Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Kinda proves my point for me, your argument does.

No…it doesn’t.
Man has been interested in the cosmos for a looooooong time.
I think Braun’s research would have eventually found its way to serious interest.
It just wouldn’t have been paved with blood.
Necessity tends to be the mother of invention.

Finally you understand the core of my argument. Took you long enough.
I’ve constantly said I do see your point.
Just like I’ve questioned your seeing mine.
Let me state it again:

I find it interesting how ppl who have never been IN a war (combat/killing) or had first-hand losses (family/friends killed—property destroyed—business/jobs lost) can so blithely subjugate the negatives of war by blindly focusing on advances they believe were solely the result of such conflicts.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

I hear it is kinda COLD in space.
I well imagine our efforts to go where no man has gone before led to some revelations in thermodynamics. I’ve heard there were a few other hurdles to overcome that led to a lot of other innovations.

I think this is as marvelous as it is forgotten:
“By today’s standards, the IT Nasa used in the Apollo manned lunar programme is pretty basic. But while they were no more powerful than a pocket calculator, these ingenious computer systems were able to guide astronauts across 356,000 km of space from the Earth to the Moon and return them safely.”

Wanna go a little low-tech, I’m guessing those wagon trains going from Missouri gave those prairie schooners probably helped develop better wagon design.

I’m guessing that all of those constant left turns that test to the known limits how well developments in automotive capabilities hold up. Ya know, like = how NASCAR got its humble beginnings from country boy’s need to outrun the revenuers w/ their white lightning.

Ya know, like how a single death led to an innovation to prevent any similar tragedies and maybe saved NASCAR. But, was it really just a single death? Or, was that death just the needed straw on the camel’s back?

The “war on hunger” has peacefully propelled massive innovations on how to enhance food supplies

Necessity tends to be the mother of invention. If an issue is truly worthy of effort, is the killing, maiming, psychological devastation, huge loss of materials, all at the expenses of vast resources really the preferred path to laud and be so blithely satisfied by a the-ends-justify-the-means?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

And, the war greatly advanced the finding vaccine for polio and treatment of a host of other maladies?
Likely it was the realization that even a wealthy President could suffer the effects that prompted money to invested.
Ya know, like how falling off his horse brought attention to “Superman’s” plight of spinal cord injury.
OR, how good ’ol Nancy Regan changed her mind about stem cell research AFTER her man fell apart w/ Alzheimer disease.

Yeaaaaa….for wars.
They are so great we ought to schedule one every 20 years.
Just think of the magnificent advances we could achieve.
Plus, the “lesser ppl” would have greatly enhanced advantages because a lot of the more capable ppl are killed off.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by tghrr:

My first though was hell yes, kill one to save 10’s of millions but then I had a rather cold thought that world war two and the holocaust is actually beneficial in the long term to humanity as a whole because without all these people dieing overpopulation would be even worse then it already is, AND world war 2 led to some pretty cool advancements in technology that are stated elsewhere in the forum.

There is little to NO proof that either of those two, overpopulation & great tech advancements, wouldn’t have had similar (if not better) outcomes were there to have been no war. You are super-generalizing on cause/effect issues here.

And by the way I am NOT some anti-Semitic Europe-hater who agrees with what Hitler did, I am actually an English Jew but I just think that despite the horror of what happened he benefited humanity as a whole.

Completely debatable and ultimately highly subjective because of perspective.
Originally posted by beauval:
But I’ll give you the technology aspect. The military pays well for good tech, and always has done.
This is the ugly truth.
In all of history, societies seem to value the ability to kill, destroy, enslave, & steal over endeavors more aligned w/ peaceful coexistence.

I well realize this behavior is likely the primordial impetus that has propelled us to be the “dominate” (depends on perspective) species on Earth (cockroaches anyone?). I feel it is at the very heart of most violence. Yes, there are other factors in play—poverty, craziness, anger issues, etc.; but, that violence is the method so readily used to address the problems tells a lot about why we might see something as devastating as any huge war as having some intrinsic “value”.

Who is to say most any of these social benefits couldn’t/wouldn’t have been realized just the same….maybe just a little longer? What if we killed off the guy who would discover the cure for cancers? What if we interrupted/stopped vital research into a host of other badly needed social advances?

