Recent posts by Pleasedonot5 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Watching pornography is worse than sex?

I have a source for that, however I don’t think the moderators would appreciate me posting a link to it in the forums. Lol.

In other words, there are in fact videos where one must be “21 and up” to watch, as read on the video. And most if not all enforce a loosely regulated “18 and up” policy. However, karmakoolkid just partially won the thread and argument with his source above. The only thing that he left out was that the source is regarding the U.K. and not the U.S. Does anyone know if there are legal parameters regarding the legal age one can watch pornography in the U.S.?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Redskins: deraugatory or salutary?

Redskins: deraugatory or salutary?

Depends on how well the team plays, I suppose.

Flag Post

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

Waiting, by Ha Jin. I was skeptical at first but it turned out to be an interesting read.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / My Best Friend Is Autistic

Autism is a spectrum disorder that is hypothesized have genetic and/or prenatal factors. Meaning, there are various levels of severity of the disorder of which is determined from a wide variety of personality components, namely those of social interaction, that are hereditary or determined from pre-birth conditions. OP, as you had not really observed your friend’s autism, he may have a very mild form (Asperger’s) or no autism at all. It’s possible he’s just awkward, or even that the comments your other group of friends made changed your perception of him. Your mind now is searching for all ways your friend could be autistic, when you never would have made any of those connections had your other friends not said anything.

Talking to oneself isn’t an autistic quality necessarily — I do that all the time and am not autistic. Nor is being bossy or weird, those are “normal” qualities in “normal” individuals, too. It’s when these and other personal qualities significantly impede one’s functioning in everyday life that a personality disorder is suggested.

A few questions:

What has he done to make you think he’s autistic, besides your peers talking about him? What impact would him having a mild form of autism have on your friendship with him?

If you’re that shallow to end/distance yourself from a friendship with someone because of the musings of other “friends,” then 1) they shouldn’t be your choice of friends and 2) you aren’t really a friend to your friend (the one you think has autism).

Please, don’t be pressured into not being friends with someone, especially something as trivial as this. I can tell that you are pretty young, and your morality is in its preconventional stage with you simply being worried about the “punishment” of your peers’ judgment and disapproval, but to a third party, it is clear that whether your friend has a mild form of autism or not is not for you and your “friends” to judge. Nor should it matter at all. He is your friend and nice to you — that is not something to be taken for granted — I hope that you end up treating your friend like a friend, and not just some “mentally retarded kid” like your peers seem to be doing.

Flag Post

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

It kind of does. It offers two sides with each side believing in their side. Hence a belief.

My friends and I went to a fair together today. Is that event a belief?

Sure, you could believe or not believe that the event occurred, but that has no bearing on the event actually being a belief. Basically, event =/= belief even though people do or do not believe the event occurred. I’m sure you understand that, but you seem to be misspeaking.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is the current quality of this forum to you?


I feel that you appear to think that the forum guidelines have increased the quality of the forum. You appeal to this by saying that there are no more “proof”-ers. However, what you did not show is why asking for a proof or citation in a discussion on this forum is detrimental. It is also my opinion that the “proof” thing wasn’t as bad as you are making it out to be — if one makes a definite claim in a serious (or, especially in a scientific or historical) discussion, they are required to back that claim up with some proof lest that claim be dismissed by the logical debaters in the given thread. One isn’t required to show proof for a solid argument in arbitrary or subjective matters; but where definite claims for/against scientific or historical theories (or even statistics) come into play, proof is necessary for said claim to be taken seriously from an intellectual standpoint.

However, what you imply can be refuted by the relative inactivity on this forum. I would hardly consider a stagnant inactivity of the forums better than the relative liberal nature and activity of the ‘08 and ’09 forums. Of course, none of us have access to the actual rate at which viable threads were posted in the last 2 years as opposed to in ’08 and ’09, but, through each of our personal experiences here, I’m sure we both can wholeheartedly agree that the amount of new discussion threads are severely limited, at best, compared to how they were back in ’08 and ’09, and even ’10 when you joined.

