Recent posts by Darkruler2005 on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eye Color Puzzle

Not being a math major or even good at it

There is no need for mathematics in this puzzle.

I do not think that the announcement adds any new information

Small hint, think simple and work from there. It does add new information.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eye Color Puzzle

I’m not sure how vague you want me to be, considering almost nobody posted yet. I’ll just answer the first question with “yes”. The announcement leads to a departure from the island. I’ll answer the second and third questions after a while.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Jant, I agree, but I would say laws that do not discriminate against minorities aren’t really opposed by anyone, even if they solely benefit the religious. I guess I should have been more specific.

Congrats on your upcoming marriage.

Thanks. I posted that to show I’m one of the least homosexual people, yet all the more wish equality for homosexuals. For everyone, but they in specific due to this topic.

We have got nothing banned. Nowhere have we passed legislating banning anything with gays

Marriage is a privilege because it is not a specific right. It is not guaranteed by the Constitution so it must be somewhere in the laws.

But you’re not really answering the question with this, more confirming that indeed it was created to be a privilege in order to be capable of discrimination. What I mean with “banned” in this case is that heterosexual marriage is officially recognised by the government, and homosexual marriage is not.

Another problem is you are taking a small portion of the population and attacking the masses.

Majority should not be able to decide what the harmless minority can do.

Who knows, you may win and we will change form normal couples to gay couples.

Please tell me you’re joking. I honestly don’t wish to ask this question, but do you believe if homosexual marriage is allowed by the state, every “normal” couple (yeah, because “normal” is whatever does not deviate from your supposed standards) will turn homosexual?

I don’t get to use the other minorities who would like to have equal rights just as much as the gays. Are gays discriminating against the other groups that have different sexual desires? Sounds like they are espousing the same prejudice you claim the gays are getting, but the gays are doing the prejudicing.

I don’t understand. Which minorities are the homosexuals oppressing? If anyone, it would still be the same majority. And I’ve never said I don’t vote for other types of marriage (such as with more than two people involved), but that’s not part of the topic, and my opinion on that will have different reasons due to different factors.

What you are arguing is that we make gay marriage a law, which would be way more than the normal couple would have. How unfair is that?

Once again, I’d appreciate you’d stop using the word “normal” as if your own standards are the only correct ones. It is merely used to insult homosexuals and considering the current hatred keeping them down they really don’t deserve an addition to that.

Please think, though. Of course I would argue all marriages are law, not just homosexual. I hope this point is understood.

Or we could just forget the whole gay issue.

Uhm, yeah, “forgetting” minorities kind of increases the likelihood discrimination is going on.

Since it is gays demanding a change in their status, it seems logical that there be a bit of give and take.

I’ve lost it. Homosexuals are demanding equality, because that should be a given. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so frightening that people inherently are worth less than others.

Topic: General Gaming / Command and Conquer

I’ve got all of them except the multiplayer FPS. One of my favourite series.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

That’s slavery.

Really? Being in service of a person is slavery now? So, all the jobs in the world?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

It is still status quo, one side against the other.

Except that’s false. You’ve got something on the ban for nonsensical reasons and now is the time you make up for it. If carrots were banned, it would be completely ridiculous to state anything more than “there are no valid reasons for them to be banned” to get them unbanned. The status quo is nothing being banned, and banning that which has valid arguments (such as murder or stealing). The arguments I mentioned are all invalid based on the arguments I gave. Since the burden of proof should always be with the person trying to ban something, you’re going to have to explain to me why they are still correct. Remember that some of them are inherently unusable. For example, separation of church and state demands we cannot make laws based on religious ideals.

They are defined as one woman and one man

We can define the right to live as “white males feeling secure in their person and will not be killed by intent”, and we would perfectly play by the constitution if we start off murdering black people. But you don’t get it. Purposefully defining something in such a way you can discriminate without being “illegal” is pathetic at best. You’re correct in one thing, everyone has the same rights. We just don’t have equal rights. And seriously, stop the crap about marriage being a privilege. The only reason you’d want something to be a privilege is to be capable of denying a certain group this type of privilege. That’s all fine and dandy with a driver’s license: you’ll want people on the road to be capable drivers. Marriage leads to no more violence than being just a couple. It leads to nothing dangerous in particular. You do not have a reason to make it a privilege other than religiously stopping homosexuals from marrying.

I understand your dilemma, being gay and all

Just a question, are you an aborted fetus?

EDIT: And I frankly don’t feel like I’d have to explain myself at all, but I’m getting married. To someone of the opposite gender. And as Jant said, I’m disgusted by homosexual sex. As much as I’m disgusted by animal sex. I wouldn’t want any of it. But being disgusted by something means you have ground to ban it on the spot? Not even close.

