Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

konerko14

Regulars
  • Posts

    297
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by konerko14

  1. If the government doesnt act on principles, what do they act on? The thread is called "Impulses vs Principles" so Im assuming one of the things they act on is impulses. But what else? And since they arent using principles exclusively, why dont they begin to now? Intelligent people cant really consider impulses and whims to be the right way to make decisions, can they?

  2. What about putting the toilet seat down if theres ladies in the place? Why should they get the convenience of the seat always being down for them? Even if theres 5 guys there and one girl, is it still rude to not put the seat back down? The odds of a male using the toilet in that situation are much greater than a female.

    I think the person presently using the toilet can leave the seat however he/she wants after they are finished without it being considered rude, because theres really no way of knowing who is going to use the bathroom next anyways. The most common answer I hear is "to be polite." But if a female admires politeness, then she should put the seat up for men after shes done using it. It seems to be another tradition. I hate pointless traditions.

  3. There is a difference between finding someone attractive and finding him sexually attractive.

    Try it yourself: take the sex that you do not find sexually attractive, and think of some people within that sex that you think are good-looking. Or, use kids. I'll bet you can think of some kids you find cute and some you find ugly. But are you sexually attracted to any of them?

    Maybe to get sexual feelings toward someone you need to find that person attractive enough. I just dont think I get sexually aroused by guys because I dont find them anywhere near as attractive as the girls that turn me on. I think the ones that you find most physically attractive are the ones that you are most sexually attracted to. Isnt that what causes the physical sensation- the fact that you find them beautiful? The more beautiful, the stronger the sexual desire.

    But I think you also have to factor in a persons mind and personality. If two people are equally physically attractive to you, but one has a good mind and the other is dumb, then one or the other will now become more sexually attractive to you depending what you personally value. So lets use some numbers to illustrate my point. Both the people received 5 points for their beauty. Say the perceiver values intelligence in a person, so the smart person gets 10 points added to her score, while the other gets 8 points deducted. The two people were equal initially but then their scores got adjusted once the entire equation was calculated.

  4. If you think a person is beautiful, does that mean you are also physically attracted to them? While I was looking through some ads in the paper, I saw child and teenage models in them. Then I wondered how does one choose a child/teenage model for their ad if they are not attracted to them or at least find them beautiful? I think if most people looked through these ads with younger models in them, they would also notice that they are good looking. That is, essentially, why those models are choosen- because they are good looking. If the majority of people didnt find beauty in child/teenage models then the ads would feature random kids in there instead. So I think most everybody finds certain children/teenagers attractive, it just varies upon the intensity of the attraction.

  5. Well how much of taxes paid are to fund proper government programs? I know taxes deduct about 25% of my income, and I'm thinking it should only be around 5-10% if everything was correct. I think Im making about $15000/year before taxes. Right now taxes will take out about $3700/year, and if taxes deducted, say 7.5% of my income instead it would take out about $1100/year. So if I wanted to make sure I only got back "my money" from a welfare program, I should only receive about $2500/year or $200/month. Thats a good amount of money in the financial position Im in right now.

  6. How much does a single person usually get from welfare? I make enough to support myself but I was thinking about trying to get a little welfare money if i could. That way I can get back some of the money I had to pay the government for this program and all the other unnecessary things they make me pay for. Its not like Im receiving something unearned, its my money they would be giving back to me.

  7. Heres an article from today that shows the most popular potential candidates for the presidential election: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_...esidential_race

    1. McCain and Hillary

    2. Giuliani

    3. Romney

    4. Condoleezza

    I have a question though. What do you need to have a chance at winning a presidential election; do you have to be rich, do you need connections? If Objectivists or other advocates of Capitalism despise nearly all the candidates who run for office, why arent there ever any who run themselves? When was the last time a candidate was an advocate of capitalism? When I say capitalism I mean laissez-faire or something near.

  8. Intentionally hitting a batter with a pitch in a baseball game might be expected but it should not be tolerated. The rules of Major League Baseball do not permit a pitcher to nail an opposing player with a baseball. Furthermore, such an action is strategically unnecessary. The effort in saving pitches as opposed to an intentional walk is minuscule. To argue that it gives one team a psychological edge via intimidation is poor sportsmanship. Stepping into the batter's box certainly should not be an implicit consent to be hit by a pitch nor should it morally grant the pitcher the option of hitting a batter.

