Recent posts by Pleasedonot5 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Climate change and terrorism

Premise 1: Scarcity of resources causes people to become desperate and violent,
Premise 2: Climate change causes scarcity of necessary resources

Conclusion: Climate change causes people to become desperate and violent.

If a → b, if b → c; therefore, if a → c

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The paradox of suicide

The OP is under the assumption that survival instincts are the end-all-see-all of motivations. While survival instinct plays a role in human behavior, humans are much more complex organisms than are bacteria or mice.

As someone who has been suicidal in the past due to anxiety and depression, I view mental illness (irregular, disruptive mental conditions) as a primary driver of suicide.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Atheism a belief system?

Atheism does not have to be the belief that there is no god. It can also be the lack of belief in a god.

For instance, I do not know if there are orange fairy unicorns out there, so I by default do not believe in them. I am not claiming belief in no orange fairy unicorns, just that I do not subscribe to the belief in orange fairy unicorns.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do you donate money to charity?

I donate to charities that provide events and means for me to do so. For instance, I have been huge into charity running in the past. I also donate when friends organize charities through social media platforms. My last donation was $10 to the victims of the Paris mass shooting.

I also have donated small amounts to charities through You should check it out!

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

Why have the job losses not happened yet?

Well, every market is different in terms of demands, and the minimum wage increases have not risen on a large enough scale for long enough to determine their impacts on the markets in question. Yes, there are a minimum number of workers required to be employed to keep the business running, you are correct — but to assume that all companies are currently employing this minimum amount of workers required to keep the business afloat or profiting is absurd. The labor currently being employed would be adversely affected by a labor-cost increase. This can come in the form of lay-offs or reduction of hours. Surely there are ways you can imagine the reduction in employment of labor in which the firms in question can still profit the most?

For instance, say two cashier shifts working all day costs a firm $10 an hour from 8am-5pm ($180 total cost per day, $90 additional cost per worker). The benefit that having two cashiers bring to a firm is rapid service and customer satisfaction which tends to bring certain customers back each day (say, the firm benefits from this an increased revenue of $800 per day). Now, a minimum wage of $100 is introduced to apply to all cashiers and is legally binding. Now, the cost of the cashiers is ($1,800 per day, $900 additional cost per worker). So, due to the minimum wage increase to $100, the firm is losing $100 per day ($800 additional revenue – $900 additional cost) when it employs an extra cashier — the firm would choose to lay off the cashier or settle for one of the cashiers working per day.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

As minimum wage increases, the costs of employing labor increase. Since employers make decisions about hiring additional labor based on the marginal cost of labor (cost of hiring additional worker, i.e. wages) and marginal productivity of labor (additional benefit a worker brings, which diminishes after x amount of workers), raising the minimum wage would increase the marginal cost of labor and thus less people would be employed.

If minimum wages rises, those in stable minimum wage jobs earn more income, and tend to spend it due to the income effect, boosting the economy. However, those who are laid off or have their hours reduced due to the increase in minimum wage earn less income, which due to the income effect will spend less, contracting the economy. What we see, then, is a redistribution of wealth for the lower class with an insignificant outcome in the long run.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / University Gender and Sex Reporting Requirements


Thank you for your input on this issue!

What you say is very wise — it will be a difficult task to convince the BoT that there is a great need for the aforementioned policy. Now, this proposal of mine is not yet a week old, and there is plenty of time to work out defenses to counter-statements. I have some worked out already — I am planning on obtaining quotes from non-traditional gender students that are acquaintances of mine for support of the position, and having these students come to the OUSC and the BoT meetings when the proposal is up for debate to add some real political pressure. I am also planning on researching some statistical defense of my proposition and already have some significant ones collected.

