Recent posts by paradoxymoron on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism

I don’t think one is significantly more democratic than the other.

Capitalism is anti-democratic. It necessitates the pooling of wealth, and so power. The democratic ideal is one person, one vote – that each individual has as much say in the running of their country as the next. Capitalism makes a mockery of this idea as the rich have more say in what happens in your country than you do, even if they’re not from your country!

Freedom without economic freedom is only an illusion of freedom. As long as we must create profit for those richer than us in order to survive, we are not free.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How would the gaming community react to a gay main character?

Birdo is transgender, not gay.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / China and Democracy

How is democracy overrated? Plus, “supporting their own markets through global trade” indicates CAPITALISM, not democracy. They are two very different philosophies. In fact the former weakens the latter.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Hey Spam Fans

Kongregate Announcement

Apr 13, 2012 6:46pm

Hey, Clash of the Dragons fan!

We’ve got a contest going on that you don’t want to miss. Just Like our page on Facebook and answer some CotD trivia, and you’ll land yourself some delicious chocolate Dragon Coins and some rad Kong shwag. It’s a great way to get neat stuff for not a lot of work, which is what we all want, isn’t it? Find out more on our Facebook page.

No. What I want is a lack of spam from Kongregate. I can’t even delete and block user like I can with the other annoying spam.

This is what happens when you sell out to a major/public corporation. Profit motive becomes the centre of everything and the community disintegrates.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are people still religious?

The original questions assumes it’s true that the only purpose for religion was to explain natural phenomenon. If that were true, however, people would have stopped being religious at greater rate than we have seen, since the late 1700’s. This suggests that religion is MORE than just an explanation of natural phenomenon, unless you assume that everyone who doesn’t think like you is a bloody idiot.

Despite being an irrational conclusion, this where many atheists stop. Perhaps they should show more faith in the vaunted abilities of logic and reason and apply those principles to the question of why religion matters to people. MAYBE such an intellectual exercise (particularly if combined “A History of God” by Karen Armstrong or pretty much anything by Joseph Campbell) would lead to a greater understanding of religion, its place in our present and past and some respect for ideologies that paved the way for poetry, philosophy and science.

…Nah. It’s just easier to call the other side “stoopid”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Wikileaks.

I think Wikileaks is essential to a strong democracy. Institutions with authority are running around making overblown claims because they are scared and that is good. They should be. Governments and corporations have made it a practice to lie to the public for far too long.

Did you watch the video that was released? The one where the soldiers are laughing as they’re killing? It’s horrifying…although perhaps not for those on the board who are pushing for assassination of a civilian.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's the last book you've read?

Again, Dangerous Visions. Edited by Harlan Ellison.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / is anyone else scared about gun control

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I’m not sure if ‘comma splice’ is the correct grammatical term here but the grammar in the Second Amendment is simply awful. The latter half is a string of phrases without any connector.

Beyond that, America doesn’t have a well-regulated militia. Allowing the entire, and mostly irrational, public to carry around firearms or have easy access to them doesn’t qualify as militia, nor does it qualify as “well-regulated”. In fact, gun control is the ONLY regulation on the subject and gun-‘enthusiasts’ (nuts) are constantly trying to weaken it. So gun-enthusiasts work to protect the Second Amendment by cutting down any regulation controlling guns, which decreases the amount of regulation on who can own and carry what guns, which makes the ‘militia’ (the people) much less than “well-regulated”, which destroys the concept the founders said was necessary for the security of a free state.

Next, do you really think your gun gives you ANY chance against the American military? No. Gun people will spend maybe $50,000 in their lifetime on their ‘collection’. The DoD’s budget this year was $533.8 billion. In what insane Dirty Harry fantasy do you think that your luger, or whatever, is going to protect you from that very-well-organized militia? The best defense against your country turning against you is the constant vigilance required to protect our civil rights (watered down since 2001), not keeping a loaded gun in your closet. But conservatives, mostly in support of gun “rights” (and money’s “rights” to freedom and corporation’s “rights” to profit), poo-poo at liberal commie extremists who are being constantly vigilant on behalf of the country while encouraging laws that allow people to circumvent the law, as long as they own a gun (Flordia’s “shoot first, ask questions later” law is just one example). Which makes sense. Conservatives tend to oversimplify issues and guns are the ultimate oversimplificiation.

