konerko14
-
Posts
297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by konerko14
-
-
That is, you form the concept by identifying existents, isolating their distinguishing characteristics, and finally represent that concept economically with a name. You don't start with a name and then look for some concept to apply it to.
When a new term is created, how does it catch on so everyone knows the same meaning to it? Whats the process of a creation of new word?
-
Yes, destroying the ozone layer would probably harm everybody. Other pollution that gets exposed into the air would also harm people.
Yes, I understand why its important not to use the word "earth" and animals in such a statement, it only involves humans.
P.S. I created a thread on overpopulation a little while ago, so I think you should direct your conversation that way instead of in the pollution thread. Thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ic=7433&hl=
-
I didn't say it was bad, per se, but I hinted at a general sentiment of distaste of the idea of coming to college for free, only to play a sport. I think many people have this sentiment because they don't see playing a sport (full time - and the vast majority of college athletes don't become pros) as fulfilling any rational value whatsoever.
Playing a sport in college and having it be your main focus can be rational if your goal is to advance to a higher level, and eventually get paid for it. Sure seems like the same thing as pursuing an education in college- youre going there to advance to a higher level of a career, its just a different type of career. And just because most college sports players dont become professionals, doesnt mean anything. Thats due to strict competition. Its similar to an "intellectual" job that isnt in that much demand, not a lot of college students may be able to get that job after they graduate either.
The typical path to becoming a professional sports player is playing in college though. College sports players that have a goal of making the pro's are trying to improve on their skills and gain exposure, to give them a better chance of making it to the professional level. How is that different from an "intellectual" learning whatever things he needs to improve his chances of getting the job he wants?Professional sports are a different matter entirely, as they're supported by spectators and such, and those athletes truly are creating the value that's represented in their high salaries.I would like to see regulations put in place in college sports associations so that sports teams can only draw from already-admitted students, and an end to college-sponsored (i.e. taxpayer-sponsored, at public universities) athletic scholarships. This would make teams more respectable and college sports more wholesome.You have a hard time understanding because sports isnt your top priority. Also, creating such a regulation would just make college sports teams less talented and I dont think most colleges are trying to find ways to do this. It should be up to the college who it accepts.
-
Here is your question, put as it should have been:
So what prevents individuals or companies from making a severely negative impact on humans with pollution?
Is there a clear answer to this?
-
So what rights are being violated when pollution is destroying the ozone layer? What can the polluter be charged for in a court of law(objective law)?
-
Well, at my university, basketball players are known for having poor SAT scores and being recruited and accepted into the school simply based on their athleticism, not actually being good enough students to get in (and that's not so hard to do). And today in the newspaper, somebody praised our football coach for, unlike other coaches, requiring men's football team members to have at least a 2.0 GPA. I didn't directly answer your question, but you see what I'm getting at. I don't particularly want to see a group of huge men who go here for free, without academic merit, win a game. (Well, I do like to see the basketball team win.)
Thats probably true in a lot of cases. People who have great physical ability, probably lack more so in gaining knowledge and understanding complex theories. Just like how genius' usually dont have great athletic ability or not nearly as strong as the top athletic players. Of course you can be a top athlete and easily grasp knowledge, but I think its rare. I think the reason why a lot of athletes dont get good grades is because its very difficult for them, and they dont have a desire to learn the particular subjects. So if you have both those aspects present in an individual, below average grades may appear.
But why is it bad to recruit athletes just for their athletic ability? College isnt just for education, it can be mainly for advancing in a sport as well- it depends on the talent and goal of the person. An athlete attending a college specifically for sports probably wont have much of an interest in his classes since it doesnt pertain to his goal. How well would you do if you had to spend several hours each day on something you didnt have a desire to do?
-
What other life forms? Do these other life forms posess rights? Are they the property of someone, whose property rights would be violated if those other life forms should come to harm?
Yes, I would assume property rights of whoever owned the life forms would be violated if that life was harmed by others. But how would you prove that a certain pollution caused harm to you?
My main point however doesnt necessarily have to deal with rights. What about pollution that is destroying the atmosphere that which makes it possible for human life to exist, and yet that pollution isnt violating anybodys rights? Nobody owns the ozone layer, right? What would prevent them from severely impacting the atmosphere negatively to a point where it puts a huge burden on humans?
-
How does that negatively impact "The Earth?" Your complaint wasn't that there were negative effects on ozone or humans and animals (whose animals?), but that there would be a negative impact on "The Earth." What does this "The Earth" care if there are negative effects on ozone or people or animals?
Alright, pollution can have severely negative effects on humans and other life forms on Earth.
-
What is "the Earth?"
Earth, meaning the planet we live on and the atmosphere that allows life to exist on it.
No. People can still make life on Earth improbable by polluting though.Do you own this "the Earth?"How can someone "negatively impact" it?Certain pollutants can destroy the ozone, cause negative side effects in humans and animals, smog and acid rain, etc.
-
No one picks a favorite team based on who they think is the best. If anyone does that, their favorite team will shift about 8 times during the course of a season.
You choose the team that you think is the best at the beginning of the season obviously, not just picking the team currently with the best record. And just because the team you picked doesnt have the best record at some point during the season, doesnt mean you still dont think they have the best team- its a long term, season long commitment. My favorite team for two years now has been the White Sox. They didnt make it to the playoffs this year, but I still think they have the best team this year. They just lost momentum at the end of the season, the starting pitchers may have been overworked during the first half of the season.
