text:
The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points
Morality is objective.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|6 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|5,468 times
|Debate No:
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)
The Proposition
The full proposition is as follows: "Morality is objective."
As Pro, I will be arguing that morality is objective. As con, my opponent will be arguing that morality is subjective. That means the burden of proof will be on both of us.
Objective: independent of personal opinion. If something is objectively morally good, then it is morally good no matter how many people think otherwise.
Subjective: dependent on personal opinion. If something is subjectively morally good, then it is only morally good by certain individuals' standards.
Morality: the principles concerning the distinction between good and bad (right and wrong) behavior.
Debate Structure
Round 1: Introduction and Acceptance only
Round 2: Opening Arguments/Refutations
Round 3: Refutations
Round 4: Refutations/Closing statements
In Conclusion
I'm sure almost all of the viewers (if not all of them) have already formed an opinion on this matter. Whether you believe in subjective or objective morality, however, please keep an open mind and judge fairly based on who presents the strongest arguments for his/her case.
I look forward to a fruitful debate.
I'd like to start by thanking my opponent for setting up this challenge and providing such a comprehensive round structure / set of definitions, though I think it needs to be made clear that objective and subjective are mutually exclusive - a moral cannot be BOTH objective and subjective. I'm very excited to be able to debate against such a high-calibre debater on such a consequential issue, and wish him the best of luck for his opening round.
On a quibbling note, I don't believe having equal burdens of proof is actually possible, but the term is used so loosely in debating nowadays that I doubt any voters would care if I explained it, so I'll just do the debate as I usually would and ignore that for this debate.
Also, if either debater forfeits, I suggest that should count as an automatic loss. Just to up the stakes a little bit.
And now, on to the debate!
Thank you, larztheloser, for accepting. I ought to be fun going head-to-head with such a seasoned debater.
Concerning your clarification, I will agree: moral principles cannot be both objective and subjective. It is a true dichotomy to say they are either one or the other.
I also agree to your condition that a forfeited round will equate to an automatic loss (I'm sick of my opponents accepting and then never returning anyway).
Now to begin, I would first like to say that while my arguments henceforth may appear at times to be appeals to emotion, I urge you to look at them for what they truly are: appeals to logic.
Objective Morality Explained
Let us look again at the definition of morality: "the principles concerning the distinction between good and bad (right and wrong) behavior".
The two most conversional words in this definition are, of course, "good" and "bad". How can we justifiably say which actions constitute "good" behavior and which actions constitute "bad" behavior, without appearing to be merely projecting our own bias onto the problem?
Before we can even answer that, we must first ask ourselves something even more fundamental. It is understood that morality is that which governs what we consider to be good and bad actions, but good and bad for what or for whom? The answer is, of course, for us. For our own well-beings, for the well-beings of our fellow people, and for the well-beings of other conscious creatures (living things which, like us, can feel happiness and pain and other sensations of the sort).
Therefore, "good" actions are those which promote an overall "good" well-being of conscious creatures, and "bad" actions are those which promote an overall "bad" well-being of conscious creatures.
It is not, for example, morally apprehensible to pound your fists repeatedly into the softest part of a pillow. The same cannot be said, however, for performing the same action against the softest part of a child's face. Why is this? Because the child has nerve-endings to detect the sharp pains of a bombardment of fists and sentience to induce displeasurable feelings of fear, so it is clear that by beating his/her face in, you've made the existence of at least one conscious human being less satisfactory than it otherwise would have been, at least temporarily. A pillow, on the other hand, does not have the capacity to feel discomfort over its state of enduring pummeling, so it can be inferred that beating it with your fists is amoral (neither morally good nor bad, as it is irrelevant to the principles of morality).
The Value of Well-Being
The question has now changed from "How can we determine, objectively, which actions are good and bad" to "How can we determine, objectively, which states of well-being are good and bad".
It's clear to discern that well-being is somehow connected to both physical and mental health. Of course, perfect physical and mental health can be difficult to define, and we may not know everything there is to know as of yet; but that doesn't change the fact that some states of physical and mental health are objectively better or worse than others.
For instance, larztheloser, can you agree that bleeding unstoppably from every orifice of your body is objectively worse to your overall well-being than, say, not bleeding unstoppably from every orifice of your body? Perhaps you can't, or else you wouldn't be proclaiming morality is subjective. Perhaps the problem here is that the value one places on well-being is subjective and, therefore, the actions which effect well-being are judged subjectively.
However, this is quite parallel to saying "the value one places on logic is subjective and, therefore, logical arguments are judged subjectively". While there is no celestial rule book of logical truths and the application of the principles of logic depends on thinking minds to understand them, logic is still an objective doctrine. And logic would remain objective no matter how many people misunderstood it (or, indeed, even if every living creature in the universe misunderstood it). The same can be said for morality. No matter how many people misunderstand the value of well-being or the course of actions we must take in order to achieve maximally good well-beings, the principles of morality remain objective.
I must concede that, of course, some people do not value their own well-beings. This is exemplified most commonly in suicidal acts, where one takes his/her own life at the benefit of no one. But most, if not all, of suicide attempts are a result of some form of depression, an imbalance of chemicals in the victim's brain. This is akin to the victim being, in a way, "broken" as an automobile is with a blown engine. We cannot tailor the definition of "good performance" to suit the behavior of a car with three flat tires any more than we can tailor the definition of "good well-being" to suit the behaviors or values of a person with self-harming tendencies.
Logically Deducing Objective Morality
Once you agree that some states of well-being are objectively better or worse than others, despite any "broken" or misguided discrepancies, you can agree that some actions are objectively better or worse for well-being, and therefore the principles which concern themselves with these actions (morality) are objective. Here is my four-point logical argument to summarize everything I've said thus far:
1. Some states of well-being are objectively better or worse than others.
2. Our behaviors and actions can effect the well-beings of ourselves and of other conscious creatures, for better or for worse.
3. Morals are the principles concerned with these behaviors and actions which effect well-being.
4. Therefore, some actions can be named objectively morally good or bad, depending on how they effect well-being.
I thank my opponent for his case. First I will explain my own case, which thankfully is much simpler than my opponent's. Then I will deal with his contentions.
My Case
As a starting point, let us ask ourselves how we would determine whether it is true that x is good. The first and most important part of this question is how we know something is true. The answer to that question is by a process called the exclusion of the alternative. Rene Descartes used an excellent analogy here. Presume you come across a body of water, and you ask yourself, is this a bay? Well, first you must identify that it is not a lake. Lake is the alternative explaination, so if you know it's not a lake, then you can claim it's true that it's a bay. So to be able to claim that not killing is good, which would be a moral truth under my opponent's model, one must first prove that not killing is not bad, or put another way (to avoid the double negative), that killing is bad.
Unlike the lake/bay example, however, the alternative of a moral truth cannot be tested. You can't refrain from killing somebody and say "well, that was better than killing him" because you do not know what would have happened if you had killed him. You can't both kill and not kill somebody and compare the two outcomes (at least not until the time machine or crystal ball is invented). So when determining a moral truth, the alternative cannot be excluded.
The implication of this is that we cannot determine whether it is true that x is good if x is a moral truth. That's because we cannot determine the truth of things that have not happened yet, which is what morality establishes rules for. And that requires that morals are not simply true or false. That makes our differences in morality a logical necessity, because we all have different ideas for what tomorrow may hold if we take certain actions today.
Lottery is a great example of this. Many who buy lotto tickets expect to win but don't. Many who buy lotto tickets don't expect to win but do. And many others don't buy lotto tickets because they don't expect to win. So - is it moral to buy lotto tickets? Gambles like this are moral questions, because they deal with behavior that can be judged good or bad. There are good arguments that gambling should be banned outright. There are also good arguments that we should have more gambling. But who's right? Well, if I knew whether I would win lotto on a particular week, I'd know whether it would be moral for me to buy a ticket in that week. That, of course, would undermine the whole point of lotto. Lotto works because morality is not objective - most people who play lotto - both winners and losers - don't know whether buying a ticket will be good for them.
The future may be objectively true. What we believe about it is, however, clearly subjective.
Pro's Case
The first thing to note about pro's case is that even if I agree it's all true, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that all morality is objective. It only leads to the conclusion that, in pro's own words, "some states of well-being" are objectively more moral than others. To illustrate this, imagine that I believed it was morally bad for me to eat meat of any kind, and you didn't. Who's right? That's a debate that's still ongoing. Niether of us can say that "this is an objective moral fact" even if all of pro's case was granted. Therefore pro fails to prove that "morality is objective" (implying that every moral is objective), rather he simply attempts to show that "this selective subset of morality I just chose to win a debate is objective" (implying that there are exceptions).
Pro summarises his case in four seemingly logical steps. I disagree on three of these.
First he claims some states of well-being are objectively better or worse. For instance, it is objectively better to be alive than dead. Anybody who believes the contrary, pro explains, doesn't value their "well-being" or misunderstands morality in the same way one might misunderstand logic. I disagree that people who commit suicide necessary don't value their own well-being. Take, for instance, people who join weird cults and commit mass suicide so their lives would be improved - they commit suicide to improve their well-being. I may resent the notion of a Persian making me bleed out of every orfice of my body, but King Leonidas probably thought it was glorious. I also disagree that morality is misunderstandable as logic is. Logic can be objectively tested. Take the law of identity for instance, x=x. The alternative is that something is not itself, which is a contradiction of terms because something and not something are dichotomous. Therefore the idea that the law of identity is untrue can be dismissed. The same cannot be done for morality. Take the golden rule for instance, treat others as you'd like to be treated. The alternative is to treat others however we feel they deserve. You can't look at that rule or alternative and say nobody who believes that is being rational. Let me explain that word rational, because it's often confused for logical - logic is in fact the outcome of rationality. Rational means consistant with all your other premises. Logical rules are rationalised, moral rules cannot be. That's why people can reach opposite yet equally valid logical conclusions.
Second he claims that our actions can affect others and our own well being (agreed with that part), and that all morals are concerned with this. So take the example of killing conscious creatures, a clear reduction in their well-being. Well, what if we want to eat them? Is it immoral to eat beef? Or what if there's a war going on? Can we kill soldiers who want to kill us? What about abortion? Does the level of conciousness matter? What about euthenasia? You probably don't consider all of these things moral, but millions of people do, despite the fact they all reduce well-being (and yet are percieved as "good"). The Qu'ran is another good example. Millions think it's the most moral thing ever, others think it's among the least moral. No matter what you believe about the Qu'ran, it's full of things either not really connected to well-being, or that are questionable at best with regards to well being, as well as things that probably are very sensible ideas. You can't just dismiss this as a misguided discrepancy - having a different morality to others in some way is normal. But the point is that not all morals people have are necessarily connected with improving objective well-being.
Finally he claims that because morality is all about well-being, and well-being is objective, morality must logically be objective. That may sound logical on the surface, but it's really not. Say I proved that watches are awesome. Does it follow that since watchmakers only deal with watches, that they must be awesome too? Not at all! Just because one thing is concerned with something doesn't mean they gain all the attributes of that thing. I'm concerned with debating my opponent right now, so my opponent's logic would be that since the debate is text-based, I must logically be text-based, yet clearly I'm not. This is just an absurd logical link to make that my opponent needs to properly justify.
Thank you for your response, larztheloser (I gotta say, I feel like I'm unintentionally insulting you just by using your own screen name; how about just Larz?).
Refuting Con's Case
Con's case for why morality is subjective centers around the fact that we cannot, at any point when deciding on which course of action would be preferable, split the fabric of time in two and bear witness to the results of both doing an action and not doing an action. Without anything to compare the results of not killing people, we cannot objectively say not killing people is good for those people's well-beings. Killing them may, in fact, be better for their well-beings than not killing them; we just don't know because we cannot possibly compare the two alternate realities.
I must say, I've become a little scared of my opponent since reading this. He's basically admitted to being unable to discern if any moral action is good or bad simply because we can't compare results. Aside from the sociopathic nature of the argument, it has several other flaws:
1. The entire method of "exclusion of the alternative" (or in other words "process of elimination") is unnecessary. It can help narrow your options when you're stuck on a difficult multiple choice problem, but it is never necessary.
Con's example of "exclusion of the alternative" uses a lake and to discern whether or not it's a lake, we must first ask "Is it a bay?" But this is not the case. You can identify the properties this body of water has and then try to match them with the properties of an already-known concept. Crosschecking the properties against every alternative is unnecessary to discern the identity of this body of water. You don't have to first ask "Is it a bay" anymore than you have to first ask "Is it a mountain" or "Is it a duck".
2. We have numerous historical examples of already-committed moral actions to discern which were good and bad with hindsight. Maybe if rape had not once occurred since the beginning of time, you could argue we don't know whether it's good or bad for the person being raped (and that's a pretty big "maybe"). But we now know unquestionably that people don't like being raped (as per the definition); we know their well-beings suffer for it, physically and mentally.
3. Finally (and perhaps most importantly), his argument, curiously enough, doesn't even address the question of whether moral principles are objective or subjective. It merely states we cannot know the truth or falsity of moral claims, such as "Killing a child for sexual pleasure is morally wrong" (I know you know the answer to this, Larz). However, the mere fact we don't (or even can't) know the answers to certain questions doesn't put such answers in the realm of subjectivity.
In other words, whether we know the answer or not is irrelevant: the answer is still objective.
Defending my Case
P1: Some states of well-being are objectively better or worse than others.
I thought it unnecessary to clarify this previously, but now it seems I must: you can think you are right, and still be wrong. Some people think the Earth is 6,000 years old and they truly believe this, but they are objectively wrong. Similarly, one can believe a course of action is morally right, and be wrong. One can set out to improve the lives of the human species, and fail.
A religious zealot who drives a plane into a skyscraper may think he is doing a morally righteous thing, and be wrong. A hopeful and desperate cult member can commit suicide, believing his well-being will improve in the afterlife, and be wrong. King Leonidas may have believed chopping you into pieces on the battlefield was a noble act, and been wrong.
The fact that people disagree about the answers to certain questions does not automatically mean those answers are subjective. You can believe with all of your might that three plus three is eight, and be objectively wrong. Just as you can believe killing people is morally right, and be wrong.
My opponent states: "Take the golden rule for instance, treat others as you'd like to be treated. The alternative is to treat others however we feel they deserve. You can't look at that rule or alternative and say nobody who believes that is being rational."
There is certainly more than one way to improve overall well-being, just as there is more than one way to harm overall well-being. Having several objectively true answers doesn't mean they are not objective.
P2: Our behaviors and actions can effect the well-beings of ourselves and of other conscious creatures, for better or for worse.
Again, my opponent plays the "people disagree" card. It's simply a weak objection to objective morality.
He bombards me with a ton of moral questions (euthanasia, abortion, etc.), which I will not bother answering. These things are not the topic of the debate. Furthermore, I don't claim to have all the answers to every moral question; I simply realize the answers are objective. And as I've shown, answers can be objective even if we don't know the answers yet and even if people disagree what the answers are.
P3: Morals are the principles concerned with these behaviors and actions which effect well-being.
There seems to be no objection here.
C: Therefore, some actions can be named objectively morally good or bad, depending on how they effect well-being.
My opponent seems to think the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Maybe his objection would be justified if the second premise is missing and if the third premise was worded differently. However, the second premise states that our actions can effect others' well-beings, for better or for worse, while the third premise simply states morality concerns itself with these actions. To clarify, that simply is what morality is: the principles concerned with good and bad actions. This was the definition I offered in the instigation and the definition my opponent agreed to upon accepting this debate.
The conclusion logically follows from these three premises, and I fail to understand how my opponent's insane analogy about him being text-based because the debate he is participating in is text-based applies to my argument's logic.
First of all, I don't consider losing a negative, so don't feel that my name insults me. However, if you want to call me something else, like Qwert Yui, Larz or God, I don't really care. Second, thanks for all those excellent refutations!
My Case