One thing I particularly enjoy about your post, though, is that you focused on the BoT’s motivations and concerns — something that my policy will need to address if it is going to hold up to debate for even a few minutes. In response to the bullets:

  • As a primary goal of Oakland University is growth towards a bigger and better university, it is both clear and imperative that we strive for the acceptance of all types of students. Implementing this policy will increase OU’s appeal to prospective students, as there is a significant population of non-traditional gender students in the state of Michigan that are looking for progressive universities to accommodate their needs and interests.
  • (The second is what I need most help on, as not all university applications across the U.S. are open yet. I am planning on making calls when colleges’ admissions offices are open to delve more into the issue and to get around this temporary roadblock. I am also going to be enlisting the help of some of my fellow OUSC legislators and committee chairs to help sponsor my resolution, if viable.)
  • The cost of changing the admissions form to add another bubble is minimal. I have had a couple conversations with qualified peers about the costs of the proposed change — since it would not change the system entirely and could be grandfathered in (only new/transfer students have the option to apply, of course, the university would then keep track of the students by file accordingly.) Even if it were to be extremely expensive and time-consuming, the system that OU is using currently is going to be changing for next year anyway, so I have heard). I will be seeking conversations with those even more qualified to answer that question in the next several weeks and/or months, just in case there are significant hidden costs to the proposed policy.

I will be looking into more universities when their applications reopen (several close around this time of year for a short amount of time, unfortunately, so it is a waiting game for many of these schools.) I will be sure to attempt to meet with BoT members individually if possible, to discuss the merits of the proposal.

Thank you again for your help! I like to see things like this from every angle, so that I am not surprised by the opposition and their motivations. I have a lot of work to do, but if legally feasible under Title IX (see original post), then there is a good chance that it could become a legitimate and positive change for Oakland University, and it that it may have a radiating effect on other universities and our cultural values.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / University Gender and Sex Reporting Requirements

Hello All,

I have come to Kongregate for help on an obscure and cumbersome issue.

At present, I am trying to facilitate positive, progressive change at my university, but I am running into several roadblocks along the way. As a legislator of the Oakland University Student Congress (OUSC), I can propose resolutions for discussion and vote at the OUSC level, which, if approved, is nominated to the Board of Trustees (BoT) level, and if approved, it is implemented.

The issue is gender and sex reporting, and more specifically how it relates to transgender, agender, pangender, other non-traditional gender, and intersex students. On application forms, for example, there is only the dichotomy of male and female, or the trichotomy of male, female, and “prefer not to respond”-esque selections. Accordingly, what I am trying to nominate to the BoT is a fourth option that is gender and sex friendly and reads “non-traditional gender” or “other.” Now, here is the tricky part. In order to impress the BOT, I have been researching other, bigger universities because their goal for the past several years has been to make OU a bigger and better university — like the others in our state. If the University of Michigan (UofM), for example, were already using the aforementioned progressive gender selection policy, then the BoT would be more likely to implement such a policy change.

It seems like it would be quite easily done considering UofM is a very progressive university, but then on UofM’s website application, there are only male and female options, and it is listed that “Federal Guidelines mandate that we collect the legal sex of all applicants. Please report the sex currently listed on your birth certificate. If you wish to provide more details regarding your sex or gender identity, please do so in the Additional Information section” (I then spent 15 minutes trying to find this Additional Information section, to no avail). This is particularly interesting considering that on OU’s application website, no such disclaimer is listed, and there are three options of “Male, Female, and No Response.” If one has a legal obligation to report the sex listed on the application form, then how is it legally possible to “not respond” to the question of sex or gender identity?

I believe UofM may be referring to “Title IX:” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it says “Federal guidelines…” but if Title IX mandates legal birth gender or sex and this is so strictly true, then how can my own university, a fairly large university, so blatantly refuse to report the sex or gender of individuals that select “no response.”

The issue is further complicated because in 2014, the Department of Education determined that Title IX also protects against discrimination of transgender students …so if Title IX protects against discrimination of transgender students, meaning it definitely acknowledges their existence, does that mean UofM’s supposed reason of “Federal guidelines…” is outdated? Does that mean I can still go forward with my resolution?

Any help with this would be absolutely wonderful. Thoughts, insights, even if you disagree with this issue of gender identity, are also welcomed.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism


I do not subscribe to the morality of your Bible, as it is atrocious by my moral standards. One should not support a god that condones genocide, marriage to one’s rapist, and weirdly, the exile of women for menstruation. I could go on, but I think the picture is already perfectly clear.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Defend Homosexuality

It is not your definition of a normal state, so you call it a disorder, when really it is an alternate version of normal.

In psychology, a disorder is defined as a condition that causes significant stress or turmoil, or that interferes with one’s daily life. The only real stressors linked with homosexuality though seem to be people and governments that mistreat homosexuals.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Giver recently became compulsory reading for 6-7th graders in Hungary


Man I wish you guys would stop trying to destroy our society with your off the wall ideas of what should be. 11 to 13 year old kids are children. They are immature in their thinking and are not ready for sex of any kind.
And the book hamuka is talking about is nothing but liberals trying to indoctrinate our children to socialism.

