Recent posts by petesahooligan on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

Unless of course you’re like the President and you want to raise taxes not because it’ll increase the amount of revenue the government receives, but because of fairness, then I suppose this would be the perfect policy to fit that dream.

I find it amusing that Issendorf feels that the goal of “fairness” is something to be ridiculed.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Was math invented or discovered?

Thanks for clearing that up, Nightshade21. ahem #kindamissedthepoint

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Was math invented or discovered?

Here are some related questions that the OP may want to consider.

• Was the color blue invented or discovered?
• Was language invented or discovered?
• Was gravity invented or discovered?
• Was time invented or discovered?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Souls

I also don’t believe that human beings have souls.
I do not believe that any being has a soul, as we imagine it.
I do not believe in spirits, holy or otherwise.
I don’t believe in other planes of existence, or heaven and hell, or most metaphysical things.
I don’t believe in the Ouiji, Tarot, Torah, Koran, Astrology, Gaia, I-Ching, or Numerology.
I don’t believe in an afterlife (but I do believe in afterbirth).
I don’t believe in astral travel, clairvoyance, telekinesis, aromatherapy, acupuncture, chiropractice, feng-shui, or crystal therapy.

I do not believe in fate, destiny, or luck.

I believe in the material world in which we are barely sentient material beings that behave in highly predictable ways.

 
Flag Post

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

That’s deep.

Morality also happens to be very useful and helps our species prosper.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / University

Things I learned the hard way about college:

• Staying organized is WAY more important than most people think.
• Learn to read and type fast.
• Always care a notepad and a pen (one that fits in your pocket).
• Be serious about your budget.
• Parties are fun, but for many people alcohol is a train-wreck waiting to happen. (Don’t find out the hard way.)
• Learn how to study in your apartment or dorm. (Like, REALLY study.)
• Use as many of the university’s resources as you can.
• Don’t forget to exercise. It will help your mind.

If work experience can lend itself, here’s what else:

• Take everyone seriously.
• If learning via reading is difficult, find someone to have a conversation with.
• The best way to learn (for me) is to try it.
• Everything relates. Find the hidden relationship.
• Be a nice person.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Whaling

Originally posted by ninjaChameleon:
Originally posted by James146:

Trolls are unpredictable. Regardless, my point still stands. What is the point of trying to stop them if we don’t know how to?

Because they’re going extinct.

I think this is an interesting but flawed rationale for saving any species.

I’m not saying that there’s never a good reason from “allowing” a species to go extinct but I also believe that the value of intervening in that extinction must have inherent merit. Some of the common ones might include:

• We have an innate responsibility to “save” species whose population decline is due to human activities, (e.g. loss of habitat, over-farming, trophy hunting / poaching, etc.)

• We have an innate responsibility to inhabit the earth with as little impact to the “natural biosphere” as possible.

• Endangered species may provide some essential role in the ecosystem.

• Endangered species may reveal insights into the ecosystem, or some other oddly related benefit, that we are currently unwilling or unable to detect.

• Animals are cool, especially whales. And chimpanzees.

I think it’s a mistake to anthropomorphize animals. We can appreciate them on their own merits but whales are not human, and humans are not whales. If we provide some vague version of “human rights” to whales, then we should do so for tuna and cows and chickens and kittens and mosquitos and so on.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / University Gender and Sex Reporting Requirements

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Marijuana

There’s another effect of habitual marijuana use though it’s somewhat dynamic.

When I was younger I was quite the stoner. I typically would smoke pot before school, often during lunch, and after school every chance I could get. In college I quit smoking it because I felt like it was having a negative impact on my ability to concentrate and disciplined.

Smoking pot often comes with a social stigma. “Stoners” are often perceived and treated as under-achievers; unambitious and unable to engage at higher intellectual levels.

