Recent posts by Winnabago on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Tolerance can be "fake" and lead to disasters.

Originally posted by somebody613:

@Win
I thought of a better name: “misplaced tolerance”.
Thanks for spurting my thinking process on that. :D

Can you give a specific set of rules for how one determines if tolerance is misplaced?

What’s important? Abnormality? General public dislike? Causing of physical harm?

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's your religion?

Originally posted by somebody613:

@Win
Well, some people witnessed miracles, so it’s a fact for THEM.

How do we know their observations are accurate?

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's your religion?

If you can’t prove miracles, then why are they relevant?

Again, how can you prove God?

What assumptions and theory do I, as a (sort of) solipsist, have?

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Tolerance can be "fake" and lead to disasters.

There is no “fake tolerance”: tolerance is simply unjustified tolerance on occasion, and you still must explain why. ‘

Tolerating abusers is still perfectly genuine tolerance, if abusers are actually being tolerated.

Otherwise, I could call tolerating Jews “Fake tolerance”. I don’t actually hate Jews at all, I merely know it’s a group that you don’t hate.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

“I already acknowledge the arguments against child slavery and understand their importance, but I just want you to say them”

Way to read just one sentence. If it’s until they’re 18, it’s indentured servitude.

2. Children in general are less capable of knowing or handling harsh consequences.
3. Children in general should still follow an education at their age instead of already finding work.

Not sure why you think this would happen if they were left alone.

So there are once again limitations set in place.

Wrong. There are already existing limitations on harming children, and we would keep those. If those limitations inherently apply to people having sex with small children, then you would prosecute those people with harming children every single time, just as you would prosecute anyone for harming children.

how unfair would it be if the kids still starve just because there’s no customers for them?

Horribly unfair. Free-market solutions generally are. However, better to save some children than none of them.

What I mean is that no firm would be for your idea, because no firm is going to want to do this. It’s unprofitable.

Not much point in banning unprofitable things. Whatever you do, airline companies, you can’t fly craft directly into the sun.

Indifference leads to condoning the act.

You literally just said that not giving 25% of our food to Africa is not condoning starving children, implying that not fixing Africa doesn’t mean you’re condoning a broken Africa.

The media will paint you as a pedophile or child-hater

I want to solve a problem. If no one likes this way, that’s fine, but it no way hurts the validity of the solution.

Removing the workers is taking something away from them that belongs to them.

1. Workers do not own their own factories.
2. Getting rid of a job opportunity (defining “job” as exchanging resources for a service) doesn’t actually get rid of the problem, any more than shutting down a factory solves the problem. The kids are now starving, the workers are now unemployed, as opposed to how they were with jobs available.

Keeping something banned is not taking anything away.

When something is banned, people are not allowed to do it, like, say, growing pot in my backyard. I can no longer sell my pot legally, so that job and income has been taken away.

They shouldn’t be forced to take this decision, neither should any of the two be a bad decision.

When you’re deciding whether or not to ban something, that’s called “making a decision”. Some option might be bad, some option might be good.

If the kids don’t want the job, good for them. Looks like you didn’t need the law in the first place.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by somebody613:

And I like it.
Also, by being rude and stupid, you prove nothing, except those very things.

I assume it is “fake tolerance” to allow Jews to marry?

Jews cannot be found anywhere in the wild, they must be unnatural.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by somebody613:

I find YOUR stupid fake tolerance to be the fastest way to society’s destruction.
But who cares what I think?
All you care, is your animal desires.
Well, have a happy horse then. :D

I hope you realize that being Jewish is not normal.

Topic: Serious Discussion / World without Religion: Better or Worse?

Okay, so normal soldiers do not want to be killed.

That is by no means a universal moral value, that is a common moral value that many, but not all, people share that is a matter of subjectivity.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by somebody613:

@Win
So why should GAYS show it in public?
For some people (like me) it look equally YUCK.
Why are you letting THEM to infringe on MY rights of having a pleasant walk in the street?
Our rights are of the same level, btw.
So, “harming” starts at the emotional level.
And here, they ARE harming a lot of people.

