Recent posts by Twilight_Ninja on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Immigration and citizenship

Originally posted by fma1:

I will now present when some might call an unpopular opinion.

I believe that illegal immigrants should not have access to things paid for by taxes, such as public schools or socialized healthcare. Only citizens and other people who are in the country legally should have access to these things. However, I also think that the process of becoming a citizen should be made much easier. That way, immigrants can come and be able to access these things more easily. These two things must both happen at the same time. If the government wants to restrict all public services to use by citizens and legal immigrants only, then it must also make the process of becoming legal significantly easier.

What are your thoughts on this?

Mostly sound logic, I don’t have a problem with it. I think allowing illegal immigrants to collect welfare/benefits while paying them more for each successive child incentivizes the path of living on social services. One of my former professors mentioned that if a U.S. citizen were to walk into a Mexican social services office, undocumented, looking for social benefits they would be denied and laughed out; this is true and a salient point in comparing the two systems and the overgenerousity (at least at times) of the U.S. welfare system.

Regarding becoming a citizen, this is markedly hard, from what I understand. My friend was taking the test for citizenship, and some of those questions, I couldn’t even answer (they require a lot of rote memorization about presidents and whatnot). So an easier route to citizenship might be good; however, if our country is in a position where it can’t take excess immigration without maintaining it’s budget, then this should be scaled back, at least temporarily.

There’s no perfect solution, but you hit on some good points.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / DIE CISHET WHITE MALE SCUM!!!!! (alt title: why social justice is doomed)

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

But, to simply call them dumb is negligently dismissive of their very often elevated (usually higher than average) cognitive abilities. I would venture to say that the kind of extremists we would usually think of are often quite bright….even brilliant.

Brilliant? Nope. You do realize that, in trying to protect the animals’ best interests, they destroyed their habitat. Everyone lost, most of all the wildlife in that area. The “logic” utilized by ELF here would be similar to two children fighting over a toy, and the dominant child breaking it so no one can have it. It’s a very “cut off your nose to spite your face” kind of tactic.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vampire Rights.

Originally posted by axlkoegoskyeg:

Errr… Why three posts?

Technical glitch, I guess. I don’t know why it did that.

And, well, never watched that series, but I heard of it, and it was honestly what inspired me to it XD. Honestly, I feel that, considering vampires are essentially human, peacefull convivence would be possible( … If they existed to begin with ), but I still think regulations would have to be made. For a example: I really feel a person that desired to turn into a vampire( Not me: However… Well, look at all the Twilight fans in our world ) would have to first be a adult, and also pass through a small battery of psycological tests, to know whether it has a good enough control of its impulses.

So the only problem I see with this logic is that it couldn’t possible encapsulate all of the humans that wished to turn vampire, or the vampires who wished to change humans. There would always be outlaws, so it is sort of like saying someone has to pass a battery of psychological tests to try meth. Those types of people are going to do what they’re going to do. I suppose those who wanted to go through the proper channels and get the state’s “blessing” to change could try to adhere to these rules.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vampire Rights.

Originally posted by axlkoegoskyeg:

This hypotethical vampire mythology said: What do you think that would be the more moral approach a government could take torwards these vampires? Should they be exterminated, or incorporated in society?

I feel they should be incorporated, because, well, it would be unfair to these 20% otherwise. But the government probably should keep a record on then, to know whether they actually arent hurting anyone. As for how should the incorporation happen… Well, this should be complicated.

Your question is fine, but these are basically the sort of issues that True Blood tries to tackle. In that series, vampires co-exist with humans, have their own special night clubs, drink synthetic blood that they can pick up in any convenience store, take blood from consenting human partners……and there are of course the thugs/outlaws who don’t follow the rules. So, yeah, probably that scenario and it’s setup would work if they actually did exist and wanted to benignly integrate into society.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

^ What the heck happened up there? Was my account hacked or something.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

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

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

Why is it that foods that are incredibly unhealthy for us are the ones we enjoy the most? From an evolutionary standpoint, it would seem that we would be better off training ourselves to prefer foods that are rich in the nutrients that we need, but instead many people prefer the taste of foods high in fats and other forms of energy that aren’t necessarily the most beneficial to our health.

Sugars I can somewhat understand, as they’re incredibly easily digested, but why are things like citric acid and heavy starches so palatable?

I have grappled with this question myself a long time, and thank you for starting this thread. I’ve often wondered why, if the human body craves processed carbohydrates so much (like Pizza and Snickers), these can’t just be good for us. I don’t have a great answer, unless it would have something to do with addictive properties of ingredients (including processed carbs) that are added to today’s foods for cost and convenience.