I suppose it really is just a matter of opinion, though…

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is the current quality of this forum to you?


It appears we are also in agreement on the differing degrees in which the rhetorical components should be employed for maximum persuasion. We agree, in other words, that rhetoric is situational and that not just one component should be used all of the time.

As addressed previously, free speech and opening up the restrictions on what people can post (especially for the original post — get rid of the “forum guidelines” or liberalize them) is something that would influence more users to regularly visit the forum — I agree. While emotion is not necessarily a detrimental thing (it can be employed to enhance the reader’s understanding, in fact, of the speaker’s position) emotion in the form of verbosity, personal attacks towards others, and harsh criticism of the OP, I will reiterate, is what should be avoided. It is this that dissuades users from posting inquiries, opinions, and discussion topics on the SD forum, and thus is the reason why the forum appears so dead. I also agree that trolling with logic can often be a problem, but like you said I disagree with the magnitude; that is, that it is a significant problem to be dealt with in order to noticeably improve the quality of this forum.

At this point, it seems it’s a matter of subjectivity based on each of our personal experiences on this forum; we may just have to agree to disagree.

Most of the threads became a shit hole when people like Jan chose insults over substance. I even noticed the BSG resort to this mode of argument. All it does is diminish the value of the post. Often Jan and others are stuck on the low end of the spectrum when it comes to formulating good arguments, so often they are bad, and should be ignored.

Sometimes this occurs, however, as you can see above, Jan and BSG are perfectly capable of organizing intelligent arguments and from what I’ve seen they most often do. It is true that it would be most effective to ignore trollish arguments, but in this case I would be much more inclined to believe that you may just have been taking some of Jan’s word choices a little too personally. :P

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is the current quality of this forum to you?


I fully understand the way you separate the different components of the problem and of discussion in general. For example, we are in agreement when it comes to the different aspects of conflict. I primarily addressed emotion in my post, but that is because it is a primary part of the underlying problem. Additionally, I understand the concepts of ego and injustice that you and BSG introduce — however, if you peer back at my previous post, I referred to the aforementioned concepts as “personal” components to the discussion. (there needs to be less personal, less emotion-ridden discussions — ego and a personal sense of injustice fall into that category). Further, I agree with you that respect of the opposition and their points of view is a significant factor in the shaping of one’s response. I understand and believe that rules often times interfere with things and can be an impediment to success. I also understand the ignorance in the wholehearted separation of the human attributes of logic and emotion. In most things, there is an indefinite middle ground, a “grey area” in which different components mix. Logic and emotion are usually separated for practical purposes, though, as they evoke such different responses.

However, where we are in disagreement lies with your claim that logic and emotion are equal (or perhaps, more equal than some of us are implying) in matters of discussion. Of course, there are three components to Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle — ethos, pathos, and logos, including credibility, emotion, and logic, used as means of persuasion (or etc.). However, in different situations, varying amounts of all three of the components are most effective in accomplishing the speaker’s purpose. In a political contest, for example, large amounts of credibility and emotion overwhelm the employment of logic in obtaining supporters. In a scientific debate, logic is preferred as the most influential method of persuading the audience. In the same way, in this “serious discussion” forum, there are threads with varying topics, each requiring a different bit of rhetoric for maximum persuasive effect.

With that established, I can identify an error in your line of thinking. Although you use Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle to show the basis of rhetoric, you forget that there are varying components within the components of ethos, pathos, and logos. Within pathetic (emotional) appeal, there are components such as word choice (which I addressed above), conviction, sentence structure, and etc. which act as instruments in conveying emotion. There is a difference, furthermore, in the utilization of the phrase “Your position is a piece of shit” and “those who make the daunting error you just made incessantly terrorize the hearts and souls of all of Earth’s population.” In the former, pathetic appeal was used in the form of verbosity, the variant that I see a lot of in this forum. This is not the way to have a civil discussion; it provokes anger, emotion, and personal dilemma (provoking the ego/sense of injustice/etc.). The latter introduces pathos as a means of persuasion. Notice that it does not provoke (as much) anger from the reader, and draws the opposition reader’s attention to the “daunting” error they had just made. Accordingly, the former is weaker than logic in this forum, and the latter, you may argue, holds a bit more weight when it comes to successfully persuading. You may argue that logic (especially its faulty forms) can be used for trolling purposes, but it is far less common to be personally affected by logic on these forums than by pathetic appeals such as verbosity.