Gays are demanding one thing now, but we have no way of knowing what they will demand next

This is under any circumstance one of the last things to worry about when deciding about laws. A slippery slope, nothing more. You must fire any lawmaker deciding not to implement a law just because he’s “afraid of what they’ll ask for next”. Seriously.

Would you consider legal marriage to be a civil union? That has been accepted by some, yet they are still arguing for marriage. So what are they arguing for?

There should be a separation between the church and the state, simple as that. When “married” for the church, you aren’t married for the state. When married for the state, you aren’t married for the church. Heterosexuals just as much as homosexuals should confront the same issues. The private church can discriminate against homosexuals to stop them from marrying at their place, but not at the government.

Topic: Kongregate / Badge Suggestions!

So, practice makes perfect.

Doesn’t count for everyone, unless “years” should be taken into account. I’m glad there is no impossible, then at least I could try to earn the last badge.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

It’s kind of funny how those against gay marriage have no valid arguments but you have all of the correct ones

On the contrary. You are still under the assumption the status quo, homosexual marriage being illegal, is the default state of law. This cannot be correct. Laws require valid arguments. If they have none, they should not exist. I do not have correct arguments for, because I do not need them. If you could bring me valid arguments against, I will attempt to argue with you, but all of the ones I’ve posted are not valid.

Rather than spend 30 minutes trying to answer all of your points I will just say they are quite biased.

So, then, tell me, what are the arguments against homosexual marriage you’ve used? All I’ve seen from you is “the church doesn’t want it”, except we are talking about legal marriage. Since that argument cannot be used, which will it be?

And of course they’re biased, they’re biased towards what you (and/or others) think. So biased that I’m almost fond of how ridiculous they make themselves look.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

This is a hypothetical question about a hypothetical world. Considering you are asking the individual person here, I’ve lost all capability of relating to the real world. You are pretending that I’m capable of telling them to either die off or come on trips for sex with whomever (and suddenly they’ll be well). There is no alternative. I cannot just, for example, drop them load of bread and be off. It is devoid of realism, but I’ll try to answer any way. And yes, it is a loaded question. It assumes there are no other alternatives.

I would give the decision to another person in the job area. There is no mathematical solution to this. Asking the child is inherently flawed, as its hunger is a “short-term” danger while the danger of sex with strangers is long-term and not on its mind. Asking others in the firm might lead to either of the decisions, but I frankly disagree with both. I might just quit whatever job I’m on as a whole for being forced to take such a decision. With no alternatives in mind, and both leading to negative issues, that’s quite a dilemma indeed. That is even taking into account your huge assumption on the children not being physically harmed.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

So, once again, I’m going to list out the arguments, because they keep repeating, and somehow people never read why the arguments for homosexual marriage are easy to see, clear and have no objections while the arguments against homosexual marriage are either unrelated, could apply to a whole lot of other groups, based on religion (and thus arbitrary), completely discriminatory, or total lies.

Arguments against:

1. It is unnatural.
“Unnatural” is an oxymoron. Get over it. Everything you see appears in nature, which means it’s natural. There’s only one unnatural thing I can think of, and that’s God (because he does not appear in nature). I don’t see you complaining about God. But the worst part is that something being “unnatural” does not prove the fact their marriages should be illegal.
2. Marriage is for a man and a woman.
That’s nice, dear, except we frankly don’t care what type of discrimination the church wishes to offer. It’s all about legal marriage. And it just doesn’t get through. Jhco, this one is for you. Stop mentioning the church. It is about legal marriage. Most homosexuals would not even want to get married in the church, because they hate them so much for no reason.
3. Homosexuals cannot have kids with one another.
This implies many things. One, that marriage should always lead to making kids. This means that the infertile, those unwilling to have children and those that adopt should not legally be allowed to marry. If you did exclude all of those groups from marriage, at least you would be consistent. But you don’t. Then you think you can come with the argument that homosexuality is a choice, which you’d really have to prove.
4. Homosexuality is against God.
The Bible is not a valid source. If I write down that you are against The Dark Ruler (my newly-created religion’s god), then I should propose you are not legally allowed to get married, yes? Plus being against homosexuality is completely unrelated to their marriage. Why deny them a random right? That doesn’t make sense. Why not deny them the right to bear arms? Or the right to own a dog? Or the right to buy from the third shop after the bakery? Why marriage?
5. Homosexuals spread diseases (more than heterosexuals).
I’d rant, but instead I’ll just say you’ll have to prove it.
6. If we allow homosexuals to marry, we should allow people to marry children, animals and objects.
That is just shoving the issue. Firstly, we are here to talk about homosexual marriage, not about any of the others. It is not valid to state we “should” legalise other types of marriages, because they are not part of the story. Second, that is the slippery slope fallacy. Nothing has to lead to one another. Third, it is assuming that all of them are equally “bad”, which is not a fair assumption. And fourth, it completely leaves out the fact heterosexual marriage is right up there in the same boat.
7. (My favourite one so far): The majority should be able to decide what the minority does, is allowed to do and what should be done with them.
Which means we can basically deny rights to any minority group we want, which includes individual people, and I don’t see how anyone except the rich would want that (because they have enough money to stop such ridiculous actions). But I don’t see why one would target the homosexuals with this.

