Recent posts by Criks on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Star Citizen

Chris Roberts also made Freelancer, which is far from a glorifie

Originally posted by Captain_Catface:

Really, the idea seems great. But it really undermines my confidence in them when they reference Spot-the-difference games as previous work. I’m not seeing the path from glorified flash games to something that’d make EVE look simple.

What the fuck are you talking about? Have you read anything at all about the game?

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Star Citizen

They’re just about reaching 3million in donations, which is more than they either expected or required.

They’re not depending solely on donations of course, they have around 10 million from private investors already, and that’s completely without any publishers. If they do get a publisher that agrees to not make any demands (deadline, budget, general bullshit that ruins the game generally) they’ll have enough money to make the perfect game.

However it all depends on the money.

Hell if they get 30 million they will have servers powerful enough to handle space wars with hundreds of players at once. They might even be able to ignore instances and shit.

If you don’t really care for a space simulator with a 50 galaxy persistent universe of course you should ignore this. If however you do like the idea, don’t wait for the game to be released, give them 5 bucks now to make sure the game will actually be the perfect space game.

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Star Citizen

Trailer/Announcement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhRQPhL1YU

Website: http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/star-citizen/

Reddit AMA: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/11wivt/i_am_chris_roberts_creator_of_wing_commander/


Star Citizen is a space simulation with a Single Player campaign that transitions into an Online, Sandbox, Persistent, Dynamic Universe with dynamic player-based interraction in Economy, discovery of new solarsystems and reputation between different empires and alien species, through newtonian physics. In Cryengine 3.

The vision of SC is massive. The game in total will cost a minumum of 10 million or maximum 20 million dollars. It is planned to be released 2014, and is now higly dependent on how much crowd funding it recieves, because it also depends on how much they canget from private investors. They are attempting to go without external publishers and distributers.

Three main categories of how fighting will occur:

  • Full control as pilot over your ship, classic space simulation.
  • Big Ships that require separate pilots and real players manning weapons, think Millenium Falcon.
  • Boarding massive stations or carriers, to fight in First Person Shooter mode onboard enemy ships.

This is the main difference from EVE: online where fights are in RTS mode with automatic steering and shooting.

Discuss.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Stopping time is IMPOSSIBLE, and I have proof that needs debating

Hence, no matter how fast you move relative to a photon, the photon will still move at the speed of light relative to you

I dont quite understand your statement. Are you saying a photon are always traveling at the speed of light faster than me? As in, photons always treat objects as if they are at rest while traveling at c speed.

Because that doesnt make sense at all. That would give photons different speeds depending on what object you relate the photon to.

I’ve heard the concept of special relativity before, and the statement that you cannot travel as fast as light, and even if you did reach 299 792 458 m/s, light would still be faster. Although I’ve never understood the statement, I’ve just accepted it and moved on.
Your statement on the other hand is too obviously paradoxal.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 'Moralistic Pre-Determinsim' or "Deterministic Nihilism" and the Abstraction of "Free Will"

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:
Originally posted by somebody613:

FWW
Mind sharing, WHY?
This probably implies first defining what “free will” means, cause we all probably have different ideas on that.

Actually, after thinking on the question again I am unable to find how I came to my original conclusion that there is no ‘free will’.

It really doesnt have to be that complex. It pretty much comes down to if one believe in determinism or not, whether you believe everything can in theory be exactly calculated, provided that you have all the needed data and knowledge do to so. Much as it is possible to calculate exactly how to throw a dice to get six, it is possible to calculate exactly how the smallest particles will move, and what they will cause.
Or if you dont believe in this, rather that there is an inevitable and unavoidable randomizing variable to how the universe works, something truly unpredictable.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Would you visit a nudist camp,,how shy are you?

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

^i wouldn’t worry to much about the “boner” issue. you could have the same fears at any regular beach, yet it usually works out.

non-sexual nudity is still non-sexual.

Well, at normal beaches there are easy methods of hiding it, something i imagine nudist beaches lack.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Would you visit a nudist camp,,how shy are you?

Since I’m a quite attractive looking 21 year old man my self-esteem wouldnt stand in the way of me going to a nudist camp. To find a reason to do it in the first place is my main problem. I lack motivation to do so. I have absolutely no problems with clothing and feel no constrainment from it nor lack of freedom. I still see nudist camps as an excuse to behave more animalistic, not to mention peek at sexy naked bodies.

But more on topic, if I did find a reason, my biggest problem would most likely be to avoid getting a boner.
If there are only ugly people and/or only people far over my own age I’ll be fine. But if there would run around attractive 16-25 year old women I wouldnt trust my penis enough to strot around. But then again I completely lack experience from what its like being in a nudist camp, so its possible it has a natural, casual and non-sexual approach to it.
I’m comparing to the not so unusual topless women you can see on my local beaches that appear so casual it doesnt make it very sexual at all. After all, boobs are almos always more attractive when shaped by a bra or bikini rather than when revealed and more saggy.

An obvious argument to that would be that bikinis of today are far more teasing and sexually provocative than just a naked body. The standard bikini of today is designed to be as sexually provocative as possible. Revealing, but still teasing and still hiding the “best” parts, not to mention that they are shaping the body to be more attracitve (more curves, pushed up/rounder ass and deeper cleavage) that is essentially just sending a stronger “i want sex” message than a naked, casual body.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 'Moralistic Pre-Determinsim' or "Deterministic Nihilism" and the Abstraction of "Free Will"

Stating that free will exists follows the same method as religious statements.

The only reason you can still believe free will exists, is because science has not disproved it yet, and just as god, most likely will never be able to either.

