Old Geezer
-
Posts
230 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Old Geezer
-
-
Perhaps you're right. I was just trying to be optimistic. *sigh*
Yikes, I hope not, If I am right about something, I'd rather it be this week's powerball numbers. Where's the razor tongue???
-
, but he would simply reply that they're the ones preventing the legitimate parts from getting through by attaching all that graft to it. I think that even today, many people would find that refreshing and would strongly support such a president. "AR
I Question to what extent this is true in today's situation (about many people supporting such a president turning down pork) Farmers might not protest when indivudal welfare is not passed , but they certainly will when their own subsidies are not passed. Nuke operators might not protest when expanses of federal land are sold, but they certainly will when their own insurance subsidy is not passed.
The lobbying industry is so big precisely because businesses have grown dependent on pork. On a more individual level, people may be living pay-check to paycheck BECAUSE of government intervention, but this has created a situation where many vote strictly to ensure their family's more immediete needs. Which leads to a situation where people are quick to dismiss "pork" when it doesn't effect them, but not so quick when it does.
-
As a young and aspiring architect I got sick of people asking me if I read that book. So I finally decided to skim through it to get some content, then I bought the book and read it.
AUTO,
Do you know of any good Architectural books that would be good background reading for someone who is going to re-read the Fountainhead?
-
ERANDOR;
You may want to check out "The Mother Tongue" which while not as structured as the books Betsy mentioned is certainly worth reading. (But not for a serious study, although its references are pretty well established) Its the type of book you might keep in the bathroom or bring to the beach. (Its got a whole chapter on the origins of curses and phrases etc but if I recall correctly it also goes into the roots of the language)
-
I wander what you guys think about shared property in marriage. Should all property be shared? Most of it? Only enough for maintaining a shared home?
This strikes me as an inherently subjective experience, and thus one which varies from relationship to relationship. The reasons why people value their property vary from person to person. Thus their willingness to actually exercise their "property rights" varies according to the property in question, and its value to that person. If some peice of property (such as a diary) is valued because of the appeal of its privacy, then it "should" be under the complete control of the owner. But if a rural couple values a car because of its ability to help them both get to work, then at the very least it seems counter-productive for one person to assume the rights and responsibilities that come with ownership.
This is not to say that people don't retain their property rights when they enter into marriage. But if they are marrying the right person, they presumably have a good understanding of what property is "off limits" and property rights will not even need to be addressed. Anyone who will infring upon your right not to have your doorknob collection messed with if you so choose, gets a red flag in my book. On the flip side, anyone who is not willing to value the relationship more than the pieces of property each brings to the relationship also gets a red flag.
-
Fundamentals are fine but I'm really interested in side issues
Try not to spend too much time on discussion boards
-
What do you do in the heat of the moment when an action is required but you don't understand your emotions?
It has been my experience that most of the time when people feel that they are in "the heat of the moment when an action is required" is THE MOST IMPORTANT TIME not to react immedietly. When I feel rushed to make a decision or react to something that is usually a red flag for me to slow down and re-think everything.
Take some instances;
a girlfriend offers an ultimatum "either you marry me within the month or I'm out"
a potential employer says "well we need to know right now if you will take this job"
certainly one has feelings in these situations and may not feel one has time to to reality check those feelings. But this is precisely the time to make such time a priority. If people are not able to be somewhat accomodating under such circumstances then I find myself hesitant to even interact with them, as they clearly do not recognize or value the importance to me of taking time to think about things..
-
The first step for me is to label the emotion one is trying to trace. If one is unsure about this, a first step can be becoming conscious of one's physical response.
The various emotions tend to signify various needs your mind is trying to address.
Anger is usually brought about by a sense of injustice as well as a compulsion to do something about it (and generally not knowing what to do)
Depression might be brought about by a feeling of loss of control over something which we value.
Anxiety might be brought about by uncertainty about the future
etc etc. Once labeling the emotion, it becomes much easier to ask yourself which unmet need your body is trying to address.
-
RC, I liked the Idea a lot...
How about a character who "wins" his arguments with the direct threat of force???(Uh sure, Saddam, I like your plays... )
-
I believe one of the greatest problems we face in this war is the government's inability to address who the actual enemy is. This is, in fact, a holy war. We are at war with Islam" DG
This (Labeling the war on terrorism as a war against fundamentalist Islam, if thats what you are doing) strikes me as a short term conceptualization of the problem. There may currently be more Terrorist acts coming from "Islamic" sources. But it seems to me as if a long term approach to the War on Terror recognizes that technology and globalization make it much more possible for a small minority of people to do a great deal of harm. I'm not arguing against G or T, just pointing out that Law Enforcement etc.. Is Currently adjusting to the new reality.
