Recent posts by sotanaht on Kongregate

Topic: Realm of the Mad God / Best Classes?

paladins been my favorite so far. Heal spell thats stronger then a priests (over time), and also buffs damage, very high defense and health. If your cowardly, you can still stick to the back of a large group and just heal/buffbot, but you have the defense and health to get up close and snatch the loot when the time comes.

Topic: Realm of the Mad God / [Guide] RotMG Kongregate Community Guide?

Alternative to starting slow, while you have nothing to lose (low level and no gear), you can attempt to scavenge off of groups in tougher areas. If your lucky, you get weapons or gear you can use (now or soon), any of which are better then pirate gear, if your unlucky, you didn’t lose much.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Yiff Art-How did it come to be and why?

An interesting thread necro here… I ended up reading one of my own old posts, and was entirely surprised by the fact that it was mine, which i did not realize until I saw the avatar, halfway through.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Telekinesis?

I don’t really think you can define the mechanical reading of the mind and subsequent transfer of the resultant signal to a remote device via wireless communication, which then behaves as if controlled by a standard remote telekinesis. The principle difference is that the device moves on its own power. Telekinesis as related to this topic refers to moving objects with remote power. Essentially, if one could move an object without any sort of internal mechanism for movement, without touching the device or moving the air or surfaces around it, simply by thought, then you would have telekinesis.

My definition allows for thought to be interpreted by machines, which then move other objects remotely. The important factor is that it be possible to move a mundane object without any material connection.

The most likely way for this to be accomplished is some form of energy field manipulation. If it were possible to create remote electromagnetic fields, as an example, then this form of telekinesis would be possible.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Unity of Humanity

I think that globalism to the point of the world appearing to be one nation is inevitable within the next few hundred years. Rather then a strong “national” world government, I expect to see a large number of small, relatively weak “state” style governments with a with something like what the UN is as the world government.

Essentially, I think that over the next few centuries, through economic globalization, gradual ideological homogenization, and diminished religious extremism, the many nations of the world will ultimately become indistinguishable from one another. I think that they will still have their own governments, but that the majority of issues will need to be settled globally because the entire world will be affected by them, and thus we will require a UN style approach.

Having one single strong government does not leave room for any kind of freedom of choice. If you don’t agree with the majority (or the loudest few), your pretty much screwed even if it is a perfect democracy. Allowing for some autonomy between small nations even with a global government allows for at least some level of choice—if you don’t like the local decisions where you are, you can move. Again, without strong religion, which I believe will come about through time and technology, and with general ideological homoginization (everyone values the same major things, even if in slightly different ways), the world govornment won’t have to be that far off from the worlds desires.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Sex: What is Natural?

Originally posted by exemplary:

The way ‘natural sex’ is used in an argument is that only sex used for reproduction is natural.

Blatantly untrue, as sex is used for virtually every other reason and in virtually every way in animals other then humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do you consider this to be justice?

Originally posted by Umberphoenix:

I’d say that if people have a problem like this, they don’t need to be sent to jail. They need help, and a lot of it.

The game isn’t the problem, it was neglecting the child. There is absolutely nothing wrong with spending 12 hours a day every day on a computer game if you can get away with it somehow (IE still pay for whatever is required to survive and play). What is wrong is failing to take care of the child regardless of other circumstances.

Basically, this is criminal neglect (jail), not mental failing (rehab).

Topic: Serious Discussion / 45 Million

Originally posted by ASH265:

Originally posted by ViciousComet:

I can prove a fetus is not a independent life form. How?

Cut out a fetus, lay it on a table, and let’s see if it can survive on it’s own. If it can, it’s a human. If not, it’s not.

Its a baby, babies need there mother for support. How would you like it if this happened to you while you were still begininng to grow in your moms womb? This is the procedure of aHysterotomy or Caesarean Section" Used mainly in the last three months of pregnancy, the womb is entered by surgery through the wall of the abdomen. The technique is similar to a Caesarean delivery, except that the umbilical cord is usually cut while the baby is still in the womb, thus cutting off his oxygen supply and causing him to suffocate. Sometimes the baby is removed alive and simply left in a corner to die of neglect or exposure." Would the chance to live was taken away from you before you had something to say?? This is why I am prochoice, babies in the womb can’t talk so someone has to speak up for them.

