Recent posts by Stots on Kongregate

Topic: Off-topic / what is your favorite tv show

Boardwalk Empire
Game of Thrones
Walking Dead (when it was on)
Lost (when it was on)
Dexter
The Borgias

Topic: Off-topic / Political correctness is racist

Originally posted by ExemplaryReturns:

PROOF:

1. Its entire goal is to make you think about what you say to minorities
2. This makes many conversations awkward
3. If all conversations with minorities are awkward because of PC, you will avoid them.
4. Since you avoid them, you lose sympathy for them
5. Because of PC, you are now a RACIST D:

Discuss how political correctness is RACIST D:

1. Political correctness is to reduce social offence in regard to gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related. It accounts for far more than just a minority, anything said by anyone could be deemed offensive. Political correctness is not about changing how you think, it’s about making it publicly appropriate.
2. Being PC is no more awkward than walking up to a woman and telling her your (hypothetically) very serious misogynistic view that “Women belong in the kitchen”.
3. As I said, PC applies not only to minorities. Me being politically correct restricts me from saying things like “9/11 was horrible, but can’t you see that ultimately, you’ve redirected your own suffering to the citizens of another nation”. Which may upset some conservative white god-fearing Americans.
4. If you’re racist enough to have to force yourself to be politically correct in the first place, chances are there was no sympathy for them anyway.
5. If you force yourself to be politically correct in regards to minorities, you’re probably already racist.

Political correctness is not racist because being politically correct isn’t limited to racial minorities. If we were to limit it to racial minorities however being politically correct and avoiding conversation with racial minorities (as you believe would happen) is far better than approaching someone of a racial minority and engaging them in a conversation about how much you despise their specific minority

Political correctness then is a way of avoiding possible racist encounters, as well as to stop you from looking like a fool with backward principles. PC makes society better for the majority, those who are accepting towards minorities, and keeps the ill-informed ideals or misogynistic, homophobic, racist reactionaries in the little boxes of their minds.

Topic: Off-topic / Who do YOU think is the coolest Kongregate user?

Fatcatsven

Topic: Off-topic / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by TheInternetRules:

Yeah but men are supposed to pay for women on dates, so it’s equal.

Does that mean lesbians should be paid the same as men?

But then wouldn’t they have to pay for each other?

Oh dear, it’s the ol’ lesbian paradox.

Topic: Off-topic / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by Aldir:

Originally posted by Stots:

Originally posted by Fronebular:

I honestly don’t know how this last bit of civil rights hasn’t been past yet. We accept all races and genders, but apparently homosexuality is simply crossing the line. It is rather silly and I don’t see why this still has to be an issue considering all of the other progress that has been made.

Even though we’ve technically accepted all races and genders, there is still inequality. Women are still paid less than men for the same job and people of different racial groups are still generally paid less because businesses see them as ‘cheap labour’.

We’ve come leaps and bounds in accepting homosexuality – something that was completely tabooed before the 50s to something that we can at least now openly discuss. In many nations they do have the right to marry, in many nations they have the same privileges as a married couple (without the title of being married) and in most nations, they are free from persecution.

The partial transition for equality for women and other races took a long time, and it’s only recently we’ve seen this kind of campaigning for same sex marriage laws. It’s going to take some time for people to get comfortable with the notion, if you notice most of the generation of leaders were born in an era where their parents and their society’s values differed much greatly to the generally liberal state of the world now.

Yeah but men are supposed to pay for women on dates, so it’s equal.

I prefer going Dutch.

Topic: Off-topic / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by Fronebular:

I honestly don’t know how this last bit of civil rights hasn’t been past yet. We accept all races and genders, but apparently homosexuality is simply crossing the line. It is rather silly and I don’t see why this still has to be an issue considering all of the other progress that has been made.

Even though we’ve technically accepted all races and genders, there is still inequality. Women are still paid less than men for the same job and people of different racial groups are still generally paid less because businesses see them as ‘cheap labour’.

We’ve come leaps and bounds in accepting homosexuality – something that was completely tabooed before the 50s to something that we can at least now openly discuss. In many nations they do have the right to marry, in many nations they have the same privileges as a married couple (without the title of being married) and in most nations, they are free from persecution.

The partial transition for equality for women and other races took a long time, and it’s only recently we’ve seen this kind of campaigning for same sex marriage laws. It’s going to take some time for people to get comfortable with the notion, if you notice most of the generation of leaders were born in an era where their parents and their society’s values differed much greatly to the generally liberal state of the world now.

Topic: Off-topic / How short is your temper?

I’m generally unpleasant, but not necessarily and angry person. I tend to get angry when people who are wrong tell me I’m wrong.