The former, I will continue to argue, is a detriment to SD — and logic is most times a better, more efficient component to utilize more of in discussions on this forum.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is the current quality of this forum to you?


Which is a fine sentiment but for one big problem: we aren’t teachers.

The word “educated” in my previous post did not imply that one is required to teach their opposition the correct way of thinking/feeling. To the contrary, this forum is a debate forum — the main criterion for that section of my post was to have a civil discussion (and maybe the “noobs” might learn a thing or two). However, it shouldn’t be too difficult to sound mature when one posts. It may take an editing of one’s specific word choice, but it is by no means impossible. For example, I normally ask myself, “if what I wrote was said to me, would I become angry?” or “does this make me sound like an ass?”

As a rule of thumb, when one contradicts another on a forum, he/she usually is not trying to upset the other with his/her words. As was discussed above, the emotional parts of our brain tend to signal to us that others are attacking our power, dominance, and control of the situation when they contradict us. This usually isn’t the case though, and one can override this emotion with the logical parts of his/her brain and should therefore respond maturely to the opposition. Of course, as a disclaimer, it’s a sure thing that forum aggression/frustration will always be an issue. However, the regulars whom have been posting here for quite some time now hold a lot of weight in the overall attitude of the forum — change their attitudes, and the attitudes of the whole forum begin to change (hopefully for the better). So, especially in cases like you and Draconavin, karma and jhco, and the other love-hate relationships on the SD forum, there needs to be less personal, less emotion-ridden discussions if these positive changes are to have effect.

To be fair to karma – lol, I know, right? – the vast majority of new OPs that consist of a few sentences are pretty shitty. As you say, that one had discussion value, but it’s a rarity.

ayy I totally agree with you there man. There does tend to be more discussion value from larger, well-thought-out posts and vice-versa. However, as shown above, the OP doesn’t necessarily need to post a college thesis (or even lengthy paragraph) written for his/her original post to have discussion value. Some of the best discussions come from short original posts, just like the illegal drugs discussion that took off back in ’08, which I posted.

Regarding vanguarde, I remember that he was more of a nut-case that no one seemed to pay much attention to. He was ridiculous with his alts and his irl trolling, but he was the exception — not the rule — to the success of the ’08 & ’09 SD forum. Actually, much of this success can be attributed to the fact that anyone could post in and make threads with a high degree of freedom. The only downside was that nut-cases like vanguarde were also able to post.

When one allows freedom of expression, like in the U.S., the downside is that idiots can express, but the upside is that ideas circulate and innovation results. When one tightens restrictions, like in more authoritarian countries, the upside is that there is a high degree of control of the population, but the downside is that there is little to no room for innovation. The same is true on the Kongregate SD forum; the stringent forum guidelines and nit-picky regulars are a huge deterrent from open discussion. Furthermore, this ought to be changed if the full restoration of the forum is ever to be possible.

Those threads you posted were great threads; I remember a few of them that I had read through before. Unfortunately I didn’t have the intellectual capacity at the time to fully understand what was being written, but nonetheless haha…

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is the current quality of this forum to you?

Yeah, Neil sums it up perfectly. All of these ridiculous forum guidelines act merely as a deterrent of new ideas and, therefore, interesting threads. Not only that, but like others have said, they do not inhibit stupidity and have actually increased the amount of trolls relative to the well-behaved SD population. It seems instead to have created a different kind of trolling — a different kind of annoyance in the form of OP harassment. To encourage the healthy regrowth of this forum, it is essential that these “forum guidelines” are taken down and/or adhered to less strictly.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is the current quality of this forum to you?

