The Young Thinkers' Salon

Salon Synopsis for September 14, 2008

Attendees: Maanvi Singh, Lane Powell, Julia Yankin, and Daniel Brown (for the last 30 minutes)

Lane and Maanvi spent the first hour of Salon exploring the Library Fest in Civic Park. They enjoyed Russian folk music and read some e.e. cummings poems from Maanvi's poetry anthology. They chatted about various ideas, great and small - touching on politics, religion, and epistemology. Lane mentioned that his faith no longer lied with Wachowskian skepticism. Later, Julia joined the duo, and Dan completed the group. Saloners intrigued their taste buds with gelato, and fed their minds with fascinating discussion about feminism, Sarah Palin, and the metaphysical role of poets.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for June 29, 2008

Coming soon

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for June 22, 2008

Attendees: ZM Davis, Daniel Brown, Marsha Polovets, Tom Hughes, Lane Powell, Muneeza Rizvi, Katie Kolodzie, Maanvi Singh

This momentous salon began when Katie inquired why people accepted the widespread use of cars but not of guns, even though both technologies can be equally fatal. Almost all saloners conceded that whereas cars are useful modes of transportation, guns are used purposefully for killing. Although a car could serve as a murder weapon, it is neither a logical nor a convenient one. So, allowing teenagers to wield the deadly automobile might be mad, but not nearly as ludicrous as allowing teens to carry guns.

Next, Lane announced that he had resolved his existential crisis - he decided to renounce Christianity and embrace solipsism, redefining religion in the process (Lane is still searching for a clever name for his new world view. The chair suggests that once he does, he should begin proselytizing). Lane explained that he accepts on faith that he exists and that his surroundings exists - thus, solipsism is his religion.

Saloners also discussed morality - what are morals based on? Are humanity's morals progressing, or simply evolving (Saloners digressed for a bit to discuss the definition of evolution)? Lane suggested that "morals are based on the individual." We view killing as immoral because we would rather not die ourselves. Tom added that morals shift to accommodate technology, religion, and all the other factors that shape society. Hence, today, we consider human sacrifice immoral because we know that sacrificing humans will not win us a better harvest - instead, we resort to fertilizers and pesticides.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for June 15, 2008

Attendees: Daniel Brown, Olena Tashkevych, Julia Yankin, Lane Powell, Matt Menard, Brian Glasscock, Maanvi Singh.

Burnt out by school and by the harsh summer sun, saloners crawled rather than launched into discussion. Nevertheless, saloners considered many far ranging issues - including gay marriage (considering California's recent legalization of gay marriage), free trade, and perceptions of beauty. Brian stressed that free trade can benefit countries as long as free trade agreements between countries include environmental and labor restrictions. Matt, Maanvi, and Dan countered that neither American corporations nor third world countries have incentives to include such restrictions, as corporations move their operations to third world countries precisely because of they lack environmental and labor restrictions that increase production costs. Matt and Maanvi further ventured that the globalization decreases the incentive for war. Finally, saloners contemplated the reasons that many teenagers, even those who live in diverse, liberal neighborhoods, find people of certain ethnicities more attractive than others.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for June 6, 2008

Attenders: Tania Kohal, Zach M. Davis, Matt Menard, Julia Yankin, Olena Tashkevych, Danny Brown, and Maanvi Singh

At yet another Salon at Saxby's, Zach led classic discussion about the mind-body dichotomy. Saloners struggled to define "mind" and "consciousness," and a learned stranger sitting close by enhanced the intense debate with his insight. Talk then turned to free will versus determinism. Tania insisted that humans possessed free will, while Maanvi and Zach argued for compatiblism (albeit their defenses of compatiblism were far from compatible). After two hours of heavy discussion, Saloners wound down and went home.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for March 16, 2008

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Kate Gambel, Lane Powell, (later) Z.M. Davis

Though it was a beautiful spring day in Civic Park, with just the right amounts of cool breeze and invigorating sun, attendance was limited due to the Model United Nations conference in Berkeley that very same day. Seanan Fong substitute-chaired the very, very informal Salon. Topics discussed included the futility of basketballs sent to Africa; the decline of Barbie and the rise of Bratz (as a socio-anthropological study among younger female children); and what a perfect party would look like. At about 3:00 the Salon went to scavenge the remnants of Bonanza Books, where they met Z.M.

— Seanan Fong, Former Chair

Salon Synopsis for March 2, 2008

Attenders: Danny Brown, Tom Hughes, Olena Tashkevych, Kate Gambel, Maanvi Singh, Matt Menard, Tania Kohal, Z.M. Davis, Seanan Fong, Katie Kolodzie and Marsha Polovets.

After Saloners briefly discussed Maanvi's former pet topic, journalism, Katie began an intense debate about violence and when it is justified. She recalled a story she had mentioned at an earlier Salon: an old lady in a wheel chair with a concealed weapon shot a man who was attempting to mug her. Was the killing justified? Katie believed it was, for a big, strong man was mugging the lady, and for all she knew, he would have killed her had she not shot him. Kate agreed, but Maanvi, Matt, and Seanan refused to defend the murder. As Matt pointed out, the woman didn't know for certain whether the man would kill her once he stole her money, but by pulling out her gun, she guaranteed that either she or the man would end up dead. Unable to reconcile their views, Saloners acted out several hypothetical murders, but their efforts, though somewhat amusing, didn't bring about any consensus. So, Saloners gave up, and played Mafia for the rest the meeting.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for February 10, 2008

Attenders: Kate Gambel, Seanan Fong, Olena Taskevych, Julia Yankin, Matt Menard, Seanan Fong, Z.M. Davis, Katie Kolodzie, Leah Samuel, Tom Hughes, and Maanvi Singh

Inspired by the vibrant sunlight filtering through the gazebo, Saloners began to discuss their happy childhood memories. Leah felt that as we grow older, we lose the ability to expand our minds though our imaginations, but Julia, reflecting on her younger brother's behavior, countered that children simply imitate adult behavior when they play. Leah responded that while adults find their daily activities mundane, kids find such activities fascinating and exciting.

