Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Washington Post and The Guardian get Pulitzer prise for exposing NSA secrets

Originally posted by beauval:

But fuck, when is Europe gonna enter even the 20th century on what form of govt. is rational?

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. It’s a bit rich coming from a man whose rational governmental system involves so many Mexican standoffs it’s a wonder that anything gets done at all.

Beauval, I’m going to take that chastisement as being of the same light of which I offered my opinion of the various royalties of Europe. I really wasn’t any more punitively serious than I was being anything but superficial in nature about the whole “luv affair” various cultures have w/ their “super stars”.

Yes, we Americans have a plethora of such overly-inflated genres: movie/musical stars, sports figures (of all nature), etc.
We have our own “royalty”…we treat them as such…we reward them as such.
I don’t have any real problem w/ such human adulation w/ “excellence”.
Where my issue lies is when the more important areas go lacking.
Of note is how we Americans place so little value on education and pay our educators so little compared to those who do little to make significant contributions to society (IMHO).

In my defense, I think ya impugned me somewhat unfairly…mostly by taking the above quote hugely out of context.
First, I was talking about how I agreed w/ NeilSenna about how bias is a factor that exists on all levels. I said: As long as it involves humans…..it dun gonna happen.

I then went on to make examples of how human bias relates to such things as how we elevate certain ideas, events, and people in a manner that reflects very poorly on what our priorities are. I OFF-HANDEDLY mentioned how parts of Europe yet hold an old form of governing in a high regard that I just don’t get. But, as I said, I’m not all that sure why the agog frenzy our teens (esp. females) showed the Fab Four. Of course, there are degrees to such adulations. Please afford me the courtesy of acknowledging I know this and that I apply it when making my assessments of how various members of society respond in ways that cause me to wonder what is the psychological motivator of such behavior….esp. of the more extreme nature.

And, I’m somewhat dismayed that you hold me up as somehow being (greatly?) supportive of how America is a “rational governmental system [that] involves so many Mexican standoffs it’s a wonder that anything gets done at all.”. I would have thought that you would have noticed that I make many and often very pointed critiques of our govt., and in particular, the pathetic nature of our current political scene…esp. the hugely divisive partisan shit that is nearly self-imploding the whole country….much to the great suffering of the lower classes.

I would think that you would have noticed that I’m adamantly against a govt. that whores itself to the rich….all because “capitalism” is such a wonderful thing. I would think jhco’s calling me a filthy liberal socialist so often (and my “defense” of it) that you would know just how much I am sickened by the output of my “rational governmental system”.

I hope all of the above makes some headway in explaining my position on my very superficial assessment of royalty in all forms….esp. monarchies. I’m just doing my monthly venting/bitching about how unfair life is….but more to the point, how shitty-depressed I become upon seeing the pain it causes so many of my fellow humans. This wealth inequality thing has just got to be reeled back several huge notches.
.

To my mind this whole Snowden episode is a storm in a teacup. I’m old enough to remember when this bloke was in full cry; when it comes to spy scandals he makes Snowden look like the novice he is.

As far as this country is concerned, Snowden revealed that British intelligence uses digital communication to gather information and for its dirty tricks campaigns. I would have been a lot more concerned if he had revealed that they still rely on eavesdropping on conversations in smokey pubs to get their information. He has revealed very little that we didn’t already know or suspect. I don’t know what all the fuss is about, and Snowden is of little interest on this side of the pond.

Yes, over the years…there have been many such “Benedict Arnolds”. Some of them meriting the criticism/scorn…others, not.

I see this current Snowden thing as little more than the govt.‘s typical diversionary tactics to keep ppl from being able to focus on the real security issues that actually do affect their lives. We humans are so easily fooled by something shinny. Then, add in the media whores who actually give a shit (Neil’s point?) about the issue. All they want to do is sell the story for money. The same motivation for the reporters. This is greatly exampled by the whole intensity of the search for that downed airplane. Animal Planet will find Sasquatch before CNN finds that plane.
And, Cnn really doesn’t want it to be found any time soon. They need to milk it for every angle they can.

But, that marvel-of-needed-information will be kicked aside in favor of the next “must see/know”.
Just as will the Snowden “affair”. It will be lucky to be buried on page 12 of the newspaper.
I don’t know how they ignore such on the internet.
I guess those bloggers just do the same.
The internet is so instantaneous and has so much at its worldwide disposal;
I guess we probably have already mostly moved on from Snowden…
in favor of the latest political misdeed here in America by some errant Congressperson?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarity

Originally posted by donseptico:

Unfortunately, imo, vulgarity (in the sense of 1-3)
1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.
3. crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant.

is the vulgar (#5)
5. current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.
reality of modern communication, to the point that many seem to consider it de rigueur, the ‘problem’ therefore becoming self perpetuating.

Don, are ya saying that what was once considered, by even the general population (even those is “low places”), to be “vulgar” has pretty much been bludgeoned to near extinction by the development/growth of a more accepting society of words, behavior, etc. that is more…..let’s call it “natural” as opposed to “stuffily Victorian”.

I think a somewhat good analogy of this comes from a couple of eras in American history….the frontier expansion days and the 50-60’s huge growth of the “laid back” attitude of California.
The Eastern seaboard was long established; and, therefore was where the ppl who had tons of money lived…which translates to “breeding” or refinement. "Such had gotten a toe-hold from the early Colonial days when even then there existed a form of genteelness that had managed to be transplanted from (mostly) Europe.

However, even though some of the plantation owners & other businessmen of the Old South had very “elevated” wealth, they were still viewed as uncultured, rustic “thems”. A view of the South that yet remains in many ways. A lot of this stemmed from the major businesses of the two areas….manufacturing for the North and agri for the South. We all know that farmers are bumpkins.

