Recent posts by TheBSG on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Hahahaha, I hope you’re stoned, dude.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Thanks for the Qualiasoup, I couldn’t remember which one was a really good video for this since he’s got the text-only one directly addressing the wager that I think is kind of poorly done.

And yeah, wargame, you’re not saying comprehensible, logical things. You’re begging the question like it’s nobody’s business. I could make up a whole slew of things and requirements for the universe using the same “logic” you presented. Nothing about the universe suggests anything about perfection, sentience, existence, any of that. I could just as easily say that the nicest thing in the universe is God and everyone is supposed to be nice so they can also be God. Or something. Empty words like “perfect” and supposing those things have coherent systems associated is just making things up.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I honestly have no clue what you’re saying and I usually do pretty well with comprehension.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

That is not a coherent post. Can you say that a different way that makes sense? From the onset it just looks like you’re assuming infinite gain is still possible without implying why you think infinite gain is on the table but infinite loss is not. It would then be irrational not to assume any given negotiation is possible with the universe. Better thank the poppycock gizmo widget, else your heart ghost will fall off from lack of gravity mud!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Let’s wager that you should give me a million dollars or you may or may not die in the next month. Despite sounding like a threat, what reason would you have to give me that million dollars and believe me? What if it’s a dollar? What if it’s just telling someone else I was hanging out with you for an hour last week while someone was getting murdered who didn’t give me a million dollars? Let’s wager Pascal had to reduced his deeply held beliefs to the same logic that convinces people to gamble in order to convince people to believe in the same God he did.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Stephen Hawking and other physicists do not at all suggest a God was required to set off the big bang. Stephen Hawking specifically doesn’t say that, and very few physicists even suggest it.

I don’t really know how to respond to you wargames, you’re not really saying anything. Begging the question is what the wager is. There’s no reason besides our own folk stories to think that there are extra-beings that adhere to no logic or systems, or that these beings are interested in and can benefit us, or that those beings have true and identifiable motives in their own rights. If we follow half of the stories about these beings, we can’t trust most of their words anyway. There’s no specific reason to think that any of that is true, yet the wager suggests not thinking so is dangerous. How do you know there isn’t a giant world eating beast out there that eats people who believe in bullshit? It’s better to not believe, then.

Interestingly, the number of assumptions being made by pascals wager makes it less and less likely from my objective perspective. Pascal wagers that there are things that could be defined as a God and that this definition includes the ability to grant favor, and that this being can understand, interact with, or cares about him, and that Pascal has been somehow given the opportunity to know what that being wants and can fulfill it with little to no harm to himself but believing in it. Those are a whole lot of suppositions, and I can suppose a much simpler reason not to do that. “No one has given you a good reason to believe that’s true.”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama & Cuba

There is literally no discernible difference between half of our allies and Cuba in terms of all human rights violations, dictators, or whatever crime you could levy against Cuba’s government. Any beliefs you have about the embargo in Cuba being righteous or sensible were inherited from a political ideal and not any real understanding of global relations or governments. If your argument is that we shouldn’t work or trade with any countries that have civil/human rights violations, then you’re an isolationist, and cuba being on the better end of the spectrum shouldn’t matter to you.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Your reading comprehension skills are pretty low if you think I actually believe two people lived in a garden and our universal and undefined Father that created everything but specifically likes to talk to us kicked us out of because we ate fruit a talking snake was pushing. I’m deconstructing claims made by people who do believe this and showing how their arguments don’t even stand up to their own given logic, much less my own. I really don’t waste time arguing these obvious parts because we’re actually at the table discussing it already. If I have to explain to someone why I don’t believe in talking snakes, we’re not exactly starting on an even footing where we’re ever going to convince eachother of anything.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

By the way, I always find it interesting that those who propose Pascal’s Wager are Christians that consider the exact same decision by Adam in Genesis when presented with choice to trust a fantastic being, Satan, to be the key flaw and original wrong that earned Mankind’s ire from the creator of everything. If Adam had went “You know what, the sky talks to me and so do snakes, I’m going to stop listening to shit that doesn’t have a voicebox” we’d still be partying in heaven’s garden, but instead he gambles on shit he knows nothing about and gets fucked because he doesn’t actually know the stakes at all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Surely you’re not earnestly using pascal’s wager without also knowing its inherent flaws? For instance, it’s predicated on the premise that there is only one choice of Gods, which there is not.