The quality of this forum is very low compared to what it once was. A couple of years ago, there were a plethora of debate topics and dozens of users with their own opinions discussing said issues. In contrast, now, there are only a handful of regulars who post, the number of active threads is down below ten at any given time, and these threads are dominated by users who terrorize innocent, yet uninformed individuals.

When I came to this forum in 08, I was not the most informed person. Actually, that is an understatement. I was intellectually lacking, and hampered by my religious precognitions. However, through the open debate on the several active religion threads on the forum, I came to see things from all perspectives, learned that one’s religious belief does not define them, and became enlightened on various topics. In fact, without visiting this forum in the past, I would not be who I am today. It therefore pains me to see SD in the endangered, impotent condition it is today.

What needs to change?

Well, for starters, the personal insults of people who come here to openly discuss ideas — no matter how ignorant they may seem to be — ought not to be harassed, embarrassed, or trolled. Instead, they should be welcomed, and hopefully educated. Moderators, muting, etc. can deal with them if they do not adhere to the rules.

Secondly, the lack of active threads can be attributed to the fact that there are such stringent requirements of new threads to be appealing to regulars. By this, I mean that there is further harassment of original posters who honestly post a topic, opinion, or question by SD regulars. Not to call anyone out, but I vividly recall a recent thread in which karmakoolkid iterated the forum guidelines, when in fact the original post did have discussion value. Now, this didn’t inhibit any further discussion in this thread, however, users who browse the topics and whom would possibly want to post their own inquiries, opinions, and discussion topics are dissuaded from doing so for the fear of criticism from the current big names of this forum such as vikatae, karmakoolkid, and etc. It is thus understandable that new, active, intriguing discussion threads are not drawn up and kept active — not everyone wishes to write a college thesis in order to avoid “quality-criticism” from the witty regulars. In fact, some of the best discussions come from original posts of inconsiderable length. What should happen, therefore, is a down-sizing of the regulars’ repeated criticism of the merit of original posts. Nobody likes a tattle-tale, and if a thread is inappropriate, the moderators/administrators can deal with it… or worst-case scenario, the thread dies! We don’t all need to be incessantly reminded that the regs know their forum guidelines!

Over time, implementing these proper behaviors will hopefully increase the overall discussion value of the SD forum and return it to its former glory and mindset-changing capabilities.

TL;DR, regulars: 1) welcome discussion and don’t insult, even if you think that the other person’s ideology sucks and 2) stop having such stringent original post guidelines. As regulars, you all have the power to change the overall tone of this forum one step at a time, and bring it back to its former glory!

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why fixing a mistake mid sentence is bad, and makes you a slower typer.

Typing slower should not carry as much of a stigma as OP would like it to. Allowing for more typing time — going back and fixing one’s mistakes, proofreading, and etc. allows for a higher degree of correctness, credibility, and clarity; which, on a serious discussion forum, is essential to the reader’s comprehension of the speaker’s argumentation.

Contemporary society focuses too much on only one type of efficiency: quickness. Many times, utilities are created for the sole purpose of making people’s lives quicker (an example I can think of off of the top of my head is Siri, the electronic voice-operator on the newer iPhones). However, obviously that is not the only component to overall quality or efficiency — especially of text. Through this discussion (using text) on an online forum, we are all employing technology to propagate our ideas more efficiently. Accordingly, there are a plethora of ways in which computer technology could make the aforementioned propagation easier for all of us (i.e. employing a type of Siri for the computer); however, costly implementation, device malfunctions, errors in speaking, the inability to convey emotion through speak-to-text devices like Siri, are all contemporary problems that make the keyboard (at least for now) the most efficient way to communicate on the SD forum on Kong. So it is clear to see that “quickness” is not the only component to efficiency; there are also components such as accuracy and reliability…

Therefore, the whole idea that continuing to type and post one’s errors in typing reeks of a philosophy that seeks desperately to try and prove something about something. Not only is it harshly informal, but it also weakens one’s credibility, and most importantly hampers on the overall efficiency of the aforementioned function. Although it may be quicker to type without going back and fixing one’s mistakes, it is less accurate and does not produce consistent, reliable results; the notion is ironically uneconomical and inefficient.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Where do you want to be in 5 years?