Don, I think your comparative of how a type of “vulgarity” evolves (to the point that many seem to consider it de rigueur)—what was once “old ways” of decency gives way to today’s very acceptable form of communication. Of course, TV & other forms of high exposure to “what is the latest in moral decay” (of the hip sense) is the grease and the push for this form of social change.

My being of the “older kind of person” affords me the dubious pleasure of seeing such changes up close and real. “Vulgar” words are common use now.. VP Cheney openly told a fellow politician to “go fuck yourself” in the Halls of Congress. Kids of age 16-22 have no problem tossing about the word FUCK in general public….regardless of who is within earshot.
.

Incidentally, depending where you live… examples of vulgarity that would fall under the ‘indecent; obscene; lewd; etc’ may not only be socially frowned upon but may result in criminal liability.

This I see as being a factor of CONTEXT. Neil appears to agree (just above) when he says: “…used at suitable moments.” I would (anally?) expand that to include places, type of crowd/readership/etc., and the EMPHASIS wanted conveyed…be it neg or pos.

I think one of the obvious factors involved is “overuse” of vulgarity.
Such causes it to lose its impact….desensitizes it….“communizes” it.
I typically give a shit what words/behaviors are used by someone in their efforts to communicate something;
OR, in just trying to live their life their way….hopefully with due respect for others trying to do the same (raise their kids to not see such lifestyles any too often).
I think the huge part of “appropriate” context comes down to simple respect, courtesy, and observance that some modest form of social decorum should yet exist. Being rude is indeed crude.
To me, for the most part…that is what vulgarity boils down to: a rude, crude, dude.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is the most fundamental science?

Originally posted by Mafefe_Classic:

tl;dr version of this thread so far:

MY SCIENCE IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN URS!!!! >:P

Isn’t that one of the essential components of a discussion where the likelihood of a definitive answer is probably not going to be answered soon….if ever?

And, not all here claim to “own” a science.
Hell, some of these ppl appear to have several and have inner conflicts w/ them.

It is through such discussions that those ppl who have a “pet” science are able to be exposed to concepts that challenge theirs.
And, in meeting such challenges, their offerings will often cause them to do even more Researching for supportive data due to those challenges…new & old.
This, regardless of which science yet remains as their favorite, is essential for ensuring that the individual is then much more well-rounded knowledgeable about the subject….that is, if they are open-minded about it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Washington Post and The Guardian get Pulitzer prise for exposing NSA secrets

Originally posted by NeilSenna:

It was a fancy way of saying I don’t give two craps what they think of the Snowden issue.

No, they just know how to convey their bias in a more eloquent manner and only allow it to surface overtly on rare occasions. The greatest skill a journalist ever learns.

Hmmmm…I can understand that one is able to view most anything in a host of very differing ways for quite a number of reasons. Ergo, your opinion of the PP and journalism as a whole is as “valid” as most any likely can be….if viewed from the spectrum of how elusive objectivity can be when it comes to subjugating bias.

But, what is confusing me is that “The greatest skill a journalist ever learns”. (esp. since ya somewhat self-proclaim to dwell within that realm).
Did ya mean that a “good journalist” is one hones a skill to: “No, they just know how to convey their bias in a more eloquent manner and only allow it to surface overtly on rare occasions.”?

I’m seeing this as simply saying that, while journalism professes to be “unbiased”, the information we obtain via medias is much more biased than it should be…..simply because of the eloquence of the writing? I have little problem accepting this as a reality. What I probably don’t know too keenly is the DEGREE of it all. What say YOU? It would (strongly?) appear that ya foster a certain level of disdain for media journalism.
.

I’m not saying we Americans have done all that well by kicking royalty to the curb.
But fuck, when is Europe gonna enter even the 20th century on what form of govt. is rational?

If you mean royalty, only 10 countries in Europe have royals and most of the royals have only symbolic power… if you mean the UK, parliamentary democracy is quite rational.

Yeah….I really should have been a lot clearer on that.
I was just venting about how the “Old World” luvs to cling to its past and like to “keep the show going”.
But, all-N-all, isn’t that what most any form of power is….just an illusion by which the masses are controlled by the real power “behind the curtain”?
.

And inheriting a position with zero real power (Queen of the UK) is certainly no worse than buying one with lots of it (President of the US). But that’s one for another day in another thread, perhaps.

Oh, I agree that we here in America tend to focus more on the man than on the office. We are more interested in (thus far) HIS personal life than his politics….for the most part, esp. when it comes to the “average person”. Most Americans know shit about true politics (and more about who won American Idol from 4 years ago); so, we tend to focus on that which we are able to “understand”….the personal life of the politician.

My view “from afar” of UK royalty is somewhat of that nature. The Brits sure luv their royals. Or, so it would APPEAR.
.

Finally, I’m not sure if the PP judges were assessing the merits of right & wrong…
my take on it is that they were “rewarding” an effort that sought to look for them.

Possibly… but then, they made a lot less effort than thousands of journalists the world over did in uncovering public interest stories. My own feeling is that the award was more to do with making a statement for supporting press freedom than it was an endorsement of the journalistic qualities/efforts involved.

Yeah, things like the PP which are of huge impact in life tend to be like a big onion….layers upon layers. A little something for all. The outer layers for the superficial….deeper ones for those able & interested. And, the innermost core (usually purposefully hidden) that is the real basis for most all things in life…..personal self-serving interests.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarity

Originally posted by denamo:

i’m pretty convinced they’re the norm here

No, they aren’t.
The moderators stay on top of that fucking shit.
I suggest ya observe this from the SD guidelines:
“This forum is for more open, in-depth discussion. There could be opinions that you may find inappropriate or offensive here. If you don’t think you can discuss controversial topics without getting angry or upset, hold back and don’t post yet. “This is a safe place for people, but not for ideas. Expect what you say to be challenged, but do not go after the individual people.”
– the immortal words of some dudes and dudettes that Phoenix knows.”

Just a head’s up: SD isn’t OT.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarity

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarity

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

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should anti-vax people be banned from traveling and having children?

