Recent posts by wargamer1000 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What benefits do you get out of being Satanist, that you can't get for being Christian?

Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

Anyway, for those interested in Satanic sects, I’d like to defer you to the Yazidi religion. These hold that Satan/Lucifer is still one of the Archangels, and rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ/humankind on Earth.

It’s as if you’ve taken ISIS proclamations as first hand facts. But I think not, because the Yazidi sect has been falsely assumed to be worshipers of the judeo-christian and islamic Satan for centuries by mainstream monotheists. The Yazidi are somewhat Gnostic in belief, thus run along the lines of heresy for abrahamic-monotheistic faiths, but truthfully their worship of Satan was rather unique: He went down from the heavens, refusing God’s command, and wept from seeing all the evil of the world and from his tears he extinguished the fires of hell. He was one of the seven archangels left to mediate between God and Man.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

:) You all make good points. I think I can’t maintain my argument. But…

What is even the purpose of marriage?
Is marriage something civil, holy or both?
Is a marriage moral in itself or independent of it?
How do we define the genders (if at all), and would this segregate them from each other?
Does legalization of marriage aim towards something?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

What power gave you the monopoly on defining “natural and normal?”

I could ask the same on the particular group of people begging for gay marriage.

I said “cult-like.” Similarity is not identicality.

Yes, that’s right.

societal perceptions change over time

Yes. However, it’s not given that all changes are necessarily progressive.

in this case, SCOTUS has officially recognized that state bans on same-sex marriage are discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

Discriminatory? Homosexuality is fine, but the license of their marriage likewise ‘discriminates’ others. In the manner that it ignores their tradition which is just as discriminatory. Not for me though, instead I merely find it disgusting

But HOW does same-sex marriage undermine social and natural order?

The relativism of morals. Needless to say that morals are the foundation of social and natural order.

So, because some dickweed sets them self up as a judge of what is and is not “natural & normal”, the Constitution of the United States becomes null & void … esp. in the area of equal justice (see, they CAN be combined) for a group of ppl that are being natural & normal for who they are?

If people (not dickweeds) regularly shift notions of what is ‘normal and natural’, then there is no strong sense of ‘normal and unnatural’. If constitutions operates like this, then it offers no definite ‘rights and freedoms’ and would as well license us to do anything. About ‘equal justice’: All justices are equal. Not all equalities are just.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Gay relationships are not an ‘unnatural drive’, wargamer. They’re as natural as any other part of the complex biochemical processes of life. They’re certainly not unique to humans

Yes. But do other creatures take wedlock or have marriages? This isn’t the point but let me continue…

national recognition of same-sex marriage is a step towards equal treatment under the law. Failures in moderation are far more apparent in more deeply-ingrained aspects of [American] culture: namely, the cult-like veneration of tradition, even when said tradition is of negative value for those worshiping it.

The concept of principles are deeply ingrained on the ideas of culture. Traditions are principles, and are part of culture. However, cult-like veneration of tradition is false. Cults apply tradition and are a culture, tradition is a culture not a religion thus cult-like veneration of it is nonsense. Rather it is the mere obedience of principles which conflicts with disobedience of the same principles; this conflict is apparent and people blame aggression when its all in fact natural as a process of simple opposition.

So, how could we speak of ‘equal’ treatment when principles are turned upside down? The law dispenses correctives through justice not equality ( only utopia can do both at once successfully ). ‘Gay marriage’ bends the dispensation of justice under false pretense of unreal equality rooted from incomplete apprehensions of one’s ‘rights and freedom’ and undermine the nature of order, which is the obedience of principles, hence ‘unnatural’ in my sense.

In a more basic interpretation, ‘gay marriage’ is an example of people twisting things to accommodate their petty conveniences/tendencies thus a failure of moderation, under a defensible position of ‘equality’. The argument was never about pesky religion.

P.S. In another thread, I talked of how a mechanism of philosophy, culture and religion are necessary for utopia or the correct society. Gay marriage negates a part of the essential interplay. It follows that I must go against it. I also don’t refer to the specific ‘american’ society.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

The beliefs of one person shouldn’t be able to forcefully hinder the rights and freedoms of another, who may not say or believe the same thing.

