Recent posts by Stiltonchees on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trigger Language

Language is context specific so I think that it can make sense to take “triggers” seriously where context demands it. For example, in most instances talking about healthy eating isn’t a bad thing, but if you were in an anorexia support group where people just need to learn to eat anything the context makes it inappropriate. I think it makes no sense to say avoid the topic in general in case you trigger an anorexic into regressing though. And in the instance of a nutrition course, claiming it should be avoided to avoid triggering people is outlandish as the context demands discussion of the topic. It also seems ridiculous when people claim a word is in all instances offensive, especially given they’ll say the word when saying “don’t use [this word]”. Presumably they don’t think such a use of it is offensive which seems to prove the point that context dictates how words you say should be interpreted. I think as a general practice it’d a good idea to avoid being a dick. I also think that there are certain settings where people who genuinely will be triggered might ought to avoid being in such a setting. In academia for example we progress by pitting ideas against each other and against the evidence and so people need to be able to handle ideas that challenge their own and argue against them with evidence or be willing to accept them when the evidence clearly supports them.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The education system

Originally posted by xXesandXx:For those who didn’t attend public school, they have to pass the GED. (General Educational Development, referring to a system of standardized examinations which entitle those who pass them to receive a credential considered as equivalent to completion of high school)
However, 88% of the people who have taken it within the last couple of years have failed. The fees can be really expensive and some people, having failed, have had to take it more than once and it costs ALOT.

This seems unlikely seeing as the pass rates for the GED from 2002 to 2013 seem to hover around the 70% range (the lowest pass rate of that period being 68% and the highest being 75%). Given the fact there wasn’t much variance in those years, while I haven’t seen (or looked all that hard for) data from 2014 to 2016 it seems highly unlikely that pass rates would have plummeted to 22% in the past couple years when pass rates have been fairly stable otherwise. source (information on pass rates is on the 5th page of the pdf)

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama wants to take our guns away, yet again.

Originally posted by CannibalWolf:

I don’t think Obama has shown any indication he’s against people owning any guns whatsoever. Advocating stronger gun control doesn’t mean advocating no guns period. Also just because someone who we generally consider good advocates something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Gandhi was hugely against technological advancement. He also argued in one of the things he wrote that disease was caused by vice. Neither of these positions are reasonable at all, whereas his tactics of non-violent resistance have proven valuable. Our founding fathers had a lot of admirable ideas about different freedoms people should and shouldn’t have and we in many ways rightfully look up to them. They also gained independence in part to be able to seize land from the Native Americans and indeed America’s expansion follows an almost genocidal path. King George III was actually not allowing colonists to go too far into the frontier, though probably not because he cared much about the Native Americans. Regardless of if gun control is a good policy or not (which I think is the more important matter of debate), advocating gun control doesn’t mean advocating fascism any more than advocating freedom of speech means advocating the killing of Native Americans.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your view on legalization of Marijuana

Originally posted by TheBSG:

All of the problems anyone has with drugs publicly is manufactured by their illicit nature. “Aught not” laws are people pretending the universe works in ways it doesn’t.

A lot of people have a problem with cigarettes and alcohol, which are not illegal. Their objections generally have more to do with health concerns associated with the two.

As far as “aught not” laws are concerned, whether or not you agree with them, there are a lot of mechanisms by which they can curb behavior (though, it’s unlikely in the case of any law that it will completely stop a behavior). Changes in cost, availability (which generally is linked to cost) and harder to study factors such as stigma associated with being illegal can all affect how people behave. For example, though maybe not so much an “aught not” law, legalization of abortion after roe vs wade resulted in a large increase in abortions as can be seen both from survey data and from the lagged increase in rates of abortion following legalization, implying that there wouldn’t have been a steady rate beforehand (mentioned here on page 9 of the PDF (7 of the actual paper)). Of course some of this still applies to drugs. For example we have some data to suggest that legalization might lead to a rise in marijuana use among teenagers. Also when a substance is banned, while people can still get it in the black market, this tends to drive costs up, which also tends to deter behavior. Numerous studies have looked at the role that cost of drugs plays on the use of them. So if legalization of pot reduces in a price drop then it may cause more people to use it.

