Why I eat meat

• Protein is a necessary supplement for good health
• I do not find substitutes for meat tasty
• There is no strong evidence that avoiding meat is better for your health
• Just because you eat meat, does not mean that you advocate the abuse of animals
• Nowadays, most animals live in very good living conditions until they are butchered
• There are techniques nowadays with which minimal harm (damage) is inflicted on the animal before it is butchered
• Culturally and traditionally it is accepted to eat meat
• I am a gourmet and thereby I do not want to limit tasting good (at times exotic) food
• Biologically, humans were made to eat meat (their teeth were made that way)
• Finally, meat just tastes reeeaaaaaaally good

Relativism and Subjectivism

Relativism:
We should let cultures decide for themselves.
Pro: Cultures really are different from each other.
Cultures do have different values and principles.
Con: The definition of culture is not clear and is constantly changing.
Does not give ethical guidance for cultures on how to decide, it simply nullifies universal rules.

Subjectivism:
Every individual is free to do however they want as long as it does not hurt others.
Pro: Individuals really are different from each other.
Individuals do have different values and principles.
Con: Does not give ethical guidance for cultures on how to decide, it simply nullifies universal rules.

Nullifies obligations.

Repressed Memory Syndrome

We watched a TED Talk with Elizabeth Loftus (see below), a psychologist studying false memories. Memory is mostly repressed following a traumatic (extremely negative) event; nowadays it can be seen in victims of sexual abuse, physical abuse, or survivors of WW2. The event is so negative, that in order to subconsciously limit the consequences, the brain chooses to repress it.

On the other hand, false memories can easily be implanted, although it is highly unethical to do so (and in the work of psychotherapists, illegal, no matter if it would benefit the client). Numerous studies have been performed supporting both the negative consequences of implanting a negative memory and the positive consequences of implanting a positive memory. An instance of the latter was a study where a false memory was implanted into the participant involving the eating of asparagus having positive consequences; in a following outdoor picnic, the participant would tend to eat more of the vegetable. Loftus proposed that positive false memory implantation can be used both in pedagogy and therapy, such as the previous example being used on obese (overweight) children, thus making them eat more healthy, thereby reducing their risk of diabetes, heart failure, etc.

However, examples of the negative consequences of false memories by far outweigh the positives. One of them was how Steve Titus, who was falsely accused of rape. The victim said he looked the most like her rapist out of the lineup, the false evidence was accepted by the judge, and the man was thrown in jail. He lost his job and his fiance. When the real rapist was then caught, Titus was released, however he could not get his previous life back, having lost these things. As it turned out, 300 people have been wrongfully imprisoned, two-thirds of which because of false memories by eye-witnesses. The question posed by Loftus was, what was the thought process of the victim going from "he looks the most like the rapist" to "he was the rapist"?

To what extent should emotions be considered in our understanding of intelligence?

I think that emotions are a very basic part of intelligence, and should therefore be fully considered next to other types of intelligence. By definition, intelligence is "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations" (Merriam-Webster), and as we use emotions in our everyday lives to understand situations, they are a part of intelligence.
Furthermore, just like other parts of Intelligence, EI can be measured reliably by tests. Similarily to IQ tests, where problems in Math and Analytical questions are posed, in EI tests, emotional problems are presented to the test-taker (e.g. identifying emotions). These tests have been developed by Dr Caruso, Mayer, and Dr Salovey. Also, IQ tests have been proven to be filled with flaws and consequently a faulty predictor of success, resulting in that EI tests might even be a better predictor of success.
Aditionally, Mayer argues that there is both popular acceptance and empirical evidence that EI broadens our understanding of "what it means to be smart" , of astuteness, acuteness, and therefore, of Intelligence. Studies have shown and it is becoming a part of common knowledge that there is a high degree of information processing going on in emotionally active people (popularly referred to as "romantics" and "highly sensitive".

To sum up, it has been proven that it is very important in success to be aware, identify, and be able to control emotions. In certain fields it is considered to be one of the most important skillsets. Up until this point however, only other parts of Intelligence were measured (IQ tests) and grown in school. Emotion was not measured and most traditional schools do not teach students how to deal with emotions (instead they teach how to deal with Mathematical problems, etc). It is time for a change. Intelligence has also been developed. We understand way more of intelligence than 100 years ago. The concept of what it means to be intelligent has changed over time, developed. Therefore, emotions should be considered in our understanding of intelligence.

Are emotions a part of Intelligence?

Definitions

For:
"the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations" 
(Merriam Webster 1. a (1))

Against:
"mental quality that consists of the abilities to learn from experience, ... understand and handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate one’s environment."
(Brittanica)

Language, Emotion, and Reason Intertwine in the Mellish Motors Situation

Find examples from the Yale situation or the Mellish Motors situation that demonstrate how language, emotion and reason intertwine.


When a used car shop in New Annan, Canada, put up a sign saying "Women are like snowflakes. They can't drive." it sparked a storm of outrage and debates revolving around the sign. One side argued that the sign was misogynistic and not even funny. Others than called these people too PC (politically correct) and was only intended as a joke. It very quickly escalated into hate speech from and against both sides whilst the debate switched into a debate over Political Correctness.

The sign on the top right was the original one, the others were then put up as responses to the debate by the owner.

This debate on Facebook is a glowing example of the fallouts the sign caused. It started with someone (for the sake of simplicity I'll refer to him as "Poster") saying she is "disappointed with the number of male and female friends who don't see the harm in sexist "jokes" like the one on the Mellish Motors' sign, let alone its  ridiculous rebuttals." She went on to state how misogynistic the world nowadays is and compared her own "rebellion" to that of Rosa Parks' Bus Boycott.
Responder 1 was glad to point out the mistakes in her argument. First off, she has just compared herself to "the mother of the freedom movement" (this is what US Congress called Rosa Parks); it can be clearly seen how she let her emotion negatively affect her reason, as she let herself overexaggerate for the sake of simply having more arguments (more to say) and to get her point across to everyone. Responder 1 proceeded to bring in logical arguments for his own side (which is that the whole debate has gotten out of hand) and to point out that the original complainer (Ms. Ling) has already called a truce. He also used sarcasm, a very powerful linguistical tool for debates.
Then came Responder 2, who supported Poster and continued her arguments in a very dramatic way. She used several vulgar expressions, swore, and didn't have more than one real logical argument. To sum up: she let her anger cloud her judgment of how she should argue. Paraphrased, because of her heightened emotion, her language was affected in a negative way, which suggested she had bad skills of reason.

Facebook Fight

Politically Correct: The notion of disabling people to say certain words/phrases because they might offend specific groups of people (e.g. a word/phrase might be racist, misogynistic, etc).

Mellish Motors politically incorrect sign:

Offensiveness rating (personal): 4

Friends Fallout about the sign