I certainly won’t argue that WWII didn’t yield specific benefits. But, I will question if the price paid was worth it; especially when we absolutely don’t know what benefits not having a war would have been wrought were other means tried/found to control the dark side of Man.

Until that dark side is mastered, we will always be fighting amongst ourselves….in one way or another (physical or economical) w/ a lot of harm/pain/suffering the result.

In the long term, Hitler brought us benefits he couldn’t have begun to imagine.

One of those being the huge interstate highway system that got an extreme “nudge” from its early 1900’s efforts when Eisenhower was afforded a comparative of transportation capabilities via his military experience in WWII.

“The Interstate Highway System gained a champion in President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences as a young Army officer crossing the country in the 1919 Army Convoy on the Lincoln Highway, the first road across America. Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the Reichsautobahn system, the first “national” implementation of modern Germany’s Autobahn network, as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.9 He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion."

Ever the military man, Ike focused on the importance a superhighway system would be for national defense. But, America’s capitalists would likely have soon realized that the better they could MOVE consumer goods from one local to another, the better their bottom lines would be. Sure, they would have seen to it that “the govt.” paid for it, but it would have happened just the same in all likelihood. Remember now, the concept wasn’t thought up by Ike, he just pushed for it to be main-tracked once he acquired the influence of being President.

I’m going to do a bit of channeling The CROW here.
I find it interesting how ppl who have never been IN a war (combat/killing) or had first-hand losses (family/friends killed—property destroyed—business/jobs lost) can so blithely subjugate the negatives of war by blindly focusing on advances they believe were solely the result of such conflicts.

It really comes down to a “game” of IF’s.
The IF’s really seem to change when it comes to: IF YOU are the one to suffer; NOW, how willing are you to make such sacrifices of that portion of society called YOU?

It reminds me a lot of NIMBY:
“Used to describe a person or an attitude, NIMBY is an abbreviation for Not In My Back Yard. A NIMBY might agree that a community or a neigborhood needs a half-way house for convicts transitioning back to society, but doesn’t want it placed too close to his or her own home or in the neighborhood. property values. too much traffic. ugly woobly boxes.”

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Originally posted by Kegfarms:

Depends on the type of feminism.

Kegfarms, thanks for the “spacer”.
BTW, do those kegs ya raise on your farm come already filled w/ beer?
Anyway, I forgot to add something to what the Christian blogger said above:
“Why do you suppose that there might be a “blame the victim” mentality today? Do women ever bear any responsibility for putting themselves in potentially dangerous places and situations, like drunken frat parties? Do they bear no responsibility for the outrageous “fashions” they choose to wear nowadays, clothing that makes them look like prostitutes and porn “stars,” clothing that arguably feeds the “rape culture”? Yes, we know that a man who sexually assaults a woman is always wrong, but why is it considered just fine for a woman to present herself in a hyper-sexual, sleazy way and then expect men to treat her with the dignity and honor she imagines she deserves? The disconnect from reason is palpable."

Gina Miller asks the questions; but, she utterly fails to address them other than to say: The disconnect FROM REASON is palpable.

And, she tacitly contradicts the point of her questions when she says: ….a man who sexually assaults a woman is ALWAYS WRONG,…

Isn’t it Ms. Miller who is making the disconnect from reason when she oddly equates a woman’s “dressing sleazy” as somehow being a forfeiture of the right to not be assaulted right along w/ the forfeiture of her right to not be treated with the dignity & honor she deserves.? Isn’t she only blaming the victim?

What makes miller make this connection?
What makes her generalize that (all?) women deserve respect & dignity?
Ms. Miller certainly appears to be demonstrating a somewhat lack of respect & a finding of little dignity for those feminists who she soundly disagrees with. Ms. Miller likely also has little respect for those gals who like to exercise their “pussy power”. aka known as: the ability to cause a male to drool…. ya know, girls rule; boys drool.

Those feminists likely aren’t dressing like porn stars.
So, what gives?
Does Ms. Miller, in a covert manner, suggest that those women who think/behave differently than she & Christian ideology are somehow responsible for any negativity that comes their way?

There is a line from a fav movie of mine. It goes: I was involved; but not responsible.
That came from a politician….little surprise. LOL
But, it does show there are areas of distinction that must be considered….not a black & white world.

