Recent posts by mxmm on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ad Hominem Arguments

Ok… an example would be nice

Well, freshman year I really started to become interested in debating somewhat controversial things, it was pretty interesting at first, but I realized that no one really changed their views at all and I was later just targeted for having those views. Nowadays, whenever someone tries to pin something on me to make fun of me or corner me (I don’t lie to you when I say most arguments are me vs. 6-7 other people), I can’t take it anymore so I just sarcastically agree with them. Granted this may seem spineless, but I still hold my views when I’m looking at real life situations, I just don’t feel the urge to share them to a deaf crowd. So, instead, I just debate stuff on notes, etc. on facebook because I find it a more peaceful way to exchange ideas to those who listen. So ya… that’s about it.

So yea, it’s better to leave such pointless pursuits alone.

I really wouldn’t have done that unless I felt it somewhat necessary to make a better image for those who share my views at my school. In retrospect I shouldn’t have confronted him, but up until now people have accused “liberals” of being arrogant, close-minded, and derogatory, and I saw a prime example of him doing that in another argument, so I bluntly told him the danger and reputation of ad hominem attacks. But ya, I won’t try to confront people like that again…

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ad Hominem Arguments

I claim that whenever a side makes an Ad Hominem argument attacking another arguist, they automatically lose.

Then he will just call me a little sophomore that has never won an argument… His main argument against me is that I try to make my differing views irrelevant in real life, therefore I’m spineless. Although I could improve in this respect, I don’t see how I can win any argument against this guy if none of his points have any coherent logical order. I just think I should leave it alone and make it a point to never get into a non-trivial debate…

Reminds me of another discussion in which my opinions on the presidential candidates were shunned as holding no truth because I am not old enough to vote…

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ad Hominem Arguments

Recently I was talking to someone over Facebook and tried to point out that, although his points in a certain discussion were mostly valid, he sprinkled them with attacks on the religious person he was talking to (calling them ‘ignorant’ ‘stupid’, many many profane things I wouldn’t be allowed to type here, etc.) I guess he took it the wrong way and thought I was trying to go out of my way to make him feel bad (though it wasn’t even my slightest intent… this person is criticized consistently of being condescending at school to those that don’t agree.) Ironically, he started putting down this advice because I’ve “never won an argument outside of Facebook” or “made us [liberals] look like a bunch of cowards” or “you can’t give me pointers if you aren’t a close friend and this whole ‘liberal’ deal is just a bunch of friends talking so you can’t contribute.” While I could glean some advice from this, he never addressed why my practical inconsistencies made my advice invalid, especially since it was backed up by logic. Needless to say, I didn’t want to cause unnecessary dispute that goes nowhere, because it seems like one ad hominem attack breeds another.

What is your take on this tactic? How do you think it should be used, if used at all? What can I do to help this guy realize attacking the religious/political views of another as invalidating their argument gets him nowhere productive?

Ya, I’m probably just venting about something that I’ve been reflecting for awhile, but I think it’d be nice to know I’m not crazy…

Topic: Serious Discussion / Being Yourself

Well I guess you are still very much yourself since your being beforehand was one who preferred conformism to suicide, and I think most would.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Equality...

Like in an RPG where you put all of your AP into INT and there’s none left for STR? Sorry, I don’t think real life works that way.

Ya it does… it’s just some people have a ton more points to invest…

Topic: Serious Discussion / the large hadron collider will lead to the end of the universe, but not in the way most people think it will

f(x) = 1/x is not continuous.

Therefore I italicized the “is” in parentheses to state the truth to the statement… The fact that it is not continuous why 1/x has two “conflicting” limits at x→0 (x=0 is undefined.)

Topic: Serious Discussion / the large hadron collider will lead to the end of the universe, but not in the way most people think it will

Well, I could prove to you here, using flawed mathematics that -oo=oo. (where “oo” is used as infinity for lack of a convenient way to type it.) If we assume that the limit of a function from the negative end is the same as the positive one (and it is if it is continuous) then, given f(x)=1/x, lim x→0 from the negative end would give the limit -oo while from the positive end it would give the limit oo. Therefore, using flawed reasoning, oo=-oo. I don’t see the universe exploding right now.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Greater Depresion!

yeah i know america’s owes like 2 or 3 trillion dollars its the worst depresion yet

I heard from Greenspan that all of the American government’s debt consolidated is about 50 trillion dollars. Though I could be wrong, 2-3 trillion is a gross underestimate.