Of course, that concern needs to be weighed against any concerns about increases in crime related to having pot on the black market. And maybe taxes could be better utilized to curb harmful behavior than making such behavior illicit. Probably depends on the behavior involved, but my guess is that in the case of pot, taxes are a better bet than bans.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your view on legalization of Marijuana

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Since I’m not all-knowledgeable on even a small fraction of what is involved in the “world of pot”, I’m truly interested in some input that has some sound merit … something that is based on much more than mere personal LIMITED encounters and loosely generated biases. I want things that are significantly substantial about how well America can maturely manage legal use of cannabis.

I think legalizing pot at least in terms of not having it a schedule I controlled substance is a no brainer. There is a lot of good evidence that certain cannabinoids in pot may have medical uses, so the criteria that there is “no currently accepted medical use” is quite simply false. That’s not to say that smoking the stuff is likely to have many medical applications, as there are actually a lot of health consequences to doing that.

While I’m right now in favor of legalizing weed recreationally as well (I think I need to fact check some of the claims that make me take this position before I’d stand behind it fully) I can understand some arguments against recreational use along the lines of health concerns, granted they’re not really worse than alcohol and cigarettes to my knowledge (haven’t honestly read enough about alcohol). The best one, ironically comes from the case of cigarettes. Cigarettes probably should have been illegal, seeing as they are addictive and carry massive cancer risk. Usually I’m not for the idea of banning something just because it’s a bad health choice, but tobacco is estimated to be responsible for about 20% of all cancer deaths worldwide so I think that it’d make sense to not allow them to take that large of a chunk out of cancer’s killing ability. That being said, making them illegal now would be very difficult because you’d need to deal with addictions, lobbyists, etc. etc.

Now we come to pot, which has a much less harmful profile but still is not good for you. First off, it’s worth noting that, despite what often gets parroted in the popular media, the general consensus among experts is that pot is addictive, albeit for a smaller percent of people than for many other drugs. Both the DSM and the ICD catalogue a cannabis dependency disorder. The rate of dependence is between 7-10% of users ( mentioned here for example ), the rates being higher in daily users but even in those who use daily, most don’t become addicted. Low rates of addiction are probably partially why a lot of people think pot isn’t addictive since chances are most pot users you know aren’t addicted to it. That said, when you take the absolute number of pot users in the country you still have a substantial number of people with dependency problems. Combine the dependency with other health problems pot is linked with, most notably the link between pot and psychosis. There’s still more research needed to clarify different mechanisms behind the relationship (though we have some plausible mechanisms) but overall, the link meets most of the criteria for a causal relationship. But then if you go back to the case of tobacco, it took decades of research before a certain link to lung cancer was established, but there were hints in the data before then. So arguably it might make sense to put a hold on legalizing recreational use of pot until we can better understand the range of harmful effects associated with pot (since we have enough research to believe there are some).

The reason I think that comparison is iffy is because the rates of cannabis causing schizophrenia and psychosis disorders are estimated significantly lower than the rates of tobacco causing lung cancer. And the dependency rates for it are a lot lower as well, (they’re even lower than dependency rates for alcohol) so while those who become dependent rarely make a full recovery it’s probably more feasible to deal with if we find out it’s in the best interest of public health to ban recreational use later on.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What conspiracy's do you believe?

Originally posted by Bobneson:

I do believe in the fluoride in the water theory. As for the rise in the population, I myself am pretty worried. Many women in Europe are being raped. Odd, being I used to have respect for Muslims.

As in the theory that would put it there? Cuz we do. Or the theory that it’s a very cost effective public health measure with a lot of good benefit? Because that theory seems pretty reasonable as well.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism: Does Sexual Exploitation Empower Women?