I will note, however, that taste buds do change over the years. I have noticed foods I have absolutely no interest in when I was younger—such as lettuce and sunflower seeds—grow great appeal to me as the years go by. I think this might be because our bodies have gone through their “junk food spell” and are craving the nutrients they really need.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / DIE CISHET WHITE MALE SCUM!!!!! (alt title: why social justice is doomed)

Originally posted by dd790:

The extremists of every group shout the loudest but are the dumbest, doesn’t mean their whole message is pointless, just that they are morons

Yes, and another example of this was the fires staged by the Earth Liberation Front, in protest of developments going on in the Vail, Colorado area. Speaking of dumb: ELF were protesting the development of land, and the driving out of wildlife from said land…..so they destroyed this land, thus definitively driving out the animals anyway? Yes, extremists can be very dumb.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Extra-terrestrial disclosure

Originally posted by greg:

Hypothetical, right? No, it already happened, last year, by the Canadian minister of defense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDuqZbjxB_E

It corroborates with a ton of other leaks and reports, but none have been so public from such a high-level government official. This kind of seems like a big deal. Shouldn’t we at least be talking about this? Let’s start with this thread!

Interesting. I’m just not sure if it’s real, or a voice over.

Originally posted by Mafefe_Classic:

Clutching at Straws 101

srsly tho, pics of aliens or gtfo

To be fair, though, even if he produced photos, you’d cry they were Photoshopped. Skeptics will be skeptics.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Vulgarity

Originally posted by denamo:

in my opinion they should be only used as underlining words for stronger emotions, but i guess nobody would understand or actually try to use it like that

Depends on the environment. None would be tolerated if you are writing a term paper (unless they were cited as a quote from something else), and I think little fits into everyday conversation. Vulgar language is usually used to express a burst of anger or frustration at something, although if mixed into everyday language very infrequently it can add emphasis to a statement.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 7even Deadly Sins

Originally posted by dd790:

Think that’s defamation rather than wrath, courts would be more interested than God

So then, in your opinion, exercising free (if angry) speech is not wrath, at least in the eyes of God, or for this discussion?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hell

Originally posted by vikaTae:

It could mean that heaven and hell are the same place, since Det will meet you whether you go to heaven or to hell, Kasic.

Or perhaps heaven and hell do mixer evenings, where the two sets of residents hobnob?

I heard an interesting allegory about Heaven/hell recently:

Someone went to Hell, and instead of the fire they were expecting, they saw a large buffet table filled with delicious foods. Each person sitting at the table had a six foot spoon, and they spent eternity hungry, struggling to figure out how to feed themselves.

Then they visited Heaven, and to their surprise, saw the same large buffet table with it’s inhabitants utilizing a six foot spoon. The difference was, they were feeding each other.

I thought this was illuminating because it really illustrated (for me, at least), how “hellish” certain environments I’ve been in have felt, simply from extreme lack of teamwork. When people—due to misery, selfishness, boredom, or whatever else—throw each other under the bus as a matter of principle, the whole mission seems to sink. The allegory, in any event, put in perspective for me how we can see shades of Heaven/hell in everyday life.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 7even Deadly Sins

Originally posted by dd790:

Wrath – Being angry just gives me a headache and I was brought up well so use words rather than fists so that’s out
Greed – Too much of a soft touch to be greedy, would feel like a twat taking more than my share
Sloth – Idleness bores me
Pride – Love watching people who think they are better than themselves look like tools, couldn’t do with being one of them
Envy – Never seen the point in jealousy
Gluttony – Can’t eat a full Mars bar without feeling sick let alone be a glutton
Lust – Probably the nearest but I’d still say no, I have a huge sex drive, very flirty and think NSA is the best acronym ever. However, I don’t join in with the lads when out and seeing a girl where they do that typical “whoa she’s nice, wouldn’t mind a go on that, look at those tits/arse etc” stuff, I just find it all very distasteful. I don’t tend to look at strangers sexually at all, obviously I can see a girl is my view of pretty, but I don’t lust after women. Passion yes, lust no.

So I’m just curious….how (strongly) would we define wrath here? For instance, if someone gets fired by an employer and they feel it is unjust, is releasing stress by blogging about it wrath?

Or would we only start to consider it “wrath” if they slashed their employer’s tires or planned a shooting spree?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should medical crystal meth be legalized?

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

Hey guys, when people ingest water in excess they die from water poisoning

And how often have we seen or heard of hyponatremia deaths, compared to those due to drug use?

Water’s not addictive, like meth. The last instance I heard of someone over ingesting water was as a side effect of ecstacy, so again, really a drug problem (not a water problem).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should medical crystal meth be legalized?

I’m just joining this discussion, but I see no good reason meth should be legalized. It quite obviously has deleterious effects, and is not a benign sort of pharmaceutical (like MJ or some prescription drugs).

Studying the effects of Meth (some dentists even have a term for dental disorders called Meth Mouth) or watching a couple seasons of Breaking Bad should really illuminate for anyone what is wrong with it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Free speech vs. discrimination -- where do we draw the line?

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

It’s protected under free speech, but that woman is, quite frankly, a cunt.

Ooopppsss…where I live, THAT is a very, VERY strongly disliked (by women) assessment.

And? If she’s going to dish it out, she should be prepared for a lot of heat coming her way. Again, name calling (towards her), however offensive sounding—free speech.


Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:
The college as a whole is going to have to play damage control as a result of her spitting off her opinion.