Indeed, a ‘right and a freedom’ cannot hinder yet another ‘right and a freedom’. Nowadays, unnatural tendencies are pursued and people raise a false apprehension that this ought to be the manifest of their right and freedom, it is just rather their radical freedom in fact.

Why should your religion hinder the freedom of a person to do what he or she wants?

It doesn’t, it simply regulates our cravings. What one mistakenly wants and desires is what hinders principles. Philosophy does a far better job than religion in this case, but even still do others deliberately incline against it. ( A failure of education)

‘Gay marriage’ is the failure of moderation, an unfiltered and unnatural desire opposite of a virtue.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do you agree with this quote? "History is written by the victors" - Winston Churchill

If we were to agree that history is written by the victors, then all of history is propaganda.

Vanquished nations reshape their psychology and culture to accommodate the shock of defeat and indeed would gain self-consciousness or a perspective change to relieve a shattered or humiliated society or state. It is common to blame the victors, yet history is not shaped by them solely, when in fact the victor’s superiority of culture is simply confirmed in their victory therefore no change in history had to shift towards their favor rather it was for the defeated to do so. In the case of total annihilation, wherein an entire culture dissipates or gets eradicated by defeat, the victor necessarily imposes his culture to a vacuum left to fill; he had not disturbed history but instigated it. It is failure rather than victory that churns the historical progression. We do not suppose to blame any state or over-emphasize the role of the defeated: history isn’t a collection of perspectives per se, therefore we may disregard the need to see alternatives of other possible cases and witness the opinions of the defeated, only that what was surely did happened.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Path to Peace


First, I will state counterexample, religious wars. These are wars that happened due to religion. Therefore, to get rid off religious wars, it might be necessary to get rid off religions, as religion can be the cause.

?James? used word ‘may’, you can’t disprove his thesis, because it’s almost impossible to know background of every pre-war event.

If it was almost impossible to know the background of events prior to war, how could one mention a religious war? for that matter, any kind of war. How shall we distinguish brute fist fights from a war?

It might be necessary to state a genuinely ‘religious’ war, yeasy. I agree with what Pete said on the nature of religious wars.

This sentence implies , that getting rid off r/c might be not enough to achieve peace, as there still can be nr/nc wars.
However, If there’re no nr/nc wars, getting rid off r/c may be the only necessary element to peace.
Therefore, If there’re no nr/nc wars (or there’ll be a point, when we’ll stop them), the only necessary thing to achieve peace might be !! undermining religion and culture !!.

So, sure, I can agree that ‘undermining r/c’ ALONE won’t lead to peace, but I’m unwilling to agree that:

If A isn’t the only cause, then it’s not the cause

If undermining religion and culture, therefore, be the only necessary thing to achieve peace- how is it that undermining religion and culture alone won’t lead to peace?

Well, it’s hard question, some of us would, some of us wouldn’t.

If one asks a question: “Would you want to have peace and utopia (by set definition)?” People answer with a resounding yes. If one asks: “Would you want to sleep forever?” Some do, some don’t, as you say. Indeed, there’s a flaw, for how would one refuse what leads to what one pursues relentlessly?

It must first be necessary to uphold religion, culture and philosophy:
All successful laws adhere to every person justly, all ethical conducts must be applicable to every person to be ethical, without unitary religion, culture and philosophy there can be no adherence or application of neither law nor ethics. Both good law and ethic answers to criterion. Therefore, non-religion and non-culture fail to reach good law and ethic, furthermore fail in achieving peace.

JEEZ, it comes down to a few simple factors of which man kind will NEVER cover:
Every country getting along with the next,
Criminals ceasing to commit crime,
Money crazy people realizing there is more to life

How when some clearly do? Surely you know this yourself, what makes others not? If other people knew a diagnosis of their own disease, then people seek to cure. You cannot say such, for countries do know and actually do get along with each other, criminals do stop committing crime and people still realize that there’s more to life.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Path to Peace


I was mainly focusing on sentence B (with a bit of A), because it appears to be implying (but directly isn’t, I’m just trying to manoeuvre) that you might consider religion/culture as necessary to peace. I would like you to clarify your stand here, If you don’t mind.

