Recent posts by tghrr on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The term "Cis"

The term cis seems to have been made up by social justice warriors and/or tumblr so us ‘normal’ people don’t feel left out, as well as giving one more thing they can attack us for. White male heterosexual just wasn’t enough for them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Circumcision

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Nah, the main problem is the tech isn’t quite there.

I wasn’t even aware the stuff was being thought about. It’s a great idea really.

This reminds me of the time that the pope went to aids ridden Africa and told them that using condoms was immoral

Condoms save the day. Condoms would make Africa as a whole a far better place.

I think this has gone a little bit off the topic of this thread. The thread is like 8 years old. I was looking through discussions on the second oldest page in SD and found this.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Circumcision

Originally posted by vikaTae:

I was thinking more along the lines of a test kit that would fit in your purse, and have a reasonable turn-around time. 10-15 minutes is as far as I’d push it, to maximise the chance that people were still ‘in the mood’ whilst waiting for it.

So you’re looking at a swab and biochip lab setup. One for you, one for your partner.

Sounds expensive. If this thing could be easily mass produced, and cheaply, it would already exist.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Circumcision

Circumcision is every bit as bad as female genital mutilation. It is an invasive, irreversible procedure with risks. Whilst there may be benefits, these benefits can be achieved anyway with good hygiene and a bit of common sense. The only real reason why this is done is for religious reasons as far as I can tell and you cannot claim that it is violating your religious freedom if you aren’t allowed to force an irreversible procedure on your child. There are several potential negatives to male circumcision at birth.

Pain and trauma for the child
Loss of pleasure during orgasm
Inability to experience orgasm
Shorter penis
Erectile dysfunction
Loss of potential early warning alarm for diabetes
Goes against the principle of consent to treatment
Can cause medical problems during the procedure.

I think this procedure should be allowed if an adult wants it done to himself but not forced on children or babies who have no say in the matter.

 
Flag Post

Topic: AdVenture Capitalist: Developer / Retire this game. Bring on Adventure Capitalist 2!

I think that they should torch unity and not bother with flash. Java or python is where to go.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Freebleeding: Empowering or disgusting?

bonerdisplaying- empowering or disgusting?

It’s time that us meninists fight against the matriachy and stop hiding our natural biological processes. For too long woman have made erections seem shameful and embarrasing, causing us men to hide them just to support this oppresive system. I urge all men to stop giving in the misanderist pigs and display their erections with pride!

See how stupid it is?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The singularity

There’s been a request for a post on the singularity. I’ll just pose a few questions to get the topic running

Is the singularity inevitable?

What can we do to slow down the singularity?

What do we do in the case of the singularity?

Is the singularity necessarily a bad thing?

What will be the main contributors to the singularity if it ever happens?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is robot labor a good thing?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

The singularity is coming almost no matter what we do. It’s not about the creation of AI or AGI as such. Rather it’s the point where the rate of new breakthroughs has accelerated to the point where new breakthroughs are coming near-instentaneously. Since the speed at which research progresses has been on an exponential growth curve for well, as far back as you care to go really, not much short of the cessation of civilisation will stop it.

Whether or not the singularity results in the creation of an AI or AGI before the rate of breakthroughs are predicted to start to slow following it (the singularity being the midpoint of an S spline curve) is unknown at this time. Not much of what will happen post-singularity is known, precisely because it’ll be such a disruptive event.

As to human labour not necessary, that’s not necessarily the case. For instance one area I can immediately see applications for human-controlled robotics is in the handling and control of hazardous subdstances. We use robotics for such tasks now, but as we’re able to integrate the robotics with our human nervous systems ever more tightly, we will reach the point depicted in the ‘surrogate’ series of graphic novels (or the inferior film of the same name) in which the robot is from a senses point of view, indestinguishable to inhabit as your own body.

At that point you literally do get disposable bodies where it doesn’t really matter if a corrosive or highly radioactive element is splashed on them; the person controlling them is safely elsewhere.

Moving such human controlled robotics to other theatres is equally possible. A neurosurgeon able to physically enter your brain and operate on the microscale with their ‘own hands’ similar to how the Da Vinci surgical robot does it but with much finr control.

Outbreak control specialists completely secure from the pathogen controlling robotic bodies that can handle infectees with no risk to themselves and still be just as human as if they were standing there themselves. In a way they are.

Robotic soldiers controlled remotely are unlikely due to the risks inherent in signal jamming at close ranges – airbourne drones don’t have this problem as much because of the distances between them and the target.

But there are still plenty of possibilities for robotics to enhance human workforce abilities, rather than just replace them outright.

I see your point but widespread robot labour will in many cases completely replace the need for human labour, massively increasing unemployment. Some jobs may work better with human intervention but many jobs will almost certainly be outright replaced.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is robot labor a good thing?

In my opinion if robotic labour goes too far it will cause two problems.

