Recent posts by tenco1 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Originally posted by jhco50:

Mr. Tenco,

Oh my, so formal. What’s the occasion?

I have not directed many posts to you because you are pretty much a young smart mouth anymore, and have been for a long time.

Darn tootin’, pops.

You really don’t add much to the conversation but one liners with very little content.

Bananas.

Be that as it may, I don’t dislike you, just ignore you. However, I would like you to watch this video of Chuck Woolery. It will give you a very good bit of information to think about.

And I’d would like you to actually listen to what I’m saying. (Jesus, I am a rebellious youth talking back to my pappy.)

You see, this debate/argument has gone on for a long time.

It’s so old my history book has started talking about it.

Some would like to gut our Constitution (Karma/Vika, etc)

Thomas Jefferson.

In the last year I have had my scooter (I rode for 10 years) stolen from my home. Last Wednesday, the house my wife and I have poured our sweat and money into was burglarized.

It’s almost like your guns can’t protect you if you aren’t home.

So you see Tenco, your dreams are just dreams.

Oh that’s a relief,for the longest time I thought that I actually slept with my mother. (Don’t ask.)

You have not looked at the big picture to see the side effects of your agenda. Think about the collateral damage laws like you propose create.

What that my taco night is going to give me the shits? I don’t care, it’s tastes amazing.


See these?

Some would like to gut our Constitution (Karma/Vika, etc)
Right now we are inundated with a bunch of politicians from both parties that would ignore the Rule of Law and make their own.
This has been a downhill spiral since Bush 1. But, the last 8 years has seen this spiral accelerate.
Under a Socialist leader, we have almost completely thrown our Constitution out and we no longer go by the Rule of Law.
This is what our country is becoming under Obama’s hope and change thingy.

Now say you manage to take all the guns away from the law-abiding citizen, because those are the only people your supposed laws would affect. You would be leaving these citizens to the whims of the criminals and we know they are getting more brazen by the day. That and our fearless leaders open boarder policies, bringing in gang members from Mexico.

So you see Tenco, your dreams are just dreams. You have not looked at the big picture to see the side effects of your agenda. Think about the collateral damage laws like you propose create.

These are all perfect examples of why I think you’re a troll; you’ve been saying these same things from day one and no matter how many times we tell you what you’re saying is bullshit or irrelevant, you don’t even acknowledged it and keep on shitting it out.

And you know I also don’t dislike you; because I don’t know who you are, I don’t believe that what you’ve said is truly who you are; sure, I’ll believe that you do think of yourself as conservative or are a grandfather, but it’s impossible for someone to say what you’re saying, what you’ve been saying, without an ulterior motive guiding them.

Everything you’ve said is what’s truly wrong with the U.S. People who know about the problems in the world but think they have the perfect solution and wont listen when others tell them they don’t truly understand the problem, people who use all the wrongs out there to piss off everyone listening to them, people who bitch about the problems and how grievous they are but then backpedal and make excuses why they can’t do anything about it, people who lack agency, people who lack self-awareness, people who can’t think about anyone other than themselves.

Hell, maybe that’s why you’re saying all of this, maybe it’s to get us to realize what’s going on around us, maybe it’s just to see people like me rant about you, I don’t know. I do know, though, is that as soon as I can, I’m going to vote for the baby-killingest, pot-smokingest communist candidate I can find.

Who knows, that might even be me.

EDIT: Eh, seeing as how the last ones were removed, I guess I’ll flag mine too.

 
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?

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

    Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

    To be fair, in Texas where jhco says he lives, he is referring to mostly OPEN carry.

    I thought he lived in Colorado.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

    Originally posted by yeasy:
    That people will not reinvent religion.

    I’m not making such claim, show me where.

    Right here:

    Originally posted by yeasy:
    Let’s kill the rest of people. What is left? Group who doesn’t believe in anything supernatural.
    Religion removed permamently.
    I just say there’s such alternative.

    I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. People will make an alternative to religion?

    Religion removed permamently.

    You didn’t read my posts, why try to discuss with me then?