After touching on the significance of names, the role of government, and open borders, Saloners began discussing whether humans were part of nature or removed from it. Kate believed that humans have separated themselves from nature, because whereas animals use their environment solely to aid their survival, humans exploit Earth. Plus, Kate said, "We don't specialize to suit our environment, we change the environment to suit us." Z.M. countered that our environment does shape us, and that people from different areas of the world thrive in particular environments. Passionately, Z.M. championed progress and stressed that though we should preserve nature (as in animals and greenery) we should not hinder human progress. Here, Salon broke into various sub-groups. Z.M. and Kate engaged in a heated debate about nature and environmentalism, as Maanvi, Julia, Tania, and Matt observed and occasionally contributed to the discussion. Nessessity is the mother of invention, Z.M. stressed, and as humans exhaust their current means of making energy, they will discover new sources. To this, Kate responded, "You can't just crack open the planet and expect it to be full of goodies." Ultimately, Kate and Z.M., exhausted and unable to reconcile their views, agreed to disagree, and the sub-group focused instead on Tania's topic: why don't animals commit suicide? The general consensus: they do - when animals lose their mates or children, they often stop eating or defending themselves against predators.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for February 10, 2008

Attenders: Kate Gambel, Seanan Fong, Olena Taskevych, Julia Yankin, Matt Menard, Seanan Fong, Z.M. Davis, Katie Kolodzie, Leah Samuel, Tom Hughes, and Maanvi Singh

NOTE: Additional synopsis information pending, as the Chair couldn't observe what the other subgroups were discussing.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for February 3, 2008

Attenders: Maanvi Singh, Julia Yankin, Kate Gambel, Olena Tashkevych, Matt Menard, and Seanan Fong (for the last ten minutes)
Guests: Daniel Brown

Due to the cold weather, Saloners migrated to Saxby's Coffee, making sure to leave signs at the Gazebo to redirect any "lost and confused" late-comers. Kate then initiated a discussion about progress, and whether it was always good, citing the invention of the automobile, a step forward for communication, but a giant step back for the environment. Julia agreed that progress often has both positive and negative consequences, but asserted that additional progress offests the negative - the invention of electric, solar-powered, and hydrogen-fueled cars can offset the damage that petroleum-fueled cars have caused.

Next, Saloners explored various aspects of education, including overtly Democratic teachers' unions, teachers' salaries, and tenures. Then, Maanvi brought up truth, but the topic didn't gain much traction, as Saloners had already discussed it ad nauseum during previous Salons.

Upon Matt's arrival (thankfully, he found those signs at the Gazebo addressed "Dear Lost and Confused"), Saloners launched into a discussion about libertarianism. According to Matt, libertarianism necessitates socialist policies, because the invisible hand, which is based on the false assumption that markets are fluid, doesn't work very well. As the libertarian government gaurantees its citizens the right to life, Matt said, isn't it inconsistant for such governments to leave impoverished people to starve? Kate, Maanvi, and Julia agreed that libertarian governments guaranteed negative natural rights, and need not help those who fail to incorporate themselves into the market and earn enough to feed themselves. Matt discredited the argument that libertarians are heartless Social Darwinists - "All real libertarians are socialists," he said.

Saloners also debated whether the electoral college is democratic and dictators could be democratically elected.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for January 27, 2008

Synopsis not available.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for January 20, 2008

Synopsis not available.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for January 13, 2008

Attenders: ZM Davis, Julia Yankin, Tania Kuzovleva, Katie Kolodzie, Olena Taskevych, Inna Blyakhman, Peter Espe, Tania Kohal, and for the last few minutes, Seanan Fong and Matt Menard.
Guests: Tom Hughes

On the first clear, sunny day after weeks of soggy, gloomy weather, saloners settled down in the gazebo and commenced discussion on free will versus determinism. ZM brought new insight to the age-old argument by explaining that as per Bayesianism, determinism is a special case of indeterminism.

Saloners then debated whether humans could predict the future. Olena mentioned neutrinos, which she suggested could carry information through time. Ultimately, saloners decided that even if humans could send and receive information through time, if they knew the future they would most likely change their behavior and not fulfill their perceived "destinies." Examples of such behavior include exit polls - when people hear that the candidate they support is leading in the polls, they grow over-confident and don't vote, allowing the opposition candidate to win the election.

Next, Katie asked Saloners whether they agreed with her English teacher's claim that only black people can truly understand Toni Morrison's Beloved. Inna proposed that an "us and them" attitude is genetically embedded within all humans, and often, people tend to identify with others of the same race. Katie felt that a worker in a sweatshop would relate a lot more to Beloved than a black person living comfortably in the Bay Area. Olena added that she wouldn't empathize with a dying Ukrainian more than she would a dying person of some other race.

Salon ended with an enthusiastic discussion about the similarities and differences between literature and film.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for January 6, 2008

Synopsis not available.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

Salon Synopsis for December 30, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Maanvi Singh, Kate Gambel, Julia Yankin, Olena Tashkevych, Inna Blyakhman, Matt Menard, Z.M. Davis, Leah Samuel, Muneeza Rizvi

Guests: Claire O'Grady, Sinclair Cohen

Saloners warmed up by discussing how the perfect education would look, using an extended clay metaphor. Whereas Seanan felt that children should recieve well rounded educations, Inna believed that a child who had an aptitude for a subject should be pushed toward that subject. After wrapping up that discussion, Saloners witnessed Maanvi being sworn in as the second Chair of the Walnut Creek Salon. Due to the cold weather, Saloners decided to leave Civic Park after the swearing-in ceremony, but couldn't decide on where to go. Hence, Salon disintegrated, and Saloners discussed various topics in small groups as they walked through Downtown Walnut Creek.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair

After a short speech by Seanan Fong, Maanvi Singh swore upon the manifesto the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of Chair of the Young Thinkers' Society:

- I will strive to uphold the Mission of the Society and the integrity of the Society in the decisions I make and the actions I take as Chair.

- I will strive to include young individuals from every intellectual background. I will not exclude young individuals based on their ideas or their social group.

- I will strive to open the dialogue of ideas in all aspects of my own life. I will strive to diminish the social and bureaucratic barriers that prevent the dialogue of ideas among young individuals.

- I will pass this Oath on to future Chairs."

