Your Questions About Disadvantages Of Golden Rule

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
or copy the link

Chris asks…

How many people in the world follow ethic of reciprocity or the Golden Rule?

How many people in the world follow ethic of reciprocity or the Golden Rule? If eveveryone treated a person like they would like to be treated, would there be as much tension in the world as there is now?

Justin answers:

I have always lived by the Golden Rule…..however it puts you at a great disadvantage when you are dealing with those who don’t believe in it, and see those of us who do as “easy marks”. I’ve been burned many times due to this, but it has not swayed me from treating people as I would like to be treated ~

Joseph asks…

Advantages and disadvantages of the 3 main approaches of statutory interpretation?

so thats the literal rule, the golden rule and the purposive approach what are the disadvantages and advantages to them

Justin answers:

Www.bookrags.com/essay-2005/1/27/133442/253 – 59k

Paul asks…

What are the risks of cloud seeding or to not cloud seed?

what are the risks and also, is it an advantage or a disadvantage?
Please answer elaborately.

Justin answers:

Not to seed the clouds is better
do not mess with mother nature is the golden rule
they tried the seeding stuff in the war in vietnam
and China tried it to clean the air up for the recent games
if you need more elaboration
call al gore or look in his extensive presentations

Thomas asks…

Why do some black people blame the white race for their disadvantages?

while people of other races come here seeking the golden ring? They work hard, educate their children and rise in the economy. Is this a black mind set? The cultures of the American Indian, Korea, Japan and Egypt, to my knowledge and maybe more, all had slavery. Why can’t the black culture move on, those other cultures have?
olin h- I disagree. Lots of people come out of tough lives and excel. That thinking is exactly what is keeping them down.

Cinner- Agree with the comment, they are their worst enemies

Justin answers:

You are so correct. My feelings exactly. I am Indian and my parents left India to give us a good education and better opportunities. India was ruled by Muslims and the British for hundreds of years. People have overcome their issues and focused on education and working hard to provide for their families. Holding grudges does not solve anything.

Mr. Buddha man…..I don’t know where you pulled that crap about not paying taxes for 7 years. You are completely wrong. You’re pulling answers out of your b***.

Charles asks…

Why are the government pandering to gays, what makes them so special?

Personally I think it’s disgusting that the government are to make gay marriages legal. This destroys the whole institution of marriage. Being gay is not normal despite what they try to tell us. Surely the government should be spending time sorting the country out not playing fast and loose with established Laws. They had no mandate to even take a vote on it.

Justin answers:

The golden rule of modern society democracy is that those who are rich enough to shout the loudest and control the media are more equal than those who cannot.

There are scores of groups far more disadvantaged and discriminated against than the gays, who are really doing quite nicely right now. However we are told that addressing inequality is done once gays have trashed anything that is uniquely straight in the same way feminists claimed the right to barge into working men’s clubs while denying men entry into women’s rape centres and even make men feel like lepers in playgroups and primary schools and offices.

Gays would quite happily watch old people being slaughtered by neglect in our hospitals, since “Equality” does not apply there. I lost a dear friend last month – a dear old lady of 91 who had a fall, and nobody bothered to find out she was on Warfarin and she bled to death.

It is far more important to spend three days in Parliament and considerable amounts of public money changing the name of civil partnerships to something that offends the churches than to dedicate parliamentary time to getting matrons back into hospitals.

As for the plight of the paedophiles, I hear the gays join the mass baying for their ritual castration forgetting that 50 years ago, they were in the same boat.

Sometimes there is good reason for discrimination, and sometimes too there is good reason for us to respect our differences, rather than pretending we are all uniform.

William asks…

Ultra violet radiation – will some one give me some background information please ?

maybe the connection between uvr and sunbed/tanning beds.
umm and the dangers,hazards and health benefits/stuff bad for your heath THANKSS x
its not homework..its background information for a talk im going to at school
SO SUCK ON THAT LOSER…
get your facts straight!
well do you like being falsly accused?

Justin answers:

We need sunlight in order that our system makes use of vitamin D. So, some exposure to the sun light and its UV content is beneficial but one gets enough of the required UV long before one gets a darkened skin. Skin cells contain a substance called melanin which determines skin color. Melanin gets darker with exposure to UV. Here ends the good part.

The reasons for wanting to get a tan either in sunbeds or by sunbathing on the beach have nothing to do with health. It is purely a cosmetic effect, it is what is considered to be esthetically attractive to the people one wants to appear attractive to. (*)

Like everything else, when done to excess it has disadvantages. The UV interferes with the function of the skin cell and it can turn a cell “demented” causing it to have its replacement cell generated long before it dies, again and again leading to skin growths: melanoma and skin cancer.

Again, as in everything else, moderation is the golden rule.

