Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

utabintarbo

Regulars
  • Posts

    252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by utabintarbo

  1. I think the major reason for the upswing is that they are making good adjustments, particularly at Halftime. This is a new thing for the Lions (at least since Wayne Fontes). And FWIW (and a bit OT), this is the same case for the UofM Wolverines.
  2. So, ahhhh, how about them Lions? TBH, I think they may be in trouble with the 49ers this Sunday, but what a run it's been so far!
  3. I work in an industry that is dominated by males. Profanity is regularly sprinkled into what otherwise would be considered a normal conversation. To hear someone purposefully avoid the use of profanity would be considered weird (such as one co-worker who is of such a religious bent, that he is described as "not saying 'shit' if he had a mouthful" [bTW, this does not preclude him from using substitutes like "gosh darn"] ). Context is key here. There is nothing intrinsically profane with any word. But how, and in what context, they are used can make them profane.
  4. I guess there is another implication/application I have not yet seen here: What about the non-rational human? I don't mean those who choose to be non-rational, but those who can't be rational (mentally impaired, whatever). What are their rights? How is society to deal with such persons?
  5. Perhaps a bit of 5th grade math (exponents as applied to the idea of compound interest) would lead you, as it has many "Tea Party"-types, to understand that raising the debt ceiling is merely kicking the can down the road. Every additional dollar of debt adds to the pain that this economy will face when the chickens inevitably come home to roost. Just as A is A, debt will need to be repaid or cleared. This will always entail some pain, but it does not have to mean the collapse of the entire system. Adding to the debt pile increases the odds of that happening.
  6. OT, but is an ass-ton similar in size to the oft-used-but-never-quite-fully-defined metric shit-ton?
  7. What is surprising? The effects, or the admission?
  8. The job of any regulator is to find edge cases, no matter how unlikely, and form regulations to prevent these edge cases from happening. That the regulations then create even more edge cases is a feature, not a bug.
  9. In general, I have to agree completely. In fact, my wife is of the same mind with you in such a way that it creeps me out a bit. And I realize that Ayn Rand was VERY stern on this issue - there are some Q&A's I've heard that fully transmit her feelings on the matter. However, Miss Rand died in 1978, and the political context has changed dramatically in such a way a to make lip-service to the anti-abortion crowd no more than just that. I would venture so far as to state categorically that the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned, either de jure or de facto, are effectively nil, no matter who attains the Presidency. The only use for such rhetorical devices now is as a means to mobilize or de-mobilize certain (relatively small) sectors of the electorate. A given candidates position on this (and similar subjects) is effectively meaningless. Pay it no mind, and focus on the stuff that a candidate actually has a chance to achieve.
  10. Even if elected, the probability of anybody being "forced to personally suffer the consequences of his stance" fade toward zero. Reagan was even more vehemently pro-life, yet abortion is still legal. You are taking your eye off the ball here: abortion (along with several others) is a wedge issue that really will have no REAL impact no matter who is elected. Politically, it is effectively meaningless.
  11. Whether one is killed in their sleep with poison or blown apart with explosives, the upshot is that you are dead. Dismissing one wrong by pointing at an even more heinous wrong does not make the former "OK". It may be a form of mental triage, but both wrongs remain wrong.
  12. Calling this something other than a "real sexual assault" kinda trivializes what they are actually doing. Does the fact that it may be less violent than others somehow diminish its import?
  13. Up until the "naked machine"/sexual assault parameters came on-line, the procedures were generally just an inconvenience rather than an intrusion. (IMO)
  14. This is not a default. It is, in fact, the exact opposite, in that they will merely be unable to borrow further, which at the rate they are going, will all but ensure default.
  15. "Where's Johnny been lately?" "Oh, I saw him at lunch."
  16. FWIW, I had a bit of a "debate" with a friend when he posted a story on this. It basically came down to he had no real idea what her position was on the matter to which he was declaring hypocrisy. We went round a bit, then he admitted he was just trolling. The story itself was along the same vein, but it gave all the asshats a chance to smear her in the comment section. Here is the link to the original story.
  17. They appear to be setting up a rationale for explaining how other climate-change events occurred despite having very few humans to blame. This way, they can come up with a (barely) plausible explanation for "anomalies" in their model, such as the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. It seems like an attempt to preserve the "A" in AGW.
  18. Not every male thinks with, or is controlled by, their "second brain". It appears you are looking for a rationalization of just such behavior.
  19. P'shaw, you can't possibly think they are interpreting this regulation in such a way as to carry out some agenda, do you? Say it ain't so!
×
×
  • Create New...