Recent posts by tenco1 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:

No country is ‘safe’ from an outbreak. We live in an interconnected world. If you think that Indians are not regularly traveling from Africa to India, you are mistaken.

http://newsr.in/n/Health/750mob094/Ebola-in-India-Over-000-Indians-being.htm

Except those people are screened and watched, so there’s an effort being made to keep it from spreading, and considering the only reason Ebola moved to the States was because the one infected guy was incredibly irresponsible and lied about being in contact with an infected person, and after every mistake that happened the spread has been minimal at best, only being confirmed for the two nurses who were in direct contact with him while he was deep into the infection, I don’t think Ebola tends to make outbreaks from one stray person getting on a plane.

If it were difficult to transmit it would not be spreading exponentially and infecting so many doctors and nurses who are caring for patients.

It’s spreading like this because the African hospitals are in deplorable state, can’t give adequate care or space to patients, don’t have enough staff or equipment to keep up with the number of patients, and the African villagers don’t believe or trust the doctors there, so they keep eating infected animals and don’t go to the hospitals when they’re sick.

Are you implying that Ebola is only a threat for West Africa?

Seriously? I was being incredibly facetious.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:

There are millions of poor people who gather in large, dense population clusters along the Ganges river. They bathe, brush their teeth, and drink from the river. Ebola does not need to travel through water to infect large populations in that setting.

Ebola also does not need to actually be present for people to get sick from the Ganges, it’s already filthy.

Also, the Ganges is in India, most countries in Africa aren’t even at risk of an outbreak, much less anywhere in Asia.

Ebola would spread like a wildfire in any setting where large numbers of people gather together.

But you do not become contagious until after you develop symptoms, so how many people would you need to already be infected for them to infect the rest of the group?

Ebola is not hard to transmit. It can spread through short distances in the air when somebody sneezes, through mucus droplets.

Define “hard.” Yes, if a sick person licks you, you’re likely to get infected, but they’d have to be showing symptoms of being sick and most viruses get transmitted like this, so people tend to avoid getting licked.

It can survive on surfaces for days in cold climates, in the absence of direct sunlight.

Which is why it’s especially dangerous in West Africa, known for it’s cold, dark climate.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

First thing I noticed about the article.

If certain mutations occurred, it would mean that just breathing would put one at risk of contracting Ebola

If certain other mutations occurred, ebola could also become a real boy.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Asset Forfeiture...Legal Overkill?

I never thought I’d see the day when object were considered people, much less that they could be guilty.

So does this mean that guns are the ones that kill people?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:

Trying to make others look like met with

I’ve never heard that phrase before, what does it mean?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:

PhD is not the title use for almost any field.

Looks like you need to read more than the first sentence of the Wikipedia article

In the context of academic degrees, the term philosophy does not refer solely to the field of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is “love of wisdom”.
doctorate is the title use for any field in education past a masters.

I don’t think the US is so backwards that they require you have a degree higher than what you’re applying for.

PHD is basically anything doctorate not associated with medicine so I think that’s what you meant by used for “almost any field”.

Agian your assuming I don’t know the difference between medicine and philosophy. if you have a doctorate in medicine you have an MD if you have a doctorate in philosophy you have a PhD and if you have both you have an MD PhD.

So you’re saying she was right?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Originally posted by CaptEthan:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

They don’t. Their brains are a different gender to their bodies, and they are trying to correct their bodies to be in line with who they are as people.

This most likely isn’t the case of most. Because its how they were born. Many will claim that its a choice but do you choose weather or not if you like girls? No, because it just comes naturally. With that said, wanting to be part of the other gender might be what just comes naturally to them.

That’s… what she’s saying, though. Isn’t it?

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Tenco1 you’re putting words in my mouth.

Like what?

A mercenary is a professional soldier, incidentally.

“A professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army,” specifically

It’s not an insult.

I never thought you used it as an insult, I don’t know why you’d bother bringing up that at all, really.

It’s just a simple word. I’m not sure why you’re interested in isolating it.

I said it to contest you when you said

I’m not going to presume these important things. It’s an act of responsible discussion.


Yes, a severe alcoholic CHOOSES to drink.

Fuck you, I’m done.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

There’s a little “too much” in all these challenges above. Claims that I sound immature are not worth addressing (irrelevant to the topic), for example. But I’ll try:

Saying you wont address something is still addressing it.

tenco1 I understand he was in the military, and I was almost certain it was Vietnam… but in order to address it, I had to have him say it.

He has said that he was in the military before.

I’m not going to presume these important things. It’s an act of responsible discussion.

