Recent posts by Jantonaitis on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

I’ve never been called that before, and I don’t know why a Lebanese movement would care about an American gaming site.

I’d assume you care for it the same way most zealots ‘care’ for this site, by stumbling across it and immediately realizing that it hasn’t seen enough pro-hezbollah lebanese action!

The anti-Israel movement isn’t some palestinian frankenstein, it’s gone global. I see no reason why lebanon – or whoever claims to speak for lebanon – wouldn’t want to get in on the bandwagon.

I have, at times, contributed something to these threads. At the moment, broad skepticism in the views of arabs – and their sycophants in pakistan – do me quite well, but if you prefer, I hate Johnnybegood’s posts least of all.

If you are too high and mighty for this humble site, don’t bother coming, nobody is forcing your hand.

My complete contempt for you does, though.

YES, if you say something good about the Taliban, you ARE a shill for them. If you pointed out that dealing with the Taliban is probably Afghanistan’s only chance for survival from civil war, I’d agree.

But slobbering all over their collective cock, as you’ve done so repeatedly, is not the answer. I don’t particularly care how violent you are, or what violent actions you’re willing to go to take your goal. Your bluster is quite irrelevant to me, although I do find it enjoyable to read, so by all means keep going, but you have as much depth as Sacha Baron Cohen. When will morons like you learn, that westernizers are not persuaded by garbage? We don’t care how much you threaten, or boast, or whatever. We care what you can bring to the table. If you can’t bring solid facts, then you’re a worthless sycophant for dictators. That’s all.

This Hezbollah shill, for all his faults, is a serious speaker. When he writes, I listen, even if it’s more of the same garbage, because at least it’s palatable garbage, and not the same old ‘attack us and we’ll destroy you’ riff that I’ve long grown tired of. As far as i’m concerned, the Pakistanis can roast. And I don’t much care if they say the same about us. They’ll radiate long before we will, if only because of their own idiotic stubbornness.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

Reading this thread from start to finish (and to be fair, I skimmed alot of the posts after page 1), I realize again why I stopped coming here.

Interesting thread topic, but run by an obvious hezbollah shill, so there’s limited space for it to grow into something. Critics are somewhat knowledgeable about the topic (Johnny), but too many stupid analogies to disguise lack of source material. Most don’t know shit and instead rely on generalizations they believe are applicable to many war theatres (winnibago, Neilsenna especially), or technobabble (vika). Oh, and there’s also the pakistani militant shill, I suppose.

It’s no wonder that when I left, people were saying that Crow was the most insightful poster in SD. He’s certainly the only one whose posts I finished all the way.


Topic: Serious Discussion / Apparently the government could wreck SD

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pop Culture Trending Topics - What do they mean for us?

I’m pretty much in agreement with the idea of steampunk being the white boy’s fantasy…it answers alot of niggling questions about the genre. Not so sure about Bioshock; it seems a lot more ironic than most steampunk I’ve seen.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Apparently the government could wreck SD

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

Since Obama is a far left extremist (like al queda), does this means he is almost right?

what do you mean, ‘like’? Dude’s middle name is Hussein. ’Nuff said.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ax: WW 2 With Modern Weapons

Has that week yet expired?

Good question.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Marriage Process.

oh. I thought that was a glitch.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Philosophy

Originally posted by Aleazor:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Philosophy is a profession that you do not choose, but are chosen for.
That is if you are too lazy or retarded to get a real job you start calling yourself a philosopher start talking out of your ass.

The application of philosophy is required to form this opinion. All social commentary is an expression of philosophy. The very idea that philosophy is a sham, is a philosophy.

Opinions =/= philosophy. You’re over-generalizing the word to mean anything, to such an extent that it would be meaningless.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Marriage Process.

And, Kong Admin, thanks for the little Valentine ya’ve given us by rearranging the data at the avatar.

data? Avatar? My computer must be too primitive to recognize any changes.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I won't say who I am, but I've been wanting to say this for a while now...

Originally posted by vikaTae:

It’s just the automatic complaint letter generator thingy. You enter a name, and it generates a long, rambling complaint that ultimately says absolutely nothing, for you. Flag and move on, pretty much.

