Is it possible to make a legally meaningful distinction between porn which is abusive and porn which is very rough? I think this question is very relevant for our time.

Could someone explain the Frege's puzzle? Is it directly related to semantic stuff? How?

I'm in the middle of writing a thesis on tourists negotiating confrontations with poverty while on holiday in third world countries. It is easy to see that these confrontations touch on ethics and justice as the tourists are (relatively) rich, their hosts are poor and tourism is about enjoying luxuries (hedonism) while around the 'tourist bubbles' people are struggling. Considering this I focus on how tourists 'legitimise themselves', using discourse analysis (which discursive techniques do tourists employ) following Foucault on power and truth within constructivism, making sidesteps to Baumann (exclusion), Stanley Cohen (states of denial) and Zizek (cultural capitalism). Do you have any more ideas on how I could elaborate on these issues using philosophy? Please point me in the right direction of interesting (modern, postmodern, critical) philosophies!

Is the expression "white trash" racist toward non-whites because it implies that non-whites or certain non-white races are "trash" by default? Does the expression really imply that though? That is, is it (either the expression itself or the utterance, considered as separate questions) racist if we look at the expression in itself without considering whether a person understands its implied meaning? Perhaps we could also ask if maybe those who don't understand its implied meaning still have an unconscious understanding of its actual meaning and are therefor racist for making an utterance of that expression? Obviously the expression is an expression of class contempt which is arguably as ugly as racism but that's another issue.

Is it morally wrong to eat my pet dog? Why is it right to eat beef and pork, but our pets?

What are the effects of Russell and Analytic Philosophy on American education?

Help me know if I have the Big bang theory down correctly. It consists of the following ideas. 1. The big bang theory is usually or often seen as a naturalistic hypothesis where only physical reality is truly real. 2. The universe is a physical reality. 3. There was no physical reality prior to the universe. 4. The universe began with the Big Bang. 5. There was no universe (or physical reality) prior to the Big Bang. 6. It follows from 1-5 that nothing whatsoever existed prior to the Big Bang. 7. The objection of so how did the universe come about if there was nothing prior to the big bang is that time only began with the big bang. To speak of a beginning implies an occurrence within time. It is therefor circular to say that time began with the beginning(of time). I think that what is happening here is that a rejection of (traditional metaphysical)philosophy and even common sense means that science has become a new form of irrational religion in our day. What do you philosophers have to say about this?...

Should I expect a reward when doing a good deed? Like I pick up a wallet containing a big amount of money. Shoud I expect a reward from the owner when returning it to him.

I've just listened to a BBC radio discussion of the ontological argument. I'm puzzled as to why the following objection was not even mentioned: - The concept of "something than which nothing greater can be conceived" necessarily includes the attributes of being all good and all powerful. Something all good and all powerful would not allow suffering. Suffering exists, therefore the concept cannot exist in reality. The counter-argument that suffering is part of God's plan for us to work out our own salvation only reinforces the original objection by admitting that God is not great enough to come up with a better plan. This argument is well known in philosophy in general, so why would it not be considered relevant to the validity of the ontological argument? God may still exist, but if He can't be all good and all powerful, the ontological argument for His existence is a non-starter. I had the impression from the radio programme that the ontological argument is still entertained by some philosophers. How...

Should we as humans actively try to maintain the existence of other species (like we do now due to their cuteness/rarity)?