The law currently defines sexual harassment as "unwanted sexual attention. There is more to the definition but in my own workplace the policy specifically defines sexual harassment as "any unwanted sexual attention". However I recently went out on a date with a girl that I wasn't interested in having "casual sex" with. She however proposed that we do just that. I therefor received "unwanted" sexual attention from her. However, I don't believe that I was harassed one bit. I have seen numerous website that declare dogmatically that women have a "right" to not experience "unwanted" sexual attention. I can't help but to think to myself that that is sheer lunacy. In my mind nobody has a right to not experience "unwanted" sexual attention and that "unwanted" sexual attention is not even a big deal. The term "unwanted" is a fairly neutral term and many things which are neither unpleasant nor pleasant can fit into that category. So how can such a obviously poorly defined definition of sexual harassment continue...

Is it abnormal to be perturbed by the fact that whatever you might do, your existence/achievements would no more than a tiny speck of dust and the differences you could make even if you try your best would not be of much value if you look at it from the grand scale?

I don't know whether this question is stupid or not, but I have been thinking over it for a long time and couldn't find an answer, so decided to post it. I think that everyone does what he/she feels good by doing. Those who help others, do good to others do so because they feel good by doing so. More than helping others, i think that the motivating factor is their sense of achievement of having done something that drives them. Those who find happiness in other things like money pursue happiness in that way. Then why is it that most of the people consider, or at least show, that those who do good or help others are better than those who run after money. Both are pursuing happiness in their sense, that is being selfish. I agree that those who help others/do good make others happy certainly do a better job, but ultimately if you see it is that they feel good/satisfied/happy with their work and that's why they do it. Ultimately it boils down to the point that they are doing it for themselves, NOT for others.

Hi, A logically fallacious argument, as far as I understand should always be invalid - in every possible world. But take a kid's argument : This is true, because my father said so. On one hand it seems obviously invalid. Such an attitude is never smart (of course, I do not imply a case in which the father is known to be an expert in something, and therefore is a valid authority, but a kid's childish attitude). However, there is a possible world in which the father of the kid is omniscient and always telling the truth. It seems a logical possibility. But, if it is a logical possibility, then one cannot argue the argument is _logically_ invalid. Sincerely, Sam

It is said that the government officials we elect represent the people. But do they represent those who voted against them as well, in a meaningful sense? (i.e. beyond the pure legal sense)? Or do they only represent the majority that elected them?

If you could recommend one novel for high school students about the subject of philosophy what would it be? I'm looking for a work that is readable, entertaining and raises important philosophical issues as they relate to the Theory of Knowledge. Many people online have recommended Life of Pi or Tuesdays with Morrie. Any other suggestions? Much thanks in advance.

I always took the the word "tolerance" to mean to endure something until it cannot be endured anymore, i.e. something which is bearable for a while but eventually unbearable - like carrying a heavy load - eventually one has to put it down. Similarly with house guests - no matter how fond we are of them eventually we want them to leave as we cannot tolerate having them in our homes indefinitely. However, unending "tolerance" is demanded of us by our Governments - we have to endure, indefinitely, "guests" (people who do not pay their way) who stay indefinitely, always taking and never giving back. Surely what is demanded of us is not tolerance but rather suffering - and the word tolerance is used, deliberately erroneously, instead to imply that we are being virtuous when instead we are simply giving in because we have no choice - and if we do not want to give in we are accused of not being virtuous. My point is that the word "tolerance" is misused to manipulate. What are your views?

Is it possible to imagine a color you've never seen before? --Noah L., age 10

Over at TED.com, a website where videos are posted of speakers discussing things from consciousness and virtual reality to comedy and architecture, there are often talks dealing with issues such as hunger, AIDS, and poverty. Shockingly, to me, many people who post comments on these videos strongly oppose measures helping those suffering based on the fact that "there are already far too many people on this planet." Helping those who are currently dying or otherwise suffering, the logic goes, increases the ecological and economical burden on the world by letting more people live longer and healthier lives, which, they seem to think, will ultimately worsen conditions for everyone via lack of resources. So my question is this. Assume it is true that there are too many people on this planet (a debatable fact that depends on what metrics one uses). Is it then ethical to let millions die because helping them would further increase the ecological burden humanity places on the planet?

Hi, In my country - Israel, there is a military draft. I am reluctant to go to the army, since it would be a waste of time for me. Mandatory service in Israel is 3 years. Am I justified to do it?