Recent posts by Thatsomegoodname on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Will racism die out on its own?

Much as how the Irish were considered to be the lowest of the low (among whites anyway because all other races were seen as non-human at the time) with a sht ton of negative stereotypes and yet here we are. The only Irish stereotype (other than the drinking one) I know is from history books. and the Celtics logo.

Still a relatively new idea in making but will racism fade out throughout the generations?

Trivia: did you know that an Irish man carrying around a cane was indicative of the stereotype that Irish men love to fight?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Originally posted by colgraff:

It’s a bit trite, but this quote from The Hose and His Boy works for me and I have trodden a fine line a few times:
Do not by any means destroy yourself, for if you live you may yet have good fortune, but all the dead are dead alike

Good fortunes are meaningless when you’re dead… so what does it matter if you have good ones or bad ones? Good fortunes produce good times you may say. But such good times are also meaningless when you’re dead.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Thatsomegoodname:

What do you mean by life being salvageable?

Take a long look at the condition or conditions you have got. Ideally with the help of a psychologist (not a psychiatrist). Determine to what extent they cripple your day to day living; your ability to live with yourself, and your ability to get through the day.

Identify the root causes of these issues, and see if you can find a way to set them aside. If they cannot be set aside (and not all can, by any means) then they are going to keep eating away at you. Unchecked, they will reduce your quality of life to zero.

If addressing those root issues is not within your means, or not within anyone’s means, then you have to make the hard decision whether they are things you can go on living with, day by day as best you can, in a slow spiraling decline (and it will be a decline, I make no bones about that), or whether that itself is truly not something you can stomach – it becomes an issue itself.

In that case – hence the involvement of the qualified psychologist – you can make the objective decision that your life is not salvagable. Its going to keep deteriorating, and that’s all there is to it. You can end it early, or end it later, but sooner or later you will end it.

On the other hand, it may be that the root issues are salvagable, although not by you on your own. The psychologist can refer you to a body identity clinic, or the chronic pain clinic, or any number of therapies designed to target specific root causes and eliminate them from your life.

Without the roots in place, the issues wither and die – leaving you to get on with your life. That’s why we always have to target the root causes, not the symptoms, and why you will need help in making the judgement call – you’ll see the symptom. It takes some digging to find the root.

I’m having a hard time finding this relating to the topic. I am not suicidal and I do not really have problems that I feel like I can’t overcome. I’m just asking the worth of life.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I. do. not. want. to. live. on. this. planet. ANYMORE!

Can you make a reply to my “why not suicide?” thread? K thanks.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Thatsomegoodname:

I never stated that I can’t do anything. Just that anything I do won’t matter. There’s a slight difference.

Depends as to what you are defining as mattering, really. If mattering is making other people’s lives a little better, surely that counts?

You have to look at your life objectively, and determine if it is salvagable. If you can go on as you are, then it is salvagable. If you truly cannot, then see if you can figure out what the root cuse of your angst is, and if it can be dealt with. If not, then you will slowlyy lose your sanity inch by inch anyway.

Well I saw other people’s lives as meaningless as well and therefore any change that goes into their life will also be (eventually anyway) without worth.

What do you mean by life being salvageable?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Originally posted by GameBuilder15:

OP, I know you probably aren’t interested, but if you actually read a book called The Rhythm of Life by Matthew Kelly, you might see what is wrong with your mindset. It’s a really inspiring book.

Can I get some insight on what it’s about?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Originally posted by z2458:

By this logic we should all destroy the universe because there is no point to it

If we have the ability to. Unfortunately we don’t.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Originally posted by Sikesalicous:

Why suicide when you can drink copious amounts of alcohol? That’s what everyone else seems to do.

To be fair I’m a super lightweight and I pass out after a can of beer.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Originally posted by Pulsaris:

Witty answer: I will be bored by the boring afterlife, if there’s one.

My true answer: A flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil has set off a tornado in Texas, and you said that you can’t do anything?

I never stated that I can’t do anything. Just that anything I do won’t matter. There’s a slight difference.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by Thatsomegoodname:
Originally posted by beauval:

but lets say that we did have free will, then we should suicide because there is no point in anything.

So why are you still here if you find life to be so meaningless? You have enough free will to jump off a bridge or walk in front of a train. Why haven’t you done it already?

Which is the question I was asking actually.

SOOooooooo……beauaval is now asking YOU that question.
AND, your response IS?
After all, it IS your postulation.

