Recent posts by NickWalker12 on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours

MyTie & issendorf, I’m pretty sure KKK wasn’t stating that its literally impossible to hate ‘faggots’. The fact that I’ve actually had to state that makes me cringe. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I’m pretty sure he was implying that people used to publicly blame the four aforementioned demographics, but now that thats socially unacceptable (at best, criminal at worst), they pick on the poor.

You know what you also haven’t addressed? Why do companies cut the wages of the lowest payed workers to make enough “room” in the budget to pay for healthcare? Why don’t they cut their own salaries?

Also, found out from Louis CK’s show that the term ‘faggot’ came about when the homosexuals were literally used as faggots for the fires that they used to burn ‘witches’. Faggots are the pieces of wood that they’d use to fuel the fire.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Moral Argument

In a debate with William Lane Craig, he said that the objective morality exists without stating why. The closest he got was, because “deep down, we all know it does…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8 00:27:00

This pretty much sums it up for me. Objective morality is, for these people, just really really strong subjective morality, thus, the Moral Argument is flawed.

EDIT: It matters because some people believe that without objective morality, nobody would be moral. I am disgusted by these people.

Topic: Serious Discussion / i fucking hate youtube

A few points:
1. Advertising is the reason things online are free. Better adverts = higher chance of things being free.
2. Google could know my penis size and I wouldn’t care. There is no reason for it to be wrong, unless they aim to use it maliciously. I’m certain that current laws on cyber-bullying/assault/harassment are good enough to protect me against that. If they sell that information to others, then well done to them. If I wrote a book on how to improve advertising, is that bad? Not at all. Google is basically selling information on how to make better ads. It just so happens to contain information about me.
3. There are legitimately immoral corporate acts that should make us all furious. An example is BT not closing the line rental after my mate switched to Virgin, or Virgin not keeping their promise of telling BT to close it, and being charged by two companies. Another example is adding “faults” to your mobile phone bill, as only a certain percentage of people will recognize the “fault” and demand a refund. Keeping/selling information on you to improve the quality of the product/service is not one of them, as it is not harmful (unless sending a wrinkle cream ad to an OAP is considered harmful… which, ironically, wouldn’t happen if the senders had more information on the OAP!).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are the Merits of a Meritocracy Meritorious?

I would not want this government, for these reasons;
One. Wealth reproduces wealth. Unless children were taken away at childbirth and put through the same set of circumstances, there is no way they’d have equal opportunities.

Two. If every job payed the same, do you honestly think people will stop striving for the more intelligent, harder jobs? I understand this system may have its flaws; one of them being; who would want to be the guy with the “shit” job? Why not reward people who do the “worst” jobs the most. Are we all so shallow that, if we got the same wage, we’d all settle at the job we’re at now? If there was a need for new doctors in this equal pay society, would you personallyl just say no to it because its hard and it places a large amount of responsibility on you? Doctors usually want to be doctors. Game developers want to develop games.

Three. Why do we even need to merit peoples drive for success? Why aren’t we instead addressing why most people have lost it!? In a perfect society, the only thing preventing you from from doing your “dream job” should be lack of job availability. Interviews for jobs should still take place, and the most qualified in each profession would get the placements. If you are good at something, whatever it is, you will be rewarded with your job rank. The people with less prestigious jobs could get cheaper education or something, to encourage competition.

Still, could massively fail.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Imp of the Perverse, or, On the Motives of the Soul

Interesting topic. I feel that these ideas towards self-destruction (and especially the harassment/assault of others) is merely an extension of our desire for power. I could end a life right now if I wanted to. My own, my mothers, maybe even a strangers. It’s an amazing reality as well as a terrifying one. I don’t doubt your hypothesis about the soul being eternal on the fact that I don’t believe in souls, I doubt it because I don’t think that it is a likely influence that drives ‘the imp of the perverse’, given the far more primal one that, in my opinion, would justify the existence of such throught. If you are correct (that souls do not depend upon their ‘host’) then it is definitely valid in my eyes, but this fact would not, in itself, explain the desire to do wrong to others… unless it relates back to carelessness for self preservation. I.e. I can hurt you because I don’t care about what will happen as a consequence.