    Do you realize that you are essentially telling pitchers that they shouldnt pitch inside at all, in case they may hit a batter? Hitting a batter may not be strategic in your opinion, but pitching inside definitely is, and sometimes the most effective pitch inside is thrown near the head or feet. And when its a matter of inches from where players stand from the plate, they are bound to get hit or even beaned. It seems like youre talking about intentionally hitting a batter with a pitch, but how can you prove that its intentional?

    Also, I pointed out earlier that if an opposing player injures someone on the other team whether its from a pitcher hitting a batter or a takeout slide, that would call for some sort of action from that team to act in self-defense or to get back at them. You injure our players, we injure yours. As opposed to 'you injure our players, we do nothing and you gain a possible large advantage from that'.

  9. Like "Life" with some tougher decisions?

    Yes, exactly. "Life" actually popped into my mind when I thought of it. But then I realized the winner of "Life", usually depends on being fortunate on what numbers they get when they spin. So, instead of the game already being laid out for you, the players should, in essence, be the creators of the game. They decide how to make money, the size of a loan if needed, how to run their business, and then the obstacles on the way. It would be like a capitalist society, so there would be some rules such as no stealing or use of force. The object of the game is to have the most money at the end or the first one to a million dollars, or something like that. I dont want success in the game to always rely on chance, which would mean dice(etc.) would have a limited or no part to the game.

    At the start of the game, the board would pretty much be completely flat, comparable to a small town. As the game goes on, buidings and factories and houses(etc.) could begin to develop, and the small town has a potential to turn into a large city.

    To determine how much money a player makes could depend on what he owns currently. If he owns one factory, for instance, he would roll one die and add to that number a certain amount depending on what or how many developments he owns, to figure out how much he gets for pay day. If he owns many developments, he would roll one die and add to that number a larger amount(say 4) depending on what or how many developments he owns. What about losing money you may ask? Well after the die has been rolled and the amount added to it, then the die is rolled again, but this time that number is subtracted from the total. Im not sure I really like this idea though, Just because you own a lot of properties doesnt mean you will run them well. I want the amount of money earned by a player to be from how well they can attract people to their business. What can determine how many people it attracts?

    Other suggestions?

  10. I was just playing Monopoly and I got this idea for a different board game. I thought it was fun buying all these properties and having a great deal of money at the start of the game, but how did one get that rich? I was thinking a great game would be called something like, "Pre-Monopoly." Each player would work at trying to achieve a wealthy businessman stature from starting with very little. I know of some games that are similar to this but those games pretty much rely just on fortunate circumstances such as getting the right number on their dice. Wouldnt it be great to play a game that requires a lot of use from your mind and your ultimate goal is to become a hero?

  11. [Merged with earlier thread -sN]

    If a parent decides to send their child to private school instead of public school, do they still have to pay taxes to support public schools? I would assume it to be very difficult for a good portion of parents to be able to afford both expenses, so in effect they would be forced to send their child to public school. But if they could get a tax refund or something like that, then more people would have the option of sending their kid to private school. Or is that the intention of the government, to make it more difficult to send a child to private school?

  12. .That isn't a good enough reason ?Why not mark beginnings of sentences .All you need to know when you're reading is whether you're in sentence 1 of sentence 2 ?Can you give an example of a sentence where you could not tell that it was a question until you got to the very end ?Do I usually know before I get to the end whether I'm reading a question .I usually know before I get to the end whether I'm reading a question

    ?You enjoy using my new style of punctuation already, dont you.

    ?Whats the point of marking the beginning of a sentence with a period. The main purpose of my idea is to inform the reader at the appropriate time when a question is asked or when an exclamation point is used. There are such sentences where it isnt always clear as to whether its a question or statement, such as:

    1. Those apples are green and blue, but with no artificial chemicals?

    -?at what point would a typical reader know its a question.

    2. I have a keyboard, mouse, and Mr. Potato Head?

    -?looked like a statement at first, didnt it.

    ?What about when an exclamation point is used. Its nearly impossible to pick it up on certain sentences before you see it at the end of the sentence. Such as:

    1. I like to use my hands!

    -I think most readers would pick up on the emotion of that sentence a bit too late.