Stating that free will does not exist can at least make progress. The more we learn about the human brain and how it works, the closer we get of disproving free will. If it comes to a point where we can calculate perfect predictions of a human beings behavior, we can disprove free will, or at least the uncompromized definition of free will.

For free will to exist, it requires some form of complete randomized and fully unpredictable aspect of the brain. But even then, free will faces the problem of showing that this unpredictable aspect still isnt completely random, that there is still an intentional and conscious choice made from it.

Now what I’m sticking to though is the middle-ground, whatever the philosifical term for it is, where I accept that it is theoretically possible to completely predict a persons actions, but the person still has free will.
Much like its possible to calculate exactly how a dice will land depending on how it was thrown, we still consider a dice throw to be random, because we have the option of simply not calculating its path.
Not to mention that even if we can calculate a persons choices and actions beforehand, it is still his actions and his choices.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Stopping time is IMPOSSIBLE, and I have proof that needs debating

absolute freeze and stopped time are not the same thing and are not related, thus cannot be used as an argument.

For example, if time slowed down to half speed, everything would function, in theory, just as it did before, just in half speed (excluding the fact that a human being would be unable to note any difference, sine the brain would obviously also work at half speed).
If the natural laws of physics were proportionally affected by time slowing down, even the slightest change in time flow would fuck everything up. Just imagine what half speed would do to the suns temperature, it would definitely stop working, just as everything else.

No, the theorized time freeze would look just like a photograph (excluding the fact that you need light to hit your eyes to view the world).

If time would stop by simply lowering everything in the universe to stopping point, which in other words means completely removing energy from the universe, yes the world would indeed not work anymore and there’s no going back. Simply heating shit up again afterwards will not restore it.
However, stopping time you still have the option to turn time back on, and everything will behave as normal.


I imagine there are far more complex problems with the theory of time-travel and all that. For starters, physics doesnt even really have a universal definition or full understanding of time, and as far as I understand, time is still used simply as a measuring system, which is still technically a human invention, not an actual law of physics.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I feel guns should not be available to almost everyone, because this is what happens.

Originally posted by ohmylanta:

donseptico, if it seems like I’m the one misinterpreting the posts then forgive me. The last post was a strange maneuver, as I was trying to respond to Criks but using the sources and text that he quoted from you. I wasn’t necessarily attacking all of the conclusions you brought up, just applying them to what I believe Criks was trying to use those conclusions for. For example, your sources and conclusions stated a correlation, as you noted, but Criks post definitely made it seem like he was trying to imply a causation, which you were not.

This was not the debate. You started by questioning the plausibility of guns saving people’s lives from criminals with your speculations, while I provided you with evidence that guns already do just that.

Yeah except there are just as many studies saying gun ownership increase homocides:

If you’re gonna accuse me to exaggerating results then you’re guilty aswell:

while I provided you with evidence that guns already do just that

Admit it, you’re taking this to a “last word wins” battle, and I’m growing ever so tired of it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I feel guns should not be available to almost everyone, because this is what happens.

This was not the debate. You started by questioning the plausibility of guns saving people’s lives from criminals with your speculations, while I provided you with evidence that guns already do just that.

Yeah except there are just as many studies saying gun ownership increase homocides:

Originally posted by donseptico:

Not sure what religion has to do with anything (but no, not in the least).

“International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.”: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/

CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide.

Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997

Most, but not all cross-sectional studies have found a positive association between various measures of firearm availability and overall rates of homicide, a trend that holds across regions, states, cities and counties.

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.

The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates

Findings indicate that (1) gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates, (2) homicide, gun assault, and rape rates increase gun prevalence, (3) gun control restrictions have no net effect on gun prevalence levels, and (4) most gun control restrictions generally have no net effect on violence rates. There were, however, some possible exceptions to this last conclusion—of 108 assessments of effects of different gun laws on different types of violence, 7 indicated good support, and another 11 partial support, for the hypothesis of gun control efficacy.

More Guns, More Crime

My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven entirely by the impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked.

GUN OWNERSHIP, SUICIDE AND HOMICIDE: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the
results of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first
International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun
ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide and homicide rates. Widespread
gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events
committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other
potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more
guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide.
Since the present analysis is based on a cross-sectional design, the
interpretation of the correlations observed is complicated by the ambiguity of the
causal order and the presence of eventual third variables. Although we have seen
above that alternative interpretations are intuitively not very plausible, the ultimate
answer is that they cannot be ruled out. However, it seems not reasonable to trust
that any such – theoretically possible, though yet unknown – intervening variable will
be responsible for the correlations observed. What we know is that guns do not
reduce fatal events due to other means, but that they go along with more shootings.
Although we do not know why exactly this is so, we have a good reason to suspect
guns to play a – fatal – role in this.


Plethora of other studies investigating effect of gun ownership on crime rates from the US and around the world: link


In summary, across several western countries;

  • The presence of firearms in the home increases the likelihood of homicide / suicide;
  • The presence of firearms has little or no effect on the rates of violent crime (positive or negative)

In the US in particular;

  • Homicide rates directly correlate to, but are not necessarily caused by, gun prevalence (AJPH)
  • Gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates (e.g. more guns does not equal less violence).
  • Most gun control restrictions generally have no net effect on violence rates because(?) gun control restrictions have no net effect on gun prevalence levels (with some exceptions).

I remain opposed to outright bans on firearms, either by type or generally (as we have here in the UK) – shooting is a great hobby… but putting restrictions in place upon the type or number that can be held, the ways in which they can be used or must be stored, and/or on those who can hold them legally, etc are, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable.