Although, saying that, I have no reason to believe that carelessness will be a result of an eternal soul. It depends upon what the soul believes will happen to it when its ‘host’ dies. I can tell you from personal experience, that with a suicidal mindset (which is similar), there is a clear distinction between causing an accident and committing suicide. Then again, an eternal soul is not the same a suicidal thoughts. On a similar note, I think it’s just humans being humans. If there is one trait that I have noticed in every person on earth, it is the desire to appear great in front of other people. Every single conversation I’ve ever heard is just people expressing truths, even from people who are not academic. Gossip, for example, is actually a lot of facts about people. A friend of mine told me that a guy he knew his was the smartest person in the college on the subject of weed. He knew numbers, quantities, dealers etc. Not at all academic, but he was smart. Actions speak louder than words, and we all know about people trying to act tough.

EDIT: On Jantonaitis’ remarks about atheists an Christians, I thought he was joking. I am correct on that, right? If not, it’s quite a nice example to prove my point… Actually, my post is a nice example to prove my point.

Topic: Serious Discussion / AXE and Dove ads

Originally posted by tenco1:

… Why do they have to?

They don’t. I just wish they would, and have stated my opinions as such.

Is it too much to ask for ethical consistency in a company?

The fuck is wrong with you?

Probably the opinion that people in positions of power should understand the ethical issues of what they are doing. In hindsight, consistency was the wrong word. Just looking for some basic ethics*. To keep it as general as possible; Whether we like it or not, marketing campaigns teach and encourage people into certain ways of thinking. Products and services also encourage people to do things that they wouldn’t do otherwise. Some of these things are harmful, and so I think any ethical person would look into, and consider these issues.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Racism should be allowed.

Censorship is wrong. Racism is wrong. Censorship punishes/prevents racists. Ideologically, nobody should ever want either.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is having sex at the age of 12 right

I agree Karma & Aneslayer. I think the reason we find this such a controversial topic stems from many societal pressures and stigmas. If you think of how many “rules” apply to sex, sexuality, gender, relationships and intimacy, it’s actually quite clear why we are so against it;

-Self-Respect: People who openly participate in sex or sexual activity are frowned upon, even ridiculed, for this ludicrous reason! It’s especially terrible for females. I don’t understand how having sex a lot can mean low self respect… if anything, it points to the contrary. Being comfortable – hell, even accepting your own sexuality is a lifetime hurdle for most people, and as we all know, self respect involves acceptance. Pride. How many people who are self-conscious get laid? Seriously?

-Nudity/“Indecency”: Oh no a naked person! Seriously, get over it already. Once again, I don’t understand the big deal here. If we didn’t make a deal out of it, it wouldn’t be one. I’m not saying clothes are not helpful – of course they are – I am simply stating there is no moral reason to. The only argument on the contrary that I can see coming up would be to protect the eyes of the young… Although, if you address all this, I think the issue is self-inflicting. “I don’t like this therefore my children won’t like this, therefore I am justified.” I genuinely (and I think understandably) believe that, if I was raised in a nudist community, I would not react to seeing people naked.

-Ideology: A great deal of cultures, religions and peoples, without any sort of justification, condemn sex as if it is to be feared and hidden. While you could argue that sexual activity is a private matter (I.e. against voyeurism), you could again argue the same for hugging. Maybe the problem people have with voyeurism is simply the disruption it may cause to a peaceful public setting, or, almost certainly, the nudity. Furthermore, why have we allocated sex as the thing that only couples can do? What is with monogamy?

-Understanding/Learning/Knowledge: Would you ban cars because some people don’t know how to drive? No, no you wouldn’t. Why is this not the same for sex? We all know that abstinence does not work as much as some people want it to, so lets educate ourselves about sex. Lets not do it in a way that will scare them shitless, either, because a teenager definitely doesn’t need that! Safe sex is not a big deal! It’s improving every year, not to mention how much better it would be if it was funded more! Personal hygiene is one of the most important things a child needs to learn, and sex is such a big part of this topic! On a related note, how old do you think a person needs to be before they realize they have a fetish? How long is it before they are taught to understand that fetish in a positive environment?

Like most things, the issues around sex become non-issues when the topics are taught correctly and thoroughly, and you know what? I’d rather our future generations were having sex safely, without guilt, worry or shame, than having unsafe sex and getting torn up emotionally as well. Oh, and without proper education, we’d have a high pregnancy rate… Oh wait!

Topic: Serious Discussion / Solar Panels, Pay off

My Dad sold them for a while, before the UK changed their laws on loans. If you can afford one, it pays for itself in something like 20 years in energy savings. Not necessarily profitable, but it definitely has an effect. It also depends on the angle of your roof, and climate obviously.