It's easy to dismiss any refutation of objective morality as sociopathic. Often on the news we see people who have very different views of right and wrong, thinking "what sociopaths" without ever engaging with why they believe what they do. One example of this might be people who think murdering Hitler before World War 2 would have been moral, so perhaps murdering a major political leader today before a big war would be moral too (Iran comes to mind). But if murdering them is moral, why not kill off all the low-paid artists and people with moustaches just in case one of them turns out to be a Hitler too? That may sound sociopathic to a person like me, but I cannot logically deduce that their actions will have a worse effect on humanity than inaction. I have to accept that they have a different morality. That's why we need laws against murder and so on. Some people, who may genuinely have the best interests of society and the well-being of all the people in it in mind, without being mentally ill, can still be rationally driven to kill.
Con's claim that the exclusion of the alternative is un-necessary because the properties of the item tell you what it is. The problem is that usually we don't know all the properties of every item. Humans suffer from a distinct lack of omniscience, and as a result they have to consider all the possibilities for what something might be - and to determine if something is true, to exclude all possibilities of it being false. With my bay example, you can't always see, upon first approaching a large body of water, if it's a lake or a bay. You have to walk around to exclude the alternative possibility (or drive etc).
Second, pro claims hindsight is enough. But hindsight is a linear narrative. Even it does not show us the relative outcomes of two actions. Was the murder of Caesar for the better or for the worse? Well, it lead to the Pax Romana, so some would argue it was for the better. It also led to the bloody wars of succession, so others would say it was for the worse. You can't evaluate it objectively. You have to form a subjective opinion about the relative moral value of past events. As an aside, just because something is not consensual does not mean by definition that it's not enjoyable. I'm not an advocate of rape, but rape advocates would argue that consent is relative, and that domination is in some cases necessary to establish. If I had the letter count, I would show how both of these can be justified by history. Maybe next round. The point is that hindsight can be used to justify two completely opposing moral positions.
Finally he makes the interesting claim that "the mere fact we don't (or even can't) know the answers to certain questions doesn't put such answers in the realm of subjectivity." Let's revisit how pro defined subjective: "dependant on personal opinion". If we don't know the answers, the best we can do is form an opinion about who's right. Take God. Despite some people's claims, nobody really knows whether there's a magic guy up there smiting and blessing as he sees fit. People therefore form opinions about whether they believe in God. What I've done is I've proven you can't know the answer to moral questions, independantly of your own opinion. And that's what matters in this debate. That's my strategy.
Pro's Case
Pro seemed to misunderstand one of my most important objections so let me clarify: it was what pro just labelled "P2" that I had no objection to. "P3" is where my objection was centered. And it wasn't about what's right and wrong, or that people disagree (which is true, by the way, but not the point). It was about how some people have morals completely disconnected from well-being. Pro's case completely ignores this considerable part of morality. The real reason why my opponent won't respond to my "heap of questions" is because they have nothing to do with his case - but they have everything to do with the motion, the full extent of which he conveniently ignores. I hope my opponent can manage to response to this argument in the next round.
What pro did contest very well was "P1" so I'll deal with that now. Right at the end of his refutation of my refutation, pro conceeded that something can have several "objectively" true answers. That's false if the answers are incompatible. You can't say the Golden Rule and the opposite of the Golden Rule are BOTH objectively true because people cannot take both as moral actions - that's like killing and not killing a person. You cannot have two exclusive alternatives as objective morals - only subjective morality can provide such a scenario.
The reason why a moral question is different from a scientific question is that one is based on proof, the other is based on belief. Some find smoking or gambling morally repulsive. Some think the afterlife is better with suicide. You can't prove any of these things are true. You can prove that carbon isotopes decay at a certain rate, and that based on that certain carbon structures must have been around for longer than 6000 years, or that based upon the rate of expansion in the universe it must be older than a few billion years, if one was to grant a few basic rules of physics in both cases. On both of these counts, and many others, you can exclude the possibility of a 6000-year-old world logically. You can't do that with moral questions.
So basically while I agree Leonidas may be wrong, I also believe that none of us have any clue whether that is actually true or not. We have opinions about what is right and wrong, not objectively-verifiable facts. Disagreement may not mean subjectivity, but a lack of an objective way to test it, the only thing we can do is be subjective in our belief. The only difference between 3+3=8 and "killing is good" is that one can be proven, the other cannot.
Finally let's consider "P4". My opponent completely misunderstands this counter-argument, so I'm going to lay it out like he does.
1. M concerns RW
2. RW is O
3. Thus M is O
That's pro's logic. In his case, M is morality, RW is right/wrong, and O is objective. Remember that morality is not right/wrong itself, it is merely the principles we have concerning what is right/wrong. My contention is that even if right/wrong are objective, it does not follow that the principles concerning right/wrong are objective. To contextualise this, let's use my analogy. I'm concerned with winning a text-based debate. Winning such a debate is text-based. Am I therefore text-based? No, that's absurd. This book is concerned with maths. Maths is hard. That doesn't mean the book is hard - it may be particulary easy to follow. Religion is (in part) concerned with the afterlife. The afterlife is mysterious. Does that mean religion is mysterious? Not necessarily. How many more examples do you need? In the context of this debate - "thou shalt not steal" is a moral command concerned with the moral value of theft. The moral value of theft is objective (just assume that's true). Does that neccessarily mean that the moral value of the command is also objective? You work it out.
I look forward to the final round.
Alright, God, let's do this.
Refuting Con's Case
His entire argument attempts to answer the question "Are the principles of morality knowable?" instead of "Are the principles of morality subjective or objective?"
This debate is not about two questions:
1. What exactly are the principles of morality? (ie, would it have been morally right/wrong/acceptable to kill Hitler when he was a child, or is it morally right/wrong/acceptable to terminate an early pregnancy, etc.)
2. Is it even possible to know what exactly the principles of morality are?
This debate addresses one question and one questions only: Are the principles of morality objective or subjective?
Con thinks by proving the answer to the question "Are the principles of morality knowable" is "no", he has thus proven morality is subjective, but this is simply not the case. He states that when the answers to anything are currently unknowable, those answers are "dependent on personal opinion", such as the existence of God.
I must say, I'm quite confused by this assertion. It's true that we cannot know for certain whether God does or does not exist; all we can do is guess. But to put it bluntly: God either a) exists, or b) does not exist. What we personally think on the matter is irrelevant to the actual truth, and our guesses on whether or not God exists will either be a) accurate, or b) inaccurate.
To say that the existence of God is "dependent on personal opinion" (subjective) is to say God exists for some people and not for others, depending on what they think about the matter. It's a preposterous claim. My opponent may be prepared to argue the Holographic Universe theory (the theory that we each create our own separate realities, so no one is really ever right or wrong about anything, even mathematical truths), but he will certainly be fighting an uphill battle.
Before we knew the Earth was orbiting the sun, before we even had the means to know the Earth was orbiting the sun, was the fact the Earth was orbiting the sun or not dependent on personal opinion? Of course not.
My opponent reveals his tactic: "What I've done is I've proven you can't know the answer to moral questions, independantly of your own opinion. And that's what matters in this debate. That's my strategy."
You should have picked a different strategy, unfortunately, because we are not arguing whether the answers are knowable independent of personal opinion; we are arguing whether the answers are independent of personal opinion.
All of this being said, I believe it can be proved that morality is independent of personal opinion, which is what I outlined in my own argument. I'm merely pointing out that your entire argument for subjective morality doesn't actually even address whether or not morality is subjective. Therefore, you really have no argument at all for this debate.
Defending My Case
My opponent states: "The real reason why my opponent won't respond to my "heap of questions" is because they have nothing to do with his case - but they have everything to do with the motion, the full extent of which he conveniently ignores. I hope my opponent can manage to response to this argument in the next round."
It's not going to happen. As I've said previously, we are not arguing what exactly the principles are; we are arguing whether they are objective or subjective. Your shotgun of questions are nothing more than a distraction from the issue at hand.
P1: Some states of well-being are objectively better or worse than others.
Con seems to concede I've defended this premise sufficiently. He does mention though that there can't be two objectively true answers if those answers are opposites of each other. I agree, but the opposite of "treat others as you'd like to be treated" is "treat others as you wouldn't like to be treated". And the opposite of "treat others how you feel they deserve" is "treat others how you don't feel they deserve".
P2: Our behaviors and actions can effect the well-beings of ourselves and other conscious creatures, for better or for worse.
My opponent says this: "Pro seemed to misunderstand one of my most important objections so let me clarify: it was what pro just labelled "P2" that I had no objection to. "P3" is where my objection was centered."
I guess, then, my second premise is safe for now.
P3: Morals are the principles concerned with these behaviors and actions which effect well-being.
Con says people hold certain beliefs about what is right and wrong that are not at all connected to well-being. To those people, I say your morality is strange, insufficient, and irrelevant. Christians can believe eating pork is the absolute most evil thing in the entire world, but that does not make it true. Why call something "morally wrong" if no one is harmed?
While I'm on the subject, I'd also like to address another objection by my opponent (given in his second round). He had a problem with the words "some" in premise one and the conclusion, as if that meant I was arguing not all morality is objective. The reason I say not all actions are objectively morally good or bad is because not all actions are moral actions. Eating pork, for example, is amoral (neither moral nor immoral). To reiterate: all moral actions are either morally good or bad, but not all actions are moral actions.
C; Therefore, some actions can be named objectively morally good or bad, depending on how they effect well-being.
My opponent continues his absurd analogy: "I'm concerned with winning a text-based debate. Winning such a debate is text-based. Am I therefore text-based? No, that's absurd."
Yes, it is indeed. You are using a different definition of "concerned" than I am. You are "concerned" with this debate in the sense that you find it important or urgent in some way to participate in. The principles of morality are "concerned" with right and wrong in the sense that they are completely related to what is right and wrong. They describe what is morally right and wrong, and if right and wrong are objective, then morality must be as well, just as the principles of mathematics are objective because they are concerned with objective truths.
All my opponent has done here is meddle with equivocation, the fallacy of using more than one definition of a word to confuse the issue.
I thank you for participating in this debate with me and the audience for reading. I urge the viewers to carefully consider both of our argumentation and vote accordingly.
First, let me thank pro for this debate. It's been a lot of fun. In this round I'll try and give everyone a short summary of the debate as I see it.
My Case
The question "is morality objective?" (not the "principles of morality" as pro sneakily tried to change his burden to last round - morality itself is principles) is deceptively simple. It leads us on to two related questions - first, "what is morality?", and second, "how can we test for objectivity?" (questions that pro also sneakily tried to claim this debate is not about - which is ironic, because pro dedicated whole paragraphs to answering these questions in the debate).
My case was that, when faced with a moral question, one cannot test for objectivity. Pro has done very little to challenge this, and both of the arguments he did use I dealt with in round three. As a result, to make a moral judgement, one needs to use one's personal opinion, just as people form personal opinions on coming across a bay/lake for the first time as to its nature. In absence of an objective truth, we can only have a subjective opinion.
What is morality? Morality was defined by pro as being principles concerning right/wrong. These principles are not things we know, but things we believe. I proved that truth is determined by exclusion of the alternative. If the alternative cannot be excluded, there is no objectively-right answer. Morality is a construct, built of our collective morals as a society. It's not some mystical set of principles written in stone on the other side of the sun - morality is what we believe (as opposed to know) it is. And if our principles are not objective, because we cannot objectively test them, then of course our morality is not objective as well.
That's important. Let me adjust the definition slightly. Say morality was the principles we have concerning the Earth's orbit (and pretend we couldn't prove either way), or the principles concerning the existance of God. Regardless of whether or not God actually exists, or the Earth is standing still, if we cannot objectively test the answers then our principles are not dependant on some test, not dependant on what's actually true, and not in any way objective - they are dependant - solely dependant - on our subjective personal opinion. I'm not saying God both does and does not exist. I'm saying our religious principles are subjective, just as our principles concerning right/wrong must be subjective.
Is a belief subjective if it's not objective? There's really nothing more I can say to this other than that I'm right by both my analysis in round two and by the very definition of objective and subjective. Finally, to claim that I really have no argument at all is quite preposterous - all pro attempts to prove is that my argument is irrelevant, not non-existant. The only problem is that it's not.
Pro's Case
Pro needed four steps to make his argument, providing a nice framework to take them down.
P1: Since I've spent more time rebutting this than any other of pro's contentions, I don't think it's true that "Con seems to concede I've defended this premise sufficiently". Opposites are not necessarily inverted statements, but simply anything exclusive. You can't both treat others as you'd like to be treated and treat them as you feel they deserve, because often we feel people deserve death, and most of us don't want to be murdered. This was just one of two counter-arguments I raised last round. The second, dropped by pro, is that moral rules cannot be rationalised. I do feel it deserved some response after two paragraphs of analysis.
P2: I agreed with this one. Was a bit of a tautology after all.
P3: Basically pro's only counter-refutation to my analysis is to call everyone with a different morality to pro "strange, insufficient, and irrelevant" in terms of their morality. Then he goes on to say the equivalent of "Also, some actions are amoral, and anyone who thinks otherwise" ... Oh yeah, I forgot sociopaths are not relevant to this debate! I wrote that with sarcasm by the way. I encourage voters to read what I said about this in round three. Besides, I thought morality WASN'T supposed to be dependant on your personal opinion, pro?
P4: I'm using concerned only in the sense of "to relate to" - even if I was a robot for the sole purpose of winning this debate, completely related to this debate in every way, it still does not follow that I am text-based. A maths textbook may be completely concerned with maths, using no asides or random interesting facts along the way, and yet still not be as objective as maths ("I think 2+2 is 9 but I might be wrong" would be an example of such a textbook). My examples only serve to illustrate the fallacy my opponent has committed - that is, assigning attributes to something related to, not equivalent to, another thing, as I said in round 2. In this light I've always been using the same definition, and pro has never rebutted my point. It's my opponent that's been meddling with equivocation, not me.
My opponent has failed to engage with me on most of his points. He spent round three rebutting P2 which I had never contested, and in round four he only rebutted P3 with reference to an argument I had already rebutted. He dropped half of my arguments on P1 and failed to justify the other half. And he never rebutted P4, despite several attempts, none of which actually related to my argument.
My case has been quite consistant. Morality is subjective because it depends on our personal opinion. We must depend on that because there is no "right" answer with morality - we can't see the future, so either alternative may be right. Pro's only real answer to this was to argue that just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean it isn't objective. But morality isn't the future, which has an objective outcome, but rather our beliefs about it, and how our actions today can affect the world we live in tommorrow.
And that, folks, is why I think I've won the debate.
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MikeyMike 6 years ago
^This is absolutely true, but Con pointed out that unless we have a way to test out whether something is objective or subjective, it is up to our personal opinions to decide, and since there is no scientific method or law governing morality, then morality is subjective. Really, this is all this debate comes down to, everything else was interesting and kinda fun to read, but essentially, useless.
Posted by FourTrouble 6 years ago
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
So you mean like "there is no 'right' answer with morality"? Because that's the conclusion of my argument. I'm just trying to avoid being "Laaaaaaaame", that's all.
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
Skepticism as in the belief that moral facts are false or are indeterminable. It's the basic starting point for an ethical argument against the objectivity of morality. I do quite enjoy using it and love it when others use it as well.
You may want to read up. It's an interesting field of philosophy.
Posted by IFLYHIGH 6 years ago
Posted by Buddamoose 6 years ago
Posted by Buddamoose 6 years ago
Posted by DakotaKrafick 6 years ago
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
Hey IFLYHIGH. Sorry about changing my profile pic. The old one was taken four years ago (I think). This looks quite different because of the different lighting conditions, but I assure you it's still me.
Thanks Buddamoose!
Zaradi, skepticism to me refers to questioning the opponent's position. The word has always been defined quite loosely, so in some way me being con is enough to make me skeptical of pro. Maybe you could be more specific about what you mean?
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
Oh well, it still looks like a decent debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: After some consideration, I really think Con's arguments are stronger. Pro's argument rests on the distinction between whether something is knowable or whether something actually is. The problem is, to prove in debate that something is requires it to be known, and its knowledge will always be subjective. Con clearly challenges Pro on this point, and Pro's argument is not able to recover.
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: Pro begins his final round with, "His entire argument attempts to answer the question 'Are the principles of morality knowable?' instead of "Are the principles of morality subjective or objective?" This really highlights Pro's inability to offer by what arbitration are morals objective. Indeed, he neglects the BoP entirely. Furthermoe, CON was not stating that objective morals don't exist, only that is an unknowable propisition, and offered countless examples of subjective morality. Con won.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: tie
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: I honestly cant decide. Both sides made strong arguments and ill leave it at a tie ;)
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.