That sounds like a distinctly pro-life argument to me.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should Felons have the Right to Vote?

Yes they should vote, becuase otherwise the government is able to criminalize anyone in order to prevent them from voting, presumably against the government doing the criminalization.

Originally posted by ViciousComet:

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

Considering a enormously disproportionate number of prisoners are black in the United States, and it’s a societal problem why this is so, of course it makes sense that felons don’t have the right to vote. They might change the system that creates the environment where crime is an only means of survival. Clearly the bigots that be aren’t foolish.

So you are suggesting that the reason felons cannot vote is a grand conspiracy to hold down the black man, so he cannot vote for true change?

That sounds at least possible, which it very definitely should not be.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Schools

Originally posted by Yourmomma696969:

There’s nothing to prevent them for going on a jog/run/walk around the block.

No there isn’t, but by having a PE class we teach our children healthy habits.

All subjects mandatory until 7th grade, then allow students to pick the subjects/areas they specialize in.

Alot of the HS graduates have no clue what area they want to study. How will 7th graders be mature enough to form that conclusion?

It is the schools job to make sure they are educated, nothing else.

I respectfully disagree. I think PE is important in teaching our kids to develop healthy habits that they will hopefully use forever.
I found several articles advocating this, but this one seemed to be the best.
It highlights the benefits as increased physical fitness, increased attention and improved mood, social skills, self-esteem and self-expression.
So I think that PE is a valuable part of the education of our kids.

No one cares about a child’s privacy, nor any of his civil liberties

Cameras are there to protect our kids. Where does a child have a right to privacy in a school setting and how are his liberties violated?
The cameras aren’t in the bathrooms, so how can a child claim any right to privacy in a common area of a publically funded institution?
Cameras work both ways. They do just as much to protect as they do to condemn.

As I said. a PE/gym class is likely to do more harm then good, if it does any good at all. Forcing someone to exercise for any period of time wont do them much good in the long run in itself, and will more likely then not put will them off of exercising on their own. Teaching them to develop healthy habits is far more likely to do good then forcing them to practice them. Again, the purpose of the school is to TEACH, not to force habits, good or not.

A lot of high school graduates have no clue what they want to study BECAUSE they have never attempted to form that conclusion. Most college students change their major at least once. Most people have to look in depth into what they think they want in order to know that they don’t want it. Inundating someone with choices and not letting them choose is not the way to go.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Schools

Pacing in schools (in the US) really is much slower then it needs to be. Our country would rather see every child pass a ridiculously low standard then have something like 4 out of 5 pass a much higher one, with the remaining ones failing. By accelerating courses from the beginning, thus creating students used to learning at a much faster pace, we would definitely have the option to cut back on time spent in schools significantly, at the cost of losing a small percentage of students who simply couldn’t make it. Of course, a more reasonable option would be to accelerate the process, but still keep the same time frame, thus causing those that can keep up to end up with a much better education.

Schools have the wrong priorities when they decide it is their job to make sure children exercise. It is the schools job to make sure they are educated, nothing else. Regardless, P.E. can not work as a means of preventing obesity, simply because there is not nearly enough time for it to have a significant impact. Health education, on the other hand, both fits in with what the schools true mission should be, and has the potential, however small, to affect how a child treats their health on their own. Teach a child about running, don’t simply force him to run laps for an hour.

Security cameras are already all over the place in most schools, though I question whether anyone pays them any attention. No one cares about a child’s privacy, nor any of his civil liberties, if he has any that is, but this is a rant for another time. Cops are also already on campus at most schools, though there parent typically very many of them nor are there any dogs. It is likely that our poor education standards are what lead to the kind of delinquency these measures are intended to solve anyway.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Existence of Supermen

Perhaps instead of discussing what might be, we could discuss what COULD be, as was the topic. What natural “superhuman” abilities would be theoretically possible, given a being that resembles a human. Do not include technologically enhanced abilities. No laser eyes that are actual lasers implanted into someones eyes, but if it is possible for a creature to grow devices that function as lasers in their eyes, and still resemble a human, then that works fine.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Console Video Game Reviews = Fail?

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Game reviews are pretty subjective to begin with. If you aren’t evaluating things for yourself then that’s your own problem.