Topic: Serious Discussion / If a Zombie Attack were to happen...

Originally posted by Darkuta88:

A tank doesnt exactly have unlimited shells, and there is no way that a horde could be stopped by 1 tank. A horde in my mind would be about 5,000 zombies, do you really think that you have enough shells to take that kinda shit out?

EDIT: I hate formatting here.

With traditional zombies, the horde probably couldn’t reach 5,000, given the speed in which information is shared. All you need is a loud siren: Even if you’d never heard the siren before, it sure as hell would make you get out of what ever your doing. Also, are you aware of the fire power the military has? Zombies are not exactly hard to shoot, not to mention the fact that we have amazing splash damage weaponry. Furthermore, a tank is a perfect anti-zombie machine. It doesn’t even NEED its weapons. Drive into the middle of the horde, have one man on the machine gun (to kill and draw in zombies), and roll forward/backwards for a few hours. Little math:
.
5000 zombies is aprox 70 columns * 70 rows of zombies.
If they are spaced at 1 meter, that is 70 meters of zombies in depth (less than the length of a football pitch)
The tank needs to travel just 0.043 miles to get from the front of this horde to the back, assuming the zombies are stationary.
An M1A1 is just over 3.5 meters in width. Assuming the tracks span 20% of that width (which is a small estimation), you have 2x 35cm of insta-kill: Almost every zombie that gets knocked under the tank will get at least a limb destroyed by the tracks, if not complete re-death. Any living dead that carried on moving after that would be underneath a pile of corpses. The tank takes no damage. None at all. The only costs are fuel consumption, and general roadway maintenance. I’m assuming all active military tanks have this kind of upkeep. I imagine it would be harder for a tank to drive through a small swamp than through a horde.
.
So, in summary, all you need is a tank driver, and an horde that see’s the tank driver as its next meal (tanks are hard to miss, even for zombies), and you have won. We have many tanks.
.
There are many other, more realistically accessible things that would make light work of a horde, including, but not limited to:
-Ladder (or any choke/high place) and fatal melee weapon
-Large staircase (or hard incline) and a form of ram (sports equipment, bag, furniture, foot, riot shield)
-Any water area (zombies wouldn’t be smart enough to realize they cannot swim until they attempt it)
-Shop (with shutters), esp. a bank/mall
-Large open area (assuming you have good cardiovascular skills, and knowledge of black ops zombies)… it’s like playing tag with the fat kids…
-Your house, as the zombies would have to break through your windows, and climb through sharp glass, all the while your standing there with every bit of household weaponry available.
-Vehicle that is faster than a zombie…. so every vehicle. Jesus, even a gentle jog and a little bit of smarts could get you through a lightly dense horde. Just look at rugby players!
-A large group of survivors with household weaponry. Melee combat is won with strategy (zombies have none), and assuming the human-to-zombie infection is not instant, you’d notice an infected person (even one who hid their bite) because they’d… fall over/faint/show other signs of infection presumably.
-A single, well trained, armed person. I know head shots are not easy, but if you have time to aim, being in the middle of a large open space (a street) would make it easy. A firing range. Stand on a car if you have to.
.
Every film portrayal of traditional zombies seriously underestimates human power and smarts. The people who turn into zombies are the physically slow (after awareness of course… I imagine for the first few minutes people will think its just a flash mob or something, until that ‘actor’ bites you for real), thus their zombie forms will be slow as well.
.
So, like I said, all this melodrama is absurd. That is why zombies were re-designed: It needed to be harder.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Tolerance a Good Thing?

Sorry it’s taken so long, and as a result I’m re-railing the topic back to the replies on the first page. I’ll reply to the current discussion as well.

Originally posted by tenco1:

Toleration of a mugging (that you aren’t apart of), kinda bad; tolerating people’s harmless opinions, good.

What I am confused about, is the fact that you need to tolerate something that is, by your own admission, harmless. If its harmless, how can you be against it?

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

i don’t like how tolerance or toleration has come to be seen as like the answer to everything.

I agree, hence the comment about people who tolerate having a lack of convictions.

i’m not sure i’m ok tolerating anything i dislike, and in some way i feel like people in general are far too tolerant. it’s just that when they show intolerance, they show it to things that are either none of their business, or completely incedental.

