Recent posts by slasher on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Kermit Gosnell

I’m more concerned about him spreading venereal diseases with infected instruments. He’s a doctor, he should know how to clean his instruments properly before doing a surgical procedure. As for abortions, that’s a different issue that manages to strike a chord in some people. Personally, I’d rather have the child euthanized than be born in a financially unstable family that doesn’t love or take care of it. I can see how a lot of people would disagree with this, and I respect that.

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

What has been established: A deity cannot be proven or dis-proven. The bible and other attempts at creating a false deity’s words into scripture to rule humanity, however, can be easily dis-proven. If there is a deity, then we haven’t had any true contact with it/them.

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: The Bible is Literal.

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” – Asimov

Most of humanity would be going to hell if the Bible happened to be literal. A just god wouldn’t do that.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by jhco50:

We tire of listening to those who are bigots. Just because people who believe differently got tired of listening to the whining and quit posting, the gay lovers continued on a few pages and declared themselves the winners. It’s sad really.

It’s already assumed that they “gay lovers” won. We’ve established that history will follow the victors, and the victors will be those who had to suffer through the criticisms of the newly polarized conservatives who were a victim of the southern strategy. This was never an issue until the 60’s, when the anti-liberal movements began within the republican party. And is also due to gerrymandering within Texas beginning in the 21st century, causing only the most conservative of the conservatives to win the primary. The republicans are victims of sheep-thought.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by bjjdude:

.. So question, is there really any debate in this thread any more?
other than GAY MARRIAGE IS GOOD.
Really i don’t think there is any other opinions in this thread, while i do side with gay marriage there really isn’t a debate anymore.

Yea, it’s pretty much over. After around 3,000 posts, people just start re-iterating the same branches of controversy.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

“There is an irony that the most active anti-gay [groups] are al-Qaeda and the American right-wing.” – Barney Frank

Topic: Serious Discussion / Clean, renewable ENERGY

Topic: Serious Discussion / What do you think about the statements of Sarah Palin?

I’m still not even fully convinced that the brothers were responsible for the bombings.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

New Zealand parliament bursting into song following the legalization of Gay Marriage.

Maurice Williamson’s brilliant speech during the debate practically demolishing any opposition.

Topic: Off-topic / Kong vs Facebook

This amazing 3D social game called life > both.

Kongregate isn’t a social site, it is a game site. They serve two completely different purposes. Which one is better? That is a personal preference based on the values of entertainment vs. socialization.

Topic: Serious Discussion / alien life

Given the entropy and near-infinite expanse of the universe, it is impossible for life to only exist on Earth.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by thecartm:

Maybe marriage is about love and not debate.

Exactly. This is why the United States is stuck back with Russia in terms of social policies of first world countries. Iceland and Belgium have gay prime ministers. Why? Because they aren’t wasting their time oppressing people based upon who they love. They are worried about jobs, the economy, creating peace from easing foreign conflict. Why are you following the Russians with their policies? The oppression of gays goes against everything liberty stands for. Why is it so hard for America to just live and let live on the concept of marriage? It’s not hard. This shouldn’t even be a conflict.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Establish Justice = Do what is morally correct
Liberty = ability to be able to have control over their own life and actions.

I still don’t see any logical opposition to gay marriage besides personal greed.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by issendorf:

Even if the right to gay marriage isn’t stated directly or implied by the constitution, nobody has the right to deny it based solely upon religious bias.

Just as the federal government has no right to impose it on religious organizations that don’t recognize it.

Separation of church and state (Something which you should be aware of) does exactly what it means. Religion should stay away from my Government. You do not have the right to deny gays marriage because it goes against your religion. Those who do not follow your religion do not care that it goes against your religion.

And government should stay away from religion. Separation is a two-way street.

Stop holding back society. Marriage pre-dates all theistic religions from a secular point of view. ‘Deities’ did not have a right to re-define the already existing agreement, that marriage is a legal binding of two humans, to exclude gays.

So, in a manner of three sentences, we go from the argument that people who oppose gay marriage are holding back society, to you lamenting about the movement of society to redefining marriage. /slowclap

Civil unions are the legal bindings of two people. Marriage has romantic and religious contexts. Stop bringing up definitions of marriage from thousands of years ago. You like to talk about how society has evolved. If that’s the case, the definitions of marriage has evolved too. But, the fact remains, it’s none of the federal government’s damn business who I, or anyone else, choose to marry.