Originally posted by denamo:
Originally posted by Mafefe_Classic:

You people dont get it. If they catch a vaccinated disease (like measles), it could mutate and make all measles vaccinations useless.

b-but infecting you with a disease is what vaccine is about

I think ya didn’t understand his point.
I know I sure as hell didn’t understand your reply.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarity

Originally posted by denamo:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
<

Now, if ya’re wanting to talk about a large group of ppl who want to be as kind, respectful, tolerant, accepting, unbiased, lack prejudice, etc. AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE,,,,
then, I think we can probably do that….
SINCE: we all ready pretty much are doing it here in SD.

sarcasm and muting people who never even messaged you is none of that, just so you know

That is probably vulgar…
but, I don’t much understand it….
so………..
I find that which I’m unable to understand is something to be considered vulgar….
obviously….
esp when it makes so damn fucking little sense.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarity

Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

Should vulgar terms be considered unacceptable for usage in common English? I mean, yeah, vulgar by definition means outside the realm of polite society, but not everyone subscribes to a polite society mindset.

You are, in truth, answering your own question.
Since vulgar means:

1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.
3. crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant.
4. of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society: the vulgar masses.
5. current; popular; common: a vulgar success; vulgar beliefs.

So yeah, I’d say all of that is “outside the realm of POLITE SOCIETY …..whatever the hell THAT is.
But, it sure doesn’t sound like it is anything all that much to relish.
Even if one is to use a definition that is somewhat middle-of-the-road:
“You can refer to people who consider themselves to be socially superior and to set standards of behaviour for everyone else as polite society or polite company.”

…..that, to me, renders polite society to be little more than just mostly asshole snobs.
And, I think it is well know what my feelings are about such ppl.
Don’t get me wrong.

I know some damn decent “rich folk”.
But, they are far & few amongst the rest of them…..all measured by degrees of “snobbery”, of course.
And, ya know, I am typically not all that surprised how the “new rich” are much more likely to be assholes toward the crowd from which they sprang than are the rich who actually have manners/breeding on how to handle their status in society.

So, O.L.idiot….you did answer your own question because a whole lot of ppl (99%?) would likely NOT subscribe to a polite society mindset.

Now, if ya’re wanting to talk about a large group of ppl who want to be as kind, respectful, tolerant, accepting, unbiased, lack prejudice, etc. AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE,,,,
then, I think we can probably do that….
SINCE: we all ready pretty much are doing it here in SD.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should anti-vax people be banned from traveling and having children?

Originally posted by Helltank:

Interesting that I read an article about Wakefield claiming he was demonized by the REAL silver-tongued serpents and the evidence proving he had falsified his data was in fact falsified itself by big medical corporations and that “several other prominent researchers” have backed up his claims.

.

Originally posted by Helltank:

I don’t believe the article, I’m pointing out to vikaTae that there are people who do believe that Wakefield is correct which is the basis for their anti-vax stance.

Just so you know, I support vaccinations.

Aha.
I guess I mistook what your interest in that article was.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Washington Post and The Guardian get Pulitzer prise for exposing NSA secrets

Neil, I’m gonna bet that if ya take a little more time to time on that….ya will modify it just a tad.
OR, just perhaps….. ya are fortunate enough to have been exposed to ONLY a part of a world society that would cause ya to say: “So I care about their opinion on the Snowden stuff as much as I care about anyone else’s.”

SERIOUSLY?
Ya wouldn’t think that the “biases” of the PP judges might be a bit more impartial than….say, jhco’s, et.al.?
Are ya not able to give these dudes an iota of credit for the position they are granted?
Yeah, I’m pretty much w/ ya….such things are ALWAYS going to have some kind of a “bias”.
As long as it involves humans…..it dun gonna happen.
But, should we American’s feel similarly about the decisions of the SCOTUS judges?
C’mon, we do have great minds amongst us….
often, they are the ones that are “heard”….over the clamor of the bleating ignorant shills of those who have an evil, selfish agenda.

Simon Cowell is a entertainment whore.
The Queen is just a really, really rich bitch squeezing out all the silly “Royal tradition” shit she can get away with.
I’m not saying we Americans have done all that well by kicking royalty to the curb.
But fuck, when is Europe gonna enter even the 20th century on what form of govt. is rational?

Obama….?
Dude is very smart.
However, he not so smart when it comes to kicking ass of his fellow politicians in order to get them to play ball w/ him better.
All-N-all though, he had to play w/ them in a jungle of shit rather than at Yankee Stadium.
I’d say that w/ all the cards he had STACKED AGAINST HIM from day one….
he hasn’t done all that badly.
SO, I certainly will listen when he is opining on an issue.

Finally, I’m not sure if the PP judges were assessing the merits of right & wrong…
my take on it is that they were “rewarding” an effort that sought to look for them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should anti-vax people be banned from traveling and having children?

Originally posted by Helltank:

Interesting that I read an article about Wakefield claiming he was demonized by the REAL silver-tongued serpents…

Well….DUH!
.

…and the evidence proving he had falsified his data was in fact falsified itself by big medical corporations
Well…..DUH!
Guess who makes the vaccines AND the meds to treat the resulting negative effects?
.
…. and that “several other prominent researchers” have backed up his claims.

And, ya don’t think this guy just might have some friends?
OR, somehow stand to benefit in someway by “going along” w/ a falsehood?
C’mon Helltank….I give ya more credit than this shit reasoning.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hell

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

I thought this was illuminating because it really illustrated (for me, at least), how “hellish” certain environments I’ve been in have felt, simply from extreme lack of teamwork. When people—due to misery, selfishness, boredom, or whatever else—throw each other under the bus as a matter of principle, the whole mission seems to sink. The allegory, in any event, put in perspective for me how we can see shades of Heaven/hell in everyday life.