It’s kind of hard to evaluate things for yourself when you cant play the game until you have already bought it. A gamer has absolutely no choice but to buy games based on other peoples voiced opinions and marketing fluff, or do something illegal.

Originally posted by indgo:

www.zeropunctuation.com

this guy reviews game from the prescriptive of the average gamer.. (or in a pessimistic gamer) and make is funny and as the title says there is Zero punctuation. watch it it’s good.

He reviews games based on the perspective of a comedian. He will typically ignore any potentially positive qualities of a game and accentuate the negative to comedic extremes. Still, his reviews are more accurate at least half the time simply because his intention is to make his viewers laugh, rather then to please the game publisher supplying him or the games fans visiting his website. The fact that he reviews (usually) only full versions of games after the general public has already determined what is and isn’t good about them helps too.

Topic: Kongregate / Chain Comments

Set up a script to ban/remove/flag duplicate comments, probably limited to those repeated over X number of times. These chains exist by copy pasting exact words, so if a script was set up to automatically remove comments that are exactly the same, it would solve the problem. Such a script could also be set up to only function on a comment of a certain minimum length because it is likely for legitimate one-line comments to be repeated occasionally. It might also be good to throw in a small margin of error in what constitutes a match, making up for slight changes and things like a signature added. Such a script should not remove/ban the earliest instance of such a comment, in order to prevent others from intentionally copying a comment to have it removed.

Any comment posted at least five times on at least two different games, 100 characters or more with at least 95% being identical is almost certain to be spam of some form or another.

Duplicates are to be counted regardless of user. If five people each post the same comment on different games, it probably will meet all the criteria.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Music Copyright

Originally posted by gloomsday:

Originally posted by BombCog:

Music made correctly will be better live

This is totally illogical. It’s just plain not true.

This is analogous to drinking water directly from a spring as opposed to buying it in a bottle. As stated, there are advantages to both.

The advantage to my argument is that the sound is coming directly from the source. You are bypassing absorption, conversion, storage, and reproduction.

The disadvantages are background noise, sub-optimal acoustics, and human error. A live performance has a crowd of people cheering over it, which is probably the worst thing you can do to the sound. Such performances are often done in rooms that are not built from the ground up for perfect acoustics. Finally, an artist in a live performance only gets one chance to sing or play perfectly, a recording can be done over and over again until it is just right.

Topic: Serious Discussion / weed is ilegal for a reason

Originally posted by Aneslayer:

Studies show that this is just another dead end topic

Source?

Q.E.D.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism

Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

Is it just me or do feminists go a bit too far? I mean, I read a quote saying “Don’t give men too much power, for men all would be dictators given the chance” (I forget who said it, but I remember it was in my English textbook). I just want to know, does having a penis make me an Authoritarian? Or is it just that feminism has gotten out of hand? I’m all for equality, but if the glass ceiling is absolute control over men, then I don’t want them to break through it.

Are you certain that that quote does not mean men as in mankind? If by men it means all human beings then it is a truism.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do you think college textbooks are a scam/monopoly?

Originally posted by Jabor:

The largest problems arise when companies start using IP laws to say “I want this idea to spread, but only on my terms”.

I think one potential solution to this would be to start applying monopolies law to knowledge released under IP regulations – if you want to make use of that knowledge yourself, you have to provide similar access at a fair cost to other companies, as well as all the other things that antitrust law mandates.

So, ideally IP regulations should be restricted. Instead of being set up to grant as many rights as possible they should only grant certain rights at certain costs. Specifically, a copyright holder should always gain from their respective IP (make money from it), but not have any control over how, when, or by whom it is used so long as they recieve payment in a way prescribed by the law. This way, protected information is automatically released to “competition” to use and improve upon, but its original creators would still have incentive to have created it in the first place. This manner of copyright law would effectively require a price for any given use to be included with a specific patent or copyright on a case-by-case basis, and then enforced to insure that that price is payed.

Topic: Serious Discussion / If actions speak louder than words, then why is the pen mightier than the sword?

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Definition of Life

Originally posted by norumaru:

Ah, right, I remember now.

Plants do move, though. It’s not “locomotion,” and plants close their flowers at night and bend towards the light at day.