-
I've tried to put that emotional attachment behind a particular sports team, and I haven't really been able to. I don't think I can make an arbitrary emotional attachment to something like that. I think most of my emotional attachments have some ratonal basis.
You should pick your favorite team based on who you think is best, like I said. If you analyze all the teams and come to a rational conclusion that this particular team is the best, then I think emotions will become present when dealing with that team. For instance, you may become somewhat defensive if another person starts criticizing your team, or your team loses.
I think I do have a negative stereotype about basketball and baseball players, and thus have much less respect for those games. (And I think in general, as a whole, those players have earned that stereotype.)What sterotype would that be?
-
Proof is a key concept here. A lot of pollution is from a vast number of sources and as such, excepting in situations such as sewage treatment plants, general pollution is hard to trace to specific individuals or businesses. One also has to figure out how to deal with the millions of autos that spew out monoxides, H2SO4 and other pollutants. The fact is, pollution is the fault of our entire society. What are we going to do--sue ourselves?
So what prevents individuals or companies from making a severely negative impact on the Earth with pollution?
-
How can you prove in court that a specific type of pollution has caused you physical harm?
Heres an interesting article on the top 10 most polluted cities:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061018/wl_nm/environment_pollution_dc
-
First we need a concept, and it should be defined; and this concept has to be mentally represented in the language as a word. But logically prior is the integration of two or more units sharing characteristics... if the concept has no referents, why are you worried about the word. Concepts first, words last.
Can you explain this again? Im not quite getting it. Give me an example if you can.
-
Don't go about trying to define the word "greed", because it's hopeless.
Why cant the word be properly defined? What makes it so different from any other word?
-
Does that mean there is no proper way to use the word 'greed', at least until there is a correct definition? And how does one go about defining it?
-
As I just don't understand the motivation- In fact, at work yesterday I was taking a break to get something to drink, and there were six people intently watching a baseball game on television, making what I would call the obligatory grunts and cheers. What gives?
I do this because I love baseball and sometimes during the game my emotions may get very high and the natural way to release this energy is to cheer, move around, or something like that. You dont understand this because you must not have a passionate interest in baseball.
Some reasons I have considered: they could have friends or family on the team, they could have a financial stake in the game's outcome, they could just like the colors red and white together...You forgot interest in the game of baseball.
-
It would be helpful to know why sports fanatics express hatred for fanatics of opposing teams.
Because the opposing fans did not choose their team. A fan of a team thinks his team is the best and others who dont see it the same way are morons(thats how a typical primitive sports fan views it, I think). Plus, it may also have to do with competition. As a fan, you may sometimes feel like youre part of the team, and when acting on your emotions they may resort to violence against opposing fans who mock or beat their team(similar to tribes possibly).
And while we're on the subject, why do people get so obsessed with a particular sports team winning anyway?Someone picks a particular team because they think they will win, that they are the best team. So the outcome is essentially going to prove or disprove their judgment. Also, its like a hobby or an interest that peaks their mind. Putting an emotional attachment into the game makes it more exciting and fun to watch, as oppose to watching it without any personal thoughts to the game.
-
Spongebob Squarepants. That little guy is so hilarious. The show puts me in a good mood whenever I watch it.
-
Heres two more quotes from Atlas Shrugged(they are only a couple pages apart):
Lee Hunsaker, president of Amalgamated Service, during a conversation with Dagny, kept saying, "if anybody would ever give me a chance." He goes on to say: "..we were young men embarking on great careers... But do you think anybody gave us any encouragement? They did not. Not those greedy, entrenched vultures of priviledge..."
Eugene Lawson, president of bank who loaned a large amount to Twentieth Century because they "needed it". Talking to Dagny, about his lost fortune: "But I do not mind it. What I lost was mere material wealth. I am not the first man in history to suffer for an ideal. I was defeated by the selfish greed of those around me. I couldnt establish a system of brotherhood and love in just one small state, amidst a nation of profit-seekers and dollar-grubbers."
-
So what did Ayn Rand imply the meaning of 'greed' meant? She used it a lot throughout Atlas Shrugged, so she must have meant something by it. Heres an example from AS:
When Reardon and Dagny ask a stranger how to get to the Twentieth Century Motor Company. Reardon took out a ten dollar bill and extended it to the stranger, and asked "Would you please tell us the way to the factory?"
The man stared at the money with sullen indifference, not moving, not lifting a hand for it. If one were ever to see a man devoid of greed, thought Dagny, there he was.
-
I, as an Objectivist, advocate it, only as a "thowing it back in your face" way. In the same way that Rand uses "The Virtue of Selfishness" to try to take back the true concept of individualism, this would be the only way of adovcating greed, in an attempt to take back the true concepts of ambition, and excellence.
But the definition of greed, "wanting more than one deserves" doesnt really have anything to do with ambition and excellence. It seems like Ayn Rand just rearranged the meaning of 'greed' to fit her need.
-
So why is Objectivism commonly known to be an advocate of greed if we cant even define it?
-
Does greed mean an excessive desire to make money or can the desire be less than that?
Does greed only pertain to wealth and material possessions?
A Private Policeforce?
in Political Philosophy
Posted · Edited by konerko14
How would private police forces make money?
Also, what do you think of Stan Jones'(libertarian) views on police force? His plan is to privatize police, courts, and prisons.
http://mtlp.org/jones/issues_index.html