Recent posts by Darkruler2005 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

the government offered the exact some benefits as marriage to gay people but were called “life partners” instead, that would bother them. It has to do with the principle more than the rights.[/quote]

It would bother them, but much less than it would bother them not getting those rights. Both are problems. One is the problem that they are not getting the rights at all, two is the problem that it should be called differently to appease to certain people.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / When Does A Human Life Begin?

After having been away for a long time I can still see the same threads being discussed (whether or not in a slightly different form).

I understand that this topic is supposed to be about abortion, but it only started out with the specific part about human life. In fact, some important distinctions are to be made between human life and human rights. Those who wish for abortion to be illegal are arguing about arbitrary borders and those who wish for it to be legal are unsure which borders to use, and both sides are based around human life and human rights. Human rights certainly should be given to human beings, but when? Not all human rights are applicable or even possible for a fetus inside the mother’s womb, so you are restricting certain rights to the fetus already. The right to life is the source here and if given at conception, certainly abortion is illegal by default, and the opposite. The discussion about abortion, therefore, really should only be about at what point in life human rights should be provided.

Unfortunately, that is arbitrary and setting the line with your mind on abortion should not be the case. I see the need for the right to abortion which is why human rights should not be given at conception.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

It’s when they have to broadcast it that really ticks me off.

I agree. I’m not comfortable when another guy is bragging in the bar about how many girls he banged last night. I’m sure you feel the same way, but since this is a thread about homosexuals, you only bring them up. To be consistent and non-discriminatory, you’ll have to claim to dislike both types of behaviour, not just from one group.

I am not the one giving them AIDS, they are giving it to themselves with their abnormal behavior.

This would be a good argument if you’ve claimed that anal sex is immoral, but you haven’t. Your posts always revolve around “immorality” of homosexuality.

If people are obese, others come down on them and persecute them. If a person smokes, people shun them and treat them as lower than low people. Yet let a gay get HIV and liberals want to move the world for them.

Bullshit. I’ve seen no “persecution” of obese people or smokers.

TuJe,

Your definition of marriage is an opinion, not a fact. It can become sort of a public fact, when many(50+%) people agree with your definition.

Majority rule on sensitive issues such as this asks for blatant and legal discrimination.

Are you saying that heterosexual marriage hasn’t always been the most common of all those? Or how do you define traditional? And this also depends on your perspective, we should look at the history of western world to inspect what is/was the traditional marriage.

He’s showing there are more cultures than just the American one (which, ironically enough, is pretty young), and that there are many cultures focusing on issues other than “just” the man/woman thing. I dislike how you manage to squeeze in “western world”.

Depends of your definition of marriage. Gays can have legal equality and not marriage. They are not mutually exclusive (See my post in previous page).

Legal equality while not having legal marriage is inherently contradictive. The church is not forced to marry homosexuals, but if you want to claim legal equality you’d better start legally marrying those homosexuals.

I don’t know, there’s a lot of unclarity in these studies. For example in Finland it was found that being a child of same sex couple likely had some negative consequences.

Bah, there are no laws against being a bad parent. Such studies are purely out to stop homosexuals from adopting kids (and aren’t even against the concept of marriage).

This is very culture specific, I think. I learned that from my psochology studies. There is different results in USA and Finland in many studies.

How can another marriage influence your own? I don’t see the link.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are viruses and fire considered living things?

Here’s a question I haven’t really seen answered: does it currently matter whether we define something as “alive” or not? Will we treat a virus differently between it being defined as alive or not alive? We will probably continue to take medicine against the more damaging viruses. Will we treat fire differently between it being defined as alive or not? We will probably still use it to see in the dark or to burn something. I believe the important issue to look at is sentience. If something does not feel pain and has no emotions, then we generally care less if it is “used” or removed (note: not always, think of collections). If we suddenly find out fire is afraid when we try to put it out, or feels pain when doing so, we might stop using it as if it isn’t sentient. A lot of viruses are damaging to our health, so we will continue to battle against them regardless of any sentience status. We will still put out fire when it is dangerous to us. But, if sentient, we shouldn’t throw them around without care.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Since MyTie usually does not gain much support, I have to confess my agreement with his statement: the government should not perform marriages. This is a non-discrimination action, as long as church marriages are not legally recognised (in other words, it means nothing to the government). The “immorality” that people claim about homosexuality really is of no relevance here.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Moral Argument

Solo? No values taken from others? I’d say that is quite impossible. Kids should be raised by at least someone else, as they should learn important issues, and how to figure out what is important. It is certain you will be taught morals on the way.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours

Originally posted by issendorf:
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

How is it possible the Netherlands (and other countries) are capable of providing health care for everyone, and the US is too poor for that?