Impressive. It’s been running for two decades.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

I agree, religion is just a small part of culture so it shouldnt be held responsible for anything bad that is causes

False dichotomy. I’m not arguing religion shouldn’t be held responsible, or that they’re only a small aspect of culture. I’m arguing against the idea that it is a distinct and/or exceptional factor. while ignoring other cultural factors that played a similar role. South Korea, for example, is one of the most homophobic developed countries I’ve ever experienced…and yet, their religion is low-key, and men can walk down the street hand-in-hand without raising an eyebrow. Hell, I’ve never been in any country where I’ve gotten my ass grabbed until Korea. And yet homosexuality is a major taboo topic in their society, to the point that teachers get their students to behave by accusing them of being gay. Why is that? It aint their Christianity or Buddhism causing it, that’s for sure.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Really isn’t. Rather the issue is that homosexuals can get married, with full legal rights.

They already can in seventeen states. I’d say it would be pretty bizarre to have a thread go 133 pages when parts of the US have already done it. If homosexuals need to be married, they can go to one of those states and do it, or they can wait around for their own state to implement it. Since it’s been brought up so many times, I’ll point out that the religious angle was unnecessary during the crusade to legalize interracial marriage, and it’s similarly unnecessary now.

Your point being?

My point is that it’s an anti-theist talking point to lump slavery into all those evils that secular scientific progress has somehow eliminated. That’s bullshit. Religious groups in the US were the major lobbying force behind the abolitionist movement, not some humanist vanguard. ‘Progress’ (as you see it) didn’t do a damn thing to help blacks.

The church lost a lot of its power because it split into many components based on the idea that the church was wrong and it caused conflict within the belief itself. This was also the time of the Renaissance. A lot changed.

> Reformation Circa 1517-1648, Western Europe
> Renaissance Circa Circa 14th century to 16th century, Greece and Italy

So, actually it wasn’t the time. And no, the one didn’t influence the other, at least by any direct measure that I’ve read. As for the church losing power? Yeah, that’s true. A whole bunch of other churches gained power, like the Calvinists, who took over Geneva (and eventually Switzerland) to establish one of the first proto-totalitarian religious regimes. Or how about the Anglicans, who got started because Henry VIII wanted to break Catholic divorce law to screw around some more but couldn’t because the Pope wouldn’t let him, so since all this reformation stuff was going on he figured he’d get in on it too and led England into a new religion. Or let’s try Lutheranism, which was one of the first to break away; Luther famously is the guy who gave the Germans a religious excuse to hate the Jews.

Which do you suppose would be better to live under: one all-powerful harsh religion, or a dozen, each trying to replicate the viciousness and total control of its parent? Oh, and they all hated each other so their adherents hated each other. Somehow I’m not seeing scientific advancement benefiting from the change.

Irrelevant. Pretty much everyone was religious back then because they didn’t have the information we did now. It was how they explained the universe around them. The vast majority of academics today are not religious for a reason. This is really starting to go off topic though.

Do you know the reason Newton theorized that there were seven primary colours? Because he thought seven was a magical number. Seems pretty far from irrelevant to me.

Or did you mean that it wasn’t driven by Islam? Sure, it was the religious scholars developing things, but that’s because they were the only ones with an education.

Well, unlike you, I’ve actually read al-farabi and al-kindi and the rest. And it would be pretty hard to just sweep religion from their texts and just dismiss it as something they did for their day job. In fact, many of those scientific treatises are almost incomprehensible without a good knowledge of the religion. It’s remarkable how often you rip the culture and the context out from these great scientific visionaries so you can have this fantasy about scientific enlightenment sans religion. Pretty much every one on your objections ‘Irrelevant’…well it’s only irrelevant because you force the history to become irrelevant. Your prejudice against religion makes it impossible to see the connection.

If he isn’t religious or basing his beliefs on the Christian god, I’ll be quite surprised.

You know, you’re starting to sound a lot like

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

I’m not saying all christians are vengeful haters, im just saying that every hate group in America is Christian

We’ve had this discussion before. Ideologies are all dangerous – religious ones sink far deeper and extend their roots to everything else. That’s their nature as a world belief. Political ideologies only involve matters on well, politics. Religious ones stretch.

Yes, we’ve had this discussion before. Both Issen and I gave you concrete examples of political and social ideologies which impact nearly every facet of a person’s life, just as religions do. You ignored the evidence because it’s easier to hate religion than accept that there’s nothing particularly exceptional about it. The only reason you’re bent out of shape over it is because people doing things because ‘God’ tells them to sounds (to you) more irrational than people doing things because the great dialectic or the invisible hand of the marketplace do it. And by ‘things’, yes, I’m including great atrocities in that category. There are no communist suicide bombers, but there is the USSR, the Paris Commune, Castro’s communism, etc. There’s no Capitalist Jihad, but there is South America under the ax of United Fruit in the ’50s and OPEC in the ’70s.

