for now.

You all rock-zors my sock-zors!


Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Intelligent Design

First, I'd like to thank Jes for a wonderful SPS meeting and for providing us with pizza and cookies. Thanks, Jes!

For those of you who'd like to get started with some reading on Arguments from Intelligent Design, here's an article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Sign up for the Phil Conference DEADLINE

Attention EVERYONE.

If you are interested in going to the Pacific APA meeting we have been talking about in the meetings, the deadline to sign up is TOMORROW NIGHT!!!

Please write an email to if you want to go.

Let him know your name, your major, your class level, and a blurb on why you are interested. If I were you guys, I would really try and sell my interest to Professor Trianosky. No guarantee you can go, but it’s worth a shot.

Also, I will be going independently from the department.

I think this trip could be a TON of fun. Try and get on the list!

Later Skaters,

818.606.3235 is my number, if you have questions.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

Jes SunDial Article #3

Hey all! Do me a favor if you get the chance. Read over my article for the sundial. Look for spelling, grammer, and most of all LOGICAL problems (not so much disagreement, though it is welcome). Ok, this is not a final draft, just a test run. The article is due Tuesday morning.

My love,


REVISED: Thanks Tim! (and thanks to my Dad too!)

The Misplaced Blame of Secularist Influence

Commentator Bill O’Reilly, from Fox Television’s “The O’Reilly Factor” reported in March of 2004 that over 78% of Americans believed that moral values were on the decline, and described the moral compass of America as “fair to downright poor”. O’Reilly’s main target for the decline of morality was secularist influence on American culture.

I believe the blame on secularist influence is misplaced.

I am not a stranger to the claim that the major pitfalls of American morality are due to secularist influence on society. Furthermore, as secularist influences come from people who hold a secularist set of values and beliefs, I take this claim to mean that those of us who are secularist are responsible for this downfall. In other words, “hide your children, the Atheists are coming”.

I find this idea strange and confusing, for two reasons.

First and foremost, while I often hear people complain of the downfall of American society and morality, I have found in my own experience that this downfall has been greatly embellished. Though it cannot be denied that there are some problems in America today, certainly it cannot be contested that America has made great strides in promoting a more fair and equitable society within the last few decades. This is progress I would think both spiritualists and secularists could agree on as being morally valuable.

I appreciate the appeal to the “good old days” of the 1940s and 1950s. Life seemed stable and enriching back then. However, America in the 1940s and 1950s promoted ideas that were sexist and racist. Women were chained to the lives their husbands let them have, and were socialized to appreciate dehumanization and oppression. Women were shunned for wanting to live lives away from children and independent from men. People of races other than white were systematically abused and unprotected by the states in which they lived. Today, women and people of all races are well on the path to equal rights and opportunities. Though Americans are not yet completely equal, among the legislatures, inequality and discrimination are actively eliminated. I for one have no desire to return to these “good old days.”

I do not deny there is some departure from traditional Christian values evident in media and entertainment. There may be an increase in accessibility to fantasy violence, explicit sexuality, and offensive language in America as of late. The spiritualists often cite this increased accessibility as the catalyst of immoral behavior in society. However, any sort of loss of morality in America, and any sort of increase in violence, may be due to other factors besides the television and videogame industry. I believe when we look at an aggregate gain in morality we will find that a system of values allowing all people a chance to enjoy a life once reserved for white men seems a small price to pay for more exposure to sex, swearing, and fantasy violence. Additionally, secular icons like Britney Spears, video games like “Star Fox Assault,” and four letter words may not be so immoral or socially destructive as the spiritualist would suggest.

The second reason I believe the spiritualists have severely misplace blame, if indeed there is blame to place, is the inability secularists have to influence the progression of American morality.

The spiritualist prescribes elimination of secularist influence on American society as a way to right American moral wrongs. This could only be done if a majority of those determining the laws, rules and regulations were individuals who prescribe to Christian dogma. Currently the spiritualists have their whish. According to exit statistics from the last presidential election, 90% of those who voted were Theist, and 83% belonged to some Christian denomination. Of those Christian voters, 40% attended church occasionally, and 41% attended weekly. There is no shortage of Christian influence on the formation of society in America.

Secularists, whom I take to mean Atheists, Agnostics and non-believers, make up only 7% of America’s population. As such the spiritualist have given secularists credit for having unrealistic power, given there are few organizations devoted to secularist solidarity, there is no unified secularist belief system. Moreover most secularists, Atheists included, share a morality that is quite similar to Christianity. In general secularists believe acts like lying, stealing, cheating, murder, rape, fraud, and for some, even abortion, are morally reprehensible. Christianity has no monopoly on those values, and one does not have to be a Theist to promote them.