Salon Synopsis for December 23, 2007

Attenders: Matt Menard, Nihir Patel, and Maanvi Singh

Because only three people came to Salon, we decided to "semi-cancel" Salon. As we ran errands, we discussed Pakistan, Catholic priests, set theory, and Russell's Paradox.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair-elect

Salon Synopsis for December 16, 2007

Synopsis not available.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair-elect

Salon Synopsis for December 9, 2007

Attenders: Maanvi Singh, Peter Espe, Katie Kolodzie, Julia Yankin, Leah Samuel, Matt Menard, Seanan Fong, Kate Gambel

First, saloners briefly discussed censorship in the media, and whether the American government has the right to ban news programs from showing pictures of dead American soldiers in Iraq.Then, saloners started discussion literature they loved, and hated. Katie asked: "is there a fundamental difference between books and movies?" Katie felt that books had more substance, and appealed to her more than movies. Maanvi disagreed - she felt that great movies, just like great books, could be highly intellectual and could appeal to the viewer or receiver's imagination. Then, upon hearing that Seanan had never read a bad science fiction, saloners went to Barnes and Noble Bookstore to find Seanan the perfect bad read. Once they reached Barnes and Nobles, saloners split up, searching for their favorite books and discussing literature and other miscellaneous topics.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair-elect

Salon Synopsis for December 2, 2007

This Salon was a public Salon; adults were free to attend. (Salons are open to the public, i.e., adults, the first Sunday of each even-numbered month.)

Attenders: Maanvi Singh, Julia Yankin, Tanya Kuzovleva, Katie Kolodzie, Seanan Fong, Matt Menard, Tania Kohal

Guests: Stan Kolodzie, Jerry Denham, Dennis Fong

Seanan started by asking Mr. Kolodzie what he thought of Anne Coulter. Unlike Seanan, who had called Coulter "despicable," Mr. Kolodzie believed Coulter to be a clever commentator. Mr. Denham, said that Coulter is a "pseudo-conservative," because she isn't a constitutionalist. Spring-boarding off a brief discussion about strict construction versus loose construction, Mr. Denham listed what he believed to be the components of the American government. Our government, Mr. Denham said, is based first on the constitution, then the laws made in its pursuance, all treaties made, and all treaties which shall be made.

Saloners also discussed total Nuclear armament versus disarmament, Panama, China, Korea, and India. A lively Salon full of heated discussion ended with a debate on the best way to help black ghettos. Mr. Fong said that the government must enforce law and order in black ghettos. Mr. Denham had a different solution - arming more people in the ghettos with guns. In some cities, Mr. Denham explained, violence went down once all households were armed. However, most though that Mr. Denham's solution wasn't sound.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair-elect

Salon Synopsis for November 25, 2007

Attenders: Maanvi Singh, Seanan Fong, Matt Menard, Julia Yankin, Masha Polovets, Leah Samuels, Tanya Kuzovleva, Muneeza Rizvi

After briefly discussing Seanan's topic on the reception of art, Saloners debated the existence of facts. Then, they discussed moral relativism and debated the existence of moral truths. Menard shifted the discussion to a new level by making a distinction between meta-moral and moral. Saloners spent the rest of Salon trying to classify religions and divide religions into two groups: evangelical, or synthetic religions, and folk, or organic religions. Evangelical religions, like Christianity, come from one person, or one group of people, and then spread. In contrast, folk religions evolve and emerge from widespread cultures. Menard at first said that folk religions have no legend or story about their creation, but then realized that there were exceptions, including Daoism. Saloners struggled to classify Judaism, which is closer to Christianity and Islam, but technically falls under the folk religion category. Ultimately, Saloners were unable to decide upon an appropriate way to classify religions.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair-elect

Salon Synopsis for November 18, 2007

Attenders: Maanvi Singh, Brett Goldstein, Seanan Fong, Matt Menard, Tanya Kuzovleva, Olena Taskevych, Julia Yankin, Muneeza Rizvi

Saloners started by trying to define "heroism." Are heroes people we admire for their ability or for their actions? Muneeza cited that that studies show that firemen feel less fear than average people - firemen find it easier to face danger. So, are firemen heroes? Seanan said that we admire heroes for their choices; often, how hey choose to use their ability. Tanya added that heroes are also people who come far in life; people who aren't necessarily born with great ability or wealth but manage to rise.

Muneeza then explained her concept of the "inner hermit." She said that people can be hermits even in society and said that all people should look within themselves and try to understand themselves. Saloners then discussed transcendentalism - Maanvi expressed her dislike for the philosophy, which urges people to conform to nonconformity.

Then, Saloners discussed evolution and natural selection. Humans treat hereditary diseases rather than allow people with such diseases to die out, so are humans still undergoing natural selection? Brett said that natural selection was no longer acting upon humans, adding that unlike animals, humans don't reproduce more the longer they live. Matt observed that both intelligence, a genetic trait, and education, a societal trait, are hereditary. Religion is hereditary as well, Matt said, so a religion that advocated militarism and large families could become a "dominant" religion.

Salon ended with discussion of gender roles and the difference between mothers and fathers.

— Maanvi Singh, Chair-elect

Salon Synopsis for November 11, 2007

Attenders: Maanvi Singh, Seanan Fong, Olena Tashkevych, Julia Yankin, Matt Menard, Brett Goldstein

Guests: Tanya Kuzovleva, through Olena

Saloners began by discussing a topic Seanan had posted on Facebook: "Once a work is published, does the author have any more say in it?" Seanan felt that once an author publishes a book, reader's interpretations of the book are as relevant as the author's thoughts on the book are. Seanan also said that art exists only in perception and centers on the relationship between reader and [the work]. Maanvi felt that true art is born when the artist's message matches the receiver's interpretation. She also said that there are wrong ways to interpret art. Julia agreed with Maanvi - if the reader misinterprets a novel's theme, the reader isn't receiving the author's creation properly.

Other topics discussed include the extent to which we should respect national self-determination, the concept of "better," and whether some people are better than others, and whether SATs and grades accurately depict students' intelligence and ability to do well in college (Saloners unanimously agreed that neither did).

— Maanvi Singh, Chair-elect

Salon Synopsis for November 4, 2007

Attenders: Maanvi Singh, Katie Kolodzie, Matt Menard, Julia Yankin

Since Pakistan had recently declared a state of emergency, saloners began by discussing the conflict in Pakistan. Then, Maanvi wondered, is violent revolution ever appropriate? Katie said that each case, each conflict should be evaluated individually.

Katie then asked, if humans found out that certain animals have a sense of morality, would that knowledge change the way humans did animal testing? Maanvi felt that humans would only change their way of treating animals if animals had the same set of morals that humans have. After all, humans mistreat fellow humans who have different moral codes.

