Recent posts by Kyriva on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is this "stealing" or not?

Doesn’t there have to be some intent to deprive the owner of an object to count as stealing? If it’s on the ground and you know no one’s going to claim it it isn’t theft, but if it’s actually being used (the wire sticking out) then that is theft.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bike Helmets - Looking Cool, or Saving Your Life?

Yes, wear your helmet. It does you no harm and could prevent you a lot of harm.

Some people may think they look stupid, but think about it this way: if enough people wear them then they’ll be the norm.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Merry Freaking Christmas

Actually, that baby was born. The debate is over whether or not He is the Son of God.

I’m sure you’d find some people who wouldn’t any accept records of that age as reliable.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Merry Freaking Christmas

Do you think it’s wrong to say Merry Christmas?

No, not at all. Even being completely cynical, the worst way in which Christmas can be interpreted is a celebration that a hypothetical baby was born – I can’t see how that is a bad thing. If someone is unhappy because some people they disagree with are happy, they need to grow up.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ad Hominem Arguments

Whilst I wouldn’t go so far as to claim I had won an argument if my opponent resorted to personally attacking me – I believe that to ‘win’ an argument you must convince the other person that a certain (not necessarily your own) viewpoint is the correct one – I would certainly be less bothered to discuss an issue with them the next time we disagreed on something. If they repeatedly did this with no sign of being able to discuss an issue without dragging some alleged aspect of myself into it, I would most probably stop discussing anything with them.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Grown ups think all children are bad

Banakeg linked to an article in this thread and the Barnardo’s page is here

Topic: Serious Discussion / French law - Discriminating or Secularizing?

Having read your Agence Global article (thanks for that :) ), this whole business looks like the work of a lazy politician. After initially supporting the ruling for reasons completely unrelated to the case, she took some flak and then decided to make it someone else’s job to twist the wording of the law to deny the annulment. I say lazy because if she feels so strongly about it, she, as a prominent politician, should be pushing for a change in the law – perhaps I’m being too harsh though, time will tell.

Of course, none of it is helped by people making the issue about specifically the woman’s (lack of) virginity, rather than the misleading in general that the woman did. Add to that the Islamophobia the author refers to and the feminist claims such as denying a woman control of her own body, and this whole thing is just politics and saving face – not justice.

Topic: Serious Discussion / French law - Discriminating or Secularizing?

Assuming that ‘X was an essential part’ means ‘if X were not true then the two would not have gotten married’, and that the man would not have married the woman if he had known she was not a virgin, then the annulment is perfectly justified (in law). Of course, there are some things your partner may have lied about that you can just ignore, but just because it wouldn’t be an essential part to a lot of people doesn’t mean it wasn’t an essential part to him, and hence, any marriage he is part of.

I find it very strange that the case was appealed when both people involved accepted the initial ruling. The lack of detail in the BBC article is saddening :(

From the BBC article:

Feminists argued the decision was unfair because a woman would not be able to cancel her marriage if she thought her husband was not a virgin.

I’d have liked to have read more about this – has anyone ever tried to do this before in France? I again feel the annulment would be justified, provided the woman would not have married the man if she had known he wasn’t a virgin.

Critics have also asked if the judge would have ruled the same way if the marriage was not between two Muslims, and claimed the decision was incompatible with France’s secular principles.

This too is a good question, though the answer is assumed. I would hope the judge would rule the same way, again, provided the marriage would not have taken place at all if it were known one of them were not a virgin.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Children, unfairly classed like animals?

Who is to blame for this sort of behaviour from children? Perhaps the minority of children who behave as such, perhaps even their parents who have failed miserably in important areas of bringing up their children, but certainly not to blame are the majority of children who do respect those around them.

Even though a lot of the opinions voiced on the newspaper websites (even the BBC has had this) are unlikely to be completely accurate – limited numbers of characters forcing commenters to leave out reasoning etc. – such an attitude is likely to drive a big wedge into the gap between the generations. It wouldn’t surprise me if the attitude alone drove many children to making a nuisance of themselves, they might as well enjoy themselves since they’re going to be demonised anyway.

I’m torn on whether I think the Barnardo’s video should be shown on television (even after the watershed) or not. On one hand, it could damage children’s faith in their elders (if they still have any), but on the other, I can’t see anything else that’ll make people realise where all this is headed.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarities and Obscenities

I think a lot of the appeal of swearing is left over from growing up with your parents and being told they are ‘bad’, it makes you want to use them because you think it’s stupid that you can get into trouble for saying a little word. Otherwise, adults everywhere would be using more the more useful, less ambiguous vocabulary they are very capable of using.

