Daily Archives: August 4, 2019

Fake ‘paedophile hunter’ Jonathan Kay guilty of sex offences…


TAP-Net_Radar_3
….

Date: August 04, 2019

01) Fake ‘paedophile hunter’ Jonathan Kay guilty of sex offences

“A man who was caught paying to watch parents make their children perform sex acts online has been found guilty of child sex offences.

Jonathan Kay made 190 bank transfers to families in the Philippines.

The 54-year-old claimed he was a “paedophile hunter” and was trying to stop children being exploited.

Kay, of King Henry V Drive, Monmouth, was found guilty of 10 charges at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court and will be sentenced at a later date.

One girl who was abused was just three years old.”

There goes another one!

This just keeps going on, and on, and on, and on, and on…

….
…..TAP-Net Website | Sub-Blog Archive

Mind Your Language – Diversity and Representation…


Date: August 04, 2019

01) Mind Your Language – Diversity and Representation


“Hilarious British situational comedy show from the 1970s.”

Seems a bit tacky at points…but, otherwise, I don’t see any problem with this.

This is a style of comedy, where every character is shallow and nutty.

It seems these characters are represented this way equally, across the board.

Would God Allow Kids To Get Cancer? Maybe…


Atheist_Media
….

Date: August 04, 2019

01) Would God Allow Kids To Get Cancer? Maybe…


“The problem of evil is one of the most famous and powerful arguments against God’s existence, but it less famously comes in multiple forms.

In this video, Jon McCray, from the YouTube channel, ‘Whaddo You Meme??’ argues that it may be justifiable for a loving God to permit children getting cancer, in order to serve some greater good. I’m less than convinced.

Some philosophical notes:

1. There is a difference between an argument being deductive and being valid. All examples of deductive arguments I have given are valid (for simplicity of explanation). First characterisation of the logical problem of evil (‘I can’t think of a reason, therefore there is no reason’) is invalid, yet it is clear from the conclusion that he is attempting a deductive rather than an inductive argument. It is therefore an invalid deductive argument. The very point Jon is making is that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise, implying that it should do in order to be a good argument. If the conclusion must follow to make it a good argument, it is an attempt at deduction.

2. My use of the word ‘syllogism’ throughout this video is regrettable upon review. A syllogism is technically a formation of a valid deductive argument, not just any formation of any argument (which is how I was using it). If confused, replace my use of ‘syllogism’ with ‘specific version of an argument’.

J.L. Mackie, Evil and Omnipotence:
https://courses.edx.org/c4x/MITx/24.00x/asset/MackieonEvil.pdf

….
Atheist_Media_SB_ArchiveAtheist Media Links