Nor do secularists have a monopoly on committing acts predominantly held to be immoral by spiritualists. One third of the women in America over the age of 45 have had an abortion. Of those, 31% are Catholic, and 37% are Protestant.

These numbers present an interesting problem for the spiritualist. If indeed, there is a belief system to blame for the alleged downfall of American society, wouldn’t it make more sense to blame the vastly predominant one? I am lead to believe spiritualists use the secularists as a scapegoat for the alleged problems they themselves have created. The numbers alone suggest that the shape of America’s morality has little if anything to do with the influence of secularist people, and more to do with those who promote spiritual beliefs.

Whatever the case may be I believe that the problems America does have are far too complex to be the result of any particular belief system. America’s problems can in part be attributed to intellectual laziness and shortsightedness shared by individuals on both sides of the religious coin.

Friday, March 11, 2005

Call list

Hey everyone, Joe here. I want to get a little call list or e-mail lis going on so that it's easier for everyone to communicate. My E-mail is, please e-mail me your name and phone number and i'll put together a list that everyone can have. Obviously if 500 people join the club then this list is superfluous but for now it should suffice. So just get the info to me ASAP so it is easier for all of us to communicate. Jes if you already have info on people and want me to put the list togehter go ahead and e-mail me what you've got, i know you've got a huge load so i just want to help out.

Holy Crap, it worked...

Okay, so it finally let me in to contribute... yay me! So I'll be throwing in my slant on the world up in this piece...

If there was a hook, this would be of it...

[blatant plug]
If you get bored, you can surf over to my LiveJournal and read about whatever the hell is up there...
[/blatant plug]

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

The Great Debate Flyer

Oh man...

I rock. (<--- Link)



Profile Pics

Hey All!

I excited to see so many people!

If you want a picture to go with your profile, but don't have any place to store the information, I can help you out for the next year. Email me a 100x100 pic, and I will host it on my site for you.

All I ask for in return is your soul. Or sole. Whatever.

Random Question...AKA Bored SIlly

If you kill a federal employee while THEY are commiting a crime should that still be a federal offense?? Is it really bad to kill someone who was being stupid??

Eample: A lettercarrier(postal emplyee) jay walks and I acciedently hit them with my car, am I at fault.

This is a question I have been thinking about for a few years after I came close to hitting the postman while he was crossing the street.

Have No Fear, Phenwonder is here! :)

Well, it's really only Me! Thanks Jes for sending me another invite. This will be my first time with an "official" BLOG list.

I'm looking forward to continued reading of other people's posts. And please forgive me if I step on toes or make double (or even triple) posts as I learn the world "blogging."

I'm a little confused about what the debate is and when and where, etc. but then--I've got Senioritis REALLY bad and kinda will just keep reading to find out how to understand this format.

Ya'll might, uh, think about changing the website (sorry Tim Black--I just HAD to say it) to read 'welcome to the Spring Semester in the intro as it still reads Fall. But then, that's just me--one of my pals tells me I'm just too "literal" so well, there you have it.

My best,

Mel Mel
aka Melanie
aka Phenwonder and her six kitty cats, two of whom share Tim Black's birthdate (but not old age! :)

The Argument from Marginal Cases: A (Very) Brief Response

I submit that the general consensus is that there is no morally relevant property that all human beings possess. It is precisely this consensus that gives Singer’s Argument from Marginal Cases its force. The particular problem seems to be that attempting to identify any such universal property automatically precludes certain human beings (e.g., newborns, the mentally handicapped, etc.). However, it seems to me that there may be a property that is had by all human beings (but not had but non-human animals); that property is being made in the image of God. If the Christian worldview is correct (i.e., if there is a God and if we – human beings – are made in His image), then it seems that there is a universal property had by all human beings. Therefore, the Christian can, in this way, render innocuous the force of Singer’s Argument from Marginal Cases. I say all this to point out that since the Christian position is one that is philosophically respectable and defendable (though admittedly, not full-proof), the Christian response to Singer’s argument is one worthy of consideration.

Hate Mail for Jes

Dude, guys... I posted that article, and I got this response:

I have been a vegan for 8 years now. I do it for personal reasons. I have no problems with people who eat meat. I would prefer they do not, but I am not morally confused as to the value of human life over animal life. I would put a years tuition that you are a secularist. For only a morally confused person equates the value of animals with people. So the killing of 6 million chickens is equal to the killing of 6 million Jews? You are also, obviously, a left-winger. Only an issue that is led by ones compassion over reason and religious values can make the statement that "there is no morally relevant difference between animals and babies". If your dog (that you loved) and a complete stranger were drowning, who would you save? Either this will reaffirm your stance, or will cause you to reconsider (hopefully). I feel sorry for people who have tried to be vegetarians and can not because they need meat. Yes, some people do need it. Whether it is due to their blood-type or other biology, they need it. Without moral clarity, and without a fixed moral compass (usually derived from religious texts; not from the PETA manual), this is what secular thinking brings one to. Compassion over standards and emotions over rationality. By the way, I think eating dairy is more illogical than eating meat. For us humans are the only species on the planet that uses milk from another animal (intended for their baby), and use it ourselves. How can educated people believe that chickens "suffer" (as opposed to feel some primitive form of physical pain) in any way even remotely comparable to the self-aware, self-conscious, emotional human being? How does contemporary society produce these frightening idiots in such enormous numbers?