I think some of the behaviors that assaulted women engaged in certainly do touch on the involved part. However, as Ms. Miller rightly points out, “yes, we know that a man who sexually assaults a woman is ALWAYS WRONG” … I’m gonna go with ALWAYS TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE for his actions, too.

There is also that very familiarly known concept that Ms. Miller tends to be overlooking. That being: all rapes (most?) aren’t about normal sexual gratification. There is that area of thinking that makes this case. So, how does dressing/behaving in a sexy, trampy, porn-star way even get into her process for assessment of cause?

My point there is that some ppl tend to believe that ALL rapes will happen regardless of the woman’s behavior. Excuse me; but, I find that highly debatable. Esp. when we factor in the concept of involved, but not responsible.

Some afterthoughts.
Why did Ms. Miller ask: “but why is it considered just fine for a woman to present herself in….”?
Where is she getting this idea that it is “fine”; and, WHO is it that does so?
I wish she had been much clearer on that.

Doesn’t Ms. Miller understand that making the male responsible for HIS illegal actions doesn’t equate to not holding the woman just as responsible for hers? The woman isn’t responsible for the rape. She certainly wasn’t ASKING to be raped. Yet, isn’t that what is usually said about “those women who dress/act that way”….she was asking for it?

The lack of good judgment on the parts of the man & the woman are hugely different in nature. Just how hard is that to understand?
I don’t know in what way it contributes to this concept of rape culture_; but, doesn’t the (widely held?) concept of bros before hoes merit some consideration? Isn’t it somewhat supportive of what some of the feminists think about how patriarchy exists?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

Dont tell me not to walk alone at night, teach muggers not to mug!!! #feminism #yesallwomen

The bliss of ignorance.
The tragedy of experience.
The dear cost of that awakening by first-hand experience.
Maybe something between the two?
Education-awareness-a hint?

A bonny lass should be able to walk alone anywhere she pleases at any time….wearing what she desires, if anything at all.
And, a frog should have wings so it doesn’t bump its ass when it hops.
A rape “culture” exists in America just the same as does a pedophile one;
just the same as does an oligarchy “culture” where so many are so easily dominated by so few.

I greatly doubt any particular social ill can be solved w/out all of them being addressed and significant progress made.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

The laughably obvious trolling above ignored (but yet, appreciated for the setup of my post), I came across this bit of equally silly-sad pap about feminism from a blogger. It talks about her take on some guys who are working on ways/products to help women battle various forms of rape. The thrust of the topic is on a fingernail polish that can detect debilitating drugs; and, the Christian blogger goes into detail about what a feminist blogger is saying about that product.

She is “is a conservative Christian political writer and radio/television voice professional. "

A huge tip off of where she is going to go came w/ this revelation from her:
_"While doing yard work on Wednesday, I had Rush Limbaugh on my portable radio.Need I say more?
Basically, only three main types listen to Rash Limpballs:
1: those who eat his shit up and get drunk on it.
2: those who find it necessary to visit the enemy’s camp to know the shit de jour in order to better make plans to thwart it.
3: those who are masochistic and are in search of a conservative vampire to suck their pathetic life out of them.
“He mentioned this story and said that the feminazis are in an uproar over it. In case you’re unfamiliar with Rush’s word, feminazi, that’s his term of endearment for men-hating, radical feminists. He explained why they’re irked about the new nail polish (that’s not even on the market yet), which, as usual, is a lot of complaining about men and the terrible burdens women are expected to carry to hopefully avoid getting raped.”

Yeah, damn those fucking bitches for complaining about a little rough sex play from the “boys”. But, do you see it? If the Christian blogger (and Rush) combine that w/ “man-hating”, they then can TWIST it into being an absurd concern.
" Naturally, Rush’s analysis of the silliness of the feminazi ire was spot-on."
Well, THAT certainly tells me to look very closely for the not-so-well-hidden clues that this gal just has a huge inherent bias going in.
(hint: it has to do w/ her Sky Pilot)
The feminist blogger, Ms. Kergy, brings up 3 areas of plausible solutions that could/should be of help in stemming rapes:
" stop blaming the victim, educate men on how not to rape, and hold colleges accountable for how they deal with sexual assaults on campus."
We here on SD have brought these up for discussion already. The big one that, also the obvious one, is education…enlightenment…whatever one wants to call getting the message to those who NEED IT. And, for me, that sword-0-education swings both ways. Let’s educate the gals, too.

