Recent posts by Searth on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Conservipedia a joke?

It appears to be funny, but they are serious. It’s conservative propaganda.
Your example in mind I think most republicans would agree about that.
Since it’s a wiki, many people have tried to influence the articles or write some satire, but the core users ban everyone who smells liberal.

I think they’re dangerously good at creating their own truth and getting away with it. Imagine growing up in an extremely conservative community with those kind of narrow-minded opinions. To me it’s disturbing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I need help with an important choice in my life.

Go see a friend and talk about it. There are people on Kongregate with the best intentions but they don’t know you like friends do. Also, people that are at least a few years older than you could be helpful.
If you don’t know anyone you could take some intelligent posts into consideration, but you’ll have to think well and then decide for yourself.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Destroyed by the media

Strange how so much of us still see Africa as a country full of poor people. They could label starving black people with aids authentically African. Every cliché has a reason, but if you’re honestly interested you might like these talks:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/emily_oster_flips_our_thinking_on_aids_in_africa.html

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Health care equals Nazis?

This thread is just insane.
I can see how nazism and fascism are seen as the same thing.
I can understand that communism is compared to socialism (but we’re talking about the philosophy here, not the dictatorship of, say, Stalin.)
But reading socialism is fascism, or democratic socialism is not possible… makes me think Americans get radically different history classes than Europeans. It is of course a confusing issue.
So: time for some clarification about these terms today.

Economically:
Complete capitalism/economic liberalism means the government doesn’t control the economy.
Example: The USA.
Socialism has several meanings, but in general it means the government controls the economy to a certain extent (as is the case in most European countries) but often the connotation is that of very high government control, almost as communism. Examples: Eastern Europe, Portugal, India, China, and more.
Communism means full economic government control.
Examples: Cuba, China.

Of course most countries are both socialist and capitalistic. There’s just a spectrum of economically left (communist) to economically right (capitalist).

But there is also a social spectrum. This ranges from socially left (anarchistic) over liberal and conservative to socially right (fascist).

So the central point in this thread (health care = nazi’s, or put differently, socialism = fascism) makes no sense! It are two entirely different things!

What Obama wants to do – create a government-controlled health care system – means the USA will shift slightly towards the left side on the economic axis.
So yes, more socialism (higher taxes and flatter wealth distribution).
And no, not more fascism, health care is part of his mindset to give a little more choice to people, moving the USA towards social liberalism and away from fascism, the ideology of the nazi’s.

At least, that’s how I see it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shameful ad made for the World Wildlife Foundation.

I have to admit, you’re right. Nature is not really a terrorist organization trying to gain respect using brute force combined with WWF lobbying. :-)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Fed up with eco nuts

Let me summarize the first half of the first page of this discussion:

Metalrodent: Econuts are stupid, they tell us not to drive cars and are against fuel and all, but it’s necessary for the economy. Cars are less eco than planes.
SaintAjora: Witty comment.
Lrdwhyt: What’s to discuss?
TheBSG: If I had a business, I’d act green. (American attitude is wrong.)
Redem: Planes are more eco than cars. I don’t like you (OP), you’re a pollution apologist.
NeilSenna: Planes are probably more eco than cars if you have the seats already.
Redem: Maybe cars are more eco than planes because of the weight in the plane.
Jabor: To know if cars are more eco than planes we have to make calculations.
Mattstephen6: Cars have advantages and disadvantages.
PersonaDelta: SUV are legal
TheBSG: Silly comment
dd790: Cars are less eco than planes.
[…]

Unfortunately, a lot of discussions here are even worse. It surprises me that so many intelligent people still stick around.
Anyway, thanks to TheBSG, there was a really interesting post on page 2, but now on page 3 the discussion is becoming really unproductive so I’m just going to give you guys the answer to the car-plane question:

In a 1000-mile journey aircraft passengers are responsible for roughly 500 pounds (227 kilograms), while car drivers are responsible for 1000 pounds (503 kilograms). Source 1, 2. But cars are still more eco-friendly because the emissions by airplanes are much more polluting. Source.
Of course trains are even more eco-friendly.
Google is your friend.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shameful ad made for the World Wildlife Foundation.

I knew that people who are ‘green’ in general are a tad nutty.

Why do you have to blaim people for being politically incorrect and then just start by generalizing ‘green’ people as being a tad nutty?
I personally don’t think topics should be a biased sensational news flash. Don’t you guys have Fox for that?

Anyway, from across the ocean it looks like the ad brings its point across quite well, except for how the theme is more taboo than the ad agency thought.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Newspeak

It’s human nature to make language complex. In fact, there are no primitive languages. I used to think otherwise, but I read an article about how every human language is complicated and has an advanced grammar.
Babies born with only a very minimal amount of words can actually develop a language in just one generation.
An example would be people with a second language that is a simple pidgin language.
If children of those people are raised with the pidgin language as first language, it will become a creole language with fully developed grammar. I guess it’s how the human brain works.