Originally posted by Maowee:

“When I talk about my sex life, they call me a slut, them boys be talking bout their bitches no one’s making a fuzz” – Lily Allen

Well except Lily Allen. And a lot of other people making this observation. And of course, it’s not really true that no one complains about men talking about their “bitches” in the first place. Or that all people view women who sleep around as sluts. It helps to have data to prove your points, rather than anecdotes from professional victims. But it’s pretty easy to use the same kind of reasoning. I mean you’re obviously proving the point that women are less intelligent than men, which is why I treat women like what they are, butthurt professional victims with little to no intelligence :) thanks for confimirming that my reasons for misogynism are being completely valid.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do my best ideas...

I’m gonna go ahead and assume that confirmation bias is the culprit on this one.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Faith healing, should it be illegal?

I thought it was illegal to some extent? At least in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe that you can’t receive blood from anyone else, you are not allowed to say no for your kid. Your kid is required to have their life saved by this until they turn a certain age (I think 16) and then after that they can choose. If you’re an adult and choose that route, why not? If your stupidity gets you killed it’s probably better for the rest of the world it worked out that way anyhow.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

Originally posted by Zzzip50:

No I think there are three reasons someone would blow themselves up:

1. Their religion claims its righteous.
2. For revenge and anger
3. Being insane.

People would not blow themselves up for political gain. That doesn’t make sense. Now, the political people might use suicide bombers, but they need to convince those people first that religion tells them they are righteous and will be rewarded in killing innocent people with a bomb strapped to their back.

Obviously you’ve never heard of the LTTE. Arguably the most effective terrorist organization that ever existed. Killed two world leaders, had an air-force and navy and kept the Sri Lankan government occupied for a quarter of a century. They were also one of the groups to pioneer suicide bombing. Also their motivations were almost entirely political/ethnocentric.

I think you’d have a hard time saying religion wasn’t an important part of the conflict, but much more on the Sinhalese majority side as Buddhism was used as a tool to oppress the Tamils and to justify killing. That being said, the LTTE were Tamils, primarily Hindu, but with a reasonable portion of Christians, and Hinduism played a negligible role in the whole conflict (if any at all). It certainly had nothing to do with the suicide bombing tactics.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Removal of Godwins law/Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Now that it’s gone viral though you only need to mention hitler in a comparison or analogy to have your argument godwinned.

Which would probably be much less of a problem if more people understood the difference between a formal and an informal fallacy.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Has there been a decline in culture in the past decades?

The funny thing is the calculator coming about also marks computing coming about, and a lot of the work people do with computing involves a much higher level of math than a you’d use a calculator alone for.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Was Anne Frank's diary a fake? And how does this affect those who believe in the holocaust?

Originally posted by Trickymist98:

I think it’s more of a principle thing, it’s not that the holocaust didn’t happen, it’s that we should question everything, including the holocaust.

The more trivially obvious it is something happened, the more trivial the amount of time spent questioning it should be. Given how obvious it is that the Holocaust happened the time spent questioning the holocaust should be too trivial to be worth noting.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The government can now take your DNA without a warrant!

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by XxsamuroxX:

then just don’t give your blood to anyone. Simple as that.

Again with the blood. Samuro, why do you think blood is needed to get DNA? Its in your skin cells, your bones, even a strand of your hair or an eyelash contains it. Clippings from your toenails contain your DNA… it is in every living (or once-living) cell of your body.

they could run a DNA check on anything. The inside of the cheek is just used because of ease.

Take your finger, put it in your mouth and rub it along the front of your teeth. That’s all you need do. The other side of your finger now has live cells from your cheek on it, which is literally all that is necessary. Hell, if you refuse that, they can just take a fallen hair from your clothing.

It is funny how many people are forgetting this is a cheek swab. It’s less intrusive than a sobriety test. Lol.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The government can now take your DNA without a warrant!