I’ve experienced this “conundrum” all my life.
Of particular confusion for me was when/how those who professed a high capacity for “morality” would delve very deep into hypocrisy.
Ya know, a lot of the: do as I say; not as I do.

I’m okay w/ the good part of that which might come from it being seen as a source of “advice” on how the perils of “sin” can heinously affect a life (their own experiences).
But, when it is delivered only to serve some other nefarious endeavor, one soon begins to question the offerings of those who appear to be “good”. Ya know, something along the lines of: keep your enemies close….your “friends” even closer.

It would appear to me that ya’re touching on the concept of Yin-Yang….good vs. evil
It is this duality of life/nature that is the only thing we know.
I must add that the truth is that it really isn’t two sided.
Between the white of good and the black of evil lies a whoooooooooole lot of varying shades of gray.
In that is where we find the realm of….well, basically: what the fuck am I doing here? What is life all about anyway?
THAT is where “religion” steps in and tries to “offer” some “answers”.
That is where we find a whoooooole lot of shades of gray in the areas of capability and of kind of intentions.

Supposedly, Heaven would be a place of all good.
BUT, just what would an existence of no challenge, no “conflict”, no “angst” about what manna to eat today or whose halo is the biggest, brightest, worn more stylishly?

Would, upon entering the Pearly Gates, this aspect (what vika calls: Our animal origins lead to all sorts of selfish, egocentrical behavior.) this part of our NATURE be somehow “magically” cleaved from us? Would we than be able to stick to our desired diets so we could hit our “perfect weight”. Would the years melt away from our faces & weary bones?
What form of being “reborn” would Heaven offer that would be different than being “reborn” on Earth?

I’m kinda leaning towards vika’s concept of keeping our humanly childish minds/souls in playpens until we manage to take enough elementary classes on spirituality to be able to pass on to the high school of riding puffy clouds and playing golden harps and treading endlessly on those roads paved in gold.

Her thought here certainly has merit worthy of consideration: “Kinda makes you wonder if ex-human minds would even be worth the bother of dealing with, other than to keep them all in one place so they don’t bother anyone else. Heaven & hell being cattle pens, there to protect other realms from our spirits by corralling them all together.”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should anti-vax people be banned from traveling and having children?

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

Anti-vax = anti vaccination.

These are people who think that there is a conspiracy to hide that vaccines cause autism.

They base this off of:

1. Vaccinations became a big thing around the time autism became a diagnosis.
2. A “scientist” who wanted to make money by suing vaccination creators published a study saying that vaccines cause autism.

Doctor Andrew Wakefield. The only one to ever have made this connection. Several dozen studies carried out since have been unable to produce the same results. In a large part because the original paper (it be a pdf, sorry) contained deliberately falsified source data.

He lied, basically. Made data up on the fly to support his conclusions, and used his then-influential position as leverage. He’s since been stripped of his ability to practice medicine in the UK, and stripped of every title he held. He’s fled to the states where he continues to publish aleged medical textbooks letting the public know about the dangers of MMR, coming across as a trustworthy source if you don’t know the science.

That his research was blatantly fabricated isn’t questioned in academic circles. the original paper’s still available to look through as are the follow up investigations done by others, showing that not only was his methodology flawed, but his data was falsified. That’s good enough for the scientific mindset.

Here is another doctor sharing is perspective on the issue.
Another one. Going by the name…I would say the source is one involved in “holistic diets/supplements”.
This one obviously is.
.

Rather it’s only in the general public and media sphere that the research has any grounding. These are people who don’t understand the science, and cannot be faulted for that. Instead they rely on figures in authority to tell them which side to believe. The problem is half the time these figures don’t understand the science themselves, or they see something to gain from perpetuating the lie.

.

Whatever else he is, Wakefield is a silver-tongued serpent, and is very good at writing prose that preys on a parent’s darkest fears. Combine that with enough policymakers and celebs wishing his research to be true, and the generally scientifically ignorant person is caught between a rock and a hard place, not knowing which side to believe, and with their kids’ safety compromised if they make the wrong choice.

Hmmmmmm….that’s simply life in general.
The same can be AND IS said about religious leaders, politicians, L. Ron Hubbard, inventers of the latest diet fad, P.T. Barnum (there’s a sucker born every minute), and any manner of what basically comes down to the good ol’ snake oil salesman.
.
So, should they be banned from traveling (so they cant spread diseases) and from having children (they are purposefully dooming their children to death from polio or measles)?

They’re honestly trying to make the best choice for their children, with limited and confusing information available to them, unless they have the time to take courses on medical science and methodology, and understand the medical procedures of the health systems in a particular foreign country (the UK) which is necessary if you’re going to understand why he would not have had access to the data he claimed to have gathered.


It’s too much to ask of the general parent. All they can do is go with whatever information they have to hand, and the confusion is hardly their faults, but rather the fault of those with an interest in spreading such.

Would YOU then agree w/ me—as I would think ya would because of your high promotion of the value of knowledge/education thereof—that there should be much, MUCH MORE focus on teaching the general public on how to better assess all of this more recent mass of competing information….or, at least how to separate the self-interest bullshiters from those who are simply “seeing the elephant” from different perspectives and genuinely wanting to benefit society via their findings?
.
.
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

But, what about those of cognitive skills that significantly result in their being a very expensive drain on social reserves that could be better utilized in other ways?


Not a good idea. Many if not most of the genes involved in creating a mind that is mentally deficient, are also involved in creating a mind that is on the other end of the curve. You screen for one, you’ll also eliminate the other at this point in time. We just don’t fully understand the complex interplay between the various gene sequences for determining mental capability (intelligence, memory management, emotional intelligence et al).


Yes, we could in theory screen out the cognitively challenged individuals, but by doing so we would also screen out the geniuses if we went by our current ability to perform such screenings. Whilst we know most of the genes which are involved, we don’t know how they interplay together, and well, right now the screening is about as useful as screening out Stupid by eye color. It plain wouldn’t work.

