Recent posts in Serious Discussion on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

@karma
As of your fantasies about the Earth-round-the-Sun topic, you most probably even ignored my link.
Oh, you didn’t.
I mean, you DID, but not the link, but rather my point about, how childish is the very arguing about it, is.
Also, I was calling YOU Einstein, I was referring to his idea, that we can use ANY point in the universe as a CENTER, and it won’t be wrong!
Just the mathematical FORMULAS, that depict each specific case, are different, yet equally VALID.
So, you can put Earth in the “center”, and yet be very able to define Sun’s movement in Earth’s coordinate system.
This renders the very argument, pointless.
Anyways, like I said, the true center is the humanity, thus its home planet, Earth.
Regardless of astrophysics.
(Earth doesn’t become less important even in “old-style” geo-cenric system. Thus, pointless argument.)
And, so that you know, atheism is a far more fanatical RELIGION, than most of the old ones.
They even deny, that they BELIEVE in “scientific proofs”, not “know” them.
We simply refer to “commonly believed by majority of humanity/my-own-group” as “knowledge”.
But you can’t truly KNOW anything, outside your personal EXPERIENCE.
The rest, is your BELIEF.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Bye-bye….
perhaps during yer "absence….
ya can be fitted for a larger halo,,
the current one seems to be a weeeebit “tight”,,
Hey, maybe that is why ya’re saying all this “weird” stuff…eh?

When one takes faith and dresses it up as FACT,,,
they can go as far as their “imagination” can carry them….
right far deep into “fantasy land”.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

Originally posted by Winnabago:

The risk of making it is legal is that pedophiles would try to get children according to their taste when possible. Those tastes are not based on which child needs help the most, but what ever perverted fantasies the pedophiles want to live out.

Biggest problem here that it might not help starving children enough? Really? That’s no reason to ban something.

Learn to read. My problem would be that there is a chance that it would not help but instead make more children suffer. I have already explained why at length.
My question to you would you still be willing to implement the idea if this would mean that children who are currently not starving and would not starve without your idea are made to choose between starving or becoming prostitutes?

(the children that the pedophiles don´t want).

Assumption.

Yes indeed. Have not said anything else. I don´t have anywhere near enough information to say that it would be as i fear but i also don´t have enough information to say that it would not. The whole discussion and your OP is based on vague idea.

Is your alternative really to let children starve and try not to think about it?

No but then the alternatives you present are not the only ones. Its nice that you try to get some people to think, but perhaps you might want to start thinking yourself.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

@Johnny
KEY WORD: ANIMAL.
I consider myself to be HUMAN.
As in “made in the Image of GOD, not monkey”.
But, of course, MONKEY won’t EVER limit your ANIMAL desires (including those to ABUSE other people).
Humanism is as much a fake, as is fake tolerance.
Without GOD, there always comes a time, at SOME point or situation, when “MY WISH” overcomes “YOUR NEED”, and with no Absolute to stop it.
Serial killer is the most extreme example.
You can brag about human achievements endlessly, but no one has yet invented an “absolute cop inside you”, to actually stop people from ignoring others, GOD is the only alternative we do know.
(Your “consciousness” is 100% egoistic when it comes to “ME vs YOU”. Don’t lie to YOURSELF.)
Bye-bye.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

The risk of making it is legal is that pedophiles would try to get children according to their taste when possible. Those tastes are not based on which child needs help the most, but what ever perverted fantasies the pedophiles want to live out.

Biggest problem here that it might not help starving children enough? Really? That’s no reason to ban something.

(the children that the pedophiles don´t want).

Is your alternative really to let children starve and try not to think about it?

@Twilight: Some death is worse than other death: a death that might not come that will come coupled with massive starvation and suffering might be seen as not preferable.

Originally posted by Draconavin:

What has happened to SD… ?

Also, if you are a pedophile you need to seek help.
Separate fantasy from reality.