Topic: Serious Discussion / the large hadron collider will lead to the end of the universe, but not in the way most people think it will

the scientists will be led through all the steps in order, but the last one will be impossible to accept. Because how could anyone accept the fact that
∞ = -∞
they will see the proof for the ultimate contradiction laid in front of them, and at this moment of truth the knowledge will spread outward in a sphere, propogating at the speed of light, impregnating itself into every available subjectivity pattern in the noosphere. the objective universe will dissolve, consciousness will be laid bare and open, and at once everything that could conceivably be imagined, everything that ever could have been and might have been will happen simultaneously.

Say what? So I’m guessing this all happened when we study mathematical hyberbolas and encounter stuff like 1/0? Flatters your mind and makes objectivity wash away, eh? Dividing by zero doesn’t work, nor does thinking that we can put infinite energy/[insert any tangible object here] in order to create such a paradox. I really don’t know what you’re talking about, but it seems like some mathematical fallacy or some poorly-thought-out science fiction novel.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is there something wrong with me?

KIDS READ BOOKS UR OUR LAST HOPE DO NOT MAKE AMERICA THE STUPID COUNTRY HAVE READ DO UR HOMEWORK U MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING.

The most ironic statement I have ever read.

Topic: Serious Discussion / McCain in the lead: How did that happen?

to carados, you, how dare you call Ayers a potential national hero for standing on his own flag and setting bombs! without George Washington you and I would have a different flag, if he didn’t do what he did, this world wouldn’t have the greatest country on Earth, without Washington you’d probably be in parliament working on how to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the colonies with a bible-burning celebration!

That’s the sort of “patriotism” that scares me. Don’t you get it? Our flag does not make us the best nation on earth. Nor do our founding fathers, nor does our extremely hypocritical history. In fact, to say that we as Americans are better than the British or better than the French or better than any other human being based on the sole merit that they are born in a certain country, I truly grieve for you. Granted, America does give us many liberties, but we’re selling them by the dozen as of late (PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo Bay) plus, most developed countries allow the liberties that we think we are special for… Not to bring down our country, I love it, I really do. However, I think the only reason it is exceptional is that all the people I care about live in it. On the other hand, I find it extremely dangerous that propaganda has raised you from birth to think that America is the sovereign State of God, thus making us “better” and branding all who seek international peace and co-operation “unpatriotic.”

Topic: Serious Discussion / McCain in the lead: How did that happen?

I’m talking about American liberal patriots, I simply want to know some names for reference. People who truly want to change this country (name Obama because I said “change” and I won’t read the list) for the better of the country and not for their own pockets.

“Patriotism” is usually used in the neo-con kind of way that means “I’ll do anything and everything for the colors on that flag, regardless of whether it is standing for something right or wrong.” In other words, we could count Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as great patriots, I’m not being sarcastic either. However, patriotism in the terms of wanting to help the inhabitants of the country (not necessarily the flag, nor the name) would basically encompass most of liberals, probably moreso than conservatives, although I don’t think I should start a debate on this.

I will ask that you name the terrorists, I never said Obama is Muslim (but he did go to a muslim only private school), also, does that mean you disagree with Obama’s economic plan?

Well, to name one, McCain once spoke at an ACORN meeting, which obviously is “terrorist” for turning in the names recruited unedited. And by the way, he went to both a Christian and Muslim private school— his parents wanted him to have a choice, and if the past 30 years are to be a witness, then he clearly chose Christianity.

Also, a good question for you carados, if a governor of a state who’s been in politics roughly 12 years doesn’t know anything about politics, what does that mean about Obama who hasn’t been a governor? I predict you’re going to show me “proof” about how incompetent Palin is while defending Obama, this’ll be fun to see you talk your way out of this one…

Ahh… this is a funny argument, experience in terms of years being more important than ethical integrity and practical ability. By the way, Obama was involved in community organizing an area much larger than Palin’s tiny town for longer than Palin did, and Obama clearly shows a more powerful understanding of our problems and how to fix it than the former VP Candidate who didn’t know what the “Bush Doctrine” was.

which is why I said “for a few weeks” also, Palin wasn’t out in the spotlight enough if you ask me, they had a great “weapon” against the Obama campaign, and, what happened? He didn’t use the “weapon” enough to keep that lead up.