While all of what ya say there is hugely agreed on by me,,,
I must toss in this: couldn’t the same be said about the immense numbers of ABORTIONS?
Who knows if we haven’t aborted the person who would find “the cure for cancer”?
Maybe we lost the beauty pageant winner who, while taking a long walk on the beach; or during a candle-lite dinner, would brilliantly hit upon the program to bring about the world peace she so fervently stated she desired in her pageant interview segment?
Maybe we will never have the greatest Ben & Jerry’s flavor of ice cream?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making a strong argument for abortion decisions being made via fetal discovery of abnormalities. Hell, I’m “abnormal”. I typically luv those things in life that aren’t the norm…norm: what is usually just plain fucking booooring. But, the norm has its merits. Sheeple are more easily “led” than would be a herd of anarchists.
Given time and enough interest-inducing drugs, I would expand on this….lol.

I’m just saying that if we start getting too “soft-hearted” on what I called “saving every soul God has given us”, we might be losing a lot more due to lack of investment of resources that would be given in the hopes of finding those few “diamonds” among the coal. We would NEVER know the true answer on this. Rather, we would typically muddle along and hope for the best outcome of a really shitty deal in something already complicated enough….life.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 7even Deadly Sins

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by dd790:

Think that’s defamation rather than wrath, courts would be more interested than God

So then, in your opinion, exercising free (if angry) speech is not wrath, at least in the eyes of God, or for this discussion?

And, just how far is UP?
At least in the definition used by “God”.
Ninja, I know that you deem yourself to be at the very least spiritual—if not downright “religious”….whatever the fuck THAT is.

However, my point here isn’t intended to be against your “beliefs”.
It is made to show that such grandiose pandering as to think that one has anywhere close to even an inkling of an tinkling about what “God” sees….IF “He” even has “eyes”.

It was all of that “knowing what God wants” that ushered me into Ignosticism.
I just wasn’t going to put my whole heart into something that so many ppl had so many “definitions” and various levels of absolute fervor about….esp. when it came to ensuring that other ppl did as s/he told them to do.

I didn’t plan to become an ignostic….didn’t even know what one was.
But, in trying to get a better understanding of the differences between agnostic & atheist…I came across a term/concept that came as close to describing my ideology as I have yet to see.

While they likely don’t INTEND to do so (or for that matter, even would see it in themselves were they to “get caught” doing it), all they are doing in truth is using religion—THEIR CONCEPT of it—as a crutch to shore up any particular point they have which they want to lend some Holy bells & whistles to….maybe in an attempt to “wow the ignorant natives” into accepting “the one who is blessed w/ the wearing of the mantle of the voice of God”.

Yeah, I know it is a bit hard to “grow up” and accept the concept that beyond what we actually know about “life” and what we conjecture about that beyond it. But, a child can’t refrain from a rational evolution by which they give up sophomoric beliefs (in Santa, E. Bunny, everyone being able to get/be what they want if they just work hard enough) and accept the stark reality that there just aren’t credible “answers” to a lot of questions….esp. ones that involve issues that “require” a deity to provide the “truth” about them.

Sorry, but in a court of law (a sensible approach to social intercourse), the defense “of God told me to do it” really doesn’t hold much water….at least not enough to walk on.

Religion is a person’s attempt to rectify what they don’t know w/ that which they do….esp. about life & death.
Those two are very personal.
Religion should stay that way;
and, not shove its way into the personal lives of others….
esp. by assuming to know what color “God’s” eyes are.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should anti-vax people be banned from traveling and having children?

Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

I agree.

Forget all that other shit I said.
Let’s keep things, which are hugely complex, as simple as insanely possible.
However, is the govt. actually capable of such a task?
I say mob rule would handle the issue very well.

While we are on the subject of “social engineering”.
To solve the Gay marriage “problem”;
let’s just kill them all.
And, for those girly-men & “overly-athletic” women;
do them too….just to be safe.

Hell, let’s do away w/ anyone who isn’t like you and I.
And, to be frank…I’m not any too sure about you.

You are missing the point.

Anti-vax ppl are a danger to public health. They weaken herd immunity. They use terrible logic to trick stupid people into putting their children in danger.

Only for members of the herd who are un-vaccinated, sounds like Darwinism to me, the stupid die off, hopefully before they breed.

As you point out below…it seems the opposite is strongly encouraged. There is a seriously insane & large ways all of this happens. YOU touch on a few….I will try to grow upon them.
.
Sadly though, these days it’s the stupid that are breeding out of control while the intelligent have children according to what they can support, but while the state is raising the dipshit’s kids for them then they’ll keep shitting the bastards out and that’s why stupid degrees exist, because stupid people are entitled to an obtainable degree.
Yup.
I think ya just drew as concise a picture as is possible about how a society is eventually “weakened” by such soft-hearted (bleeding-hearts “liberal” thinking?) applications of animal husbandry.
Now, before anyone jumps on me as if I were talking of something along the line of Hitler’s master race…if we, as a society, don’t pull our heads out of our pathetically sympathetic asses; we likely will eventually turn the Earth over to a distorted version of the “weak” for inheritance.

And, to preempt a backlash of calling me a hypocrite for having some entity (govt. or powerful wealthy) be the one to “manage” this idea of social engineering….I say it is simply a common sense application of my form of animal husbandry that is required in order to prevent pollution of the gene pool and bastardization of good social management methods….such as how the merits of capitalism can easily be corrupted into a plutocracy.

While seemingly viewing, at least via the typically ONLY superfically, such management of a society can seem hugely cruel….the accumulated results over time of not doing so can be even exponentially disastrous.

Now, before I’m accused of being a hypocritical liberal….my being a compassionate person doesn’t preclude me from understanding that a level of “tough love” just has to be considered/used to ensure the dynamic health of a society.
Am I talking about “death camps”….of any nature.
Just not to the level of the scare tactics used by Palin in her 2008 campaign in regard to “Obamacare”. To put this in a perspective based on my personal level, I don’t want to have a miserable end-of-life existence prolonged by expensive medical care…when that money could be put to much better endeavors.