Only some plants close their flowers, some do not even have flowers to close. Most plants “bend” as an effect of their growth. As reflected by the list, movement does not itself indicate life, nor is it required for something to be alive. It is merely “highly beneficial”, and therefor very likely for an organism to posses.

Originally posted by tyralpha:

Originally posted by sotanaht:

Originally posted by norumaru:

Indeed, especially when it comes to virii and other protocellular …well, uhm, beings or stuff?

Is what virii do really procreation? they’re not doing it themselves, they just make others copy them. Bacteriophages are virii that attack bacteria, and they even show movement – but that’s only one and a half of the criteria…. etc. It’s not that easy, but handy to get a basic idea, would be the main point.

That’s why viruses are often considered inorganic, which in turn explains why they are so resistant to extreme conditions. If it is not alive, then the only way to “kill” it is to destroy it completely.

Originally posted by norumaru:

I remember from biology class that there were, as a rule of thumb, 6 signs of life, but I can’t remember the last one. The others were

1. procreation



2. metabolism



3. reaction to stimuli



4. movement



5. growth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

1. Homeostasis
2. Organization
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Response to stimuli
7. Reproduction

Movement is not required, else plants would not be considered alive, among other things.

As for the last question: No, a sperm cell is not itself a living creature, nor for that matter is an egg. Both are cells of the organism that produced them. Even a fertilized egg is not alive, it does not show #s 5, 6, or 7.

You beat me to it.

But you forgot “genetic information”

all living creatures have genetic information.

Genetic information is essential to create life as we know it, however, if something were to somehow exhibit the above signs without “genetic information”, I would not hesitate to call it alive.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

What is the definition of life?

How do you determine if something is living?

That’s funny, because if we went by the definition of “life” as it is portrayed right now, some creatures wouldn’t be “living”. Mules have produced very little offspring in total, relative towards how many of them weren’t capable of doing so. Would you call those many mules “not alive”? Usually, you can use those rules of thumb, but taking the case of a mule, you can’t always use it to strictly say something does not live.

I would assume there is some technicality on which sterility does not mean a lack of reproductive functions. Even so, even on the page I took this information from, it is stated “life is a ‘characteristic’ of organisms that exhibit all or most of the [above] phenomena.” I would point out that Viruses are missing 2-3, they are on the boarder of what is considered “not alive” (they are generally though not always considered this way)

Topic: Serious Discussion / Definition of Life

Originally posted by norumaru:

Indeed, especially when it comes to virii and other protocellular …well, uhm, beings or stuff?

Is what virii do really procreation? they’re not doing it themselves, they just make others copy them. Bacteriophages are virii that attack bacteria, and they even show movement – but that’s only one and a half of the criteria…. etc. It’s not that easy, but handy to get a basic idea, would be the main point.

That’s why viruses are often considered inorganic, which in turn explains why they are so resistant to extreme conditions. If it is not alive, then the only way to “kill” it is to destroy it completely.

Originally posted by norumaru:

I remember from biology class that there were, as a rule of thumb, 6 signs of life, but I can’t remember the last one. The others were

1. procreation

2. metabolism

3. reaction to stimuli

4. movement

5. growth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

1. Homeostasis
2. Organization
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Response to stimuli
7. Reproduction

Movement is not required, else plants would not be considered alive, among other things.

As for the last question: No, a sperm cell is not itself a living creature, nor for that matter is an egg. Both are cells of the organism that produced them. Even a fertilized egg is not alive, it does not show #s 5, 6, or 7.

Topic: Serious Discussion / License to Have Kids?

Originally posted by alexthenoob:

i read a book* on the idea of if you had an illegal child (a 3d one in that case but fact remains) ppl will hide their children and well not good right

so if there was a law that would do so it could be bad.

*the shadow children

That would be extremely unlikely. First, you have to hide the pregnancy, then the birth, and then the child, which is the easiest of the three. As I see it, the only way such extreme behavior could be motivated would be if the enforcement of the law required the child to be taken away and/or terminated. The license laws would be best handled and enforced financially, through one-time fines and permanent tax-penalties. Of course, if one doesn’t pay their fines and taxes, then they may be at risk of jail-time, but that is an issue of them breaking an entirely different law.

Topic: Serious Discussion / License to Have Kids?