This would mean no really simple language can be a first language to a normal group of people.
(I have to find more sources about this.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Fed up with eco nuts

“If we all make our lives a bit harder we could get that number down to 1.9%!!” Yea the UK making 0.1% less emissions, that’ll save the world from “global warming”

Indeed a small step like that on itself won’t, that’s why we have to push our ecological nutcase views on people, especially politicians. It’s not about saving some energy, it’s about saving the goddamn climate.
By the way, if the UK would reduce their emissions 5%, it would mean dozens of species not going extinct and hundreds of lives made easier. That’s the big picture.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Will Panda's go extinct very soon?

I don’t get why everyone is guessing and discussing extinction. It’s a simple question: will pandas go extinct very soon?
I assume you mean the giant panda. It only lives in the South-West of China, where its territory (sub-alpine forests) has become much smaller. There are only about 2500 giant pandas left in the wild, and with the increasing number of roads and human activity in the area they are certainly endangered.
There is a bright spot, though: The Chinese government is protecting 45% of the area, with 60% of the panda population. This means that the wild population will not easily go extinct unless the policy changes.

In captivation the pandas are very hard to breed, because they behave differently than in the wild. Also, female pandas are only fertile one day a year and the males are not always willing to reproduce.

Personally I think people will keep the species alive, using artificial insemination if necessary. The number of giant pandas will most likely stay small though.

Source:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/giantpanda/panda.html
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/panda-birth-rate.htm
www.google.com for more

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

What struck me, though, is a study that Christians who take the time to pray together daily almost never get divorced.

A link to the study in question would be appreciated, then.

It doesn’t really matter. Really devoted Christians – who may pray daily – believe their God will hate them for divorcing. If you believe in hell and heaven, you would do anything to get in heaven. To those Christians, this life is just a prequel, a test of faith and obedience. If they dislike their partner after a while, they’ll have to accept that marriage is for life and make the best of it.

To most Christians, these questions don’t make a difference. Faith is blinding.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / were our ancestors aquatic primates?

First of all: Good of you to watch TED-talks.
I completely agree with norumaru on this. ‘Aquatic primates’ sounds exciting, but I didn’t think it’s probable nor necessary to explain anything. I thought this question was laughably simple at first. We know the story about intelligent apes travelling to new areas, becoming physically less robust because they make better use of their intelligence. And there are genetic records back this up. But her story had something to it, so I did some thinking.
As an argument for the theory, she says: “elephants have aquatic ancestors as well, why couldn’t we?”
The aquatic elephant ancestor dates back 37 million years ago (the moeritherium). The family of elephants has two branches rooted from there, the other consisting of dugongs and animals like that. You’d think the elephant trunk used to be some kind of snorkel once, but this is not true. There are other traces of an aquatic past with elephants, though. For example, the testicles of male elephants are interior, which makes it harder to keep them cool but gives the elephant a more aquadynamical shape for swimming. Now, humans have one of the worst swimming shapes of all animals, no? We have external testicles, still long hair on our head, and fine arms and legs. It would be hard to imagine that somewhere in between the homo habilis and the homo erectus (or anywhere else in our known fossil record) is a bulky, upright, naked, aquatic humanoid who adapted to swimming.
-Walking upright makes sense in the savanna and in the water, but the latter is more far-fetched I think.
-If being naked was a way to become more dynamical in the water, why did we start losing hair as soon as we left the trees? We’re quite sure humans didn’t spend most of their time in the water then. Also, it doesn’t explain why our cousin, the homo neanderthalensis, was still quite hairy.
-Fat can have other purposes apart from adaptation to water. It’s a good protective layer for animals without plates or thick hair. It’s also very useful for the many periods of hunger our ancestors went through.
-We don’t need water at all to develop speech.

I’d say the theory is cool but unlikely.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / If you're atheist, what if you die then see God?

Originally posted by johnrulz:
Originally posted by Pessimista:
Originally posted by kevintennis95:

I’m an Atheist. And as an Atheist, since we don’t believe in God and such, there’s no way this could be possible.

now, this is my picture of 16-year-old-internet-atheist-posers, which are, nowadays, good part of the atheists. and that’s so sad.

