Verkaufsfähigkeiten

If you are interested in selecting investment choices for your 401(k) or other workplace savings plan, minimizing your income tax liability, or identifying the most effective investments for your brokerage account, we are the group for you. We are a local chapter of Bogleheads, whose investment strategy can be found here: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads%C2%AE_investment_philosophy Or you can peruse the Boglehead forum here: https://www.bogleheads.org/index.php I look forward to seeing you there. Mark Vonder Haar

We connect you with up to 30 Men or Women tennis partners close to your PLAYING REGION and skill level. This program is less competitive, no champions crowned, no league standings just dedicated tennis partners who want to meet up with you on the courts. Players will meet up to play a tennis match or just to hit around. Just go through the [Join Page](https://www.tenniscolumbus.com/partner-program) to enter this program. [https://www.tenniscolumbus.com/partner-program](https://www.tenniscolumbus.com/partner-program)

**Welcome to the Women’s Columbus Bogleheads® Sub-Group** This sub-group is for **women who want to learn and discuss finances in a safe, supportive space**. For those interested in moving towards financial independence and retirement by learning investment basics, choosing your 401(k) investments, minimizing taxes, and more. We’re a local chapter of **Bogleheads®**, following a long-term, practical investment philosophy: [Investment Philosophy](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads%C2%AE_investment_philosophy): https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads%C2%AE_investment_philosophy [Bogleheads Forum](https://www.bogleheads.org/index.php): https://www.bogleheads.org/index.php No question is too small, and no experience is too simple. Share, ask, and learn — at your own pace, without judgment, in a group of like-minded women. Let’s build confidence and knowledge **together**!

Bienvenue! Columbus French Conversation group invites you to our Saturday morning French conversation club. Expect a casual and welcoming atmosphere in which to learn french! I will bring my laptop so we can look up new vocabulary as needed! The venue is a beautiful French restaurant so you can really get into the zone :)

We'll meet at The Capital One Café, 167 Easton Town Center, Space A-103. This is in the main mall where the Microsoft store used to be, on your left if you're standing at the bottom of the AMC Theater escalator. Join us on Saturday for an hour of uninterrupted wordmaking! • What we'll do Join us for an hour of writing! We’ve discovered that it’s strikingly helpful to write with other writers. See if it’s true for you at 10AM on Saturday mornings. Be it a book, blog, script, essay, dissertation, resume, melody, poem or just plain work stuff, you are invited to write it with us. No one will see what you've written or give you unsolicited advice. Instead of just thinking about writing, come and get some real writing done. SCHEDULE: 10:00 - SESSION 1: quick intros. 10:10 - timer starts: write for 1 hour. 11:10 - chat / take off / keep writing. OPTIONAL SOCIALIZING happens at 11A-11:30ish. Writing is very solitary. Connecting (and sometimes even commiserating) with other writers is a cool thing. BEING LATE IS OKAY: just show up and get settled, then check-in with me after the session. (I’ll be the person with the Shut Up & Write! sign.) If you were on time, please be willing to make room for the friendly latecomer. Happy writing and I look forward to seeing you! • What to bring Whatever you need to be able to write! Bring earbuds/earplugs if you want to block noise or the occasional conversation by other patrons. Electrical outlets are limited, so charge your devices before whenever possible. See you at The Café on Saturday!

When judging morality, should we prioritize **intentions/duty** or **outcomes/results**? It introduces two influential philosophers as representatives of these approaches. * **Immanuel Kant (deontology):** An action is moral when it is done from **duty** and follows rational, universal principles (the **categorical imperative**). Certain acts—like lying—are wrong regardless of the consequences; you can’t do a wrong thing for a right reason. * **John Stuart Mill (utilitarian consequentialism):** The morality of an action is determined by its **effects**, specifically how much **happiness/well-being** it produces. Mill argues that some pleasures are “higher” than others, and that good intentions don’t redeem harmful outcomes. ## Discussion Questions 1. **The lying dilemma:** A murderer comes to your door and asks if your friend is hiding inside. Kant would say you must not lie. 2. **Can good intentions rescue a bad outcome?** 3. **The organ harvest problem:** A surgeon has five patients dying of organ failure and one healthy patient in for a checkup. Killing the one to harvest organs would save five lives, and the math works out for the utilitarian. Why does this feel so deeply wrong? Is that feeling a point in Kant's favor, or just a bias we should overcome? 4. **Do rules need exceptions?** Kant insists moral rules must be universal, with no exceptions. But most of us can imagine extreme scenarios where any rule seems like it should bend. Does the need for exceptions fatally undermine deontology, or is the strength of the system precisely that it refuses to bend? 5. **Who gets to calculate the consequences?** Utilitarianism asks us to maximize good outcomes, but we're notoriously bad at predicting consequences. If we can't reliably know the results of our actions, is it practical to base our entire moral system on outcomes? Does this uncertainty push us back toward rules and principles? 6. **Everyday morality:** Think about a real moral decision you've made recently, even a small one. Did you reason more like a Kantian (what's the right thing to do in principle?) or more like a utilitarian (what will produce the best result?)? Do most people naturally lean one way? 7. **Justice vs. the greater good:** A town can prevent a deadly plague by sacrificing one innocent person. The greater good is clearly served. But is it just? Can an action be morally right and deeply unjust at the same time? 8. **The big synthesis question:** Are these two systems actually opposed, or do they often arrive at the same answers by different paths? Is it possible that we need both: rules to guide us in the moment and consequences to evaluate systems and policies over time?