Because those nations have the US to provide for their defense.

Since you usually don’t joke around, I’m going to have to assume you’re serious. Is this about national debt? Debt divided by amount of people? Are you suggesting that America’s costs (inefficient costs do not count in full) are higher than those countries that do have public health care, and that there is a direct link between this and the suggested idea that America’s spending on defense aids those countries for free?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Civility. On the rise, or on the decline?

Compared to what period? If it is declining or rising, it is very steady, since I have not seen much of a change during my life.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours

How is it possible the Netherlands (and other countries) are capable of providing health care for everyone, and the US is too poor for that?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are viruses and fire considered living things?

clearly life is an attribute we do use for many life forms (by far the most) that we don’t think feel either emotion or pain. and yet you went there. why did you go there?

Two primary reasons:

1. The current definition of life is a placeholder, it is not complete. We can define it in whatever way we currently like, but that is purely a definition. Something being a “lifeform” shouldn’t change the way we think about it. Sentience is a very real reason why we think something is alive. Sorry if you thought that means I argue only sentient beings are alive.
2. Mules are not alive. This is so incredibly silly in the same way I think it would be incredibly silly to think fire is alive.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / New badge discussion

While I agree the Arkandian series has a problem with performance, this non-optimised laptop doesn’t even have too much problem playing it. I generally see slow combat and lag for a second when picking up gold/resources, but it’s still playable. I can imagine most if not all PCs nowadays are better than this laptop. My former PC was even better equipped than this laptop. It should be playable for most.

With that said, he should find a way to optimise performance.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Israel bombs Gaza

The OP is biased.

Then you have extremely broad definitions for “bias”.

One day, they get together and start fighting. It is biased to say “Person A has been hitting Person B”, and leave it at that. It is “more” unbiased to say “they were fighting”.

Interesting, but at the same time you want to argue that Palestine is the first to “punch” and Israel is only the good guy to retaliate. I wonder how come you can’t see that as bias.

Do you need to list the entire history of both people and all motivations behind each fight, and describe each punch since they were both born?

Don’t overly exaggerate. The point is that you’re trying to put the entire blame on Palestine by mentioning that Israel’s attack was only because of Palestine (“mommy, he hit me first”), but that ignores the fact there’s a history of attacks.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours

Those who get something for free (from others who have to pay for it) tend to abuse it.

Obligatory health insurance fixes that problem. Have you been reading my posts?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Secession of States post Obama re-election

You are looking from the outside in and don’t understand the people as well as you think you do.

I’m observing a horde of angry people that their vote wasn’t the majority posting up some ridiculous petition and hoping that their minority is going to get them anywhere. I acknowledge they have different views from Obama, but I don’t acknowledge that their only options are Romney or forming a separate country.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Israel bombs Gaza

Bombing civilian populations is good.

You and I have a different definition for “arguing”.

Hamas has been lobbing missiles at Israel for the past 4 years.

And again, I don’t think anyone argues it is a good thing.

Why should Israel keep turning the other cheek?

My post wasn’t about that at all. It was about a news topic covering a certain attack and MyTie immediately jumping in that we should acknowledge an attack from the opposition, because otherwise you’re biased, or leaving things out. I responded that if you argue you’re leaving things out, you’ll need the entire history (we all know how “friendly” they’ve been to each other), and that there’s no bias in pointing out a fact without posing a stance around it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours

Why do people have so much trouble understanding basic economics?

I’m getting the feeling you don’t really get the concept of insurance.

no real increase in supply.

What the heck do you even mean with that? Insurance is to provide monetary safety for the future, not to expect present cash inflows.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Israel bombs Gaza

Israel bombs Palestine in response to several hundred rockets launched into their civilian districts.

This is as much of an incomplete view as you propose the OP is. Palestine didn’t launch rockets out of the blue, though I guess you would find their reasons invalid. There has been hatred between the two. You can’t select a certain event and then force another event into the same story just to make that first event seem better, especially not if you’re leaving out the rest of the entire history between the two.

You don’t bomb civilian populations.

I don’t think anyone here is arguing that this is a good event.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Israel bombs Gaza

If the shoe fits…

If the shoe fits, then talk about it. Here, you’re just randomly mashing that concept in between some propaganda. You overreact on every word and immediately draw extreme conclusions out of it. It’s really not necessary.

I’m not saying anything about motives. I’m saying that he said, as you said he said “what’s happened”, only, he didn’t. He didn’t explain “what’s happened”. He only listed the attacks from Israel toward Palestine. That isn’t “what happened”. That’s one part of it, but it’s ignoring the rest of “what’s happened”. It’s one sided. It’s, be friggin definition, biased. He said “Israel did this”, without any mention of hundreds of rocket attacks.