Because gays don’t have sex in public? You can walk around with a horse all you like. Hold hands. Fuck, make out if you want to. Just don’t let the horse poop on the street, k?

Topic: Serious Discussion / World without Religion: Better or Worse?

Soldiers might want to get killed. It is possible. Not wanting to be killed isn’t a universal moral by any stretch.

Topic: Serious Discussion / World without Religion: Better or Worse?

The right one is, “no one wants to be KILLED aka against his/her will”.

That’s an objective statement equivalent to “no one wants for things to happen against their will” or, even simpler, “no one wants what they do not want”.

It has nothing to do with value, for the same reason that “x=x” doesn’t tell you the value of x.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

a government that does not wish to help them or can not help them and does not wish for outsiders to help them.

So the government of Somalia doesn’t let you come in. This prevents any suggestion from being possible.

for your sexual pleasure were actually starving before or even came from that country originally.

Then it sounds like whatever country they’re coming from is too messed up to even keep records of kidnappings. The worst problem would be that a child that is not starving would end up kidnapped and deported. So let’s make this easier: have it depend on the choice of the child. That way, you can always ask if there’s been a kidnapping.

a serious lack of unified willingness/commit to possible solutions on the side of those with political and especially military power.

You do realize “committing to solutions” costs money, right? Governments have to pay people to do that. So, again, you’re lobbying for funding. Maybe afterwards you can set yourself up with Jump Rope for Heart.

Winnabago does not get to fuck a child.

I don’t want to fuck children. That would be DarkBaron, and even those children are 16.

(embargoes that aim at the political leaders/trouble makers and not the masses)

How does one pull this off, if the political leaders gain money by taxing the masses?

These solutions can be relocating children and parents out of such regions(without Winnabago fucking them for his personal amusement),

That costs money. My goal was not to have a refugee camp problem, and to hopefully get children out through sheer force of free market, which tends not to run out of funding.

to stop or contain civil wars and/or get the governments in questions to effectively help in solving the problem and to accept foreign help if needed.

Cure cancer, once you’re done.

example birth control being banned legally or at least made a social taboo(leading to overpopulation).

An excellent starting point.

pumping massive amounts of free food from outside into a region which leads to destroying the local agricultural industry.

This is the main problem with making aid easy for people to obtain: it’s impossible for a local producer to profit off of producing aid supplies (food, meds, etc), so no one ever does.

I hope there’s some sort of magical aid number somewhere where aid is freely available yet a local capitalist can still profit by selling things that are being provided by aid groups, but I’m not sure how you would do it. Perhaps aid groups could send money instead of food?

Topic: Serious Discussion / World without Religion: Better or Worse?

The crack-the-egg thing was in, I believe, two factions of Lilliputians, and was supposed to be, funnily enough, a metaphor for the retarded differences between Protestants and Catholics. They both “eat eggs”, or worship God, just in two different ways, and it’s a bit silly to fight over it.

However, they did anyway. That’s why Mary Tudor killed lots of Protestants. The main problem with religion is that a government can use it to justify their political killings: the Crusades, Carlos V’s invasion of England, the Muslim invasions of pretty much everywhere, the persecution of various non-Catholic sects in early Christianity, etc

Originally posted by somebody613:

@Win
1. I disagree.
2. I was talking about SANE people.
3. Whatever, you lot always have an “opinion”, just to argue with me.

Then you can deem whatever you like to be “insane” and declare whatever opinion you like “objectively true” because you have decided everyone without that opinion is insane.

For example: purple is objectively the best color, because everyone who does not like purple is insane.

Topic: Serious Discussion / World without Religion: Better or Worse?

@somebody: Not every person considers their lives to be valuable.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Sure, as long as you can figure out if the animal is consenting.

For example, having sex with a hamster is almost certainly animal cruelty. If it’s a horse or something, just don’t do it in public.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

@Darkruler: Would you like to provide some arguments against all child slavery (though this would be until the child turns 18, so make it child indentured servitude)

Having sex with a small child will lead to physical harm, no matter how careful you are

Assuming the above, I should think that someone having sex with a small child should be prosecuted for harming small children.