She was in the spotlight much, much too much for her own good. Biden got hardly any exposure while every other news station was running the Katie Couric interview on loop.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama Wins! Live Election Discussion - See First Post for LIVE Results!

The one I favored since before the Iowa caucus? Awesome.

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX:other worlds being "flat"?

This is an axiom which contradicts our current understanding of physics, thus it invalidates any attempts of scientifically discussing the immediate results, since we also have to completely reform our conception of reality along with the somewhat strange thought of flat planets. Rather I have to say what would have to be reformed in our current sciences in order to compensate for a discovery of this nature:

- We would have to abandon gravity (at least in its symmetric, inverse-square form.)

- We would have to reform the IAU definition of “planet”, which is currently “A celestial body that is (a) in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and © has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.”

- We would have to reform our conception of general relativity which gives our current model of gravity, and which has made many stunningly accurate predictions.

- Worst of all, we would have to admit that a close-minded ad hoc group of pseudo-scientists made an accurate prediction purely by luck completely contrary to any current experimental data.

I hope that’s what you wanted.

Topic: Off-topic / wow

and if i find out who, i will surely beat the crap out of them

Which is how you’re going to get your money back?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Poetry

Mathematics is the process of making complicated ideas into simple ones. Poetry is the inverse operation of mathematics. At least that’s what I’ve extracted from all the unstructured poetry I’ve read.

Don’t get me wrong, I can really get a bit of enjoyment from structured and clearly symbolic poetry. It can be very beautiful if it is clearly representative of something absolute and bigger than the words itself (I can also say this for art, too.) However, most post-modern poetry and art is absolute junk to me. If there was no clear intent on the part of the artist, and it is all left up to luck in how many people you can trick, I think it is the most despicable object created by man. This is why I love mathematics and science so much: it is very hard to just throw an incoherent thought out there and it to be accepted instantly; it has to come from clear, a priori reasoning or empirical observation, and the theory is usually “graded” on its accuracy and simplicity (which is why the works of Einstein and Newton were so promptly accepted.)

All this to say, stop writing poetry and painting art where all the art is left to how strangely the observers’ minds work. The one who produces the art is called the artist for a reason.

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is the most fundamental science?

These meta-philosophical questions are never really resolved since we all leave with the same opinions we had before (usually), but I’ll give it a go.

Science is finding out how the world operates. Thus, the most hard science, namely physics (moreso math if you count it), is really the most fundamental assuming materialism (which I assume we are for convenience in scientific discussions.) We are trying to logically categorize all that happens around us (thus, we should be able to categorize it mathematically, since math is really equivalent to logic [or can be made to be] in many cases.) However, psychology and sociology aren’t as fundamental because they don’t give a big outlook on the universe beyond a seemingly inconsistent, and perhaps afflicted mind.

In short, if you can’t quantify it, it isn’t logical so it shouldn’t be the most fundamental of the sciences, and if Psychology is ultimately based on physics as the xkcd comic showed us, then I would think you, The BSG, of all people would know what to do here: apply Occam’s Razor. Psychology assumes so many seemingly arbitrary rules that could be deduced from a much smaller subset of physics rules. Therefore, we should build from physics on up if we want a truly stable system of the sciences.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Racism in Kongregate!

First of all, we aways stay in the same chat, so everybody knows each other. Its not like I said that to a total stranger that thought I was serious. I was just joking with someone I know, and he knows I was joking. tbh, I think he’s doing this just to screw with me

Stroke of genius. So I’m sure KKK rituals involving hurting other races are alright because it’s with friends you know well? And please, please, don’t say “Yes”, it was a rhetorical question.

Topic: Serious Discussion / America has gone down the drain.

Why is it that americans are hated by everyone.

I don’t hate Americans (of course I am one :-P.) But my point remains valid.

BUt what happens when all the other countries decide that they have had enough of the fat ass americans and there were the best attitude.

They tell us in a letter and we write an apology back. Simple.

We are slipping we have become fat out of shape slobs.

Perhaps you are, but you don’t speak for “us.”

if it came down to it how many people in america can even run a mile.

That’s funny, because I seriously ran 3 miles after school today just to relax.