In 5 years, I hope to have earned a bachelor’s in economics or a related field and to be working on my master’s degree. I also aspire to have learned much more about running through my collegiate training and the most efficient ways to prepare for specific races. Accordingly, I hope to be applying this knowledge to my training for post-collegiate marathons and other races with my buddy Tim, while allowing for ample time to continue excelling in all my studies.

Unique thread, really got me goal-setting and thinking optimistically. I like it; great idea OP!

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Atheist isn’t a religious denomination.

Sadly, I am not so sure that is true these days. Atheist’s will;

  • Go out of their way to harass other’s who don’t believe what they believe, even when they cannot properly explain why what they believe is right.
  • Parrot what they have read, or other’s have said even if they don’t fully understand it
  • Carry an air of self satisfaction that what they believe is right and if you don’t believe the same as them you are an idiot
  • Try to convince other’s to join their way of thinking

Pretty much sounds like a religion to me

I was actually fairly confident that the only requirement for one to be an atheist is for him/her to not believe, or to disbelieve that deities exist. Being an atheist myself, I wasn’t aware of the above criteria which required me to be an asshole first. I also wasn’t aware that being an asshole constituted a religious doctrine, but hey, that may be something that I would want to look into.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by KakkoiiBishounen:

Depends on how many people believe in the Big Bang. I don’t.

Actually, the amount of people who believe in a certain idea is not a determining factor in said idea’s validity. For example, if 9 (or even 10) out of every 10 people believed that orange unicorns created the universe in an event called “the anti-Big Bang” does that make the anti-Big Bang any more plausible? When the majority of the world’s population believed that the earth was flat, were they any more correct than flat-earthists are today?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / People who do drugs.. Are they morally bad?


Using certain drugs is morally bad because they harm your body. This could be anything from an immediate death by OD, or lung cancer in a few decades.

Is doing something to harm one’s own body necessarily morally bad?

Using certain drugs is morally bad because they cause you to lose control over yourself. This loss of control can cause you to do other things which are morally bad.

That’s a slippery slope fallacy. An example: “building technology could cause more tech advances which could create robots that could kill everybody, therefore tech innovation is bad!” when building technology will not necessarily cause everyone to be destroyed by robots.

Accordingly, doing drugs will not necessarily cause someone to do something morally bad, like stealing, harming, or killing. A lot of the time, getting drunk or getting high is privately practiced in the home for the purpose of simply having a good time.

Purchasing drugs can be morally bad because they are often sold by gangs, who can engage in violent turf wars. (…)

This makes more sense, if the person is aware of the fact that they are buying drugs which fund a malevolent organization. Being unaware of the dealer’s association with the gang, however, is not intrinsically morally wrong.

If a baby pushes a seemingly harmless red button that, everytime it is pushed, someone is harmed, does that make the baby immoral?

SELLING drugs can be morally bad because you are encouraging much of the above.

This argument relies on the validity of the premises which you addressed above, which are currently in question.

Being involved with drugs might be morally bad for some people because of the legal consequences themselves.

Laws are only a rough indicator of a society’s morality; in not all cases do the rules/laws determine what is morally correct. As an example, I run for my school’s track and cross country teams. In certain cases, one specific individual runs faster than he is supposed to on easy/recovery days and influences other newer runners to do the same, tiring everyone out for the workout the next day, which brings down the team. Being a senior member and the top of my team in performance, I’ve reminded this runner a few times of what he is supposed to be doing on designated easy days. When I do, it seems, he slows his pace and refrains from his fast-paced habits for a while, but eventually will start up again. One day he told on me for “scolding him” (which I did not do) and consequently the coach personally talked to me about my interactions with this runner. He told me that I was correct in what I was saying, but I should not tell the runner what to do; the coach went over appropriate paces for everyone at practice, but this did not influence the aforementioned runner’s hot-headedness.