The most important reason is secularism. As G.K. Chesterton said about a hundred years ago: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything." Those prophetic words restated what the Psalmist wrote 2,500 years before: "Wisdom begins with fear of God." (Oh, yes, that terrible "G" word. It just hurts, doesn't it?)

No God, no wisdom.

The death of God-based values is the major reason for the moral wasteland known as the university, the one place where America is regarded as a villain and the U.N. as morally progressive; where male and female are regarded as subjective constructs, not naturally distinctive identities; where Fidel Castro is a hero and Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters.

And secularism explains the widespread belief in the equivalence of people and animals. The breakdown of belief in the God of the Bible has led to the demise of the belief in the sanctity of human life. If human beings are not regarded as created in God's image, but only in the image of animals, there is no reason to regard human life as worth more than that of an animal, including chickens. It is not a coincidence that no mainstream Jewish or Christian denomination, no matter how liberal, agrees with PETA's campaign or teaches its adherents that humans and animals are of equal worth. You have to enter the moral chaos of full-blown secularism to believe that people burned alive, slowly frozen to death, medically experimented on, stripped naked and machine gunned family-by-family, forced to watch their children burned, or slowly asphyxiated in gas chambers suffer no more than slaughtered chickens, and that both acts are morally identical. It is impossible to believe in any normative expression of Judeo-Christian values and believe this.

This guy hate me. I have never felt so good.

Why does it rock so hard to piss people off. The world may never know.


Monday, March 07, 2005

SPS Meeting, March 16th

There will be a meeting of the CSUN Student Philosophy Society on March 16th, 5:30 p.m.-7:00 p.m., in Sierra Tower 503. Hope you'll show up to help us iron out the details for our upcoming debate and for our upcoming workshop on graduate school.

Program for Pacific Division APA

Here's a link to the Program for this year's meeting of the Pacific Division APA. <--- link

note: Jes did the edit on this post because it was f-ing up the whole layout.

Sorry Tim, it had to be done.


Whatsup guys,

Thinking about the debate and how we're quickly running out of time to make it turn out the way I think we are all imaging/hoping it will be. So, in order to get it started, I was thinking it could be divided into two parts:

1. concerning the "meat" of the debate: topic, speakers, teams, and the dialouge between the two teams
2. focusing on location, P.A. system, advertising, weather (if we want to hold it outside) etc., estimated people in the audience.
Also, in regards to the topics, I was thinking perhaps we could look into what relevant topics are being taught this semester in philosophy and possibly choose a topic that relates to the courses and then use the professors to advertise for us during class (possibly convincing them to give extra credit, yeah i know its a stretch). Anyways, im not going to be doing any public speaking at the debate, so I think the topic ultimately should lie in the hands of those who are. Hope all is well, Nick

Jes in the SunDial

Jes wrote an ARTICLE (<--- Link) for the SunDial.

I encourage you all to do the same.



Saturday, March 05, 2005

The two horns of the argument from marginal cases

The argument form marginal cases, from Singer:

In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals have as well.

Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

The arguments promoting animal rights are contingent on how we (humans) treat other humans. That is, most of the arguments from the animal rights movement asks people to treat animals in a certain way because we treat humans in a certain way. This is the first horn.

The argument is contingent. It relies on the way we treat humans to promote treatment of animals. But what if use the second horn: the argument was reworked in such a way that we used the way we treat animals now to promote a change in the way we treat marginal humans. If we deny that animals have rights, and state some property that all rational adult humans share that some marginal humans do not, what is the problem with then denying marginal humans right as well.

The view is consistent in so far as no being is extended rights despite the fact that a being of equal moral status is not extended those rights.

However, I can see a problem with those beings who have a potential to share the moral properties of those who are allowed moral rights. Namely, babies and the temporally mentally handicapped (people in comas, I suppose). It is clear that at most babies and some people in comas will eventually share those properties which allow them to share equal moral standing with those who are allowed to hold rights.

