Arguing for a Better World: How to talk about the issues that divide us

Product Information

I suppose it’s natural for a career academic to become transfixed on anecdotal information to support a preconceived mindset versus challenging assumptions, considering different perspectives, and removing any and all nuance, but it makes her arguments general and weak kneed. In Arguing for a Better World , philosopher Arianne Shahvisi draws on examples from everyday life to show us how to work through a set of thorny moral questions, equipping us to not only identify our positions but to carefully defend them.

An insider’s account of the rampant misconduct within the Trump administration, including the tumult surrounding the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021. Men are trash เขาให้เหตุผลโดยการยกสถิติคดีกราดยิง, ล่วงละเมิดทางเพศ, femicide ที่กว่า 90% มันเกิดจากผู้ชาย เพื่อชี้ให้เห็นว่า ปัญหาความรุนแรงหรือการล่วงละเมิดทางเพศมันไม่ใช่แค่เรื่องความเลวส่วนบุคคล แต่มันเกี่ยวกับเพศด้วย และเพศที่กำลังทำตัวเป็นปัญหาตอนนี้คือผู้ชาย

Become a Member

Is it sexist to say that “men are trash”? Can white people be victims of racism? Do we bear any individual responsibility for climate change? The Sun Is Still In the Sky: A Review of Miriam Toews' "Fight Night" A deeply heartwarming glimpse of the bonds between mothers and daughters and grandmothers and granddaughters. Toggling between despair and hope, Shahvisi offers a practical and forgiving path into the tough discussions we have with each other—and our own consciences.”— SALON The Good Fight: An Interview with Haki R. Madhubuti on "Taught By Women" "Taught by Women" is a culmination of my saying to all these women, … thank you, that you did not do this for me, you did this for us, you did it for the nation. Show your working” is how the book starts, yet. The author shamelessly presents ideas of other thinkers and philosophers as her own all the way through the book.

This brilliant and very enjoyable book brings cooling clarity and patient empathy to the noise and heat of today's so-called 'Culture Wars'. This is insightful explication at its best, essential reading for anyone engaged with many of today's most pressing public arguments -- Priyamvada Gopal, Author of INSURGENT EMPIRE Gives progressives everything they need to defend their views in an increasingly polarized public sphere . . . Arguing for a Better World belongs on nightstands and in book clubs everywhere -- Carol Hay, author of Think Like a Feminist: The Philosophy Behind the Revolution Arguing for the better world” is the title. Yet, the author does not define what “better world” is. Which would be the absolute basic requirement for writing a book with a title like that. Which turned the entire book into “a guide to household virtue signalling”. If the author would look for genuine change, they would define the goal. Without a logical goal, any action becomes a meaningless virtue signalling. Dr Arianne Shahvisi, Senior Lecturer in Ethics at BSMS, launched her new book, Arguing for a Better World, at the medical school on 12 July 2023. Arianne was joined in conversation by Bobbie Farsides, Professor of Clinical and Biomedical Ethics at BSMS, for readings from the book and a discussion on some of the topics. PDF / EPUB File Name: Arguing_for_a_Better_World_-_Arianne_Shahvisi.pdf, Arguing_for_a_Better_World_-_Arianne_Shahvisi.epub

Political progressives like to think they have the advantage of reason over their right-wing counterparts, who often don’t seem to know what the hell they are talking about. Ask someone on the radical right to define wokeness or critical race theory or white privilege, or democracy for that matter, and all you are likely to get is a steaming pile of verbal mush dumped on social justice issues one would have thought long settled. It’s as though they think that line in the Pledge of Allegiance about “liberty and justice for all” was written by a socialist. (Well, in fact it was written by a socialist.) But progressives, too, can be mealy-mouthed when it comes to articulating the concepts held dear to their cause; they are no less prone to fumbling the reasons that make their cause the right cause for everyone and the only cause for democracy. Men are trash คือต้องการชี้ให้เห็นความเชื่อมโยงระหว่าง trashness กับ masculinity การพยายามไปทำให้วลีนี้ซอฟต์ลง (เช่นใช้คำว่า some men) เลยเป็นอะไรที่หลงประเด็น เพราะมันยิ่งไปทำให้ความรุนแรงด้วยเหตุแห่งเพศกลายเป็นเรื่องความเลวส่วนบุคคลไป แถมการพูดว่า "ผู้ชายบางคนเป็นคนเลว" มันก็ go without saying สุดๆ เหมือนบอก 1+1 = 2 พูดไปคงไม่โดนด่าแหละ แต่ก็ไร้สาระจนไม่รู้จะพูดไปทำไม