Philosophers’ Café

The next Philosophers’ Café is Wednesday.  Mark your calendars and join in on the fun as Dr. Laura Shanner, researcher and consultant in health care ethics, leads you through a discussion on lifesaving interventions. 

 

Philosophers’ Café: How Far Should We Go to Save a Life?

Wednesday, Nov. 22nd, 6:30-7:30 pm

Nanaimo Harbourfront Library

Blasphemy!

 

 

 

International Blasphemy Day has just past. Watch this inspiring video made by ex-Muslims in various countries:

 The Future Belongs to Blasphemers

Also see the world’s first group bodypaint captured by both ground and drone in solidarity with ex-Muslims.

Some will ask why we must celebrate blasphemy when it is “hurtful” and “offends”.

The answer is simple:

Because people can be killed for blaspheming and human life is more important than hurt sensibilities and offence.

As the Jordanian atheist, Mohammed Al Khadra said at the largest gathering of ex-Muslims in history, “Where are your priorities? While we die, you are all thinking about Islamophobia?

Islamophobia is a political term used to scaremonger people into silence; it imposes de facto blasphemy and apostasy laws where none exist. Where such laws exist, there are no accusations of “Islamophobia” but rather imprisonment, persecution and execution.

 

Source: m.namazie@onelawforall.org.uk

 

 

Opportunity Knocks!

 

Informal Logic invites submissions for a special issue on “Reason & Rhetoric in the Time of Alternative Facts”. This issue aims to analyze, explain, and critique instances of argumentation connected to the campaign, election, and presidency of Donald Trump, as well as associated issues such as the concept of “post-truth” emerging from the Brexit campaigns. We believe that argumentation theory can help in forming answers to some of the questions that events around the new U.S. president open-up.

Trump has adopted a distinctive approach to argumentation that is especially worth studying now that it is stemming from the highest political office in the United States. In terms of both form and content, the written and verbal argumentation coming from the current president, as well as official White house communications—including the whitehouse.gov website— constitute rich material to engage argumentation scholars. Equally interesting are, for example, issues surrounding the way the press deals/dealt with and reacts to the new president and the argumentative and rhetorical choices made by his adversaries during and after the presidential campaign.

This issue of Informal Logic welcomes contributions from both theorizers and practitioners in the expanding field of argumentation studies, including, but not limited to, scholars in Informal Logic, Rhetoric, Pragma-Dialectics, Communication Studies, and Critical Thinking.


DEADLINE: September 1, 2017

See the full call, including submission guidelines, HERE

 

The guest editors are happy to answer any questions that might arise.

Katharina Stevens & Michael Baumtrog:

katharina.stevens@uleth.ca / baumtro@uwindsor.ca