Are you insane? I never said anything even remotely similar to “11-13 year olds should be having sex,” but rather, that we should reinforce that what they are feeling is normal at their age. This is the greatest example of a straw man argument that I have seen in years.

Also, how does the book promote socialism? It seems to me that the character is breaking away from socialist/communist ideals in the book, by returning society to its natural state and rebelling against the government’s control.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Giver recently became compulsory reading for 6-7th graders in Hungary


This need for over-sheltering our children that you purport — why is it necessary?

My brother, when he was in 6th-7th grade, had to read The Giver, and I don’t believe he was scarred from it. I also read it, and I loved it — I didn’t find anything socially or sexually explicit that concerned me while reading it. Nowadays, when kids are playing games like Grand Theft Auto V and Call of Duty, you are concerned about children reading a book that promotes freedom of thinking and emotion — one that shows the protagonist breaking out of a dystopia so that the people can be returned their natural emotions and feelings?

Also, keep in mind that 6th and 7th graders are going to be going through what the book calls “the stirrings,” or feelings of sexual desire. To prohibit and taboo these natural feelings as shown in the book seems wrong and unnecessary. Children at that age should be reinforced that what they are going through is normal, and they should start to be exposed to some of the questions of society so that they can start to critically think for themselves: “Is what the Elders are doing right? Why or why not? What is more important — order or freedom?” and the like.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor


You say,

Immigrants (legal or otherwise) also return more of their money into the economy. I don’t know how significant this factors in economist’s analysis.

but from your source,

“In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household.”

which directly states that illegal immigration on average is detrimental to the U.S. fiscally (I know we are not talking strictly illegal immigrants here, but bear with me). Further, the source states that the tendency is that immigrants have less than a high school education. This is interesting seeing that the average U.S. household with less than a high school education generates an even larger fiscal deficit upwards of $35,000 annually (source). This means that if illegal immigrants became legal, we would roughly see a $20,000 increase in tax burden per naturalized uneducated family per year, until they become educated (this may take years or decades). Still, this tax increase on the country would be manageable, but there are the other factors that I mentioned as well, such as health detriment and job saturation which I discuss below.

What if we deported every illegal immigrant? Would that boost employment and increase QOL for citizens? That’s the premise, right?
What if we took it further and deported all non-naturalized citizens from the last 10 years or so? Would that further boost employment and QOL?

I see what you are saying, and it is important to note unemployment is just one figure of many in determining the quality of life of a country’s citizens. Those that are without jobs usually have less money to pay for necessities, and hence, this is why unemployment as a measure for QOL has come up. It would not be advisable for a country to accept a hundred million immigrants while they, hungrily, hold on for dear life as they cannot make money without employment.

And remember, I am for happy mediums. :)

The premise holds true up until a certain point where removing recently immigrated workers would be a detriment to society (i.e. less ability to get a job, or several jobs, done). In economics, there are a lot of bell-curves: the maximum benefit to society is going to be somewhere between 1 and all of the workers. Consider the following example.

There is an outdoor cleaning company X which employs skilled and unskilled workers in its labor market. The job entails mowing the lawn of a house with a provided lawn-mower and the general cleaning of the outside of a given house. How many workers should company X hire to ensure that the company can get to each one of their 2 clients in a 3-hour period? Hypothetically speaking:

If X employs 0 workers, no work is done.
If X employs 1 worker, some work is done
If X employs 2 workers, more work is done; the workers can split up or tackle both houses together.
If X employs 10 workers, the most work is done per hour.
If X employs 38 workers, the workers begin to bump into each other, have to make several car trips to get each worker to the locations; this scenario is less productive.

This demonstrates the economic concept of diminishing marginal productivity: a fancy phrase that means that eventually, after a certain point, adding more workers to a task will make it less productive and henceforth less beneficial to the firm and society — it is important to take into account during benefit-cost analysis. So no, I do not propose going from, figuratively speaking, the healthy level of ten immigrant workers per firm to zero; that would be inefficient. But, I am also not a proponent of moving from the healthy ten per firm to 38, because that would be almost equally as inefficient. Of course, society is not just one firm, but I am sure that you understand what I am getting at.