The one God Pascal is wagering with promises everlasting life in exchange for belief in itself, which is where the entire concept of “infinite benefit” comes from. But if we’re playing by the rules of made up Gods, what’s to say that a given God wouldn’t be deeply hurt, offended, put off, or jealous of your relationship with a different God that you worshiped throughout your life? What’s to say that your treatment would be any worse or better than someone who believed in no Gods at all? What’s to say this hypothetical God is dolling out rewards at all?

Okay, let’s say you somehow picked the right God (which is not a 50% gamble), and it does really reward people for adherence, belief, acceptance, what have you. Does this supreme, omniscient creature (another assumption about what the term God means, and another variable that would entirely rebuke this line of argument) have such a fickle and incidental set of rules that your disingenuous gambit is good enough to make the grade? If you only believed because you thought you’d benefit, not because you actually believed (which, astoundingly, I don’t think people realize is possible) how can you be certain that the God will appreciate that?

So the gamble isn’t black or red. It’s either that the universe appears exactly as it is and you can spend your life assuming it is, and if a God is real you can honestly admit you had no clear indication that their theology was any more relevant or logical than anyone else’s and let the God judge you, or you can choose to believe the universe works in a very specific lottery number way and let the God judge you, or if there’s no God at all have wasted, in a very real and ironic way, your entire life.

[Edit: I should clarify, I am not saying belief in a god is a waste of life, I’m saying that belief in a God as a gamble for infinite life is a wasted gamble at best, or a profoundly troubling statement about the predicated value of your life in terms of your beliefs about the universe, especially if you’re right.]

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I feel like I got to be part of something special, like I was a member of the dig crew on a brand new discovery of a new, unknown ancient culture’s writings. Thank you for that.

Not believing in something because it doesn’t benefit you is as dumb as believing in something simply because you believe it does.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Let's discuss Bill Cosby the serial rapist

I too refer my ambiguous moral challenges to the infallible high courts. We must trust and have sacred faith in justice and law and something platitude.

I think Bill Cosby is a serial rapist. I read the accounts and they hardly sound made up to me. 10 people don’t paint a convincingly consistent and realistic painting of a manipulative, maladaptive rapist of entitlement based only on one other person’s suggestion of assault that has yet to be fully exposed publicly. I think it’s a little bit ludicrous and special pleading because cosby is a nice guy to suggest otherwise, honestly.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The 22 Times Obama Argued Against Executive Amnesty

Wait wait wait, Obama is a politician that wants to get elected and thus his convictions don’t match his policies!? Since you’re one of the democrats who voted for him, and you’re in favor of reforming a more liberal immigration policy, you’re simply concerned with his use of Executive Orders, right? Oh no? You’re a conservative who doesn’t like what the executive order is so you’re feigning interest in the efficacy of Obama’s promises in order to feel validated in your historically inaccurate and politically toxic opinions about our current president!? Great, good to know we can safely categorize your opinion as “selective baiting.” This is as dumb as GWB criticism of his public speaking having fuckall to do with his policies. A president you didn’t like used the stupid system by which he can bypass congress, just like every other president has.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / What the hell is wrong with the country?

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ebola

Ebola is on the news because it’s midterm election season. The flu is airborne and kills 36,000 times as many people in the US and is incurable. Journalism is dead. Thread’s over.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

By the way, I’m a big arrogant asshole. There I said it so you don’t have to.

Really, I just know things about actual communication theory and how language evolves to address the needs of a culture, that prescriptive language is the origin of a lot of bad thinking and logic, and that people who use prescriptive language are especially easy to refute in court, be it legal, or the court of the social scene where common sense rules.

Shit, usually I’m the one defending people’s practical use of language even if it accidentally offends others, but you literally have responded to scenarios in which communication is the thing that happens between two people who’s understanding of identity are different, and you still choose to prescribe your understanding of language to others, not because you’ll admit it makes you comfortable, but you actually think that you’re fighting the very thing you’re doing to others with your logic. It’s actually profoundly ironic when I laid it out on paper after re-reading this thread.