    That was from one of your posts.

    Beauval already pointed out this mistake and I agreed with him.

    Wouldn’t that mean that you’re now disagreeing with everything else you’ve said?

    It was not going to be a claim and I already clarified that, so don’t refer to thing that’s no longer valid and wasn’t my intention.

    Oh okay, I think I’m understanding now.

    I’m getting the feeling (or, if you prefer, belief) that English isn’t your first language. So, I’m going to try and ask a few questions in order to get some more understanding.

    When you talk about religion, do you mean specifically organized religions like Christianity, Islam, etc? Because it seems that everyone else here, including me, has (possibly mistakenly) used the term “religion” more broadly, such that it might include just one person who follows, maybe zealously, a set of related beliefs that are largely unsubstantiated by their environment (for example, believing in aliens that control the mind of his girlfriend).

    When you say something like this

    New beliefs are not as popular as old

    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.”

    Evidence? I don’t think you’ve one.

    The evidence if human nature itself, though. It’s not even limited to completely unsubstantiated beliefs, the scientific method only works under the technically unfounded belief that what we observe truly exists and that we can measure and conclude true statements from what we observe.

    Brain might be the biggest enemy of religion…

    I think the better term would be “reasoning,” but I get what you’re saying.

    I thuogh that writing about existance of not-religious units will be enough to imply invalidity of claim, well…

    Nope, partially because, like vika’s been saying, not following an organized religion (I assume that’s what you mean when you say “non-religious”) still requires the ability to believe, which allows for the possibility of a type of religion to eventually form.

    EDIT:

    Originally posted by yeasy:

    I know I’m wrong? Huh, what are you talking about?
    Where the hell I agreed I am wrong, that there’s no evidence for your claim?

    I think she’s reffering to this

    Beauval already pointed out this mistake and I agreed with him.
    you treat your own opinion as fact.

    Because they were all facts.

    And no, I’m not part of the cult of Vika.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Legality of Guilds

    Originally posted by CptMilkshake:

    I wanna name it Natural Born Killers. That was a great movie. So would that one be ok to use?

    If it’s strictly non-profit, then you’re golden. But other-wise, I’d say the name is fine, I don’t think anyone would know it was the title of a movie unless they knew of the film in the first place.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

    Originally posted by champion17:

    Humans won’t evolve from resilient bacteria. @Vik: You are right and I’m running out of things to say. I feel like I’ve gave my point and you have given yours.

    Well, we did, indirectly. It just took a few billion years.

    Also, you still haven’t given your answer to this:

    Would you be happy giving nuclear weapons freely to random citizens and hoping they use them sensibly, or would you rather the holders of these weapons are carefully and comprehensively vetted & highly trained with the weapons securely stored until there was no choice but to use them?
     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

    Originally posted by champion17:

    You never know if the government will go corrupt or not. Not saying they will just stressing my point.

    But a government doesn’t “go” corrupt, it gets corrupted. Also, what’s up with speaking of the government as if it’s a single will?

    I didn’t literally mean destroy the planet but I mean it would erase all living beings.

    Still no. Maybe everything on the land if you’re lucky, but even there are incredibly resilient bacteria and (I think) fungi.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Are you nuts? She's gorgeous!

    Originally posted by Fronebular:

    Well well, aren’t you the kind of special person that’s able to contradict themselves in the same paragraph without anyone else catching it. What a talent!

    Except it isn’t contradicting.

    So, nya.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

    Originally posted by champion17:
    There is no reason someone can’t have a firearm for the sport of it or home defense.

    Well, there are a few.

    What does the government think they can do?

    Govern.

    Lowering magazine sizes won’t affect how many innocent people someone kills.

    If they have unlimited time and ammo, sure, but they don’t. In fact, (I’ll get the link as soon as I can) there was a shooting in an Oregon school and only one person died because the shooter was tackled while reloading (also, the civilian that stopped him was unarmed, so much for a good guy with a gun being our only line of defense.)