I haven’t brought this up yet, but don’t you think the whole costs of getting a child here, making sure everything’s all right back in their country, and making sure everything’s all right in this country, is more than the slight income you get for a few weeks? No firm is going to accept that. And the government would have to choose to condone pedophilia while wasting more money than they gain.

Why does legalizing something make you pay for it? Why does indifference count as condonation?

If it’s so necessary to make sure things are alright in this country, then isn’t the real problem that this rule doesn’t apply to other countries? Because that’s the problem we’re trying to solve here.

If it’s fine in starvation circumstances, why not in others?

Because I’m trying to prevent starvation.

I doubt the majority of people will see it like that.

That’s not the issue.

the government allows one to have sex with those too poor to resist the temptation?”.

Ridiculous. That’s like finding a factory in China where workers work for long hours with low pay and terrible working conditions, and shutting down the factory. Now those workers are out of a fucking job, which ruins everything more.

Getting rid of a job opportunity (as sick as the job is) doesn’t actually change the fact that there are people suffering so much that they are willing to do it, and you are helping to make them suffer more.
@johnnybegood

lets allow them to import “starving” children from these places (where we can´t even control our own shit) to satisfy their own desires.

So you don’t want to do this, because you’re worried about corruption causing suffering, like that won’t ALREADY HAPPEN to these kids if they LIVE in it, as opposed to while they get out?

It most definitely will go wrong. But I think it might go less wrong then dicking around and feeling sympathetic.

Working politically and socially(Networking) to lobby and influence for a smarter and more humanitarian foreign policy in my home country, the EU and the UN.

When you’re done doing that, you can raise awareness for breast cancer. Seriously, that’s not a solution, that barely borders on “ask nicely for money to pay for a solution”.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Re-reading this thread, I’ve only just now realized that the lack of ‘practical’ choices between importing children as slaves or letting them starve

I don’t think I ever said this, nor do I think this. I am open to any sort of solution, but “lobbying for a smarter system” is more than pathetic, partially because what would define a smarter system (which was sort of what I was asking for) wasn’t mentioned.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

Child sexual slavery is illegal for obvious reasons I honestly don’t hope I have to understand. The default position was legal, arguments were brought up to make it illegal, and it was done.

In the legal system, nothing’s ever “done”. You have to have arguments to make it illegal for every single situation, or there’s no point in legislating against that situation.

Why such an extreme suggestion?

Because non-controversial topics don’t need threads?

Making a population more self-sufficient is an excellent idea.

Let’s just say even if the pedophiles out there don’t want to harm the children, their actions will undoubtedly physically harm the smaller ones.

Then they are prosecuted for harming children.

I’m sure it doesn’t take too long before this child isn’t starving any more

Whole point of the operation, yes. As for citizenship issues, that’s why there’s adoptions.

again ironically, discriminating against non-starving kids that also want to have sex for money.

They’re not starving. What would the point be?

arguing “it already happens” isn’t really a good reason.

It’s silly to say that leaving things the way they are is somehow superior, or that using just one method is superior (which it might be, depending on how much money you spend).

You haven’t explained exactly how more suffering would result, you’ve simply said that suffering would result, and it would also be really complicated to not simply ban something entirely.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

It will reduce the quality of society by arguing trivial issues.

Why? My milk might not be healthy, but milk generally tends to be healthy. You have every bit as much reason to worry about your milk being healthy as I do, yet society plods along somehow.

For example, why don’t you worry about poisonous dragons in your milk? What makes you think that’s impossible? Maybe from an examination of your perception of reality’s laws and the fact that you have never perceived a case of poisonous milk-dragons?

Sort of exactly like me?

It is not important, not relevant and, frankly, it kind of even relates to how science sees the world.

Despite being irrelevant and useless, it’s accurate, and there’s nothing deplorable in accuracy. It also allows me to counter a religious person saying “well, how do you know anything then” because I mostly don’t.

All we do is find evidence towards existence and such, and then claim we have enough evidence to say it exists.