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

You yourself need to stop repeating the same nonsense without proof. You want us to give proof in our arguments? Give some yourself.

I’m not the one making the claim. Everyone keeps saying “this will happen because of this,” and I am saying “you have no evidence of this claim.”

Next time don’t respond if you don’t know what is going on.

“Humans are destroying topsoil and consuming fossil fuels much faster than the planet can renew them and those resources are currently required to produce and distribute the necessary quantity of food to feed the population, and therefore humans are overpopulated on Earth

That is poorly worded. Even if it were true, it would mean the problem is consumption patterns and a poor [or nonexistent] renewable resources plan. Your quote tries to tie population into it as the cause or perhaps some sort of correlation, but that is just as much bullshit as the rest of the claims here. You don’t get to say “well this cause is the only one that matters because I said so dammit.”

Population is only one of many factors, something you might understand if you bothered to read the lengthy post (that you even quoted) where I already explained this concept.

For your argument, while 5 people given enough food for 50 may not all be fed in certain statistically rare situations

It isn’t statistically rare, it is the way our world works. Wealth is unevenly distributed, something that I would have previously assumed was a given.

50 people given enough food for 5 will never all be fed.

Irrelevant. You would never get 50 people in the room in the first place if there were not enough resources to support a population that large. This was my first argument that was conveniently ignored by ya’ll, so let’s break this down.

(I’m focusing on one family tree, so the numbers might look a bit odd)

You have two people.
These two people have two kids.
You now have four people.
Those two kids each have two kids.
You now have eight people.

Uh oh. We have only gone two generations, and already we hit the limit “food for five people.” They won’t be able to reproduce any further because the ‘extra’ members are going to starve off. Period. No maybes, they will die because there is not enough food in existence.

Now explain to me how the hell you think you get into a situation where fifty people end up trying to split enough food for five. That’s right, you can’t, because populations cannot sustain themselves beyond the threshold of available resources. Why so many of you consistently claim it is possible is something that just stuns me.

You ARE making a claim here, and you need to offer some kind of evidence. I say the world is “either disastrously overpopulated or on its way to becoming so in the near future without direct intervention.” As evidence, I offer the statistics given on the page of wikipedia. You are offering the counter argument “The world is not overpopulated nor is it on it’s way to becoming so, and therefor there is nothing we need to do about it.” Given the thread of course, my “thesis statement” should be “Child licenses would be beneficial because they could serve as one measure of reducing population growth especially in impoverished areas.”

You are correct, populations cannot sustain themselves very much above carrying capacity for very long. However, for a population rapidly approaching 10 BILLION (circa 2050, see chart), “not very long” is still a great many years, and “not very much” can still be a great many people. Additionally, when referring to the carrying capacity of a planet_, damage caused during the brief period of overpopulation can take an incredibly long time to repair. (see also geological timetime, most natural changes, including a return to a previous state, take millions of years, whereas some artifical ones affect the same scale and take only decades)

Overpopulation aside, the numbers on that page (see chart) confirm my earlier assertion that people in impoverished conditions have more children then any other group. From the child’s point of view, it should not be preferable to be born into impoverished conditions, and therefor if it is possible to reduce the number of children born into those conditions doing so would be a logical and beneficial action.

People born into poverty are on average more likely to live their lives in that state then those who are not (citation needed?). Because poverty and crime are strongly correlated (even if the causality of the relationship is in question), it is a natural assumption that a reduction in the number of people suffering from poverty might also reduce criminal activity. If people born into that situation are likely to remain there, then reducing the number of people born there might reduce the total number of impoverished people substantially.

Topic: Serious Discussion / License to Have Kids?

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

It’s all common knowledge really. I don’t know why you are bothering to oppose it.

“Common knowledge” is an indirect way of saying “I can’t be bothered to provide evidence to support my views, so I am going to make an appeal to popularity.”

I’m not here to go digging up statistics, I’m here to argue with people, and to express my emotions. I really do not care if any of what I say would have much credibility in an actual debate.

Then feel free to leave SD. I’ll have you on mute until you are ready to actually participate.

---

Children are also a matter of shared space and resources, in fact, they are the single greatest matter of that nature.

As a general rule the west places less of an emphasis on this. If you want to change that then feel free, but until then it is inefficient and perhaps immoral to just pick and choose as you please.