Saloners then discussed moral relativism - is requiring women to wear burkas acceptable? Katie said that such treatment of women is never acceptable.Maanvi wondered, aren't western standards for women as bad? Menard attested that he didn't have to worry about his appearance in order to gain acceptance, whereas many girls do have to.

Saloners also contemplated to what degree people in the Bay Area accept homoseuality. Recently, the Las Lomas Page printed a picture of a gay couple kissing, and some students responded to the picture by tearing up the paper, Maanvi said. Menard agreed that students aren't as accepting as they often appear. Even though Bellarmine has the equivilent of a GSA club, many Bellarmine students are uncomfortable with homosexuality, Menard said.

Salon ended with a an argument Menard brought up: aren't all missionaries justified? After all, missionaries believed that all non-Christians wold go to Hell usless they converted. Both Menard and Katie believed fervid missionaries were justified. Maanvi said, why do non-believers have to suffer disrespect because of other poeples' delusion?

— Maanvi Singh, Member

Salon Synopsis for October 28, 2007

Attenders: Matt Menard, Julia Yankin, Olena Tashkevych, Maanvi Singh

After settling down in a rather uncomfortable meadow, saloners started discussing the practice of parents putting leashes on children. Both Matt and Maanvi were disgusted by the practice; Matt thought that the practice is especially disturbing because it gave children the illusion that they were free to run about, but gives parents complete control over their children. Maanvi pointed out that parents choose to have children, and must understand that children don't exist to please their parents; children are have wills of their own and mustn't be denied the right to exercise their wills. Matt agreed, adding, "There's no excuse for being a bad parent. There's an excuse for being a bad human being. You didn't choose to be human." Olena held that many children are impossible to control and parents require leashes in order to control their children and keep their children from running away and getting lost.

Saloners also discussed the basis of the argument against gay marriage. Matt said that the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah names many vices, including eating shellfish, and homosexuality is only one of those vices. Therefore, Menard said, the argument of right wing Christians against gay marriage is weak; if Christians' basis for wanting to ban gay marriage is that tale, they might as well ban people from eating shell fish. Matt added that in a democracy, "there is an expectation that people won't infringe on certain rights of others."

Other topics saloners discussed included hope, Matt's definition of "best," and the mind/body problem.

— Maanvi Singh, Member

Salon Synopsis for October 21, 2007

Attenders - Maanvi Singh, Seanan Fong, Katie Kolodzie, Matt Menard, Julia Yankin, Peter Espe, Muneeza Rizvi, Etienne Tripier, Kate Gambel

Intrigued by Seanan's ability to speak in both a natural and a very low, manly voice, saloners breifly discussed the degree to which a person's voice affects his or her identity. Matt then veered discussion toward the philosophy of mathematics. When we say, "Four is an even number, " do we mean that somwhere there exists a physical "four?" Saloners questioned whether the existence of ideas and objects depends on people observing them.

Next, Matt told Saloners about students at Bellarmine Preptaory School who were arrested for throwing chlorine bombs at a dance on school campus. Matt questioned whether the students who threw the bombs would have been arrested if the only injured student had not been the daughter of a county judge. Also, Matt said that the students found out how to make chlorine bombs on YouTube, causing many to question whether YouTube alllow people to post videos with dangerous information. Saloners debated the censorship issue connected to the incident at Bellarmine and generally concluded that the potentially dangerous influence videos on YouTube could have does not warrant censorship.

For the remainder of Salon, Saloners tried to help Inna with her fear of death and non-existence.

— Maanvi Singh, Member

Salon Synopsis for October 14, 2007

Attenders - Maanvi Singh, Seanan Fong, Inna Blyakhman, Olena Tashkevych, Katie Kolodzie, Peter Espe

Guests: Mohini Kundu

Once saloners found a comfortable spot in the meadow behind Civic Park and helped themselves to strawberry shortcake, courtesy of Seanan's parents, they commenced discussion. Seanan suggested, "Let's discuss love;" Saloners responded with an enthusiastic, "Yay!" According to Katie, "Love has been bastardized recently." Nowadays, people use the word "love" very lightly, claiming that they "love" many material items as well as their parents and partners. Katie also said that modern society has skewed the meaning of love; nowadays, people believe that "love" between two people can only be romantic. Men can no longer say that they love other men, for people automatically assume that only gay man "love" other men.

Saloners also discussed the ways in which people of different cultures treat love by comparing the ways authors from other countries portray love. Katie commented that in the Middle ages, both men and women fought for the people they lusted after, whereas in the Victorian era, people, especially women, displayed much more self-restraint. It was during the Victorian times that the stereotypical "damsel in distress" emerged.

Inna mentioned that women in Russia tend to be very catty, and often fight over men. Women in Russia don't introduce their spouses to female friends for fear that those friends will seduce and "steal" their spouses.

Other topics saloners discussed include economics, the Old Testament ("God is crazy in the Old Testiment," Katie said), and odd medical conditions that Katie read about in Discovery Magazine.

— Maanvi Singh, Member

Salon Synopsis for October 7, 2007

This Salon was a public Salon; adults were free to attend. (Salons are open to the public, i.e., adults, the first Sunday of each even-numbered month.)

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Maanvi Singh, Olena Tashkebych, Muneeza Rizvi

Guests: Dennis Fong (adult), Leah Samuel

Salon started with a discussion about the way in which people identify ethnicities. Why do we call the French "French" but lump all the distinct cultures spread across the African continent into one title - "African." Leah said that it's difficult to identify Africans by their specific cultures, adding that it doesn't do to identify Africans by their country because they identify on tribal levels. However, Maanvi felt that although the Europeans divided Africa into countries arbitrarily, European divisions have been in place for long enough for African states to identify as true sates.

Next, Muneeza asked Dennis Fong, Seanan's father, "Can Seanan marry anyone he wants?" Seanan felt that the Chinese community wouldn't approve of him marrying a westerner, but Mr. Fong said he was unaware that his friends held such beliefs. Mr. Fong said that the Chinese actually believed that marrying a Caucasian was a sign of success; Caucasians are still the dominant race. Saloners each wondered who they "could" and "couldn't marry. Maanvi asked the two Eastern Europeans in the group, Julia and Olena, whether Russians considered marrying Afghanis taboo. Julia said that while such matches weren't taboo, the Russian community would think that a Russian who wanted to marry an Afghani was "crazy."