As for the argument that “if you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns”…Well, yes. Because having a gun would make you a criminal. Moving beyond the awkward attempt at logic and toward the concept they’re trying to express, though, real (organized) criminals already have access to guns. They’re not being stopped from opening fire on the public because of a fear that the public will fire back. They don’t do it because it would attract the attention of an urban police force already stretched to its limit (name a precinct that isn’t) and that isn’t conducive to profit. Gun control, however, will help to kill casual criminals, the thieves, the crimes of passion, from using guns in the course of their crime, as well as keep the Dirty Harry nutjobs from “helping”.

I live in Canada, which has a gun culture related to hunting. Many of us have unloaded rifles, safely stored. But I find the idea of concealed weapons creepy. No other word for it. Seeing some guy’s Glock under his jacket while shopping for groceries would be chilling. It’s a death-weapon and I don’t trust you to have it. Particularly when I live in a culture that glorifies the gun.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do you support gay people? If not PLEASE explain?

The anal walls are much, much thinner than the vaginal walls and so infected fluids have a greater transmission rate when anal sex occurs, rather than vaginal sex.

It has nothing to do with gay men being ‘hypersexual’ or promiscuous. For one, they couldn’t marry and this dissolved the stress on lifetime committments that straight culture has. The dissolution of the stress meant the acceptance of a lifelong sex drive. Every straight man would have as much sex as any gay man, given the chance. So where’s the hypersexuality?

Here comes the sad part. Gay men were violently rejected by society and many of them were still in a marriage, acting straight. So discreet locations like truckstop bathrooms and certain trails in woods became ‘cruising spots’ where a gay or bisexual man could find a like-minded individual to have sex with. (Gay bars, for the most part, are a recent invention) Anywhere else would invite brutal pummeling or death. That isn’t an exaggeration.

So because they were so shunned that backwoods and restrooms became the only place to find an outlet for their version of the sexual drives every human experiences, conservatives took this to mean that they were ‘hypersexual’ since they would have sex ANYWHERE!, except in the ‘right place’ (bedroom).

And so: “Hypersexuality” in gay men is a myth.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Would Someone Join the Army?

But every now and then say ‘thank you’ to the men and women who decide to become soldiers, for protecting your right to not join the military, and for heading off the draft.

No. They didn’t protect my right to not join the military. In what war was that right in danger of being taken away? Any American soldier alive today has not been in a war that has demonstrably stopped civil rights being taken away from Americans. In fact, since I know you’re about to mention WWII, the second world war saw rights actively being taken away from citizens by their own government! (Japanese internment camps) Soldiers didn’t do anything to protect THOSE citizens’ rights – in fact, they helped to suppress them.

So hopefully two birds with one stone and you can see what I mean about history. There’s no rational reason to pledge to kill or harm or imprison or do just about anything for the government of your country, particularly when that government is likely to completely change in less than 4 years. It’s like pledging allegiance to a king with Multiple Personality Disorder. Nothing doing.

I agree that we in North America and Europe enjoy an unprecedented liberty. I don’t agree that others want to take those liberties just to take them and that the only thing holding back the hoard of barbarians is the western military and thousands of nukes. (Well, maybe the nukes.) I do believe that our liberty is in part a consequence of our extreme wealth and I do believe that the ‘barbarians’ simply want a more equitable distribution of a wealth of resources stockpiled so high that we squander it daily. It’s a perfectly rational desire and one which we don’t seem aware of. And so I believe that it is our faith in the kind of corporate capitalism that currently exists, which is the sole cause of most, if not all, resource inequity, that is most dangerous to our rights, liberties and the safety of our borders. Build more societies that have as easy access to resources as we do and you greatly reduce the amount of conflict in the world. Eventually, as more people are born into a world where they are truly free, you’d virtually eliminate it.