So honestly, I’m not trying to pick on you, I am just kind of tired of the merry go rounds on this site and I’m done coddling people, especially people who show the capacity to actually hold challenging and insightful discussions about identity and language but instead choose to pick low hanging fruit.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Since I’m a big meanie, I reread this thread to decide what I should apologize for, and recognized that you barely addressed any of my points and chose to argue with people you know are long winded so you can make a pissing match out of context stripped quotes in response to some other dumb shit you said 3 posts previous. You’re clearly intelligent enough to make a concise point, but you engage in shit that makes you feel smarter instead of actually challenging your own thinking. We’re not even breaching a philosophically fruitful conversation, I’m just spending energy explaining to you that your interpretation of what language is for and how it proliferates is unrealistic and idealistic, and only really means you either have discomfort and lack of understanding for people with different identities than yourself, or you’re just so happy to hear yourself talk that you are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

[If you disagree with this last paragraph, good I kind of assumed you would. Don’t quote parts of it and make an argument out of this part, I’m not going to negotiate my opinion of your shitty argument style. Pay attention to the second half of this post where I strawman your beliefs in a fruitless effort to show you how obtuse and prescriptive your definition of language is and how it hurts people and not communication at all.]

Let me amend my first post to reflect the closest thing you’ve done to justifying why your aspergers interpretation of language as a system of communication that cannot maintain coherency without strict, dictated rules isn’t either a real actual thing or that it should ever be enforced like a law as you’ve expressed it:

New Person: “Hi my name is Larry.”
BigAss replies: “Let me see your ID.”
Larry seems confused: “Uh… why?”
BigAss hamfists the strangers’ wallet from his pocket, discovers that Larry’s legal name is ‘Ashley.’ and lets out a glorious and triumphant squee. “I will call you Ashley!”
Larry sighs “I shouldn’t have to explain this to anyone in order to get a basic level of respect, but my Father’s name is Ashley, and he was abusive, so I go by my uncle’s first name, a man who took care of me my whole life. I don’t have the money to change it right now, and it’s kind of a sensitive topic, so changing it is even hard. So I just prefer people call me Larry.”

BigAss hopefully goes home and rethinks his obsessive application of identity to others as if it holds together the fabric of society when in fact he’s just a dick.

In case you can’t follow my thinking, I’ll extrapolate it for you.

Alex: “They don’t really identify as a gender, and would prefer you didn’t call them a she.”
BigAssTheRobot: “THE ONLY REASON WE USE GENDER PRONOUNS IS TO IDENTIFY EACHOTHERS GENITAL PARTS. WHAT IS SAID INDIVIDUAL’S BIRTH SEX!? ENGLISH WAS MADE WHOLECLOTH BY PERFECT WHITE PEOPLE AND ITS INADEQUACY TO ADDRESS MODERN VALUES AND CONCEPTS MEANS THOSE CONCEPTS ARE WRONG AND NOT LANGUAGE. I AM A ROBOT. I HAVE NO EMPATHY. THE MINUTE OF AWKWARDNESS TO FIGURE OUT THAT SOMEONE WITH A DIFFERENTLY GENDERED NAME DOESN’T GO BY THAT NAME’S TRADITIONAL PRONOUN, OR TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOMEONE’S REFERENCE TO A PERSON’S GENERALIZED PRONOUN WASN’T IN REFERENCE TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE WILL CORRUPT MY SYSTEM OF PRIVILEGE!”

I mean, how do you think we got any words at all to begin with? I acknowledged these are strawmen points, so if you quote me a bunch and try to pick this shit apart, you didn’t get the overall point of my post. Address it as a whole thing, not as parts. If I’m wrong, it should be easy to sidestep and clarify that you’re not this caricature. But I’m not wrong, you haven’t made any coherent argument besides this one so you’ll bear down, say you’re not saying this, and then repeat yourself.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is my being a white, cisgender, heterosexual male a bad thing?

Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by jaytotheareokay:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

You can either accept your privilege or not. Either way you still have it. Considering you’re butthurt over lacking something to be oppressed over that you’re calling people’s despising your privilege a form of oppression itself, I think you’re going to be just fine. If that’s the worst you have to deal with, be thankful. Spend one day shopping with a black friend and then stop talking. Exit the house as a female and experience the sexual entitlement. Be something other than a white straight male once it’s dark out. Because you can’t, you’ll never know the experiences of others. That’s the whole thing people are upset with you about: Instead of acknowledging that you don’t know and regularly contribute to those people’s experiences, you complain about what little inconvenience your privilege causes you.

As a white cisgendered male, you are being a bigot here. I have a number of racial and sexual minority friends, and we all get along very well. Everyone has fun together and race, sexuality, and gender I.D. rarely come up. Most of usgrew up poor, in the Midwest. I never went to college, but I got a job as a machinist and worked hard for everything I own. You saying that all white people are privileged, and that its okay to be angry at a group for the actions of some of their ancestors is very insensitive of you. Btw my ancestors are largely Norwegian and Amish, mostly arriving in America after the civil war. Everyone has different life experiences, so judging someone based on what they look like is wrong no matter what.

No you don’t, haven’t you been listening? White people and black people cannot be friends because whites simply cannot comprehend what it means to be black, same way heterosexual people and homosexual people cannot get along because they are so different. There are huge differences between races and sexualities and you are being a racist/sexist by trying to befriend them and pretend to understand them.

Just trying to predict the reply if it’s anything like what you quoted

Because trying to point out the fact that privilege is a thing means you can’t have black friends? What? Did this post make you feel smart or am I just failing at reading comprehension?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Wait, how am I still arguing in this thread without having posted?

On topic: The pedantic bullshit this guy puts people through just so he can defend the sanctity of language is ironic. Because language doesn’t describe culture and ideas, it dictates them! Those crazy gender bending queerfags better get with the program and make their genders fit a language invented thousands of years ago or they don’t exists and/or language is broken irreparably and the fabric of society will come unspun.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

White privileged people have lots of opinions about things that don’t effect them at all. Call people by the pronouns they ask you to and get the fuck over yourself. “But that person-” shut up. “What if I want to” shut up. “It isn’t fair that…” Shut. The. Hell. Up. You’re the one who’s being unreasonable. Someone asked you to respect them, showed you how, and you didn’t want to because of the sanctity of grammar. You know the tool for communication, not ascribing authority? I’m far from the most politically correct person, but there’s a difference between sweeping edicts that are decided by special interest groups and someone just telling you how they’d prefer you refer to them. “My name is Adam.” “Nah, I’m going to call you Larry.” “Why?” "Because I have some deep convictions about words that supersede your’s, and I’m the “normal” one between us."

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should women serve in the military?

Originally posted by Sharangir:

Who cares if they perform better or worse, just accept the ones that apply and meet the requirements. Anything else just seems to me to be irrational hatred towards women.

This was the conclusion I ended up drawing after my original beliefs were challenged in that thread and I did more research on what some of the most effective and non-political generals have expressed, including female generals. I enjoy the thread Karma quoted as it’s a wonderful example of my willingness to grow when my beliefs are adequately challenged.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Kongregate Serious Discussion Meetup September 2014

Sorry I couldn’t make it, my mom wouldn’t bring me because she had to shave my back instead. I heard Vika got drunk and tried to prove we live in a simulation while standing on a table in the MLP fursuit Karma brought?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgender Individuals

Part of gender and sexual dysphoria comes from our confusion between expressed sexual traits and social sexual traits. What we associate with femininity and masculinity is not always a physical, innate thing, but is more often than not a fabrication of a contemporary society. Our modern concepts of personal and social identity aren’t very articulate yet, and I think if people got over terms and actually thought about many of these concepts, they’d recognize them as pretty obvious. I think most of us are forced into roles in society that we eventually mold ourselves into, where other roles we seem to fit instantly without having to learn very much about that role at all. The issues come from society dictating those roles in such harsh ways that people aren’t allowed to fulfill the identity roles they feel most in tune with at that point in their life. Allowing people to explore, grow, change, and understand their identities is part of a healthy society, and it extends to things far beyond gender and sexuality, too.