But, Christian blogger, Gina Miller, has this to say about this Leftist silliness:
“To many on the Left, the answer to most problems is “education,” but what young man doesn’t already know that it’s wrong to sexually assault another person? Who is unclear that “no” means “no”?"

Well, fucking DUH.
I think Ms. Miller has (purposefully?) missed the point of WHAT KIND of education we are talking about. The main hurdle to overcome is to address that “no” business. I know of this concept that is kicked around in bull sessions by guys that: no really means yes; it’s just that a woman doesn’t want to be seen as being easy; some women like it a little rough; you are the man, TAKE IT. Then, given the human-factor which means balogna/steak, there will be that segment of guys that take all of that a weeeebit too far.
Ms. Miller isn’t finished w/ the Left yet:
“Another favorite tactic of the Left is to hold the powers-that-be responsible for the protection and safety of the people. Colleges can only do so much to protect their students from danger, but Ms. Kerby expects colleges to be held accountable and to enact policy changes that will better punish rapists.”

Well, what the fuck?
Responsible for the safety & protection of the ppl on its premises?
We can’t be having any of THAT shit.
Just have ppl flash their NRA cards at the baddies.
Have volunteer Campus Cops.

I don’t think feminist are wanting colleges to ride around in the hip pockets of it coeds to places (esp. bars) off-campus. But, how about at Frat parties? I do think this crap about punishing RAPISTS by the colleges/unis is a reasonably good idea. If the law can’t get ‘em, the edu-int. certainly can exact its own measures….should sufficient EVIDENCE be available.
The feminist blogger finished her column with this:
_"It’s pretty terrible that in 2014, that these kinds of products even need to exist, but the reality is that they do exist. Instead of funneling money into making gadgets that help prevent women from being raped, let’s talk about solutions to shifting rape culture where consent, on both sides, is seen as the norm."_

The Christian blogger appears to be loathe to show any agreement w/ the feminist….at least directly (she has her reason: Sky Pilot).
Ms. Gina Miller says:
“Yes, it is indeed a shame that there is a “need” for a product like this nail polish, and for a morally diseased culture such as ours, there is nothing to criticize about these young scientists’ ingenious invention. But, there will be no shifting of any rape culture by throwing money at more “rape culture awareness,” or telling young men that it’s wrong to rape, or holding colleges accountable, or not “blaming the victim.” Our nation has turned its back on God. We have kicked Him out of our schools and out of the public square. We have raised several generations of Godless, self-centered, sex-obsessed kids, and the truth is that there can be no positive transformation of any sick culture without the saving power of the Spirit of God through Jesus Christ to change people’s hearts of stone into new hearts of flesh."

And, there ya go. All we have to do to eliminate this rape culture is to EDUCATE ppl about the Glories of Christ. I wonder if all those nasty boyz who are doing the raping are all NOT Christian? If not, just where is the failure of the new heart of flesh those nice rapist Christian boys have? Where did “education” fail them? If one considers the number of rapes and the percentage of Christians…..well?

But, I did find it interesting that this anti-feminist took this tack:
“Why do you suppose that there might be a “blame the victim” mentality today? Do women ever bear any responsibility for putting themselves in potentially dangerous places and situations, like drunken frat parties? Do they bear no responsibility for the outrageous “fashions” they choose to wear nowadays, clothing that makes them look like prostitutes and porn “stars,” clothing that arguably feeds the “rape culture”? Yes, we know that a man who sexually assaults a woman is always wrong, but why is it considered just fine for a woman to present herself in a hyper-sexual, sleazy way and then expect men to treat her with the dignity and honor she imagines she deserves? The disconnect from reason is palpable."

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What would happen if there was a worldwide famine?

Originally posted by dd790:

Pretty sure Day of the Triffids covered this…

The Postman did a decent task of depicting what a post-apocalyptic world would look like…replete w/ the dark side of human nature.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What would happen if there was a worldwide famine?

LOL, not to watch TV, for sure.
I was thinking more along the lines of power for production machinery.

As for gasoline, I was going for it to be used for transportation of various items….esp. food.