When we keep going on about not having the resources, I think we should be looking at our neighbor’s Jet Ski and four-car garage. Maybe THAT’S why we turn away refuge children.

A very astute point; we need to take our overwhelming wealth as a society into account when denying those that are suffering out there without even the most basic necessities. We should give up a swimming pool as a community to save thousands of lives. I’m definitely with you there.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor


Thank you for the clarification in your last post! It previously seemed that you were in support of the aforementioned “wide-open door policy,” and that is what I was arguing against on both economic and humanitarian grounds.

I am totally with you on accepting more immigrants — that is, loosening the requirements of immigration and naturalization. Currently, the law in the U.S. is that of what, 14 years of living here before becoming a citizen, with numerous education tests, written only in English? That’s ridiculous, and so we are in agreement on that. Though, we probably would disagree on how large of a number of immigrants that the U.S. (or any country, really) should permit to bring in each year.

As for points 1, 2, and 3, of which you seem to be fairly skeptical:

1) Can I see a source on this? Not that I do not trust you — the internet is always correct — but this would do wonders for helping us to hold even more common ground.

2) With the U.S.’s current third party payer system, (although slightly helped with the ACA) this is a real issue. When our society finally catches up with the rest of the developed world and adopts universal healthcare, then it becomes only a taxation problem for the most part. Still, it is a detriment and a risk for more people to catch a sickness; even if the doctors can cure it, there are those patients that slip through the cracks before they realize what is going on (usually youth and the elderly).

3) I understand that the increased tax revenue that the increased legal immigrant population would bring in would seemingly cover their expenses, but this is not including the fact that there are only a finite number of employment opportunities in a given country. So, what happens if the immigrants cannot find work? Notice that this is much more likely with a high minimum wage — assuming firms are going to hire the amount of workers that will ensure them the highest profit, adding more workers to a firm will increasingly lower profit. This is because each additional worker’s wages are considered an additional cost to the firm, and so with a higher minimum wage, the firms are going to hire less workers. Currently, not everyone is employed (even though we are in a period of economic expansion), because, like I said, there is a scarcity of employment opportunities in our country. This would be a problem because the unemployed receive unemployment benefits and tax credits — they pay, depending on their situation, less than they receive (this is not to say I am against unemployment benefits or tax credits). Accordingly, accepting a huge influx of immigrants ourselves may be bad for the economy, depending on the magnitude of the influx.

The above are not to say that I disagree with you on principle — I believe we are in agreement there — I am just pointing out that there is a happy medium and that it may be a policy that accepts less immigrants per year than you would perhaps be satisfied with; it is essential to understand the drawbacks of excessive immigration.

Let me propose an alternate solution to the problem while I am on about the U.N. In the case of a genocide or otherwise horrible war that creates refugees, an international regulating body could allocate refugees according to participating countries. So, the refugees may not get their “first choice” country, but they would end up in a physically safer environment. This would cause considerably less stress on individual countries.


So we appear to be in agreement that an international governing body, given the proper tools, power, and credibility, could solve a lot of problems, including the world-wide immigration problem. How, then, should this movement gain political support without decades of slow and questionable cultural change, and how do we convince the other governments to assist us in this endeavor? That is the real question, and I am curious as to how you and others believe that this goal could be attained.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor


I will humbly state that I do not have all of the solutions, but I do believe I have the right general mindset. I know what it will take to resolve the immigration problem, but I do not necessarily know how we are going to get the rest of the world to contribute more than they are already giving. Here is a rough outline of the legislation I would like to see passed:

1. U.N. to send peacekeepers to war zones to uphold the peace and to use lethal measures if necessary instead of sitting idle and watching people die (as happened in the Rwandan genocide due to an ill-defined mandate).
2. U.N. political and economic pressure (i.e. sanctions on warring country from all members as long as the war persists, punishments to those who trade with the aggressor warring country).

The most difficult part is making the U.N. government one of its own — instead of advancing the political desires of the biggest members (like in a game of Civilization 4), it should seek to enhance the quality of life for all humankind. The first step is to have nations giving a damn and contributing. How we have them contribute may have to come culturally, which would take hundreds of years, probably, or through a little economic and political persuasion. I am being purposely vague because I have no idea as to what the specifics would be — I am no foreign policy expert yet.