As for dealing with the pain of a stubbed toe, I find ignoring it makes it go away faster rather than paying attention to it and shouting – maybe a psychologist could explain that. That’s for physical pain only though, the mental pain of putting up with idiot drivers is very effectively relieved by shouting at them ;)

Topic: Serious Discussion / Sanctity of Marriage

I feel that if the government is going to recognise marriage as a contract between two people, then one person can leave the contract if the other breaks one of the agreements in it (adultery would be one of the more obvious reasons). If someone has been divorced but can find someone else (or the same person :/) to get to agree to a similar contract, then fair enough.

I don’t think that any sanctity marriage does have is detracted from if a divorce occurs because one of the wedding vows was broken. If a divorce occurs for other reasons then yes, I think the sanctity is detracted from.

Edit: whoops, now it looks like I went off topic ;)

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are pharmaceutical companies just corporate drugdealers?

The company won’t go POOF. It will be bought up and replaced with new management.

Better the management is replaced by someone who has the electorate’s trust.

I’d trust someone who’s livelyhood depends on doing a good job and making sure people are satisfied over a government employee who’s livelyhood only depends on the government’s ability to tax.

As would I, hence why I suggested the former.

Yes, because this works soooo well with regular political offices…. /sarcasm

Advertisements by commerical companies about their own products are very objective also ;)

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are pharmaceutical companies just corporate drugdealers?

Not necessarily. There are numerous way to cut expenses without compromising quality….

True, perhaps I am just less willing to trust that won’t happen than you are.

The company should fail if it messes up

Why? Provided those responsible are adequately replaced, that company will still be far more effective than a new fledgling company.

I’d rather people researched it on their own than rely on some ominous branch of government doing it for them without real accountablity or choice.

So they can research the candidates for the FDA jobs, knowing that they can kick out whoever they’ve elected if they mess up. It is no more difficult than researching companies. More likely it will be easier if the media decide to take an interest (which they probably would).

No they aren’t. We just had the worse congress approval ratings in history, and 87% of them got re-elected. You can’t hold government accountable.

I don’t follow you. All I can gather from that is the public will vote for congress(wo)men even if they dislike the candidate. It isn’t so much that you can’t hold the government accountable as the people won’t hold the government accountable. Having said that, it’s most likely due to a lack of choice or a commitment to a certain party – these issues are applicable to private companies too.

A politician whose job is solely dependent on his/her performance is under much greater pressure to perform than a politician whose job depends on whether his/her party is overall the more popular.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are pharmaceutical companies just corporate drugdealers?

This is the whole problem of the FDA, they don’t have to earn the money they make.

It is a problem, which is why I suggest they be directly responsible to the taxpayer. The company won’t fail if they mess up, but whoever is responsible for any mistake will be kicked out.

It is the motivation to satisfy customers as best as a business can in order to convince those customers to give the business money.

Another side to increased profits is to reduce expenditure, in this case that would mean lowering safety standards.

Which you can only have in a free-market system free of government intervention.

I disagree, you can very easily elect different levels of government, and be electing different parties whilst you’re at it. It wouldn’t be too big a jump to allow people to vote for different major branches of the government. Would it be too complicated? Not any more so than doing your research to find out which private company has a good track record.

each vying for the business of drug companies, so they are going to push to produce the best results, for the cheapest cost, in the quickest amount of time.

I would rather the comparison companies (and government FDA) weren’t dependent on the drugs companies’ money actually, but onto your next point, politicians would be under the same pressure, even if it was just that saving money and getting good results quickly meant more money for pay rises and a public willing to let them have it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are pharmaceutical companies just corporate drugdealers?

I can see the argument to get rid of the FDA and other such branches of the government – if someone in the FDA screws up and the government stick by them, the electorate then must choose between a better FDA with poorer other government, or stick with a poor FDA with better other government.

Then again, getting rid of the FDA would mean some period of time with no regulation, with people either too scared to take drugs, or effectively acting as guinea pigs for the rest of the population. Even then there is no guarantee that the regulators won’t cut corners to save money – a drop in 1% certainty of safety to save money could well be tempting to someone who has no ties to those taking the treatment. That isn’t to say a government run FDA wouldn’t do any different, but I feel that since they do have the taxpayers’ money behind them, and have no shareholders, they have less motive to do so.