Topic: Off-topic / Is it okay to cheat on bf

Originally posted by Maowee:

Well duh of course I am interested in him, it’s like saying “is it okay to eat popcorn while drinking cocoa” and then you say “well, if you’re no longer interested in popcorn, why not stop eating popcorn and start drinking cocoa” well I think cocoa and popcorns tastes delicious together. So all in all I still want my bf, i just want gurls too.

Originally posted by HappyAlcoholic:

Cheating’s not really okay at all, regardless of who it’s with.
If it’s with a girl, would you mind a threesome?

That would be awkward

Well, unlike your analogy, your decisions will actually affect people other than yourself.

Maybe you should have been more specific in your post then.

Personally, and that’s all it is because you’re asking for opinions, I think it’s not right to cheat and you’re going to have to choose one of them.

Topic: Off-topic / Lifespan extension

With all these people picking longer life and no kids, I fear for the survival of humanity. You’re limiting the diversity of the gene pool! And if there was some kind of disease outbreak, most of you ‘immortals’ are likely to die off, unless you have some form of resistance.
Procreation will ensure the survival of our species!

Think of the future people!

Topic: Off-topic / Is it okay to cheat on bf

Well, if you’re no longer interested in him, why not just break it off? Cheating should never be okay.

Topic: Off-topic / Pictures

I believe it has to be a link. You can always upload that image onto an image sharing site such as imgur.

Topic: Off-topic / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by lei_wulong:

“Compromise” is what religious people want and by that I mean that they get their own way. The only way to combat stuff like this is to grow some balls and do stuff to make them angry if it’s for the sake of progress. If a small number of people wouldn’t always think and do differently we wouldn’t be where we are now.

The problem with that is that there will always be conservatism in politics. If you upset the conservatives, and some undecided voters, you risk losing power to those conservatives. And if that happens, expect 3-4 years of reactionary politics and the undoing of all the progressive work that was accomplished in the previous term.

Without compromise, no solution can be reached.

If guns were banned completely, the upsurge in violence would increase dramatically as a reaction to people feeling as if their rights have been infringed. But if you prolong that process of outlawing over several decades, limiting licensing, restrictions on ammunition capacity, restrictions on uses etc, you’ll eventually produce a new generation who have a far more responsible and pragmatic attitude to gun ownership and usage.

Politics is a game of balancing the your own political aspirations with the needs and wants of the population.

Topic: Off-topic / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by Aldir:

Originally posted by Stots:

Originally posted by Aldir:

HOWEVER, I think that as the marriage is governed primarily by the church, a private organisation, they should be allowed to determine who can and can’t marry.

Lol wut. Marriage is governed by the government.

Also, the US has separation of Church and State. The Church doesn’t get to decide who gets to get married or not.

If marriage was governed wholly by the government, then why does it still limit the rights for those of the same sex to get married when it willingly legalises the partnership of same sex couples to offer them marriage-like privileges.

The only reason marriage ISN’T open to same-sex couples is because it is still so heavily influenced by the will of the Church.

Because your dumbass politicians still bring religion into politics against the command of the First Amendment. And you let them.

Let’s try to keep this civil.

If your politicians are bringing religion into politics, then that’s proof enough that the US government has not completely separated Church and State (as you said they had) and is in need of doing so. I think in this case, considering trying to make same-sex marriage work in a system so heavily influenced by religion is unlikely, the best way is to find a way around it that limits the upset of those opposed as well as those concerned.

And on a side note, I’m Australian not American, our PM is an atheist who has made no moves to allow gay marriage because she wishes to appease those against any form of marriage reform. In suggesting it’s her government that is holding back same-sex marriage, you’re implying that her government actually has some form of authority and influence, which it has continually proven not to have.

Topic: Off-topic / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by Aldir:

HOWEVER, I think that as the marriage is governed primarily by the church, a private organisation, they should be allowed to determine who can and can’t marry.

Lol wut. Marriage is governed by the government.

Also, the US has separation of Church and State. The Church doesn’t get to decide who gets to get married or not.

If marriage was governed wholly by the government, then why does it still limit the rights for those of the same sex to get married when it willingly legalises the partnership of same sex couples to offer them marriage-like privileges.

The only reason marriage ISN’T open to same-sex couples is because it is still so heavily influenced by the will of the Church.

Topic: Off-topic / Gay Marriage

Personally, I don’t believe giving same sex couples the right to marry is going to destroy the institution of marriage any more than sham weddings and hasty divorces cough Kim Kardashian cough. HOWEVER, I think that as the marriage is governed primarily by the church, a private organisation, they should be allowed to determine who can and can’t marry.