It doesn’t matter if this is true or not; it only matters that it’s a perception that it’s true. If you go to class completely blazed with your “Legalize It” shirt and have that “stoner drawl” inflection with each comment, people will treat you accordingly. If they do not expect you to excel academically, you will find that the opportunities to excel academically will be limited. If you go to work, even if you work hard, if you have a stoner reputation then this will likely be an unwritten factor when your boss considers merit increases and/or promotions.

Is it right? No.
Is it common? Almost certainly.

So… there are social considerations to pot that often don’t get discussed. I think they’re worth considering.

(Adults tend to have less need for easy-to-read identities and so can often partake in casual pot use without having it affect their jobs and professional relationships. I’m not really sure why that is but I happen to know a LOT of high-achieving individuals — be they businessmen/women, athletes, celebrities, musicians, and intellectuals — that smoke pot recreationally but have reputations for being straight-laced.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / University Gender and Sex Reporting Requirements

I wouldn’t worry TOO much about the practical impact of changing the form. You should just be cognizant of the potential cost and logistical load that it might bear.

If you know that the admissions policy and associated applications and forms will be changing next year, I would investigate that process. It’s probably somewhat formal and may even have a student-review component. This is obviously the most valuable and appropriate place to provide your input.

If there is no student-review component, that could be a parallel effort to this effort. If the student body does not have an influence on admission policy, why not? That’s a question worth asking.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / University Gender and Sex Reporting Requirements

I would recommend that you not under-appreciate the impact that your proposal may have on the university. There may be significant hard costs associated with changing forms, for example. The form needs to be recreated, printed (or produced), and data management and reporting systems must be modified to recognize the new category, and if there are consistencies with other universities or organizations, those too must be reconciled.

And that’s just changing a form.

Here are the questions I would challenge your proposal with if I were on the BoT:

• Why is it important to include “non-traditional gender” (or “other”) on the form?
• What other schools are doing so and what benefit does it provide them?
• How much will it cost?

This cost-benefit analysis is the cornerstone of your presentation. “Here’s what it is, here’s what it costs, and here’s what it rewards us with.”

I see that you have some of that in your language already: “OUSC will be like larger and better universities.”

The closer (by geography, practice, scale, or whatever) your peer examples are, the better. I’d create a policy matrix for all the universities in Michigan and just throw that our there so your BoT understands what EVERYONE ELSE is doing. That’s in your best interest if the BoT envisions OUSC to be a progressive and forward-thinking school.

If you know what the BoT wants, you can frame this issue in a way that relates to the BoT’s goals. It doesn’t hurt to contact them as individuals and try to arrange a short fact-finding interview to gather their impressions of the issue.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

Originally posted by DoomlordKravoka:
Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Then what, Doomlord? I mean, what’s your point?

Step 1: “Agree” to their demands so that you can gain money from exports.

Step 2: Secretly prepare to betray them (remember that the deal doesn’t require inspections).

Step 3: Backstab them the moment they aren’t useful anymore.

It’s the oldest, most basic trick in the book.

Then we ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT EVER CONSIDER ANY KIND OF DEAL WITH IRAN … forever.

I must say, Doomlord, that this is really an immature reason not to consider ways of working toward peace in the Middle East. (Don’t you agree?)

Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on can’t fool me a second time!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Marijuana

There are some health-related risks associated with marijuana still.

1. It is generally consumed by smoking. Smoking anything regularly is bad for you.
2. THC has been shown to weaken synapses in the brain, resulting in short-term memory loss.

The benefits of pot are well documented and don’t need to be repeated here.

I fully agree; recreational marijuana should be legal across the United States with some legal stipulations, (certified growers, product oversight by the FDA or appropriate agency, etc.).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Second rate improvement

It does seem like half (51%) of the politicians in the United States (and abroad) should be women.

