Recent posts by tenco1 on Kongregate

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?

     
    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.