You can say “ahhh no pedos” all you want, but the alternative seems to be worse.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by somebody613:

3. Even from evolution’s point, they’re the dead-end of human evolution. Wanna have more Darwin Awards? You’re welcome and may even join the crowd… Oh, but YOU probably don’t want to, right? So why should others?

Sigh and again.

1. Gays can still be biological parents. Quite a bit of them are. (In the future this going to become even more common, as advances in technology give new ways into conceiving and birthing children)

2. Humans are social animals and as social animals we can increase the evolutionary success of our Genes even by not producing our own children, but by helping and protecting others that carry our genes and do procreate.
A most obvious Form of this example would be ants or other hive animals, where the great majority is not fertile and does not partake in procreation. Instead they help and protect those that do.

But then we know that evolution is a book with seven unbreakable seals to you. So this most likely not going to get through to you.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

that is sometimes done. i remember some years ago an organisation that freed girls by the hundreds from involuntary prostitution scams that needed money for just that. (well, probably local hospita rather then orphanages of good quality where you live, but there was no alternative, so..)

but i think – and i agree with you about money falling into the wrong hands (common knowledge by now, anyway) – that the point should not be so much about you personally, but about us in general. humans; society.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

Thinking about it one more time depending on how the system is setup, it could very well lead to idealists out bidding the pedophiles on candidate children just so the pedophiles can´t touch them. Personally i could see myself spending several hundred thousand Euro to do just that.

i think that the OP’s point reached succes with that. think about it, you’re suggesting there be a circumstance, that would be less bad then letting those children starve, and then say that you would pay hundreds of thousands (wow, how rich are you?) of euro’s to prevent it…

it raises a question..

Yes but notice how i point out that it would depend on how the system is set up? There are several reasons why i don´t just throw the same amount of money into schemes of helping starving children. Most such children live in war zones or are heavily discriminated against by the general society of the country they live in. Trying to help them generally leads to most of the money landing in the hands of exactly those people who are directly or indirectly responsible for the children starving in the first place. By financing the people responsible for the Starving the situation is often drawn out or even made worse.
If it was possible to get the children out of the country/society where they suffer and for example into Orphanages(of good quality) here in my country i would be willing to invest quite a bit into that.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by EPR89:

All your points really sound as if you wanted to make a law that forces people to make babies.

Hey, I’m “good” w/ THAT. It’s likely the only way me & most nerds would EVER get any pussy. OR, would there (likely?) be some kind of qualifications that have to be met which would exclude WHO? Just WHO would be in charge of making this test & applying it…HITLER?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

@karma
EINSTEIN… :D
Or, if you want, THIS:
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/redirected/
Like I said, it’s WRONG to say both ways.

That’s really just arguing semantics into an issue that was pretty obvious.
A scientist found out that the Earth is not in the centre of the solar system. The church pounded him for that, because it conflicted with its views. The issue as all about the physical centre.

Originally posted by somebody613:

@EPR
Thing is, I totally disagree with “no harm caused”.
1. It shows kids a wrong example, given that you even consider caring about being an example, most people today DON’T.

How?
You always say it’s bad, but you don’t say why it is bad.

2. It’s abusing GOD-given ability to make children (the one I was referring to as the most “GOD-like”, cause we can live forever in our children’s children’s… Unless you don’t want anybody in 200 years to remember you at all… You don’t, well…)

Just like my brother, who doesn’t want to get children. And God is pretty irrelevant when it comes to legal marriage, as is procreation.

3. Even from evolution’s point, they’re the dead-end of human evolution. Wanna have more Darwin Awards? You’re welcome and may even join the crowd… Oh, but YOU probably don’t want to, right? So why should others?

You can’t force people to get kids. If they want to be a dead end to Evolution, why not let them? That way the problem will solve itself anyway and no one gets harmed.