text:
Addressing Three Open Access Myths
- Details
- Parent Category: Calder Communications Blog
- Category: Tips for Researchers
- Hits: 88774
Myth 1:
Open-access journals are not peer-reviewed and they publish low quality articles.
◊ The reality is that open access journals (e.g. PLoS Biology, BMC Biology, Nucleic Acids Research, Molecular Systems Biology, etc.) follow similar peer-review guidelines as do other high quality, scholarly journals. The selection criteria of more than 7000 journals published in The Directory of Open Access Journals is that their journals "should exercise quality control on submitted papers through an editor, editorial board, and/or a peer-review system" criteria. Just like any journal, quality of an open access journal is judged by the content of its articles.
Myth 2:
Open-access journals have lower Impact Factors.
◊ The reality is that high impact factors are found in open access journals across many disciplines. Search them in The Directory of Open Access Journals or browse through the titles in Ulrichsweb.
Myth 3:
Open-access articles are not copyrighted.
◊ The reality is that if you publish in an open access journal you may be able to retain copyright of your article, or be required to grant the publisher copyright, in the same manner that if you published in a controlled access (traditional subscription) journal. Many open-access journals allow authors to retain copyright of their work, yet most controlled access journals have agreements requiring transfer of copyright to the publisher. The publisher, in turn, could restrict you from reusing the content of your work in teaching and in other publications. There is no final settlement regarding a copyright policy and all open access journals. Yet, an author, when self-publishing on the Internet, can attach a Creative Commons License and instruct readers what he/she allows as far as copying, distributing, printing, or linking his/her work.
To find about more Open Access myths:
Calder Library Brings National Expert on Scholarly Publishing to the Miller School for Open Access Week
- Details
- Written by JoAnn Van Schaik
- Parent Category: Calder Communications Blog
- Category: Come to the Library!
- Hits: 119255
Heather Joseph, Executive Director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, will lecture on open access publishing and its implications for research and scholarly communication at the Calder Memorial Library History of Medicine Room (3rd floor) on Friday, October 28, at 3:00 PM.
Open access has been a hot news topic recently, with faculty from Princeton, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Duke and others opting to maintain the copyright on their own publications, for the purpose of increasing worldwide access to their work. For more information, see the Library's portal on open access.
The event will include remarks by Miller School of Medicine Dean Pascal J. Goldschmidt, M.D., and a brief demonstration of the University of Miami Institutional Repository by John Renaud, M.L.S. Light refreshments will be served.
Ms. Joseph has served as the Executive Director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition since 2005. In that capacity, she works to support broadening access to the results of scholarly research through enabling open access publishing, archiving and policies on a local, national and international level.
Prior to coming to SPARC, she spent 15 years as a publisher in both commercial and not-for-profit publishing organizations. She served as the publishing director at the American Society for Cell Biology, which became the first journal to commit its full content to the NIH's pioneering open repository, PubMed Central, and subsequently served on the NIH/National Library of Medicine National Advisory Committee for the project.
Ms. Joseph serves on the Board of Directors of numerous not-for-profit organizations, and recently completed a term as the elected president of the Society for Scholarly Publishing.
Exhibit at the Calder Library Features Women in Medicine
- Details
- Written by Emily Vardell
- Parent Category: Calder Communications Blog
- Category: Come to the Library!
- Hits: 86897
The Louis Calder Memorial Library is hosting the National Library of Medicine's traveling exhibit, Changing the Face of Medicine, through November 6.
The exhibit highlights the contributions of female physicians and researchers to the practice and study of medicine from Elizabeth Blackwell, M.D., the first female doctor in the United States, to Antonia Novella, M.D., the nation's first female surgeon general. Calder Library invites you to come learn more about the lives and accomplishments of the many female physicians featured in this outstanding exhibit, including a special section on the contributions of University of Miami female physicians and researchers.
New Photographer in Biomedical Communications
- Details
- Written by Gediminas Paulaitis
- Parent Category: Calder Communications Blog
- Category: Who's Who at Calder: Staff Updates
- Hits: 88561
We are pleased to announce that Biomedical Communications has a new team member – photographer Jorge Perez. Jorge has over ten years of experience as a senior photographer with the City of Miami and has covered thousands of major events, including visits by U.S. Presidents and Senators, foreign heads of state, stars of the entertainment industry, and leaders of the University of Miami.
Library Book Sale is Back
- Details
- Written by Emily Vardell
- Parent Category: Calder Communications Blog
- Category: Come to the Library!
- Hits: 87271
It's that time of year again! The popular Calder Library book sale is back! Come to the library and see what gems you can find! All books will be priced between $1 and $5, and the proceeds will benefit United Way and the library. The books will be on sale between Wednesday, October 5, and Wednesday, October 26, in the library's lobby on a first-come, first-served basis.
For more information, please call 305-243-6901.
Barbara Sorondo Joins Library Staff
- Details
- Written by Emily Vardell
- Parent Category: Calder Communications Blog
- Category: Who's Who at Calder: Staff Updates
- Hits: 95085
The Calder Library is pleased to announce that Barbara Sorondo has joined the staff as Manager, Library Services Interlibrary Loan department. Barbara comes to the library with a strong background in biomedical and library sciences. She completed her Master of Science in Library and Information Studies at Florida State University in August 2011, and earned a Master of Science in Psychology from Florida International University (FIU) in August 2010. For the past year, Barbara served as a medical library volunteer at Miami Children's Hospital, providing reference and technical assistance. She also served as a Research Assistant in the Infant Development Laboratory and the Neurocognitive Development Laboratory at FIU and the University of Miami, respectively. She gained teaching experience conducting lectures and review sessions for undergraduate students as a Teaching Assistant in the Department of Psychology at FIU. Please join us in welcoming Barbara. We look forward to seeing how her experience and enthusiasm add to the services we are able to offer our clients.
MD Conference Express Trial
- Details
- Written by Emily Vardell
- Parent Category: Calder Communications Blog
- Category: New Resources Announcements
- Hits: 101503
Are you looking for the reports from the most influential conferences? The Calder Library is featuring a temporary trial of MD Conference Express, where you have access to peer-reviewed conference highlights reports.
Find the Information You Need Faster and More Effectively
- Details
- Written by David Goolabsingh
- Parent Category: Calder Communications Blog
- Category: New Resources Announcements
- Hits: 88269
In our ongoing efforts to enhance and improve services to our users, we have implemented a new and improved federated search engine, 360 Search. The simple search interface unifies results for e-journals, e-books, and other library materials. It then sorts thousands of results into clusters that make it easy to cut through clutter and find meaningful content. Just type your topic in the search box in the upper-left hand corner of the homepage, and you will see your search results organized by topic, source, and more.
We have also created custom search categories which are targeted towards our main user groups. Subject searching can be found on the following portals listed on our website: Students, Consumer Health, Physicians/Clinicians, and Researchers.
Users can now find answers faster by eliminating information overload as 360 Search provides a quick, intuitive path to results that share common topics, dates, journals, and authors. Also, there is a seamless integration to full-text, whereby users are presented with links to the full-text articles based on our subscriptions. In addition, patrons are now able to export selected citations to any bibliographic citation manager (like RefWorks) or email selected citations in either plain text or HTML.
More E-Books Available for You
- Details
- Written by Erica Powell
- Parent Category: Calder Communications Blog
- Category: New Resources Announcements
- Hits: 89306
In our continuing efforts to make information easier for you to find, all of the books above and more are now easy to search and find in our library's catalog. If you are interested in browsing e-books by subject, you can also do so on our e-book page. Please let us know what else we can do to make your learning and research process easier. In the meantime, check out these books:
Anatomy Demystified by Dale P. Layman, c2004.
Cellular Physiology by David Landowne, c2006
Conduct Disorders in Childhood & Adolescence by Jonathan Hill and Barbara Maughan, c2001
Disorders of Volition by Natalie Sebanz and Wolfgang Prinz, c2006
Schaum's Outline of Biochemistry by Philip Kuchel, c2009
Skin Cancer by Keyvan Nouri, c2008
The New Look of RefWorks 2.0
- Details
- Parent Category: Calder Communications Blog
- Category: Tips for Researchers
- Hits: 92819
RefWorks is a popular tool on the campus, used by many researchers, students, and faculty members to create bibliographies without worrying about citation style details. Now RefWorks has come out with version 2.0, which incorporates many of the great suggestions we have heard from you all.
In addition to have a cleaner, more user-friendly layout, Version 2.0 will allow the user to create subfolders which will allow even greater organizational ability. It will also allow for de-duplication within folders, which will remove any duplicates of references within the same folder. Sharing of items will also be modified so a user does not have to share an entire folder and will be able to share just select references with colleagues. RefWorks 2.0 also has the ability to use keyboard navigation so it works with assistive technologies.
If you want to see and try out RefWorks 2.0, log in to your RefWorks account and click on RefWorks 2.0 in the upper right corner.
DynaMed Redesign
- Details
- Written by Emily Vardell
- Parent Category: Calder Communications Blog
- Category: Tips for Clinicians
- Hits: 163359
The point-of-care tool DynaMed released a new user interface this week. The redesign streamlines searching, with the homepage offering a single search box.
New features include:
- ability to see the table of contents of all topics on search results list
- one-click access to topic subsections from the search results list
- searching within the text of a topic for a specific term or phrase
- e-mail alerts when a topic is updated with new evidence

