konerko14
-
Posts
297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by konerko14
-
-
Is there any chance that the minimum wage will not get raised in the very near future? The people and politicians seem to be getting fairly intense about this topic and most appear to think that this country "needs" the minimum wage up to $7.25.
This country keeps drifting further and further away from capitalism.
-
And what if an owner of some road decides he doesnt want that road anymore, and destroys it to construct buildings there, for example. Then there will be a huge gap in that road system. Is that a major problem?
-
Would the owners of the roads actually profit from this ownership? I would assume the majority of owners would be companies in that area wanting to make it easier for customers to get to their store, is this correct?
-
Ah, now I understand. That was a good clarification. Thanks JMS.
-
Needless to say, in the circumstance of a pitcher who accurately perceives that his job will be in jeopardy if he does not comply with a coach's edict that he intentionally bean a batter, then it is the coach who initiated the force and is therefore the one who is largely responsible.
Right, the manager a lot of the time is the one largely responsible for bean balls. Therefore, the other team needs to retaliate and try to hurt the value of his team since he tried doing this to yours. If you notice, pitchers who commit the first bean ball rarely get thrown out of the game, its only after a warning has been issued will pitchers get thrown out for bean balls. So its almost like they get a free shot if you choose not to retaliate. And then it depends on the situation to figure out if a retaliation will be of more value to you than a suspension or fine.
Yeah, thats my position. Mainly because its the team that you are competing against and not one individual. You are trying to defeat the team and attain a victory. If they hurt one of your guys, they detract value from your team, which I think calls for an attempt to detract value from their team. You could wait until their players or manager gets a suspension(if they even get one), but by then you wont even be playing them any longer.If I understand your position correctly, it sounds like you are comfortable with treating a sports team, which is a collection of individuals, as an individual during competitive play.All of this talk about the Chicago Whitesox pitching makes me hope that they start to turn their game around soon. They have some work to do if they would like to secure a post-season spot! Now that it seems likely that Javier Vazquez will not be traded, I am thinking it would be most advantageous for Brandon McCarthy to be placed in the starting rotation and therefore render Javier Vazquez to the bullpen, but this is probably a discussion for another thread altogether.Javier Vazquez is known for pitching stellar for the first five innings of the game and then loses his mental edge after that and surrenders the majority of his runs. The White Sox need to figure out if they want to pitch him five innings each start or put him in the bullpen and bring McCarthy to the rotation. But if you bring McCarthy to the rotation, he wont be able to pitch deep into games right away anyways because hes conditioned as a one or two inning reliever right now. I think they should try using Vazquez for five innings and see how it goes. If it turns out to be a negative experience, then try McCarthy in the rotation.
-
I think it might be more descriptive to say, she always chose not to do mediocre. She didn't fight Roark because she wanted him to fail-- she wanted him to win, and prove her wrong, but she couldn't quite grasp that as being possible. Contrast that with Wynand, who really did want to see Roark broken, but couldn't defeat him, because of his own integrity.
So Dominique chose just to fit in with the majority because she thought that she couldnt beat them, is that right? She didnt try to do good or want others to do good because she thought other people would just destroy her and them anyways?
Why did Wynand want Roark destroyed?
-
So to the modern examples like the plunking of A.J. Pierzynski do NOT need to be "dealt with" on the field. It is a legal matter dealing with life and property, not one of pride and an "eye for an eye," One for a proper government that protects rights and life to deal with.
It would be awfully tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that a pitcher intentionally threw at a batter. Also, other somewhat violent plays are part of the game. A couple examples would be sliding hard into the second baseman/shortstop to breakup a double play. Or a runner colliding with a catcher because the catcher was blocking the plate with his body(Torii Hunter rammed Widger even though he wasnt blocking the plate. Thats why I dont like that play). But my point is that these rough plays are part of the game, and MLB is already handling it just fine with suspensions and fines when needed.
I still stand by my "eye for an eye" statement, even if it is an arbitrary player. If the opposing team roughs up one of your guys, then they deserve to have one of their guys roughed up.
-
Dominique is the right woman for Roark because she is an intransigent idealist, and Roark is the ideal.
I understand. I knew that Dominique knew what was good after she bought a certain statue and also loved Roark and his designs, I was just confused as to why she was right for Roark since she always chose not to do good. But that passage clears it up. Thanks BS.
-
Does anyone know the answers to my questions?
