Recent posts by TheBSG on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Theoretic Wonders: Infinite power! Unlimited fun!

I was watching The Game Theorist episodes on the practical realism of the Bioshock series’ two unlikely cities, Rapture and Columbia when I thought of an interesting sort of forum “game” we could have here.

What would you build with infinite resources, time, and help?
Describe an invention, structure, or feat mankind could conceivably achieve with today’s technology and understanding of that technology, but is simply impractical as far as resources, time devoted, or importance goes.

The goal of these creations is intended to be interesting, and needn’t be entirely useful or important at all. Considering we’re relying on infinite resources, I urge against trying to debate the logic of devoting any time or resources to it. Being serious discussion, the major goal is to support the actual feasibility of your creation. Use links, cite them, and debate the realism of other people’s ideas using your own understanding and citations. This should be fun. Try to avoid using fantasy interpretations of quantum physics and whatnot, and stick to experiments we’re doing today.

(Don’t feed the trolls who invent things to make poor people into food or some dumb shit like that please, thanks. I don’t care what it does so much as the technological feat or new perspective that creation would give us. This isn’t a moral debate thread.)

Examples could be turning the grand canyon into a ball pit and whether there could be a reliable system for retrieving children. Or what about creating a manmade lava flow in my house, can I do that safely? Is there any kind of way we could build a ship to send someone inside of the sun and survive? Could my body withstand the forces that a bouncy ball experiences, because I really want to build a giant one with a shock-absorbing harness inside and get thrown around a giant gym, or would I not get the same intense speed as a real superball?

[P.S. I think I’ll tackle the sun one tomorrow, but in general, I just wanted to get things going with some unresearched ideas]

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pledge of Mindfulness (Or BSG's last ditch effort)

While that’s nice of you to say, I said 3+ years ago for a reason. I was a chat moderator for 6 years, 3 of which I was quite active for. Then I spent more time here. Because I was directly involved in discussions and Phoenix was here, I was able to take more of a traditional user role. For example, I’ve absolutely had snarky posts of mine deleted that I probably knew didn’t belong here in the first place. Had I instead chose to take a more responsible route, I honestly might have been able to get a job with Kongregate, and I sort of regret that. Sort of.

Considering I’m now a bit disenfranchised with the website, specifically these forums, and I am no longer a chat moderator or in any way associated to the administration, I think it’s incredibly inappropriate for me to suggest as much, even if I wanted to. Read: I really really really don’t want that unpaid position where I have to be a public relations officer without any of the power with even more of the responsibility. Donseptico is the crazy bastard that accepted that fool’s errand. You really ought to put your faith in him and hear what his plans are instead.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pledge of Mindfulness (Or BSG's last ditch effort)

Do I have to? To be honest I kind of gave up on this pledge and this place. Not a whole lot to save when I can just e-mail the 4 remaining people I even like. I probably should’ve cared more 3+ years ago and asked to moderate SD but hindsight.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Vika: My creepy snuff film comment was totally couched in playfulness as well, and I think your clarification actually somehow legitimized that exchange, so thanks :P

Thread: I wish people didn’t give me credit for the whole pledge thread since I actively abandoned it, myself.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

When I said “Bang” I meant slang for “Sexual Intercourse.” I’d think the penetrative gun simile would be retained in whatever language or culture. You want to see them shoot eachother. That’s stranger and somehow creepier than you wanting to see them bang.

These posts are going to get deleted for being off topic now, not cause they’re dirty. That’s kind of sad to me.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

You have strange kinks if you want to watch that snuff film. :V

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

If you guys don’t bang in the next year I am going to owe someone money.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Originally posted by vikaTae:

I wouldn’t say it is beyond help, especially since users stillactually wish to be here, and to contribute. I’ve seen other communities where usership was also highly anonymous, and yet a real sense of community was formed. MUDs are good at that, so was TinyMush. So are most communal virtual environments (although they fracture, obviously). It’s not the lack of full ID that’s the problem, but the lack of any real direction or hard-and-fast rules with real consequences that’s causing the headches here.

Most of us old-timers on the forum are used to frankly, getting our own way with no real come-uppance if we push too far over the line. As a result we’ve all become a bit sloppy at noticing where that line actually is. Some more than others, but we’ve all done it. Whereas a newer user without the volume and gestalt of clout we’ve accumulated over the years, does not have anywhere near as free a reign, and when they try to copy how we’re behaving, it all comes unstuck for them.

EDIT: Apparently my spelling is ‘beyond help’ :P

I’m really guilty of perpetuating this, I feel.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

Social Justice Warrior.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

I strongly disagree that any of the owners want any users’ accounts banned if they can manage it. When the people paying you don’t understand the efficacy of your metrics, you do everything you can to maintain and grow that digit.

Your whole “SJW” whining is pretty annoying though. Usually generalizations like that are revealing. Edit: Oh, you meant to do that

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Metadiscussion On "Serious Discussion": A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Components and Purpose

A little ironic but otherwise, good post. I’ll read it next time I get the bad idea to post here.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Curious observation about weed users.