Well to put it simply, for my case, I don’t know why I haven’t done so already. Maybe I’m trying to find an answer despite its seemingly nonexistence.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Originally posted by beauval:

but lets say that we did have free will, then we should suicide because there is no point in anything.

So why are you still here if you find life to be so meaningless? You have enough free will to jump off a bridge or walk in front of a train. Why haven’t you done it already?

Which is the question I was asking actually.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Ok thank you for your post omega made me think alot. Certainly made some good points on living.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Well I’ll admit this is a rather childish perspective, indeed. Let me try to clarify my points.

Legacies can go on for a very long time, yes. But will that even remotely matter once you are dead? You do not have the ability to care or to even know that you will become a “leagcy”. In fact, I argued that the so called legacy you pass down to future of mankind will essentially also be meaningless because those people will also die.

I mean temporary in sense that because you will die (and the people you helped change will also die), it is eventually worthless.

Even if you do “move to a new universe”, unless that universe creates a way to make your life infinite, it will also be in vain (because you will die).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Why are you even trying then? Just curious. Seems like you already realized the meaninglessness of your life (and life in general perhaps) and the inevitably of death. So why struggle to live?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Before we get into it, I would like to point out that I do not believe in any religion. Also, do not try to convince me of your religious views (I mean you can but I won’t believe you) but rather try to walk through the following idea with logic. Enough with the disclaimers, let’s move on.

What is the purpose to life?

I firmly believe there is no purpose to life. Why? Because there is absolutely nothing that is permanent. Once you are dead, everything you have achieved, attained, aspired for, etc. is all meaningless. Even if you are the greatest human alive and cured world hunger, brought world peace, and forever go down in history, your life is still temporary. In fact, the lives of everyone you helped change is also temporary and, therefore, puproseless. Everything you do is without purpose. Even the pursuit of knowledge. Why pursue knowledge when you will eventually die and all that you have pursued is meaningless? Even the greatest scientists such as Newton, Einstein, whatever have helped humans realize the functions of the world, yes. But they are dead now and everyone who learns and expands on their studies will also die. In fact, our time is so limited in this universe that it won’t even matter that they have made such contribution in the vast scheme of the universal “cycle” (if you will). This purposelessness of life forces only one inevitable outcome: suicide. Because why struggle to live when there is one outcome of death? Why do you live for? Everything is so temporary. You can love, be happy, be rich, travel the world, etc but you will eventually die and all that you have done is pointless and meaningless.

Some say to make your own purpose in life. But if life is purposeless in the first place, the so called purpose you have made for a purposeless idea is pretty purposeless in itself (in other words the purpose you made for life isn’t very helpful if you are going to be dead in the end).

If life is a game, why not end it early?

Note that I do not encourage anyone to suicide but rather am trying to find logical answers to my own problems (so to speak). Please don’t do: “don’t suicide you have people who love you!” kind of bullcrap.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 99% vs 53%

Originally posted by GameCrazyKid:
Originally posted by Thatsomegoodname:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

It would not surprise me in the least you know, to find business owners in both protest groups.


Why not? Because I have found/met with business owners in both these groups.

Isn’t that what she said? You questioned her statement then supported her point


I’m not arguing with her. I’m asking why she wouldn’t be surprised to find business owners in both protest groups.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 99% vs 53%

Originally posted by JohnRulz:

The protesters are largely college kids who would not be employed anyway.

That isn’t all the true. I have been to one of the occupy city (for my city) and there is a huge variety of people from war veterans to even investment bankers.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

It would not surprise me in the least you know, to find business owners in both protest groups.


Why not? Because I have found/met with business owners in both these groups.

To spaghettimonster: the large majority of the protesters seem to be unemployed.

To everyone else: How do you feel about the 53% that showed up to counter the 99%? (sources say that the 53% is a “conservative lash” against the unemployed people complaining)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 99% vs 53%

So one of the news stories that has been going around is the Wall Street protests in NYC (and spreading to other cities around the country) and overall, they are very dissatisfied with their current financial condition (although they are very “general” in about what to do about it). Their main point is that they are angry (mainly at Wall Street, government, etc.) due to the fact that no one was punished after the economic crash. They call themselves the 99% representing the America that was hurt by the greedy 1%. Another group that rose up (mainly to counter the 99%) was a group calling themselves the 53%, representing the percent of people who pay taxes in the country. This group seems to consist of people who are working 1+ jobs (or what would be equivalent to that for cases of business owners) while paying taxes. Their argument is that the 99% in New York should stop protesting and actually get a job like they have because it won’t get the economy better by protesting.