It becomes complicated as marriage is also a legally binding contract, and the concept of marriage predates the Christian formalisation.

I believe that what should be done is to remove the legal significance of marriage and replace it with something like the civil union, therefore:
1) Marriage (without any legal infringements) can be authorised by individual churches if they so wish. Marriage becomes symbolic more than legally binding.
2) One consistent document across all forms of partnership means everyone has the same legal rights.

It’s ridiculous that the church and state are still connected with this piece of archaic law – if anything, the controversy it results in should be a wake up call to the fact religious principles cannot exist at all in an assumed impartial democracy.

Also, this probably would have been better placed in Serious Discussion forums, but interesting debate, nonetheless :P

Topic: Off-topic / Song of the Day

I want to try to get something like this going, I’ll post a new song every day, not any specific genre, just something I hear and I like.

Respond with any new songs you’ve heard recently!

AMORPHIS: Silent Waters

Finnish metal group I found in my daily YouTube surfing, I think they’re fantastic.

Topic: Legacy of a Thousand Suns / Suggestions and Improvements

While I’m at it, it’d be good if there was a more consistent experience mechanism – the higher you hit, the more experience you earn. I hit a 500,000 and can get 100 experience, but if I hit a 2,000,000 I get 36 experience?

Topic: Legacy of a Thousand Suns / Suggestions and Improvements

Definitely in need of a system for the Lab which allows you to see all the things you can craft, so you don’t need to go scrolling through the laggy pages of items all the time.

Topic: Off-topic / Any metal fans here?

I’ve met quite a few people in my native chat room (Pride) who are into the metal. I love it and have a few of my favourite bands listed in my profile!
#Metal4Life

Topic: Off-topic / What's your favorite chat room?

Pride

More active than most chat rooms, although usually occupied by the regular trolls and other unpleasant people, but between the hours 4PM and 4AM UTC+10 it’s most enjoyable. We converse about anything really, provided people are willing to keep it civil and our regular mods, frankiesmum, KaiJai, Hoolo and DarkRainyKnight are barrels of fun. Best room ever.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can Communism Work?

Communism can’t work because for it to be applied, it actively impoverishes its people.

Economically, the lack of free market economy can destroy the economic prospects of the nation, reducing the standard of living. Centrally planned economy doesn’t equate to communism, but some form of economic planning is necessary to coordinate the economy in the manner of socialist intentions.

Advantages are that consumer patterns can be controlled; restraining demand can favour greater capital investments, increasing the availability of money/resources in an underdeveloped economy to be invested into things such as industrial ventures which can be used to advance the economic objectives of the state. An alternative to waiting for capital to accumulate through light industry and without reliance on foreign investments (which would increase the State’s external debt).

However

This type of economy means due to no supply-demand system seen in a free-market means production cannot be coordinated efficiently:

“Without a market in which allocations can be made in obedience to the law of supply and demand, it is difficult or impossible to funnel resources with respect to actual human preferences and goals.” – Tibor R. Machan on Planned Economies.

Communism isn’t a practical alternative – It’s proven to work in China, but only because the Chinese system betrays the economic ideals of communism (outlined by Marx in his Manifesto assessing the means of production) and enforces the controlled state, more akin to Stalinism than true communism.

Marx intended communism to work as a series of communes around the world note necessarily as one controlled state, but with individuals in each commune to coordinate distribution not implying any dictatorial powers.

Communism was, in the end, a failed social revolution that dabbled in some interesting alternatives, and certainly appealed to the vast majority of the neglected working class who liked the idea of a classless and stateless society, but in the end, those ambitions collapsed in every case of applied communism, falling to dictatorship.

So long as we act by the human condition, communism cannot exist. It is too easily manipulated.

Topic: Off-topic / Nicolas Cage, discuss.

Topic: Off-topic / Nicolas Cage, discuss.

Fun Fact: Nic Cage’s face can replace ANYONE’S face.

Topic: Off-topic / Nicolas Cage, discuss.

NOT THE HOBBITS!

Topic: Off-topic / Nicolas Cage, discuss.

Nicolas Cage is an undervalued actor. His serious movies provided me with more lols than all of Adam Sandler’s combined (but we’ll save his appreciation page for another millennia).

Favourite Nic Cage movies, or quirky Cage facts that just make you happy to be living on this glorious planet.

1. Matchstick Men
2. Wickerman
3. Con Air

Facts:

1. Nic Cage was cast as Aragorn in LotR, but declined due to family reasons.
2. He was also cast as Neo in the Matrix, declining for the same reasons.
3. Also cast as Green Goblin in Spiderman – yep, family again.

How good would those movies have been with Cage at the helm!