I’ll try one more time:

My posts are half hyperbolic and tongue in cheek. I’m sharing my flippant view (which is somewhat accurate to what I anecdotally experience, but not something I’d argue in a forum or claim objectivity to.) to illustrate how this is neither serious discussion, or a philosophical conundrum. If in a specific situation someone is an asshole, just assume THEY’RE the assholes and not everyone who wears the same colored shirts.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Curious observation about weed users.

Many and most plastics give off worse chemicals than cannabis or cigarettes do. Fluorescent lights also give off some pretty toxic gases, and do so persistently for far longer than second hand smoke does. You can’t smell and don’t know shit about these things and therefore they don’t bother you and many people would fit in the ven diagram of caring about one and thinking people who care about the other are vapid and selective in their cares. This site is so full of posts like this. “I had one or more minorly inconvenient or shitty encounters and couldn’t see far enough past my nose to give people the benefit of the doubt and now I’m applying those beliefs wholesale to everyone. Validate my emotions in a pseudo-intellectual forum so I don’t have to reconcile the differences in the universe.”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Curious observation about weed users.

Also, cars cause significantly more damage to your lungs in a day than individual smokers, is the point. People are selective about the things they care about. If you’re not an environmental activist but you complain about cigarette smoke, and you don’t see the [yes, actual] irony in that, you’re daft. I totally hate the smell of smoke by the way, and grew up with an incredibly entitled father who smoked in the home even though we asked him not to. He was a jerk about it. Smoking, however, is not innately a jerk thing, and when anyone mentions cannabis, the first complaint is “pew someone I once knew made a stinky weed and now I think all weed is stinky and it infringes on my nostrils.” Stinky stuff sucks, but let’s put the complaint in context and in perspective. ESPECIALLY e-cig vapor, which all statistics for are laughably without context.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Curious observation about weed users.

Again, I know lots and lots of totally awesome people who, when they’re annoyed by smoke, mention it. I’ve also seen a ton of shitty smokers who shrug when someone says they don’t like smoke, or who smokes right next to a bus stop full of people. It goes both ways. The difference is that society advocates telling smokers to fuck off before they’re ever given that grace. I personally don’t smoke, or smoke cannabis in public, so I’m not even being defensive of anything I do, I just wanted to balance the arguments out and show how anecdotes about people being shitty are just that.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Curious observation about weed users.

By the way, the only thing you accomplish by tossing passive aggressive personal insults at me is my lack of respect for you. I call smoke activists entitled whiners and you suggest an openly disabled member of the forums is having health problems and that’s why their opinions don’t align with yours? What’s the end goal with that kind of behavior?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Curious observation about weed users.

The fumes that a car gives off have billions of chemicals in far less cubic space than any imbibed substance’s second hand smoke. You’re selectively upset because of societal norms and nothing else. Since we were sharing anecdotal opinions, I think people who feel assaulted by toxins are vapid and probably do rude things all day that they don’t bat an eye at, but consider transgressions society has demonized to be secret opportunities to shit blood like they’ve always wanted.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Curious observation about weed users.

I have never liked anyone who complains about cigarette/cannabis smoke. Anyone who’s actually bothered by it (usually because they have a condition of some kind) is almost always really nice and either moves away or asks other people to please move. People who feel the need to declare how entitled they are to avoid gasses are just using social stigmas as an excuse to be important feeling. “Oh no, that smell was disagreeable to my nose. Wait, that’s one of those socially unacceptable smells, I get to bitch loudly!”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Philosohpy & Religon

I’m not fond of the ego inherent in modern American Christianity. I have a love/hate relationship with Catholicism, as I find shame to be disgusting, but Catholic Priests and Nuns have been some of the most philosophically, scientifically, and practically aware religious people I’ve personally known. I get along well with Baptist and grew up going to a friend’s Presbyterian church simply because I really enjoyed the communities, and when I move to a new place, I usually look for one of these churches to visit and meet people.

Some of my earliest enjoyment of literature was reading and dissecting the Bible, and appreciating Jesus’ response to the tyranny of Orthodoxy and how it served the masters instead of the individuals, but I’m not sure much of that is actually religious. The character I like is a revolutionary that challenges the faith people have in power and the privilege of the people making decisions. I find the reverence for Jesus’ sacrifice to be uninteresting, while the entire death of Christ, to me, is a fascinating dissection of what duty, sacrifice, and self even mean. The discussion Christ has with Pilate is deeply fascinating and talks about responsibility in a way few works do. One of my favorite plays, Jesus Christ Superstar captures the Christ story in a way I’ve always found a lot more meaningfully than most other materials treat it. Sure, we still get the morose cross dragging and fawning over Christ, but the dialogue of Christ himself is a lot more nuanced.