The only time I’m blind is when I take off my glasses… it does, however, seem as if it’s the US that’s the ‘odd one out’ rather than the UK. Why is it the Americans (I realise this doesn’t apply to every individual, but we’re talking countries as a whole) are so predisposed towards violence by whatever means when compared to other ‘1st world’ countries??

Besides, I discussed more than the plausability that guns saves lives, not to mention that the discussion has progressed since then.

Ah, it’s always the “unique” country. The outlier, that pro-gun-control proponents don’t want to account for.

That’s not what I meant with unique, obviously since I addressed it as a good point. What I meant was that the country is unique in more ways than its lack of gun control. The culture, the country itself, the tiny population et cetera. Switzerland differs greatly from other countries, guns or no guns.

This is so vague it’s hardly worth responding to. You sound like a politician when you say “uh, yeah, we need to improve the country to fix this problem”. The statement is meaningless if you will not provide an explicit solution.

I made it intentionally vague for the sole purpose of not being worth addressing. All I wanted to point out with “improving the country” was that gun ownership does not classify as improving the country, as I was mistakenly sure you’d address.
And I’m not that stupid as to think I’m sitting on the solution or the perfect equation of how to make a perfect country, thats why I neglected trying. As mentioned in the quote, there are tons of things to work on.


But, since this debate seems to hit a dead end, I might aswell mix in politics.
I think its way the fuck more important working on a safety-net for the lowest class of citizens, rather than giving means to higher class citizens to protect oneself from the lower classes. By class I mean how wealthy you are.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I feel guns should not be available to almost everyone, because this is what happens.

Interesting. I would like a look at those, and I would have assumed it natural for you to provide the sources.

Would you please stop trying to make this statistics seem so mysterious and ambiguous? They are rather self-explanatory. Private gun owners, by the hundreds of thousands, admit that a gun was successful in deterring a criminal act against them, often without any shots being fired. The “hundreds of hours of research and isolation of variables” has already been done. The source providers have done all of this in advance and presented us with the usable statistics, to which we may base arguments around. These aren’t rogue statistics either. It is widely accepted among statisticians that gun control is not effective at stopping crime. Don’t try to revert this discussion back to pure speculation when the statistics are confirmed and available. That’s like having a logical debate about the possibility of the sun actually existing when we can confirm that it does exist. While there may be some discussion to be had it doesn’t have any bearing on how we act.

First of all, your sources only prove that there exist situations where a gun stopped a crime from being sucessful, and puts a number on it. That alone does not prove that gun ownership will directly reduce crime rates in total in a country.
Neither do you seem to understand whats bad about biased documents. They cannot be trustworthy.
Your first source obviously defend gun ownership to the death, disgarding pro-gun control studies as “unscientific” whilst pulling out surveys form the 80’s that called people by phone.
Only way to be sure that an article is trying to reach the truth is for it to be objective. Or else I’m either forced to declare the article biased, or do the exact same research myself as the article did and check if I get the same results.
That republican news paper for example that you showed me linked a gun law with a reduction in crime and declared that the law was the direct cause of the reduction, with no evidence to how they connect.

Now, about the statistics why dont you look at the posts in the beginning of this page, on this thread.

Originally posted by donseptico:

Not sure what religion has to do with anything (but no, not in the least).

“International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.”: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/

CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide.

Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997

Most, but not all cross-sectional studies have found a positive association between various measures of firearm availability and overall rates of homicide, a trend that holds across regions, states, cities and counties.

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.

The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates

Findings indicate that (1) gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates, (2) homicide, gun assault, and rape rates increase gun prevalence, (3) gun control restrictions have no net effect on gun prevalence levels, and (4) most gun control restrictions generally have no net effect on violence rates. There were, however, some possible exceptions to this last conclusion—of 108 assessments of effects of different gun laws on different types of violence, 7 indicated good support, and another 11 partial support, for the hypothesis of gun control efficacy.

More Guns, More Crime

My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven entirely by the impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked.

GUN OWNERSHIP, SUICIDE AND HOMICIDE: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the
results of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first
International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun
ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide and homicide rates. Widespread
gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events
committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other
potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more
guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide.
Since the present analysis is based on a cross-sectional design, the
interpretation of the correlations observed is complicated by the ambiguity of the
causal order and the presence of eventual third variables. Although we have seen
above that alternative interpretations are intuitively not very plausible, the ultimate
answer is that they cannot be ruled out. However, it seems not reasonable to trust
that any such – theoretically possible, though yet unknown – intervening variable will
be responsible for the correlations observed. What we know is that guns do not
reduce fatal events due to other means, but that they go along with more shootings.
Although we do not know why exactly this is so, we have a good reason to suspect
guns to play a – fatal – role in this.


Plethora of other studies investigating effect of gun ownership on crime rates from the US and around the world: link


In summary, across several western countries;

  • The presence of firearms in the home increases the likelihood of homicide / suicide;
  • The presence of firearms has little or no effect on the rates of violent crime (positive or negative)

In the US in particular;

  • Homicide rates directly correlate to, but are not necessarily caused by, gun prevalence (AJPH)
  • Gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates (e.g. more guns does not equal less violence).
  • Most gun control restrictions generally have no net effect on violence rates because(?) gun control restrictions have no net effect on gun prevalence levels (with some exceptions).

I remain opposed to outright bans on firearms, either by type or generally (as we have here in the UK) – shooting is a great hobby… but putting restrictions in place upon the type or number that can be held, the ways in which they can be used or must be stored, and/or on those who can hold them legally, etc are, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable.