    2. Why are there no napkins placed around the table?!

    -?What about that one.

  13. When I'm reading, I always notice that whenever theres a question mark or exclamation point involved in a sentence, I dont see it until after I have read the sentence. Then when I see the punctuation mark I realize that I didnt capture the meaning of that sentence correctly. So instead of having these punctuation marks at the end of a sentence, why not put them at the beginning?

    ?Theres only one left, and its the worst of the bunch.

    ! I like using my hands.

  14. Why does Movie Gallery not have an online rental service? Going to a movie store and renting movies is becoming almost obsolete it seems like, and something that confuses me even more is the price they charge for rentals which is about $3.50/rental, plus they dont have hardly any specials. They do have a program thats called Movie Value Pass, and that allows customers to rent unlimited amount of movies a month- it costs $25/month though. I dont think the majority of people want to spend that much on movies though, only the extreme hardcore renters(and they would run out of movies they would want to see fairly soon anyway, when they rent that many). Also, I see that they plan on opening 200 new stores in 2006- do you see any good from that?

    Starting an online rental service would provide them with a good opportunity to make money again. They could put out similar prices and deals as Blockbuster, and begin working on other concepts that would put them ahead of their competition.

  15. Why did Francisco D'Anconia buy the San Sebastian mines and want it to fail? It seemed like he did this so the People of Mexico would receive nothing when they nationalized the country, like he was just mocking them. But Francisco also seemed pleased when he learned that Ellis Wyatt was going to lose his business from this whole debactle, and Wyatt is one of the great businessmen in the book. It looks like he wants to destroy everybody, even the good guys. Am I right on these comments or is their a different answer?

    Im still reading Atlas Shrugged, so dont give away anything further than this part.

  16. Netflix has a few advantages over Blockbuster. Netflix has a larger and much more varied selection than Blockbuster.

    Blockbuster online seems to have all the new releases and the recent ones. The older movies they may be lacking in slightly, Im not completely sure. Plus, Netflix supposedly is out of a lot of movies somewhat frequently. Blockbuster seems to have nearly all of their movies in stock.

    When adding or reviewing movies, Netflix offers better-tailored recommendations for similar movies. As best I can tell, Blockbuster makes recommendations based on other movies with the same actor or within the same genre and time period, while Netflix finds related movies enjoyed by other viewers with similar rental histories.
    Do you think customers really care that much about this feature? I think the main thing people look at is the price and service plan.

    Netflix also has faster turn around times, getting movies to me one or two days faster than Blockbuster, though both have shipping centers in my city.

    I heard, however, that customers who are renting quite a few in a short period of time, Netflix purposely slows down how fast they ship their movies out.

    Netflix has been aggressive in adding new features, while Blockbuster hasn't changed significantly since its launch. For example, Netflix now allows users to add each other as friends and to compare movie ratings, rental histories, and to exchange one-line notes (mini reviews) about films. Netflix also provides RSS feeds for queues, top rentals in various genres, and tailored recommendations.
    I dont think people care that much about these features. Maybe Im wrong, but thats how I feel about them.

    Right now however, you can't return your DVD at Blockbuster to speed up shipment of your next DVD

    Thats probably to prevent customers from ordering like 50 movies a month. If they added this aspect, they would probably need to put a limit to how many movies each customer can rent a month.

    your store rental history isn't merged with the online rental history, you can't use spaces in your rental queue as credits for local rentals, and you can't even view your online queue or recommendations from within the store.

    I guess youre interested in that stuff, but personally I could care less. I dont think its very important.

  17. Do you think Blockbuster will overtake Netflix as the most popular online rental service? They both offer the same plans at the same prices, but Blockbuster, I think, has a major advantage- they have tons of stores set up all around the country. So along with offering the exact same services as Netflix, Blockbuster also gives customers free in-store rentals(the amount depends on what plan you subscribe to).

    At this point, Netflix has about 5 millions subscribers, and Blockbuster has 1.4 million for their online service. But I think Blockbuster may significantly increase their subscribers as time goes on, and could possibly eventually overtake Netflix as the largest online rental business. That is, of course, if Netflix doesnt figure out a way to gain a competitive edge. It will be tough for them to do this though, mainly because of all the stores Blockbuster has. Im sure it will create a fierce competition, however, which should make things very interesting.

×
×
  • Create New...