It’s okay for members to dispute how important the humanitarian as opposed to the economics side of things is in this debate, but it is also essential to acknowledge that the two are incontestably linked, as long as we are not talking about economics solely in terms of monetary gain.

Additionally, it is important to note that there are a lot of drawbacks to a large influx of immigrants into a society. Consider the following which are risks we take when accepting new immigrants.

  1. Public goods, such as national defense, social security, welfare, free education, availability of medicine and etc. will apply to them. (This can of course be paid by taxes, but if the people coming in are poor, they will pay less of the share than they are taking)
  2. The more crowded a city, state, or nation becomes, the more prone to the spread of disease it is (humanitarian stance: we don’t want people getting more sick more often; economic side: workers are less productive, and there is a greater health care bill that will come out of the taxpayers’ dollars)
  3. Immigrants tend to be willing to work at a lower wage than citizens that have been here for several generations. (This means that families, especially middle class and impoverished families, less likely to be educated and skilled workers, are less likely to obtain a job — or if the minimum wage drops from societal pressures, they will take a huge blow.)

These are just a couple I could think of off of the top of my head — I am sure there are plenty more out there that we have to take into consideration; we should agree that there really is a happy medium that we need to search for in this debate.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor


After perusing a lot of this thread, you seem to have the right moral mindset… why do we get to sit around our diamond-studded swimming pools when there are people without homes? Surely we could give up some our our diamonds to shelter those who need it. I agree with you there completely; a loss to the rich in that sense is not as significant as the gain to the poor, which in this scenario is the domestic citizens vs. the foreign immigrants. If we can provide them with a nonviolent home at a low cost to us, then there is no reason we should not help them. Further, in a humanitarian sense, as long as the benefit of humankind is greater by our open immigration policy, then we should accept the immigrants, unless there is an even better method for solving the problem. On these, both equally important economic and humanitarian grounds, should we decide which is the best policy. This is most likely something we can all agree upon.

I start to worry about the accepting of the entire hypothetical influx of immigrants where, as Kasic pointed out, there is a lack of concern for the carrying capacity of our society. Yes, it is our responsibility as citizens of the world to help out our fellow humans, but it is not our responsibility to cause immense suffering on ourselves to help the less-advantaged a little. The amount we lose in giving up a diamond stud in one of our swimming pools is incomparable to sacrificing our health, welfare, and economic well-being to assist the genuinely disadvantaged: my family should not become impoverished or sickly to meet the needs of the disadvantaged. What this means is that benefits and costs to both parties should be taken into account, instead of just one party. For example, consider the following utility scale (1-10):

(1) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (10) = 11 utils

If this is the quality of life scale that we use (1-10, with 1 being the worst and ten being the best), certain foreign immigrants occupy 1 on the scale while we occupy 10, it may be advisable to see a small shift on our end to see a greater shift on their end:

1 2 (3) 4 5 6 7 8 (9) 10, for example, giving a total benefit of 12 utils: a better policy for society.

The danger I see in your posts is that I feel that you are willing to help immigrants — out of the kindness of your heart, sure — at any cost to our society, such as that illustrated below:

1 2 3 ((4)) 5 6 7 8 9 10, which brings us to 8 utils: a policy that is worse for society, although we do see a sharp increase in the quality of life from the immigrant end. Accepting this policy, we would have sacrificed so many of our resources to help the disadvantaged and caused society as a whole to have a lower average quality of life… This is not a policy that I would willingly accept.

Instead of sharing our scarce resources in the finite land of the U.S. with all of the immigrants in the world, why don’t we strengthen the U.N. to push for policies that improve the quality of life in the countries from where everybody is emigrating? If many other countries significantly contribute to the U.N., then there would be less of a sacrifice on the nations that would accept the influx of immigrants.

“Consider this parable about “no-kill” policies: You’re walking next to a river and you see a kitten floating past. You jump in and save the kitten. Then another one floats by, so you save that one, too. Then another and another and another float by, and you soon realize that you can’t save them all. So you run upstream to see who’s throwing kittens into the water—and you stop that person.”