The only time I’m blind is when I take off my glasses… it does, however, seem as if it’s the US that’s the ‘odd one out’ rather than the UK. Why is it the Americans (I realise this doesn’t apply to every individual, but we’re talking countries as a whole) are so predisposed towards violence by whatever means when compared to other ‘1st world’ countries??


And yes, there are highly safe countries with gun ownership, such as switzerland, which is a fairly unique country. But you really have to see that there are no conclusive evidence that proves that gun ownership will directly reduce crime rates. There are tons of other ways to reduce crime rates than producing guns to everyone, where actually improving the country is the best method. And yes, producing guns to everyone does come in the way of making a country a better place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I feel guns should not be available to almost everyone, because this is what happens.

Yes, it will. Surveys on jails have revealed that the vast majority of criminals would not attack if they knew that the victim was armed (or if it was very probable).

Bullshit.

Not nearly as effective, no. Nobody fears a pepper spray, just dislikes it. Doesn’t make crimes decrease, nor is as effective in self-defense.

Bullshit.

Your argument is fallacious, and yes I addressed it. It’s not just because you can’t defend yourself from 3+ criminals that it becomes useless knowing how to defend yourself on a 1×1 combat. It IS relevant to gun control, as having a gun is a very good measure of self-defense.

You dont even understand what I’m saying.

Good thing you realize that!

Yes, good thing I realized your arguments are stupid.

True, but they are fairly often when someone break-in your house or kidnaps you, which happens fairly often.

So your country is indeed fucked up then. I’m sorry for that, but that does not change my mind about gun control.

It is. I live in Brazil, and it is far less fucked up than other Latin American countries. Maybe you should go out of your social bubble and realize the world IS fucked up hard?

I’ll just say that stating that the world is fucked up hard is your opinion and I wont discuss it further.
Since I live in Sweden, where crime is much more controlled (by the governent) it is indeed hard to compare the two countries. If you feel like your country is so fucked up to the point where you feel like your goverment is weak/useless/corrupt, I think you have way bigger problems than gun control.

As I stated earlier, only when the goverment itself needs renovation, by revolution, does gun control become irrelevant.
If you feel like your country is so fucked up that you need every household to carry gun for self-defense, I won’t go any further. I was arguing for countries that had control and wasnt corrupt.

It doesnt really change my main argument though, which is that changing the goverment is way the fuck more important than the citizens ability to enforce the law themselves.

That’s what training is for. Statistics tell us that, in countries where everybody has guns, the statistics for accidental gun kills aren’t much higher than in countries where guns are outlawed. Not even the most stupid redneck (on average) will leave their guns in the living room, knowing that their 3yr old son is right there. Most likely their children will know what a gun is, everybody will, in fact. Guns will no longer be something to be amazed about Z0MG U HAS A GUN IN UR HOUZES!!
We might as well ban knives, toys with small parts, toxic cleaning products, glass, sharp objects, and electricity outputs because all that lies around and can potentially lead to an accident, which can lead to death.

More bullshit sorry.

Go to the “why do democrats blablabl guns away from Americans” or something thread, there are dozens of graphs from all around the world on the later pages.

If you cant be arsed backing up your own arguments, I will spend just as little time disproving your bullshit. If you’re too lazy going through that thread of which I havent touched, to find the statistics you’ve already read, then I will be just as lazy and keep calling it bullshit.

Not that it really matters, you’re obviously overestimating whatever statistics there is anyway since it doesnt even make sense.

Are you serious? If you took all guns away from the Swedish, crime wouldn’t rise because that country is fucking perfect. If you take all guns away from Colombians, the country becomes a piece of shit (which is what happened).

I assume you mean “if you gave everyone guns in Sweden”, and again, such bold statements really do need proof. I’m sure there’s something to it but still, I’m ignorant in what happens in south america since I dont live there.

Also, you dont understand what I’m saying. Crime share the same motivations in all countries, because we’re all humans. A man robbing a woman in Sweden shares similar motivations as a man robbing a woman in Columbia. Yes there are less people in Sweden that are desperate enough to sink that low, since we have a very well functioning safety-net for poor people but still, sharing the same life-situations will share the same motivation.
No, crime rates wouldnt explode if we handed out guns to all swedish people, but it would affect crime rates in relevant patterns, they (we) would most obviously not need guns to be safe, we have the police. Yes, crime still occur and yes people still get away in the act. I’ve been robbed myself, twice. And I know a gun wouldnt have saved me in either case. The point is, I didnt get hurt, I simply surrendered and gave the group my wallet, got some money back from the insurance, reported the crimes and I have never been robbed or seen any suspicous people on the same street ever again. The key was that no one got hurt and I didnt lose anything of much imortance, that I couldnt get back. If I tried fighting back, or even tried pulling out a gun while being hold by the robbers, things would certainly have gone way worse. The only way to save myself from being robbed from those situations would be if I had the gun out before I even noticed the group. And that sound like the best solution to me, I’d rather get robbed once every few years than being forced to point a gun at every stranger I see.

Do you seriously disagree with that? – It’s not that the citizens would shoot somebody stealing a store, they won’t become wannabe-police-officers, they will merely defend their lives when the police can’t act fast enough (because we don’t have teleportation devices yet).

Again you’re missing the point of governmental law enforcement. If you’re telling me every crime endup in people dying or getting hurt i’ll just nod and agree with that your country is fucked up hard. The main problem with self-defense is that it increases risk of getting hurt. A robber mainly wants your money, as far as I understand is that it takes a highly racist and hateful culture for crimes to be acted just to hurt people.