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Nearly every pet owner has witnessed their pet chewing on something they aren't supposed to. Oftentimes, these objects end up being swallowed. Such swallowed foreign bodies tend to get stuck in the body, and the first place they can get lodged is within the esophagus. Bones or string are the most common objects that gets caught; other common items include sewing needles, socks, fishhooks, rawhide, and wood. Regardless of what object your pet swallows, promptly removing it before it causes further damage should be a primary concern.
Symptoms of a foreign body in esophagus:
Identifying foreign bodies
When a pet owner brings in their animal either having witnessed them swallowing an article, or suspecting them having swallowed an object, most foreign bodies can be detected with an X-ray. If the item swallowed was translucent, a contrast esophagoscopy will need to be performed in order to detect the item and where it is located. This test utilizes biocompatible dyes to make transparent articles better visible in imaging.
How are foreign elements removed from the esophagus?
Once foreign objects have been positively identified, they should be removed promptly. The outlook for foreign object removal is very good, and most pets do very well. Depending on the precise location of the item, the veterinarian will advise you on the different methods of removal, and you can decide which method is best for your pet. Some objects can be removed with induced vomiting; others can be extracted with an endoscope and forceps. If the object has moved further down the esophagus, it can be pushed into the stomach with the endoscope where it will be digested and passed.
In some cases, surgery is necessary, and the object will be pushed into the stomach so it can be surgically removed via gastrotomy. Gastrotomy is a safe surgical incision that enables the veterinarian to examine the contents of the stomach and remove the foreign object without disturbing surrounding organs. If the article has punctured the esophagus, immediate surgery becomes critical. The article cannot be moved and surgery must be performed in the location of the object.
If you have observed your pet swallowing foreign items or they are exhibiting any suspicious symptoms, we strongly advise you to contact our office, and schedule an exam.
We encourage you to contact us with any questions or comments you may have. Please call our office or use the quick contact form.
Read what people are saying about us.
read more
We took our 5 month old puppy in to get neutered today and had a great experience. They educate you on expenses without making you feel guilty if you decide against extra options. We were able to pick him up 5 hours after dropping him off which was also amazing. Would highly recommend to anyone looking for a vet.
Chelsea G.'s
Dr. Genova has been my 4 legged daughter's doctor for her whole life (10 years). He is very personable, informative and kind. I seriously cannot say enough positive things about him.. Why else would I trust him to take care of my baby girl?
The rest of the staff is also very kind. Most of them have changed throughout the years but one thing that hasn't is that you can immediately tell how much they all love animals.
This is definitely one of this places that I wish I could give more than 5 stars to.
John L.
We had our first experience at Village at Main Veterinary Hospital today and I couldn't wait to write a review because of how pleased I was with the entire staff and environment. I arrived way early for my appointment but they took me anyway since it was open with no problem at all. As soon as we walked in the door my puppy and I were greeted with smiles and even staff that didn't run the counter came out and greeted and loved on my puppy as well which really put her at ease. Every staff member acknowledged our presence at some point. We were taken back to an exam room and we saw Dr. Tran who was warm and loving toward my puppy, she really took her time and you could easily see that she loves what she does. Dr. Tran covered all of my questions I had planned to ask as well as asked if I had any others. I would highly recommend this clinic to anybody who has had a bad experience at another clinic because it will totally make up for it as it did in our case. Thank you so much again for making us feel right at home and loving what you guys do, I will continue to drive 30 minutes just to have my pooch continue to see you guys :)
Tiffany B.


