Recent posts by Redem on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Destroying the Economy could be good in the long run?

It’s called a garden.

Unless your garden is actually a farm, it won’t be large enough.

heres things we can improve on:
Implement the Gold Standard
Destroy the Federal Reserve
Dont have credit card companies

All of these things suggestions are idiotic and the latter is illegal.

Create a agency to thoroughly watch over banks and make sure their intrest rates are fair and that they dont give out loans for money they dont have.

Also illegal, and entirely contradicts the basis upon which your first two suggestions were made.

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

it’s just silly not to recognize all the other factors that determine how proliferous Christianity is.

Hyper-aggressive colonialism and… that’s mostly it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

Can humility even be defined as the same thing before Christianity?

It can be defined as humility, however it seems you wish to define it as not REAL humility unless it comes associated with all of your Christian baggage.

I’d challenge you to cite your references there. :-)

My reference of my memory, but a quick google for “humility in greek mythology” should provide everything you wish. Such as http://www.huna.org/html/pride-and-humility.html or http://www.lgassoc.com/library/articles/25-WINT…

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

Humility is a human quality that long predates Christianity. It’s abundantly evident in greek mythology for example.

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

I’m guessing most of these are puppets.

Anyhoo, wtf is the op meant to be?

It resembles little more than a load of hippy-nonsense.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proposition 8 in California, 2008

and Redem
definition of marriage on the Apple imac computer:
"the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by the law, by which they become husband and wife.

Dictionaries do not define words, they list common definitions in use in the public. Concise dictionaries list only the most common.

Marriage has meant, at various different times and places in history;

Transfer of property from one man to another, sometimes with payment.
One man and as many women as he can afford.
One man and one woman.
A couple of any sort.

The ages, genders, required actions and motives of the people involved is all highly variable.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarities and Obscenities

Even though I’d regret swearing?

Do you not regret banging your head against the wall?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarities and Obscenities

Not really. I’m more apt to bang my head against a wall.

Ok, here is why releasing it via a stream of swearing is good for you, it prevents you from bottling it up to the point where you do something you would really regret.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Marriage?

“Because she’s pregnant” merely brings the issue to the forefront of you mind, I think. From what you write I suspect you would have eventually anyway, but the pregnancy is acting as a sort of catalyst, bringing you there faster.

I suggest nothing as corny as a surprise proposal, and that you instead broach the issue with her gently and talk it over. But you know her better than we do.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarities and Obscenities

Really? Trust me, I’ve sworn before. Plenty of times. Countless times, in fact. And not a single time has it benefited me in any way.

Not even in the “releasing pent up frustration/anger” sense?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarities and Obscenities

Surely there are other ways to emphasize a point other than doing something which often precedes disrespect.

It can be interpreted as disrespectful, but that does not mean that it is. (As an example, in some places you not wearing a total head scarf would be considered “disrespectful”, the problem is with those who perceive it as such, not with you.) The intent is, rarely, to be offensive or disrespectful, it’s to express the depth of one’s emotional attachment to a point.
I know of no better way to do so.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarities and Obscenities

Finally, my teacher had something special to say about the word “sucks”. See, even though today it means “stinks” or “is terrible”, back in the 60’s and 70’s, it was meant in a more derogatory form, and was meant to mean “suck on male reproductive parts”.

I would have thought that one was obvious. ;)

Why do we swear? For emphasis mostly.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proposition 8 in California, 2008

Religion didn’t define a word, people did. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

People defined it as man-man and woman-woman as well.

This has nothing to do with my religion, it has to do with the basic understanding that no one is being oppressed here, the minimum is that they are restricted. They are free to get married just like anyone else, the government does not recognize gays and neither do some churches and somehow that makes gays upset.

What gives you the RIGHT to “restrict” them in any way? To forcibly divorce tens of thousands of couples who were legally married a few weeks ago.

So you’re saying, since you lost the vote you’ve gained more supporters? Or is it really more people are just flocking to this one particular issue to fight the government and your cause just happens to let them do that?

I’m saying that removing a right is a bigger deal than working to gain one.

3. The separation of Church and State demands just that, and since marriage is, in and of itself, a religious ceremony, shouldn’t the government have no control over it?

Marriage is not a religious ceremony, it’s also a secular one. That society in general uses the same term to describe a wide variety of things is problematic, but marriage is not simply a religious issue.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proposition 8 in California, 2008

Are those decent people the same people that wanted Gays to have the right to be married?

Some of them. There are also those who didn’t care enough to work to get them that right, but see something profoundly disturbing in the efforts to revoke the right after they got it.

Seems like you’re turning it into X team against Y team.

You guys did that, when you decided to try to force everyone else to live by the rules your religion requires you to live by.

If marriage is not a religious thing, then it is a lawful thing; which means they want people to know that they are married, seems like they’re pushing their already over bearing borders and boundaries.

Legal recognition is not even close to being about “pushing their already over bearing borders and boundaries.” It’s about equality and decency.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proposition 8 in California, 2008

What ever happened to “Don’t ask, don’t tell”? Oh, and don’t get married.

Decent people decided that it was such a blatantly bigoted and evil stance to take, and taken purely for the sake of those who hated gay people, that it could not be allowed to stand.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Leaving the Country

I need to be able to debate

Have you tried debate classes?

I know it will be next to impossible to get these people to admit I won in a debate against them

The problem here is that you judge winning by your own standards, and the other side judges winning by their standards. Usually both sides are too “wedded” to the topic to consider it objectively.