An even better analogy.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

I hear your concern, but it is essential to acknowledge that the U.N. has great potential in solving the worldwide warring, and therefore, immigration problems, given the proper checks-and-balances and mindsets of the participating countries, wouldn’t you agree?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Let me present you all with a pertinent scenario. Suppose we are all both firefighters and neighbors to a burning building, responding to a wave of destructive fire that is spreading to our homes and loved ones. Do we spend our precious and scarce resource, water, continuously and separately on the flames approaching our respective homes? Or, do we focus our efforts on actually solving the problem, the burning building, through sharing our resources?

Clearly, the scenario is rhetorical and the latter is the more practical means of solving the problem for everyone. The metaphor teaches us that, unless we focus our efforts on the source of a propagating problem, the problem will continue. Accordingly, we should prioritize the causes of the unmanageable influxes of immigration, instead of simply responding to the immigration policies of our own countries. This means prioritizing the end of the wars causing the massive immigration influxes by any moral means necessary. The problem, if we all accept this ideology, is exactly how to do it.

Well, ideally, we would have a world organization of countries that has the power to pass world-wide legislation and place peacekeeping forces in the midst of troublesome countries. Ideally, we would call this organization the United Nations, and they would have international regulating power.

Okay, so clearly we have such an organization, but the problem remains. This, I would argue, is largely due to countries’ lack of participation in resolving global conflicts. Although there are U.N. and other peacekeeping forces (such as NATO), these are headed by the United States which contributes way more money than any other U.N. country to the peacekeeping forces, and a vast super-majority of troops to NATO peacekeeping forces, which hints at the rest of the world’s lack of willingness to contribute.

The lack of faith in the U.N.‘s peacekeeping potential is also present in the lack of troops provided by the key U.N. members. This lack of faith is dangerous, and a main reason why the first international political regulating organization, the League of Nations, failed to work together to prevent WWII. Ideally, the world would invest more in U.N.’s peacekeeping potential and, together, would physically prevent the wars from continuing; an organization has more political power if it is supported by all nations of the world rather than just three or four. As a developed world, it is essential for us to come to the realization that war is regressive, morally wrong, and only justified in self-defense (if everyone operated on this principle, there would be no war; there would be no aggressor) and to work together as a globalized society to stopping war and genocide anywhere it appears on the globe. This would prevent the influxes of refugees, keep unemployment steady in immigrant-accepting countries, and would increase the quality of life for everyone on the globe.

Fire extinguished.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Torture, Its Legality and its effectiveness,

I thoroughly perused the contents of this thread, and I saw that some, particularly karma, seemingly equated war to torture and, more importantly, torture to self-defense. I would like to make it clear that although it is appropriate, legally, given the context to sometimes use self-defense, it is not as legally appropriate to torture someone. The Supreme Court has been setting a legal precedent for the use of self-defense since the Runyan v. State case in 1877 (“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.”), and whereas the Supreme Court has not set a permanent legal precedent for government-endorsed torture facilities to my knowledge, such as that at Guantanamo Bay, I will show how we can call torture in a previous scenario unethical on legal grounds.

If we use the following definitions for torture and self-defense,

torture (n.)
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty [we could even omit “excruciating” if we so desire]

self-defense (n.)
1. the act of defending one’s person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant


then there is clear distinction between the two. Self-defense is allowed, but not all types of violence are by U.S. law. In the scenario presented months ago by karma (I will call it Scenario 1 for simplicity, since there have been many discussed), in which I know that a child or loved-one is being detained until death, I have complete access to the perpetrator and torture tools, and there are no negative legal or societal consequences to any actions I take, if I did decide to torture the individual, it would not be self-defense. Consider the following scenario:

A has committed an action against C which affects B. B can now decide to torture A or abstain; the first action has already been completed. Any subsequent violence is then post-facto. That is to say, if A punches B, and then clearly abstains, and then B punches A in retaliation, it is just that: retaliation after the fact, not self-defense. Further, if X shoots at Y with intent to kill, and, after the fight is clearly over Y shoots at X with intent to kill, then there are two legal and criminal infractions, all other variables controlled. If a wife slaps a husband, and then post-facto he slaps her back, there are two wrongs, legally — not just one. The same would be true of the hypothetical torture in Scenario 1.

A commits action of violence/kidnapping against C which affects B; A is detained and is currently doing no harm; B tortures (committing violence in retaliation of) A.

