Recent posts by Ceasar on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Kings & Queens

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Kings & Queens

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Kings & Queens

 
Flag Post

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

Karma, you don’t really owe me an apology, but when you say something like that “EXACTLY”, it feels like you’re trying to score “points” instead of have a discussion.

I’ll totally agree that I still don’t quite see what you’re saying. I’m not really trying to be hostile, but your side, at the Supreme Court level, pretty much said that anyone who supported DOMA did so out of hatred and for no other possible reason, and that’s bound to rub people like me the wrong way. To quote Roberts again, “By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to ‘lock . . . out,’ ‘disparage,’ ‘disrespect and subordinate,’ and inflict ‘[d]ignitary wounds’ upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”

Also, hostility to an argument and hostility to the person making them are not the same thing. One is fine, the other should usually be avoided. I guess those will be my parting words of wisdom, because…

I was scrolling up to look at something else, and noticed this:

Originally posted by stanwise:

I draw the line at comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. jhco can make his point without going there, and he’s free to come back and do so.

You know what? Forget it. I’m not even going to continue posting on this forum if a moderator is going to delete entire posts because they don’t like two things being compared. I saw and replied to that post before it was deleted, and it wasn’t a shining example of a model post, but it also wasn’t delete-worthy. Kongregate is free to have whatever rules it likes for this forum. I’m free to not subject myself to them in the future. To my 2:30 AM mind, this is the best way for me to handle this. I may change my mind in the morning, but I really doubt it.

My bad … I skimmed his post (it smacked of his “usual”) and didn’t see that part, stan.

You didn’t see it because it barely existed. It was just something he mentioned, like the guy who wanted to make polygamy legal and the guy who identified as an animal or something. (I tried looking at Google and Yahoo’s cached pages to get it exact but the post was gone there too.) If there was a comparison drawn, it was only that these are all changes that some people want to be made to marriage. There are reasons why that particular change isn’t going to be made (as opposed to the polygamous man, where I don’t see anything that would stop the courts from ruling for him based on the gay marriage decision) but in any case, he wasn’t saying the two things were identical or something.

 
Flag Post

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

EXACTLY.

There’s no need to rub it in when I ask for clarification because I don’t understand something. I did phrase it that way on purpose.

I don’t know what part of citizens’ safety being subjected to the potential harm of UNTRAINED—in both use of a firearm AND when to legally use it—ppl having the right to conceal-carry is all that hard to understand.

That may be true, but that doesn’t actually mean it’s unconstitutional to not have restrictions. It just means it’s a bad idea.

SCOTUS doesn’t MAKE the laws; it only rules on the Constitutionality of ONLY those brought to it.

So it’s OK as long as it’s only a little bit? And they get to pick from any case appealed to them, and they can certainly signal that IF someone were to bring a particular case they might vote a certain way. And it sure FEELS like they’re making a law here.

Citizens’ United is a bad decision … it gave voting status to BIG MONEY.

Those are two different unrelated statements; just because they think something subjectively is a good or bad idea does not mean the Supreme Court should rule for or against that idea. It also didn’t give actual voting status to big money; it only allowed it to talk to people.

to sail away from a shit-built dock that should be burned and destroyed

Ah, so the dock is burning because you set it on fire? I totally didn’t understand that metaphor before. I guess everyone needs to get on your ship whether they want to or not, and no matter how much water it’s going to take on due to hurried construction… I guess that works as a metaphor here.

hoping to board the good ship U.S.S Constitution

Well, that’s not the ship you made us board. As the Chief Justice said, “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

As far as Ted Cruz goes, he is kind of being an idiot here; it’s like saying that the order in the Miranda case only applied to Miranda and the police department that arrested him. On one level that’s technically true, but on another level you KNOW that the courts are going to rule against you if you don’t change (and you’re probably going to end up paying the other side’s legal fees because the underlying issue was already clearly settled), so why bother pretending the Supreme Court didn’t rule the way it did?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hog the outside lane

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I don’t buy it. The argument that speed limits are low so that more revenue can be raised in tickets is sort of dumb for two reasons.

1. Speed limits are carefully calculated by the DoT and provided as standards to municipalities.
2. It costs more in police and court time than the tickets are worth.

Cities would be happy to never write speeding tickets and save those full-time-employee salaries if they could snap their fingers and make it so.

They would have better luck expanding REETs, exacting impact fees, and issuing bonds and levies, like they always do.

1) The DOT doesn’t set the limit for every little road. In my state, a town can declare any rural road to have a limit of 45 instead of the normal 55 without justifying it to the DOT. There are 35 zones where you have a perfectly straight road with farmer’s fields on both sides.
2) Have you seen Ferguson’s budget, for example? Their 2015 budget contains nearly a million dollars in planned ticket revenue increases over 2014, and what’s their population, 21,000? It IS a revenue stream.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by jhco50:

I’m only going to make one more post here, for the simple reason I would be debating with those who want America to be gone. They are happy right now because they have made another big divot in our country.