text:
Advanced Editing
By default, each card is assigned Planned and Effective Start/End dates based on the card's movement through the board and the Automatic Scheduling feature. The effective dates are meant to be automatically calculated by Elegantt but you can override their value at any time via the Advanced settings in the card edit popin.
Simply open the card edit popin and click on the arrow icon next to the Planned start date. You can then click on the Effective start/end dates to open the datepicker.


text:
Isn't this kitchen picture lovely? I saw a picture of a similar kitchen in a Home and Garden's magazine and thought it looked like mine. OK...not like mine, but I thought of my kitchen's potential.
Here is my kitchen. It's OK for a kitchen. The pluses were that there was lots of counter space and a great pantry. Everything was functional. There were a few minuses. The sink was small and it was hard to fit much in it. The counter tops were kind of nasty (especially if you looked underneath them.) Overall there wasn't too much to complain about. But you know what happens when you see somethings potential. You have to act!
Here is the first step of my makeover. It was the hard part. Painting the cabinets took a lot longer than I thought. I took a few brakes, some because we couldn't untighten some of the stubborn screws for a while. But it took me about a month to complete.
After the hard part came the fun part. We got a sweet deal on counter tops at Home Depot. I picked a quarts rather than granite. It is harder and so it doesn't chip. (I can attest to this because I accidentally dropped a hammer on the first day.) It also doesn't need any maintenance-so no resealing! It's great for kids too since it has anti-bacterial stuff already in the counter top. And it's so smooth and wonderful....
As an afterthought I had my friend Ariel back splash the wall. It's not grouted yet. I am so glad that I decided to do that because the sink's faucet can make some serious splashing. Also, no more wiping spaghetti drips and canning splatters of of paint. Yea!
My favorite part of the remodel? The sink! No more crud around the faucet plate. No more stacked up dishes because they don't fit in the sink. Seriously people, it is so great. The price of the plumber to rearrange our pipes under the sink...not so great. But did I mention that the sink was free with our Home Depot deal? So no worries.