Yes. Actually I assume religion and culture necessary to utopia. I assert that non-military conflict, and ethical conduct is only possible with the successful interplay of culture, philosophy and religion; this is our humanity. Popular contentions in this forum revolve around the eradication of religion and culture however the removal of such and especially the latter which would fundamentally suspend the ethical through sheer relativism therefore blur the second criterion.

I don’t see how your example proves general thesis. I’m not sure, what are you trying to point out with it, could you clarifiy? Please provide necessary link between thesis and argument, I’ve hard time guessing here and I don’t want to risk hasty/faulty conclusions.

It was mentioned how ‘undermining religion and culture’ may lead to peace. I protest through example that it isn’t the case at all as wars happen regardless of culture and religion hence fail the first criterion. Continuing that religion and culture too are requisite to ethical conduct and successful law.

Well, we can reduce the case to own personal world, as it’s easier to control.

Perhaps if we conclude that putting humanity to sleep keeps peace. Peace is , in fact, achieved.
If we put all in virtual simulation, then peace is achieved. Definitely fits the OP’s criterion.
However, for the sake of argument, would people deliberately put themselves in this position?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Path to Peace

How funny, but it’s okay as long as you do it?

Yep. That’s why I’ve noticed its just as much as I do. :P

I don’t consider general philosophy as religion or culture and in my opinion, it might be enough to stop conflicts as long as humans will keep developing positive (ethics/law based) traits. To me, logic, reason & common strong will seem to be enough.

Ethics and Law aren’t universal to every state and society. And indeed does tradition, culture and religion influence law of the land. Let’s use History as example: Merchant Republics (i.e Genoa) vary greatly on law and punishment compared to Absolute Monarchies ( i.e Bourbon France). Even more so when we compare the judiciary systems of the Ottoman Empire and the Qing dynasty of China and their organization of government. Or even how the bill rights existed only to some states and not others elsewhere.


Undermining religion and culture fail to achieve the criterion for peace


how about the Syrian Civil War? this isn’t a war for resources or a war of discrimination or a war of religion and a deliberate clash of cultures. Even if such factors don’t exist, war still happens.

virtual murder isn’t murder

Right. Neither can you assault anyone physically on a virtual world. Unless this ‘virtual’ world were connected to others or was simply your own personal realm is something I need to know.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Path to Peace

Let’s define peace as:
• No wars or military conflict happening anywhere
• No murder, assault, or theft

@ PrincessLeia101
I notice how you claim falsehood on stuff, but fail to prove why it isn’t even possible.

Limiting populations and accumulating more resources scarcely reaches the criterion of no military conflict, and general unethical misconduct.

Undermining religion and culture fail to achieve the criterion for peace. For these keep men from doing murder, assault & theft. You arrogantly refuse to consider religion to begin with, thereby neglecting perspectives entirely.

Peace and Utopia are non-virtual by set definition. ( But a whole new argument can start here.)

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do atheists justify their existence?

Matter existed for an infinite amount of time.

“infinite” does not have an “amount”.

If matter existed immeasurably in time, who is to say that it existed within time? If it was before time, wouldn’t nothing by phenomena, consequently being empirically untouchable, could have caused its conception into being? hence a further necessary assumption of a noumenal world (an antithesis of the phenomenal) perhaps?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do atheists justify their existence?

Atheists believe that everything existed the entire time (they are not made) and believe that God does not exist.

Everything existed the entire time hence nothing was made. If everything had existed already as firmly assumed, and that nothing was made, why was one thing assumed not to?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Value of Human Life

However, if others don’t value your life as much as you do you are considered “evil” by others.

The matter of people valuing your life is relative. Most humans don’t even know a particular being called you exists and what is ‘evil’ ?

If others value you more then you value yourself, you are a fool.

Do others know you better than yourself? Of course not. What they value or don’t value is irrelevant.

Does every human life matter? Absolutely, as long you are alive, you can serve the society in one way or another.

If I chose to slack off and piss on society’s productivity quota, would I automatically drop in value? like a stock in the market?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Topic of the Day: Manimals

The true purpose of humanity is to spread life to the other planets so that life will continue to exist.