Didn’t stop you from calling him a mercenary.

And before you try to BS you way out of it, no, you called him a mercenary, you said that it was a “simple fact” that he gave himself the desire to kill people.

But, tenco1, what you failed to grasp is my point that at no point EVER is someone FORCED to kill someone. Period. Therefore, killing is always a choice. That is all I was establishing.

By that logic a severe alcoholic just keeps choosing to drink, an addict chooses to want another fix, someone with OCD just chooses to wash their hands until they bleed, a phobic just chooses to be afraid of something, people with depression just choose to not cheer up. No, I fully understand that logic.

Fuck that logic.

Also, “dude, seriously” it’s not a figure of speech.

Yes, it is.

In fact, you go on to say why it’s a figure of speech in the rest of your paragraph; of course he isn’t literally a different person, he wasn’t a farm boy who was reincarnated as a hyper-intelligent chimp, he has experienced (keep that in mind) things that made him believe things contrary to what he was taught before.

Yet, Karma also (in practically the same passage) accuses my viewpoints—WHICH HAVE NEVER WAVERED—as being naive.

Let’s go with the second definition of naive for now, the one about “having or showing a lack of experience, judgement, or information”. Since you’ve said your beliefs “HAVE NEVER WAVERED,” that would logically mean that you’ve had them ever since you could have opinions about something, does eight years of age sound like a good point where one has started to form opinions? Contrast this to Karma, who had to have been at least eighteen years old to sign up for the military, then experienced something during his time there that changed his beliefs to whatever extent they did.

So, tell me, who would have had more “experience, judgement, or information” given what has already been said by both of you?

I’m not even sure how to respond. The 7-11 scenario was offered as an easy example. If you didn’t want to use it, fine…

What about the real-life example that karma gave? It seems like that would be the more definitive one because it actually happened.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I will chalk up my brand of pacifism as “immature.” I’m cool with that. I yield to you and tenco1 that excellent point. My views on lethal force are childlike and naive… got it. Yours, by comparison, are fully loaded with post-pubescent wisdom. How very manly.

Except I never said your beliefs were immature, I said you sounded like a naive child because you took a figure of speech completely literally.

 
Flag Post

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

Then you go on to state that you’ve killed people for nonsensical reasons. Was that a different you?

Stuff like this makes you seem younger than you actually are.

If I recall correctly, he said that he was in the military and since there was no “hot” war after WW2 that wasn’t a mistake, it’s not that hard to imagine he’s referring to ’Nam, or something like it.

The details are a little hazy, but I remember a story about about my grandfather who, during his time in the Air-force, was ordered to bomb a Vietnamese village, even after it was almost completely proven that they weren’t any threat.

But, of course, you go on to say that the situation was out of your control. Someone created the circumstances by which you were forced to engage in irrational killing.

If I’m correct about him serving and getting in a battle, then yeah, that’s probably what happened.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
I couldn’t agree with you any more than I already do….and have done so for a very long time.

It’s almost like I’m just an alt who pops up to support you when you get backed into a corner.

EDIT: I’m the goddamn Batman.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I’m not quite sure how you square up that my personal beliefs are naive while yours are realistic when it is you that claim you have been different people throughout your life.

Dude, seriously, it’s called a figure of speech.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

see, that’s the problem, they can’t.

Except when they do.

Wait, that wasn’t a PM. Shit.


Anyways, I’m definitely one of those people who thinks of lethal violence-and subsequently war-as a last resort.

Also, to everyone in the world: how about we extensively test what substances or body types affect the efficacy of non-lethal self-defense weapons before we discard them in favor of a hand cannon.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

You know, this is why you shouldn’t mute so many people, Karma.

Christ, now I’m getting annoyed you’re bringing that up.

I call BS on anyone who still thinks they’re addressing the thread topic.

That’s because there was no topic, just a question with one answer; no, you should not kill Hitler at any point in time, up to and including when his head was placed in a jar and preserved in time juice next to Walt Disney so that they could control the Jewish-controlled media together.

It feels good to be back.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Originally posted by MrBobNamg:

I think we should ban assault Macbook Pros
I mean you could use them to bash someone’s head in after all.

Motion to label this as the third stupidest argument against gun regulation.

All in favor?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Originally posted by beauval:
I know the Americans will see this as just another day in redneckland, but my jaw nearly hit the floor when I saw this incident.

Oh, did that happen again?

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

Then again, nine is also when you’re starting to get a conscience and something like this could really fuck her up.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I have a religious obligation to wear a colander on my head!