I said it was a step away from it. Not that it was hate rhetoric. It certainly was delusional though.

Right, well in that case, you’re a step away from Stalin sticking religious people in gulags because their ‘net effect’ isn’t conducive to society’s interests.

Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean you demonize them, ‘a step away’ or not it’s fallacious. Similarly, it’s ‘delusional’ only because you disagree with his analysis of the current political situation. I find it remarkable that so-called rationalists slip into this kind of irrational thinking just as easily as the average joe.

Until you get to some moral viewpoint like homosexual marriage anyhow, then you see the effects it has on bigotry.

lol…you know, the reason it’s apparent to me, but not to you, is the reason I mentioned above. You don’t see the cultural context as being worth anything, so you miss out on a lot. I daresay it’s rather more representative of delusional thinking than anything jhco’s said. The Christian religion is a part of the US cultural landscape…it’s a TRADITION. So even if you aren’t religious at all, you’ll still have biases in their favor, and against the same things they’re against. I think it’s way too simplistic to blame Christianity as the ultimate culprit of American homophobia. They share some of the blame, both directly and indirectly (via tradition). But the fact is that open homosexuality hasn’t been acceptable in any culture, not for a long, long time. Even the Greeks didn’t like gays to be public about it. I’m not particularly interested in why that is; what matters to me is that religion isn’t the kicking horse for it, traditional culture is.

Traditional culture is the reason why, for example, the working man hates socialism, even though it’s designed to protect the working man from actual capitalists (business owners and employers). It’s embedded in everyday phrases that we use, like when karma says “don’t get your panties in a twist”, he’s unconsciously reflecting an era where irritability and hysteria was linked to women. Bigotry isn’t some religious invention. It’s an invention of culture, of which religion is only one factor at play.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Pretty sure the reason he was mocked was because everyone on the forum thought that that shouldn’t happen.

Pretty sure I’ve seen no one say that outright unless it was 50 pages ago. I’m also pretty sure that there would be quite a few people who, in the interest of ‘fairness’, would love to see the government force churches to be more progressive.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Jhco, pull your head out of the ground and actually look at the world. It’s been “progressing” ever since religion lost its death grip on rule. As bigotry and ignorance mired in dogma fades from more and more of the population, we see more and more advancement. Your delusions don’t hold sway over the majority, even if you may think they do. I only wonder how you’re going to explain ten years from now the nationwide legalization of gay marriage via federal mandate, probably in the form of a constitutional amendment like slavery, the end of segregation, and women’s rights were . . . all of which, might I remind you, were opposed by the good ol’ “Republican party” and said the exact same crap you have. It’s all hatred when you get down to it.

Just to use the slavery example, Christian organizations were in large part responsible for the Abolitionist movement in the US.

As for gay marriage, well it’s been said in this thread rather often (including by jhco, who I notice keeps getting mocked for it) that no one is preventing civil unions (other than individual states for generic bigoted reasons), the issue in question is demanding that the government force churches to break doctrine and marry homosexuals. The reason Americans, including pretty non-religious citizens like jhco, are opposed to that, is because it is rightly considered outside governmental jurisdiction and a constitutional imposition besides. Your rant about religion’s ‘death grip on rule’ seems to omit the fact that if the government were to be successful in forcing religions to drop their bigoted doctrines, it would effectively be damaging the very separation of church and state you claim to uphold.

I was mostly referring to the last 700 years anyways, since the reformation. You know, since the scientific method came around and we entered the industrial age along with all those other goodies.

The…protestant reformation? Otherwise known as one of the bloodiest eras in western history? How exactly did the creation of a dozen splinter sects of christianity (each more ultra-orthodox, bigoted, and theocratic than the last) possibly help the cause of secular progress? Not to mention the fact that the scientific method has been around for a long time, well before secularism even poked its head out, or that its inventors, people like Descartes and Bacon, were either religious or in the case of newton, alchemists. Maybe if you had meant the Renaissance, that would make a little more sense, except most of those guys (like Machiavelli) were in a religious order themselves, or working under a religious government.

From 600-900ce there was a lot of progress in the Muslim world, but it wasn’t because of the religion there.


The Greeks contributed a lot too, and that wasn’t because of their religion.

Pretty much every dialogue of Plato’s makes some reference to the influence of the Gods on Socrates’ decision-making, most strongly evidenced in Apology and Phaedo.