It’s hard to take this post seriously…

Topic: Serious Discussion / Getting rid of the two party system

Simple answer. Countries usually only have 2 major parties at a time—one the majority and the other the dissident. Note how democrats and republics slowly shift their policies over time to provide 2 options: approve of the current system or help eliminate it. No matter if it’s Federalists vs. Democratic Republicans, or Tories vs. Whigs, or Independents vs. Puritans (17th century England), or Democrats vs. Republicans, this type of system usually allows for candidates you can see in black and white (when I typed this, I really meant no racial thing, but hey, it fits this time.) Also important is the fact that Senate is predominantly run by a demographic of 2 major parties, making it easier to pass bills without millions of different party ideologies getting in the way. Adding to this, the President elected is typically of the same party of the majority of Congress, thus making the passage of bills even more fluid (which could be a good thing or a bad thing, but usually good in times of crisis.)

The problem is idealists (no problem with them, for I’m one of them) are fed up with party politics. Let’s face it, if a 3rd party became huge, it would soon be watered down by pragmatic practices to the point at which our Republicans and Democrats are now (it’s only possible to be idealists when half the country doesn’t have practical problems they want you to solve, which is very rare.) Not to mention, it would soon become the same picture with different names (“They’re all the same/ Only the names have changed” – Bon Jovi :-P)

I’m not trying to foretell for certain that there will never be a solid 3-party system for Presidential elections, I just find it far-fetched for the previous reasons (and actually good pragmatically speaking.)

Topic: Serious Discussion / 42

Still haven’t elaborated as to why and/or how base 13 is all that great. Personally, I like base 16 (other than our good ol’ friend, base 10) solely because I keep seeing it with computers.

Since I have nothing else to contribute here, I would like to add that I think base 12 is particularly beautiful. Thusly, everything of the form (x)/((2^y)(3^z)) where x,y, and z are whole numbers, can be expressed by a finite decimal expansion. More useful than base 10 (2×5), since 3 is a factor much more often than 5 (5/3 times more), with the added bonus that 12 is also divisible by 4 and 6. Although hex is nice, as well as binary. (always been a fan of base 2^n)

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama

I guess we’ll find out on November 4. Btw, there are 1000 topics on this already… just post in an old one.

Topic: Serious Discussion / can we keep the human race from destroying itself?

What we should do rather than search an alternative planet is to attempt to get those photosynthetic bacteria to survive in planets such as Mars. Once successful Mars will be filled of those bacteria’s waste product, Oxygen, overnight.

I hope this wasn’t literal… Mars is by no means a suitable environment for any unmodified living thing that we know of. First, it’s atmosphere is toxic to most living things and is much too thin. Second, the sunlight is substantially decreased because of increased distance from the sun, thus not providing enough light energy for the plant to sustain itself. Third, it would probably take a few millenia of that sort of bacteria for the environment to be suitable (oh yes, remember that our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, I don’t know enough about biological substances generated by plants, but I don’t think it can just spontaneously create a new element via photosynthesis.)

Overall, imminent colonization of Mars or the moon, or any feasible object in the night sky is bleak for the moment. Instead we should try to make ourselves a strong foundation (both societal and environmental) down here on earth, not just throw it away for a shooting star.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Faith and Reason

@SaintAjora: Reason is the end-all, be-all, and it should most assuredly be applied.

… Reason without assumptions (and thereby faith) is as useful as an engine without fuel. As G.K. Chesterton put it, “The madman is not he who has lost his reason, but he who has lost everything but his reason.” This is a controversial quote, but I think it has a lot of substance behind it. Logic is useless without axioms, thus denying the existence of axioms (and correct belief of axioms) we don’t have any use for reason. Reason is meant to derive more information from what we already know, but it is obvious that we can not prove all the correct statements (of which there is an infinite amount) in each and every one of our consistent philosophies (as Godel so elegantly showed.) And yes, formal logic is relevant here, because you claim that reason leads to all knowledge, while I say that it is limited knowledge that leads to reason.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m one of the most obsessed people on this planet with logic and reason, just had to call you out on that.

Topic: Serious Discussion / can we keep the human race from destroying itself?

Think of population as distance, rate of increase of population as velocity. For all practical purposes, we are decelerating (i.e. the rate of the increase of the rate of population growth is decreasing.) Estimates have global population capping off by around 2050, due to decreasing birth rates in most developed countries (while in developing countries, famine and starvation keep things relatively low.) Thus, I think that overpopulation isn’t much of a problem now. Even then, it would just kill off a few of the people, and overpopulation would by no means bring extinction… I’m more concerned with global warming and nuclear weapons being abused… And I really don’t know if it can be done.