The argument that DOMA is unconstitutional and the argument that marriage is a constitutional right are not the same. If some church wants to recognize two men as being eligible for marriage, fine. If my church, the Roman Catholic church doesn’t, then fine. If the Supremes rule that marriage is a constitutional right, then any religious organization that doesn’t recognize same sex marriage will be showered with law suits courtesy the ACLU. Maybe that’s what you’re hoping will happen. To me, that sounds like an absolutely miserable outcome.

I don’t mind if the religious institution doesn’t recognize gay marriage. Churches may deny it as much as they want, but this isn’t the true argument as much as you would like it to be. The true argument is if the state recognizes gay marriage. This has nothing to do with denying your religious rights. Do religious organizations have the right to give you equal health-care? Do religious organizations allow legal adoption of a child? Why do they have a say in the matter? This is about The State, not your church.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

I’m still waiting patiently to know the parts of the Constitution and the reasoning behind saying that gay marriage is a Constitutional right.

Even if the right to gay marriage isn’t stated directly or implied by the constitution, nobody has the right to deny it based solely upon religious bias. Separation of church and state (Something which you should be aware of) does exactly what it means. Religion should stay away from my Government. You do not have the right to deny gays marriage because it goes against your religion. Those who do not follow your religion do not care that it goes against your religion. Stop holding back society. Marriage pre-dates all theistic religions from a secular point of view. ‘Deities’ did not have a right to re-define the already existing agreement, that marriage is a legal binding of two humans, to exclude gays.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Originally posted by Ceasar:

Gays can call themselves married and have whatever religious rites they can get someone to perform. But I should also have the right to not recognize that marriage, if it’s against MY religion.

As long as the courts recognise their marriage I doubt they’ll give a damn about what you think.

^

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Topic: Serious Discussion / Paper...

Personally, I would choose scissors.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Wikileaks

Originally posted by NeilSenna:

Most secrets are secrets for a reason. The site is irresponsible and run by people with about as much common sense as a lettuce.

I would rather know the reality than the illusion.

Topic: Serious Discussion / North Korea approves a nuclear attack on the US

Don’t go to war. Just continue to destroy their ability to trade until they go under and collapse. Even if North Korea manages to launch a missile, it will be destroyed before it hits Japan, Australia, or Alaska. The only true threat would be if a missile hits South Korea, which would upset most of the world powers, including China. If North Korea launches a missile, China and Japan will most likely declare war on North Korea due to hostile proximity. The only thing the United States needs to do is send aid for South Korea and Japan. If this were to happen, China would likely annex both North and South Korea, which would likely upset United States politicians.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Well, both rational thought and science support homosexuality. More than 1,500 species of animal are known to have prevalent homosexual tendencies. The only actual support against homosexuality comes from non-secular sources. Therefore, anti-homosexual platforms aren’t credible and should be banished from American government and politics by right of the first amendment. It is this simple.

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

Completely depends on the drug. Of course meth addicts are going to have a tendency to do immoral acts due to their psychological disposition. However, I have known those to use drugs such as marijuana to be very moral and good people. In fact, the opposition to the legalization of pot has created indefinitely more immoral and deadly acts such as violence and jailing of innocent people than the collection of all pot-smokers ever could.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I want to know where this Church of Atheism is that you keep bringing up. As far as I know, atheists don’t congregate into mass cults to discuss their religion. In fact, the only time I ever figure out if someone is an atheist is if they feel comfortable telling me. Since I live in the south, coming out as an atheist to the mass public is worse than coming out as a homosexual. The atheist community doesn’t exist here because it can’t. For its own safety. The only safe haven for the atheist community is around Austin. Even there, the general atheist population won’t reveal their true beliefs to anyone that they don’t trust.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by ExemplaryReturns:

Lol I like how TheBSG, a MODERATOR, resorts directly to ad hominem as soon as his ATHEIST beliefs are questioned.

This is PROOF that all atheists suck at debating.

Think about it: If atheism was so “logical”, why are there so few of them?

Because you likely live in America, where there is a geographic area (Bible belt) named after the irregular number of Christians, where the public education systems can’t live up to other countries. You don’t have any other country to base your knowledge off of. Go to Norway or Singapore, learn a few things about the population there.

If your religion is so strong, why do you have to worry so much about basic knowledge destroying it? I don’t have a problem with Buddhism because they teach that if their religion goes against discoveries of the natural world, go with the discoveries of the natural world.

Plus, you have no real argument to debate here.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I would have chosen Carl Sagan over anyone else. Darwin/Galileo were just informing people of theories that happened to go against religious teachings.