Without further delays, the arguments for homosexual marriage:

1. None required. To make something illegal, you will need valid arguments. The only arguments coming close to valid are those that are lies and as such cannot make a stance. Homosexual marriage should be legal until it is found out they really are a destructive, alien group which blended together with the human race to eliminate them from within.

Please do add any reasons you have for denying homosexual marriage. Note all of the above points. The church can continue on with their discrimination (though everyone would prefer they aren’t such hateful bigots). All that is being asked is that homosexuals are treated equally right as heterosexuals.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

No harm?!? Whaddya mean no harm? Just where did AIDS come from? No one knows, but who transmits them most often?

It must be those damn blacks.

Topic: Serious Discussion / My Opinion About Evolution

So wouldn’t no religion be in fact a religion?

First of all, I’m not sure if you meant it like this, but saying “no religion” implies there is no religion. Saying “no religion” equals to “religion” is kind of silly, isn’t it? Second, you haven’t read the entire definition of religion. Sure, it’s too vague in saying “usually involves”, but you can read that both ways. And I find it quite odd that it does not mention faith or “non-scientific”. If this definition does include science and atheism, then I’d say the definition should be adjusted, as that is definitely not what it should mean.

Either that or we’re disproving evolution and trying to prove something else at the same time.

Evolution hasn’t been disproven, and it certainly hasn’t come anywhere near close in this thread.

I was trying to prove, that people BELIEVE in evolution, not KNOW/PROVED it.

…

And you failed miserably.

Topic: Serious Discussion / My Opinion About Evolution

It isn’t off-topic. It is highly on-topic. If you believe you cannot accept logic due to the fact it will stop you from believing in God, then this discussion cannot hold any grounds.

Topic: Serious Discussion / My Opinion About Evolution

Why are we discussing with a person again who’s not accepting any logic? That’s simply illogical. Reasoning and discussions are directly related to logic. If one of the participants does not accept logic, the discussion should not be continued.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Do we have a right to discriminate against a minority group which does no harm or whatsoever?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Correct me where I’m wrong. You are arguing this:

1. Homosexuality is a choice. (No evidence posted.)
2. Children are better suited for life when with two parents/guardians of a different gender. (No evidence posted.)
3. The homosexual lifestyle is something which is disliked by society. (No evidence posted.)
4. Marriage is not a right, but a privilege.
5. “Marriage” is only between a man and a woman.

So, let me reply in turn:

1. This has no bearing on whether or not homosexuals should get married. If infertile people can get married, then homosexuals should be able to get married. That is, if you believe marriage should always lead to children. If it doesn’t always have to lead to children, this argument can be easily dismissed. If it does, then infertile people should not be allowed to marry. But even if homosexuality is a choice, then those making themselves infertile by choice should also not be allowed to get married. There are too many loopholes here.
2. This has no bearing on whether or not homosexuals should get married. There is no on/off button for “good childhood”. You imply that homosexuals by definition are worse parents than all heterosexuals. That is false enough. There are enough heterosexuals nowadays that mistreat their children and are incapable of raising them. They should not be allowed to get married. But, the worst thing is, marriage has no relationship at all with having children. You can have children without getting married.
3. This has no bearing on whether or not homosexuals should get married. Worse, it is implying society can vote to restrict and deny minority groups at their pleasure.
4. The only reason you’d make marriage a privilege instead of a right is in order to deny people this privilege. This is to be expected with a driver’s license, as you only want capable drivers to have it. But marriage requires no “capability”. Marriage doesn’t “make you a couple”, as you already are. Marriage doesn’t suddenly get you children, as you can do so regardless of marriage.
5. You are still thinking about the church’s marriage, and believe it has invented the concept. Both are false. Nobody wishes to make the church change their discrimination of homosexuality (though it would be nice if they weren’t such bigots). People wish to make non-church “marriage” allowable between two people of the same gender, as is already the case for several countries in the world and states in America.

In short, crap reasons not to allow them to get married.

Topic: General Gaming / Do developers bother reading feedback on same-genre games?

General note: Yes, some developers do this. Most likely the more successful ones. Others don’t care as much and you’ll see the mistakes.

As for speed multipliers on tower defense, that just means, as said, their gameplay is too boring. They should instead bring more stuff to do.