Talk of tolerence turned conversation toward the old, currently owtlawed Indian practice of forcing widows to jump into their husbands' funeral fires, called sathi. Maanvi held although all communities have ugly facets, she has observed that, at least in India, each successive generation is coming to sowly break free of oppressive traditions.

Completely changing gears, Maanvi suggested that saloners return to discussing forced castration, sort of. She asked Saloners whether countries should enforce measures to reduce their populations, even if those measures would be oppressive. Mr. Dennis Fong elaborated on China's population reduction laws, explaining that Chinese families who wished to have a second child had to pay a tax equivalent to ten or twenty times their annual salaries. Then, Seanan brought up the argument that we shouldn't try to cure diseases such as AIDS because they helped control population growth. Leah said, "It's easy for us ere to say 'death is a necessary part of life,'" but we shouldn't allow great numbers people to suffer and die because of AIDS. Seanan said that curing AIDS would actually reduce the the population, because historically, decreases in population growth have followed increases in life expectancy.

After briefly discussing the historical reasons for which some countries' capitals are located in special districts and other countries' capitals are not, Mr. Fong lead a fascinating discussion on China's economy. Destroying the popular belief that China's economy is successful, Mr. Fong said that 40% of China's GDP is exports, which only a small part of the country benefits from. According to Mr. Fong, some part of China might actually be poorer today than they were twenty years ago; he said that there are many government- built freeways in China, but as most people are too poor to afford cars, China's freeways are eerily empty.

Discussion eventually shifted away from the Chinese economy. Muneeza said that "mosque" was no longer politically correct, as the term came from Ferdinand the Great of Spain saying he would crush all the Muslims like "mosquitoes." An intense discussion between Muneeza and Seanan arose about the nature of Islam. Whereas Muneeza held that Islam was inflexible, Seanan said that the pillars of Islam were "more like baskets than like fruits." Eventually, Muneeza and Seanan agreed to disagree.

Although saloners were eager to discuss more, the clocks had struck four and the invigorating Salon ended.

— Maanvi Singh, Member

Salon Synopsis for September 30, 2007

Coming soon ...

Salon Synopsis for September 23, 2007

Coming soon ...

Salon Synopsis for September 16, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Maanvi Singh, Z.M. Davis, Katie Kolodzie, McVal Osborne, Inna Blyakhman, Matthew Menard, Peter Espe, Kate Gambel, Julia Yankin, Arvind Vepa, Shilpa Balaji

After overcoming various distractions in Civic Park, we settled down on a grassy knoll and commenced discussion. We began by discussing a question based on the science fiction novel Have Space Suit Will Travel by Robert Heinlein. Heinlein prompted Katie to wonder, if humans could dectect whether a baby would grow to be "good" or "bad," should the "bad" babies be killed at birth? Saloners debated whether people could recognize and appreciate good in a society without bad. However, saloners eventually came to support eugenics after realizing that we strive to end hunger and poverty without pondering whether people in impoverished countries would appreciate the value of food, having never been hungry. We know that starvation is horrible and we don't want future generations to suffer it, regardless of whether future society appreciates their good fortune.

Next, Inna wondered, do people have certain rights naturally? Inna's question led saloners to a struggle to distinguish between positive and negative rights. We established that negative rights were rights people cannot prevent each other from practicing. Positive rights are what the United Nations General Charter describes; people must make certain that everybody practices his or her positive rights. For example, if one said that everybody has a positive right to food, one would have to make sure that those without food aquire food. Most rights are negative, because positive rights require individual initiative. Exhausted after deliberating about positive and negative rigts, saloners moves on.

Inna then broached a classic salon topic, happiness. She asked, "What do people really want." Saloners struggled with defining happiness, or as Z.M. wanted to call it, "utility." Z.M. said, "It is better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a fool satisfied." Ultimately, Saloners were unable to define happiness.

Tired of discussing happiness, saloners resumed enthusiastic discussion when Z.M. explained that according to a blog he read, investing lots of one's money in one charity is more effective than donating smaller sums of money to many different charities. Katie said that she would have trouble choosing between two or more causes, and would feel better if she donated to all the causes she supported. Menard and Z.M. got into a passionate article about utility. Z.M. and Menard briefly explained the concept of marginal utility, and agreed that the first dollar one donates to a charity is more important that the hundredth dollar. Menard supported his claim that one should donate smaller sums of money in many different tragedies with a DHL and FedEx analogy. Menard recounted how apalled he was to see both a half empty DHL truck and a half empty FedEx truck delivering packages to houses on his street. But Menard realized that though having a single company donate all the packages would be more efficient, monopolies were dangerous.

Inna then transitioned to religion by claiming that Catholicism was the most charitable religion. Maanvi noted that much of the motivation behind Catholic charity is missionary. Maanvi said that the best type of religion would be one that didn't impose itself on non believers. Inna created more excitement by saying that Islam was like an infection weakening Europe. Maanvi was opposed to further alienating Muslim immigrants by claiming that their contributions to Europe could only be negative. Katie added that there are some radical secularist terrorists, albeit very few. Couldn't any very strong belief be a motive behind terrorism, Maanvi wondered. Discussion became muddled, until Z.M. ended the confusion by asserting that, "You shouldn't be religious because religions aren't true," not necessarily because they can lead to violent conflict.

— Saturday, September 22, 2007 — Maanvi Singh, Member

Salon Synopsis for September 9, 2007

Coming soon ...

— Maanvi Singh, Member

Salon Synopsis for September 2, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Matthew Menard, Julia Yankin, Muneeza Rizvi, Arvind Vepa, McVal Osborne, Shilpa Balaji
Guests: Prab Upadrashta (thru Arvind), Kate Gambel (thru Seanan), Josh Neuman and Andre Tataru (thru McVal), Nikos Karashian at the very end (thru Seanan and McVal)

After a slow start, we decided to leave the gazebo and sat in a circle in the grass under the mottled shade of a maple. We began with a question that Rohan (who was absent) had proposed in an e-mail: "Would mathematics exist without physics, which is a potrayal of reality?" Rohan thought that "mathematics is a mere language to describe reality, physics, and if the physics were different mathematics would be different." Seanan sympathized with Rohan's view and thought that the question was a really good, really big one that, before one could answer, one would have to come to terms with whether mathematics was analytic a priori or synthetic a priori (although he did not express his views so coherently at the actual Salon).