If I think, and society concurs, that some medical care effort input would yield a hugely greater benefit in some meaningful manner…..then yes, a good argument could be made for such investment in prolonging my life. This thinking doesn’t necessarily be applied to “old” ppl.

But, what about those of cognitive skills that significantly result in their being a very expensive drain on social reserves that could be better utilized in other ways? The problem insanely inherent in this “logic” is: just who is going to be the entity to make the decisions on “who goes & who stays”. Such, in MHO, is a task not likely able to find one capable of doing it “right”.

But, why not give some RATIONALLY serious thought to doing a preventative maintenance that is far less odious by implimenting it while the “lesser” is yet in the womb. OR, even better, before conception via improved genetic compatibility testing/advising. This would be coupled w/ some very good education about how making such inherently repugnant “tough-love” decisions are, in the long run & over all, far less negative.

There needs to be a modern version of a blending of the cold practicality of good social engineering—via tough, ugly decisions—that overall makes “Vulcan sense”…blended w/ the concept of human compassion, one that wants to save every one of God’s creations.

Much more often than many ppl realize, there are “cognitively” & physically “challenged” ppl that society thinks more highly of and demonstrates this by pouring huge amounts of money into seeing that these ppl have a “great life” in spite of their “misfortune”. All the while, some of that money comes from ppl that are eeking out a living which is considerably less by comparison. Some abortions really can be blessings in disguise.
.
I think that’s one of the EU’s new human rights along with the “right to fuck” which sees our taxes used to pay for virgins to go to Amsterdam and rent a prostitute because they have no social skills and cannot get laid but have a ‘human right’ to sex.Is this actually done?
Long, LONG ago…I heard that some country/societies did include this as part of their sex-ed for school kids.
.
Note, the following quote of dd790’s has been modified by me so that I might make a response that better suits my need.

There’s a girl at work I quite like; but, she has a boyfriend she prefers to me.
She hasn’t yet allowed him to have sex w/ her; but, he may just fuck her anyway. a
And at the rape trial cite: my ‘human rights’ to do so.
Yeah.
I fully understand how utterly fucked this rights vs. privileges is having a huge “readjustment” currently. Similar is the muddling of the rights vs. responsibilities concept.

In YOUR situation, the guy would focus on HIS rights and privileges…while utterly ignoring (not caring about?) those of the girl. Such selfishness & sad disregard for social intercourse is indeed a:

Pathetic world we live in.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 7even Deadly Sins

Ninja, I’ve always held dear that analogy of how essential COOPERATION can be at times.
Now, to take it…greatly twist it to somewhat (maybe?) apply to one of my fav areas of bitching: income inequity
However, in my defense, more&more talk around the water cooler (does such an idiom yet exist?) is touching on the issue of how this disparity actually does impact these workers—NAY, the entire working classes…white/blue collar, menial service jobs, etc.—to a degree that is ever-increasingly negative.

I can’t help but wonder if the Wall Street 99/1% protest wasn’t the event that kicked a stone down the mountain which has created the modern huge desire to take a much greater interest in this heinous practice/condition than the typical bland bemoaning of the old canard: the rich just keep on getting richer….while us poor folk keep on getting poorer.

Perhaps the U.S.’s electorate is beginning to see the power their choices can make. Maybe this is due to how a Black man w/ a hugely negative sounding name could get elected Pres…TWICE. This is even after his first mid-term election sent a wave of insane conservatives to change the trident Democrat force by giving the House to the GOP. THEN, even though the GOP did everything they could to utterly sabotage Obama…often to the huge detriment of the nation (including programs they themselves would typically support), he was reelected.

I don’t think it is any real secret that the GOP has realized that the concept of “force-in-numbers” isn’t all that good when you willingly accept, even promote, an insane group that has its own radical agenda and refuses to be a team player. I say insane because this small, yet quite leverage-powerful, group had/has no problem throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater as long as they naively/delusionally believed their agenda could be miraculously (in the Biblical sense?) wrought….if they pandered their tantrums long & loud enough. Maybe it is the Baby Jesus’s return that they want to replace the wicked society and bath Him in the Glory of anointed bathwater?

Anyway, back to Ninja’s analogy.
I see the ultra rich as having extremely long silver spoons by which they are able to reach into the hugely vast numbers of porridge bowls of the masses to ensue a “trickle-up” agenda (unabated by reasonable taxation) by which the the-rich-keep-on-getting-richer. And, who give a shit if somehow the analogy doesn’t fit in that the wealthy can’t feed themselves w/ such long spoons….they hire “their people” to do it; all the while bullshitting these underlings into believing they are being blessed to be able to perform such a task.

Such bullshitting was recently demonstrated by a local WEALTHY businessman who, in his political ads, touted that he (his business ventures) supported 400 families…which somehow meant that such business acumen could be applied to govt—which is little more than a business itself. What he, and interestingly enough, was able to get away w/ (not being called on it by the ppl and the media) was the fact that it is those 400 workers who have generated his wealth.

I have long (absolutely not initially…I foolishly bought into the "American Dream) been amazed how well this ruse has worked on such a huge number of Americans. Sure, the concept of the unions and govt. social programs ( Roosevelt’s New Deal) demonstrates that there is some “resistance” to the rich-get-richer program. But, wealth is a ponderous force to be reckoned with. It can eventually, w/ little noticeable loss to itself, endure such nibbles at its wealth & once again defeat its enemies….coming out on top even stronger than before (getting richer via the class struggle).

