Recent posts by unproductive on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / PLEASE HELP ME!!!

Go to one of their shouts, hover over the little arrow, and click ‘Delete and block user’.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / World without Religion: Better or Worse?

I considered him doing nothing but call you an ‘infinite troll’ in several different ways to be an unconstructive contribution to the thread.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / HUG YOU!!!

Be nice.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / President Obama

Originally posted by jhco50:

I just posted what I read. It is up to you to make up your own mind. You know, it might be interesting to actually read the article. It isn’t that long.

You’re a bit behind the times I’m afraid. In the month since that article was published, the judge has made a ruling on the case and determined that Obama is, in fact, eligible to be president.

Totally sane human being Orly Taitz is now arguing that the judge’s decision should be ruled invalid because he has an Arabic-sounding name and therefore obviously made the ruling based on Sharia law. I await the results of that appeal with… not very much interest at all if I’m honest.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Tolerance can be "fake" and lead to disasters.

Originally posted by somebody613:

@unpro
I wasn’t talking about the court.
I was talking about how amoral must be his lawyer, if he KNOWS about his guilt, to still defend him for REAL
He’s basically trying to let a murderer loose.
HE knows the truth, so my point is, WHY is he still continuing..?
And YES, we know REAL cases.
I’m just so not gonna search for the specific ones.

For the third time, a lawyer has to defend the suspect in order for the trial to be legal. If the lawyer believes that the suspect is guilty based on private knowledge then they can recuse themselves from the case, but if they take the case then they are duty-bound to represent them to the best of their ability.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Tolerance can be "fake" and lead to disasters.

As I’ve already explained to you, for him to have been convicted of being a serial murderer in the first place, he must have had legal representation in order for the trial to be valid (unless he pleaded guilty). He is not a serial murderer in the eyes of the law until he is found guilty in court. Until and unless he is found guilty, he is deemed to be an innocent man who is entitled to the same legal defenses as anyone else.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bye-bye.

If you actually want to request a permaban to stop you posting here and wasting your time with idiots then leave me a shout, but making threads about it won’t have any effect at all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / World without Religion: Better or Worse?

Originally posted by somebody613:

@NR
No, the MURDERER forfeits HIS life-value by disregarding ANOTHER’s.
Thus, you have the right to kill a murderer.
(Those that abuse GOD-given HUMAN abilities, also do the similar thing, they forfeit being HUMAN.)
But I was talking ONLY about MURDER here.

Wait, didn’t you say in another thread that a father would be legally/morally justified in killing a man who raped his daughter, even if he didn’t kill her?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What awaits us after death?

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Do we really need another religious thread?

Not really no, and certainly not another afterlife thread.

Kiyoko, I’m sure you’ll be able to find an existing thread on what happens after death if you search for it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Tolerance can be "fake" and lead to disasters.

So, are you done trying to argue your side then? Do you want me to lock this thread?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The age to appear in porn is 18, but the average world age of consent is 16

Since the films are going to be viewed worldwide, I’d imagine that if somebody in a country where the age of consent is 18 watched porn involving a 16 year old they could be charged with watching/downloading child pornography, regardless of the age of consent for the country where the film was made. If you only allow 18+ then that covers the vast majority of the world.

Not sure though, but that’s the explanation that makes most sense to me.

There might be issues with 16 year olds signing contracts for their image to be used as well I suppose.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Either stop posting in the thread or don’t, but please don’t keep saying you’re going to and then don’t. It just makes you look silly.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Tolerance can be "fake" and lead to disasters.

Originally posted by somebody613:
‘Legal" isn’t “moral”.
“Fake tolerance” is a case of amoral laws and attitudes.

Well from the other thread it seems like ‘amoral’ is anything that runs counter to your own opinion. I personally would consider breaking a criminal code in order to convict someone under that same criminal code to be immoral.

Also “innocent until proven guilty” should have an amendment “even by his own actions”.

