Agree or Disagree: Today's kids shows and cartoon SUCK compared to the old school ones from the 80's and 90's?
I watched about half those shows on that list growing up and yes I agree, kids shows these days are just terrible. I have a younger cousin and I could barely sit through one of the shows she was watching one day. it made me feel dumber by the minute. When my brother and I were kids we wanted to be on that PBS show Zoom and countless other shows like that so we would pretend we were or make up our own show. If a show makes kids imagine something or create something then its a good show.
What are some things that most people agree with but you disagree with?
When I was still in school, the UK introduced the National Lottery. During an economics class shortly after it was announced, my teacher asked us what we would do with the money, how we would spend it, invest etc.No-one agreed with what I wrote. Including the teacher.Firstly, for those in the US, you need to understand that if we win money on the lottery, we get a big-ass cheque for the entire amount. No taxes to pay, no bullshit part payments, no reduction if we take a lump sum like you do. If the jackpot is £20m, we get £20m, simple as that.I decided that I would keep the money safe in my bank account. If I wanted to buy a house, I would get a mortgage like normal people, using the balance of my account as collateral.If I wanted a nice car, I would get it on finance instead of buying it outright as everyone else was doing.Why?Interest rates were still quite high back then. £20m would earn you a metric shit-tonne in interest. That interest would then earn interest, the interest on the interest would earn interest etc, a system called compound interest.I decided to use my interest to pay for the repayments on the house, car and anything else I wanted to buy, as the principle sum would still be there in my account earning yet more interest.I argued that if I did the same thing as everyone else and just paid cash for my luxuries, my principle sum would diminish, earning me less money, and leaving me with less in the bank as a result.Maybe it was the way I explained it at the time, but no-one agreed. I still think its a good way of dealing with it.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People are never satisfied with what they have; they always want something more or something different. Use specific reasons to support your answer.
It is true that people are never satisfied what they are having and they want something new or something different always. There are always positive and negative side of this desire. Sometime it’s a disease or curse and sometime it’s a blessing for us. We can see some of the instances.So far as technology development of this mankind is concerned, the innovations that happened in different sector are due to the desire of having something new and different. From the ancient days this basic instinct was there in mankind. People have invented one after another technology so that can lead them to a more comfortable life.So far as the strong desire for money and wealth is concerned, we can clearly see there is a negative impact of that basic instinct. The more people run after money and wealth, the more they are in an unhealthy competition with each other. This desire of more money and wealth makes us envious at our peers, neighbours, or sometime even our blood relations.So far as the educational growth and thirst for more and more knowledge is concerned, it is really a blessing for us. This basic instinct of remaining ever dissatisfied with the existing level of knowledge pushes us forward to understand physics behind every phenomenon occurring in this world. Every time it helps us getting one step closer towards the convergence for the exact solution to a particular problem.If we talk about the attitude of conquering anything, we have seen in the history that the barbaric wars took place due to this never satisfying mentality. Kings have expanded their kingdoms endlessly sometime without any valid reasons, but only for the basic instinct.Still there are many more examples are there like the urge of getting closer and closer to God, which depicts that mankind will be always dissatisfied with what they have at present.
Can you actually agree or disagree with a fact?
Literally? No. A fact is defined as a true proposition. But practically, in the way language uses it? Yes. I might think that a fact is false, so I would disagree with it.I might also disagree with a true fact. (Please excuse the semantic redundancy.) Sometimes true facts are used to prove something false. The fact is taken out of context, or omits the full story or other relevant details. So we might disagree with the fact, even though it is true. I don't recommend doing this, as it can make you look dumb, but in some arguments it becomes the only path forward.It reminds me of a scene from a movie (I only ever saw the trailer) where the aggressive senator says to the liberal audience, "Do you, or do you not, want to win the war on terror?" It's a forceful, angry question. If the listener says, "Yes", then they are supporting some set of horrible, war-mongering policies. If they say "No," then it becomes a "fact" that they are soft on terrorism. It isn't possible for them to say, "The war on terror, as you are framing it, does not exist," or, "Your question and this context is based on fear and false presumptions," or, "By asking that question in the context of leadership decisions, you are actually creating and losing a fictional war on terror!" All of those answers are far too abstract. The context is warped.Facts can get muddy, even when they are true. Therefore it is acceptable to agree or disagree with a fact.