This machination I clearly saw in the movie Gladiator when Emperor Commodus was having a discussion w/ one of his advisors concerning the problem the slave gladiator Maximus was causing him:
“Commodus: And now they love Maximus for his mercy. So I can’t just kill him, or it makes me even more unmerciful! The whole thing’s like some crazed nightmare.
Falco: He is defying you. His every victory is an act of defiance. The mob sees this, and so do the Senate. Every day he lives, they grow bolder. Kill him.
Commodus: No. I will not make a martyr of him.
[Commodus walks around agitated]
Falco: I have been told of a certain sea snake which has a very unusual method of attracting its prey. It will lie at the bottom of the ocean as if wounded. Then its enemies will approach, and yet it will lie quite still. And then its enemies will take little bites of it, and yet it remains still.
Commodus: So, we will lie still, and let our enemies come to us and nibble. Have every senator followed.”

I see this as the concept which the wealthy employs when their worker-society awakens from its dream of a much fairer distribution of wealth. The wealthy don’t outright quash this “rebellion”….such would prove the point of the poor about how wealth generates the huge power which enslaves them.

NO, the wealthy allow the rebellion to manifest.
Then, they simply seek out the leaders of it and lop of their figurative heads…..rebellion defeated.
Any loss of money is eventually (soon?) recovered.
If not soon…..wasn’t the tiff grand, though?

The endeavors the wealthy uses to affect those who are managing the rebellion are of a huge variety….whatever it takes.
They buy/bribe them off.
They blackmail them.
They even cause them to have “accidents”….should such be eventually necessary (Pres. Kennedy conspiracy…I’m not saying such is true; no, I’m saying that the fact such even exists tends to generate its own “truth” that this level of control by the wealthy isn’t necessarily “off the table”.)

There is a host of methods the wealthy employs.
And, they are damn good, AND viciously successful, at them,,,,
after all, they have been doing such since a population rose/rises above 10 people.
The wealthier they become….the more POWER to “make things happen” they become.

Why aren’t we able to understand, on a much greater scale, that this concept of how the wealthy got that way because of “superior abilities” to manage a society is a double edged sword? Yes, such abilities can be used for GOOD (of the society).
HOWEVER, just how deep in ignorance does a society have to be to not understand that these abilities can also be used in a way that is BAD for them…via the insane wealth-desperation methods used against them by the wealthy in the class-struggle/war? Time & time again, the wealthy manage to get the voters to go against their own best interest. FUCK, it if it didn’t cause such damage to the ppl of a society….I could admire the wealthy’s command of power.

The wealthy are elite Generals w/ a very large army, some of which are Black-ops/seal team 6, by which they win this war. Sure, they are some defeats along the way….some battles “lost”. But, the war is handily won…ALL THE TIME.

/rant

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should anti-vax people be banned from traveling and having children?

I agree.

Forget all that other shit I said.
Let’s keep things, which are hugely complex, as simple as insanely possible.
However, is the govt. actually capable of such a task?
I say mob rule would handle the issue very well.

While we are on the subject of “social engineering”.
To solve the Gay marriage “problem”;
let’s just kill them all.
And, for those girly-men & “overly-athletic” women;
do them too….just to be safe.

Hell, let’s do away w/ anyone who isn’t like you and I.
And, to be frank…I’m not any too sure about you.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 7even Deadly Sins

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Well yea, I don’t really know what else you might think I meant Karma. Elves? Trolls? Trogdor the burninator?.

Oh, silly me…I always found the concept of the term “Human race” to be a redundancy. After all, race seems to be a term applied specifically & ONLY to humans,,,,
and typically not any of the “fantasy” genre….such as ya mention.

However, Human Race does make for catchy bumper stickers.
Some of the others in that like are fucking hilarious.

But, things do change,,,
and, I’m not always immediately aware of such changes on racial issues.
I tend to focus more on ones like this.:

“Speaking on the opening day of a summit meeting on civil rights in Austin, Mr. Carter cited continuing disadvantages among blacks in education, the work force and other areas, pointing out that unemployment among young blacks can often range from 25 percent to 50 percent in parts of the country. “Too many are at ease with the existing disparity,” he said.”

I (along w/ a sizeable number of others) tend to agree w/ Jimmy. Racial discrimination is yet a fact in America. Hopefully, it will die out….much like hope that homophobia will. However, this attrition won’t just “evolve”. We have to work at it….constantly. We usually aren’t able to simply “legislate” away hatred.

The question mark was for several levels.
Obviously, my definition of the word would have promoted me to state your sentence as saying:
, and give US_,
or;
,_and give humanity
,
or just the very simple;
, and yield…generate…bless us with…,

And, I was a bit confused by the comma between the words race & control.
Such a pause/separation didn’t seem to jibe quite well.
A continued flow would have.

Plus, I think most ppl who reside in the triple-digit IQ ratings (if one is inclined to give credence to such) are aware that the different races have attributes which distinguish them… for a host of reasons. I was merely wondering if such somehow applied in some form to this valiant quest for knowledge you greatly expounded upon. Specifically in the area of your specialty of limb replacement.

And, one of the areas of “quest-for-knowledge”—by both the scientific community and the public at large- that has piqued my interest over the years has been that of race comparison of intellect. Since I am (more than “average”?) involved in many racial issues, I tend to find such quests to yield a large gamut of results….good & bad (bell curve here).

Of course, ya know I am in full agreement on your sentiment of the huge importance of the power of discovery of new knowledge.
Or, is that redundant? Could one “discover” OLD knowledge? I guess there could be a rediscovery of lost old knowledge.
After all, there is that peculiar saying that: those of fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it. I think you touched quite a bit on that in the thread about how the computer (basically…modern tech)was ruining humanity. Of course, there were those who felt electricity in the home would do the same.

You & I have very often mirrored the sentiment that even negative data being exposed is essential to generating a better understanding of the positive. I promote that such is what is indicated by the expression: a well-rounded person.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Well yea, I don’t really know what else you might think I meant Karma. Elves? Trolls? Trogdor the burninator? I have no objection to helping dogs, horses, sheep, and whatever, but my primary focus is going to be our collective race, ideally regardless of financial means, gain as much control over their physical bodies as possible.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should anti-vax people be banned from traveling and having children?