But citing a potential to have rights seems iffy. Frey’s problem (Interests and Rights) with potentiality is that a potential to have rights denies the status of the being now. Which, I interpret as being a problem because the discussion is over which rights, if any, a being has now. Aside from the fact that babies and coma patients do not share properties which would extend them rights, not all babies and coma patients will even eventually share those properties which we cite as justification for extending rights. To lump all babies and coma patients into the class of rights holders because they might share morally relevant properties is to treat them a certain way because they are of a like kind.

Alistair Norcross (I think the paper name is Three Approaches to the Ethical Treatment of Animals) points out the problem with this sort of assignment of rights, which, to summarize briefly, judges people not on merit, or relevant properties, but on babyhood or comahood (?), which both, in and of themselves, seem rather irrelevant. The second problem of citing potential to have rights seems also to fall easily into a slippery slope, in which we could grant a fetus rights (because presumably, one day they will be adults). I would suggest the slope could be taken as far back as sperm and egg, but I think anyone arguing that a sperm and egg should have rights because they have a potential to share morally relevant properties is being slightly dishonest. Perhaps some would want to grant the fetus even at a few days moral rights, but that is a different debate. Moving on...

I do not think citing a potential to have morally relevant properties is sufficient for grating rights. It seems only fair to grant rights based on morally relevant properties, which ever those properties may be.

But there seem to be some big problems with denying marginal humans rights, at least, intuitively. We wouldn’t want to say that we can treat babies and the retarded any way we like. But there would be nothing stopping us, if we use animals as our starting point. That is, we treat animals however we like. They are bread for food, slaughtered in horrible conditions. We can own them and put them outside when they are bad. We can use their skins for belts and purses and jackets.

Of course, many of us wouldn’t use babies and the retarded this way, but there would be no moral obligation (or legal obligation) not to do so. While this wouldn’t be problematic in the case of the severely retarded in terms of their futures, imagine if we could do things like brand babies and people in comas. What about when these people do share those properties which allow them to be holders of rights. Should we tell them that the treatment they received when they were not holders of rights was justified because they lacked the relevant properties they now possess. It seems the freedom we enjoy would somehow be undermined if in our non right bearing stage, we were treated like cattle.

Of course, if I rely on human intuition when extending marginal humans rights, it seems inconsistent to demand we abandon our intuitions when it comes to our treatment of animals. So I don’t’ want an argument rejecting the second horn of this argument based on intuition, but I can’t think of anything clever, save for this little story about the branded babies above.

I feel all mixed up. Help?

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Debate Topics from Jes

Ok, here are my topic choices:

1. God in the pledge.

This is my favorite. It involves religion, which makes everyone pissy. EVERYONE has an opinion about this issue. It’s easy to research and its easy from an audience perspective to ask questions. It is also philosophical in nature.

2. We could debate about the rights of animals.
I know a bit about this. However, it may be a little out of reach/ boring for most people.

3. Homosexuality and the State (AKA Gay Marriage)
This ought to piss people off. But I don’t know how philosophical it is.

Lemme Know What you Think.
I have more ideas that I know for a fact piss people off, if these look too dull to anyone.

SPS Meeting Recap

Hey All!

For those of you who missed or need to recap last nights meeting:

1. We need to get flyers and information collection sheets out to those people who are going to the talk on March 9th.

2. We need to brainstorm about debate topics. Remember, pick something that is compelling enough for people to want to see, easy enough for people to understand, simple enough to ask questions about etc. We will pick a topic and teams at the next meeting.


3. When the heck is the next meeting. 2 or 3 weeks, perhaps? Lets decide so we can get the information out during the talk March 9th.

4. READING GROUP AT JES’S APARTMENT (AKA, MY PLACE). Tell your friends! Ask me for directions. We will be discussing the paper being presented March 9th. The link to her article is on the SPS web site, (linked on the side of this page)

5. Lets get some solid questions together for Tim for the grad school work shop.

6. Ryan Denham, the editor of the opinion section over at the school paper (The SunDial) is interested in starting a philosophy corner. Trust me, it is really cool to have your opinion in the paper. Guidelines: About 800 words, ground the article in current events. Tell your friends.

Also: See Jes's piece this MONDAY. I will take death threats via. email or hand delivery.

7. We also talked about getting Moorpark and some other junior colleges involved in at least the blog.

That is it, I think.
You all Rock the Casbah. Especially Professor "Title-Track Black".


Wednesday, March 02, 2005


Hey All!

Just a reminder that the next SPS Meeting is tonight. You should go because all the cool kids are doin' it.

Also, you should check out the flyer that I made because it's goddamn good.

GOOD, I SAY <--- (link)


Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Site under construction

Hey all.

Dan has been working on like a million things, one of them being this blog. So, it's a work in progress. If you can think of anything MAJOR we are missing, feel free to post a comment here.

Thanks again Danny-Do!

The Best Girlfriend in the UNIVERSE.