Fighting wars is pretty stupid, all things considering. Even if you’re after power, taking over another government is a hassle and the guerilla fighting never really ends. It’s much more profitable to simply go into the country as a corporate entity, rape the resources, exploit the people, pollute the land, and then take off to another province when things get less profitable. It happens every day. It’s happening now. These are not the kind of actions that encourage peace. If a Belgian corporation deforested your area, set up factories or oil rigs and turned all the drinking water to much, wouldn’t you be upset? And so we all need armies. Because we’re pissing the world off. At least, the TOP (Top One Percent) are pissing the world off even though they don’t belong a country any longer…

So no, I won’t be thanking any military person for saving us from unjust(?) retribution for our apathy and roughshod treatment of the world. I won’t be thanking them for fighting in wars that never threatened my rights. I’ll kind of pity them. They’ve been duped into thinking they’re killing other human beings for a grand equation where the enemy’s death equals their nation’s health. And it’s a lie. I’m sure many are well-intentioned people (those whose sights are set on the greater good, rather than those whose sights are set on killing people) but, in my mind, they’ve still been duped. And that’s pretty sad.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Would Someone Join the Army?

Or just watch The Wire…to paraphrase something from that show on the topic of drugs and law enforcement..“A federal prison is one of the most fortified, secure places in America. If we can’t keep drugs out of there, how are we supposed to keep it out of the entire country?”

Anyhow the topic is a good one. I can’t figure it out myself. I’d never place myself in a position where I’m obligated to kill whoever my country decides it wants to kill. Who has that much faith in their government and why haven’t their read their history?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are these Muslims so angry and hateful?

Christian abortion doctor killers.
Christian gay bashers.
’Nuff said.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Canada Socialist?

Canada’s a social democracy. That doesn’t mean we elect representatives who are the hit of the party but rather a mix of socialism and democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_Canada

This is a great link to explain more. I personally consider Tommy Douglas a Canadian hero and greatly respect his work to bring about universal health care to Canada. Unfortunately, socialist-leaning countries adopted neo-liberal economic policies after the cold war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Social_Democracy_adopts_free_market_policies) and things began to really tank thereafter.

Socialist policies place people above profit and that’s an idea I’m firmly behind. Unfortunately, Canada’s PM Stephen Harper hates Canada as it is, sneers at anything socialist and pushes the kind of free market ideology (trickle-down, deregulation and corporate welfare) that caused the recession in the first place. The noteworthy exception being the buyout of votes, er, I mean GM, without citizen approval and using taxpayer money to do so. If the Conservatives stay in power, the socialist parts of Canada will be diminished and corporate rule will increase.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Going To College Worth It?

Today, going to college is about increasing your expected salary or wage. Don’t go to college to learn anything or increase your critical thinking skills. You can do that from your computer.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do Homos do this?

Why do most gay men (like Perez Hilton) often talk in an annoying, high, feminine voice? I might not care about gay people if they didn’t try to express it so abruptly and annoyingly. It happens to piss me off, and they do it for no apparent reason. I knew a gay guy that talked like this, like a kid with his balls in his stomach, and he COULD talk like a human, but he CHOSE to speak like a homo.

I’m glad you decided to come on Serious Discussion and find out more about something you don’t have a lot of tolerance for, xRainsx. It shows an open mind and a willingness to challenge your own assumptions and I think you should be proud of those qualities.

Most gay men don’t speak like this. I suspect you think they do because of the stereotypical portrayal of gay men in media and that you don’t know that someone is gay unless they tell you (unlikely when you’re VERY homophobic) or act in a way that makes it self-evident.

Like all cultures, homosexuality has its own subcultures. One ‘identity’ among the gay community is the ‘flamer’ (may be an old term at this point). These are gay men who are very effeminate, usually talk quickly and in a higher-pitched voice. It’s a conscious choice for the most part, just like a skater will dress a certain way or any number of identities are expressed in the spectrum of straight. Another identity is that of a ‘bear’. You probably see gay bears every day and never even know it. They are generally big, hairy and very manly. A great quote from a coupla bears I knew: “Only real men are up to gay sex” For them, it was the ultimate act of manliness. For others, it’s the inclusion of feminine elements that makes it for them. Seeing as we’re all human males or females, rather than men or women, and are free to choose our identity, this makes perfect sense to me.

A note, though. I had a friend who was gay and talked in a slightly lispy, slightly effiminate way. It was more subtle but clearly there. I met his (straight) older brother at a later point and found out that he talked in exactly the same way. It had nothing to do with their sexuality. It’s just the way they talked. Most straight men who naturally talk a way that may be construed as effeminate quickly learn to change their pattern of speech due to peer pressure or getting the beejeezus kicked out of them by homophobic creeps.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / People's rights

There’s a consensus among certain people that homosexuals have the right to marry who they choose.