While I agree that it is better to make it so there are no crimes in the first place by crafting a perfect country, THAT is an unrealistic objective. Since we have that problem, we put into effect little gun control so that it becomes more tolerable (and less of a problem) ALONG with trying to craft an amazing country. BOTH AREN’T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Look, if you’re telling me that you NEED a gun in the house or people can come in and hurt everyone and take everything they like and there’s not a shit you can do about it then fine, your country needs fucking guns. Kill everyone, do as you please. I won’t argue against such a statement.

But still, you really need to understand that giving everyone guns is like giving law enfocement to everyone. If a robber is more afraid of their victim than the police, something is wrong.
No matter how fucked up your country is, your main goal should ALWAYS BE to improve the goverment. Giving guns to everyone does not solve that problem even slightly, more likely making it worse, even if it does indeed prevent the country from going into total fucking chaos. You dont have to be a perfect country to have gun control, and thats not even the point. The point is that problems should be solved through the government, not citizens. The only way to have control and regulation in a country is to let the goverment handle it, or you will just end up in anarchy anyway, gun control or no gun control.

There are two main reasons for people to physically hurt other people. One would be anger/hate, the other would be self-defense. If a robber fears that his victim will retaliate with deadly force, it becomes much more relevant to hurt the victim. As for the anger/hate, that only occurs if he has a reason to hate you, since I doubt the majority of criminals are sadists. If you can conclude that crimes occur because criminals want to improve life for themselves, rather than hurting the people they are robbing from, guns for self-defense is less relevant. Walking around on the street with as little valuables as possible, as in no cash and no gold jewels around your neck, a gun isnt even needed to be protected from assaults.

But again, I’m having a rough time discussing a country that is severely fucked up. To me it sounds like you’ve simply given up in your country and claimed its every man to himself. If you are that far from govermental regulation in anyway then gun control is not a relevant issue. There are other issues that needs to be solved in such a country before gun control is priority.


Again, these situations that you bring up are irrelevant, as I’ve already provided you with enough data to show that guns do stop crime frequently for the better of the innocent. These hypothetical situations don’t have much to offer when compared to actual statistics.
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm
http://www.nowandfutures.com/d2/GunsStopCrime_GunsSaveLivesfact_sheet.pdf
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2532745/posts
I could go all day with this data.

Two of your links relate to the same source, and the third is again biased, as in obviously cheers for gun use, even trash talking democrats. The first link your showed that was biased also used the same study as argument.

Still, the source indicates that guns can indeed stop crime from happening.


But what I now realize, that I didnt when I jumped into this discussion simply because of boredome, is that statistics are simply not overly obvious in proving whether gun control is always bad or always good.

Our fantastic donseptico has shown several studies that shows not only international correlations, but studies only inside USA, that gun control helps.

While you show a study that shows a number of situations where crime was stopped by showing a gun, indicating that guns reduce crime rates.

I know that my country with strict gun control has half the crime rates per capita as USA, and I now personally that a country with gun control works perfectly fine, not to mention that all the most secure countries in the world have strict gun control. But apparently USA works just fine with gun control and don’t care to change it. The only conlusion I can see myself when adding theese things, is that gun ownership becomes more relevant and effective the higher the crime rates are. So, the shittier the country the more need of a gun does a citizen have.

Maybe its a cultural thing? Maybe americans will start ripping eachother to pieces as soon as they dont risk getting a bullet in their head.


My conclusion is, there are no direct proof that gun control in itself will directly reduce crime rates. Even if I already knew this, I now know that I am not nearly motivated enough to dwelve into this deep enough to be able to shut anyone on this forum up.

That takes more than hundreds of hours of research to isolate all the variables related to gun control and gun ownership, with crime, not to mention all the time it takes to validate all the given sources.

None of you have strong evidence to prove either way. I’m still willing to discuss logic arguments, but as far as proving this by pulling out statistics, that seems so far highly uncertain.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I feel guns should not be available to almost everyone, because this is what happens.

Why? He doesn’t expect to eradicate crime, just make it happen far less often.

Which is the unrealistic part. The realistic vision would be to make crimes in 1 on 1 encounters less successful, but it will unlikely actually decrease the amount of crimes commited, that takes extreme measures. Yes, women with adequate self-defense skills can prevent rape from occuring, that is good. In other news this can be handled without the woman carrying a gun. A pepper spray is just as effective in disabling a rapist, and far less dangerous.

Good thing nobody expects to become Chuck Norris, right? While you can’t disable all 3 of them, it is still important to have ways of defending yourself in case only one person ambushes you.

You’re not addressing my argument. Yes as stated above its good to defend yourself in 1on1 encounters. I’m addressing situations where you are outnumbered and ambushed. Yes its important to know how to defend yourself, but thats irrelevant to gun control.

Not as likely, no. Also, what’s the matter with the robber being shot as fast as he could? Invading one’s property gives him the freedom to kill the invader. Addressing the latter, if it was really a valid point we should ban martial arts, because there’s the possibility that the self-defense is going to fail – besides most cases in which guns are necessary are the ones that it’s either “kill” or “be killed”, so if there was no gun to be gotten out the victim would die anyways.

I personally think its morally wrong to have the right to kill anyone grabbing your handbag.
And no, you dont need to ban martial arts because it has risks of failing, thats stupid. You dont have to ban martial arts because it does not have even close to as high deadly force as a gun does. Also, By self-defense Im not really talking about martial arts, I’m talking about actual self-defense training.
Also, the “kill or be killed” scenarios are extremely rare among innocent citizens being robbed. “kill or be killed” scenarios are almost always in actual gun fights, which are almost always between gang members, or criminals and police. Hell, if you’re telling me that “kill or be killed” situations are common in your country, your country is seriously fucked up hard.