Regardless of intent, the violent action is post-facto and therefore illegal by the aforementioned logic/legal standard. The proper (and, as I have seen from my perusing of the thread, most effective) method would be a citizen’s arrest (which would already be happening) and notifying the relevant authorities as soon as possible. However, this is different from a scenario where the perpetrator is currently torturing the loved-one, and torturing back is the only way to stop it according to our knowledge which is third party self-defense and allowed per the law.

Additionally, war is a forest wherein torture hides among the individual trees. That is to say, war is not torture, but torture often happens in war. All can agree, though, that war is definitely torturous for all parties involved.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mandatory Automobile Insurance (and more!)


The millennials that you seem to have had to deal with in your experience sound like just a load of joy to work with, haha.

Protip: students are SUPPOSED to be poor and indebted. They are students. They have not proven their worth to society yet.

I strongly disagree with this argument. When teaching someone to swim, we do what? We give them PFDs and educate them so that they can learn the proper form. Sure, we have not proven ourselves to society yet, but that does not mean that society should chain an anchor to our ankles to see if we can swim; they should provide us with PFDs, or at least leave us be. In all seriousness, it would be best if the costs of education and other student-related costs are kept low, so that we can establish a foothold on our careers, on our investments, and on our credit. This is better than the current system of ensuring our students are made to be in excessive amounts of debt, paid off over the next 20 years of their lives… reluctant to start a family, purchase a house, and move on with their lives.

I suggest you focus on the studies. It sounds to me you can’t handle the course load and working at the same time. Ask for a low interest loan from family members and sign a legal contract. They will still profit, but you will not get raked over the coals from a traditional loan.

I can handle the work load just fine with discipline and with late nights.

I am maintaining a high GPA (3.83), but my work environment is one which I do not fit into. My student supervisor is out to get me, and vicious rumors have been started about me slandering the position (which I would never do non-anonymously, or with potential recruits), which has reached my employer who now views me as a problem employee, and hence the bad reference.

but you do have some of the aspects of them that greatly annoy myself.

I apologize for the arrogant-sounding comments about myself, as they were not intended for bragging purposes. I merely aimed at showing that I am an above-average student, yet still struggling, which would imply that my peers may be struggling even worse financially.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Gay Marriage OK from a Biblical Perspective?

Ah, I misinterpreted the tone of your post. Interesting. I am glad that you do not find delight at the aforementioned thought of me burning forever, haha. We can agree, therefore, that the Bible is not the utmost authority on the rights of the LGBTIQA community, and if it actually is divinely inspired, that it is still wrong from our perspective?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Gay Marriage OK from a Biblical Perspective?


Yes, I would be annihilated instead, according to the Bible. Am I interpreting delight from your post in that you believe I am going to burn in Hell? Is that something from which a Christian should receive delight, or a sense of superiority? While we are on the subject, is (divine) torture ever justified?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mandatory Automobile Insurance (and more!)


Young drivers are statistically far more likely to have an accident, so they pay a lot higher premiums. Simples.

Right, which makes sense, however independent students are statistically among the most poor, most indebted demographics in the United States ( (we see a declining trend in poverty levels as age increases)) . Capitalism and Darwinism alike say “who cares,” but I am saying that this not only has drastic effects on individual lives, but also hampers consumption, happiness, and education levels, hindering the economy and society. Everyone does better when everyone does better, ya know?

Having said that, the premiums you quote do seem to be extremely high compared to what you would pay over here

Right? It is pretty dang high over here, especially for my peers and me. This may be an individual or extreme case, living in the suburbs/at a university outside of an automobile-based city that is not doing well, so there’s that.


I can afford a car, but among other expenses, not the car insurance, which is keeping me from browsing other off-campus alternatives to employment (hence this thread post). But, I’m sure that it is not your point, as you are probably including car insurance in with the total automobile cost.

Fortunately, I am not handicapped in that manner and you are right, I could run, walk, or purchase a bicycle to ride to work, among carpooling opportunities once I meet the other employees there. However, with the academic schedule that I am imposed with as well as having employment that has been causing me significant psychological turmoil, it has been difficult to find time during the week to browse options farther away, especially considering that I may have to walk/run there in the future, if I obtain said hypothetical miles-away job. I suppose I will just have to keep my fingers crossed and survive until the end of the semester, when then I can start working towards a decent job farther away.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mandatory Automobile Insurance (and more!)