How could that be when humanity has irrational and rational tendencies to do the opposite of their purpose? Frankly, humans aren’t bound by a function to do any particular thing or course of action with anything. However he is entitled to flex his powers of doing anything man deems himself to do including decisions to do nothing whatsoever.

It shouldn’t be our decision whether or not to enslave or kill another specie.

No one else does decisions but us. If not, then who?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Topic of the day: Utopia

The question of Utopia is a question of the direction of History. And I pretend that the dialectical conflicts that gears the mechanism of the histories inevitably culminates to its own conclusion – the end of history or, and which is, utopia.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by Mafefe_Classic:

all immigrants are losers that run away from their problems instead of reforming their home country

What you said fits the first colonists who made the American Nation today.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Immigration from America isn’t the same from the immigration of refugees from North Africa and the Near East crossing the Mare Nostrum and making it to southern Europe, I suppose. Therefore, the problems and solutions aren’t straightforward similar to the century-old immigration to America compared to the residues of the Syrian Civil War and the Libyan conflict.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / briefly describe your bed

The ideal place for contemplation

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Something strange

Originally posted by Gevock:

Is it a dream or are you awake during?

One is simple explanation and the other one might be mental illness.

Nah, we’re all mentally ill in a way. So we turn to the arcane art of the interpretation of dreams and visions.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / How many people in your country?

around 98-100 Million.

Is there strength in numbers?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Assisted Suicide and Our Changing View On Death

That’s my choice now, just like suicide would be if I decided I didn’t want to carry on. You see? It’s about personal wants. Not the want of anyone else to decide what you do with your life.

It wasn’t because of personal wants- you assumed it was your choice and surely you are not entirely bound by petty desires. Rather its the freedom in the metaphysical sense, that a man could do all that he chooses, which makes license for him to suspend the ethical. This suspension is foolish; usually most people who commit the act of suicide are overwhelmed with feelings of despair and anxiety clouting their rationality and the Will to Life.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Assisted Suicide and Our Changing View On Death

while it may hurt and you wish that it didn’t happen or wonder why, no one will ever quite understand, and that is okay.

I don’t think its ‘okay’ if you didn’t quite understand it.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Beauty and Survival

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Why is art and beauty so subjective… what purpose does that subjectivity serve?


Beauty is an expression of value and art is an expression of thought.

This subjectivity serves our existences and its inherent absurdity. That’s why:

……we begin to make beautiful things for their ability to merge disparate ideas and relate concepts that seem distant… to invoke realizations, to serve as catalysts to new ways of understanding, to spark epiphanies and philosophical breakthroughs, to honor ideas and deities.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Assisted Suicide and Our Changing View On Death

People kill themselves for all kinds of reasons:
• They commit suicide in protest
• They commit suicide for honor
• They die in the act of duty
• They sacrifice themselves to save others
• They commit suicide in order to manage an imminent death
• And so on…

I think for these people their deaths can provide the end of their lives with meaning and clarity, rather than senselessly withering away in a hospital room… despondent and wallowing in fear and uncertainty and helplessness.

We should all commit suicide. We are in protest of the unfairness of life, we value honor deeply, our duties essential leads us to probable deaths, since we’ll all die imminently in the end anyways and so on.

Surely there’s meaning in death, after all, things totally have meaning once your dead and inexistent.

(Sarcasm intended)

I’ll prescribe you Albert Camus.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ancient Rome and the United States

Originally posted by sanii:

Edward Gibbon’s history of the decline and fall of the roman empire was published in 1789. That’s quite a while ago. Additional, in its Wikipedia page (, the “criticisms” section describes how his “morality” theory has run afoul of modern historians. Give a better source then a book written three centuries ago.

I doubt I’d give. Perhaps you think morality at all isn’t a factor for societies and states? I’d like to hear not matters of fact, but your opinion.

When so much power & wealth ( < almost one-N-the-same) becomes concentrated in the hands of a very few, disaster is on the horizon.

Is that always the case? that a few must never hold most of the power? and that disasters are its consequence? Was this even the case for Rome?