Menard outright disagreed with Rohan, explaining that mathematics is independent of empirical reality, and thus of physics. For example, Euclidean geometry is a form of mathematics that works well in its own context, but although it often approximates reality very well, it does not necessarily claim to be a representation of how the universe works (the universe is not flat). On the other hand, argued Menard, physics is the application of mathematics to model reality, and thus physics is indeed reliant upon mathematics, though not the other way around.

Next, McVal posed a question ("Why can't we all just be nice?") that set up a dichotomy between Compassion and Money. Kate Gambel tried to look into the origin of money. Seanan entirely disagreed with the belief that the two concepts were antithetical: exchange is the highest form of compassion, the sacred act of human society. Menard explained something about how exchange achieves the Nash equilibrium in a game where people want things from other people. (The writer of this synopsis is reflecting on his use of the word 'explain', and wonders if that is not a form of editorialization in that 'explain', like the word 'know', implies truth behind a belief or statement. However, the writer would like to think that he uses 'explain' rather than 'argue' or 'state' out of a need to capture the tone and expression of the explainer.)

Because the weather was disagreeable (sun too intense, too hot and humid, not enough breeze), the Salon moved to Jamba Juice. After we settled back down on the floor next to the parking garage, conversation shifted to a light discussion of freedom of speech, covering political correctness (Josh) and later slander and libel (Menard).

Religion then took the Salon's attention when Muneeza asked, "Who thinks Islam is a violent religion?" Before jumping into that topic, Seanan warned that people often view religions as static ideologies, when in fact they are dynamic, evolving entities. For example, people often look at Christianity as it is practiced today in certain parts of the world as Christianity as it has always been and always will be. Actually, 500, 1000, or 1500 years ago, Christianity may have been unrecognizable from the way it is today. The same, Seanan claimed, goes with any religion. Muneeza objected with the specific case of Islam, in that its core tenets make it a violent religion by nature. Discussion strayed to whether religion was the catalyst for civilization, how Sufis were viewed by other Muslims, and other topics like Judaism, Hinduism, and Sufism Reoriented.

After Josh and Andre left, Muneeza asked about dreadlocks, which sparked a brief discussion on aesthetics and culture. Menard expalined the concept of Limbo in Christian theology. Salon ended, but the discussion turned interesting as we were getting up to leave.

(I think we will have to talk more about Hinduism, Chinese belief, and a non-Western context of religion. We can also reframe McVal's question in the context of materialism, and when Rohan comes we can revisit his question.)

— Monday, September 3, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for August 26, 2007

Coming soon ...

Salon Synopsis for August 19, 2007

Attenders: ZM Davis, Mcval Osborne, Julia Yankin, Matthew Menard, Maanvi Singh, and Seanan Fong
Guests: Gavin Davenport

Salon started with ZM posing an intriguing question he read on a blog online: "What if you lived in a world where everyone agreed on the facts, but didn't have the same moral views and interests as you?" As they tried to answer the question, Saloners struggled to define "fact." Maanvi asserted that all fact is opinion, while ZM held that there exist definite truths, constants unaltered by individual opinion . Maanvi cited that many hold the teaching of their God as absolute truth, regardless of scientific evidence.

Ultimately unable to agree upon the nature of truth, Saloners decided to accept ZM's view for the sake of discussion, and started to question whether different sets of moral values could arise in a society in which everybody shared agreed on the same set of facts. Gavin believed that people who accept the same truth will inevitably share the same morals; he once again brought up the case of religious people with absolute faith in their scriptures. ZM and Maanvi disagreed with Gavin's claim, but agreed that accepting the same truths would affect peoples' moral values in some way.

Still intrigued by the nature of truth, Saloners then went back to discussing truth and reality. Discussion then shifted to the nature of existence, economics and the compromise involved in choosing economic policy. Complying with Salon tradition, Saloners also commented on ZM's clothing.Salon ended with discussion about the practical matter of fund raising for the Society.

— Tuesday, August 21, 2007 — Maanvi Singh, Member

Salon Synopsis for August 12, 2007

CANCELLED. Originally it was on, but not enough people showed up. Instead, McVal Osborne of the Walnut Creek Journal interviewed the Chair and the Secretary.

Salon Synopsis for August 5, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Olena Tashkevych, Julia Yankin, Z.M. Davis, Cindy Lee, Brian Hower (!), Matthew Menard, Etienne Tripier (for the last seven minutes)

Guests: Adults Mr. Jerry Denham and Mr. Tom Kroger, by the invitation of the Chair (the Salons are now open to the public the first Sunday of each even-numbered month.)

Initial discussion touched on Z.M.'s clothing: once again, Saloners wondered whether his manner of dress was to make some sort of a statement. Z.M: "What change of style is not a statement?"

Discussion moved on to Z.M.'s concerns about Ron Paul, which Mr. Denham tried to address. Of particular concern was Ron Paul's bill to, as Z.M. put it, "rip the teeth out of the Supreme Court." Mr. Denham framed Ron Paul's position in a historical context, outlining the conflict of the Founding Fathers. Mr. Denham aligned himself with the views of Hamilton and Madison.

Mr. Denham and Mr. Kroger revealed that they were against the income tax, largely due to its apparently unconstitutional implementation. Mr. Denham and Mr. Kroger were also against ammendments in general.

After packing up and moving from the gazebo to the Pacific Bay Coffee Company (a Walnut Creek cafe) in a decidedly malinformed decision by the Chair, discussion shifted to God. Z.M. challenged Mr. Kroger in his association of a "first cause" with a "God."

Later, Mr. Kroger stated that all people are at least theoretically equal in our system of law and in "our Judeo-Christian frame of reference." Z.M. took exception to the statement with regards to our system of law in light of inherent prejudice in even the terminology of "all men are created equal." Seanan wondered why it was in "our Judeo-Christian frame of reference," to which Matthew explained how the specifically Judeo-Christian theological innovation made all equal before God.

As a theological tangent to the discussion, Brian wondered why certain foods in the Bible were vile and tainted if, in Genesis, God had specifically made things in the world and saw that they were good.

As a fitting conclusion, Mr. Kroger noted the importance of our generation as thinkers prepared to face the challenges of the world.