I don’t think robbers are considered innocent.

I wasnt talking about robbers, I was addressing the people getting killed by mistake, due to scared people holding guns shooting everything that moves, or accidental deaths due to guns lying around. You know, as the name of this topic applies.

Statistics are completely against you – every graph tells us that a decrease in gun control automatically leads to a decrease in rape, homicide and household break-in.

You’re gonna have to show me those graphs then, because the statistics I’ve seen has shown the opposite- that strict gun control and a strong govermental law enfocement reduces crime rates far more than letting the citizens take care of the crimes themselves. I’m mainly comparing nations with gun control with nations without gun control. And yes, they can be comparable even if the cultures differ. Crimes share the same behavior in all countries

I seriously doubt it would be a common occurrence that somebody with a gun would kill a small robber – it wouldn’t happen nearly as often as it would take to outweigh the amount cases in which rape, homicide and household break-in happen.

Wait, what? Thats a fucking stupid thing to compare with, and the sentence doesnt even make sense. Lack of guns to citizens isnt the cause of crimes. Neither is unecessary dead robbers the only side-effect of no gun control.

Even comparing the theoretical reduction of crime rates, due to guns, compared to the accidents happening due to guns, is a bad thing to compare with to conclude if its worth it or not.

First thing, statistics tell us that the mere attempt of small robberies would decrease substantially (because they know that it’s likely that their victim owns a gun), and then the gun would probably be used to shoot the person somewhere where it doesn’t automatically die. That’s why there would be training put in place to own a gun, just like there is with cars.

Again with the statistics, show me them. Not with a biased 15 pages wall of text website. I want actual scientific official statistics that proves that lack of gun control is a more effective way to reduce crime, than gun control with more focus the goverment to reduce crime.

In fact, every single one of your arguments could be easily shifted to fit into an anti-car speech. Makes you feel retarded, doesn’t it?

No, the risks of guns to induviduals is not comparable to cars to citizens. But if you say that it makes me feel retarded go ahead and try me.


The thing is, this is still as simple as choosing between citizens taking care of the crime rates themselves, or letting the goverment do it exclusively. What everyone who defends the rights for citizens to carry guns for self defense are all assuming, is that the police is simply not good enough to do protect the citizens, that there are inevitably situations where the citizens are forced to defend and act alone.

Yet again what bugs me about this is that, even assuming that they are right, that the police is indeed not good enough, that still isnt and argument to give everyone a gun. If you really want to address the problem, crime rates, you’re gonna have to tackle the actual problem, crime rates, instead of trying to find a method of making the problem more tolerable. If a man is desperate enough to rob another person, shooting him with a gun or scaring him off with a gun is not a solution. The solution is to give the man a job and a home. Help him. If the man has commited a crime, let the goverment judge the right punishment for the crime (not the victim)and then try to get him on the right path.

If you dont like you goverment, try to improve it, do not neglect it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I feel guns should not be available to almost everyone, because this is what happens.

Jesus ohmylanta

Your arguments are either really short minded or does not make sense, you seem to pull statistics out of your arse, your link is extremely biased and you’re not even addressing my own arguments, as in, you don’t understand anything in my post.

Unless you remake your answer to my post I have no intention of getting into a “last-word-wins” debate with you.


I can though address self defense.
Self defense is the theory that an induvidual can learn to defend oneself to the point where little to no crime can affect the person.

Though I won’t say that self-defense is useless, what you expect to achieve with self-defense is highly unrealistic.
Even if you can become good enough to disarm and disable a person attacking you with a knife, things quickly get incredibly dangerous no matter how much training in self-defense you have. Already at a 3 against 1 situation is it nearly impossible for a person to know excatly how to disable all 3 persons, and nearly impossible at all if they ambush you.

That is the first argument. The second argument is that retaliation increase risk of getting hurt by a ton.
Lets just jump straight to the guns. So the idea is, that when being robbed, pulling out a gun will immediately make the robber run away to be taken into custody. Or ideally there is no crime to begin with.

Even if this scenario is likely, guns to everyone means other scenarios are just as likely. Such as the robber getting killed because the victim shot him down as fast as he could, the victim getting killed because tge robber sees that the victim is trying to get out a gun.
The victim gets beaten up immediately to ensure that he doenst pull a gun on the robber. Misunderstandings lead to innocent people getting killed because people with guns get scared.


The only really important thing I find about self-defense, is in scenarios that doesnt involve guns. Women carrying pepper spray, or knowing how to hit men in the balls when a rape might occur.
Guns do not add enough safety to self defense, it adds way more risk, not only to the victims, but to the robbers aswell.
People do not deserve to get gunned down for trying to take your purse.

To me the best solution is still to prevent as much unnecessary violence as possible. When a robber threatens your life over your wallet, give him your wallet and let the police catch him afterwards, or take in money from your insurance.
If you feel like the robber cant really threaten you, as in he doesnt carry a gun or knife, taking out a gun and threating the robbers life instead is unlikely to be the best way to handle it. A pepper spray to the face or well-trained self defense is just as effective.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 21 trillion dollar black hole

The two officially richest people in the world have basically build their own empire from scratch. There are inargumentally genious, or at the very least extreme determination involved in becoming rich.

But yes, only a small portion of the rich are actually geniuses, and not all of them have relied on luck either. So yes, Money breed money too.

On topic, the 100,000 people hoarding this money does of course do this separatively right?

Also, that the 100,000 richest people in the world hoarding around 210 million dollars each does sound a lot, but still somewhat understandable. That there are 100,000 people in the whole world that are richer than they need to be sound quite realistic.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I feel guns should not be available to almost everyone, because this is what happens.

