Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Apprentice

Regulars
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Apprentice

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 05/08/1978

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Illinois
  • Occupation
    Science Writer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Illinois
  • Interests
    Reading, culinary arts
  1. AisA-- Is this the sort of thing you're looking for? It's a very basic source--nothing too in depth. http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,...i341236,00.html
  2. That was the sort of problem I was having with a few of the questions upon trying the quiz last night. I didn't even finish because trying to figure out how to answer such things was giving me a splitting headache Edited to say: On the other hand, the site hosting the quiz included a clickable ad linking to this place. So there's a redeeming quality for you
  3. I've also been trying to put together a movie cast in my head lately. The characters are just so much larger than life. I can't imagine anyone doing them justice--especially Galt. I'm really excited to see the portrayal of him, but think I'll just be disappointed. (Admittedly, this is probably because I'm absolutely smitten with him... )
  4. Well, that's good--then you can gripe about all the local and regional issues you want But you'll not vote on the US Presidential race?
  5. AutoJC, I'm not happy about any of the candidates either, but figure I'll vote for the one who's leading the country in the wrong direction the least quickly. My reason for that is that I figure if I choose not to vote, I forfeit my right to gripe about what's going on...
  6. But why should a man want to lead the country under the above-listed ideas? What's the fundamental difference between women and men that makes it such a gap? And don't just say feminimity--because this is the aspect of Rand's concept of feminimity that I'm just not grasping well. And to add on to daniel_shrugged's comment: And I wouldn't want a man to find my sexiest attribute to be the idea that I'm "demure" in some way either. I'd expect him to equal me and appreciate my strength as I appreciate his--otherwise, I wouldn't be with him. Sorry--this is one of the few things I just don't "get" about Rand's philosophy or world view. I need a better explanation!
  7. y_feldblum-- That's strange--I've already written this reply once, and it didn't show up. I've had that happen a couple of times now. (I should probably take GC's very good advice and write my replies in a word processor first. Then I could save them and simply copy and paste in these situations as well as having my spelling and grammar checked automatically ) Anyway, thank you for the links. This is just what I was thinking about earlier, except in terms of low carb and low fat labeling instead of organic foods. There's currently a particular "consumer advocacy" group that is exerting political pressure to force labeling on chain restaurants. I will start that as another thread, though--I've noticed a particular dislike of thread drift here
  8. Here is my personal question--and feel free to disregard (as I know you will feel free) any question specifically because I haven't read this essay of hers. So I'm in an uninformed position on that respect. But, in light of ZiggyKD's quote here: Regarding that, couldn't it be unselfish and an excruciating psychological torture for anyone who wants the job? I frame it in the light of this: If the president does not deal with equals--if he only deals with inferiors, he'd still have noone to look up to. Why is it not a loss for a man to have noone to look up to, but for a woman it is a loss? It seems to me that noone should want that job because the person to fulfill it would simply have noone to look up to. I'm afraid I'm not understanding the difference there. This could be partially because I haven't read everything that Ayn Rand wrote yet, so if you'd point me to a text that illustrates the answer to this question really clearly, I'd be much obliged. I've read many things on her views on feminimity and still haven't quite understood this particular issue. While I want men to look up to, when I say that's it "men" in the sense of human beings--rational ones. Admittedly, I've found some men that I look up to and not many women except Rand herself. The Hillary Clintons of the world aren't exactly an option--she's repugnant. But is that a socialization issue? What if I found a woman who was better than any man I'd ever known? I doubt I'd respond to her sexually, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the presidency. (A lot of women reportedly thought Clinton was sexually desireable--if that lead them in any way to vote for him then that situation has problems of it's own .) All of this just seems to me to point to the idea that noone who actually wants the job of president actually should take the job. If a John Galt took the presidency, he'd do it out of self-interest--to get people out of his way I'd think. Why wouldn't a woman untertake it for those same reasons? I'm rather lost on this!
  9. From the article: Well, this pretty much says it all to me--for them, it's not an issue of whether these people should morally be able to run their own lottery. It's about revenue collection, which, I'd say is the entire point behind why gambling has become a state venture and not a private one. Disgusting is exactly right.
  10. I haven't read the essay, but hopefully will soon. As such, I'd be interested to hear your reasons behind this. I hope you'll post them soon and not leave the board hanging with nothing concrete to respond to
  11. Good point! I thought about the liability angle and it being in the company's self-interest to promote safety, but didn't even think about insurance. Thanks
  12. Thank you y_feldblum and CF---I appreciate the input! I was just thinking of similar issues in incentives for private certification of food quality and government-mandated labeling the other day, but hadn't drawn the parallel to this situation until you brought this up. Another issue for another thread, I suppose
  13. AshRyan--This is why I have no problem with Joerj11's assessment of the situation. He stated the logic behind such a claim and did it in a constructive manner. WGD did not--he chose to spend his time, instead, insulting members of this forum. WGD--I was merely giving you the courtesy of the knowledge that you were reported, by whom, and a basis for understanding why. I thought I should take responsibility for my action.
  14. AisA---Thank you--I enjoyed your explanation to the reasons behind this Andrew--Thank you for the reference--I appreciate it. I've been trying to get ahold of that book for a couple of weeks and it's not at any local bookstore I guess. I should try an online source as it's one of the next on my list. Thanks again! Everyone else--Still, if you can shoot me down, I'd love to hear it. I don't want to live with contradictions or errors in logic, so if you have anything to say, I'm inviting criticism
  15. Hi AisA Well, it didn't start out on the basis of workplace safety regulations exactly. It started out on the topic of smoking being banned in some cities. My stance was that an employer should be able to make the decision whether or not employees and customers can smoke based on his private property rights. He likened my position to a position in which the employer should not be subject to government regulation of equipment safety. He gave the following example (I hope I can post this--I don't think it's a terms of service violation to post already-public, non-copyrighted material. Let me know if I'm wrong and I'll fix it.) My thinking is that yes--the employees could have chosen not to be employed at this place. The business is private property and as such, the employees don't have a right to that job. It is a voluntary contract and if they don't care for the terms, such as equipment they'll be required to use/not use, they can exercise their ability to turn the job down. This is (vaguely) similar to the context in which an employee is free to turn down a job where the owner allows his employees to smoke in the office. In either case it's completely irrelevant whether there is high unemployment in the area because their "need" of a job is not a claim on the employer's resources. Can someone please shoot me down on either issue? Also, if the business owner were to tell workers that the equipment they were using was safe when he/she knew it was not, that would be problematic. But I'm assuming both the workers and the employer have complete information about the safety versus non-safety of the equipment. I should probably just drop the entire argument and leave that forum. This one person that I quoted above has been very polite (despite disagreeing with me) and simply is looking for information regarding my view, so I'd like to finish replying to him. Others have chosen to not really debate, but instead to repeatedly call me "grotesquely arrogant" and a "horrible" person So perhaps I'll duck out after dealing with this one person.
×
×
  • Create New...