— Sunday, August 5, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for July 29, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Marsha Polovets, Katie Koldzie, Julia Yankin, Olena Tashkevych

Guests: Kate Vasilyeva, Cindy Lee, and adults Mr. Jerry Denham and Mr. Tom Kroger, by the invitation of the Chair

For the first time in Salon history, we had adults present: Mr. Denham, the chair of the American Independent Party in Contra Costa, and his associate, Mr. Kroger, a self-described epistemologist. (The Salon is now going to be open to the public the first Sunday of even-numbered months; see note to the right.) Mr. Denham introduced the members to some of the stances of presidential candidate Ron Paul. Items of interest included Ron Paul's desire to get the United States out of the United Nations and to eliminate the President's unconstitutional war powers. One object of concern for Mr. Kroger was the possibility of world government.

The conversation then shifted to our staple debate on socialistic v. libertarianistic systems of government. Mr. Denham expressed concern about the unclear use of certain vocabulary: there is a distinction between an economic and a political system.

Discussion then shifted to the difference between "science fiction" and "science fantasy." Later, there was a bit of discussion about Islam and whether it could be "reformed," according to Mr. Kroger. Russia came up in the discussion, which then shifted to whether there existed causation in history, and whether one generation of peoples should pay for another's wrongdoings.

— Sunday, August 5, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for July 22, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Maanvi Singh, Brett Goldstein

Guest: Julia Yankin

Started out as possibly another intellectual low. Discussion began with the merits of rap. Maanvi, a traditional rap-hater, recognizes that some rap deserves merit, but dislikes the popularized ugly, annoying, womanizing rappers. "While rock singers just sing about it, rap musicians actually exhibit it." It's not the content and style of rap that is unappealing: it is its presentation. To further that point, Julia added that there is no "legitimate" or "illegitimate" art: it is different for different tastes. Rap falls under that protection. Maanvi added that she recently has become aware of rap that she likes from an Oakland rap band that sings about world issues.

We then discussed the art of writing, and whether fiction requires more imagination or experience. It requires both, but that's not to say that our experience and suburban kids is any less than, say, a teenager in a slum in India. Given a bright imagination, we can craft our experience into art.

Harry Potter--a book that successfully depicts full, humanlike characters, according to Julia.

Brett then proposed that possible violence in Muslim societies emerges from polygamy: because polygamy leaves 50% of the population without a spouse, and thus a sexual outlet, much of the population is left with pent-up sexual frustration. Seanan dismissed the point as outdatedly Freudian. Maanvi pointed out that many other societies have had polygamy, and were peaceful. Seanan agreed.

In a brief discussion about language, Maanvi declared that there was no practical point in saving dying languages. Seanan tried to defend the idea of linguistic diversity.

We then discussed intimacy in different cultures after a brief side trip to tango. Brett advocated that people in our culture should be comfortable with intimacy. Seanan advocates that people should be comfortable with silence.

— Tuesday, July 24, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for July 15, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Z.M. Davis, Maanvi Singh, Olena Tashkevych, Katie Kolodzie, Masha Polovets

Guests: Anu Haden & Cindy Lee by Katie, Kevin Sweeney by Matthew Menard, who was absent

The July 15 Salon reflected an intellectual low, possibly due to the increasing heat. The less superficial topics covered included discussions regarding loyalty in The Godfather; cultural differences in manners and friendliness with strangers; ridiculous tragedy in Tess of the D'urbervilles; Lady Macbeth's status as a tragic figure and whether love existed in her relationship with Macbeth; other literature, especially Spanish; languages and the beauty of their written scripts; and videogame violence. Paris Hilton's name emerged once, with regards to the BBC's excessive coverage in its "World News" program.

— Tuesday, July 17, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for July 8, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Z.M. Davis, Katie Kolodzie, Maanvi Singh, Olena Tashkevych

Guests: George Ristock by Olena

One of the most satisfying Salons. Early on, discussion of global warming, religion and the Dalai Lama's reputation of respectability. A variation of our standard socialism versus libertarianism conflict. Masculinity and femininity as a social construction explored, sometimes by means of examples such as the kilt. Heated, successful discussion on whether the U.S. is the most dangerous power in the world today. Side trips to literature; the Green party; language; and the acceptability and popularity of displaying the Confederate flag, the Imperial Japanese rising sun, the swastika, and Che Guevarra. Brief mention of Z.M.'s motives for "doing things out of the norm." Salon extended to 5:00.

— Tuesday, July 17, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for July 1, 2007

[Maanvi Singh substitute-chaired.]

Despite the fact that not many people could show up, Salon went quite well. I called Masha, Inna, Etienne, and Olena, but none of them could show up. Luckily, ZM came, as did Julia. ZM started by presenting an interesting theory of metaphysics he had read about (which is quite complicated, so I won't attempt to summarize it). We then discussed a wide rage of topics, including determinism vs, free will, the definition of knowledge, and gender vs. sexual distinctions. We ended with a very heated arguement about the best way to deal with global warming. Unfortunately, we weren't able to finish our discussion because ZM had to leave early for work. All in all, I think it was quite a successful Salon, especially considering that only three people came.

— Sunday, July 1, 2007 — Maanvi Singh, Member

Salon Synopsis for June 24, 2007

[Attenders: Seanan Fong, Tania Kohal, Z.M. Davis, Inna Blyakhman, Brett Goldstein, Matthew Menard, Maanvi Singh, Olena Tashkevych, and maybe more that I'm forgetting]

[Secretary Tania Kohal substitute-chaired.]

The June 24 Salon was held outside the gazebo around a tree that turned out to be one of the pivotal examples in the ensuing discussion concerning the mind-body question and other related areas of analysis. This topic was transformed into a discussion about statements versus sentences. Overall, the Salon was very diverse in intellectual thought as the next topic for discussion was favored candidates for the upcoming 2008 election where the issue of economics vs. morals arose. This further alluded to a quick discussion on happiness and its importance and definition. In an unusual turn of events, Gilmore Girls became a contesting issue amongst Salon members followed by arguements supporiting Open Office and Microsoft Word over each other. The Salon closed with addressment to Ayn Rand's philosophy as well as the previously discussed topic of homosexuality being treated as a disorder. In sum, the Salon was very valuable and attendance was at the highest it has been for sometime, making it two hours of very stimulating intellecutal discussion.

