I hope others will add to what I have to say here. But it seems to me that the actual question you ask here is really more one for social science than for philosophy--in other words, the answer to your questions, as framed, strike me as likely to come from empirical study (which is not the main province of philosophy). My own hypothesis, for what it is worth (probably little!) is that the way we speak very much DOES influence the way we act. If I am right about this, then a legitimate philosophical question would be: How should we speak?

I'm not sure "killer hurricane" is anthropomorphizing--"murderous hurricane" would be. "Killer" does not imply motives, just deadly effects. But to answer the rest of your question, I'm not sure I see why metaphorical language of this sort is a problem, as long as there is no reason to think that those who are talking this way--or those who are listening--are likely to take such expressions literally. Few people are so ignorant as to make this mistake, however--except, perhaps, when the powers of nature get subsumed under the powers of dieties, the result of which is a kind of ignorance that has plagued humankind since pre-history.

Seems like one reason to me. Reasons (and reasoning) can be complex, of course, but there would be no reason to punish Ann if she did not do a punishable act, and there would be no reason to punish her if acts such as the one she did were not punishable. So the way to count the (single) reason seems to be this: Ann committed a punishable act (namely murder--not all killing seems to me to be punishable, which is why I changed your wording).

I generally gree with Heck and Leaman have said, but would add a proviso: I am inclined to think that there is something (not without exceptions, of course--even numerous exceptions) in the kind of suspicion that people tend to have when they consider relationships between people who are unusually far apart in age--a suspicion that grows considerably more acute when the younger one is very young (i.e. a legal minor). In another response I made (on a question about animals), I noted how significant the value of reciprocation is, as a measure of relationships. People very different in age can, of course, enjoy fully reciprocal relationships. But differences in age usually also tend to be associated with differences in perspective, in interests, in worldly wisdom, and in lots of other areas that are profoundly important in relationships. So, when one tends to be suspicious of romantic relationships between people of very different ages--and all the more so when one partner is extremely young--it...

Not quite sure I get this one: If the relationships you have in mind are not one-sided, then neither description you have provided is entirely accurate...right? So it is difficult to pin down here exactly what you are asking. Is the "someone you love" someone who also loves you back--but does not seem to love you as much as the "someone who love you a lot"? And on the basis of exactly what do you determine that one loves you less, and one loves you more? As much as I might wish to urge you most of all to choose to love--to love as much and as completely as you can--on the ground that loving grounds greatness in one's life far more than does being loved, I am also inclined to a degree of caution here. Loving another who is incapable of loving in return will not bring greatness to one's life; it will bring only misery. Loving another who merely "likes" one in return is barely better. Your specific circumstances in life are also significant--is the love you are talking about also connected...

Surely anything that promotes sexism is, to the degree and for that reason, a bad thing. Truth is, the popular media and advertising reinforce all kinds of biases and prejudices (against older people, against people who do not fit social standards of beauty or attractiveness, against poor people, against people of color--by inadequate representation, and so on and so on). The media make money from doing so, because people have the interests they have--and these interests are often sexist and biased in all of the relevant ways. So you want to ban all of the ways in which the media promote or reinforce such wrongs? Well...you will have a lot of censorship to do! On the other hand, as Pogge suggests, surely there are more important concerns (in regard to sexism specifically, and in regard to making the world a better place more generally) than becoming overly concerned that Page 3 shows the breasts of young women. Before you get too far gone in moral indignation about this issue, it...

You want mysteries without God? For heaven's sake (well, maybe not...) just look around you! Despite all of the advances of science (about which, no one of us is wholly expert, nor could we even possibly be), the world will be filled with things we do not know and do not understand. Mostly, we pay no attention toi the vast amount and degree of our ignorance. Aristotle said, "Philosophy begins in wonder." From any human perspective, the world is simply filled with wonders--because our limitations will always prevent our knowing much, relative to what is out there. You want a greater context than just yourself? Just open your eyes and look around you! Think of all the other people in the world, and how different their esperiences are from yours! If you want to preserve the "beautiful, mysterious aspect of life," then for goodness sake don't give your mind away to some God (whom you could never understand anyway, and therefore who cannot at all help "to explain the abstract and intangible." Just...

You make several points here, and I may not respond to all of them. But first, there may be any number of reasons why people regard non-human animals as not meriting the same degree of moral regard as human beings. I think (given the format of this site) it is probably best here simply to provide some basic indication of how this might be appropriate, so think of it in terms of how we value reciprocal relationships. We value our pets, in this way of thinking, because they really do reciprocate our attentions and affections--at least, as far as they are able to do so. But the reciprocation that is possible between human beings and their pets is limited--far more limited than the reciprocation that is possible between human beings. So it may not simply be a matter of valuing certain traits (e.g. intelligence) in a prejudicial way, so much as the ways in which such traits allow for richer (and more reciprocal) relationships. As for religion's regard for non-human animals, it will really depend...

I won't endeavor to reply to all of the questions you have asked here. But I am inclined to be quite skeptical about your hypothesis that all cyber-porn is "covertly homo-erotic." I doubt that what most (or even many) of the men who find such material titillating really find interesting is the fact that the medium through which it is conveyed "was developed primarily by men" (as if the images of women conveyed via that medium were somehow incidental to the titillation). Really! I am also just a bit concerned by the vast generality of expressions such as "a male conception of sexuality." My own experiences and inquiries strongly suggest that such generalities ignore the indefinitely great varieties of sexuality and sexual experience between people of the same gender (as well as ignore the commonalities some have found with one another, despite differences in gender).

It is a little unclear precisely what you have in mind here. Love scenes in mainstream films most certainly do not require the performance of most sex acts (beyond kissing), and so could hardly constitute rape done by or to anyone. The same can be said as to why this is not prostitution, as there is very little in the way of actual sex performed in such films. Of course, real sex acts are performed in pornographic films, and it may well be that in some instances those performing these acts (or on whom they are performed) have not given their consent. By the way, I do not agree with your definition of rape. I think consent--rather than whether the sex is wanted --is what is key here. Many loving people occasionally consent to sex even when they don't really want it. I would not call that rape. In some cases I could imagine--which may occur, or even occur rather more often than we might suspect--I would call such cases extraordinary acts of love. After all, loving may involve willing...