Well yeah, the criminal can plead guilty and convict himself by his own actions, which avoids the need for a trial. If he makes a confession under no duress in the presence of witnesses, but still wants to plead innocent, then the trial must legally go ahead to discount the possibility of duress or the suspect not being of sound mind at the time of confession.

Not “break in, find nothing, go away soundly”, but “break in, find the gun with his fingerprints, convict the guy”.
The first case ending bad for police (not the break-in officers, but the ones who gave the orders), the latter for the criminal.
Now, though, both end bad ONLY for the police “break-in” OFFICERS.
I consider both results to be wrong.

Like I said, if you start letting the police break into people’s houses with no warrant based solely on suspicion, then you’re opening the door to a police state. You’re essentially saying that if you’re unlucky enough to fall under suspicion of a crime, then your human rights should immediately be forfeit, which I really can’t agree with.

1. it takes too long.

And rightly so; a thorough process should take as long as is needed.

2. it informs too many people.
Nowadays, they just give that info to some “higher instances” and wait till they permit the “break-in”.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I see this as a factor that makes it easier for the criminal, especially a WEALTHY one, to either protect himself, or at least know in advance of the police coming.

Well that’s more a case of police corruption, which is a whole other matter.

tl;dr- the system is set up in such a way as to allow someone to be tried solely on the evidence against them, and not on any prejudices the police or court might have toward the individual before the trial, and the way evidence and testimony must be collected reflects this.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by somebody613:
“Fake tolerance” is MY way to call the stupid attitude towards things that should NOT be “tolerated”.
Example: Fake tolerance towards criminals, as explained in MY thread.

So if people tolerate actions that you personally find objectionable you consider that to be ‘fake tolerance’ and therefore a ‘stupid attitude’? You’re not really making a point there, you’re just saying ‘you disagree with me, therefore your opinion is wrong’.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Tolerance can be "fake" and lead to disasters.

If the guy decides to plead not guilty and asks to represented by a lawyer then the state is legally obliged to appoint one. If he was tried in court without any defense representation then it would be declared a mistrial and the guy would go free or have to w.ait to be tried again. The lawyer who is appointed is also legally obliged to do the best possible job for his client, regardless of whether he thinks he’s guilty or not.

I don’t really see what this has to with tolerance; it’s more the foundation of the legal principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. If you start allowing illegally obtained evidence just because the guy was ‘obviously guilty’ then it’s a pretty slippery slope. Even if the guy confessed the case should still be thrown out so that prosecution team can build a new case without relying on the tainted evidence. You can’t have a justice system where the police are allowed to break the law in order to get a conviction; what you would then have is a police state.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vancouver riots over losing to Boston in the Stanley Cup.

Originally posted by itsover9000troll:
Yeah, I don’t really see how this is a ‘Canadian vs. USA’ thing, (especially when you look at the Boston Bruins team roster.

In which case, Vancouver has even less reason to riot. Even with that roster, however, like it or not, it’s a USA team.

No, the makeup of the team would mean they’d have less reason to riot if it was a ‘Canada vs. USA’ issue, but it isn’t. It’s an ‘oh shit the local sports team lost the championship, let’s break things’ issue. Canadians and Americans are fairly equally distributed in both teams (vast majority of Canadians with a minor sprinkling of Americans), and there have been no riots that I know of anywhere except Vancouver. This all points to it being a local issue about a local team, not a national one.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vancouver riots over losing to Boston in the Stanley Cup.

Yeah, I don’t really see how this is a ‘Canadian vs. USA’ thing, (especially when you look at the Boston Bruins team roster. They actually have more Canadians than the Canucks) It’s just that fans of a team got angry when their team lost and combined that with excessive beer into a desire to wreck shit up. If some Manchester United fans had rioted in Manchester after they lost the Champions League final to Barcelona then I’d be thinking more ‘stupid United supporters’ rather than ‘stupid Brits getting angry about losing to Spain’.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Americans were rated the funniest nationality. Germans were ranked the least funniest

Originally posted by antiworld:
Originally posted by Cammy_Justice:

^ No, it is definitely that I am too good for it, most people I know who use it are arseholes and the rest are incapable of justifying why they use it.