The ancient Babylonians were among the first to create laws,

Which certainly had nothing to do with belief in gods being the main force behind making them in the first place.

I was addressing jhco, not writing a thesis on how religion has/has not contributed to the progress of our world.

Yes, you pulled an anti-religion rant out of your ass (given the spurious nature of many of your ‘facts’) to address someone who is not himself religious. As in, in the 5 years I’ve been coming to this forum I’ve never seen him say anything to indicate he even believes in god. He believes in the importance of traditional values, many of which (in the US) have religious origins. You’re confusing patriotism with religion, and as usual, ignoring the fact that the former can be just as dangerous and bigoted as the latter, because in your eyes it’s religion that’s the great satan, not political or social ideologies.

I see many atheists who do this, and what annoys me the most is that they pretend to have some vast historical knowledge to back up their bullshit prejudice. Well, in this case, you don’t. You are cherrypicking facts to support a preconceived bias. There’s nothing objective or rational about it. And it’s particularly curious to me, since I’ve seen you argue against exactly this sort of nonsensical reasoning in the past.

NB: I read over what jhco said just to be sure. I see nothing in what he said that could be characterized as hate-rhetoric. I don’t agree with much of what he said, but it’s not largely different from a list of republican talking points. And, as much as you might despise the Republican party…it would be absurd to lump them all in with hate groups. You might as well just call him a nazi, because it’s a Godwin fallacy by any other name.


And what parties would that exclude then, interracial couples too, or would it be before divorce existed and ruined half of all marriages?

The interracial card gets used a lot by gay marriage activists. They don’t seem to realize that the government has no power to force a church to marry an interracial couple either. There was a story about it a few years ago, a church in Kentucky that banned it. Well, it was their decision, and they got in shit for it by the public, but anti-miscegenation laws can’t do a damn thing to force churches to change their doctrine.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Philosophy

A big chunk of the prominent philosophers are atheists and naturalists, so there’s that.

Although a Straussian might argue that it would be embarassing for a philosopher to argue with an atheist because the atheist is foolish enough to declare his lack of belief whereas the philosopher hides his under a veneer of conformity.

And that’s not even getting into how a Hobbesian or Lockean would view self-admitted atheists.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it wrong to hold the Sochi Olympics in the 3rd world country of Russia?

Originally posted by oOTrentOo:

Russia doesn’t even have money to support themselves and now we’re letting them hold the 2014 Sochi Olympics? The water is unsafe to drink, they killed thousands of stray dogs and 20% of Russia’s population is addicted to heroin.

greece did the same thing with their dogs. It’s an olympic tradition.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / When Does A Human Life Begin?

And, from what I recall of most of your positions in regards to those of jhco, they all appeared to be much more closely aligned w/ the majority of posters than w/ the extremism of his. So, how could minor disagreement w/in such small confines generate such discord?

I’ve seen you do something similar when it comes to atheists. While not much “liking” most of the more extremism of theism, you express even greater disdain at the “smugness” of the atheism camp members who are obviously total asshole jerks. I don’t know if you recall; but, I agreed w/ you there and strongly stated so.

True on both points. My first-ever post in SD was bashing something-or-other jhco said. And yes, I’ve gone overboard on more than a few occasions with anti-theists.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / When Does A Human Life Begin?

Thus by saying the over-zealous jerks are always on the opposing side, I am not saying everyone who holds an opinion other than yours is a jerk, I am saying that you will only recognise the jerks whose points frequently contradict your own. You won’t recognise those whose points align with your own, because your own mind is filling in the logical blanks in the arguments they create.

Mind you, if you actually were striving for objectivity (you in a universal sense of the pronoun), you’d be able to notice the zealots in your own camp and try to neutralize them. If, for example, I’m critiquing feminism in mixed company, and someone ostensibly on ‘my side’ is labelling them feminazis and somesuch, it’s to my advantage to cut down that person’s argument (preferably in private so as not to appear divided) before he does any more damage, lest I – and my less extreme POV – get tarred with the same brush. Your ideological ‘allies’ need to be under as close scrutiny as your ‘enemies’ (if not closer) for the simple fact that if they lack reasonable judgement they can escalate a good discussion to a brawl.