I wholeheartedly agree. I don’t need to tolerate most things, because I am not against them.

i think we should NOT tolerate investment bankers running risks on our wallets, making themselves rich sucking dry our economy — we should NOT tolerate bad parents that exploit their parental rights to fuck up the minds and life-prospects of children they’ve birthed — we should NOT tolerate oh a whole bunch of things.

we are TOO non-judgemental.

While I cannot comment on the example, I agree that there are large issues that people tend to just put up with.

but it seems everyone is either some weakling whimp that enables the world to fester; or wretched or moronic with awful ideas that cause it to fester.

i hate both sides. i hate everyone.

Ha: the saying (which I’m paraphrasing) ‘If your not fixing the problem, your part of it.’ Applies here.

anyway, you shouldn’t tolerate anything that is creating harm. but you should butt the fuck out of anything that’s none of your business and not creating harm but to your own imagination — not because of tolerance but because of relevance.

Exactly. This is the primary reason why I think tolerance is a bad thing. If you tolerate something that is moral, you are immorally against it (the LGBTI demographic is an example). Similarly, if you sit back and let bad things happen, the above quote applies. Although, everyone thinks their right, so you naturally get into the debatable arena of what is moral.

Originally posted by MyTie:

Originally posted by NickWalker12:
Could you express why you believe in tolerance.

I don’t beleive we should be intolerant of people, as a general rule. True, we shouldn’t tolerate murder, or genocide, or rape, etc. But, if people are doing things we don’t agree with, but aren’t hurting anyone but themselves, then they should be tolerated.

That’s the thing… I literally cannot think of any examples.

I wholeheartedly disagree with people that try to force others to fall in line with their beliefs. As long as that is that person’s business, and no one is being hurt, then let them.

Sure. Again, it begs the question, what is there left to tolerate?

As far as “acceptance” goes, I do not have to accept that what people are doing is right. The example I used is homosexuality. I believe it is wrong. I will never accept it. But that shouldn’t mean that I don’t tolerate homosexuals. I think they should be left to do as they please.

Ah. That is an example. Here is a question: If you think it’s wrong, then why do you tolerate homosexuals

Those who don’t accept the actions feel they shouldn’t tolerate the actions.

Well of course. It is part of any conviction.

Those who accept the actions feel that those who don’t are being intolerant. There is a compromise between being tolerant and unaccepting.

I think the fact that you are tolerating something at all shows that you don’t like it, but understand that you don’t have the right to change it. It begs the question then, why don’t you like it?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

I included it because there are often problems in which a group that is doing no harm to others is harmed by the intolerance of others. Thus tolerance of such groups would be the flip-side of that. Even if you don’t approve of their way of life, you tolerate them if you leave them alone.

Similarly, have you got any examples?

Originally posted by beauval:

I rather think he meant something like “tolerance of everything is the virtue of a man without conviction”. Nick pretty much nailed it in his opening post. We all tolerate traffic, crowds, other peoples’ annoying habits and so on. We’d go insane if we didn’t.

I may just be laid back, but I don’t see a problem with any of those. If any of those things crosses the line from annoyance to harmful, then of course I’ll then have an issue with it. Until then, there is nothing to tolerate.

We tolerate inept politicians, but when we tolerate dictatorial ones, that’s when tolerance starts to bite our arse. As Nick said, there comes a point when we need to make a stand, and if we don’t that’s when the lack of conviction shows.

This we do agree on.

Tolerating other peoples’ viewpoints is fine

Again, as long as they are not harmful, I don’t believe there is anything to tolerate.

Originally posted by somebody613:

MyTie

…This goes for black, gays, and anyone else, who was abused at some point and now use it to demand additional rights that would be more than an average citizen has (unless one deserves them on a personal level).

Are you speaking generally, or are there specific examples?

REAL equality, is when nobody NEEDS to demand for one’s rights.

I’m going to add that, it’s also when people know what rights they are entitled to.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I like the two-way system proposed before. Tolerance is accepting something in society that does not affect you (thinking black people should be put in jail is not tolerating them, even if you don’t physically put them there). Tolerance is also accepting certain issues to happen that do negatively affect you, without standing up against it.

Great point. Wrongdoings that you do not directly oppose could give you the label tolerance, although it is commonly more of a state of mind, rather than the [in]action of a person.