I don’t really disagree with either of these positions for the certain reasons. I feel that the certain people who were responsible for the crash of the recession should be held accountable (I know that people were greedy but there were many deceptive corporations in play). I also see where the tax payers are coming from saying that protesting won’t help the situation. However, I feel that certain people should be thrown in jail for their crimes or else they would be getting away with it again and again (especially the industry of financing and investing which concerns Wall Street and banking). What is your view on this issue?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Attraction and racism

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I think we’re going to have to agree here that we have the basic racism, and racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is what has, over time, become known as racism instead to the average man. In reality, racism merely means that you find there are differences between people attributable to race.

I was using the conceptual definition of racism which defines racism as “the theory that people of one race are superior to another.” I can see your point though.

I unfortunately could not find a single black girl falling in the former group.

Wow really? Not even Beyonce?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Attraction and racism

Also as a side note, I have friends who think basically: “the darker the skin, the less attractive”. Thoughts on that?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Attraction and racism

So I was wondering about this for quite some time: Does not finding a race of people not as attractive than others make one a racist?

For example, I do not really find African Americans to be as attractive as other races in general (not that I don’t like all African Americans but simply most to say the least). I feel like this is partly due to the “westernization” of the concept of beauty where most of the things considered “pretty” in society is “Western”. Even in my country South Korea, the people who are considered the most beautiful have “western” physical features rather than stereotypical Asian ones (such as double eyelids, sharp nose, small faces, etc). So, do these attractions/unattractions make one a racist?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Arrest your enemies

Let’s pretend your country A is fighting a war with country B. You have a lot of supporters from your country but some who live in your country actually support country B and claim themselves to be affiliated with country B. Given this, should the government of country A be allowed to arrest those who support their enemies?

Let’s look at this from a more realistic point of view. During the American Revolution, many colonists in America actually supported England over the “rebel” colonies. Now I’m not too sure about this but from what I know, the government did not harass or arrest any of the so called “loyalists” or even their families. Instead the people (or Patriots I should say) harassed the loyalists and so forth.

From two worlds of today:
In America’s situation with fighting terror and currently being in a “war” in both Iraq and Afghanistan, were someone to come out and fully claim to be and a supporter of Al-Qaeda, should the American government be legally able to arrest and/or investigate that person?

On another spectrum of the globe, there are laws in South Korea (highly criticized by countries like America) which dictate one cannot claim to be communist or a supporter of communism. Given that their enemies (literally) are communists in the North (well self-claimed communists), the government arrests and jails these people (not too harsh punishments or long sentences with rooms for bails and such). Under the circumstance that South Korea IS in a war with the North and especially after the extreme tensions that are going on in the peninsula, what do you think of this policy? Note that this policy has extended to arrest those who “talk to” North Koreans, affiliate with North Korea in any manner, etc.

Thanks in advanced for anyone who replies!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ethics of piracy

Originally posted by Hakaisha:

Piracy may be in a gray zone, but if i want to make 1 million copies of the avatar movie on DVD and hand it out to anyone i come across, then i better damn well should be allowed to do that. I bought the owneship of that copy, and i should be allowed to do w/e i want with it.

You can do whatever you want with the copy you bought. You can’t make your own copies and distribute them. You have the ownership of the COPY not the RIGHT TO COPY. Subtle difference there in words, huge difference in meaning. Hope you get the point anyways.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Minimum wage as a mean to prevent poverty

Originally posted by Flypurplehamster:

Prove it then.

And if that’s true, then I don’t see how changing the minimum wage for the unemployed is going to hurt interns, if interns don’t get paid minimum wage. After all, interns don’t (according to you) get paid per hour. I am thinking of messing with how people get paid per hour. Thus, this whole intern thing is irrelevant and I don’t know why you brought it up.

Well it is in the article I linked to you… Either way it would be lowering the minimum salary (I suppose) in this sense. Minimum wage doesn’t specifically have to be $/hr but any price floor currently in place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Latest Korean Problems

I love how half the people who posted here just thinks South Korea should sit idly by and watch the North Koreans blast their cities in fear of “escalation of tension”. Can’t you people see that all South Korea has done for the past attacks was sit around their 60 inch television sets and watch the shit happen around them and it really, really didn’t work out too well? IF it were another country, let’s take America as an example, and one of their warships sunk on American waters and killed 46 sailors, would America have sit idly by and simply “condemned” the country that attacked them? Or what if some nearby country decided to fire artillery shots at an island and killed CIVILIANS?