How can we believe in such a right but not believe that people have the right to food, clean water, clothing and shelter? Why would marrying who you choose take precedence over the basic necessities for survival?

[Note: The fact that a portion of the population believes that homosexuals have the right to marry who they choose is self-evident and axiomatic to the question at hand. This post was created to discuss the nature of rights and which ones we choose to respect and, most importantly, why.
If you’d like to discuss gay marriage, please use any of the other threads on the subject. Thank you and happy thinking :) ]

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay an Homosexual obsession

You started another ‘gay’ thread to protest all the ‘gay’ threads?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Official Gay Chat Room

It’d be nice to be in a chatroom where bad games or things aren’t called “gay”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How Left Became Right

How does an equal distribution of wealth and resources take away from a citizen’s liberties? Making profit isn’t a right or a liberty. It’s just part of an economic model. NOT dying of starvation when there’s an abundance of food and the means to distribute it would certainly seem to be an inalienable right. There’s nothing dictatorial about this. It’s simply a matter of priority: People above profit.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right for a level in a game to be based around killing defenseless people in airports?

No worries. Just a hopefully helpful tip. As for organizing your thoughts, discussion and debate are the best way to improve that skill. Keep it up :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right for a level in a game to be based around killing defenseless people in airports?

If you want someone to read an entire post, don’t make it one big block of text. It looks like an EULA and nobody reads those :l

This debate raged when movies and television became more violent. I think the video game debate is different because the user is actually engaged in the violence. They’re not just becoming desensitized to violence (a truth, if only from personal experience); a video game user is becoming desensitized to performing violence. The first time I gunned down someone in a sniper game, I felt a twinge. There was a decision made at that point and there’s a decision made at the point you pretend to be sociopathic (no other word for it) and gun down defenceless people in an airport. What effect in real life that decisions has is yet to be determined, I think. I just hope we don’t find out after we have a generation of sociopaths on our hands.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Perfect Goverment

Jabor, I clarified my statement and you responded to the earlier version of it. “Something to lose” wasn’t specific enough, I agree. Someone can always lose something because we all live and we can all lose life. Contextually, I thought it was apparent that I was speaking of losing something to another within that power structure who has the legitimate power to take that thing. Apparently, this wasn’t clear. So I clarified. “An equal power structure wouldn’t legitimize the ability for someone else to take something from another without their consent.”

Explain to me how an “equal power structure” would make impossible for someone to lose the respect of their peers.

This doesn’t make sense when applied to my clarification. Someone can lose the respect of their peers through their own actions, yes. That doesn’t describe the situation described above.

I’m not sure how “honest communication is impossible” is a less decisive statement than “honest communication never occurs”.

I never said honest communication is impossible. This is the second time you’ve told me I’m saying something I’m not. I also notice you ignored the rest of my post.
Jabor, you seem to be seeking contention rather than mutual understanding. I prefer the latter because the former really doesn’t accomplish anything. I invite you to join me in that effort.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Perfect Goverment

Everyone always has something to lose in an equal power structure as well.

Contextually, no. An equal power structure wouldn’t legitimize the ability for someone else to take something from another without their consent. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be an equal power structure. An equal power structure maximizes individual liberty while maintaining individual rights.

And yes, absolutely, honest communication is a rare thing. We don’t excel at equal power structures. Even if I had said that honest communication “never” occurs (which I didn’t), it wouldn’t be misleading. Just because something doesn’t occur doesn’t mean it cannot occur. If something doesn’t exist, but can exist, then a change in variable is necessary to bring it into existence. And if that variable were government, my claim isn’t misleading at all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Perfect Goverment

Sure. In an inequal power structure, someone always has something to lose. If you have something to lose, then you have something to hide. If you have something to hide, honest communication doesn’t occur.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do I have a sleeper cell on my property?

I have a link for you, Vanguarde.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
I’ll even help you. It’s under “First Amendment”.
Freedom of assembly.
Freedom to practice their religion.
It’s funny how unhealthy minds will say “They hate us for our freedom” and then try to deny that freedom to others.
At this point, I’d say you’re more of a terrorist than they are.