Agreed

How could you be an atheist poser? A poser is someone who’s pretending to be someone else. There’s no point in blaming the 16-year-olds trying opinions on an internet forum for – for what, in fact? The atheist ideology? It doesn’t exist! Atheists are just people who don’t believe in deities. So if that guy says ‘I can’t answer this question because I don’t believe in God’ then all you can blame him for is not contributing to the discussion by being a bit off-topic. And we’re even worse.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / global warming

Originally posted by Redem:

I will add this in addition to the already covered points, regarding the EPA incident.

Thanks, Redem. That’s a great site. I’d certainly recommend it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / If you're atheist, what if you die then see God?

pmr’s video, TheBSG and Eggy nailed it.
But I wonder if answering this question seriously makes us agnostic…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Capitalism vs. Socialism

I live in Belgium, we have the highest income taxes in the world, and I love my life! I think I’m as happy as rich people in America. Our educational system is great (my English is quite good huh, how about your Dutch or your French?). Our media is quite neutral – and sometimes harsh towards both politicans and companies if necessary. Everyone can become successful here – although it’s very hard for people who can’t speak the language, people with bad hygiene, people with drug or alcohol problems, people who can’t use money, and children of these people. Still, even those people can obtain enough money to live and can use our excellent medical care. :-D
Okay, enough publicity. I think both capitalism/liberalism and socialism/communism have advantages, and the best way would be the middle road. The companies should always work under the country and not the other way around though.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / global warming

So, BnBn, you didn’t stay away for long.
Your point here seems to be that graphs don’t necessarily prove anything. I couldn’t agree more.
But you know what, if US postal packages or letters were proven to produce a lot of heat (on a small scale, because no lab is nearly the size of the atmosphere – not that is matters much), and the number of postal charges is increasing so much that some scientists have been saying for years we should somehow decrease this number to prevent the disastrous effects of postal charges, and then this increase in global temperature starts becoming more visible, and scientists, politicians, and other people start to agree the US mail has to change the material its letters and packages are made from, all kinds of reports confirm this and graphs show what could indeed be a correlation, there will still be folks saying all these anti-US-mail-people are wrong, biased, stupid or anti-american (maybe they are trolling, maybe they really think it’s the sun heating up this planet, or maybe they have US-mail-package-material-stocks) , but it doesn’t change the fact that the believers are quite right, regardless of their motives.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: HOME - a documentary

What can we possibly do about the fact that there is not enough arable land to feed over 6 billion people what they need without causing permanent environmental damage?

But there is enough land! It’s only that we use most of the rich crops for cattle food, which is an irresponsible way of using the available land. Currently 70% of agricultural land is used to feed farmed animals.

Oh, you were serious. Well, in that case I’m done here.

The forums had the off-topic section all along.

How can we prevent our extinction at our own hands, as an effect directly precipitated by overpopulation?

It’s not directly but indirectly related to overpopulation. If everyone would live like the people in India (I know, I know) the planet could handle double the worlds population.
Maybe nearly eliminating reproduction (in a somewhat fair way) is considerable. A world-wide one child policy would diplomatically be mission impossible, but if people really can’t decrease their impact (I believe they can) it could do us some good.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / global warming

zen15 is right about central north usa becoming colder, but this image (from 2008) makes it clearer:

2004 is even clearer.
But please, you should be informed better if you state global warming is false.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: HOME - a documentary

Who cares if half our population will die?

And why should we care if a few species die off

about 4 billion Human Deaths

expand the space we live in

killing off one third of the population

Killing off three thirds of the population is better

People won’t change unless they feel pain.

let everyone drive their Hummers and SUVs until all the oil is gone

eliminate fertility in the vast majority of the worlds population

worldwide anti-procreation propaganda campaign

incredibly large, enforceable childbearing taxes

So basically, everything is possible as long as you don’t need to do something :-). You’ve got to love this community.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Barack Obama just does not get it!

I’m not from the US, and I must say I like what Obama is doing. I mean, if every government leader was a ‘chickenshit’ the world would be a better place.
Maybe Iran and North Korea are so patriotic/fundamentalist/extremist/evil/arrogant they want to kill thousands of people to gain power and spread their ideology, but as people, we should be freaking glad the president of the US is better than that.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God & #2

It’s easy to mock and discuss religion, I think we don’t need another thread for it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: HOME - a documentary

There’s still a lot of oil. When the oil wells are gone new can be drilled deeper in the ocean. Oil can be extracted from tar sands. There is still plenty of it to fight over and burn.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: HOME - a documentary

I don’t know, we have the choice between killing one American or twenty Bangladeshians. And it would have the same effect as making two Americans live in a more eco-friendly way. Anyway, did anyone see the video?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: HOME - a documentary

I’m sure creating a zero-emission durable underwater country in the pacific with its own ecosystem, inhabited by people from all over the world is more cost-efficient than building a biosphere or terraformed region on another planet one spaceflight at a time.