-
It is not clear to me that the Chicago Whitesox would be justifiably defending themselves by retailiating against an arbitrary batter on the Texas Rangers when Vincente Padilla is most likely the problem. By collectivism, I meant how Ozzie Guillen was holding all of the members on the Texas Rangers responsible for Vincente Padilla's actions. The manager of the Rangers has some responsibility for his players actions, but unless if a significant portion of the Rangers are cheering on Padilla as he beans some opposing players I would not hold the team as responsible.
Do you agree that all the individuals who live in a specific country should accept responsibility for their governments action? They may not support all of their governments decisions but they do live in the country. Just like how the Texas players did not commit the act themselves, but they are part of the team. Notice how its the Rangers vs the White Sox. It is a team effort.
AJ Pierzynski did nothing to provoke his beaning but he did get thrown at and couldve seriously got injured. Same with when Widger got trampled by Torii Hunter. I would not sit back and let the other team injure my players/teammates. An eye for an eye.
They are obligated in a way. Sean Tracy was sent back to the minors the next day after not throwing at Hank Blalock. I wouldnt consider it a sacrifice if throwing at the batter keeps you in the majors.I suspect that the player's job description limits their compliance to coaching edicts referring to game strategy only. I doubt that the players are contractually obligated to join in a brawl to defend their team if their coach demanded that they do so.I think there is greater pride to be taken in setting the good example and issuing a complaint to the umpires and if necessary to major league baseball as first recourse.The umpires immediately give warnings to both teams if they suspect a beaning was intentional, but that doesnt punish the perpetrator, even if the pitcher hit an opposing batter in the face with a pitch. You need to take the matter into your own hands and get the job done, otherwise teams will continue to treat you with no respect and will not fear you.
To go along with my other example, if a country gets attacked by another country, the attacked country needs to retaliate to show that others cannot walk all over them.
-
Specifically, how he upbraided rookie reliever Sean Tracey for not intentionally beanballing an arbitrary batter on the Texas Rangers in response to pitcher Vincente Padilla blatantly hitting (Whitesox Catcher) A.J. Pierzynski with a pitch. After Sean Tracey failed to hit Texas batter Hank Blalock with a pitch, Ozzie Guillen removed Sean Tracey from the game and screamed at him in the dugout. Note that the action Ozzie Guillen encouraged is to punish any player on the Texas Rangers for the actions of one of their players. This is a perversion of collectivism. This is not the only recorded incident of the Whitesox skipper encouraging his bullpen to intentionally hit opposing batters.
Ozzie thinks that in these instances that White Sox players should defend themselves by retaliating. Its not exactly a form of collectivism though when he forces his players to do this or most other actions on the field, mainly because he is the manager and thats his job. The players job, as he knows when he signs the contract, is to obey orders from the manager. If the manager tells you to bunt, you should bunt. If he tells you to hit a batter, you should do that too.
Lastly, I also remember Ozzie Guillen issuing some buffoonish remarks concerning an incident a few years ago when Minnesota Twins outfielder, Torii Hunter (a known jerk) went out of his way to violently collide with former Whitesox backup catcher Chris Widger, nearly resulting in injury. Instead of condemning Torii Hunter, Ozzie Guillen instead criticized the Whitesox themselves for not playing more aggressively and insinuated that when baserunning, they too should deign to such unnecessary, thuggish actions that lead to almost no competitive advantage and can potentially inflict a serious injury on an opposing player.I think there can be a competitive advantage from retaliating. I wouldnt want an opposing team to physically beat up me or my team, like what Torii Hunter did to Chris Widger, and expect to get away with it. Hunter actually did injure Widger- he gave him a concussion, and I would be glad to intentionally throw at Hunter or one of his teammates when they came up to bat or slide hard at one of them at second. Just like how I wouldnt allow someone to push me or my friends around outside of baseball on the streets. That brings up another point. Teammates are like your friends, you should stand up for them if they need you to. Or even if they arent friends of yours, they are on the team for some reason and you shouldnt want them injured. So, retaliating can give you pride and not make you feel like a wuss.
-
I am re-reading The Fountainhead right now and I have a couple questions I picked up. I'll probably post a couple more throughout my time reading it, but heres two for now.
1. Why does Guy Francon sit on Roarks side at the Cortlandt trial? He never seemed to be very bright and not someone who would be supporting Roark.
2. Why was Dominique the right woman for Roark? She purposely tortured herself and wouldnt allow herself to be happy. She wanted to destroy Roark. And she always seemed to be acting just so she wouldnt be herself. How was she ever rational, and why was she good for Roark?
-
I know drug use can be dangerous to the individual who uses it and others who are intentionally involved, but doesnt it increase gang violence and puts innocent bystanders at risk as well? However, if drugs were made legal and sold safely through pharmacies or stores, than that would dramatically decrease the violence, wouldnt it?