text:
The 2017 Clothing Sale was very successful! Thank you to all. Check back for the dates for the 2018 Fall Clothing Sale.
Every year in November we are proud to offer you the best in bargain shopping for women's, men's and children's clothing and accessories. In addition to rack-upon-rack of better quality fall/winter clothing we will once have our unique Christmas Room and our Shopper's Café featuring homemade soups and snacks for lunch. Quarts of frozen soup are available for sale in the Café. Donations for the sale are accepted year round. Clothing may be dropped off at the church during office hours, Wednesday to Friday from 9:00am – 4:00pm. The main purpose of this sale is to raise money to support the outreach efforts of the parish. Over the past twenty-plus years St. Barnabas has donated over $726,000 to charitable organizations throughout the area. By shopping and/or donating you help us to continue this important mission.
See you at The Sale!


text:
Fierce Women Talk Honestly
If any of my blog readers follow my Instagram or Twitter feeds, you'll have already been bombarded with messages about One Weekend In Falkirk – a four-day programme of arts events, which took place from 25th – 28th January.
My personal highlight of the weekend was an event I hosted, where the aptly named "Women With Fierce Words" took over our usual Rooftop Writers writing group meeting. We also had some beautiful instrumental guitar music by Belgian musician, Nico G.
The evening started off with a writing prompt, the way we would normally begin our writing group meeting. This time, we used Nico G's music for inspiration, and I instructed the participants just to write down whatever they felt while listening to the music.
For me, the music evoked feelings of nostalgia, of reflecting back on a special memory, and this is what I came up with:
Reflections / staring deep into the mirror of my past / Long summer days at the lake without a care in the world / jumping in naked then wrapped together in blankets by the campfire / And then you kissed me underneath the stars / A kiss that formed new galaxies in the universe of my soul / A kiss that created memories to last a lifetime. / And now, I would trade the remainder of my life / just for one night naked under a blanket with you / with your lips pressed to mine.
Unfortunately for me, the memory wasn't a real-life one, but I was pretty impressed that I managed to come up with that in the space of a few minutes. Writing to music is definitely something I'm going to try again in future.
Then it was time for the take-over. Women With Fierce Words is a collective of poets and writers from all over Scotland. They come from different backgrounds, but they are all outspoken and passionate when it comes to making their voices heard. The ethos of the group is all about support and encouragement for each other and for other writers (both male and female.)
The fierce word of the evening was HONESTY, and Lesley Traynor and Emma Mooney spoke to us about the importance of being honest in your writing. It can be a frightening thing, to let go and be completely honest, but it can also be therapeutic, liberating, and satisfying.
The thing is, with honest writing, everything is laid bare, the emotion is completely genuine and nothing is contrived. The reader gets to know the real you. I think honesty is a good mantra for real life too, not just for your writing.
A fabulous thing then happened at the event. We had an open mic, with the opportunity for writers to get up and read some poetry or stories. Nobody had been briefed in advance that we were going to be discussing Honesty, but yet some of the performers gave a very honest account which left us practically gasping for breath. One performer spoke about being raped, and another person who had never performed in front of an audience before, felt inspired to get up and share something he had written about his father passing away. It's the unscripted moments like these, which really turn an event into something special.
The following day I felt inspired so, just for fun, I took part in the "5 things you didn't know about me" on social media. In no particular order, my 5 things were
- I was a member of the Robson and Jerome fan club.
- I suffer from Trichotillomania, a hair pulling disorder on the Obsessive Compulsive spectrum. At times of stress I pull all my eyelashes out, and sometimes I also pull my eyebrows and head hair. If you ever see me wearing false eyelashes, then that's why!
- I used to be able to run the 100m in 13 seconds, and one of my biggest regrets is not pursuing a career in athletics
- I studied at St Andrews University at the same time Prince William was there, although I eventually dropped out, as I didn't see myself fitting in with the other students who were mostly privately-educated and had millionaire parents!
- My previous jobs include – Waitress, Data Analyst, Plant Hire Administrator, Selling Vintage Clothes, Tanning Salon Assistant, Librarian, and selling sweets on a market stall.
Of course, none of these are earth-shattering admissions. But I've never admitted them to anyone before, so it felt like a huge thing just to get these off my chest. Completing this exercise made me think about other ways I can be honest in future. Perhaps I will incorporate some of these into my work in progress…
Fierce Words
The Women With Fierce Words produced a canvas and encouraged us all to get up and write a word which makes us feel fierce. My fierce word for the evening was CONFIDENCE. These women and the writing community as a whole give me the confidence to keep on doing what I'm doing, they are an inspiration to me, and although I may not seem the most confident person in the room, the transformation within me since I first started writing and performing is immense. I can now say I am confident in my writing abilities, I just need to work on my confidence in performance, and that's something I look forward to working on at future events.
I've met some amazing people since I started my writing journey, and I continue to meet amazing new people at every single event. I left the evening with an invitation to read at Tell It Slant's Express Yourself anniversary event, celebrating women in poetry. I also arranged a collaboration with a writing group in Edinburgh, so watch this space. So many exciting things to look forward to this year, and I can't wait!
All photos in this post by Sweet P Photography, courtesy of The Write Angle
Related Posts:
How to Overcome Your Fear of Public Speaking
My Proudest Moments As A Writer So Far
Breaking Out of Your Comfort Zone
Previous Post: Falkirk Storytelling Festival 2017


text:
Accurate and timely accounting information is a necessity for any successful business. Harrison Henderson, PLLC can assist you on either a temporary or on-going basis. Due to the size of our firm, our clients receive excellent, personalized, quality service. In addition to the traditional compliance services, such as accounting and tax, we offer our clients comprehensive financial planning and investment advisory services. Listed below is a brief description of the specific services we offer:
Expertise. Peace of mind. These are the things that you can expect your tax advisor to provide. We view our relationship with each of our clients as an ongoing partnership and strive to provide you with quality, up-to-date tax return preparation and advice. We keep abreast of current tax laws throughout the year to minimize your tax liabilities and to maximize your future opportunities.
Whether you are an individual or operate a business we can accommodate your needs for tax planning and preparation.
Small businesses often find the services of an outside CPA firm to be the most cost effective way to compile reliable financial statements.We work with our client's accounting personnel to assure that the accounting processes and controls are in place to assure management that they are receiving timely and accurate financial reporting. Third parties often rely on your financial statements for financing arrangements. In many cases we can compile or review your financial statement reports using generally accepted accounting principles that will assist third parties with their financial analysis. If a more thorough examination is required for the third party's assurance, we can refer you to other CPA firms that specialize in audits. If internal reporting is all that is needed, we can design a reporting package that will assist you with the management of your business.
In the diverse world of business, some companies find it difficult to manage all of the many functions required to run their businesses. Wouldn't it help you to rely on a trusted and accessible business partner to handle your payroll? Allow us to take care of your payroll needs - from issuing the payroll checks to filing the necessary tax returns.
Effective management of financial affairs requires extensive knowledge, organization, and constant vigilance. Our firm provides a complete range of consulting and advisory services to help with the complexities of financial planning. We truly care about our clients and strive to form lasting relationships with each of them - providing beneficial information, access to a wealth of resources, and a proactive stance in serving each client's needs.
Our financial planning services include:
Selecting the right accounting software is one of the most important decisions small businesses have to make. The cost of the software should not be the only criteria used in making the decision. The installation, setup and training cost will usually cost much more than the software, so choosing the package that is right for your business is critical to providing you with timely management reports necessary to running a successful business.
We currently support three accounting software packages: Checkbook Solutions, Quickbooks Pro, and Businessworks. Please call our office to see which package is right for your business. We would be glad to review your needs and recommend the package most appropriate for your business, along with a fee estimate for the software, installation and training.
Our firm has noticed a growing demand for outsourcing services as a temporary or permanent solution to various business functions. For example, conventional accounting and finance functions and CFO/controller functions can often be handled by an outsource provider in a more cost effective manner than hiring someone in-house. Transferring major, non-core functions to specialized and efficient service providers, frees you to concentrate on your business's core competencies. We would be happy to meet with you and determine if outsourcing is right for your company.
Success. Our success depends on your success. Throughout our relationship, we hope to assist you in making decisions and adopting strategies that take maximum advantage of opportunities to optimize the assets and overall success of your business. Whether it is choosing software packages, evaluating acquisition candidates, or advising you on retirement plans, we can provide informed and valuable help every step of the way.
(918) 665-0001
(918) 627-4450
© 2018 Harrison Henderson, PLLC All Rights Reserved.
Web Builder CS: Websites for Accountants