First of all, the singularity. If we develop the physical capabilities and AI of robots and build them in great numbers then the singularity will be an increased threat.

Second of all, if human labour is barely needed anymore then it will cause mass unemployment. The working class would cease to exist and humans wouldn’t know what to do with themselves.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Your view on legalization of Marijuana

I personally do think that cannabis should be legalized and regulated.

I don’t see a single reason why it shouldn’t be legalised for medicinal purposes, and alchohol and tobbaco are every bit as bad if not worse than pot.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Christianity true?

Christianity, along with all organized religion, isn’t true. There is literally nothing to say that any holy texy is correct except from the holy text itself. That’s like trying to use the Harry Potter books to prove that Harry Potter is real.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Sexualisation and Sexual Objectification in Video Games

I think that sexual objectification is fine as long as it is the right place at the right time and it is something that you expect, it shouldn’t just be thrown into a game randomly. For example, you should obviously expect copious amounts of sexual objectification in a porn game and if you didn’t have it then the game would be a complete flop and would let everybody down. If you told people that these kinds of games shouldn’t have this content in and try to remove it or censor it then you would be ruining an entire genre and making a lot of people incredibly pissed off with you.

On the other hand, if this sexual objectification is just put there unexpectedly for the hell of it then it is wrong. If you involve sexual objectification in a game without a clear warning you will just surprise people and perhaps piss people off. When I was playing far cry 3 I was 12 years old and this game has naked boobs and sex in it. The game was an 18+ but there was no warning for this either, as on the back of the game it said it had online, bad language and violence but not sex. I recently finished far cry 4 and this game had boobs as well (as well as a quick flash of a male crotch, just to not be sexist) but this time I was expecting it, not because of any warning but because of experience.

What I am trying to say is that I think that sexual objectification is fine as long as it is going to be expected. Give people what you say you are going to give them, nothing more, nothing less.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What's so ethical?

I’m consequentialist (I think the end justifies the means) because I believe that if the end product is going to make a big difference then it is worth whatever struggles you had to go through to get there. For example, if you needed to find a cure for a disease that could destroy the world but to do this you had to test it on people which caused them more suffering than just dieing from it then I think that would be worth it. Even if these tests were done on billions of people it would still be worth it in my opinion because if the end is something like saving the world it is worth doing horrible things to any fraction of Earths populations.

However, if the end is unimportant and the means are horrible it isn’t worth it. In my opinion you should always consider how bad the means are in comparison to how much good it will do and use that to work out if it is worth it or not. It is unfortunate that people can use ‘the end justifies the means’ to get away with things such as torture (which doesn’t even work effectively).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?


Originally posted by tghrr:

When we were in science class we were taught about how the core was liquid metal and the girl sat opposite me (who is a devout Sikh) said ‘hmm, someone must have been around to melt all of this metal, it must be G-d.’ I wanted to strangle her. She knows absolutely nothing about the formation of planets and why the core is hot and so on yet she just uses G-d as an answer for the things she knows nothing about and has made no effort to try to learn about.

Yes, that’s a key problem. It matters not whether you have a spiritual system of belief or not. If you have taken the time and the energy – its not an insignificant amount of either – to educate yourself about the world around you and investigate your own faith as much as you can, then you are in the express minority.

The problem is, it’s very easy to say “an unfathomable power did it, so I don’t have to think about this any more” and just accept things are the way they are because they are the way they are. It is much harder to question, to pursue. So the ‘ignorant masses’ as it were, are likely to always outnumber those of whichever stripe who are willing to pursue things further.

That be depressing, that be.

That is all true and it is somewhat upsetting. If you want to discuss anything about this further then please do, but if so then can you make the debate/conversation starter because I am too lazy

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

I am atheist because I believe that it is the most logical and open-minded point of view. I don’t like ‘believing’ in things without any kind of reason to believe in it. The only evidence for religion is whichever holy scriptures they believe in but atheism accepts whatever is proven scientifically. Atheism also accepts that there views can be wrong and they change their views if they have sufficient reason to whereas religion only accepts whatever is written there and they won’t accept anything other than what is said. Religion also is condemned by an old, outdated moral code. Since they won’t accept any kind of change the people who wrote the scriptures just went along whatever they thought was the correct moral code and since most religions are old the moral codes of them are generally sexist, brutal, homophobic and barbaric. Another thing that I think atheism does better is the reason why people believe in it (not sure if that sentence is good English). Atheists hold their beliefs because they agree with science and they think too logically to accept that supernatural forces are in play. Religious people generally only believe because they are either jumping on the bandwagon, they were born into it, they are scared into it by hell or they use religion to comfort them. I’m not saying that all Theists are like this and I’m sure that some atheists are atheist for the wrong reasons as well.