— Saturday, June 30, 2007 — Tania Kohal, Secretary

Salons: April 15 to June 17, 2007

Some Salons occurred in this period, but there was a lot going for everybody. In late spring there were APs, and in early summer the Chair was out of town. Synopses not available, but we're trying to figure out a system where we'll guarantee a synopses each time we have a Salon.

— Tuesday, July 17, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for April 8, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Maanvi Singh, Inna Blyakhman
Venue: Civic Park Gazebo

This Salon was more of a feedback meeting on the Young Thinkers' Magazine, which the Chair unveiled to Society members. Criticism focused on the layout and cover design and members' concerns about their accuracy in representing the Society. The YTM Editor gratefully acknowledges their feedback.

Besides that, the three of us discussed aesthetics and an artist's natural tendency to feel very attached to his or her work. We also touched on a few other things and visited Bonanza Books and Barnes & Nobles to help the members in their review and commentary on the YTM, finding out from a passing stranger more about the Rolling Stones Magazine along the way.

Absences and low attendance had been expected because of Spring Break and Easter Sunday.

— Sunday, April 8, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salons: March 4 to April 1, 2007

Salons occurred in this period, but because the Chair had to be absent, synopses are not available.

— Sunday, April 8, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for February 25, 2007

CANCELLED. Happy Anniversary! The Salon is now one year old! Congratulations and thank you to those who have made this possible.

— Thursday, March 1, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for February 18, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Tania Kohal, Katie Kolodzie, Maanvi Singh, Etienne Tripier, Brett Goldstein, McVal Osborne, Olena Tashkevych, alumnus Z.M. Davis, Inna Blyakhman
Venue: The Gazebo, with carpet and table (as in the summer)

NOTE: Inna's supposed "viewpoints" here are merely to serve as devil's advocate viewpoints.

On a beautiful President's Day weekend, nine Saloners, the most to attend since summer, came to the gazebo to sip water and eat chocolates. Z.M. was back, visiting from U.C. Santa Cruz, and so much of the discussion revolved around him.

We started the discussion reiterating much of what was said in the meeting of January 28, talking much about capitalism versus socialism.

Later, the conversation shifted to the topic of homosexuality, whether it was a result of heredity or upbringing. After several hypotheses were raised, Seanan declared that the topic should be left for experimental science, and that groundless speculation alone was not justified in concluding at all about the matter.

Inna sparked the indignation of Z.M. when she mentioned homosexuality as a "disorder." Z.M. argued that labeling a condition as a "disorder" is a value judgment, and that homosexuality of itself is not negative. Inna argued that it was unnatural and thus a "disorder," but Z.M. declared that "naturalness" does not dictate goodness or morality.

Seanan attempted to connect this debate about homosexuality with one regarding certain blind and deaf claiming that their "disorder" is simply a part of their identity, but no one seemed to listen as the conversation disintegrated into chaos.

When order was restored, we discussed the far less controversial topic of religion.

— Saturday, February 24, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for February 11, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Inna Blyakhman, Maanvi Singh, Katie Kolodzie, Etienne Tripier, Stephen Shelton
Venue: La Scala

NOTE: Inna's supposed "viewpoints" here are merely to serve as devil's advocate viewpoints.

After walking to La Scala and addressing the "business" side of the Society, we once again came upon the topic of forced sterilization of the homeless, with all versus Inna. Inna defended her view that the sterilization of the homeless would be moral and compassionate for the potential babies of these homeless, for the unborn babies would not have to live a life of poverty.

All other attending members disagreed with Inna's advocacy of forced sterilization, but for different reasons. Other socialists, such as Maanvi, agreed that it would be favorable to the general population to limit the population of the homeless, but through means other than forced sterilization. Katie argued that sterilizing the homeless would result in too much loss of potential: she argued that many of these homeless babies would be able to overcome the poverty that they were born into, and perhaps even one could be a genius who would find the cure for cancer. Stephen argued for basic human rights, and others agreed that the right to reproduce or at least keep their body parts was certainly fundamental. Seanan argued that Inna's conclusion was the inevitable, fascist result of the socialist mindset.

Other objections were also raised.

After that discussion, religion was brought up. Agnostic Inna declared that she was leaning closer to atheism, prompting Stephen to ask, "Is it immoral for one to be in a religion that one does not believe in, just to be happy?" Maanvi called religion purely cultural and claimed that we do not really know about divine truth. Brett declared that religion hinders individualism by telling people what to believe, and not letting them find the truth for themselves (unlike the Salon, he said, which is expository). Inna agreed that religion is an "opiate of the masses," but a necessary one, what Brett called "a mental immune system." Deriving from that idea, a discussion about neuroscience, the placebo effect, "visualization" for healing, and "prescribed religion" followed.

Finally, after discussing happiness from false religion, the question of whether religion was mutable was raised. Maanvi declared that religion was set by people; you certainly can change it.

— Saturday, February 24, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for February 4, 2007

CANCELLED. Both Chair and Secretary had previous engagements; Superbowl Sunday anticipated absences.

— Saturday, February 3, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Salon Synopsis for January 28, 2007

Attenders: Seanan Fong, Tania Kohal, Brian Hower, Katie Kolodzie
Venue: La Scala

After starting with a few warmers (hot chocolate and a possible "no smoking in car with small children" law, as brought up by Katie), we embarked on a conversation about so-called "common sense" laws (as termed by Brian). We explored the nature of common sense: Brian seemed to oscillate between it being instinctual and it being learned, while Tania concluded that it must be intuitive. Seanan brought up that, rather than behaviors, common sense could be ideas, per self-evident truths (as viewed by Thomas Paine).

Soon, the conversation shifted to a classical debate between the liberal and the libertarian. Katie and Tania argued against Seanan's view that the government's activity in the economy should be very minimal. Katie was concerned about the possibility of such a society being able to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Tania, on the other hand, was against the very idea of economic disparity—no matter how absolutely rich the relatively poor are. According to Tania, everyone deserves to have more if they are poor. Seanan was confident that his hypothetical society could maintain a high standard of living (even for the poorest) through the free market, no matter how much disparity there might be.

This was perhaps one of the loudest Salons, second only to the Muslim debate that emerged in the summer.

— Monday, January 29, 2007 — Seanan Fong, Chair

Past Salons

To view past synopses and announcements from 2006 (when the website was started), please click here.