All your points really sound as if you wanted to make a law that forces people to make babies.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by somebody613:

@karma
EINSTEIN… :D

Well, thanks…I guess.
I’ve been called a smart-ass,,,
but, being seen as an EINSTEIN is somewhat new….LOL

Ya know, somebody613….for one who does pretend to “have all the answers”, ya prolly ought to learn how to format other than: @EPR, @this one, @that one. Having a quote as a reference to what YOU write is always a weeeebit “helpful”….eh? I’d give ya a brief tutorial on how to do it if ya weren’t such an insufferable, self-righteous ass in your opinions presented here. LOL

On your addendum there: blah,,,blah,,,blah.
Do YOU not think I’m well aware of mass, centrifugal force, etc. Few likely know that the moon doesn’t actually revolve around Earth. They both revolve around a midpoint that is just below the surface of the Earth. There is even a bit of a “wobble-effect” of their orbit around the Sun depending on the Moon being one side or the other of Earth in relationship to the Sun due to the very, VERY slight change of mass-location of both caused by the orbit of the Moon.

Now, stop being childish by trying to show off one area of knowledge in order to discredit my point that “God” isn’t seen//understood by everyone quite the same…..in fact, some ppl see “Him” in some ways that are really SOOOOPID,,,,which can all too often have very harmful, disastrous effects on society. For example, “religion’s” attacks on Gays.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eye Color Puzzle

@OD
Or rather:
The true wisdom is to understand, that logic is not exactly the same as real knowledge.
No jokes. :D

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Serfdom sounds pretty simple to me. We already have wage serfdom here, the only difference would be that they’d be under 18, and as DR says, the ‘income’ would be a grey area with probably no set standard. The actual bondage system would be fairly straightforward though, taking the form of 5, 10, or 15 year contracts made between you, the child, and the child’s parents. You wouldn’t want to keep a child serf past 15 years (from the time you bought it) anyway because it would start to think it’s entitled to your household.

Jan, would the olden form of apprenticeship fit somewhere in this….at least as one example of modified serfdom?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

@EPR
Thing is, I totally disagree with “no harm caused”.
1. It shows kids a wrong example, given that you even consider caring about being an example, most people today DON’T.
2. It’s abusing GOD-given ability to make children (the one I was referring to as the most “GOD-like”, cause we can live forever in our children’s children’s… Unless you don’t want anybody in 200 years to remember you at all… You don’t, well…)
3. Even from evolution’s point, they’re the dead-end of human evolution. Wanna have more Darwin Awards? You’re welcome and may even join the crowd… Oh, but YOU probably don’t want to, right? So why should others?

@karma
EINSTEIN… :D
Or, if you want, THIS:
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/redirected/
Like I said, it’s WRONG to say both ways.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Even at the risk of having this post removed…

I MUST say that I’ve never, EVER heard of “skydaddy”.

I scared 3 dogs out their door w/ the burst of laughter upon reading it.

I guess I now know a bit of what ya “believe” in that area. LOL

Maybe my post can be “saved” by my saying: I luv that argument. It usually shuts them up. Of course, there is the occassional ass who has an “answer” for most anything rational.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

I’m not sure which of the two you’re arguing right now, so I’ll just reply neutrally. If we follow what you said, then bringing a kid over for chores would not be slavery. The child can always resign, it will just die (pretty similar to a job, really, only the dying takes a bit longer if you still have some money left). And the status remains unchanged, plus their rights aren’t really intruded upon.

i made an entry to your discussion in general, hence no addressee.

when i said “resign”, what i mean is “resign from that job and find another”. a slave is not allowed to choose his own job. although serfs of course were bound to land, not to owner.

you’re a fucking sockpuppet. bud.

he’s not your bud, pal. (funny? not so funny? stupid? ohh, nevermind)

Thinking about it one more time depending on how the system is setup, it could very well lead to idealists out bidding the pedophiles on candidate children just so the pedophiles can´t touch them. Personally i could see myself spending several hundred thousand Euro to do just that.

i think that the OP’s point reached succes with that. think about it, you’re suggesting there be a circumstance, that would be less bad then letting those children starve, and then say that you would pay hundreds of thousands (wow, how rich are you?) of euro’s to prevent it…

it raises a question..