To sell guns to induviduals is like giving induviduals the law into their own hands. That’s the defense argument of firearms. The other argument is to prevent crime before it happens, by scaring criminals from doing crime in the first place. In total, the goal is to lower the national crime rates.

Lets take a look at the first argument. It states that you can not at all times depend on a police force so save you whilst being robbed, or when a robber is already in your hose. It states that the goverment law enforcement, the police, cannot reach perfection, as in it cannot be at all places at all times. And thats where guns to induviduals come in.

If a robbers inside your hose threatening your family, it feels much safer to hold a gun yourself and shoot/scare the robber off, instead of waiting for the police to turn up.

First lets try and keep the logical reasoning simple.
An imperfect governmental law enforcement is not a reason for induviduals to take the law into their own hands. Neither will selling guns to induviduals fill up the holes and flaws of governmental law enforcement.

If you find the police imperfect, try to improve it. If you feel you cannot, protest against the goverment. Only in the very extreme cases where the goverment is fully corrupt do you need to take the laws into your own hands, by revolution. Still, no matter what, the goal is to improve the goverment. Taking the law into your own hands simply because you think you have the right to, is a horrible idea if you want to live in an actual society.

Secondly, guns do not fill in the holes of what the govermental law enfocement is missing. It simply adds a new method. This method is far worse than the govermental one. It is far less controlled, far less accurate in justice/judgement and in total has far more flaws than benefits. The only way to fill up the holes and flaws of govermental law enforcement, the police, is to use the exact same method and try to add and improve it.

It’s like building a car. If there are things you don’t like about the car, like its color, you cant build a new shittier car with the prefered color, that wont solve anything.


The second argument is that it is peace-keeping, preventing crime for happening in the first place. You dont want to rob a woman of her purse if she might have a gun in there.

Well, firstly, simply by analysing an example we can find flaws in this argument. A woman with a handbag with a robber that is thinking about robbing her. If she can easily get a gun, his own chances of getting one should be pretty much equally high. So they both have a gun. Now, if we assume that the robber is desperate enough to rob people of their money, they are not only willing to take the risk of the woman having a gun, they most likely already figured out what to do if she does indeed have one.

The lady walks around a corner, the robber comes from behind, knocks her over and runs off with her bag immediately after. If the gun was in the purse she didnt even get the chance to use it. If she had it somewhere else it takes too long to take it out o be able to get a clear shot.

Lets take an example where a burgler brakes into a house. He starts to search the place for valuables. He hears footsteps and realises that the owner is awake and is coming to look whats happening.
The fear of the risk that the owner might have a gun, the burgler pulls out his own and shoots at the owner as soon as he sees him, or tries to scare the man from appearing by shouting at him that he will die if he moves, or the burgler simply leaps out the window with whatever he was able to get.


Now, regardless of how you think a realistic scenario is, the simple truth is that the answer lies in statistics.
If oyu compare US, where firearms is seen as a human right, compared to countries with govermental monopoly and regulation on firefarms, how does the crime rates look?

Well, the US does by far not have the lowest crime rates. So the only real benefical thing about induvidual rights to firearms is proven very ineffective. And that is without adding the side-effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighborhoods/crime-rates/

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Dammit Karma, get in here.

You really have to watch all the episode before you make these assertions.

I suppose thats the problem then. I really have no interest in watching all episodes just to be able to give a more objective opinion.

Unless you can say that the first 7 episodes are highly different than the rest I will most likely keep on not being very interested.

After 7 episodes I’m able to say that I personally dont find it interesting enough. That’s my opinion, and you have yours.

Since I’ve already established that the series are very good all in all I find little motivation to find more complex objective arguments to what this kids show may lack or to find key reasons why not every 20-40 year old male watch it. For now, all I have is that is that it’s designed to be a kids show and all the limitations that come with it. “Cute” is the key word, and not everyone prioritise Cuteness as much.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Dammit Karma, get in here.

Well that’s partially because it takes time for them to develop (yes, they actually develop), but either way, it’s better than one-dimensional characters, at least.

There are several ways that a character can develop though. As I’m sure they do indeed develop over time I wont argue against that. What I’m suspecting though is that they will still have the same sort of primitive personality, as in that they will have their main feature (fluttershy will always be shy and tend her bunnies) unchanged. They might develop by simply experiencing more and adding more events, by watching more episodes.

For example I watched episode 7 now which was about Fluttershy saving Ponyville from a snoring dragon. The episode showed that she at first was shy and too scared to do anything about it, but eventually got angry when the dragon “stepped over the line” and told the dragon off. See, I dont really see this as Fluttershy’s character developing, that is simply the writers way of getting another message out about friendship.

Excluding the fact that the whole episode was incredibly predictable, the fact that Fluttershy told the dragon off as if it was a little kid doesnt add or develop Fluttershy’s personality, it’s still using the same core feature and gives it some contrast, as in, makes it less primitive. Before this episode, fluttershy was 90% scared and shy. Apparently now she’s only 80% shy/scared. So what. Same goes to the one with Applejack, that refuses to take help from her friends. I personally already know that people that take a lot of responsibility usually ask for little help themselves. For kids I’m sure it can be an eye opener, not for me though. For me they’re still just developing the same core feature.
The characters are obviously designed to be primitive though, that was the point with the 6 elements.
It’s just me that needs more complex and realistic personalities. Real personalities are defined by hundreds of different factors.

