When, if ever, is profane language justified? I saw some people yesterday carrying signs with pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache. As a Jew and an American, I was deeply offended and became so angry that I launched into a profanity-laced tirade. Afterwards, I definitely felt bad about losing my cool, but I also wondered more generally when and if the use of profane language can be justified.

A famous philosopher is coming to visit my university. Would it be inappropriate to ask for his autograph?

Are all of the laws of nature or of the universe such as the law of gravity necessary or contingent? If contingent, and found in one instance to be false, would they fail to be laws? Thanks, John

What is wrong with watching child pornography? Let's be clear that child abuse is wrong, and anything that makes more of it likely in the future is also wrong. Even if we agree that watching child pornography which encourages further harm to children is wrong, it seems less clear where the wrong is in doing so when there is no chance of causing harm. There are many pictures of adults and children who have been harmed to an extent at least on a par with the victims of such child abuse from the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we do not normally think that viewing those images is wrong or makes us complicit. The most obvious candidate is the motive of sexual gratification on the part of the viewer. What makes that different from the motives of readers of bombs in the Middle-East? Is it the fact that the viewer must have a deviant sexual orientation or because they are benefiting from the harm in a way that the reader isn't? The first reason seems off the mark since it seems that the act of...

Is the definition of marriage changing?

I believe it was Hume who made the point that reason cannot motivate us, only our feelings can. Supposing that's true, I have a far-flung conclusion that seems to follow from that: when the panelists on this site choose which questions to answer, they're motivated by some emotion, not by reason. But doesn't this corrupt the purity of the logic of the answer? Perhaps not necessarily so, but isn't it likely that of the 2,600+ questions a good number have been tainted? How is it not the case?

Can a "fact" be defined simply be defined as a "proposition that is true"?

Many ideas on the 'meaning of life' (assuming death is an ultimate fate of non-existence) presuppose that meaning may still be derived in this world through the actions we make and the impact we leave, our 'legacies.' However, it is perfectly rational and scientifically plausible that not only will we die, but our entire race, world, and indeed the universe itself (at least this incarnation of it, assuming there ARE multiple incarnations) must some day end. Assuming this is in fact true, doesn't the argument that the meaning of life can be derived from our impact on the world seem, if not wholly incorrect, than at least rendered moot by the rather over bearing reality that whatever impact we have is not merely fleeting but permanently erased?

The other day when work ended, rather than go to my car and drive home as I have every day for the last four years, I just sat outside the building for no reason at all. Maybe I didn't want to go home just yet; maybe I was tired; maybe this maybe that. I sat for about 30 minutes, almost without moving, before finally leaving. I was thinking and thinking about why I did it, and then I started to wonder why I felt anxious about not being able to answer the question. Is it possible we've all been brainwashed into accepting the - if I remember this correctly - "principle of sufficient reason" (assuming this states that all things happen for a reason). Is it possible I sat down for no reason at all?

What are the defenses to the attacks on the law of non-contradiction. In other words, what is the traditional philosophical orthodoxy's response to developments in paraconsistent logics (Graham Priest's "Doubt Truth to be a Liar" or "In Contradiction", etc.)?