Coincidentally, it was for this exact reason that some years ago I chose to turn on Karma – my ‘ally’ in that thread – in an argument about something-or-other with jhco, because I perceived karma’s arguments (I don’t remember the specifics anymore) as going too far to attack jhco’s argument. I didn’t suddenly agree with jhco or negate my own position, I simply realized that I had to point out that the argument being made wasn’t one that I agreed with or respected. IMO, much of the lingering hostility created from debates (in SD or anywhere else) stems from an inability to respect one’s opponents, coupled with a bandwagon mentality that makes you uncomfortable with critiquing one’s allies when they’re out of line.

To bring it back to the topic, I have little in common with the pro-life pitch Issendorf is making, but I respect his view and can separate it from the religious lunatics in the pro-life side, something the pro-choicers in this thread are either unable or unwilling to do. I find it odd that the argument he brought in about using parallels to reflect on the illogic of being pro-regulation for guns and anti-regulation for abortion was so quickly shot down. OF COURSE there’s a parallel; dismissing it as ‘two different things’ just makes your ideology sound incoherent. Rather, I’m surprised no one took the (to me) obvious counter-point: if the crux of the pro-life position centers around the sanctity of human life, what does that say about the logic of right-wingers who are anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment? How insane is that? Or did you guys avoid that because being anti-capital punishment and pro-choice is almost as incoherent a position?

That’s a good segueway into my last point: as confused as I am about the pro-life ideology, the pro-choicers aren’t any more enlightened IMO. It’s not as though the US is under the thumb of the Catholic Church here. Contraceptives (including the legality of morning after pills, which was settled a few pages ago) are readily available and effective. The pro-choicers (at least in this thread) seem determined to pigeonhole sex into an ‘abortion or abstinence’ dynamic which is patently false. It seems to me both the fiscal conservative position (why should we put any funding into a niche surgical operation) and the so-con (why should we tolerate the immorality of a procedure that in most cases should have been unnecessary) are both pretty sound. Instead of bashing your opponents for supposedly hating on women’s rights, would it not be more useful to advocate for stepping up contraceptive deployment and awareness in the parts / demographics of the US that are at most at risk for getting abortions?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / When Does A Human Life Begin?

And, that is the crux of this very continuing and very contentious “debate” in America. As long as the zealous pro-life factions refuse to understand the differences in these “justifiable reasons” and stop trying to lump them all together as being somehow “equally important” to make very difficult regulations…we will never bring civility to the debate.

lol. So the rancorous nature of the debate depends entirely on one side being over-zealous jerks.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Amanda Knox farce

Originally posted by woodythedon:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Maybe you should post a link or give some kind of detail about who this woman is and why we would care.

You’re not obliged to care. And if you don’t know what this is about I’m curious as to why you feel the need to state your disinterest.

Guede was found guilty probably rightly, but the idea Knox had no knowledge of what was going on is ridiulous. It’s only cos she’s a fit American white girl that the media got all hyped and the US used its muscle to step in. Granted the Italian police bungled the investigation, but even so it’s pretty clear she was in some way involved. It’s mightily hypocritical if the US doesn’t allow her to be extradited given that they ruthlessley try to do so when the shoe’s on the other foot.

I’m not obliged to care about any thread, but I tend to flag threads that sound trollish. Not bothering to give information because ’everyone’s already in the know’ seems pretty trollish.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / When Does A Human Life Begin?

But, what I’d like to know is your opinion on the emboldened part above.
I see it this way: since that “public” is hugely involved, yet typically not deeply, in the issue; shouldn’t they be afforded as much data as they are capable of/interested in as possible?

Hopefully, accompanying this “both groups (pro-life/pro-choice) sound so idiotically simplistic,” would be some kind of disclosure that such simplicity doesn’t exist…and even directing the public to some pathways by which a much deeper/broader understanding could be had.

Vika explained it just fine. As for me, I don’t care to indulge your ‘mood swings’. (snip)

Snipped to remove the relevant (e.g. off topic/harassing/whatever you want to call it) parts from both posts

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / When Does A Human Life Begin?

While it is a question of those, what it ultimately comes down to is whether a woman has the right to choose what happens in her own body.

That’s only because feminism circa N.O.W-era made it the ultimate question in their talking points. They were aware of the complexity of the issue and how it had the tendency to confuse voters, and needed to strip abortion down from exactly the sort of moral and philosophical considerations that Issen describes, into something anybody can get. The pro-life frontliners of the time did something very similar with their own platform. That’s why both groups (pro-life/pro-choice) sound so idiotically simplistic, because they’re purposely designed that way to take in maximum public appeal.


Topic: Serious Discussion / Knockout Game

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Topic: Serious Discussion / 9/11

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Topic: Serious Discussion / 9/11

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator