Recent posts by tenco1 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

Originally posted by DoomlordKravoka:

I can’t criticize your awful source if the only link is this thread, which makes me think you’re pulling arguments out of your ass.

How about mine?

It might not be the exact one, but it at least has Vika’s excerpt.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is corporal punishment legal?

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

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by issendorf:
That’s part of the thing, though. Say what you will about the quality of the work some people do, the point of working is to get money to live off of.

Workers have to produce to a level that justifies their wages, and there is pretty much no one outside of managerial staff that produces to a level that warrants a $15/hour paycheck.

Y’know, about a year ago I learned that this local grocery chain called Market Basket has a policy where if an employee works for them for years, even as a cashier, they’ll be paid substantially more than the minimum wage, according to Wikipedia full-time clerks even start out at $12 dollars an hour. I get that there are some terrible employees out there, but because the company rewarded this kind of loyalty in their employees so well, they started to protest for their old CEO back when he was fired. Partially because the person to replace him wanted to cut their pay, but also because the old CEO was able to build loyalty and was actually able to get his employees to like him.

Bit of a non-sequitur, but I think my main point is that this doesn’t have to be a problem. The only reason this is happening is because people feel, one way or another, that they’re not getting paid enough, and they believe, even though these corporations are fully able to give them raises (and they are! Unfortunately, it’s spiraled out of control long before they got off their asses), the only way to get what they want is to change the law.

Because higher costs for goods and services and a reduced number of jobs will really be a boon for minimum wage workers. You know – the two things that are almost guaranteed when you significantly raise the minimum wage.

Again, this is very tangential, but we’re going to have to come to an actual conclusion as a species on how we want the future of jobs to progress. Like, right now we’re trying desperately to employ everyone we have, but at the same time the employers are rewarded far more heavily for getting machines to take the place of the jobs. I honestly think we’re going to need to have a serious discussion about whether we slow down automatization for the sake of employing more people, or saying screw it and get machines to do nearly all of our work for us, getting rid of the need for human jobs altogether.

At the end of the day, businesses are for-profit entities, not charities, and if they don’t make a profit, then there’s no business to employ.

Well, there are non-profit businesses, but I’m being pedantic.

Whether it’s higher costs for products or fewer hours, the business has to deal with a double in their labor costs somehow. But hey, I’m sure those 500,000 people that the CBO predicted would lose jobs from the proposed hike to $10.10 (likely in the millions of lost jobs for a $15 minimum wage) will love that theoretical $15/hour wage they’ll receive at a hypothetical job that’s now handled by an iPad.

So I did a bit of research and it seems that that hike would bring the minimum wage back up to its 1968 peak.

So, it turns out that they’re already doing what I said. Huh.

I’m glad you’ve discovered the fact that companies raise wages without being mandated to do so by the federal government. It’s almost like wages increase without government involvement. Who knew?!

Yeah it’s crazy, and all you need is hundreds of thousands of impoverished citizens to protest for a year!


God, it feels weird making thoughtful posts that actually contribute to a discussion, is this how it normally feels?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by issendorf:

Perhaps Starbucks and WalMart can afford to pay more, but it’s pretty unlikely that the majority of their labor deserves $15/hour.

That’s part of the thing, though. Say what you will about the quality of the work some people do, the point of working is to get money to live off of. Then the problem with the wages people get is exacerbated when their not even allowed to work. Seriously, there are people out there who have to work two part-time jobs because neither will let them work more. It got so bad McDonalds felt the need to release a guide (I can’t for the life of me find the original document) on how to live off minimum wage, kinda funny how it basically says you can’t.

Although, speaking of McDonalds, they’re apparently Raising their wages above the minimum wage, so that’s nice. It shows how corporations were treating the minimum wage like the required wage, but still it’s a nice effort.


I’d say raise the minimum wage to account for inflation, it’s not like our economy’s doing much better than it was in the 70’s. Hell, while you’re at it, make a law tying politician’s pay to the average pay of their constituents. Ooo, and maybe also require that they spend a month on the minimum wage. And to top it all off, give Vermin Supreme the title of Honorary President, so I can get a pony.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by James146:
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by James146:

To think that everyone in this forum has shared the same opinion.

I wanted to hear about Hilary Clinton, Ben Carson, and other candidates.

Alright then, I’d like to see Donald Trump become president.

Sure, he’s a collection of damn near everything I hate in this world, but I’ll be damned if his term won’t be the most spectacular thing seen in the past century.

You haven’t really given any reasons or explained his stance on certain political matters.

I did give my reason, though; Whatever happens in his term is going to be amazing to watch. Possibly cataclysmic, but amazing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by James146:

To think that everyone in this forum has shared the same opinion.

I wanted to hear about Hilary Clinton, Ben Carson, and other candidates.

Alright then, I’d like to see Donald Trump become president.

Sure, he’s a collection of damn near everything I hate in this world, but I’ll be damned if his term won’t be the most spectacular thing seen in the past century.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Because you guys refer to him like he represents “the other side.” He doesn’t. He represents a destructive, self involved, disingenuous side, and the only reason he maintains is because people debate with him as if he’s going to change his mind or contribute something.

I dunno, to me it looks like a mixture of Trump/Huckabee’s attitudes and the usual “conservative” counter-arguments. Y’know, the stuff like how self-proclaimed conservatives argue that the Confederate flag is about “southern pride?” Just look at his posts in the civil liberties thread, it’s crazy how similar it is.

Maybe that’s what’s going on, the presidential race is starting, he was invigorated by the new batch of crazy in the Republican primary, and took some notes on how some of the candidates were behaving (I’m still convinced he’s troll, y’see).


Seriously though, the next time you hear Trump responding to something, take whatever he had said and imagine a toddler said it. You’d be surprised how well it fits.

EDIT:

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Holy crap, and I thought I was radically anti-corporate.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Originally posted by Kazeelex:

Just because I like things aimed at females doesn’t mean I’m a girl.

Like I just said: Most people don’t feel the need to question it, which seems to be your case.

I could say the same to those who say no one is an “SJW

You’re missing the point.

Yet you’re still a guy/girl

But also proves you’re serious.

If I choose to kill someone and I get blamed is that victim blaming?

No, saying shit like this is victim blaming,

calling yourself the opposite sex will surely cause more insulting.
For elderly or religious people that’s really confusing,

Because – and I’ll try to make this as simple as I can- you’re blaming the transgender person for the actions of others.

its spreading rapidly and is a ridiculous idea to call yourself the opposite gender.

Why’s that?

I think what everyone here is going by is that gender is a social construct. Its not. Its genetics.

No, sex is genetic, gender is absolutely a social construct.

And – for the record- definitions can change and there might have been a time when they meant the same thing, but this is what the definitions are now and trying to argue against a higher authority than yourself makes you look like a clown.

If I have a penis I am genetically a male human being. I’m not a girl. How is that ignorant?

Because you don’t know what you’re fucking saying.

Let me try to make a list of everything you’ve said in the last two posts that stems from ignorance about sex, gender, and transgender people (and sexual orientation, to boot).

Just because I like things aimed at females doesn’t mean I’m a girl.
That doesn’t mean I should identify as a 10 year old.
Yet you’re still a guy/girl
If I have a penis I am genetically a male human being. I’m not a girl.
Those people are choosing to say they ARE a girl/boy.
I think what everyone here is going by is that gender is a social construct. Its not. Its genetics.
It’s really not. People have started saying that for the last 5 years or so. A decade ago gender and sex were the same thing and still are.
If that’s ever happened the person is “messed up” and there’s probably a scientific term for it.
The parents decide what gender they are.
There’s no spectrum.
There’s male, female, and deformity.
There’s heterosexual homosexual and bicurious.

First off, whenever you’re saying “guy” or “girl” you mean, I assume, the set of genitals a person has when they’re born (for simplicity, we’ll say it can only be a penis or vagina). In which case, the more accurate term would be “biosex male/female,” because, like it or not, calling someone a “guy” or “girl” is broad and says much more about the person than you’re probably intending.

Secondly, the body just determines sex, and as Vika and stan were saying, you can literally be born with the wrong body, because the mind is what determines gender.

And thirdly, there are hemaphrodites, asexuals, pansexuals, gender-fluid, bisexual, and-I-can’t-remember-what-else.

The only thing I’ve learned about this world is that there are no edges; there has never been a time when some entity or concept doesn’t meld with something else.


God, here I thought I’d be able to make light-hearted quips and pick apart silly little things people do, but no. I’m getting legitimately fucking pissed trying to talk to you.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Confederate Flag and Civil Liberties

Originally posted by jhco50:
Only liberals and dictators ignore what the constitution says to further their control of the country and it’s people.

I’d imagine so, but I can’t remember a time when a dictator considered the Constitution in order to ignore it. I’m sure it would send a powerful message, but their time would probably be better spent eating Swiss cheese and surviving assassination attempts from the Three Stooges.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Originally posted by Kazeelex:
My problem with this is, if I have male genitals, I’m a guy. There’s no reason to “identify” as a girl.

For you? Probably not, most people don’t ever feel the need to question their gender.

A lot of people do these kinds of things for attention.

Did you know? 12% of all unsupported statistics are made by pedophiles.

Surgery proves they’re serious.

Hormone therapy works too.

One imagines.

I’m often called “transphobic” for believing if you have male genitals you’re a guy, vice versa.

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say “transphobic,” but you are incredibly ignorant and blunt to a fault.

You can like things that are aimed at the opposite sex, and some people might make fun of you for that but calling yourself the opposite sex will surely cause more insulting.

You see tha’ thar statement, Billy? That’s wha I like t’ call “victim blaming.”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What benefits do you get out of being Satanist, that you can't get for being Christian?

Originally posted by SirPhilly:
That same logic is done also on earth. For example, in some kind of a forum that I know of, members are not allowed to do some certain things otherwise, their IP and account will be banned forever.

Ahahaha, that’s cute. You think they’re at all comparable.

Whereas, in the form example which I brought up, no amount of apologies would get the IP address and account unbanned.

I distinctly remember cases where people who either intentionally or not got their account banned and were later able to get it unbanned. So, no, you can get it back.

More to the point, accounts are nigh worthless. They can be made and discarded on a tenth of a whim, how is that at all comparable to someone’s immortal soul?

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by wargamer1000:

I could ask the same on the particular group of people begging for gay marriage.

Why yes, you could. They’d laugh at you (which I am), but you could.

Discriminatory? Homosexuality is fine, but the license of their marriage likewise ‘discriminates’ others. In the manner that it ignores their tradition which is just as discriminatory.

What is happening to the people you feel would be discriminated against and in what way would they be discriminated?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The psychology of the forum.

Wait, you couldn’t possibly mean… Vika and Karma?!

You bastards, I thought what we had was special!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What do you think the impact would be if Serious Discussion were to receive more regulars from Off-Topic?

Originally posted by DarylDixon101:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by josaphine17:
Originally posted by Meistheman:

Of course it would. Both forums have way too different personalities.
Just imagine two countries trying to unite, even though they have a way too different culture from each other and have practically no reason to unite into one.
Those two countries would in this case be the OT Forum and Serious Discussion.

This is going to attract OT..
I hope they don’t see it. We will have a flood….

AND
they will risk having their accounts PERMANENTLY banned.
While such likely doesn’t enter the mind of an OTer that would find “sport” in coming to SD and fucking around, a time out just might wake them up to the fact that Kong has rules and that they can seriously hurt your account.

Sure, they can make alts;
but, that would take time away from their OTing.
We just ignore them …. they tire of this …. problem solved.


Genious! I hope you are right though…

I can’t believe how long this took nor how much power I now wield with this knowledge.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Originally posted by issendorf:

Rubio isn’t that bad!

He’s not much of anything, though. Just ethnic. And cherubic.

And Jeb and Fiorina I would think aren’t that terribly objectionable. If Kasich runs, he’d be fairly tolerable I imagine as well.

Though, if Jeb ever became an actual contender, people couldn’t seriously talk smack about the “Clinton dynasty” anymore, or else they’d be giving the Democrats a rebuttal on a silver platter.

Then again, they’ve already been given dozens of silver platters by waiters made out of silver platters during the last election, so maybe that wouldn’t be a problem.

(well and Rand I suppose, but I love Rand so be gentle with him please).

At least I agree with about a third of what he says, he’s just also a plagiarist. He is pretty cute, though.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Originally posted by issendorf:

Oh let him have this jhco. It’s actually kind of adorable that he thinks Hillary is a good campaigner and is oblivious to the fact she has as much of a personality as a bowl of oatmeal.

Hey, at least it would be better than four years with Mitt “porridge” Romney.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Wiki Links

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

Topic: Serious Discussion / Wiki Links

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Are YOU sure ya aren’t just jhco … in disguise?

Oh please, jhco would have already started talking about how much bigger his gun-shaped America boner is compared to yours.

Seriously, though, you’re being an ass.


Anyway, here’s what I got:

John Wayne
Utah
Great Salt Lake
Salinity
Desalination

Now let’s try Desalination to Beyonce.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

Let me guess, the hat the blind C guy took was made of denim, which is usually blue, he knows this because the texture of denim is very distinctive compared to most other materials and the general ubiquity of the phrase “blue jeans”.

Well… You’re not wrong. I mean, you’re supposed to be able to narrow down the possibilities using logic, but yeah, C is wearing a blue hat.

Your turn.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Damn, Tenco strikes again!

Yes, I am the greatest mathematician, you filthy arithmetic plebs can’t even comprehend the advanced calculations running through my noodle.

The odds of the new car being behind either is exactly 50-50.

It seems like that would be the case, but it isn’t. It seems counter-intuitive, but this helped me understand it better by showing every possibility that could happen and by extension the odds of it happening.

Anyway, I just found this one.

Inside of a dark closet are five hats: three blue and two red. Knowing this, three smart men go into the closet, let’s call them A, B, and C, and each selects a hat in the dark and places it unseen upon his head.

Once outside the closet, no man can see his own hat. A looks at the other two, thinks, and says, “I cannot tell what color my hat is.” B hears this, looks at the other two, and says, “I cannot tell what color my hat is either.” C is blind. C says, “Well, I know what color my hat is.” What color is his hat?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Originally posted by Mafefe_Classic:

unless you mean that your weight = x and that x = x + x/2, in which case its infinite kgs

Actually, if you put the equation as x = 50 + x/2 and solve for x, you’d find that x= 100

So you weigh 100 kgs.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Originally posted by beauval:

Yes, it does. When you made your original choice, you had a 66% chance of picking a wrong door. Nothing that happens subsequently changes that. So get rid of it every time.

Yeah, that’s all there is to it. The floor is yours beau.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Originally posted by beauval:


Tenco’s turn.

Okay then. Uhh, I dunno, how about the Monty Hall problem?

You have three doors to choose from, two of which are wrong. After you pick a door, you are then shown which of the two doors that weren’t picked was wrong. You can now decide to stick with your first door or change to the unopened door. Which choice gives you the highest probability of choosing the correct door?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
How far off am I?

And, I so longed for my female teachers to have worn micro-minis. lol
Even old Mrs. Hoyer.

By about seven inches. You’re essentially trying to find the change in the radius of the belt, and by reverse engineering the circumference to get that radius (i.e C/[2*pi*r]) ends up giving you the simple forumla of “change in r= X/(2*pi)” because by trying to find the change in the circumferences the extra million meters cancel each other out.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Logic Puzzle

I feel like this requires some calculus to solve correctly.

I’m too lazy for that though, so I came up with 1.67 miles.