What I wanted to see was Fluttershy getting pissed off kicking the dragons ass or getting to know her secret fetisch for guns that she herself invents. Or a hidden sense of humor, a bitch on her period, a secret control freak, or something other than simply being NOT shy/scared.
You know, something that forces you to not explain her as “the shy one”.

Well at least they explain it in-show, and later on they sometimes skip the moral at the end, or just make it a little more hidden than normal.

So far they have not been trying to hide the moral of the episode even one bit, even ignoring the letter Twilight sends to the Celestia in the end of every episode. Something tells me they will continue on that road, even though there probably are episodes where they might completely ignore moral points.

Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. (Also, there’s a big Lebowski camoe in the second season.)

Yes, of course I never stated otherwise. I’ll look up what a “Lebowsky camoe” is right now

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Dammit Karma, get in here.

This thread made me watch the first 6 episodes of MLP.
So far I’d say that it only serves as a time-killer for when I don’t really have anything better to do, or while eating or if I want something to watch to fall asleep to.

So far my opinion would be that I understand why it’s popular beyond 6 year old girls.
The art, music and design is interesting if not lovable, the exaggerated emotinal expression-style is very well used, there are tons of random and clever acts that makes the episodes unpredictable in short-term, and there’s an obvious “internet-humor” mixed into it.

Still, the characters are so far very cliché and the personalities only have one main side to it, making them quite shallow. And the script is ofcourse also very down to earth primitive with the very basic “kids-morale” and the obvious messages of every episode. This is all ofcourse very normal and essential in a kids show, because after all there’s no denying that it is a kids show.

Yes I’ve only watched the first 6 episodes but I’m highly certain that the things that make it a “meh” show for me won’t change, because they are highly attached to the fact that its a kids show.

The fact that every episode is clinging to a kids moral-of-the-story concept gets tiring fast, and the fact that every character are stuck on their core personality design. Those two combined with the fact that they cannot go beyond cute/innocent humor leaves me without more than a smile watching it. I need my humor more raw, brutal and random than what can be in a 6 year old kids show, no matter how well made the show is.

All I can say is that for its genre, its fucking genious. If a show for 6-10 year old kids about PONIES can get 30 year old males to watch it, they obviously succeeded. The only real critiq I can give it is of what it in its core will inevitably lack, which is the limits of what a kids show simply must have.

It’s very cute and clever, and the humor is random enough to surprise you enough to make you giggle. It thinks outside the box and is not afraid to redefine what a kids how for girls could and should be about. Not to mention that is very heart warming to find no sexual connections what so ever to it, making the 30 year old male fans watching this cute rather than pedophiles.

For me though cute and clever is not enough to catch my whole interest, and I simply cant see past all the inevitable things in it that only are relevant for female children.
I’ll probably end up watching more of it, but I’ll definitevly not call myself a fan any time soon.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quote Discussion, Current quote: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

Well the quote actually makes sense now that I’ve been given the whole quote:

New International Version (©1984)
All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.

It is simply addressing the evergoing cycle of water, and can actually be used as analogies and metaphores now.

Now please lets move on, I have a suggestion.

“Does truth trump happiness, when they are not the same?”

-unknown

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quote Discussion, Current quote: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

What fills the basin IS THE SEA.

Yes, but without boundaries, you cant use the word full to describe it. The ocean does not have any clear boundaries, which is why it can never get “full”, making it irrelevant how many rivers lead to it, thus making the quote illogical.

Adding the word basin gives the ocean boundaries enabling the use of the word full. It doesnt fix the quote though since it still doesnt make sense.


The lack of actually useful and/or progressive discussion on SD is frustrating. I must quench my thirst of logical reasoning in other ways, and fast, or I’ll get thrown out head first when Im in the pub with friends this evening.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quote Discussion, Current quote: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

KONG: 7105 topics, 325625 posts
AND, “we’ve only just begun”.
What better example could ya want?

Example of what?

Yes, over 7000 topics and over 325 000 posts can feel like a lot, but turned into something little when stating its only the beginning.

If you want to connect it with the quote, you’re gonna have to reformulate it first. Probably into something similar to “Even if all rivers end in the ocean, the ocean barely change in size”, which is actually quite far away from what the actual quote states, and is still very loosely linked to your comment.

If the key message of the quote was “everything is relative” then the quote did a poor job presenting it.

If the key message was “no matter how much you try to change something, the changes can always be made insignificant” it is a very long shot.

I can go on making similar messages, but so far I have to go far from anything the quote states.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quote Discussion, Current quote: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

Originally posted by Dartval:

Criks, it doesn’t work out if you take it literally. Think of it more deeply than just the literal meaning.

Well the problem I’m having with the quote is that I can’t find anything deep and abstract about it, thats why I made that long post about the negative sides of metaphors and analogies.

I’d love to hear others interpretations of the quote if they can find any analogies to it though. But one point I was trying to make with my long post was that even if they do find a good analogy with the quote, the quote itself doesnt make sense, which would make it very useless when trying to make metaphors.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / kongregate need to focus on better games, instead of making a ton of profit

As you’re getting everything kongregate gives you for free, I personally am having a hard time whining over them focusing on earning money over working hard for free.

Hell, even if I payed to play games on this site, I still have the choice of NOT buying their services.

Yes, they’re prioritising on actually having profit over making procrastination as fun and free as possible.

Whining over getting stuff for free is for me a very clear sign of immaturity and lack of responsibility.

If you do think things were better before, make sure you try to change this in the right way.

The wrong way to handle it is to simply whine about it and threaten to leave the site.
The correct way is to suggest ideas of improvement that doesnt force them to cut profit.
The best way is to giving a helping hand, be that money or actually become a co-worker on kongregate.