Yes, and thank you for the link. I perused it and found some very helpful information that I did not disagree with. Regarding your questions, I am merely suggesting situations that perhaps would work better. I am not pinpointing my beliefs on anything in particular, but simply offering alternatives and seeing what you all think for my learning purposes.

If I may offer a bit of advice to you: millennials, in my personal experience (they are my peers) are less likely to listen to you if you hold a superior, hateful attitude towards millennials. This is not me, fortunately, as I came here to learn from others as I have in the past, but may hold better for you in the future. The attitude that you are showing me (by placing me stereotypically in with my peers in most or all aspects), has been shown throughout history by racist and sexist institutions, among others. Please be careful in assuming that all of us more or less are the same. Everyone of every group brings something different to the table.


Thank you for your post. That makes a lot more sense and seems more friendly to citizens of the country/state that mandates car insurance, though it targets those with less driving experience, even those with no at-fault accidents in their driving careers (more often than not university students). I am curious as to how you would believe we should solve this cost-allocation problem… if at all.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mandatory Automobile Insurance (and more!)

If I am an arrogant person, would that change the validity of any of my points?

Besides the personal attacks, which are not appreciated, you have some valid points.

I am highlighting my personal achievements in order to show that I am above average in skill-set and qualifications, and describe how I am still struggling financially. Whether or not I am trusted in my post is irrelevant. Assuming that I am telling an accurate description of my personal achievements and my financial situation, my argument still holds weight. I ask you to think of those students who are not above average, and if I am above average and struggling financially, to think of how much worse it must be for my fellow peers. This is not an arrogant intention: I wish to better help the population I am a part of by raising awareness of the issue, and also to learn more myself in case this ever comes up in real-world discussion. Debating like this helps to highlight the outstanding arguments of both sides, and through this, we learn.

You are the perfect example of the damage the “Everyone wins” parenting style of the 90’s has caused in society

My parents never rewarded me unless I received all A’s. They were not proud of me athletically until they realized I was qualified to run in college due to my hard-work and hours of training I put in to distinguish myself from my peers. They have never spoken out about me to others unless I have deserved it with my achievements. Frankly, if you trust me, then I would say my parents’ style was to bring out the best in me, and quite frankly was the opposite. “Participation medals” piss me off, so we are actually in agreement here. Hard work earns achievements, but surely you acknowledge those who work hard and are still thrown under the bus, no? To not acknowledge that some are un- or underemployed with a large skill set, that some are extremely disadvantaged and in debt despite their work-ethic is ignorant of the real world.

Sure, “no one cares,” but they should.

“Without mandatory insurance, the victims of automobile accidents would be very unlikely to see much compensation from the individuals at fault”

Alright, now I am seeing an argument which is not also a personal attack. I like it. :)

This is a very valid point: without mandatory car insurance, individuals who cannot pay the high cost of the victim’s claim are not required to pay. However, this could be resolved from a system of universal healthcare coverage, no? In which the health and repair costs are covered by the government, which are covered through an annual tax at a flat rate on the citizens (instead of targeting certain poorer demographics). Surely there are other viable systems… sure, no one likes to pay taxes (even my peers and I are not looking forward to it), but taxes cover large state and national projects such as infrastructure construction and repair, and are obviously provided by the government. Of course, you may complain that to shift everything to taxes is burdening citizens who are not worrying about the situation, such as older adults. How many older adults, however, do not have children or grandchildren, nieces or nephews, for whom they wish all the best in their lives. If it does not affect you, it surely affects your family in one way or another. That, and countries with some provided welfare services like healthcare and education rank among the happiest in the world.

So maybe the mandatory car insurance is not the issue. Maybe it is public education costs… if it were provided, independent students would not be as worried about automobile insurance costs, because they would not be freaking out about $80,000 for a bachelor’s degree, which is practically required these days to obtain a viable career outlook in a job.

Something additional to think about: if you are not in a car crash, you do not have to pay for repair damages. If you are in one, you can pay out of pocket, or purchase another vehicle at perhaps a lower cost than it would take to repair your vehicle. The part where insurance would come in would be to pay for the other person’s vehicle if you are at fault, but I am arguing for perhaps another system that is provided by the government, payed for by a flat tax on citizens instead of having private insurance companies that target a specific demographic of those struggling financially. Either that, or reducing other costs of those people struggling financially (like health care or insurance costs) to better allow such a demographic to pay for this mandatory car insurance.