Originally posted by somebody613:
But that’s exactly what “atheism” is all about – to let the HUMAN decide one’s own limits in modesty and self-restraint, in other words – to REMOVE those at one’s whim.

You’re thinking of libertarians.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I have a religious obligation to wear a colander on my head!

Originally posted by somebody613:

Cool.
Perfectly proves that “atheism” is really just modern paganism, with a somewhat funny “idol” nonetheless.
Not that we didn’t know it before.

That would require them to actually believe in it, they don’t.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

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

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion - subproblem.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

(That might have been more than five lines, sorry Yeasy)

Actually, in his infinite benevolence, he changed it to a whopping eight lines.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion - subproblem.

Originally posted by yeasy:
  • You can post max 5 lines of text
  • Why
    in the
    legit
    fuck
    is
    that a
    rule?

     

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

    This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
     

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Parallel Universes

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

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Parallel Universes

    Originally posted by CaptMilkshake:
    Prove that they didn’t

    Because there isn’t actual evidence supporting the hypothesis of parallel universes existing, thus they cannot create (especially not “come up with”) a theory about parallel universes.

    Who are you to say that I’m not because I am…. your the asshole…

    You’re*, and your first ellipses have one too many periods and your second one is grammatically incorrect.

    It’s called a joke.

    Stop acting like you know everything because you dont :p

    I do in an alternate universe.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Parallel Universes

    Originally posted by CaptMilkshake:


    Scientists have come up with the theory of Parallel Universes.

    No they didn’t.

    now I’m all sketched out that all of my actions are being controlled by someone else and I’m just doing the opposite of what they do

    You’re not; you’re being a contrarian asshole and doing everything differently.

    What do you guys think about this,

    It’s completely hypothetical but I like to think it’s true because it’s kinda cool.

    Also hypothetically is the omniverse, where you have universes that follow other laws of physics.

    how many parallel universes do you think you have created today alone???

    Hypothetically infinite.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

    Originally posted by yeasy:

    Well, I try to explain we can’t make belief equal to religion. They’re not the same things, are they?

    They are not the same in the same way that atoms are not molecules.

    Going further with that analogy (atoms = beliefs, molecules = a set of beliefs comparable to a religion), it is inevitable that molecules will be formed from atoms somewhere in the universe except when the known laws of physics break down near an event horizon (something happens to destroy what we know of as consciousness) or until the heat death of the universe (death of human life or life in general)

    Also,

    Specific set of beliefs =/= Belief

    This is probably the most false thing a person could say.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

    Originally posted by yeasy:

    That part was already explained, please read my previous posts.

    I did, and it wasn’t. Which is why I wanted you to clarify what you meant by “alternative.”

    I say religionless society is possible and there’s no valid reason to think, that religion will 100% re-create.

    Can you have 50% of a religion.

    Are you referring more to superstitious beliefs?

    I don’t refer to beliefs, I refer to religion. I’m not discussing beliefs, I’m discussing religion.

    And if you were to actually read my post (turning things around is my superpower) you would see that, not only was I talking speficially about beliefs, you were too.

    Right here:

    Originally posted by yeasy:
    <

    Evidence? I don’t think you’ve one.
    New beliefs are not as popular as old – old are (in my opinion) dieing.

    Originally posted by tenco1:

    Are you referring more to superstitious beliefs? Because, like vika’s been saying, beliefs can be used much more broadly than to include just superstitions, and when you just say “belief” you are still including statements like “clouds are made primarily of water vapor” or “elephants are not naturally pink.”

    Also, Karma’s already said that, no, when you talk about religion you are automatically talking about beliefs.

    If you’ll narrow, what I’m arguing against to ‘belief’, we’ll never achieve consensus, becouse existance of belief, doesn’t imply existance of religion.

    And this was what my other question was trying to get at: how strictly do you define “religion?” Does it have to be an established religion with a place of worship and many followers (e.g. Sikhism, Zoarstrianism) or can it be literally a “set of beliefs?”

    And no, it does’nt refer to not-following organized religion. It refers to theoretic society, which abandoned religon or made holocaust on religious people. They can make their own system, which makes re-creation of religion to be unlikely.

    So, in other words, they’re not following a religion.

    Here is Vika’s claim:

    You’d have to cut all these elements out of the brain to permanently remove religion.


    And if you read her previous post, you would see that she does explain and substantiate her claim with solid evidence.

    Because they were all facts.

    No, it’s not a fact.

    It’s not a fact that the human brain is capable of creating abstract concepts (e.g. God, math, fairy tales) in order to satiate it’s curiosity?

    That religion will re-create is not fact too, it’s just prejudice.

    Who the hell would you be prejudging?