Wait, you’re not too good for it, your just better than everyone on it? Most people use social networking nowadays. You’re saying they have no sense of humor? How is it that American comedy movies sell better than british? That and, The Simpsons, Southpark, 2 and a half men, Frasier, Seinfeld and any number of comic greats from the Marx Brothers to Woody Allen, Steve Martin, Larry David, Ben Stiller or now Tina Fey all top TV show and comic viewers across the world, but British TV and comics do not? If you’re british, you probably watch or hear of some new funny show or movie from the US. In the US, the most you’ve seen of the british is likely one Monty Python movie.

The problem I have with british humor is that it’s just too subtle I can’t laugh to tears from their jokes. Sure, there’s humor, but it’s usually toned down compared to what I’m used to.

Really don’t see how America’s cultural hegemony means that American comedy is objectively ‘better’ than any other. Most people see American films because America is the biggest film maker in the world (or at least with most serious widespread appeal, unlike Bollywood) and has all of the richest film studios. Same as if you go on holiday abroad and you’re boring, you’re more likely to eat at McDonalds or Burger King rather than some nice local restaurant; not because it’s ‘better’, but because it’s familiar and ubiquitous.

I suspect this poll was based more on how many from each country replied and the national stereotypes associated with the countries, rather than how familiar with each country’s comedy output the respondents were. After all, Spain placed ahead of the UK and if you can name any Spanish comedians off the top of your head then you’re a better man than I.

I personally would rather watch programmes like The Thick Of It, Black Books, Green Wing or Alan Partridge rather than tepid crap like Two and a Half Men or Friends; or comedians like Bill Bailey, Ross Noble, Jack Dee or Stewart Lee rather than Dane Cook. It’s just that the ‘British sense of humour’ is rather more idiosyncratic than the American one, and hence doesn’t travel as well. It’s more absurdist or political as opposed to “What is the deal with airline food???”. (And yes, I think Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, The Simpsons seasons 1-9 and Nurse Jackie are good too. And the American Office has its moments. Struggling to think of anything past that though).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / why dont we ban credit cards? it'd fix the economy

You, uh, already made this thread. Bump it if you’ve got something new to add.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Cereal

And yes, I add the cereal first too. I’ve got no idea how putting milk in the bowl first would work. Surely you’d just get a bunch of cereal floating on the top and it’d overflow?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Cereal

Originally posted by Immortal7777:

I think this belongs in OT.

I agree.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

Originally posted by jhco50:

I’m always hearing about cameras in England on all of the street corners. It has been in our news. Add to that the extra taxes charged for driving in the city, etc. and I really feel sorry for you guys. Alas, we seem to be following in your footsteps. We fight a war of independence against your country and turn around and try to emulate it. :O

The vast majority of CCTV cameras in England are in large cities, not ‘all the street corners’, and the vast majority of those are run by private security companies for businesses to keep their stores and property secure, not by the government. CCTV cameras in London stations were instrumental in identifying the perpetrators of the 2005 bombings as well.

The congestion charge is only in force in 2 English cities that I know of, and there are several other cities around the world that also use it. Since it’s very difficult to drive in London anyway, it seems like a great way to keep congestion down and raise some extra revenue. And it’s not a ‘tax’, it’s a charge for services rendered, like paying to drive on a toll road.

Why do you feel sorry for us because our businesses like their security and a couple of our large cities cost a bit more to drive in?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Help Naming a Compound

It already exists. It comes up if you google ‘ethenol’.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Browser Mouse Gestures

Wow.

That’s pretty neat.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Osama Bin Laden finally killed

It’s not so much ‘hitting the internet’ as it is ‘releasing them to news networks’. Seeing as the US government is the only organisation that’s had access to the body so far, I think they have more important things to do than take pictures and leak them to gore websites at the moment.