Most people on the other side of the argument really don’t think that way. (This applies to almost any side of almost any argument, by the way. If that large a percentage of people in this country wanted the country destroyed, we’re doomed anyway.)

A guy in Illinois is now trying to make polygamy legal so he and his nine wives are legal.

After this decision, what argument could you make against him? I can’t think of one. Apparently, “that’s not what marriage is” or “this is how we’ve done things since before the beginning of the country” or “the people have passed a law saying you can’t” aren’t valid arguments.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
We are talking about Unconstitutionally usurping the rights of We the People to make the decisions.

I fail to understand how you can make this point about Citizen’s United and, in the SAME POST, say “YOU are faaaaarrrrrrrr too worried that the Court has faaaaaaaaarrrrrrr too much control over the laws being made in the land.” And then, again in the SAME POST, say “BTW, I’m hoping someone contests our Kansas law that went into effect just the other day: Most ANYONE can conceal-carry a gun now … no training, registration, etc. necessary. I hope it makes it to SCOTUS.” How do you reconcile those statements?

but the dock is burning

The dock was not burning; this was not an emergency. But you launched the ship without untying the moorings and may have broken the dock for the next ship.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Kings & Queens

I’d say there’s about a 75% chance I’ll be able to make it for the entire time, and that seems good enough for me to sign up. If I can’t make it… oh well.

 

Topic: Technical Support / Some players cannot access kong site

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

Topic: Serious Discussion / The People Spoke

defense, and interstate commerce are technically the only powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

Those are not the ONLY powers (although many other powers are at least related to those.) They can build roads, control immigration, and establish patents, among other things. They can also enforce that the states give equal protection to their residents, prohibit slavery, and ensure that those over 18 can vote, due to several amendments.

The general guideline should be that the federal government should do things that states cannot do on their own. Things like air pollution are properly regulated by the federal government, because air blows from one state to another. National defense is best done, well, nationally.

But education? Health care? There’s no reason why the states can’t handle those, is there?

There are plenty of laws that are passed by all 50 states. Murder is illegal in every state, for example, even though it’s not a federal crime in most cases. It’s important to the point of being essential, from both a practical standpoint and a human rights standpoint – but that still doesn’t mean the murder law needs to be federalized. But if one state went off the rails and DID legalize murder, the people in that state would at least be free to move to another state. If instead it was legalized at the national level, it would be much more difficult to find another country to live in, and you’d have to get that country’s permission.

and the Republicans have received a mandate.

Not really. When one side convinces about 11 out of 20 voters (out of the half that actually bother to vote) that the other guy was worse, for reasons that varied from state to state, after the majority voted for the OTHER party just two years ago… that’s not a “mandate”, that’s just winning an election. If one side got 2/3 of the vote on a regular basis, and the elections were all about the same issue, then maybe there would be a “mandate” on that issue.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Government is broken.

I propose to you that any government man can think of as long as there is a human element, can and will fail due to someone putting themselves on top.

Well, the US system attempts to prevent this by having separate branches Within the legislative branch, they can make laws and impeach members of the other branches, but any single member of Congress does not hold too much power – they are one among 100 or 435, and almost anything one house does has to be approved by the other house, and the courts can rule their laws unconstitutional if they overstep. They can change the Constitution but only if the states also approve. Within the executive branch, the President holds great power – commander in chief, head of the entire bureaucracy, veto power over legislation, can pardon anyone, and can appoint federal judges, including the Supreme Court – but he cannot serve more than two terms, his vetoes can be overridden, his appointments must be approved by the Senate, and he is subject to impeachment by Congress. Within the judicial branch, the Supreme Court has a lifetime term and sweeping power over what the law is, but they’re one of 9, and can only rule on matters brought before them, and are also subject to impeachment.

You can say “but what if the President just ignores all those restrictions?” Well, it’s possible, but I think the term limit provides a bright line. If you’re there for more than 2 terms, you’re illegitimate and everyone knows it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Is it legal to transfer my own save files between my own computers to make progress on an impossible badge?

Originally posted by SpearDudezor:

Will I go to jail if I do that? I’m asking because it could be someone using someone else’s save file to get the badge and it might be a bit tough to prove that it’s not

First, while it IS cheating, it’s probably not actually illegal to use other people’s save files to get badges, in most circumstances. It would take a rather tortured reading of the law to claim that such a thing constituted illegal access to Kongregate’s computers, and since a badge has no monetary value, I don’t think it could be fraud. (This would change if, say, you were in a gaming tournament that had prizes.)

Second, even if it were illegal to use other people’s save files to get badges, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did this. They have the burden of proof, not you. If all you do is transfer the file from one of your computers to another, it’s hard to see how they’d have any evidence that you took someone else’s file (because you didn’t.) And even if they were interested in such things, it’s hard to see how they’d know you transferred the file in the first place unless they were specifically targeting that sort of thing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B


 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rage & Grace, 42nd Kongregate Tournament. Tourney is Over, Special Thanks to Ben_B

May as well post my improvements.