What about drunk driving though? That seems to be very similar to how the drug scene is today. The drunk driver puts himself at risk but will also probably endanger others too. Just like how drug users and sellers put themselves at risk, they also increase violence on the streets and will probably endanger others who arent involved. So if drugs should be legalized then drunk driving should be legalized too? Why is this not true?
-
I typed in "selfless" in the Google news section to see what type of news stories were being written with this word as the main focus. Heres a few interesting ones I found:
1. This article is written about an adult baseball team, saying that the Valencia Vikings won their league title because of the players' selflessness. A lot of people seem to think certain plays in baseball though are selfless such as "sacrifice" flyballs, bunting to advance a runner, etc, but they are in fact very selfish. The reason why he is "sacrificing" himself is to help his team score runs and in turn win the ball game. Thats his whole objective of playing the game- to win. Therefore, those acts are in fact selfish because hes "sacrificing" himself for a larger value.
http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displays...amp;format=html
2. This one tries to explain how altruism is in our genes. However it goes on to say that such things as parenting, and protecting friends and family during conflicts are selfless acts. The psychologist also says that the reason altruism is spreading is from a biological standpoint. Arent people altruistic based on their morals though?
http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2006/Jul06/r072406a
3. This writer praises a boy who died after he dove into some murky waters to try to save a couple who's car fell in. The boy never knew how to swim and there were already two bystanders who nearly had the couple out already, but the boy decided to do a huge selfless act anyway. The writer says it was "instinct" that told the boy to do what he did. The only quotes by others in the article either say what a great act the boy committed or damning other bystanders who didnt risk their lives to help the couple in the water. It says this about the boy and his selfless act: "A true hero!" Guess what? The boys family is religious. Who wouldve guessed?
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...20360/1006/NEWS
4. This guy received an award from the White Sox organization because he gave up his 2005 World Series tickets to instead go help out in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit. Jerry Reinsdorf, the White Sox owner, was the main driving force behind proposing the award. The team that I cheer for is the white sox and this almost made me consider looking for a new favorite team. Reinsdorf made some pretty bold statements in this article about selflessness and its importance.
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb...sp&c_id=cws
Feel free to comment on these articles or post some "selfless" or "selfish" articles of your own that you have found.
-
No.
Thats what I thought. Thanks.
-
This is slightly off topic but I figured it was close enough to put in this thread.
Should there be laws protecting endangered species? The governments objective should be to protect human rights, so it would make sense that there shouldnt be any such laws protecting endangered species. Or am I missing some knowledge as to why there are these laws?
-
Did you see that Dreamworks bought the rights to this story and may make a film about it?
-
Basically Felix's answer: "whadda ya mean by 'good?". The idea of abstract and absolute "good" is meaningless, as shown by contradictions (fire is good for cooking, bad for houses). Once you have the idea of "good for...", then you have to decide how to finish the clause.
If someone asks: "Why is selfishness good for making oneself happy and successful? How can being selfish be a better way to accomplish this than being altruistic? Was Mother Teresa not happy and successful?"
-
When someone asks you, "Why is it good to be selfish?" - what do you say?
-
Those are some good ideas. Thanks, guys.
-
I am looking to fill some downtime of mine with a new hobby. If you would like, list some of your favorite hobbies so I can get a few ideas. Thanks.
-
Why does the government feel its their duty to protect people this way? How come they try to do more than just protect individuals rights?
-
What do you guys think about the FDA? I have read from some Objectivist writers that they dont think the FDA should exist at all, and that each individual should make the decision oneself if the product is right for them.
But what about certain products that people may not even know they are using? For instance, aspartame(a sugar substitute), which looks like just another ingredient on a food label, but numerous studies have showed there can be serious side effects if aspartame is part of ones diet. The only reason why I know about this product is by chance when I was bored and typing in all the ingredients of a diet soda on the Internet.
Maybe instead of the FDA banning products, they just put an easily seen label on each product that they disapprove of(the same thing they do for products they approve of). That way every consumer can be well informed of the side effects associated with that product and still able to legally purchase it if they choose to.
-
If those police officers at that department were given Taser guns, that incident would have been over in seconds- and without any innocent people getting put at risk for danger.
What Values Do You Live By?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
If someone values the tv show Seinfeld (for example), how does that fit into the definition of value? He acts to gain and/or keep the show Seinfeld. That doesnt seem to make sense to me.
Or another example is: he acts to gain and/or keep the game of baseball(if he likes to play baseball). What are you gaining or keeping?