    The government try to make laws and they have no idea what they are talking about. They have never held a gun in there life let alone seen one face to face. They are dabbing into a subject they know nothing about.

    Of course not, it would be physically impossible for the government to use a gun; it’s a non-physical agency made up of individuals.

    Gotta love how you imply that the Rebulicans in office aren’t actually a part of the government, though.

    (This is coming from someone who hunts and shoots on a nearly daily basis)

    As long you have licence and aren’t hunting the most dangerous game, there shouldn’t be a reason for the gun laws being proposed to affect you greatly.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do non "white" humans cause more crime then "white" Humans? (USA)

    Originally posted by vikaTae:
    Removal would be blotchy and random but wouldn’t carry any health concerns; it would just look unsightly for a short while.

    So I guess that would mean once you go black, you can go back.

    I’m not sorry.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Are gay guys really just hardcore misogynists?

    Originally posted by DennisKainz:

    They think they’re almighty, as the government allows them to rape other guys.
    They’re also extremely touchy, as they won’t even let you complain.

    I think I see why, though.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Is lunacy as American as apple pie?

    Originally posted by issendorf:
    Also, I don’t particularly care which political party they ascribe to, if they’re tax-dodging, swinging their gold dicks around in politics, or whatever other thing I think is slimy, I wouldn’t like them.

    So, you aren’t concerned when policies you tend to agree with do the opposite of what they’re intended to do? You’ll be a great partisan hack one day.

    I don’t understand how you got that from what I said.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Is lunacy as American as apple pie?

    Originally posted by issendorf:

    Yes, the most learned people in society are those who learn from YouTube. Couldn’t agree more!

    Well, since it’s been about two hours from the time I posted that to the time you responded, I’ll assume that you took my suggestion and watched each video, checking accuracy along the way.

    Originally posted by issendorf:
    Seriously, what are the answers? Greater regulations. Higher taxes. More welfare spending. That’s the Democratic platform – same one since the Great Society. But, sure, it’s the Republicans who aren’t modern.

    Well, yeah.

    I mean, sure, you talked a lot about how “behind the times” Democrats are (though, I would argue that the reason this idea is so old is because it still hasn’t seriously been considered, much less happened), but you’re not giving anything about why Republicans are in the now, you even said

    You have it backwards.

    So where is it?

    It is the huge gap in wealth distribution that is at the very core of our issues…causing a class warfare.

    Fun fact: blue states tend to have higher levels of income inequality than red states. I can’t wait for you to try to blame that on the Koch brothers.

    Ah, but you see, that’s because the impure welfare beneficiaries are allowed to wander the earth, spoiling crops and raping babies along the way.

    Also, I don’t particularly care which political party they ascribe to, if they’re tax-dodging, swinging their gold dicks around in politics, or whatever other thing I think is slimy, I wouldn’t like them.

    And let me just posit this: the political inclinations of the majority of states are not necessarily congruent to their wealthy.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Is lunacy as American as apple pie?

    From Issen’s link:

    Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

    Except that’ll barely reduce the overall spending of healthcare.

    Actually, just watch everything that channel’s made; they’re usually no longer than seven minutes and have apparently done their job and made me more knowledgeable of healthcare.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / Is lunacy as American as apple pie?

    This is a really hard question for me, not necessarily because I don’t know enough about I thin I know a fair amount, but because what I do know is really complicated to explain from the start, especially if it’s to a non-American, and it would take a lot of time, which I don’t have.

    I can give an answer to this, though.

    Originally posted by beauval:

    For my part, I think Obama talks a lot of good sense on a number of issues, and yet many Americans close their ears and minds, refusing even to consider what he says. It’s this resistance to any kind of cultural change that I just don’t get, especially in view of the amount of information that is now freely available.

    That’s largely because the Democratic and Republican party have adopted a “good guy/ bad guy” view to the other party of late, which you could also attribute to the end of the Cold War because then people were without a clear enemy and then have to make one (because that’s obviously the best idea), but I also think this rivalry has been building up ever since the Andrew Jackson era when political slander became a viable campaign strategy. And so, because neither party want the other to do something, and with the advent of the Tea Party and it’s slogan “make everyone pissed at everything” the Republican party made an announcement just before Obama’s first inauguration to block every action he (and to a lesser extent the Democrats) but then say that they are more than willing to help.