But, if we are talking about going as far as the feudal days, those who own livestock are sitting pretty. Unless you are talking about true hunter/gatherers. They tend to be nomadic; moving on after an area is sufficiently harvested—not raped of live resources. Much like our plains Native Americans did. Horses became very integral to their lives.

In the Northeast, game was plentiful and permanent villages were possible.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Originally posted by Frostbringer:
Any solution for this problem can’t include spending more state money.

Yes, a more equitable distribution of wealth.

This is a win-win-win solution.

win: the “poor” would have far less “incentive” to riot.

win: the “taxees” would have more money from which to gather in taxes to go towards providing better policing. Hum, I just saw that the word policing is little more than saying: policy-ing, making and promoting policy.

win: in general, more of the populace would feel integrated into being effectual in creating their govt. and the policies it makes regarding them. Imagine that, a country the Forefathers envisioned.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Thoughts on and inspired by Jan’s link:

I long ago promoted the idea of women having much more control of human events. I felt there was far too much testosterone involved in govt. policy….particularly in the area of the need to go to war. I would like to explore the willingness of women wanting to send into battle those ppl that once lived INSIDE of them for 9 months. As time passed, I’ve seen a lot more women in elected/hired govt. positions and in the workforce in general that include high-level positions. I hope to see a woman U.S. President before I die. I wonder if she would experience the same resistance Obama found upon taking office.

The text of the link read w/ a reasonableness of such a proposal, though in a very extreme degree. It didn’t appear that the goal was to be anything but a result of natural attrition and pre-birth planning (of various current & future methods).. BUT, by clicking on the castration blip, it appears her “Castration Day” is a semi-harsh Spanish Inquisition on a global scale.

By watching the video, I felt I was seeing some weird form of a Trojan Horse. Here we have this attractive, soft-spoken (in a sweet Southern accent, to boot) young person advocating some radical,,,-extreme-,,,-controvercial-,,,“outside-the-box” concepts that have the taint of a simple reductio ad absurdum she likely didn’t see coming. Maybe she is just spoofing a devil advocate’s look at the battle-of-the-sexes, as it was (mostly jokingly) called in my youth.

But, this “little gal” certainly isn’t the mouth-frothing, spittle-flying, fingernails-on-chalkboard yelling, bra-turned-slingshot image one would likely associate w/ radical feminism. An Amazon woman warrior or Xena she isn’t*. So, is this the new face of world leadership? Will most all conflicts be softened to how she presents herself?

I found her coined term, femitheist to be interesting. I want to believe she isn’t being a theist in the religious term. Maybe she was going for something more along the lines of: fem-antitheist (interesting that MAN is in it). As a true believer in free speech, I may not agree with what she says, but I will defend her right to say it with my life. Such talk is the means by which parameters are established.

However, her niche in the parameters tend to be a weebit fuzzy.
On the one hand, she says: Essentially my ideas lead to men being made a special class—a far more valued class—having choice of a myriad of women due to the difference in sex ratio. Men would be made more valuable, and their quality of life would be dramatically improved. They would have a subsidised existence if you will, akin to going on an all-expenses paid vacation that lasts from birth to death.

But, on the other, we have from her: We would have a true Eutopia, where peace reigns, and men do only what they exist for…

Is that labor a part of an all-expenses paid vacation? What does “serve” entail? I suppose it would include providing sperm. Would that also fall under the labor part? But, would the guys really have a _choice of a myriad of women _ in exchange for that sperm? Would this myriad of choice be a presentation of women who are ovulating? Would this be a lot like it is in the wild where the male has a harem; but is “master”? Has this woman thought out the logistics of that 1-10% of males being sperm donators? OH, my aching balls.

She also believes: Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, and religions due to fear of oppression. So, how is this world any better? Because some people have potential opportunities to do certain things? Does she really think the world over is going to magically turn into BorgNation? Does she not realize she can’t control diversity…AT ALL? Does she truly believe all of her “sisters” are going to be all that sweet to each other and agree to not be “bitchy”?

All just some thoughts that Jan’s link “inspired” for me.

*I was looking for a link that showed images of the Amazon women I’d hear about when I was young … big, tall, muscular (sounding like testosterone, anyone?), and definitely in charge, with the men being kept wimps; I guess only emotionally, not physically—genetics and all that.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

More data needed.
Do you mean just here on SD?
Or, if in RL, recent or all-time?