Prove the brick wall exists. If you wish to cite your physical senses, I suggest you prove those too.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

Which means certain death, but it matters not. That’s what I’m talking about any way.

We seem to agree that there are fates worse than death, so why work with mere death here? Starvation doesn’t mean starving to death: people can live for long periods on vile scraps. They will just suffer a lot.

Implying it’s our fault.

Certainly not. Letting children suffer, however, should be minimized.

It implies blame is put where there is none to be put. And here:

Not blame at all, that’s what Twilight told me she wanted the law to be. I’m not blaming her for any state of current events.

Again, not implementing the law that everyone should share 25% of their food with the hungry doesn’t condone leaving the hungry to starve.

Legality should be your default position. There’s no point in making a comparison to implementing a law, because I’m not suggesting that. And if letting something happen isn’t condoning it, then making something legal isn’t condoning it either.

Because the choice is not made to share food by stealing it from residents, see above.

Residents of what? I don’t understand this quote.

but you’re limiting it to these two

No, I’m not. I’m creating a suggestion to help solve a problem. If you have better alternatives, that wouldn’t be against an AX or something.

Even disregarding the fact your assumption of no physical harm is ridiculous

The idea would be to legislate physical harm, as opposed to legislating things that could lead to physical harm.

How much should they be paid? How do you regulate how much is paid? When can they leave?

Holy shit, children having jobs! It’s so impossible to pull off, just like adults having jobs!

Do the children even have a choice? Do their relatives/friends have a choice?

I should hope somebody on the other side gets a choice, preferably both.

And, ironic as it may be, are you not discriminating against those kids that do want to be paid for sex but aren’t starving?

My goal was to prevent starving children. So of course not.

Now, where would the line between “starving” and “not starving” be? No idea.

The idea that this would be a system rife with suffering and exploitation implies nothing like that happens already. If you’d like to say the new system would be worse, I’m interested to hear why you think so (It’s just a suggestion, remember).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

@wiihugger
I’m serious. For all you know, some person in a London mental hospital is the only one who has any idea of what the real world is like.

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Excellent points, wannabaggit. You just proved God exists.

How, exactly?

Also, who is telling you using the word “wannabaggit” makes anyone other than you look retarded?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Good point. Let’s design a catapult, put you on it, and measure your reaction to the brick wall.

While I’m not sure reality exists, my perception of reality still tends to affect me.

Again, how do you know the brick wall exists? “Let’s test it out!” isn’t a reason.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

I think he’s admitting he’s insane.

Let’s say I’m insane, and my perception of reality has nothing to do with the real one.

How do you guys know I am insane? How would you know, for certain, what the true reality is? Again, how do you know the brick wall is there?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

After all, how do you know the brick wall exists?

That, I’m afraid, is solipsism.

It sure is, except there seems to be some sort of implication in solipsism that the world does not exist. I’m simply saying that I am unaware as to whether the world exists.

Topic: Serious Discussion / A question of morals:

the only two possibilities are death or sexual slavery.

In the OP, I said “starvation”, but it’s not like that would be the only point of suffering along the way.

It’s also flawed logic to assume that just by not legalising it, you are “letting them die”.

By letting them die, you are letting them die. I’m suggesting a way to let fewer people die. The “letting them die” thing was based on Scoopers’ thing that legalizing this was condoning pedophilia, so I said that obviously, leaving it banned was condoning starving children.

Also, why are millions of children suffering in other countries up to standards in any way, shape or form? Letting things continue as they are is zero reason to keep something illegal: legality should be a default, you’ve said this in gay marriage threads.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gays, Yay or Nay?

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Agnostic doesn’t mean what you think it means. Take your solipsistic beliefs straight into a brick wall – after all, it might not even exist.

I’m using the literal definition: I’m not saying that I CAN’T know anything, I’m saying that I pretty much DON’T know anything. Easiest way to say it until someone like you freaks out.

Brick walls might not exist, but in my perception of pain, they certainly seem to tend to hurt me when I walk into them.

After all, how do you know the brick wall exists?