    Also Fox News.

    Originally posted by issendorf:

    How am I a lunatic thinking that the Federal government can’t effectively run a healthcare system for 320 million people when they can’t run a healthcare system for 20m or so vets?

    Not necessarily, but I think the incompetence of the VA is a poor comparison because the U.S. has always been fucking over its veterans. A lot of veterans of the Revolutionary War were actually put to death because they tried to lead a revolt after not getting compensation.

    Or am I lunatic wanting to live in a society that doesn’t mirror Western Europe (because you guys don’t exactly have your shit together either)?

    You’d be a lunatic if you didn’t want that just because it’s Western European.

    Or am I simply lunatic because I’ve become to the seemingly logical conclusion that this President has done a piss-poor job for five and a half years?

    But the President could never do a good job, because if he ever got anything done he’d be a tyrant, and if he didn’t do anything it would be because he’s lazy coward.

    Now if you want to argue his efficacy just as a leader of government (somehow that feels wrong to say in regards to the President) with or without including the gridlocked, occasionally shutdown Congress of late, I’d be willing, I just think that getting the current Congress’s shit back together can only be a job for Super Jesus.

    Why is a universal model the correct model? There are a slew of market-based reforms we could try – why would those be inferior?

    Well, when almost every developed country uses one, it’s probably best to look into it. Hell, you could test it out locally and possibly expand it over time to see how well it works as the population grows.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Off-topic / What would YOU do if you discovered that one of your lifetime friends is Gay?

    Originally posted by aguspal:

    The fact that he hid that he is gay for a whole FUCKING YEAR, certainly, IS a fucking problem.

    I know, it’s a huge problem that in U.S we still have people who feel they need to hide who they truly are for fear of intolerant shits rejecting or harassing them because of it.

    EDIT: Also, it probably wouldn’t be that big a deal unless I was already attracted to him/her.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / #Yesallwomen Thoughts?

    Originally posted by sportsmaster19:


    @Tenco1

    Everything you said there is contradicting itself

    Now you are getting it.

    I’m getting that you don’t realize you need to show what you’re mocking in order for other people to understand that you’re mocking it.

    But not much more than men.

    Like bullshit it’s that close.

    but if misogynism and rape culture or what ever buzzword you want to use is so prevalent then you would think that I would have heard at least one situation when a women was treated like shit for being a women. Not fucking one, and don`t think I am making this up, I have not heard one situation from a personal friend or family member where being a women lead to discrimination,

    I have never witnessed a piece of evidence that has convinced me that rape culture exists, and if it does exist, it is hugely sensationalized.

    You keep saying that like it’s actually a valid counter-argument. Please stop.

    There are plenty of things that I haven’t personally seen (e.g. elephants, a uterus, murder, Pluto, Michael Jackson, Antarctica, the vice-president of the United States, Poland, Dragon fruit, volcanoes, adultery, the curvature of the Earth, the Brady Bunch, and marijuana) but they still exist despite that because there is hard evidence of their existence.

     
    Flag Post

    Topic: Serious Discussion / #Yesallwomen Thoughts?

    Originally posted by sportsmaster19:

    You don`t think there is a lot of reverse misogynism (there is no term for this so I`m making one up) going on in society?

    Reverse as in love of women or hatred of men? Because there’s a word for the latter: misandry.

    And just to be clear, there’s still plenty of misandry.

    People act like women take are the only victims and they are all so strong and are a protected species.

    Everything you said there is contradicting itself.

    I know a lot of women (about half the people that I know in fact) and I have never seen any of them feel any blatant discrimination that Yessallwomen complains about.

    That doesn’t change the fact that discrimination against women (granted, everyone’s been discriminated in someway or another at nearly any and every point on human history, but we’re talking about women now) still happens.