While we are having some fun, let’s also have a look at dumb reasons to do away w/ ALL gun restrictions/regulations & go “solid” 2nd. I find a lot of them to be as funny as they are scary.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What would happen if there was a worldwide famine?

power, do you agree that these few will be in the countryside?
That the urban areas will become mostly huge ghost towns?
How far back into the agrarian past to you think we would go?
Would we still have electricity?
Would we have gasoline?
For machinery power?
Enough for vehicles?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Hell, I think guns as toys for shooting crows is a damn fine idea.

I had one just like that when I was about 8 y.o.
From the looks of things, I should have kept it….lol

But, from the serious perspective, anyone have any speculations on the crossover of how video games create interest in real guns & shooting for the kids who favor that genre of playing?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Ya just gotta know that ain’t true, CROW.

Most kids are raised by the “net” these days;
momma is off working a job where she can make money to buy those brats things because she feels so guilty being a super-mom/mild-feminist and can’t do the true job she was designed for and SUPPOSED to be doing.

The net, via porn, is what teaches BOTH genders that a rape culture is cool … that a hand/blow job is today’s equivalent of a goodnight kiss (from my dating days). What lucky guys, the modern feminist doctrine even dictates that the gal goes Dutch on the date. She doesn’t want to be see as a ho because HE PAID for that blow job.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Originally posted by derpdeherphurr:
Really it’s none of their business how adults choose to express their sexuality as long as they’re not breaking any laws and to make an issue of it just makes feminists look bad.

I’m not contradicting your position here.
I’m merely wanting to point out that it is a degree thing.
While it is hugely none of their business, I feel it isn’t ABSOLUTELY none of their “business”.
In some weirdly distorted way, I’m channeling the it-takes-a-village thing here.

Since these feminists are a part of the society in which this activity (porn subjugation of women) happens; and those women also participate in that depicted behavior, they (individually or collectively?) likely will encounter some fallout-effect from how that behavior influences society at large.

In a sense, it already is/does. The (more radical?)feminists’ railing at the various “wrongs” within the porn/female-objectification area is doing exactly what YOU point out above. It somewhat makes them look “bad” <<<<< subjective/perspective value. Maybe I’m describing an action-reaction scenario.

It seems that even with well-removed & remote ideology, in their viewpoint, these "extremist feminists are going to object; and even do it in a way that makes a lot of ppl go: WTF? BUT, here is the crux of it for me. I look at less-than-ideal situations as: does it really need to be “fixed”? A huge part of that is: at what cost? Where is that elusive “point of diminishing returns”?

As I’ve pointed out, as females they are obviously going to “share” in most anything that happens in society that is ABOUT women….to some degree or another. The large objection to that kind of overt feminism is that it seems they are out to kill mice w/ elephant guns.

They shout about how we have a “rape culture”. Yes, we do have a culture where sexual assault (of various natures) occur.
But NO, they can’t cut off MY penis.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by tenco1:

Eh, at least it wasn’t quite as bad as (what is to my knowledge the) last time something like this happened, where the kid, seven year old this time, killed himself because he couldn’t handle the kick back of the Uzi his dad gave him.

Sometimes that’s done as a ‘joke’. Give someone a firearm for the first time, or a higher caliber than they are used to, and don’t tell them about the kick. Then wait for the ‘funny’ part when the weapon fires out of control, and injures the person firing it.

You mean like these ppl (from the last page):

Some of these ppl shouldn’t even be allowed AROUND guns. There are several repeats; but, there are some doozies in it.

The first one is a repeat. From there, it jumps off a cliff
The 3rd one is as despicable as it is stoooopid. It almost brings a person to want to ban children under the age of 6 from even being around guns. And, let’s include idiots like the guy who let his gun be taken from him…..BY A 4 y.o.

In a way such behavior illustrates the problem; it’s not truly a legislature problem, but runs even deeper than that. It’s a cultural problem. Guns simply aren’t taken seriously by some parts of the population. They’re not a toy, but they are a tool to ‘lark about’ with. It will take far more than legislation to change those attitudes.

The main area I think legislation helps in is that it brings the issue to the front burner….either to cook up a fine meal or to do nothing more than turn up the heat on the issue to the point there is no longer a good reason for it to even be able to be considered worthy of discussion, let alone possibly finding some workable efforts by which solutions can be worked towards. Ya know, like it has been here in America for some time now.

