Ask Unkie Trunkie Again!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 64,605
Likes: 1,226
Originally Posted by 8D_In_Trunk,Nov 4 2009, 12:04 AM
I would like to believe (and have some personal anecdotal proof) that there are one-time choice made, wherein the choice is voluntary, but the secondary effects are oppressive.
As per marketization and philanthropy: There are now a fairly robust set of studies going on regarding the economics of intangibles. Those might be better suited in guiding your answers. . . at least in terms of a strict economic study.
Maybe I'm thinking in more theoretical terms as opposed to scientific terms (which may also be part of the problem).
I'm reminded of the word agape.
However, I have to believe that a charitable act done with full knowledge may carry more economic heft than an act done without knowledge. . . once again though, my theory is probably waiting to be tested at a University some point later.
However, I have to believe that a charitable act done with full knowledge may carry more economic heft than an act done without knowledge. . . once again though, my theory is probably waiting to be tested at a University some point later.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by shareall,Nov 4 2009, 09:28 AM
Screw economics. Maybe I'm thinking in more theoretical terms as opposed to scientific terms (which may also be part of the problem).
Maybe I'm thinking in more theoretical terms as opposed to scientific terms (which may also be part of the problem).You don't screw economics. . . economics may screw you.
But rarely do people have full knowledge...and often that just supports the system that creates the problems to begin with. Cripes, I need a nap before I continue with this.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,504
Likes: 0
Wow, share and you discussing stuff about things. Sorry I missed all of that.
Full knowledge would seem to require omnicience? Rubust is just hubris.
Back to choice...there may never have been a choice in the stated case. Sold by daddy ain't a choice. Running away from torture, etc. with no marketable skills is not really a choice. Having no other discrenable options other than suicide is not a real choice.
Full knowledge would seem to require omnicience? Rubust is just hubris.
Back to choice...there may never have been a choice in the stated case. Sold by daddy ain't a choice. Running away from torture, etc. with no marketable skills is not really a choice. Having no other discrenable options other than suicide is not a real choice.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by INTJ,Nov 6 2009, 10:18 AM
Back to choice...there may never have been a choice in the stated case. Sold by daddy ain't a choice. Running away from torture, etc. with no marketable skills is not really a choice. Having no other discrenable options other than suicide is not a real choice.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 109,435
Likes: 1,651
From: SJC
Originally Posted by EVAN&MONICA,Nov 6 2009, 10:47 AM
Unkie, I heard that you are looking at Evos and STIs, is this correct? If so, which vehicle are you in favor of and why?
Monica
Monica
I'm looking for a fun car.
S2k is still at the top of the list.
EVOs would be an okay choice if I can find a used one that hasn't been modded to shit. STis used suffer the same issue. My rank preference for the EVO has more to do with availability and depreciation rates than anything else.
At this point, I'd sooner get a Renault, err, Nissan 350z than an EVO or Subaru. I want a decent convertible to go cruising. Barring that, a car that's fun to drive.
Plan B is to chuck the E and just buy an MS3 (I still need enough room to carry amps and sound equipment).