Topic: General Gaming / Defender's Quest Walkthrough (Full Version)

Are you listening to yourself? Rapage was wondering how to beat that level and you got quite far, so he asked the level of your units to confirm whether or not he simply had a bad setup. If your units were of a much higher level, they were more capable of handling the level than his. I don’t know why I’m explaining this to you. It should be so obvious.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Infertility is not their choice.

1. Homosexuality is not a choice.
2. Not wanting to have children is a choice. Are you suggesting we disband marriages in which no children have found their place?

It has been shown that a child with both a mother and a father does much better than a single parent, usually the mother.

Let me just think over the fact you’re using this argument to prevent marriage between two people incapable of conceiving a child. What’s that? People can adopt without being married? Oops, there went your argument.

Please don’t call everyone a bigot because they have different views.

No, I’m just calling people bigots if they even attempt to justify their view some people should be made inherently inequal to others.

All of this has nothing to do with allowing homosexuals to marry. What is it with you people thinking up crap reasons to discriminate? What is so important that homosexuals shouldn’t be married? Is the world going to explode? Are we all going to be infected by some kind of virus? Will all children on Earth no longer be capable of learning a single thing? What is it that is going to happen? Economical costs? Honestly, what will happen when you see a homosexual couple that is married over the fact that they can already be a couple without being married?

And, I may be appalled by you, if that is your argument. So, then, it shouldn’t be a problem that we disband your marriage? Once again, why should it even be possible for people to vote on what activities other people can do without harming anyone?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Don’t forget, that your beloved GREEKS typically RAPED women and left them deal with it themselves.

“My beloved..”? What kind of argument is that?

1. Who says I’m related to them?
2. Who says I agreed with their actions (assuming your claim is true)?
3. Why is something suddenly correct when someone else does it?

But honestly, you’re ignoring the majority of my post. The actually important part. You have no valid reasons against homosexual marriage and now you’re going into all kind of side-topics without answering the main questions.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Act of Stealing

Serious discussion is not the place to post your concerns. The Kongregate section might be much better suited for your needs. Also, which administrator did you contact?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gang Colors?

“Should” is a rather meaningless term. Gangs should stop killing each other, but when you walk up to one and tell them this, you sure as hell aren’t going to get listened to. And you certainly aren’t going to find much disagreement here. Less violence would be good, but practically it’s always going to stay violent.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

I assume not answering my post has a purpose?

But nowadays (by the SECULAR society), women are viewed more like a “pleasure” for the men, not an EQUAL helper.

It’s one thing to support your views by religious beliefs (that are unprovable), it’s another to come up with complete lies.

BTW, and that’s my main point, one of the main reasons for DIVORCE, is that there is NO “helper” in the family – only either 2 “bosses” (feminism), or a MAN and his TOY, that exists only for his PLEASURE, not necessarily only sexual.

So in reality you want to protect homosexuals from divorce? That’s cute. Isn’t it kind of backwards to deny them marriage to prevent them from breaking it? I mean, what kind of jacked up logic are you using here?

But true family is when there is man/father and a woman/mother

Nonsensical statement having nothing to do with other people wanting to marry each other.

the rate of divorces in secular and religious families (alongside the family crime rate) is VERY different

Yes, it is. Religious divorces are higher. Also, it has nothing to do with homosexuality, but with atheism. That isn’t the topic.

So, uh, are you intentionally making up lies or is this what you truly believe?

If a guy sees a nice woman that they captured during the war, they both have to go through a long and hard “test for feelings” (she stays un-makeupped for a long time etc, you can read it there; she also learns about being Jewish and converts), so if after all this, his “lust” is still strong enough to want her, he is permitted MARRY her, not just “violate” like you supposed.

He is permitted to marry her? What about, I don’t know, the woman’s feelings?

Topic: Serious Discussion / My Opinion About Evolution

“Why do you think Hitler failed at killing every single Jew! It must have been God!”

Indeed, it’s just another case of something one is incapable of explaining and then invoking God. Except this one doesn’t even make inherent sense.

Topic: General Gaming / Defender's Quest Walkthrough (Full Version)

It’s not the level that counts. No, it only matters that you have enough PSI to unlock their level in a battle!

..have you played the game? As said, level does two things:

1. Grant skill points with which you improve your skills.
2. Increases stats. Haven’t tested how much, but you can’t argue this doesn’t help.

As for myself, I’ve played through every level on casual (just to see the endings) and am now doing extreme on every level. Since I’ve used 300% experience rate throughout my run I assume I should be high enough level, I may just not be using the right skill point distribution. I would assume it is better to put stats in passive traits and skills that, when increased, do something other than dealing more damage. I have the maximum equipment for all party members except the 500k sword. I believe I’m now at the level behind the treasure chamber (everything at extreme before that point). But it’s getting quite hard. I’m going to redistribute one more time and try to place more units with average boosts instead of boosting singular units to the maximum.