That’s like claiming I’m biased against America’s shoe shops by showing China’s new, miraculous type of footwear. The OP didn’t lie or convinced us of certain viewpoints. If you want a complete history between the two parties (since that’s the only way to be completely unbiased), the whole topic would be filled with links towards history books before any proper discussion can take place. You’re seriously overreacting.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are viruses and fire considered living things?

Here’s a thought process: who cares if fire is alive or not? I don’t think anyone has created a scientific article in which they argue that is capable of feeling emotions or pain, so whether or not our arbitrary definition of life includes fire doesn’t change the way we use it. “Common sense” would suggest that fire is not a lifeform, not alive, or however you want to call it. When we talk about preserving life on the planet, we are not trying to protect fire.

A virus can be considered as a lifeform by some, and others do not see it as such. It doesn’t fully fit the current definition of life, but that shouldn’t necessarily stop us from considering it as life in the (near) future. It is important to realise what a virus does to us, and other lifeforms. There are many types that harm the host, while others don’t do much at all. Since they are not necessarily and purely a threat, we should not try to argue that we don’t care if they go “extinct” (as a lifeform). We might treat a virus differently between knowing whether or not they are lifeforms.

As a sidenote, I believe a planet full of fire will be considered “devoid of life” while a planet on which we would find viruses should/would be considered “to host basic forms of life”. If we purely look at the definitions, we might look at an entire alien civilisation and say their planet is uninhabited.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Israel bombs Gaza

liberals

You just had to add that, didn’t you?

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / The Best Game Ever [Poll]

Neverwinter Nights.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Secession of States post Obama re-election

And now people wish to claim that 100,000+ and growing does not speak for the majority or even a minority… That is irrelavant the point is this many people wish to be heard.

Their voices were heard in the election. To now set up a petition and think that their 100k against a far larger population should mean the entire state secedes is rather silly, don’t you think? If all they wanted was “to be heard”, why use a petition like this? It’s never going to be accepted.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours

Donseptico, I’m not entirely sure what your argument boils down to. I think we both agree that private health care is expensive, but you didn’t really talk about public health care (part of my argument). Do you prefer public health care (everyone is obligated to take on insurance) or obligating those who pay taxes to pay for everyone’s health care?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours

I can understand hospitals and whatnot wanting to make a discernment between the two. For instance, I would like to have LapBand surgery—it would be good for my health, but not necessary to save my life right now (and even though I have healthcare it still doesn’t cover it…isn’t that ’bout a bitch…but I digress….)

Well, we both agree that hospitals shouldn’t be forced to take in such people.

However, someone who is having chest pains and will die in a few hours without that acute level of care, I can see them being put in a different category and highly prioritized. Even if they don’t have healthcare and would never pay. To let them sit on the curb and die would seem pretty draconian.

It seems like an “immoral” idea, yes, to do as such, but giving in to those who need help while they are not lowering their net income with health care reinforces the stance that you should basically not get any health care. Why would I pay for that if I could just get health care for free? If there’s no incentive to get health care (= you get treated for the worst cases regardless of having health care or not), then very few people would. There must be a line drawn, no matter how bad it sounds. This is why forced health care seems like the better alternative.

Note that you will not get helped if you have a disability that won’t kill you, but still requires treatment. But privatised health care will not sell you health care if you have a disability, because, shocker, you would actually be needing it! Another reason for obligating everyone to have health care (and as such, make the health care firm non-profit).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours

They should. If this sort of behaviour would be allowed, any reasonably smart person would stop paying for health care and go to the doctor for the slightest of issues without having to pay a single cent. If you are rejected for not having money to pay for a service (which, by all means, should sound fairly obvious), then you should be expected to find a way to get that service if you need it. One way is to become rich. Another is to get health insurance.

If you request a simple operation not costing much money, they might be able to settle with you in a different way, but many larger operations cost too much for the hospital to hand them out in the hopes they’ll get paid eventually. Another solution is for the government to entirely fund the hospital’s operations, allowing everyone to have free health care, but this would require them to increase taxes, effectively forcing every person paying taxes to get health insurance and pay health insurance for those who don’t pay taxes. This leaves us with the option of forcing citizens to get health insurance, or leaving it optional and rejecting those who can’t pay the services. If you, as a government, don’t want to come over as “heartless” (even though you yourself decided not to have health insurance), then force your citizens into health insurance so that you won’t have to reject anyone.

EDIT: This was at Twilight. As Karma said, I do believe hospitals are required to give aid to the seriously ill, even if they don’t get paid. This is exactly the kind of thing that leaves people calculating they shouldn’t actually get health care.