But the latter does not imply the majority of people agree with you that you’re negatively affected, neither does it mean you support equality by not tolerating it. So, tolerance is all about personal beliefs, which may happen to be the same with other people’s beliefs.

I suppose when I posted this thread, I was really asking why people tolerate certain things. Of course, it does all come down to personal belief… which probably explains why it has gone off on such a heated tangent.

Homosexuals that go ballistic because I don’t support government benefits for them specifically, scream that I’m “intolerant”.

No, they find homophobic bigots that support benefits for heterosexual marriages without benefits for homosexual marriages intolerant. You, specifically, don’t want benefits at all.

Agreed.

Originally posted by somebody613:

DR
Anyone who wants to have healthy children and grandchildren, should feel the same way.
Otherwise, your chances are very slim.

As homosexuals can have babies through surrogate mothers with absolutely no raise in health risks, you must be talking about the mental health of the child. Have you got any proof that children with homosexual parents are worse off, emotionally?
Bear in mind that, to give this question a fair run, you need an environment that is completely accepting of homosexuals. There isn’t one, and thus you have just made a baseless claim.

Gays are just ONE OF the modern FAMILY problems.
It just happens to be one the most DISCUSSED.

Furthermore, supposing we go along with you’re argument, can you even prove that the ‘damage’ caused to children raised in homosexual families outweighs the happiness caused by allowing homosexuals to adopt? Are their more children in homosexual families who are unhappy due directly to their parents sexual orientation and lifestyle?

Until you address those, you’ll just look like a homophobe, regardless of the labels you place on yourself. By the way, its comparable to a criminally insane person saying that they are not criminally insane… it doesn’t help your case.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Tolerance a Good Thing?

Well… err, whoops.

I’ll be back in a few hours to address all the responses. Thanks for your interest, by the way.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Tolerance a Good Thing?

@Tenco1
Could you elaborate? Pretty vague.

@VikaTae
I completely agree with your second point, but with the first, I dont think it applies, as one shouldn’t have anything against the belief systems of others unless those beliefs are wrong in a damaging way.

@MyTie
Could you express why you believe in tolerance. Also, what do you mean by the statement:

I don’t believe in “acceptance” under the guise of “tolerance”.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Tolerance a Good Thing?

From the other thread, the following quote made me think;

“Tolerance is the virtue of man without conviction.”

It reminded me of a Big Questions TV program (or similar) and I’m now asking what peoples views are on tolerance.

Definition that is relevant to the topic: “Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.”

I think the quote stands, and here’s why: I think it’s obvious that people do not tolerate what they perceive as immoral actions. The debate here is about the actions that “one does not necessarily agree with”. Honestly, as far as I’m concerned, if its not immoral, I do not disagree of the practice of it.

To me, to tolerate something is just to let it happen without standing up to it. So, discuss.

Topic: Serious Discussion / 'Moralistic Pre-Determinsim' or "Deterministic Nihilism" and the Abstraction of "Free Will"

Originally posted by simeng:

As to the insight on the consideration of failure, the individual does have some indirect control over his/her development, but he does not control how the actual development rolls out in finalization. For example, that’s what counselling and other remediation groups are for- you can manage how you act by (analyzing) meta-cognition. I think that people aren’t really angry at the original problem in itself, but rather the meta-problem of not trying to solve the original problem when the original problem proves to be soluble.

You make a very good point. It’s the distinction between anger and frustration for me: I initially get angry at the ‘bad’ actions of people, but then I rationalize (or at least try to). The phrase each to their own applies very well here: My anger then turns to frustration when I reason that, while the problem seems solvable, often, there is very little done about it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / 'Moralistic Pre-Determinsim' or "Deterministic Nihilism" and the Abstraction of "Free Will"

It is my personal opinion that human minds, personalities, characteristics etc. are the direct result of the circumstance from the start of time to the current moment. Every reaction is determined by its cause.

The human mind perceives the ability to choose through conscious decision making, which is just a series of reactionary thought processes. Therefore, we make the false assumption that we are able to author events, when in reality, every motivation involved in the ‘choice’ is outside our control. It’s like asking which number is biggest in an array of numbers. You select the correct option, but you do not choose the numbers.

And therein lies Hard Determinism.

Furthermore, as people grow up, there is an expectation of them to develop moral, social and intellectual skills. When people do not live up to these expectations, due entirely to un-authored series of circumstances, the judgmental, who are ignorant of the specific and delicate circumstances, place an expectation onto the “wrongdoer” who naturally can only fail. Judging someone with ignorance is called prejudice.