Airport searches, if you want to take the whole probable cause and warrant part of the constitution in a completely literal and unchangeable sense, are searches that operate without probable cause, or without even some of the lower standards of suspicion that the courts have allowed to be used under certain circumstances. But there are a lot of reasons you can’t just take the constitution that way. First and foremost is because the constitution is contradictory at times. Free speech can contradict right to fair trail for example (if I want to make a movie based on a crime that is about to be tried then that movies portrayal of the crime will likely make it difficult for there to be an impartial jury). And of course, the points about national security in the constitution can sometimes contradict the points about the rights of citizens. In those cases, you have to choose, and the framers of the constitution actually realized this and gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution for this reason.

But there are a lot of things they can do without warrants. For example, your car can be searched without a warrant. That being said, it has to be searched with probable cause, so it operates on the same standard of probability as a warrant, the only difference is that the mobility of a car was something not accounted for in the constitution and the courts ruled that it would be too much of a hindrance for law enforcement to have to leave the scene to get a warrant. Pat downs also don’t require a warrant or even probable cause, these are for the safety of a law enforcement officer. But the way a pat down works it that they only get to search for a weapon. If they find drugs while patting you down, they cannot arrest you for those. (But if they say “can I search you for a weapon so I can make sure I’m safe?” then they said the word “search” and if you say yes, you consent to a search which would allow then to get you in trouble for other things, so if that ever comes up… tell them to stick to a pat down). The courts allow pat downs because they think that the intrusion of the search is minimal while the risk it prevents in compelling to allow such a thing. This is also why airport searches are allowed. There is an obvious compelling societal interest to make sure that planes are safe, and the search itself is minimally intrusive.

If you’re following that sort of precedent it makes a lot of sense to allow DNA swabs. Having a swab in your mouth is extremely unintrusive. It doesn’t take a significant amount of your time, so it’s not a massive inconvenience. It doesn’t give them a lot of information about what you do (DNA won’t tell them what porn you jerk off to, or if that porn was legally downloaded. Or anything of that sort). All it does is help them catch someone who is already wanted and already in a database. This seems like a pretty easy issue then, there’s compelling societal benefit, and the invasion to privacy is even less so than even an airport search.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Was Anne Frank's diary a fake? And how does this affect those who believe in the holocaust?

I’m not even going to get into ‘intentional’ deaths. Yes, the nazis ‘accidently’ killed 4-6 million jews. Whoops!

Well, hey, maybe they were just trying to help the Jews come up with circumcision methods that would be more humane, but the letters between Hitler and the Jewish leadership were long lost after the Jewish leadership got tired of his lack of success, turned on him, and burned the letters to soil his reputation. I mean, in hindsight gassing off foreskins doesn’t seem like a good idea, and in hindsight, women probably shouldn’t have been involved in the testing. But they didn’t know all the things we know now back then. That sort of mistake could happen to anyone.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is having sex at the age of 12 right

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by WickedWhenWetPro:

Im 13. I have skrewed 3 chicks. None were rape. I think they liked it. Distantly. I mean the first time hurts, then the second time feels good for chicks right? One was 11 I was 11, 14 I was 12, then on my birthday 13 on 13.

Not sure if internet tough guy, or lying teen…

I think it’s the real deal, dude. This guy has sw@g.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / I'm not asking to be a mod

Originally posted by MidnightWerewolf:

Stop asking to be a mod.

He said he’s not asking to be a mod. Work on your literacy a little there, buddy.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

and not just good in certain isolated anomolies


You know, I actually have to agree with mytie/jhco. Why bother arguing for the merits of national health care? If the US doesn’t accept their medicine, so to speak, and revolts on the idea, well…that’ not my problem. If and when the next superbug comes, we canadians can just shut down our borders, head north, and wait for the US to become a nice, clean, empty land again.

But when you Canadians have all your vaccine use (because socialized medicine = government funded vaccine use, you’ll be shooting up vaccines so much people will think you’re all heroin addicts) result in a massive outbreak of low functioning autism and suddenly most of your population is not mentally fit to work then your economy will go down the toilet. And don’t think you’ll be able to get into America and cash in on our Economy, because as much as we hate China and would like to start trade war with them, they had one good idea. The great wall. After we finish walling ourselves off from Mexico the Canuck border comes next.

