Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Robert J. Kolker

Regulars
  • Content Count

    894
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Robert J. Kolker

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 08/24/1935

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewJersey
  • Chat Nick
    bob
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Robert J. Kolker
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    interests: mathematics, science, flying, bicycling I am retired but worked many years in software design an implementation.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Jersey
  • Interests
    Math, Physics
  1. What I said was I no longer think so, because our government is incompetent to do the job right. We should not undertake something so serious without having the chops and the wits to do so. You will note that the date of that quote was 2007. It is going on three years later now. I have rethought the matter some. I will be perfectly honest. I have no principled objection to wiping our enemies out, man, woman and child. For example, I consider Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945 Good Days for the U.S. But there are practical considerations and consequences, so regardless of how I (or anyone el
  2. What if there is a more pressing need of your time and attention than saving the life of the stranger? What if you were on your way to catch a train to go to a job interview that could be very important to your well being. If you save the stranger, you miss the train, you miss the interview and probably miss the chance of getting that job. Which is more important? The life of the stranger or the job interview (in this hypothetical scenario)? All choices and judgments have a cost. One must weigh the cost versus the benefit. So in deciding whether to try to save the stranger, I would
  3. I wrote it. I have reluctantly concluded that our government is incapable of doing it right, so we should not try it. If we went the way of the Big G then we have to go all the way. No holding back and god damn the collateral damage to our friends (that means destroying Israel, if we do Genocide on the Middle East). I don't think we have the government for it. I don't think the psychology of the American people is right for it. As a people, Americans are fat dumb happy and un-wise. Only rarely do we collectively get our heads screwed on right and do the job. That last time that happen
  4. I am not contrary to Objectivism in the entirety. I differ on one point concerning whether purely optional choices are a matter of moral import. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. I fully sympathize with the economic and political thrust of big Oh Objectivism. I am pro-Capitalism down to my toenails. I stopped working for governments back in 1968; that is 42 years ago. How long have you been it? I also detest altruism in all its forms. I consider it a disease as much as a philosophical error. I have seen more of the New Deal and Fair Deal than most of you folks here who were no
  5. Bastiat is the greatest thing to come from France since Louis Pasteur. Bob Kolker
  6. As usual Dr. Hsieh is on the money. We can stop these bastards cold this time or we can finish our terminal decline into Democratic Socialism, the bane of Europe and the disease of Canada. But beware! Even if we do stop them on this occasion they will be back again and again and again. As long as a significant portion of the voting public thinks having Programs and Plans for the People is a Good Idea, this kind of assault on our well being will be chronic. What we need is a mentally tough electorate who do not give a good God damn about the welfare of the miserable and incompetent. We
  7. The U.S. has a virtual exclusive on 20 megaton thermonuclear bombs. Our enemies will be smuggling in pieces of small tac-nukes and assembling them here. Then they will bring them into the target cities on 18 wheelers. And who needs full bore nukes? One can easily assemble dirty radioactive material bombs made from the waste of nuclear generating states and hospital fissile material. It is easy to steal. Put a glob of that stuff in an explosive container and it could render parts of Manhattan or Washington D.C. uninhabitable for years. Or who needs radioactive material at all. Lo
  8. I watched about five minutes of the first episode and I came to the conclusion that his was trashola. And not very good trashola, either. The HBO evening soap opera -Rome- was much better into terms of execution and production quality. It seems like the producers of -Spartacus- wanted to do a cheap imitation of -300- complete with spraying blood and stop action. -300- was a hoot, but -Spartacus- is (IMHO) a waste of cable-cast time. Bob Kolker
  9. O.K. When is one obliged to help (in the sense of duty) outside of a contract? When is it immoral not to help? I simply do not see such an instance. If one has no contractual obligation to help, then one can simply choose not to help. On the other hand if there is a substantial interest or consequential benefit in helping out, then it makes good sense to pursue one's interest or benefit. But even when it makes good sense to try to get a benefit, it is not immoral to not get the benefit, provided no harm comes of not pursuing the benefit. In general, there is no substantial interest in
  10. Both New York City and Washington will be either nuked or attacked with dirty bombs eventually. It is just a matter of time. No matter what we do or do not, it will happen. Using "conventional" bombs like the MOAB can cause extensive collateral damages. Using very localized bombs (like JDAM) assumes that the location of the bad guys is known precisely. This is not a justified assumption. The bad guys like random movement so their locations cannot be readily predicted. The surest way of getting the bad guys is to know their location within five square miles and do area bombing.
  11. Is the work of M.C. Escher art? And if it is art, is it objective or non-objective. Bob Kolker
  12. Not necessarily. Suppose one's hobby is also his business? Bob Kolker
  13. That is true, but it does not oblige a person to assist anyone either. If there is no obligation to assist then assisting is purely a matter of preference or choice. Like choosing which flavor of ice cream to have tonight. Except where a contractual obligation to assist is in place, assisting another person is purely optional. Neither choice is immoral or unethical. Where there is a contract in place to render assistance under specified conditions, failure to do so, is a breach of contract which is unethical. Bob Kolker
  14. One needs a scanner to see the contents of the stomach or small intestine. If Abdul swallows a bomb, how is it to be found? Bob Kolker
×
×
  • Create New...