I’ve seen people fired for a lot less.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
AND, your profile on this site says that YOU are “employed” by the Army Reserves as a CBRN specialist.
I’m sure they are extremely proud of the way ya representing them here.

Is it really the same thing, though? Not really, because (1) his identity’s anonymous (2) he’s not in a position of power over her (to impact her grade).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Free speech vs. discrimination -- where do we draw the line?

A similar topic has been brought up with the Westboro Baptist Church, but this media story puts a little different spin on things. A junior college communications instructor has faced controversy with both the college and the military veterans community for some comments she’s made that are disparaging towards veterans; namely that they are an unintelligent subculture and made predominantly of rapists/misogynists. The full story is here:

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/instructors-facebook-comments-stir-controversy-at-butte-college/24985422

Reactions from the veterans community ranged from ambivalent to outraged, some even taking it to their blogs for more in depth analysis:

http://thelibertyzone.wordpress.com/tag/jodi-rives-meier/

So my question to everyone is—are her opinions appropriate and protected under free speech? Or are they out of line, and reflecting poorly on the college she represents? Are they discriminatory, and if so, should her military students be eligible for reparations and grades they feel they may have been awarded unfairly?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Spanking: yea or nay. -- Now expanded to include: How humanity uses physical force to ensure desired compliant behavior.

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

The only people who are pro spanking are ppl who were abused as kids and are in denial about being abused.

Hyperbole argument, and false. I was not spanked as a child, and I grew up believing in corporal punishment.

I agree, obviously a bunch of psychology NERDS who will never have kids know more about raising kids than me, an actual parent!!!

A bunch of those “psychology nerds” and people who advocate spanking are parents as well. Are you threatened by the use of a strong, scholarly source? Not your best work, CROW.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Spanking: yea or nay. -- Now expanded to include: How humanity uses physical force to ensure desired compliant behavior.

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

Topic: Serious Discussion / Spanking: yea or nay. -- Now expanded to include: How humanity uses physical force to ensure desired compliant behavior.

Originally posted by tenco1:

The tunica should hold against the initial injection, vein walls aren’t ‘that’ weak. The problem comes as this mass of air is propelled towards the heart by the blood behind it. When it reaches the heart, it becomes something really nasty known as a venous air embolism.

I wonder how close this is to a pulmonary embolism. My husband had one of those, which of course, decreased the uptake of oxygen so he couldn’t catch his breath. Although, he described it more as worrisome, rather than painful/sharp. What you’re describing (the injection of air into the lungs) sounds much more intense.

I brought up the outer space without a suit because I’d always been preoccupied with that as a child. Pondered it and asked a million questions, and got answers ranging from—you’ll explode, you’ll implode, you’ll hold your breath and lose consciousness.

Originally posted by tenco1:
The only one who really seems to be against it is dd790, but I don’t think he’s really giving all of his thoughts on it.

Although, to be fair, it seems CROW is against it too, as he posts the same two sentence argument/troll over and over, about how spanking is violence, and violence means you’re impotent etc.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Spanking: yea or nay. -- Now expanded to include: How humanity uses physical force to ensure desired compliant behavior.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Kid won’t tell them either. The bends is kinda lethal and a hypodermic full of air at sea level pressure would be more than enough to ensure fatality.


Sometimes I wonder if I don’t know too many creative ways to off people, and for whatever reason, they all seem to stick in my head.

As a side note, that is also just about the most painful way to die, which really adds to the gravity of the punishment.

Sounds like outer space, without a suit.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Spanking: yea or nay. -- Now expanded to include: How humanity uses physical force to ensure desired compliant behavior.

Originally posted by CROWlympics:

I agree, your post that adds nothing to the thread and has nothing to do with the topic is way better than my post making fun of someone’s stupid arguments in a sarcastic way!!

Now, now, CROW, I was referring to the fact that you didn’t even address my previous response to your post.

also, if u have to resort to hitting your kids ur admitting that ur a weak loser that cant control their anger lol :>>>

This sounds like a strong bias on your post. I’m not a “loser” for a parent, as you so eloquently put it; just the opposite, I feel. And parents who advocate for corporal punishment don’t necessarily have “anger” issues because they believe this works; that is a hyperbole argument.

Although, I was spanked as a child, rarely, and with a grim sort of sense of obligation by my parents. I actually have the family leather strap, passed down along generations from old Patriarch Grandad himself.

Interesting. My dad tells a similar story—his dad would tell him (when it was spanking time) to go out and find the stick he was going to be spanked/lashed with. When he would come back, his dad would often say, “Not big enough, not sharp enough, go find another one.” Now, I would never do this with my child, but I do think there’s a time and place for regular spanking with certain children. If people can raise their kids to be responsible citizens without spanking and with just reasoning, more power to them, and I’m not trying to exclude the possibility.

I just wouldn’t really say that all children that were raised on spankings turned out to be ax murderers, either—my dad spent almost 20 years working as a state legislator, before going on to become the CEO of a major company (where he is now), and of course, being a responsible, tax paying citizen. So what’s the point of trying to say that one approach or the other is right/wrong, or works 100% of the time?