If a law is well received/observed, then its intent has been realized. If all it did was to further divide and entrench even deeper the two main opposing viewpoints, it would likely have been much more preferable to have just kept the issue at the discussion level rather than to “bless” a particular viewpoint w/ the formality of law.

I’m not saying that viewpoints whose time has come and are very popular w/ a wide segment of the population shouldn’t be manifested in the form of a law….even though that very loudly vocal group(s) will howl that America has been shit on and the Constitution use to wipe ass. Sometimes ya just have to let the baby cry itself out so it will finally go to sleep.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

I have just enough time to right now to toss in this

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Nah, beauval, it is necroed only by that fact that I’ve failed to live up to the OP of my thread: UPDATES.

To many other SD “juicies” and too little time to share w/ RL.

That incident is some sick shit.
Of course, the instructor didn’t “deserve” to be killed; maybe an ear shot off?
But, it is totally his fault. He is a piss-poor instructor … aside from the fact he is teach ppl so young.
Sure, they are viewing it as “sport”.
BUT, guns aren’t toys for kids to “play” with.
Let ’em have slingshots and soda bottles to have fun.

If you watch the video closely enough, you’ll see the instructor switch the gun to full auto….which caused the reaction that killed him. He should have had the girl shoot semi-auto bursts of 3 (or so) shots to see how well she could handle successive recoil. If that range is going to allow ANYONE, esp. small kids, do shootings w/ multiple rounds in full-auto, they probably should us a harness I devised. It is a tightened loop on the foot that comes up and engages the gun/wrist so it can’t “climb” when shooting many rounds.

Plus, the instructor should have had only 5 or 6 rounds for the first attempt at full auto. One just DOES NOT KNOW how a stranger is going to perform.


And, while some might think me somewhat hypocritical because I own/carry a firearm and yet strongly support some very stringent controls/regulations, I think this incident should help ppl have a much better understanding just why I feel as I do.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:
No, I don’t have a subscription either. For some reason the link worked for me anyway. Here is a truncated version:

The data in that text shows just how hard it can be to get an accurate picture of the overall situation of economic disparity between the genders. It also shows how easy it is to toss out numbers—and omit essential information on how they were derived—to “prove” something that is a biased goal. I see this as a factor of being both intentional and “misguided”. I think too many ppl tend to overlook, for whatever reason/logic, important information like this: “But every “full-time” worker, as the BLS notes, is not the same..”

Pawnzilla, I agree w/ your point about how a much truer picture of wage inequality would be rendered were the comparisons to be made in a specific field that would/could be seen as being basically gender neutral in nature; and, it would be a big enough one as to be able to obtain a really good sampling. Plus, and here is the really important factor for me, all of those variations of reasons for differences mentioned* in that and more would need to be looked at.

Jan said: I mentioned depictions of female roles but let’s talk about the bolded part for a second – does this view of yours extend outside of videogames? Are you cool with porn? After all women in porn aren’t representative of women everywhere right? Oh and there’s men in porn too, of course. Do you know the major difference between male and female pornstar behaviours [in straight porn]? women in porn are generally submissive and vulnerable, which is why schoolgirls, kneeling BJs, MILFs, bukkake and uh, I think the industry term is ‘nonconsent/reluctance’ are so popular. it’s a power trip, and male pornstars reflect that supremacist mentality. But hey, like videogames it’s just fantasy, so no harm done, right?

It does extend outside of video games. I don’t watch porn, because I believe that porn is unhealthy for the body and mind.

I’m not wanting to prove anything here, just pointing out how I see this “male dominance” in porn, in video games (both gender and situation), in older movies, in culture itself until the 1920’s, etc. as being so pervasive that one shouldn’t ignore all of that in favor of pursuing the rational, yet lofty, concept of some ambiguous goal of what is a highly subjective generalization of “equality”.

If that doesn’t make sense, I’ve have a go at it w/ an analogy. It is one thing to want to catch the beautiful butterfly w/ a net; but, to expect to catch the air along with it just isn’t at all realistic. A lot of inequalities in the genders just can’t be “caught” for changing because there doesn’t exist the net (yet?) that can change some obvious BASIC differences between them.