What Laws that we have today would Ayn Rand agree with? And which would she oppose?
Rand held that the only moral social system is laissez-faire capitalism. Her political views were strongly individualist and hence anti-statist and anti-Communist. She exalted what she saw as the heroic American values of rational egoism and individualism. As a champion of rationality, Rand also had a strong opposition to mysticism and religion, which she believed helped foster a crippling culture acting against individual human happiness and success. Rand detested many prominent liberal and conservative politicians of her time, including prominent anti-Communists, such as Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, Hubert Humphrey, and Joseph McCarthy.[39] She opposed US involvement in World War I, World War II[40] and the Korean War, although she also strongly denounced pacifism: "When a nation resorts to war, it has some purpose, rightly or wrongly, something to fight for – and the only justifiable purpose is self-defense."[41] She opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, "If you want to see the ultimate, suicidal extreme of altruism, on an international scale, observe the war in Vietnam – a war in which American soldiers are dying for no purpose whatever,"[41] but also felt that unilateral American withdrawal would be a mistake of appeasement that would embolden communists and the Soviet Union.[40] She said also that she considered the anti-Communist John Birch Society "futile, because they are not for capitalism but merely against communism." [3] I would have to say she would have felt about Iraq the same way she felt about Viet Nam, since it has been proven that "self defense" isnt really an issue in that situation. As someone who believed in individualism, she probably would have disliked the Patriot Act and the illegal wiretaps done under the guise of national security. She would have fiercly supported church and state and have opposed any attepts by the Vatican to pay off families of abused children and insisted on very harsh penalties for priest child molestors. As a supporter of laizzez faire capitalism she would have opposed tarrifs and tightening of tax laws that drive businesses out of "America and into third world countries. Hope that helps. Pax - C.
Agree or Disagree and Why? "Life was easier for teenagers 50 years ago than it is for teenagers today."
I agree with that, even when I was a teenager which wasnt 50 years ago we didnt have do deal with gun violence, a shooting was rare, and the only commom drug use was weed or alchohol...schools were graduating students at a higher rate and jobs were available for young people without experience, families were more intact and there wasnt so many babies born out of wedlock. The world was a less dangerous place to live in.
Which one is corrrect, "I completely agree with you" or "I totally agree with you"?
Neither. The correct phrase is, “I agree with you.”Using either “completely” or “totally” is unnecessary, and in fact comes off as disingenuous or an attempt to convince or fool the listener.Just say the truth, in the simplest way.If you must know the grammatical rule— “completely” is better usage, as “totally” only began being used this way in the 1970s.
Do you agree that, since today's organizational environment change very fast, planning is of no use? Why?
Planning: Useful or not. The term “planning” is too general to agree with or disagree with. No planning at all? Bad idea - at least in the organizational context. Too much planning? Bad idea - because it will be wrong.Even worse than either of the above, is the usual management relationship to their planning with its evil cousin, budgeting. Which is, of course only short term planning made totally explicit. I was a practicing CPA and went on to become a (very young) CFO. My organization expected me to be “the keeper of budgets”. The execs didn’t appreciate my point of view that budgets were really rough guides as to what we needed to find money for. I considered my job to be looking after the financial future of the company.Planning is very useful when used to coordinate finances with intended results - particularly when there are capital equipment investments involved. The “Let’s try it and see happens” approach in the area of major capital investments will lead to bankruptcy in the majority of cases.Planning exercises can be valuable. These look like doing a serious estimation of how much capital will be required to start and complete a new project. And then doing serious estimation of operating costs and income. Then putting them together against a corporate target of return on investment (ROIC). I’ve worked with oil companies on doing this to create “breakthrough projects” that will bring in underwater wells in the North Sea. The execs would tell the team the necessary ROIC target to get the project approved. Then to meet changing market conditions or just to press for the very best, they’d regularly increase the required ROIC target. Once final approval had been given and the oil field was developed, what resulted happened independent of what the specific plan might have been. And not much could be done about it.This approach however, at least with the projects I worked with, all turned into profitable oil fields.So it is how you plan, how flexible you are in the planning, and how you relate to all the issues along the way. It is the match between how long range the plan is, how rigid it is and how flexible the organization can be once the investment is made. The longer the range and difficulty is, the more flexibility is required.