Basically, although the “rules” as stated by my coach forbid me from telling other runners what to do, I know that I know more of what goes on in the distance runs more than my coach does at times, and will continue to remind others of the appropriate paces to run even if I have been told not to, as my actions help out everyone on the team. Even if I was threatened to be kicked off the team (which wouldn’t happen), I would still be doing the morally right thing — the other runner reporting that I’m scolding him would be in the moral wrong for hurting others’ chances at fame. In other cases, such as speaking out against the political corruption that goes on in Russia (especially in Chechnya), one may be arrested and taken from their family for “breaking the law” even though doing so may be fighting tyranny and be morally right.

In essence, morality often goes above the laws/rules as set by a governing body, even if there are possible negative consequences for breaking them.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / my religious struggle..... help

The word “atheist” carries a very negative connotation to many Christians… It would be better to simply say that you don’t believe in God. But other than that, it’s best to be completley honest about your feelings to them — honesty is the best policy.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election


The president didn’t take responsibility for the Libya terrorist attack, he let his Secretary of State take the blame. Hillary Clinton took the heat to protect the president. The president did blame a video for 14 days after the terrorist attack. He didn’t come out and call it a terror attack until the state department came out with the correct information. The president and secretary of state made a video (at the cost to the taxpayer of $70,000) apologizing to the Taliban for the video. This was an embarrassment to our country.

Did you even watch the debate? These issues were explained and validated by the moderator. The President said, “it was a surprising and outrageous attack” later, “but there is no justification for this type of senseless violence” and most importantly, “no acts of terror will shake this great nation.” He identified the issue for what it was… an act of terror.

In the debate, Obama takes full responsibility for the low security forces present at the U.S. embassy in Libya when the ambassador was killed, when he said ultimately he’s the one in charge and the responsibility falls on him. Saying that he put the blame on Clinton is just intellectually dishonest and should not continue to be propegated.


I found the video Colt was talking about. You can see it here.

Where do you even get that this was an apology?? Did either President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton say anything that resembled an apology? Obama said that the senseless violence was not justifiable, and Clinton emphasized that the U.S. did not endorse the anti-Muslim video. There was no sense of apology within the words spoken of the two individuals aforementioned, based on the sources provided.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Creation vs. Evolution


Well, then it occurs to me that you have the mindset that, “anything could happen at anytime.” While that might be true and the reality we’re living in could be a farce, that doesn’t mean that God probably did this “modding” that you speak of. You can’t disprove it, but you can’t prove it through observation either, so why act as if it happened like that?

You might as well believe in orange fairy unicorns that excrete pixie dust and rainbows — it’s the same concept.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Creation vs. Evolution


Then please go on to tell me about how the Earth is 6,000 years old and contradicts the radiometric dating of fossils and other materials….. I think you understand what I’m trying to say here.

While Genesis, taken literally, does not contradict evolution as a process, it does contradict evolutionary theory which goes back a few billion years.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Creation vs. Evolution


Just read where I said that I agree that evolution can be used to explain the END-RESULT – but it can as well be COMBINED with Biblical Creation.

Evolutionary theory and Biblical creation do not contradict only if you ignore (or take less literally) the first few chapters of Genesis.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Creation vs. Evolution


But your very first sentence is kinda stupid, cause my idea was “proving past assumptions with present facts”.

Is there any reason to suspect that similar life forms in similar environments wouldn’t act a similar way? How is looking at examples from the past few hundred years up until now “proving past assumptions with current facts”? I feel like you’re under the impression that the constants that we recognize today aren’t constant. Which, through observation since the invention of modern science, we have not discovered any change in the abovementioned, relevant constants.

I say that what evolution is supposed to be, is contrary to what we see today.
You say “how can that be!?”

No, I’m saying that what you’re saying is well-understood and doesn’t contradict the theory of evolution. You think that it does, but I have explained how you are mistaken.

Prey-predator balance is a “current fact”.
Dodo’s extinction is another fact, where the “current fact” assumption fails.