Ideally, I think it would be the case that the FDA bosses were directly responsible to the public, with their jobs on the line. At the moment it is like a presidential election where only the total number of votes is counted – a presidential candidate could ignore somewhere like Hawaii provided they worked hard in enough for votes in California (say). A government need not focus on the FDA much if it is stronger than the other party (ies) overall.

Topic: Serious Discussion / "Girl" Games

Originally posted by Pink_Fuzzy_Bunny:

Actually, babysitting games are fun. But they have to be pretty advanced for me to become “addicted” to them.

I suppose I’m not in the target audience then ;)

Though perhaps this is comparable to enjoying crashing your car when racing in a game, but not in real life. The game’s lack of realism makes it more fun – I know I feel that way comparing Gran Turismo to Burnout.

Topic: Serious Discussion / "Girl" Games

Girls can indeed play games men play, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t enjoy playing other forms of games more.

Ignore sex for a second and imagine that the only genre of game is the Time Crisis type you find in arcades. A lot of people would play those games, but given an introduction of car racing games, a lot of people would start only playing those instead. The same is true, I believe, for these ‘girl games’, they are a new-ish type of game with a large enough potential audience to make it worthwhile for the developers. If you feel they’re rubbish, it’s most likely because either you aren’t in the target audience, the developers haven’t had much practice making that sort of game yet, or both.

I do feel a babysitting game would be awful though – you can’t really find staying up half the (or all) night looking after a toddler fun like with other games can you? I can’t say I’ve heard a parent say the same… :P

Topic: Serious Discussion / Leaving the Country

I probably wouldn’t take someone seriously if they said that. Far more likely than it being the candidate being so unpalatable would be that it is the final straw – that is, if they do follow through on their claim. Using the candidate would be an excuse to leave, not the real reason.

I agree with the OP in that it isn’t sensible to remove one’s oppostion to a candidate, in a gesture of protest against them – though it is more understandable if the contest wasn’t even close as it is unlikely your candidate would win the second time too.

Topic: Serious Discussion / NO on prop 8!

Please, know the issues before talking about them.

My first 3 paragraphs are the relevant ones then.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross' messages

I have other things to do on Friday nights, so I don’t know much about Ross – Brand I know of a little better. This coupled with him wasting police time makes me think he is not worth the license fee, to say the least.

The BBC have suspended them both, though I wonder what sort of punishment that is. I suppose fining them whatever Ofcom decide to ask of the BBC would be ok, though whoever thought it was a good idea to broadcast the prerecorded program is also guilty of incompetence too.

Topic: Serious Discussion / NO on prop 8!

It’s a step in the right direction, though it does exclude gay couples who have adopted.

Governments shouldn’t care (hence should not recognise) if two or more consenting adults are living together, doing what they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on others. Only if and when they bring a child into the world should a government recognise the responsibility each parent has to the child.

If they have made some sort of commitment (a marriage/other) to each other, then that is a ‘good’ thing for the child and ought to be recognised and encouraged/rewarded in some way.

Of course, this does depend on what having your marriage ‘recognised’ means in California. I am rather ignorant on this issue apart from what is on Wikipedia. If all prop 8 will do is rename all current same sex marriages as civil unions with the same benefits, then the proposition is a waste of time, energy and the trees to be cut down for the paperwork, and should be kicked out.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is trust a bad thing?

As Dalewyn says, trust is only bad when it is betrayed. You cannot lose if your trust ends up justified, and you usually do gain if someone trusts you (justified or not).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Medical Ethics

I think the research should be used. If the research is useful in any way, there would be/have been other studies by now to reach the same conclusions, and these new, more accepted studies would go some way to pushing the atrocities into obscurity. Better we remember what was done.

There is the other matter that advances in medical understanding do save lives. Unlike when the research was being carried out, there is no issue here in the present that to be able to obtain and use the research, you must first subject people to horrendous experiments. I do not think that using the research is encouraging or even condoning those acts.

Topic: Games / Warlords Heroes: Super Easy Impossible Badge Method

Thank you both Newbzorz and Decimus for this method, it worked wonderfully for me.

There were just a couple of useful points that were in the original post but not this thread. After jumping up, wait until you are just on your way back down before holding attack and backwards. Also, it may be necessary sometimes to jump forward to strike the enemies, I’m thinking of the enemy who does backflips to get away from you here.

Thanks again :)

Topic: Kongregate / Zening Alpha Testers Wanted

Sign me up please :)