For every human being born, every other human being on the planet must share the very limited space and resources available on the Earth with one more person, be they rich or poor.

A cute but utterly meaningless argument.

It will and has.

No, it really hasn’t. But hey, feel free to provide evidence.

If it had not already surpassed that point, there would be no such thing as poverty.

Is it really that hard for any of you to provide evidence? If I put five people in a room with enough food for fifty people, there is absolutely no guarantee that all five will have the same amount, or even that all five will get an adequate amount of food. One of them might hoard the food, perhaps one will abstain for some reason, maybe three of them will force the other two to make t-shirts for a grain of rice a day; there are a million possible causes for poorness and hunger, but you guys keep picking the reason that is convenient for you. It doesn’t work that way, and saying it doesn’t make it so.

---

If you guys try to learn to use logic and reason and stop repeating the same nonsense without proof, let me know and we can have an actual discussion.

You yourself need to stop repeating the same nonsense without proof. You want us to give proof in our arguments? Give some yourself.

“Humans are destroying topsoil and consuming fossil fuels much faster than the planet can renew them and those resources are currently required to produce and distribute the necessary quantity of food to feed the population, and therefore humans are overpopulated on Earth ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation ).”

If you wish to disprove that, do so with actual proof, not simply by stating wikipedia is not an accurate source.

For your argument, while 5 people given enough food for 50 may not all be fed in certain statistically rare situations, 50 people given enough food for 5 will never all be fed. The majority of evidence (some of which is given on the above linked page) shows that the latter case is either the current global situation, or on its way to becoming such.

Topic: Serious Discussion / License to Have Kids?

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

Does this make sense?

Actually yeah. Everything you listed has to do with shared space and resources; baby making doesn’t. You can try and make a case based on “maybe coulda woulda” but that won’t mean much.

Should people have to take classes/obtain a license to procreate?

It never hurts to learn, but I’m not sure how you would intend to enforce that. People oppose sex ed as it currently stands.

Children are also a matter of shared space and resources, in fact, they are the single greatest matter of that nature. For every human being born, every other human being on the planet must share the very limited space and resources available on the Earth with one more person, be they rich or poor.

Originally posted by Donut_Master:

Baby-making is a natural human function that is necessary for life. If a government restricted it, they’re evil. Unless you’re in China, where restrictions are sadly needed.

A marriage would be a silly way to license it, not everybody wants to get married, many people don’t believe in it, as it is a man-made concept after all, not a natural one, and it’s not necessary for society to function, it’s just a matter for the couple involved, it’s no one elses business. So that’s why it would be a silly kind of license, it doesn’t affect anyone else.

Some amount of “baby making” is essential for life. That you youself have a child is not. The current amount of “baby makeing”, especially in poverty conditions, (poor people are known to have far more children then the middle and upper class, on average) is most definitely NOT essential.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

China is exempt because their population growth vastly outpaces their ability to gather resources.

Population growth will never really surpass the ability to gather resources. I don’t see a need to limit it. The only reason to do so is for forced prosperity.

It will and has. If it had not already surpassed that point, there would be no such thing as poverty.

Regardless of the facts however, you seem to be implying that allowing the population to grow until everyone lives in poverty or worse is preferable to limiting its growth so that everyone has at least a reasonable standard of living.

Originally posted by SithDoughnut:

Originally posted by Donut_Master:

Originally posted by SithDoughnut:

Originally posted by dd790:

Originally posted by Thatsomegoodname:

So if someone gets raped and pregnant… would they be fined for having kids without license?

No, they would abort same as they would without such license laws

And if their religious beliefs stop them from getting an abortion?

Stop believing in propaganda?

And if they choose to believe in propaganda? I believe there is this thing called ‘freedom of belief’…

You can believe pretty much anything you want. If X is against your beliefs, all well and good. If you are required to do X anyway, too bad for you.

For example, I could say taxes are against my religion and then go to great lengths to justify this belief. In the end, I still have to pay the damn taxes.

Originally posted by Iggyshark:

If there was a significant fee involved it might mean fewer children being born into poverty conditions, which is a problem both for the children and society as a whole.

What makes you think anybody would pay the fee? Especially those in poverty conditions.

What makes anybody do anything the law requires, whatever their situation may be?