No, predator-prey balance is ever-changing. See, you’re only looking at one or two variables — like, the number of predators and the number of prey, but are refusing to accept that there are other variables at play here. Yes, with the two variables you have identified exclusively in play, we should always expect to see predators and prey with some sort of balance. However, you then introduce another variable into the scenario — invasive species — and you say, “oh well this is the way it’s supposed to be but it’s not like that!” No, it would only be like that if the two original variables are in play, and clearly they aren’t the only variables in play. Make sense?

I specifically used small-size environment idea, so you can’t knock it off by saying that the predators wouldn’t catch all the prey.
There are situations where this doesn’t apply so much.

I don’t think I said that in that context.

“Earth is a big place with many ecosystems” – “current fact” usage at work. :D

When, according to scientific/historical evidence, do you propose that Earth was not a big place with many ecosystems?

I explained how I see the dodo example ruining the whole assumed appearance of the modern ecosystem.

Earth isn’t just one ecosystem. We refer to Earth as the biosphere, made up of 8 or so different biomes, each composed of many ecosystems. What you may think “ruined” an ecosystem probably had a life form that benefited from the invasive species. It isn’t so much ecosystem-ruining as it is ecosystem-altering. Things change and life goes on.

“Human empathy” is yet another “current fact” usage.

Don’t understand your problem with facts…

Cause lions (and majority of other herd animals) do not help the POOR/WEAK of their own, they either send them off or EAT them…

Right, but well-functioning members of their society aren’t sent off or eaten, are they? There are more perks to grouping-up with members that can provide a good service to everyone, usually, than when one is a lone-wolf fighting for his/herself.

The Hindus have far greater proof for their Gods

Really? I didn’t remember anyone had any scientific proof for any deities.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Creation vs. Evolution


A lot of religious belief has not been disproven by scientific standards, Llama. God has not been disproven, for starters.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Creation vs. Evolution

Sooo, somebody613, did you choose to purposely ignore my post on page 11 because you don’t have an answer, or did you simply not see it?

My point exactly – I might not change my opinion, but I don’t hurl insults at those who EXPLAIN why they have the opposite one.
Trolling achieves nothing but angering EVERYONE…

Yet you constantly hurl insults at everyone who doesn’t see eye-to-eye with your questionable method of truth…

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proof of God


There’s a saying, “There are no atheists in the trenches.” This isn’t true of course, but I will say this, the internet is a forum of mind; out here in cyberspace it’s all word, theory, and ego.

I do understand what you are saying here, but understand that atheists that otherwise would not believe in God, acting out of emotional desperation as a survival mechanism by praying, does not mean that they believe in God. Also, you are right that this is not true for everyone. Regrettably, it is apparently true for me. My brain primarily thinks with its logical side, but in times of severe emotional trauma or desperation, I have found myself praying to whatever higher power that might be out there. Now, what you are saying only reinforces this position. You’re basically saying that belief in God is a more emotional than logical phenomenon.

The educated atheist acknowledges Jesus’ impact on history, unbiasedly dismissing any claims of Deity. I respect this position. I am persuaded by the teachings of Jesus. Jesus, friend of prostitutes, drunkards, and societal rejects and minorities; Jesus, who spoke out against the corruption of established religion and refused to side with political agendas; Jesus, the man most Christians know nothing about because they lack the intellectual capacity, or the sincere will, to approach the most overlooked, relevant, and plausible part of the Bible… you know, that small section that describes the life of Jesus.

Jesus’s existence is plausible, not confirmed, however. There really isn’t sufficient historical evidence for me to believe that the Jesus that you are describing existed and did what he did. However, yes, the very idea of what Jesus did, undoubtedly has changed society.

There is no proof of God.
There is no proof of God.
There is no proof of God.
I believe in God.

That’s basically how it is. Many, unfortunately, are under the guise that there is scientific or philosophical proof of God when that clearly isn’t the case.

Though, hey, I read your above post in which you contribute in a Christian community for charity — keep doing what you are doing. You seem to be a very good person. For as long as you love and accept others (and accept scientific advancements, others to share in the same rights as you, etc. for that matter), it is not necessarily our place as atheists to take that comfort and happiness away from you.