text:
22 May 2018 - 24 May 2018
The event is over
Mandalay Bay Convention Center
Las Vegas / Nevada / United States of America
Licensing International Expo is the meeting place for the global licensing industry, connecting the world's most influential entertainment, character, fashion, art and corporate brand owners and agents with consumer goods manufacturers, licensees and retailers. This 3 days event is being organized by UBM Americas. The venue of this event is Mandalay Bay Convention Center which is located in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America. The event will be held from 22 May 2018, Tuesday to 24 May 2018, Thursday. Licensing International Expo 2018 will showcase a wide range of products and services related to licensing sector from the leading exhibitors such as animation, anime, manga, apparel, fashion, art & design, automotive, brands & trademarks, characters, entertainment, food & beverage, inspirational, religious, holiday, interactive, video games, not-for-profit, charitable, sports, outdoors, publishing, professional services. The approximate number of exhibitors that will exhibit at this event is over 500. Over 16,000 visitors are expected at this event. Visitor profile of this event includes licensees, manufacturers, retailers, advertising, marketing, promotions agencies, art & design, licensing agents, consultants, licensors, publishers, printers, wholesalers, distributors. The frequency of Licensing International Expo is annual. This event has been running since 1980.
Address : 3950 Las Vegas Blvd. South
City : Las Vegas, NV
Country : United States of America
Phone : +1 877-632-7900
Website : Click here for venue website
Mandalay Bay Convention Center is Las Vegas' ultimate convention facility with 1.000.000 square feet (93.000 square meters) of event space. The world's most prestigious companies choose the convention center for their milestone moments. The Center is where leaders meet for events, meetings, trade shows or conventions.
ASAE Annual Meeting & Exposition
American Society of Association Executives Annual Meeting & Exposition
NIGP Forum & Exposition
National Institute of Governmental Purchasing Annual Forum & Products Exposition
AICPA National Conference on Banks & Savings Institutions
NPPA Conference
National Pharmacy Purchasing Association Conference & Exhibition
National Ergonomics Conference & ErgoExpo
CAALA Vegas
Las Vegas Convention of Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
UBM Americas provides events and marketing services for fashion, technology, licensing, advanced manufacturing, automotive and powersports, healthcare, veterinary, and pharmaceutical industries, among others and increases business effectiveness for both customers and audiences through meaningful experiences, knowledge and connections.
Address: 2 Pennsylvania Plaza, 15th Floor
City: New York City, NY
Country: United States of America
Phone: 212-600-3378
Fax: 609-759-4772
Website: Click here for organizer website
|Event Type
|International Trade Show
|Start Date
|22 May 2018, Tuesday
|End Date
|24 May 2018, Thursday
|Business Services & Finance
|Mandalay Bay Convention Center
|Las Vegas, NV
|United States of America
|UBM Americas
|Web Site
|Click for official website
|First Year
|Open to
|Trade visitors


text:
The ESCP Europe Students Meet Business society provided fellow students with a unique opportunity to meet IBM, the world's most admired IT services company.
On Wednesday, the 8th February 2012, ESCP Europe Students Meet Business society's 2nd event of the spring semester, the ACCA Business Ethics Workshop, was held at the ESCP London campus.
On 26th and 27th January, 2012, the Business Performance Institute (BPI) came to the ESCP Europe London campus for an exclusive recruitment event organised by the Students Meet Business Society.
On Monday, 5th March 2012, Climatecars will host an exclusive Insight Day at their offices for ESCP students to get to know the company. They will also be conducting interviews for a summer internship...


text:
We all know you're on Santa's nice list, just sport the shirt to prove it. Perfect in clover green with white print. Grab a naughty or nice shirt for all of your friends and family!
Create an account with us and you'll be able to:
Fill in your email below to request a new password. An email will be sent to the address below containing a link to verify your email address.


text: Hello! We're back after our big inaugural event last year. International Chick Lit Month is held every May to celebrate all things chick lit – that amazingly diverse genre that focuses on the issues that women face today – both serious and humorous. And joining Chicklit Club, Chick Lit is Not Dead and Novelicious as the presenting team in 2012 is Chick Lit Central. Stay tuned over the next 31 days as we present lots of author posts, giveaways and induct four more worthy writers into our Hall of Fame. We hope you enjoy everything that International Chick Lit Month has to offer. Because every woman deserves her happy ending.


text:
The following video is part of our "Motley Fool Conversations" series, in which industrials editor/analyst Brendan Byrnes and analyst/editor Isaac Pino discuss topics across the investing world.
In today's edition, Isaac and Brendan discuss production cuts within the coal industry. Major railroads rely heavily on coal to drive volume and could be affected by tapering declining for this energy source. Isaac and Brendan touch on the implications of production decline and whether this will weigh on railroads over the long haul.
Isaac Pino owns shares of CSX. Brendan Byrnes has no positions in the stocks mentioned above. The Motley Fool has no positions in the stocks mentioned above. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


text:
Join the Graduate Social Club for a grad bar night at Henry's on Thursday 2/6 at 9:30 p.m. (2600 Durant Ave, Berkeley). Meet the Graduate Assembly delegates after the last GA meeting! First Pitchers are on GSC, so get there early for a free drink!
facebook info on : https://www.facebook.com/events/1433123263591955


text:
Paula F. Hernandez Hoover, O.D. is pleased to offer care to patients of all ages (including babies) with various needs. Our team takes the time to really listen to your requirements in order to give the highest quality care. Services include:
Comprehensive Eye Exams
For glasses and contact lenses.
Specialty Lens Fitting
For patients that have astigmatism or require bifocals.
Retinal Scanner
Used as an alternative to dilation-great for problem screening!
Eye Infection Treatment
Post-Op Care
Aftercare post ophthalmic surgery for cataracts and Lasik-we make sure you heal up ok!
Diabetic Care
Annual exams to check for cataracts, allergies and more.
With an emphasis on early detection, we test for diagnosis and provide treatment when necessary.
A program by the American Optometric Association for babies between 6-12 months old to receive their first eye exam, and it's free!
Contact us today.


text:
This Tuesday (August 1), Ultimate Jam Night, the weekly revue held at the world-famous Whisky A Go Go in Hollywood, will present a special tribute to Adrenaline Mob bassist David Z. Doors open at 8:00 and, as always, the show is free.
A number of special guests, including Twisted Sister frontman Dee Snider, Sebastian Bach (formerly of Skid Row), Jeff Scott Soto (Yngwie Malmsteen), Dug Pinnik (King's X), Bruce Kulick (KISS, Grand Funk Railroad), Joe Retta (Heaven & Earth), Mark Wood (Trans-Siberian Orchestra), Mark McGrath (Sugar Ray), Frankie Banali (Quiet Riot), Richie Kotzen (Winery Dogs), Mike Portnoy (Winery Dogs, Flying Colors), Rikki Rockett (Poison), and many more, are expected to perform.
The Ultimate Jam Night house band featuring Quiet Riot bassist and UJN founder Chuck Wright, drummer Matt Starr (Mr. Big, Ace Frehley), guitarist Mitch Perry (Edgar Winter, MSG) and keyboardist Walter Ino (Survivor) will be on hand to support the musicians. Paulie Z, the brother of David Z, will host the night.
David Zablidowsky, aka David Z, was the bassist for both Adrenaline Mob and Trans-Siberian Orchestra. He was tragically killed on July 14 when a tractor-trailer struck Adrenaline Mob's RV, en route to a gig at the State Theater in St. Petersburg, Florida.
A full house is expected, so fans should get to the Whisky early. For those who can't make it to the Sunset Strip, the entire night will be broadcast on www.zinna. tv.