You especially, considering your motivation for these debates is “I think God put me on Earth to help bring about the next great revival of Christianity, and to do that, I need to be able to debate”

Ugh this moronic 15 year old girl is dominating this discussion with gay marriage of all things. Thanks for feeding the troll people!

She’s not a troll.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Islamist TV show

Uh-huh, so? No different from some of the Christian propaganda kids in the west watch/read/listen to.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proposition 8 in California, 2008

I do disagree with gay things being in schools there is enough crap in public schools there should be a limit to what is allowed in schools.

That was a lie by the mormon church though. There was no “gay in schools” thing going on.

If parents can’t stop gayness from being in schools honestly with the teacher scandals what is to stop pedophilia or other real monstrosities from being in schools?

And if we allow heterosexuality in schools, who knows where it might lead! To predators coming after our kids! We must castrate everyone who enters a 3-mile radius around a school!

Topic: Serious Discussion / Sanctity of Marriage

I don’t think homosexuality is right, simple as that, and it’s not just because I’m Christian, it’s because I’ve seen people’s lives destroyed because of homosexuality

“Ruined” in what sense? Ruined in the “now that everyone knows I’m gay I get hospitalised on a monthly basis, my family have disowned me, my boss fired me, and my neighbours keep harassing me” sense?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Sanctity of Marriage

as for homosexuality, it seems that you people only want it just to spite the church and proper morals

“Want” has nothing to do with it. It’s here (and it’s queer).

You don’t have to like it, or the people who are gay, but that does not give you the right to force them to live by your religious rules through the power of the law.

Nor are you “defending traditional marriage”. Allowing gay couples to marry doesn’t affect YOUR marriage in the slightest.

what I don’t understand is how people become homosexual

Direct causal mechanisms are unknown.

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

Huh? I fail to see how forcing them to prove things being safe makes them unsafe and undermines the process to prove something safe….

I was saying the opposite, the lack of proper standards, which are always opposed by people who hate the idea of such standards, is the problem. People who assume the market will sort itself out and undermine any attempt to create a proper regulatory agency.

And I’m not complaining about them proving it safe first, I’m complaining about them being the only ones that can do it.

The FDA doesn’t prove drugs safe, the drug companies do that. They just set the standards.

The FDA does not allow people to take the treatments while they are experimental. Without this, people could take them if they want to, which they often do because it will probably save their life.

“Probably” save their life? You cannot make that judgement until after it’s been tested for efficacy and safety.

That was 2 seconds of a Google search… And the costs will not remain the same, competition will make it cheaper as the testers lower prices, develop new techniques, new devices, etc etc. Right now, there is no incentive to do so because they HAVE to go through the FDA.

HOW will competition with the FDA reduce the cost of testing? All it will do is give competition between differing standards. To reduce cost would require the company to choose the lesser standard.

That’s a bad thing.

Companies will arise to rate doctors or whatever, the same as happens for a lot of things.

Yes, and as with the example I gave, most of them will be meaningless accreditation. Lots of lovely seals and fancy gold lettering will be enough to dazzle the vast majority of people, few will be able to decypher the good from the bad. That is an example from the legal industry, and it’s not an utopian one. And at least Lawyers aren’t prescribing drugs to you.

And you ignore the central issue with such things as well, that doctors will only earn a bad name after they screw over many patients. At which point moving to the next town/state fixes that little problem.

No, they are not easier. The risk of getting caught and ending any hope of doing anything in the future usually limits this sort of thing.

That same risk applies to public entities, except they have more oversight.
The risk you allude to is minimal, and even acceptable if the bribe is large enough to ensure you never have to work again.

You cannot know this. There could be something made that quite accurately determines long term effects.

How do you propose to test the long term effects of a drug in a short period of time? I suspect a nobel would be forthcoming if you came up with a way.

And I do believe the FDA does charge for it’s testing

A miniscule proportion of the cost involved.

http://www.fda.gov/oc/oms/ofm/userfees/userfees…

In your opinion. No one does it my way because people have been educated to trust the government waaaay to much, which is not surprise since government runs the schools.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

“Everyone but me is brainwashed I tell ya!!! I’m the only sane one left!”

Even less guaruntee of a goverment official getting caught and even less of a chance that they will not still be doing what they are doing.

Utter rubbish. There is less oversight in private industry than in the government.

No, the reason is because the only drugs we can get in the US are ones made in the US and there are like six pharma companies, give or take.

Nah, there are a lot more than that. Wiki lists 22 of the top 50 worldwide (sorted by revenue in 2006) being US companies. And many many more is the subsequent alphabetical listing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceut…

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do we have a soul?

The simple fact that chemicals and neural trauma can have such deep impacts upon the “self” is the strongest evidence against the soul as a separate thing from the brain.

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

Sorry, but that’s total crap. Belief has nothing to do with choice. You do not choose to believe things. You believe them because of the evidence you have and your analysis of said evidence. Any belief that you choose to believe is not true belief at all – it is simply you lying to yourself.

Hm, I’ve enver seen anyone else ever say this before. I’m not the only one, yay! =D

You are correct. At birth, we are destined to Hell, until we accept Christ.

Forgive me, but that is an horrific and evil doctrine. Disgusting in the extreme.
The idea that you deserve eternal and total torture and torment simply because you were born… I could never worship a deity responsible for this kind of universe, even should I believe in it.

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

No, money is a TOOL of the free markets while money is the GOD of socialism

That doesn’t make any sense at all.

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

Pure bollocks. The “free markets” you espouse respect only money, and then only in so far as they can get it from you.