(*) A suntan is only considered to be attractive in fair skin populations. In darker skin populations, fair skin is considered more attractive and girls avoid exposure to the sun. Sociologically too, whereas in fair skin societies we consider a deep sun tan as an indication of outdoor pursuits=free time=wealth, in dark skin societies a deep suntan is an indication of outdoor work=menial work=poverty.

Steven asks…

In Football, what percent of teams win when they win the toss?

If a team wins the coin toss, what is the percentage that they’ll win? Is there a trend? What is the percent that they’ll kick or receive? And what is the percent that if a team scores on the first drive that they win?

Justin answers:

My geometry teacher once asked me how I could divide a pizza between two hungry people to ensure that neither person could complain he didn’t get a fair share. I thought the answer had something to do with the radius of the pizza or pi, but the right answer was much simpler: Just have one person cut the pizza into what he thinks are two even pieces, then let the other person choose his piece.

Using the same principle, I’ve solved the NFL’s overtime problem.

Football pundits are always arguing over which is more fair: the NFL’s sudden-death overtime system, or the college overtime that gives both teams a possession. But the pundits ask the wrong question. Both types of overtime give a decided advantage to the team that wins the coin toss. Whether that advantage is receiving a kickoff or knowing how many points you need, if you win the toss you are more likely to win the game.

But the NFL could easily fix its overtime, without giving up the sudden-death format.

Why is the team receiving the kickoff in sudden-death overtime at an advantage? Because the NFL kicks off from the 30-yard line. If the league moved overtime kickoffs to the 35-yard line (where all kickoffs were placed only a decade ago), the advantage to the receiving team would be less. If it moved kickoffs to the 50-yard line, many teams (even those not coached by Marty Mornhinweg) would choose to kick, and if we moved the kickoff to the opponent’s 30-yard line (obviously a ridiculous proposition), every team would not only choose to kick, but every overtime would start with an onside kick.

Why would teams choose to kick if the kickoff were at the 50-yard line? It’s the golden rule of football strategy, often repeated at this website: field position is fluid. A team kicking off from the 50 would be able to have its kicker hang one high and short, like a coffin-corner punt. From the 50, teams would generally be able to pin their opponents inside the 20-yard line, and inside the 20, as Football Outsiders has previously shown, the team on defense is actually more likely to score next than the team on offense.

So there is a point, probably somewhere between the 30-yard line and the 50-yard line, at which the advantage in sudden-death overtime would actually switch from the receiving team to the kicking team. Where is that point? It doesn’t really matter. We could simply let the teams decide for themselves.

In my improved overtime format, the team captains would meet at midfield for a coin toss, just as they did on Sunday when the Ravens played the Seahawks. But the captain of the Seahawks wouldn’t decide to kick or receive when he won the toss. Instead, he would have to name a yard line where the overtime kickoff would be placed. Then the Ravens’ captain would say whether he wanted to kick or receive. So Mike Holmgren might instruct his captain to have the kickoff spotted at the 43-yard line. Brian Billick would tell his captain, “If they put it anywhere inside the 40, we’ll receive. Otherwise, we’ll kick.” Losing the toss really wouldn’t be any disadvantage, because both teams can determine what they think is a fair spot for the opening kickoff.

Essentially, this is like an auction. Both teams want to get the ball first, so it will be awarded to the team that is willing to give up more in field position to get it. In this scenario, neither team can have any complaint. The team winning the toss can’t claim the field position was unfair because it chose the field position. The team losing the toss can’t claim the field position was unfair because it chose whether to take the ball deep in its own territory or try to pin the opponents deep.

Remember, there’s nothing inherently advantageous to getting the ball first in sudden-death overtime. This weekend, for example, two of three teams that lost the toss ended up winning the game. But, although the margin is small, there is a definite advantage to winning the toss. Going into this season, there had been 342 overtime games in NFL history. Of those games, 177 times (51.8%) the team that won the toss won the game, 149 times (43.6%) the team that lost the toss won the game, and 16 games (4.7%) ended tied.

But why is winning the toss good? Getting the ball first is advantageous only if you can get the ball in a position where you’re likely to score (or at least likely to drive far enough that if you punt, you’ll pin your opponents deep on their own side of the field). Under current NFL rules the receiving team is essentially assured of advantageous field position, because in the NFL this year, only seven percent of kickoffs have been touchbacks, and the average return has been 21.7 yards.

Some fans will continue to insist that the college overtime is more exciting or more fun, but there is zero chance that the NFL will adopt that system. College overtime games regularly last more than four hours, and the last thing the league wants is a game starting at 1 p.m. And stretching past 5 p.m. Because of overtime. Whether we like it or not, NFL fans are stuck with sudden-death overtime. All we can do now is hope the league adopts a fairer system.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers