I am a Brit in Europe, and I have followed the topic of abortion and studied it as a philosopher since 2004. Despite being a progressive, and having identified as an atheist until 2010, from 2004 until 2020 I also identified as pro-life. This was mostly through social media, but also through pro-life organisations, events and public witness. In 2013 I even gave a talk in the main shrine of St. John Henry Newman at his Oratory church in Birmingham. This was on the validity and importance of men’s voices in the abortion debate, which was based on my article here for Secular Pro-Life.
As of 2020 I am pro-choice insofar as I support abortion being legal until 12 weeks with some rare exceptions for later term abortions (which is the norm in most ‘civilised’ countries.) (I am also in favour of legal assisted dying -as distinct from assisted suicide- in some cases). This year I accepted I could no longer identify with even the secular, feminist, pro-LGBT and/or leftist pro-life contingents, given the obsessive nature of the groups and subculture. And when I say ‘obsessive’ I mean their tendency towards an all-consuming fixation on saving embryos and fetuses -and denigrating pro-choicers- which makes for an unhealthy lifestyle, and neglects other social causes that need to be fought for.
Yet this does not automatically make me pro-choice, as it is not a binary option. I would primarily identify myself neither as pro-choice nor as pro-life, but as pro-fetal science. This is the rationalist position. It means being pro-women as well as pro-fetal human beings. And pro-evidence-based policies for both promoting women’s equality and reducing the rate of human beings dying as fetuses. Naturally this involves increasing social welfare support, particularly to pregnant women and young families, and improving sex education and access to contraception. But it also involves promoting a culture of care and virtues for defending life, as I argued for in the third section of this earlier article. Read the rest of this entry
We’ve seen some popular mechanics showcased in the role of action selection but many are also found in ‘engine building.’ A motor race is won not just by making good turns but by having developed a good engine to drive with. By ‘engines’ in board games we mean processes players work through to pursue their goals, which is perhaps more comparable with how a business or economy develops. For example, the resource management game Splendor is about more than just collecting jewels to purchase cards worth victory points, it’s also about knowing when to spend your turn (and jewels) on cards that increase your income of certain jewels, hence allowing you gain more points in the long run. This investment of time and resources to develop your abilities is ‘engine building’. It is using your present turns in a way that improves your ongoing economy and hence the effectiveness of your future turns at achieving your ultimate goal. Read the rest of this entry
In the previous part we saw that incorporating action points can improve upon the experiences offered by traditional games by offering a larger degree of freedom, albeit with the new limitation of the number points per turn. In this part we’re discussing action drafting, which increases the challenge of action selection by constraining such freedom in a different way. ‘Action drafting’ is a mechanic where rather than a game’s rules making certain actions always available, they are instead associated with certain locations in the play area at which players can take these actions. Often these action spaces are drafted by placing pieces on them referred to as your ‘workers’, hence the genre known as ‘worker placement’ games. Read the rest of this entry
The rest of this article will be less explicitly philosophical, as unlike the first part where I discussed play in the abstract, here I’m going to explain and analyse aspects of games design, and the variations available to draw upon in implementing them in a new game. This functions both as a toolkit for aspiring board game designers and as a tour through the innovations that have made hobby board games much more fun since the millennium.