Unfortunately, there is no way for us to fully understand people, and so for practical reasons, judging based on motivations seems like the most fair option.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Free Speech and Hate Speech Laws

Censorship is only necessary when the people who hear it are ignorant of the facts.

-A racist person abusing a person of differing ethnicity: It’s depressing to witness, but as long as the receivers can “take it”, so to speak… As long as they know that the racist person is wrong, then there is no problem in my eyes. The same thing applies to every other hate speech. If your actions are morally neutral, or/and not wrong, then if someone has a problem with it, then it is their problem.

Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. Honestly, I cannot decide how much censorship should be in place. Shouting fire in a cinema is an especially tricky one too.

Topic: Serious Discussion / AXE and Dove ads

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by NickWalker12:

This **** is depressing. Just shows a lack of respect for the customer.

…

Nope, the new-ground-o-meter hasn’t budged at all.

THAT lowers peoples self esteem.

Wait, what?

I’m talking about OP. The fact that both messages contradict each other show that the company doesn’t give a monkey about their customers. The dove campaign against “artificial” beauty is popular only because people think that they care. This is not just business, its ethics.

@Stilton
When you compare it to factual claims made by products (an egg company who claim that they are organic) to their “values”, if they were lying, they would get sued. I don’t see why their “message” is any different. Apparently, the distinction between “We are this” and “We value this” allows them to contradict themselves.

To go off on a slight tangent, John Blow recently raised ethical issues with certain types of computer game mechanics, because they do not treat players like people. Is it too much to ask for ethical consistency in a company?

Topic: Serious Discussion / AXE and Dove ads

This **** is depressing. Just shows a lack of respect for the customer. THAT lowers peoples self esteem.

Topic: Serious Discussion / If you could write a letter to God...

Reply if you’re out there, I need a word.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do people kill themselves?

People see death as an escape. If you consider life worse than death then suicide seems inevitable. For me, the suicidal thoughts were caused by depression, which in turn was caused by Gender Dysphoria Disorder, which has an unusually high suicide rate (aprox 30% of people diagnosed with GDD have attempted to commit suicide).

Topic: Serious Discussion / the supernatural yay or nay

I think there would be abundant evidence for the existence of Ghosts, if Ghosts were to exist. The common myth is that Ghosts are created by dead people feeling unfulfilled in ANY way. How many people are entirely fulfilled when they die? Compared to the number who die? For that reason (plus the fact that they are scientifically indistinguishable from every other imagined being):

Ghosts (As defined commonly by humans) – Nay.
Aliens – Surely Yay, but unproven.
Mythical Creatures && Criptids – Surely Nay, as the chance of us accurately describing an alien/Earth bound unknown species is very very small.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

On a side note, Somebody, on a post on the previous page you seemed to assume:

“Because I don’t want to accept that a lot of questions are unknowable (I know this is an assumption (that there are unknowable questions), but it is also an unknowable assumption that they DO have answers), then I wont accept that the scientific method is the only methodology that leads to proof.”

Things like that are not practical or logical… for all you know, you could have caused the genocide of hundreds of millions of species that you cannot know about. Its lucky a statement like that cannot be proved…

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Mind-Body Problem

I think the fact that brain damage affects a persons “soul” is proof enough that, not only is the “soul” physically housed inside the brain , it is dependent on it (monism). One could making an argument for dualism as follows: The brain is merely the “receiver” of the soul… but then you run into problems of, how else is it received? There is also no proof for such an assumption, especially when we consider that: Like a radio receiver, something needs to be transmitting. I think we’ll eventually prove the cause of thought a series of reactions in the brain. Cause and effect. Determinism.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can religion be blamed for any grievance in society?

There is no evidence to assume free-will (to an extend to disprove Hard Determinism) anyway. When we discuss Free-Will vs Determinism, all we can do is speculate. A lot of people try to find middle ground with compatibalism, but I think its quite illogical to conclude that we are free and determined at the same time.

Full Freedom of will requires a new discovery; It needs proof that we are able to influence signals inside the brain which, in turn, are not influenced by external agents. Determinism as a scientific undestanding of the brain (Neuro-Science), on the other hand, simply needs us to accept that physics is entirely cause-and-effect, which, although we cannot currently conclude, is the more likely hypothesis.