And if this were a representational democracy, our representatives would be:

• 13% Black
• 1% Native American
• 5% Asian
• 17% Hispanic/Latino
• (and merely) 62% white

• 15% of our representatives should be living below the poverty level
• 26% of them should live in multi-family buildings (apartments or condos)
• 15% should NOT have graduated from high school
• 13% of them should be foreign-born
• 6% should be veterans

That would be pretty interesting, actually.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Distribution of Wealth

Yeah, I understand that, Johnny. It’s two different approaches.

According to need seems like an overly complicated consideration. It requires an independent, verifiable assessment that is also reasonably easy and quick to calculate. One huge downside to this approach is that people have different tolerances and definitions for what qualifies as an acceptable lifestyle.

Should we enforce a sustainable lifestyle on those individuals that refuse to live within their means? (That’s happening now, of course.)

According to supply is a great place to start. If there are 10 coconuts and 10 people, simply start with 1 coconut per person.

What we don’t know (currently) is what an aggregate income is from a global (or even national) standpoint. It looks like it’s about $13,000 a year. It stands to reason that the global economy is based on free market share principles and that a new model of wealth distribution would redefine that very evaluation… I get it.

But that’s not exactly what I’m trying to get at. I’m simply meaning to ask is:

What would each of us need to hold ourselves to if we were going to live “within our global means?”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Distribution of Wealth

Altruism of the wealthy shouldn’t be required for “the people” to determine that they want a system of wealth distribution that serves a greater number of people.

Let’s say you live on a deserted island with nine other people. There are six coconut trees. Three of those trees are next to one person’s hut, five people have one tree next to each of their huts, and four people have zero trees next to their huts.

The person that climbs the trees wants a coconut because climbing is strenuous and dangerous. They take take a coconut for providing the coconut-harvesting service. There are five coconuts left for the nine remaining people on the island.

The person with three trees on their property hires the climber to harvest all three of their coconuts privately and keeps them out of the pool. (The climber gets paid an extra coconut and the owner of the three trees now gets two coconuts for themselves.) There are now two coconuts to feed eight people.

This is most similar to how we distribute wealth now. We do not distribute wealth according to our need but rather according to our ability to earn… and earning will naturally favor things like geography (if you live near a coconut tree), and inherited or learned opportunity (ability to climb trees, no fear of heights).

The smarter way to do it would be to evaluate instead each person’s needs and come as close to meeting those needs as possible with a portion of the coconuts. Does it favor those that don’t have to climb the tree? Yes, it does… but it also balances for those people that happen to live near a coconut tree. The person that has lots of trees on their property will be the first person to claim that owning (and climbing) coconut trees is hard work and deserves an additional share of the harvest.

What I was considering in the OP is that when we talk about the 1% we tend to neglect the fact that we don’t have a model that is based on a perceived standard of propriety.

If we all live “within our global means,” what does that lifestyle look like?

 
Flag Post

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

Well, I think that fixating on the moral aspects of homosexuality is perverted and anti-Christian. These societal antagonists need to be rounded up and provided mandatory counseling to cure them of their unhealthy hobby of telling other people who they can and cannot love.

Right?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Distribution of Wealth

I think you’re getting cultural output confused with cultural commerce.

Yes, there are economic contexts for cultural output but the two things are not dependent. You don’t need cultural output to have economic activity, and you don’t need economic activity to have cultural output. Arts, business and technology have been related for a long time… and in some ways there are “outputs” that straddle these categories.

A good example of this is video games. However, let’s not forget that there are other kinds of creative “games” that don’t generate any economic activity. Parkour is a good example. (Unless you count hospital visits.)

Graffiti murals are undeniably artistic but they are also not monetized. Their impact on economic activity is indirect.

I believe that too much economic interest in a cultural domain, like movies, actually disrupts and undermines its cultural value. That’s why we tend to enjoy the creative integrity of independent film or music, for example.

 
Flag Post

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

Is it just me or does this conversation just seem like a ridiculous waste of time?

