konerko14
-
Posts
297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by konerko14
-
-
Such actions are called reflexes, which are different.
Isnt it innate for a baby to know that crying will get him attention, which is crucial for a babys' survival? Or does he have to learn that crying will get him attention?
-
When a baby cries, is that an instinct?
-
The drunk driver is violating rights just as someone who randomly fires a gun is violating rights; he is creating a serious hazard to other peoples lives and/or property.
Isnt that similar to someone driving 100mph in city streets? Except I see a lot of Objectivists propose that there shouldnt be any speed limit.
-
I understand that in Europe it is most common for there to be a panel of 3 judges.
I think this system would be better than what we have now because having all the people who decide the verdict would have an extensive knowledge of law and how to be objective.
I've proposed having trained, professional jurors as the actually ideal system...This would be their full-time job then, right? Instead of pulling random people out of their jobs and possibly creating a burden on certain companies for their absence, the government would always have a jury without forcing others to do it, and this jury would also be much more qualified for the job. Sounds like a sound idea.
-
(Mod's note: I split this into a thread of its own. sN)
Whats the purpose of jury duty? Why doesnt the judge just decide the verdict himself? Wouldnt it be more productive to have a judge- someone who knows the philosophy of law extremely well- make this decision himself instead of a bunch of random civilians?
-
On second thought, I would say that a person who doesn't live alone also shouldn't be able to take so many drugs that he could become a danger to his environment. Just because you are married to someone and have children, doesn't give you the right to violate their rights. This probably doesn't happen with every type of drugs, but there are a couple of nasty ones that can greatly increase the chances of lethal incidents happening.
Those people dont have to live with the drug addict though. They should choose to live away from him if they realize he is putting them at serious risk.
-
thenewamy: Why dont you just accept reality? You cant change it.
4. My personal thinking, based on my own experiences, is that fear of death is actually the result of an unhappy, unproductive life; one filled with endless, repetitive, pointless activities leading nowhere. Does this gel with your experience? Why or why not?I think a person with that type of life would look forward to death. Those are the people who commit suicide.
-
(Mod's note: I've split this from
the thread on drugs, because this thread is addressing a different legal issue, not just a different substance. -sN)When a drunk driver is swerving around on the road, how is that violating anybody's rights?
-
Off topic question.
Police act to protect individuals rights. Does that mean they shouldnt respond to safety needs from others, such as someone threatening to shoot himself in the head, etc?
-
"it just is." Why does it need more explanation? Existence exists.
It doesnt need any more of an explanation than it just is. I was just clarifying what I thought the answer is.
-
I dont understand how the universe could have always existed.
Is there no way of explaining it? -because it just is?
-
Why do you think it is not possible?
Im not sure. How would the universe get there though?
-
I dont understand how the universe could have always existed. I'm not saying the theory is wrong, but can someone explain to me how its possible?
-
It doesn't matter whether a few people are saved by seat-belt laws or speed limits or any other of the godawful number of things the Great Nanny does to protect us from ourselves, what matters is that we have a right to do these things.
There wouldnt be any speed limits in a Capitalistic society? I guess that wouldnt be much different on the freeways/highways from how it is now because most people would probably still drive in the 70-80mph range, and then there would be the occassional triple digit drivers. But since roads would be privately owned, the road owners would have a right to post a speed limit on it if they want, dont they? How does ownership of roads work though? -do investors and some city residents own all the roads in that city, or could each street/road be owned by different people? Like, someone would own Vine St and another owner(s) would own Blueberry Rd, etc throughout the city?
-
How 'bout we trust the police with the ability to aim and shoot the car, so it can't further endanger the lives of innocents? Problem solved.
Police use that tactic, but its not always an option. Thats why some car chases last for hours. Plus, shooting out one, two, or even all four tires doesnt always disable the cars use, as Ive seen many instances where the driver is able to continue at fairly high speeds just on rims, only now he is destroying the roads and may be putting others at even more of a risk from the sparks hes creating and less control of the car. I think there definitely can be more efficient ways of handling these situations.
If criminals knew the cops were more likely to shoot them, crime would drop quickly.So you think police should shoot car thieves and similar type criminals? I think police prefer to give the suspect every chance to their life as possible. Thats why police usually only shoot suspects in self-defense.
-
When the police are ready to stop the vehicle, they advise the dispatcher to disable the vehicle and lock the doors.