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by somebody613:

@WH
Since you refer to GOD to begin with:
Why do YOU think, we were created/made/whatever-term-you-use-won’t-change-it MAN and WOMAN?
If not to STAY that way?

Prove that we were created for a purpose and then this might be a valid argument.

And even if Skydaddy wanted us to live a certain way, why should it be a crime to do otherwise if it causes no harm to others?
Why did Skydaddy make people homosexual although he doesn’t want people to be homosexual?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by somebody613:

@WH
Since you refer to GOD to begin with:
Why do YOU think, we were created/made/whatever-term-you-use-won’t-change-it MAN and WOMAN?
If not to STAY that way?

Since I go w/ EVOLUTION…I pretty much believe the two genders were natuarlly needed to propigate the spieces. This, of course, doesn’t rule out the occasional homosexual.

Also, I seriously don’t understand those people (or often assume, they’re just way too young) that “claim” that they wouldn’t care to have gay children, and thus 99% no grandchildren, or not biological ones at the very least.

Well,,,,YES, you certainly don’t understand the simple why of it. Likely it is because a good parent LOVES their children and that the DIFFERENCE of being homosexual really is ONLY a “big deal” to brainless bigots.

Would YOU want such a family to be YOURS?

I don’t have to “want”…..I HAVE. And, she is deeply loved by all…save a few that NOBODY likes anyway.

If honestly yes, well… We’re just from different planets then. Period.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by somebody613:

@karma
“Religion” refused to believe Earth isn’t the center of the Universe.
This amuses me, how even AFTER Einstein, people still argue on this totally subjective topic.
There’s ZERO more validity in saying whether Earth is OR isn’t the “center” of the universe.
Both are right AND wrong.
Also, from religion’s point, the “center” isn’t even astronomical, but rather importance-wise.
And there, you either have a weird alien-inferiority complex OR you must agree that humans ARE the “center” of OUR KNOWN universe, as the ONLY sentient beings WE KNOW.
Sorry for a little off-topic, but it was funny to read that phrase.

YOU can twist it however ya want, BUT

Well, several of Galileo’s astronomical discoveries showed (or suggested) that the Earth actually goes around the Sun. He thought that he could convince the Church to change its view on this, as truth surely will win over superstition. So he wrote a book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. He presented his case in the form of a dialogue. One character (Simplicio) defended the Church’s view, and another (Salviati) defended Copernicus’ view. The Pope (who was a friend of Galileo), and other defenders of the Church’s view on this subject, were insulted by being portrayed as Simplicio, and by having their strongly held views ridiculed, for Galileo was an excellent writer who could easily show another person’s folly. Very much like Socrates had done centuries earlier, Galileo made enemies of the people who he could make look like fools. And very much like Socrates, Galileo’s “martyrdom” may have been intentional. In 1633, he was found guilty of heresy; his book was banned; he was forced to claim that he had been wrong, that the Earth did not move; and he was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. It is sometimes reported that after admitting that the Earth did not move, he said under his breath, “But it does move.”

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

@WH
Since you refer to GOD to begin with:
Why do YOU think, we were created/made/whatever-term-you-use-won’t-change-it MAN and WOMAN?
If not to STAY that way?
Also, I seriously don’t understand those people (or often assume, they’re just way too young) that “claim” that they wouldn’t care to have gay children, and thus 99% no grandchildren, or not biological ones at the very least.
Would YOU want such a family to be YOURS?
If honestly yes, well… We’re just from different planets then. Period.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eye Color Puzzle

I’m afraid I don’t know a hell of alot about logic, but I beat you all in knowledge, which is all that counts anyway

if you ask me: wisdom > logic > knowledge.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism

Originally posted by jhco50:

Tell me Jack. Am I the only one on these forums or are you just so eaten up with your socialism you can no longer think rationally?

I’m really beginning to wonder about your sanity.