I’m assuming that this endeavor would be executed by governmental decree?
Or, are equally insane conspirators going to form “med-militias” to ferret out these Typhoid Marys,,,,
and do what?
You didn’t really put much into what ya believe this “stopping of them” should entail.
Sure, abroad travel greatly exacerbates the opportunity to be infected by one of the diseases the vaccines target,,,,
but, there are other diseases w/in their domain that likely are just as undesirable for those they live among.
Thus, requiring a host of vaccinations (see) just to send your kid to school or be in privately run (talking even the small ones here who conform to govt. standards) day-cares.

Besides, there are a host of vaccinations that most countries require for round-trips abroad.
Otherwise, they are denied a passport.

Why would ya not think a govt. who takes land (eminent domain) from its citizens wouldn’t use such a concept of taking specific freedoms from ppl when we are talking about public/social health issues?

But, in the CROW method of addressing issues on SD: Upon being discovered, these “Anti-vaxies” could be required to wear a Scarlet “A” upon their bosom at all times. It’s about time we knew a lot more about the ppl we associate w/ on a daily basis; yet, know precious little about. I certainly don’t like being in close confines w/ an ultra-conservative asshole…I might “catch” something from them….ya know, like the horrid Gay Disease.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 7even Deadly Sins

Originally posted by vikaTae:
To push back the frontiers of knowledge, and give those of our race, control over their own bodies far beyond that evolution / deities/ whatever gave us.

?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 7even Deadly Sins

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

This one time i was proud of a drawing i made of A CROW

i guess my pride means im going to hell now?

Sortta, I guess.
You will join 3 & 20 of your kin in a pie,,,,
causing a lot hell for some ppl.
King done gotz greed.
Queen done gotz gluttony.
Maid done gotz NO nose.
I dunno whut dat means,,,
I heared of cutting it off to SPITE* yer face.
But, a damn CROW bittin’ it off somehow seems whack, Jack.

But seriously, CROW….if ya didn’t eat the Crayons, it wasn’t a sin.
HOWEVER, didgya put feathers on that bird?

Point is: it is highly likely that, regardless of how we see ourselves, we all have some “degree” of sin in some fashion or another. And, as I pointed out above, such is all dependent upon the stance of the observer. Typically, we make our own worst mirror. Yet, it is we alone that ultimately must bear the burden for who & what we are.

*spite: not one of the DEADLY sins. But, it will give ya one helluva headache and the trots for a week.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 7even Deadly Sins

Originally posted by Kasic:

I think it’s important to take into consideration the degree. A lot of them can even be good in moderation.

Oh, absolutely…degrees.
And, as ya point out, even though we are (supposedly?) talking about SIN—whatever the hell (< intended referential pun) that is…very subjective—here for the topic of the thread; if one takes a more objective look at these areas of human behavior, we will see that the bell-curve can be applied.

One can either applied it to each side of the coin…good & bad.
Or, they can combine the two…with one at opposing ends of the bell.
This enables us to view Kasic’s point about how some of this behavior can actually be of benefit.

But, in addition to—or simply an overlaying aspect of that paradigm which brings a strong aroma of subjectivity—degrees is the concept of assessment of the actual behavior that can give some reasonable/rational description of each “level” of the behaviors in consideration.

Plus, while I’m not enough of a theologian to speak significantly on this, there is the whole factor about just how bad can a “sin” be if it is easily absolved (absolution?) by doing some very simple tasks (6 Holy Marys, etc.). I mean, if one isn’t held accountable in any serious measure for their “sins”….then let’s just call them mistakes and muddle onward in life.

Of note, it is my belief that such concepts of 7 deadly sins, 10 commandments, etc. are nothing more than something tangible, able to address the more ethereal nature of spirituality, used by a particular kind of “leadership” (religious?) on the lesser-intellectuals in an effort to manage them.

OH, I probably should muddy up the waters by bringing in: sins of omission and of commission.
Plus, would one be capable of gluttony were they to not be starving to death because they live in horrid conditions?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Thematic relations critique?

Huge chuckle here.

Originally posted by Aeuctonomy:
If your argument has to get excessively bigger to counter my concise replies,….
Hey, YOU have YOUR way of expression….
I have mine.
The important thing, so I’ve been told, is that COMMUNICATION ensues.
Yer chicken-shit excuse for not wanting to engage tends to show that it is YOU who has no defense.
But then, such is what I’ve observed that ya do a lot of.
Interesting….
esp. for someone who holds them self out to be a wordsmith.

But, I guess we have arrived at failure to communicate
I thought I’d give ya a “shot”.
But, guess what…..?
.

….then I recommend you learn about brevity, and practice it.
Oohhh…..OUCH
There are a whole lot of things I can recommend that ya learn, practice, and master….lol
But, is such a pissing match really what ya’re looking for on YOUR thread?
Hmmmmmm…..it’s beginning to look more-&-more like it.
.
You have no defense, and your demonstration of ignorance towards the laws of argumentation prove so.
Look DUDE….
how many ways do I have to present it that I am “defending” NOTHINGNADAZIP?
I’m “arguing” even less.
And, YES….my “ignorance” to a lot of things is unfathomable.

But, while I’m not any too knowledgeable about “laws of argumentation”….
I’m pretty capable of knowing when someone is full of bullshit IN THIER manner of “argumentationing”.
This seems to have served me quite well in my lifetime.

I don’t do a lot of “arguing”.
Ppl know where I stand….I tend to make this very clear.
They succinctly know…IF, WHEN, HOW, WHY, & at what cost…. I can be “moved” from a stance (I don’t tend to "stand in concrete).
They find that bullshitting, of the ilk YOU are doing here, is nothing more than building an ugly, stinking wall between us.

So, bullshit away.
But, for me….I shall just “go away”.
LOL