text:
Here at Eco Greendeals we have a dedicated, highly trained and competent team, ready to support our customers. Each of our departments are headed by an experienced Manager, who really understands the demands of our business and needs of our customers, and ensures that all works proceed as expected.Meet the team
We understand that emergencies often occur out of usual office hours, which is why we have a dedicated call out department, ready to respond. From no hot water, through to an electrical fault, we have a qualified team on standby, whatever the time of day or night!Learn More about our 24/7 Callouts
We operate a fully scalable operation here at Eco Green deals, and are experienced with managing and fulfilling projects, from multiple properties from a private landlord through to a whole community project, managed by a social housing provider. With a full range of services available, we are able to take the project from start through to a punctual completion, fully managed and supported by a dedicated project Manager.sRead More
PHP Social Stream: There is no feed to show or you are not connected to the world wide web!
Please complete the short form below. One of our staff will get back to you shortly
Please complete the short form below. One of our staff will get back to you shortly to complete your cover plan request
Please complete the short form below. One of our staff will get back to you shortly to complete your cover plan request
Please complete the short form below. One of our staff will get back to you shortly to complete your cover plan request
Heat loss through the roof area is one of the highest percentages. This is because hot air rises, and so naturally finds its way to the highest point of the property. In order to maximize the reduction in losing expensive heat through the roof, the most effective and straightforward solution is to ensure that your loft has sufficient, quality insulation installed. This ensures that the warm air remains in the property, and does not escape through the ceilings and into uninsulated loft areas, and then out through the roof fabric. Specific insulating material needs to be laid between and across the wooden joists directly above the ceiling to maximize the potential heat loss areas and to therefore prevent heat escaping through the ceiling area and eventually through the roof.
Floor insulation is not usually practical for most homes, although thick carpets with a quality fitted underlay will reduce heat loss. If there are poor fitting floorboards, the gaps between can be filled with a material to assist with reducing heat loss. Underfloor insulation is ideal when a property has a cellar, which, if not insulated, the ceiling/ground floor area would allow cold air to travel up to the accommodation above, creating a reduction in required temperature in the ground floor rooms.
Heat loss through external walls is generally the highest percentage of heat loss through a property and there are several solutions to improve the energy efficiency qualities depending on the type of construction. Standard brick built constructions, with a cavity wall, can benefit from cavity wall insulation, which inserts a wall product between the external walls to create a barrier, enabling the heat to remain within the property. If a property has a random stone construction there is a foam based product which can be injected into the irregular cavity, with the same benefits as cavity wall insulation. For solid wall properties, external wall insulation can be applied to the external walls, not only offering heat retention qualities, but also cosmetically enhancing a property's appearance, as this is a cladding product. Wall insulation is a great way of reducing heat loss in a property, and if installed by a professional, registered company, will provide a guaranteed installation and trouble free process.
Double glazed windows and efficient doors are an effective way of reducing heat loss through a glazed area, due to the energy saving qualities built into the window system. Single glazed windows generally have a wooden or metal frame, which over time can weaken and become lose, and together with a single pane of glass, encourage heat loss, as it creates a cold spot. Ideally new UPVC double glazed window systems will be most effective, but secondary glazing fitted behind single glazed units can also create an improvement in heat loss opportunities. Poorly fitting external doors will also enable heat to escape through any gaps, and the internal heating will be lost through these areas.
A considerable amount of expensive heat can be lost through poor fitting doors, windows and loft hatches. It is a fairly simple and inexpensive solution to fit draught proofing around all external doors, windows and any loft hatches to ensure a tight closure and reduce the opportunity for heat loss through these areas.
Copyright 2014 © Eco-Greendeals. All Rights Reserved.
Eco-Greendeals is the trading name of Eco Green World Ltd | Company No. 8414308


text:
Chatham's Men's Shelter Is Now A 'Haven'April 20, 2017 10:16am
The men's shelter located on Wellington St. W. in Chatham, has changed its name from New Beginning House to Chatham Hope Haven.
Wanda Bell, a public relations volunteer, says they changed the name to avoid confusion with local businesses.
"It's a great change because it shows that it's a haven," she says. "It's not going to be open 24 hours a day like the women's shelter, it is a temporary overnight emergency haven."
In addition to changing its name, Hope Haven has launched its own website, put up a new sign, and installed a new roof. However, there's still a lot of work that needs to be done before it can open up as an overnight program.
"We do have to raise a little bit more money and as well we need enough volunteers so that we can run a monthly schedule," she says. "We have about 30 volunteers who have been trained so far."
Bell adds they're looking for about 20 more volunteers — specifically men.
It was hoped that the shelter would have the overnight program running by now, but due to certain fire regulations that need to be upheld, the opening date has been pushed back.
Bell says she's hoping to have night operations running within the next couple of months.
Those services are expected to run from 7pm-7am.
During an open house earlier this year, Manager Faye Wilson told BlackburnNews.com that day services are available Monday's, Wednesday's and Friday's from 10am-2pm.


text:
Beyoncé Begging Kim Kardashian For Advice On How To Get Pregnant With 2nd Baby
Are Kim Kardashian and Beyonce bonding over babies? HollywoodLife.com has exclusively learned that the singer is seeking womanly advice from Mrs. West in regards to getting pregnant with her second child. Find out all the details!
If anyone knows about the struggles to conceive it's Kim Kardashian, 34. The reality star has openly shared her ups and downs when it comes to getting pregnant, so is Beyoncé, 33, running to her for advice?
"She's even talked to Kim about the difficult process of having a baby and different alternatives like IFV, surrogacy and even adoption," an insider tells HollywoodLife.com EXCLUSIVELY. "In the end, Beyonce thinks it will happen and she will soon have another little baby to love." We wonder if Jay Z is talking to his boy Kanye West about the same issues.
Our source added, "Beyonce is actually jealous that Kim got pregnant and she hasn't. She's happy for Kim but also a little envious." We can't blame Bey for having these feelings, especially when Kimye's baby news has been all over the media!
As HollywoodLife.com previously reported, it hasn't been an easy road for Queen B and her hubby when it comes to getting pregnant. Our source revealed, "Unfortunately Bey and Jay have struggled to get pregnant this time around. They are seeing their doctor and doing everything they can to have a baby."
Are Beyoncé & Jay Z Using A Surrogate?
Where there's a will, there's a way. A recent report claimed that Beyoncé and Jay Z have opted to use a surrogate to carry their second child due to having no luck with conceiving. An insider told In Touch that the famous duo are in the process of having a second baby through a unnamed surrogate. "They were trying for several months, but Beyoncé was having trouble. She was scared about another high-risk pregnancy, so surrogacy became the best decision for them."
Whatever happens, we hope Beyoncé finds baby happiness whether it's with a surrogate or by carrying her own child.
HollywoodLifers — should Beyoncé go the same route Kim did and try IVF? Let us know your thoughts below!
— Brittany King, Reporting by Tim Plant


text:
Nortel Weighs Selling Optical-Parts Unit To Corning for More Than $100 Billion
Transaction Is So Complex, A Deal May Be Difficult
Nortel Networks Corp. and Corning Inc., two highflying technology-equipment concerns, are in serious talks about a possible combination that would involve selling Nortel's optical-parts business to Corning in a deal that could be valued at more than $100 billion, according to people familiar with the matter.
While the two companies have had discussions for some time, a deal isn't imminent and the talks could break down at any time, these people warned. Indeed, a potential transaction would be highly complicated, so there is...


text:
Adventures Of Superman, The - The Complete Season 2 (Box Set)
Release Date: 20 March 2006 | Certificate: To Be Announced
£10.79 includes FREE UK Postage (other delivery options available)
Shipping Destinations for this item
UK - Shipping Included
United Kingdom
Europe Zone 1 - £2.19
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland
Europe Zone 2 - £2.99
Andorra, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway, Poland, Sweden
Europe Zone 3 - £2.99
Bosnia And Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Montenegro, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Vatican City
North America - £3.99
Canada, USA
New Zealand / Far East Asia - £3.99
Israel, New Zealand, Taiwan
Japan - £4.99
Others - £6.99
Falkland Islands
Sorry, this product is currently unavailable.
This DVD box set features the complete second series of the Superman TV series! Originally aired in the 1950s, it features George Reeves as Superman and enjoyed tremendous success during its broadcast. The TV series premise was established a year before its broadcast via the theatrical release of 'Superman and The Mole Men' in 1951. The legendary Man of Steel assumes the secret identity of Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for the Metropolis Daily Planet. And with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, he battles for truth and justice as Superman! Episodes Comprise: 1. Five Minutes to Doom 2. The Big Squeeze 3. The Man Who Could Read Minds 4. Jet Ace 5. Shot in the Dark 6. The Defeat of Superman 7. Superman in Exile 8. A Ghost for Scotland Yard 9. The Dog Who Knew Superman 10. The Face and the Voice 11. The Man in the Lead Mask 12. Panic in the Sky 13. The Machine That Could Plot Crimes 14. Jungle Devil 15. My Friend Superman 16. The Clown Who Cried 17. The Boy Who Hated Superman 18. Semi-Private Eye 19. Perry White's Scoop 20. Beware the Wrecker 21. The Golden Vulture 22. Jimmy Olsen, Boy Editor 23. Lady in Black 24. Star of Fate 25. The Whistling Bird 26. Around the World with Superman
More Detail
Region 2
Main Language: English
Release Date: 20 March 2006
Certificate: TBA - To Be Announced
Catalogue No: 1000086185