I am of the entirely debatable belief that Jesus probably spent time either with a teacher from Asia, or traveled on the silk road himself to Asia. Many of the phrasings in the Bible are either ripped off from Buddha to proliferate Jesus’ teachings, or the man himself was referencing Buddhist teachings he himself found when he went there.

I was incredibly interested in Buddhism as a kid, and attempted orthodox taoist buddhism for a few months and then fell back into a more casual American Shinto Buddhism for less than a year. Buddhism is a great personal belief, but fails in higher social orders, and relies heavily on a cultural adherence to conformity. I’m into Jewish and Muslim women for some reason. Their practical, no-nonsense nature tends to really appeal to me, and when we argue about the universe we’re both just attracted to the fact that the other one cares. I’ve definitely considered the possibility that I may one day live in an religiously intersectional family in the future.

I personally identify significantly with Rumi’s writings, despite being the logically minded person that I am. Sufism is a mystical Islamic school of belief that does away with the strict adherence to rules and regulations, and embraces more mystical, inexplicable things about life. They believe that love, beauty, peace, and anything that celebrates the creation of God Allah is holy. Some Sufi imbibe in drugs and the pleasures of non-marital sex, disbelieve in virginity, and were allowed many graces in conservative Islamic cultures. His poetry moves me deeply, and puts me into the closest feeling of religious oneness I get.

External ethical philosophy is a bit of a different, more argumentative thing that I will abstain from in this thread.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I meant it was a chicken and egg situation in that if something creates universes, but require a universe to exist within it, then it’s indeterminate which came first. I might argue there could be an unknown state of origin, but the whole point of my argument is your second point that cognition or concepts of morality are so inherently not part of that original origin and I don’t feel like I’m making a claim to say as much.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I wanted to make this a separate post because I think we can move forward with this:

I find theists who recognize that religion is a good metaphor for talking about cosmology and extra-reality concepts are the most agreeable and identifiable people, for me. They still have internal logic and hold themselves accountable for recognizing reality. They don’t see those metaphors and similes as edicts or demands, although I think sometimes their folk upbringings make them forget that they’re just stories.

If I were to define a God, I’d say there are super-memes that are subjected to selection by humans and are reflections of our group psychology. These memes impact and are impacted by the actions of man, and thus can be described themselves. For example, the same way some animals evolve to care for their young in the nest and others leave their young after birth for various benefits and costs, human memes have served various masters, means, and needs. The greater depth of communication humans have over a wider area, the more strength and influence these memes have. Gods are just specific ways to package memes that have themselves developed over time based on influences. Some gods were useful to leaders, other Gods were useful to a great number of people. [Oh good lord I almost wrote an essay.] Campbell nicely said much of this and was grossly misunderstood for it.

(I still think letting people blame memes for their personal agency gives memes the most power, and that’s while you’ll find me arguing with atheists more often than not because they’re making the same logical jumps that theists do, while giving those beliefs more power than religions ever possibly could.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I’m not sure it must be a universe, or a sysop, as I think it’s somewhat indescribable and therein lies a chicken and egg conundrum. It’s a fascinating question. You know what isn’t a comprehensive or even laughable answer to that question? A personalized character that views human morality as a material and gifts perpetual survival to species that are in its graces, or any other ability that is attributed to entirely hypothetical supersystems by man. I will never truly appreciate how people can be so literal about what seems so obviously necessarily representational.

I think a lot of theists even explain that their beliefs transcend human speech (but then try to explain it), but the very priori of our minds themselves secludes us from that knowledge. The same way we don’t know what it’s like to be a single cell, we don’t know what it’s like to “be” the laws of the universe. That’s just a misnomer. You can use it to say beautiful, thought provoking things about us and the universe, but you know you’re not actually talking about the actual universe when you’re doing this, right religious-type people? Feeling something is inspirational or beyond you doesn’t make it true.

Gravity explains how mass is attracted to other mass. It doesn’t mean mass loves other mass, but you could totally write a cool poem about that. Gravity is a great metaphor for love or all kinds of other ideas. It doesn’t mean that gravity is a dude who loves things to be close together. Obviously.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Right, I almost went on to explain what you and I consider to be nearly inevitable God-like beings, but I figured that’d muddle the point. I don’t believe a specific God-like being exists that has specific traits or is necessary for the universe to function. I simply believe that a species can reach a point we would consider to be godlike. I still think that definition would be qualitative and not quantified. The concept of a “supreme” being just isn’t applicable. My belief in potential beings that inhabit the universe are cute postulations and nothing more.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I don’t?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I think that if you want to discuss morality, do that. If you want to discuss the structure of the universe, do that. If you think the two are somehow related, show why in a coherent and defensible way. I have not heard a compelling argument that equates the two from any known philosopher or person yet, and no definition of an original force has adequately unified the concepts, and I am unconvinced the concepts even need reconciliation. The same way that I do not think that flavors have anything to do with the structure of existence beyond the obvious categorical relationships, either.