Trollmedic, why do you think people that are not gay should even be interested in who other people love? Why is it even an issue of “morality” to you? And, frankly, what makes your declaration that homosexuality is an issue of morality any more or less valid than my assertion that homosexuality has NO moral relevance?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Distribution of Wealth

When has cultural output ever needed commerce? The only thing cultural generators need is peace and a little freedom.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

Then what, Doomlord? I mean, what’s your point?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Distribution of Wealth

Cultural industries already lose.

When market forces dictate cultural output, as they do now, we see a constriction of cultural diversity.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

I like all of those conditions, issendorf, but why would we continue economic sanctions if Iran were compliant with our demands?

Here’s the bottom line: We cannot prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

We can ALL agree on that. We cannot prevent that from happening, but we CAN agree upon incentives to make it unpleasant.

There are some real-world conditions that make this deal worthwhile… conditions that many opponents of the deal fail to recognize. Namely, both Russia and China support this deal. That’s super fucking important.

This is the deal that the United States supports — as well as Russia, and China, and France, and the United Kingdom. Issendorf, you want to put down some kind of “agreement” that “actually prevents” Iran from ever getting nuclear weapons? What kind of “agreement” is that, exactly?

Consider this stupid analogy. You and I are playing a betting game where I am the superior player and you are losing badly. You are tempted to cheat but I am aware of your tendency to cheat AND the methods in which you might try to cheat. I propose to you a deal that says, "If you continue to play the game by the agreed-upon rules (and don’t try to cheat), I will return to you 50% of your losses. This will reduce the damage of your loss by a significant amount. If you cheat, you will lose the entire sum of your bet AND you will not see another opportunity like this for a long time.

You would take the deal because you’re not an idiot.

And what are your advantages to cheating? What do you get for cheating, exactly?

This is the same alarmist rhetoric that we saw in 2002 over Iraq, and look where that got us. I say that all these loudmouths that are crying over perceived threats need to shut up and let the world get on with peace for once, for Christ’s sake.

The “Opposition Camp” is playing politics with world peace. It’s utter bullshit.

Here’s what you really need to know about the Iran Nuclear Deal:

• A majority of Americans support it
• Israel Defense League supports it
• Five former Israel ambassadors support it
• Mossad and Shin Bet support it
• Molad, a Middle-east think tank, supports it
• More than 100 former US ambassadors support it
• More than 60 national leaders in governmental roles to international negotiations support it
• Hans Blix—a person that knows more about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East than anyone—believes that this could be a significant cornerstone to lasting peace in the region

If the United States pulls out, the deal will collapse and no deterrent will be in place for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons. Think about that for a second.

Anyone that thinks this is a bullshit deal is putting partisan politics in front of logic, at the risk of millions of lives and continued generations of instability in this troubled area. So shut up!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Distribution of Wealth

I suspect that the most flagrant cases of copious consumption would be the first casualties. Driving a Dodge Titan to drop your kid off at school would be (and should be) frowned upon, yet for many people it is currently considered a sign of wealth and privilege.

The thinking, as I see it, is that people that flaunt their wealth in these ways (meaning, without any tangible benefit or need… but rather as a way of claiming social position) would be shamed into submission. It’s the same kind of shame that we exert on other distasteful social outliers… racists, sexists, and so on.

We already exert some of this shame. Many people openly mock Hummers as being preposterously large and unnecessary for their daily tasks. I’m personally fine with this, and I also recognize that people have jobs and hobbies that require special rigs. However, we can’t all have yachting and equestrian pastimes. I recognize that in a “flat” distribution of wealth there are going to be entertainment losses.

However, I would question the viability of certain hobbies in an ever crowded planet. Yes, we probably need to reassess our taste for beef. Yes, we cannot all have expensive cars and boats. Yes, the ideal of “work = reward” is pervasive in every culture. Those incentives to work must be maintained, yet the rewards for earning are at the expense of those that do not or cannot earn.

Sadly, we often replace those that “do not” with those that “cannot” when considering incentives for work.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

It’s a good deal. What are our alternatives?