Not that I am challenging your point on pornography, Pawnzilla, I just want to point out (for the viewers at home) that the findings in that link you provide can’t be applied across the board. The “unhealthy” part concerns addiction, which doesn’t affect a large number of ppl. And, the study appears (I didn’t read all of it) to focus on only the male viewer. While the male viewer likely is the predominate viewer, women & couples do their share.

One thing that I questioned was the position of assessment** of certain male viewers. It appears the researchers failed to consider the “upsides” of sexual interaction w/ porn. One needn’t buy it dinner & a movie, it is available “on demand”, you don’t have to lie when you say: “I’ll call you”, and it allows a person to indulge in a fantasy world not very likely to be found in the real one.

This doesn’t mean that such indulgences can be viewed as being “healthy”. But, isn’t a lot of that viewpoint a factor of perspective? Are we talking mental health professionals or staunchly conservative religious folks.? Then, there is the old idea that indulgence in that way (or prostitutes) somehow mysteriously prevents/cuts down on violence in RL. Of course, there is a corresponding one that considers porn to be a “gateway” to more tawdry behavior.

Regardless, I don’t care too much which wave of feminist I am branded as. I think I have made my own views pretty clear.
This is something I found to be difficult in my long discussion on this issue w/ Kasic.

Time for another analogy. I find “branding”, via some mostly ambiguous name, something that is so fluid as our quickly evolving social movement (get it MOVING?) concerning female (includes "girls; not just women) rights/equality/ whatever to be something that needs to be constantly pointed out just how difficult, as well as inherently inaccurate, it can be when we try to pin name to a rapidly evolving concept.

Yes, an apple is still generally held to be an apple. But, much like the variables the BLS points out (along w/ a host it didn’t), there are a huge variety in apples and botanists are laboring to make the better mouse trap. An apple is an apple; but only to those who don’t care to look deeper.

I see the same thing as: a feminist is a feminist. We can even split the name into a host of variations: eras, degrees of effort, involvement, goals, extremism, outright loony, etc. But, an actually assessment of these via a name is best used in hindsight. Trying to pin down a currently fast-evolving complex issue w/ a (near?) singular word is as impossible as it is foolish.

But, yeah….ya CAN call me a “feminist”.
Or, ya can just say I CARE about injustices & negative inequalities regardless of where they are found. I do much more than just care, I work at finding solutions at address these social maladies. But, I’m not (any longer?) such the idealist that I think the “work” will ever be done. Social problems are like some diseases: they can’t be cured; just managed. And, hopefully, the latter can enjoy a lot of success.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Cancer

Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Errr, what are you trying to say, exactly?

I haven’t a clue, Lucas.
However, I hope she gives us a whole lot more….
I haven’t had a mind fuck like that for a long time now.
I think someone slipped me some acid.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Wealth disparity exists and is the cause of most social maladies

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

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Do you mean that we men get to Op-press the flesh w/ womenfolk?
Count me in, then.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

ummm… do you know anything about law enforcement?

so you admit that you are in no position to criticize what the police are doing.

i would like to see u stop a riot without using any force

maybe u could talk the riot out of rioting????

I likely know a great deal more about law enforcement that you realize.

CROW, that would be dependent upon what one thinks criticism is.
You’ll note the first definition:
1. an act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.
2. an act of passing severe judgment; censure.
3. an unfavorable comment or judgment.
4. the act or occupation of analyzing and evaluating a literary or artistic work, musical or dramatic performance, etc.
5. a critique.
6. any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating them, evaluating their authenticity, etc.

AND, I would further qualify that anything to fall w/in the parameters I’ve already established: judgment ONLY on that which is known to be as factual as possible; and, done so w/ the keen awareness that this knowledge is highly likely to be incomplete; and to a degree that renders initial judgments/criticism to be only “thinking-out-loud”.

The very definition of riot (3. violent or wild disorder or confusion.) almost certainly precludes it from being stopped via use of NO force. I guess on could see “containment via a distanced defensive stance” as using no force….just the presence-threat of it. Basically just letting it run its course.

Talk rioters out of rioting? LOL
You can’t talk to a man w/ a shotgun
That may not be SPECIFICLY accurate in most of what is called rioting; but, it severs to make the point.

It takes a very trained person to have a positive effect in such oral management of these extremely tense situations.