In the previous part I concluded that in designing a board game we should begin by identifying the experiences we want players to enjoy, and put that at the centre of our design as we develop it. In such a way that the game is geared towards maximising those positive experiences over negative ones. In order to do this a design will need to incorporate engaging play mechanisms (referred to in the hobby as ‘mechanics’). A mechanic will be specified in the rules, but it is not just the same thing as a rule. If a game’s main rules were like hard science, the mechanics would be like technologies players actually use towards achieving their aims. A simple example of a mechanic is rolling a die to decide something, such as how many spaces you move. That ‘roll and move’ mechanic is so synonymous with board games that non-hobbyists would be forgiven for thinking that it plays a part in most games, but for the last few decades has rarely featured in any serious new game. Read the rest of this entry
For the first 4 years I had this blog, philosophical writing was still my main pastime, but from the subsequent 4 years to present, my time has been dominated by a new hobby: tabletop gaming. Philosophy and board games naturally go together as they are both about thinking, and the social pleasure of sharing that thinking in the company of others. Whether you’re drinking coffee or wine, and whether you’re debating with colleagues or playing cards in a mothers’ group, these are social experiences which are expressive of your thinking and reasoning. Read the rest of this entry
This week saw lashes of praise and respect poured upon Lenin on his 150th birthday, not only by Communists, but by many socialists and Marxian thinkers too. Even Vince Cable, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats (and minister under a Conservative-led government) in the UK said that one didn’t need to be a socialist to appreciate Lenin’s great achievements. It is true that most of the time the people who we hear being praised are terrible celebrities and right wing figures, but we shouldn’t let that provoke us into praising a left wing figure who was the head of an authoritarian government which ruthlessly killed thousands. Not only does such polarisation damage our civic debate in general, but such particular admiration of Lenin’s record in government undermines efforts to persuade the majority that we can build a fairer world for all. Read the rest of this entry
One of the biggest lies in politics, repeated to the point of becoming ‘received wisdom’, is that the Left cannot offer an alternative to the unjust system they criticise. That progressives have no policy ideas fit for modern economies. Well, not only is that Thatcherite propaganda propped up by selective reporting, but we can thoroughly debunk it below.
As I said in my previous article during the Covid-19 Pandemic, this crisis is an opportunity for us to re-prioritise- and this can be on a social level as well as a personal one. The disruption to our ordinary lives is waking more people up to how our societies could be different, and to think critically about the economic arrangements we’ve had rather than accepting them as ‘natural’. In particular, the virus has demonstrated how much governments can and need to intervene to deal with crises.
Several governments, including the UK, Canada, and even the Trump administration have been considering introducing a Basic Income scheme, whereby the state gives citizens (for example) $1,000 per month. Usually considered a left wing or at least a radical proposal, Unconditional Basic Income could help to sustain an economy in crisis, as well as to eliminate acute poverty and its social consequences. Of course this is an emergency measure, but now that the political will is there, the mask slips and we see that what was ‘too radical’ was possible all along. Strategies now being used to support people can become expected as the ‘new normal’. Read the rest of this entry
When future historians look back on the Covid-19 pandemic we’re suffering today in 2020 there will be no shortage of facets to study. From the British government being more concerned with avoiding a slowing of the post-Brexit economic recovery than with avoiding the deaths of many vulnerable people, to the unprecedented aptness of Western countries becoming locked down during Lent. Lent being of course the period when it is customary –even for many non-Christians– to try for several weeks to go without some usual things or to otherwise change our lives. Well, with shortages of items in supermarkets –and everything apart from supermarkets closed, change has certainly come! Read the rest of this entry
He’s offering a cupcake with buttercream icing —insists my infant cousin.
Bill Hicks joked that if Jesus returned the last thing he’d want to see would be crosses, and that in any case, it was macabre for people to wear jewellry of a device of torture and execution. A point which might explain why the holiday of Christ’s death and resurrection is now more associated with eggs and rabbits. Well, this Easter I’m getting married in a church dedicated to the popular image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Of course this isn’t the pink emoji which one might associate with such romantic occasions, but a symbol of the belief that God has tender, emotional love for humanity. Might this devotion, which flowered in the 17th century, make a better symbol for Christianity than the Cross?
Read the rest of this entry
After the Magnificat, Mary took to keyboards and let Joseph take the vocals.
The call that Mary received to be a virgin is for the whole of creation, which includes religion itself. The womb of Mary does not represent the ‘womb’ of divisive ideological traditions, but represents virgin religion. Religion is ‘virgin religion’ where human life and dignity –that is, where people– are recognised as more important than religion itself. “Human beings, as manifested in the image of and likeness of God, are greater than religions”.i Indeed, the principle behind Jesus’ statement “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath”, (Mark 2:27) is that good religion has evolved as cultural technology for people to use, and not for using people. Virgin religion is not immune to abuses taking place within –as is a risk in all families– but it does not put the reputation and popularity of its institutions and officials above the value of its children (which is what would result in clericalism and cover-ups). Read the rest of this entry