Whether its a Anti-Globalist Luddite crashing a plane into a building or a Muslim makes no difference to me. Those who support them must be caught and dealt with. The problem is the assholes who support Terrorism, not the guise they support it under.
-
As per physical dependency, that's a myth. The only drug that you can become literally physically dependent on (that is, die from detoxing) is, as far as I know, alcohol, but physical dependency takes a long time to develop and is a much different phenomenon than addiction.
why do you define physical dependency as that which you could die from withdrawel? Headaches, tremors etc are not chosen behaviors and can not be changed by "thinking differently"
-
DPW
Matt basically got it right. It has relatively no health risks (although it did recently earn its first recorded death)Do you have a link for this? I'm interested.
-
I guess that I think that what I am arguing is that incremental decriminalization will come first you won't see people out advocating Complete legalization for quite some timeWell, that's true... but I worry about making something illegal just because it can be abused. I mean, the same argument could be used against cold medicines.MBDriving on drugs should be treated the same as driving drunk. Do we/should we prohibit alchol? No. You should prohibit the dangerous (to others rights, that is) usage of a substance, not the substance itselfRHthats what I am saying, at present, there is no sure way to tell on the scene of a car accident if somebody is under the influence of marijuana (perhaps if they are bombed, but not always). The signs just aren't always that overt, and absent private roads, or a reliable testing device, that means that prosecution would be very difficult.
-
Yikes! Considering the health effects of cocaine (In comparison to Marijuana which has never killed a soul) I'm not sure I would risk saying that.I'd go so far as to say that all things considered, provided it's used in moderation, cocaine is a less destructive drug than weedI would have to say their are several confounding variables.
One of them is the route of administration. If cocaine is smoked in the form of crack, its very dangerous (because of how quickly it gets from the lungs to the brain) yet some cultures (largely agrarian) chew on cocaine leaves during the workday to increase their output. Similarly, THC brownies are less disastorous both in their perceptual and lung consequences.
Another is the interaction between somebodies personality/genetic makeup and the particular drug. Giving cocaine to somebody who is manic is probably not the best Idea, and giving marijuana to somebody who is not in control of their anxiety isn't a good idea either.
" I can certainly see a case where it'd be moral to sell weed: for instance, if one grows one's own marijuana and sells it to moderate recreational or medical users."Roads are still public, and reliable usable tests have not been developed for determining if someone smoked Marijuana a day ago vs. a month ago. (which would mean that It couldnt easily be determined if they were "under the influence" if they killed a family of 6) Since Marijuana slows reaction times significantly, it would not be moral to sell Pot to someone whom you could not trust not to endanger others with. If Marijuana was first Decriminalized (making it only an offense fineable by a small fine, and allowing research) it is likely that a freer market would allow for companies to develop a test that takes more reliable and accurate samples. At the very least it would save a shitload of money.
-
However, if you lived in some hellhole like Iran, you may not feel the same way about human life. You may let a stranger drown, because if you saved him, he would likely be an Islamofascist, who would support the destruction of you and your freedom-fighting brothers.
I would love to know which evidence you drew upon to come to the conclusion that most Iranian's are Islamofascists.
I am also curious as to why you would not assume that he could not be recruited/convinced to support your cause.
-
I think RC is right about this.
I have solved many business problems by just taking a spin... Also, I have utilized the relative privacy affforded in a car to explore social relationships with people when I did not have my own house/apartment etc.
Further, the Car and the mobility that comes with it has come to represent for many people the Independence that most value at least to a certain degree.
It seems doubtful to me that any chosen human behavior could not be an attempt at purposeful action. Granted the purpose may not be consciously identified by the agent, and certainly that purpose may be empty, or the behavior may not be the best way to acheive this purpose,
But all effects have causes. In the case of Human Behavior, it is the thought which procedes them that is the cause.
-
ohhhhhh, such a low blow, attacking biblical denigration of women and inheritance of sin is like... shooting fish in a barrel... with a thermonuclear weapon... with laser guided, infared, fish seeking technology...
LOL I was beginning to think no-one had picked up on my dry sarcasm , references to biblical explanations for child birth pains, and old apples.
-
If it is nessecary to torture or even execute POW's then it is completly justified. Even if it is not nessecary it is justified because these people have NO RIGHTS.
This argument might apply after due process has been applied. But at the initial stages of imprisonment, mistakes are often made. (Thats one of the reasons why prisoners are so often released so quickly) Administering measures such as torture when someone has not been determined guilty is a morally risky measure.