Your vaccines may seem fun now, but in a few decades when you’re paying for a massive entitlement program to help people whose autism problems make them incapable of working then maybe you’ll feel foolish about trying to make a good healthcare system instead of putting your money into the pockets of CEOs and praying to Jesus for healing in favor of medicine.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is having sex at the age of 12 right

Originally posted by Galdos:

that is illogical.
sex is for breeding.

rather spend your free time playing video games and not waste it on sex and relationships.

Just like computers are for… well, computation. How could you even think of doing something illogical like playing games on them? You should be using that processing power to help you solve math problems.

And food is for preventing you from starving, so don’t go and have dessert from time to time, it has no nutritional value and is utterly pointless. Sex turns out to be fun, and we even have these great newfangled methods now of minimizing the risks involved. It seems on the arrogant side to think you are in a position to dictate at a moral level what sex is and isn’t okay for people to have when legitimate consent is involved.

Not to say I am in support of 12 year olds having sex, particularly not with older people as the chances of them being coerced into it seem kind of high. But come on, sex is just for reproduction? Learn to be a little less of a buzzkill.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Secession of States post Obama re-election

If the White House ends up having address the petitions they’ll probably just say “no” and then the 25,000 or so crazies (who don’t make up nearly enough of a group to point to that the majority of the state wants to secede) will have to sit around mad for a little while.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

You mean Jesusland?

Jesusland is Israel he’s coming back there someday, we just need to get rid of all those pesky Muslims first. For now we should just press the Israeli government to be more extreme than they have interest in being to help Jesus return, he may be an all powerful god, but he can’t return without our help!

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I. do. not. want. to. live. on. this. planet. ANYMORE!

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

The YouTube video, like millions of other YouTube videos, takes things out of context and we can find any video to say whatever we want it to say. It’s a crap reference.

The Washington Times and it’s comments on his upbringing was worth looking into. Even so….

….it should be tempered with other sources to get the whole picture. The truth of the matter is probably closest to this:

“As a child in Indonesia, Obama studied for two years at one Muslim school and then two years at a Catholic school. In both places he experienced religious indoctrination, but in neither case did the indoctrination take hold: during Quranic studies he made faces and during Catholic prayers he would look around the room. Eventually, Barack Obama abandoned this non-conformism and skepticism to be baptized as an adult in the Trinity United Church of Christ.”

So, he had a multicultural upbringing where he was exposed to lots of different things and as a Westernized adult, chose Christianity as his preference. So what?

Honestly I think he got baptized to aid his political career, he seems pretty secular to me. I mean, maybe I’m totally off here, but he seems a whole lot more moderate and secular than the church he attended. And it’s a good political move, but I dunno, part of me doubts he’s really a Christian. Maybe that’s wishful thinking though, it’d be nice to finally have a president that doesn’t buy into what Thomas Paine called an “amphibious fraud.”

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / My fish died last weekend.

Originally posted by AlextheGreat13:
Originally posted by Towel_On_A_Rod:

So, don’t leave us in suspense. Did you fuck the corpse?

I don’t think that’s anatomically possible.

Depends on the size of your penis. But then, penetration can be coming from either you or the fish, I assume you have an asshole?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do Americans put up with bad politicians?

Originally posted by unleashthemind:

If people weren’t ignorant there would be no problem.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How can we deal with the Muslim overreactions?

I think it’s funny to act like Islam is the only religion that could have done this. It’s worth remembering things like the generally low literacy rates in many Middle Eastern countries, as well as the fact that not all of them speak Arabic which is the sacred language of the Koran. Having large groups of people willing to believe the religion wholeheartedly without having access to the religious texts is an easy thing for any sort of corrupt religious leader to take advantage of. And because of the situation is it easy to claim things would be different if the people in the regions were Buddhist or Christian or Pagan? I mean, we saw lots of abuses of religion in pre-reformation Europe that didn’t really start to improve until the Bible became translated and literacy rose (though it still took a while after that).