How exactly do the police disable the car? Is it with a remote control or what? And do you think regular citizens would be able to hack their way into shutting down other peoples cars, like Freelogic pointed out?
Also, you mentioned that it would be fine to install this device into cars if manufactures voluntarily agreed to it and let their consumers know as well. I can see why some buyers would want this device in their car- to ensure that their car doesnt get damaged in a car chase if it gets stolen, especially if its a very expensive car or car that they very much value.
-
I dont quite understand why having the device mandatory in vehicles is different than using all the other tactics the police use to end the car chase. Is it because its a violation of property rights if they force the manufactures to install the thing?
-
More importantly, by what right could the police force manufacturers to install such a device?
Doesnt the police have a right to protect other individuals? -in this case innocent civilians, who have a right to life, that would have their lives endangered by those criminals. And say, hypothetically, this device would be the most efficient way of stopping the chase, shouldnt the police/gov't create a law to have this thing in all new vehicles?
-
I was watching the tv show "Wildest Police Chases" and I thought of a possible technology that could bring car chases to an abrupt end. Its just a rough idea for right now but let me know if you think its possible or if its a good idea.
The main idea of it is to allow the police to shut off any running car that is breaking the law. There could be a government regulation that forces all new cars to have a mechanism that will allow the police to stop the car with something similar to a remote control. If a car forbids to stop for police, the authorities can shut off their car themselves. This will ensure no innocent civilians get put at risk of a reckless driver in a police chase.
This technology will be very valuable to police 10 years or so after it starts getting placed into new cars, since any older car wouldnt have the technology. But soon enough the majority of cars will have this special mechanism.
-
"All topics should be in the form of a question" ... ?
What do you mean?
-
As we know, humans have freewill of choosing ones actions- this is a necessity when deciding to confront your fears. To overcome a fear, you need to intentionally seek it out and confront it. Doing this will ease your anxiety and make the experience pleasurable(if it is that type of situational fear). This is the antithesis of what one feels during a state of terror: chronic worrying, restlessness, tightness.
You must remember though that not all fears should be approached directly, such as a fear of poisonous snakes. A more reasonable approach would be to gain knowledge on how to act if an encounter with a poisonous snake ever occurs. This situation is similar to a fear of death- you shouldnt kill yourself, but instead gain knowledge on the subject.
For the most part, however, fears are fairly easy to conquer directly, such as a fear of public speaking, for example. To confront this fear, one needs to find an appropriate place and time to do a public speaking presentation. Dont be discouraged if you are not a great public speaker initially. But the more often you perform this task, the more comfertable you will feel. Another example would be a fear of ham- approach a ham and look at it. To elevate the intensity of the confrontation, concentrate on the ham and then touch it. This will eventually ease your anxiety of ham.
While confronting a fear, most likely you will be frightened and feel intimidated, but you must fight through these emotions, as they are holding you back from completely enjoying your life. Realize that you can choose your actions regardless of the emotional state you are in, and fully commit to your goal of confronting the fear. Figure out when you are rationalizing so those thoughts dont find a way to control you.
Once you confront a fear for the first time and make it a pleasurable experience thereafter, not only will it be a load off of your shoulders, but it will also give you a great deal of confidence when dealing with your other fears.
The 'overcoming a fear' equation: If you have a fear of (fill in your fear), then you should seek out a reasonable time and opportunity to confront it.
-
One gains the value of a TV show by viewing it, buying the DVD and so on. Similar for a game: you go see the game, or watch it on TV or read about it. In essence, if you act.
In general terms, if you act in some way, with the intent of acheiving an outcome, chances are that you value that outcome.
Would it be more accurate if you said, "He acts to gain and/or keep the value of the tv show."? Should you add the word value into that sentence?
-
I think you guys accidentally skipped my question. Or am I being blackballed?
-
Why is it bad to have sex with someone you are attracted to but dont love? Heres a concrete example:
A man and woman meet at a bar. That night they go back to one of their places and have sex, even though they just met that night.
What are the negative consequences of these actions? How will this affect them negatively after they have sex?
Why have juries
in Political Philosophy
Posted
So youre saying the type of jury system we have now is pointless because the majority of the jurors dont have proper training to decide a verdict in court. And even if a certain judge doesnt look at the facts objectively, the jurors- from lack of training- wont either. But the chances of a judge deciding objectively is much greater because he knows the job better(from experience and training), so I think we should just rely on a judge(s), instead of bring in a subpar council. Or else have an extensively trained jury(your previous idea you mentioned).