-
Have you guys ever read through the 1977 Soviet Constitution? Theres some pretty crazy shit in there! Its as if they stopped equivocating and were honest for once (I skimmed over the Preamble, Its the Articles that have the real meaty propoganda!)
http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/r100000_.html
Yikes!
to think that that nation existed!
-
What do y'all think would be the cuts or the mistakes that would most ruin the message of the film to a public's first exposure to Rand??
-
"It seems like the contradiction is that a human would have to create that first concious computer, and the way it is programmed would control its functions and abilities. So if the computer's "conciousness" is dependent on how it was programmed, would it really be an independent concious being - or simply the tool of whoever created it? "
No more so than our inability to digest the fiberous plants of the plains and our lack of predatory locomotion/attack physiology after a dramatic climate change which forced the Jungles to recede is the master of our minds (although it probably was the cause IMO)
But this of course assumes that the "premises" which the computer would be programmed with are neutral, and do not interfere with its "independence" . While I do not know much about Computer Science, I would imagine this would be an incredibly difficult , and most likely undesirable situation.
I like my computers like the Robot in Rocky IV, designed to be my servant
-
We have NOT taught the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and their sponsors the basic lesson they need to be taught, that is "Don't Mess With America."
I don't think there is much of a chance of "teaching" fundamentalist terrorists anything. There is no hope for them.
I don't think there is much hope for the direct sponsors either.
Those who are indifferent to it are most likely the ones that can be reached.
-
I'm not sure that that (them leaving us alone) can ever be the case. Fundamentalist Islam is rooted in the Islamic Principle of global "Un-mah" essentially translates to " Communitty" or "one world" (In the Islamic sense it conveys the sense that Islam must be a presence in communities and extend to one's everyday life, it can not be compartmentalized.)If they want to live like animals and kill each other, there is no reason for us to get involved. If they want to kill us, I want them to know that we will wipe them out.Those Muslims who adhere to this principle naturally extend it to include all areas of life (government, schooling etc) and wish to extend Islam's influence. So because of this, there are two growth oriented forces at work and eventually they interact. (Not that Capitalism is a "force" but you know what I mean )
"A mixed government/economic system can not/will not work for long "Oh they tend to last pretty long alright, (USA, Europe for example) . In the case of Iraq, it just needs to last long enough for Capitilism to get its foot in the door. I'm not saying that this will happen, but a society like Turkey isn't hopeless, and neither eventually will Iraq be if we play our cards right.
-
If a worthwhile essay exists on this please let me know/
Otherwise.
It seems that psycho-tropic and certain other drugs can be deemed immoral based on either their effects on one's ability to perceive and accurately judge reality, or their health effects or their addictive properties..
But what about performance enhancing drugs? Strattera for instance has been proven to improve people's ability to complete cognitive tasks more effectively and accurately . And unlike its stimulant cousing ritalin, does not seem to have the same negative effects on the body.
steroids in certain social contexts (sports for instance) are wrong because its illegality within the organization and under the law means that ticketholders are operating under the assumption thatthey are paying to watch people whose ability is only influenced by their genetics, training/coaching methods, will, and diet.(etc)
am I correct in identifying the following principles in consideration of the morality of performance enhancing drugs?
1. Health
2. Physical Addictiveness.
3. Social Context (jobs, sports policies etc)
4. Consideration of Value of Drug Vs. Legal consequences
5. Stipulation that drug not effect perceptual/conceptual abilities
Are there more principles to be considered? Are any of these not fully valid?
Handwriting Analysis
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted
"Has anyone here been able to overcome such a problem? I would love to find a solution to it."
yes, the people here have been able to handle that problem quite nicely for me
JK
you may want to research "dysgraphia" and see if anything effective has been developed.
Or if you know an occupational therapist, they may be able to suggest some hand exercises. but from what I agather the research on this is not very strong.
But most likely the cause is just "your mind thinks much faster than your ability to write"
however if you feel that there is a cause beyond this and you feel it is interfering with your coursework, you are eligibile for testing accomodations under Fedaral disabilities laws. (Such as taking the exam on a computer, or orally replying to questions) information about ADA, Section 504 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and other such laws is available from the appropriate school official.
Now you may or may not have scruples about making use of these legal entitlements. And that is fine. But you are eligible. At the very least you may want to consider whether your professor might be open to approaching him about alternative ways of proving your cold knowledge of the material.
Finally, you may solve the problem as I have done by becoming rich and hiring an assistant to do all that handwriting stuff.