Hmmmmm…..my name isn’t “Jack”,,,but I think he’s talking about me….lol
Well, it’s more like INSULTING me…so, I’m not all that sure the self-righteous jhco is actually talking to/about me….eps. since he so detests being called “names” himself. Ya can’t tell who the players are w/o a score card.

Now to address his post that is nothing but ad hominem.
NO, he obviously isn’t the only one on these forums…duh.
Eaten up with (by?) socialism…..hmmmmm.
What I do see is how U.S. capitalism is sooooo abused by the captains of industry that the poor truly is being eaten alive by the wealthy’s avarice. He is able to see only the corruption of the disadvantaged….likely because he sooooo easily “hears” the propaganda the wealthy sooooo smoothly lays out to be gobbled up by those who need to blame their own “lacking” social status on someone.

This kind of mentality certainly isn’t that of a “Christian” nation which sooooooo many want to loudly shout that it is. When put to the “test”, there’s failure all around. Sure, the middle class is “burdened” w/ the care—be it true need or a form of “illness” called “lazy”—of those who are “less fortunate”. Sure, if the super-upper-UPPER class (1%) would allow all ppl below them to share in the wealth they produce, there likely wouldn’t be all that much angst, stress, hate for the results of MEGA-capitalism.

Yeah, I’m probably seen as a socialist. BUT, he obviously is somewhat ignorant about what socialsim is. So, I’m going to spell it out here,,,please note the bold parts:

Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. “Social ownership” may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises. There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

A socialist economic system would consist of an organization of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time. Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Social democrats advocate redistributive taxation in the form of social welfare and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy. In contrast, anarchism and libertarian socialism propose direct worker’s control of the means of production and oppose the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership over the means of production.

In America, one can find many forms of socialism applied to many areas. All they need do to see this is pull their heads out of the bullshit bucket (called their minds) and see that soylent green is really “people”. Or, more specifically, their ignorance that is preyed upon by the 1% and used to feed them utter bullshit disguised as the “truth”.

So yeah, I likely do fit into being somewhat a “socialist”. Jan pegs me as being a communitarian. I’m not too much into pigeonholing when it comes to ideology, but Communitarianism covers a lot of what I believe:

Communitarians seek to bolster social capital and the institutions of civil society. The Responsive Communitarian Platform described it thus:
“Many social goals . . . require partnership between public and private groups. Though government should not seek to replace local communities, it may need to empower them by strategies of support, including revenue-sharing and technical assistance. There is a great need for study and experimentation with creative use of the structures of civil society, and public-private cooperation, especially where the delivery of health, educational and social services are concerned.”

So, jhco should probably do some research BEFORE he takes a knee-jerk position of hand-wringing angst (supplied by conservative ideology) and thinks he is insulting ppl by calling them a “socialist”. Esp. when he himself participates in a whooooole lot of it himself.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

This thread is going around in circles without resaloution, so to get to the bottom of this, why did the Jews and later Christians care so much?

I get that early on “go fourth and multiply” would be for the good of the tribe, and you’d want a man and a woman to look after the kids. But once you have a sufficent amount of people, why care so much, and go as far to brand this as a sin? Would a loving God really make something that doesnt hurt people a sin? Would a loving God bring down reitrubtion for something like this, but not the War in Iraq?

If their isn’t something inheriantly harmful in homosexuality why can no one articulate what that might be?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eye Color Puzzle

@jan
And thus the troll has spoken. :D

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

@karma
“Religion” refused to believe Earth isn’t the center of the Universe.
This amuses me, how even AFTER Einstein, people still argue on this totally subjective topic.
There’s ZERO more validity in saying whether Earth is OR isn’t the “center” of the universe.
Both are right AND wrong.
Also, from religion’s point, the “center” isn’t even astronomical, but rather importance-wise.
And there, you either have a weird alien-inferiority complex OR you must agree that humans ARE the “center” of OUR KNOWN universe, as the ONLY sentient beings WE KNOW.
Sorry for a little off-topic, but it was funny to read that phrase.