I find that a lot of younger religious people have no reason for their faith and are closed-minded. I am in a class of 13 and only 3 of us (myself included) are atheist. Us three are some of the smartest but that is not what I am talking about. When we were in science class we were taught about how the core was liquid metal and the girl sat opposite me (who is a devout Sikh) said ‘hmm, someone must have been around to melt all of this metal, it must be G-d.’ I wanted to strangle her. She knows absolutely nothing about the formation of planets and why the core is hot and so on yet she just uses G-d as an answer for the things she knows nothing about and has made no effort to try to learn about. Another one of the kids in my class was born and raised a Christian (not too observant I don’t think.) This kid is almost an atheist and he said that he believes in science but then he said that he believes in the miracles of Christ. This is an incredibly ignorant point of view IMO. Just because he was raised a Christan means that in his mind he has to still believe in a small part of it, even though he generally agrees with atheism. I don’t know what this makes him. When I asked him why he believed in this he said ‘I just do’ which pissed me off even more. On top of all this he says that now he is hearing all these Jewish stories (we are a Jewish school, I am born Jewish but I don’t believe in it.) This proves that he is just jumping on whatever he is told and I fear that many people do this.

Damn this took me a long time to type, if you want to reply then please do and I apologize if anything I said didn’t make sense or seemed irrelevant or if I rambled at all. If you do reply I will probably reply back as long as you are polite. Thanks for reading :)

tl;dr, I don’t care if this is too long, bloody read it! You aint gettin a summary.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by beauval:
Originally posted by tghrr:

My first though was hell yes, kill one to save 10’s of millions but then I had a rather cold thought that world war two and the holocaust is actually beneficial in the long term to humanity as a whole because without all these people dieing overpopulation would be even worse then it already is, AND world war 2 led to some pretty cool advancements in technology that are stated elsewhere in the forum.

And by the way I am NOT some anti-Semitic Europe-hater who agrees with what Hitler did, I am actually an English Jew but I just think that despite the horror of what happened he benefited humanity as a whole.

WWII was a mainly European do until the Japs gatecrashed the party. Europe does not suffer from overpopuation and never has – inner cities maybe, but not the continent as a whole. As for the holocaust, we got Israel out of that – that was a bonus, wasn’t it? But I’ll give you the technology aspect. The military pays well for good tech, and always has done. In the long term, Hitler brought us benefits he couldn’t have begun to imagine.

Europe may not be suffering from overpopulation but the world as a whole is so reducing the amount of people in a specific area will still benefit reducing the world’s overpopulation. Besides, if it wasn’t for WW2 Europe may be overpopulation.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Bloons TD 5 / Which is your preferred upgrade path for each tower?

Originally posted by tghrr:

dart:left,right ability is useless at later waves and for it to be any what useful you have to take up loads of space with more darts.
tack:left, because ring of fire is OP until later waves
sniper:left because it is perfect for middle waves as it renders BFB’s and MOAB’s useless and insta-kills anything lower
boomerang:right, the ability is OP for crowd control and the third upgrade is good to keep the boomerang fresh and not get useless at the MOAB class bloons
ninja:left as with 4:2 he is throwing 4 shruikens which pop four bloons each and if there aren’t 16 bloons in the immediate vicinity then it seeks them out and destroys them and insta-kills browns
bomb:left as it whoops lower levels leaving your other towers to get rid of the higher levels
ice:left as it can potentially freeze an entire battlefield (without a cooldown) and it pops them so just like the bomb it destroys all lower levels
glue:left as it kills all lower levels quickly but right side is almost as good as it is so damn fast
buccaneer: left because you just generally help out everywhere instead of one place.
ace:right as nuke is OP as hell
super:right as left is more powerful but MUCH more expensive and it gets rid of all towers but sniper, spike,farm,dartling and mortar
apprentice:left as it is great for crowd control and lower level bloons get pwned
village:right as ability is OP
farm:right as left interferes with dartlings
mortar:left as it weakens big bloon population and is badass if you put at a corner near the beginning
dartling:left for the OP lazah (ima firin mah lazah)
spike:left because EXPLOSIONS

bump

 
Flag Post

Topic: Bloons TD 5 / Gentleman and ladies, what is the most underrated tower in your opinion?

4/2 ninja towers and 4/2 spike factories. The ninja towers are throwing 4 ninja stars several times a second and every single one of those ninja stars can pops through 4 bloons and they all are bloon seeking so every throw will potentially pop 16 bloons and they are throwing very fast. if you place 4/2 spike factories at the end of the track then they will amass so many spikes over the round that they will destroy an army of balloons if they somehow get past your defenses.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

Originally posted by somebody613:

tghrr
I’m glad to get an equally polite “nonreligious” answer. :)
Can you be more specific about what you disagree with me about?
Not what you don’t BELIEVE in (as in, what is axiomatic to you any other way than me) – but what you DISAGREE with (as in, see it differently through human logic).
Thanks.

Well I guess that our only disagreement is God. I don’t believe in God and you do which gives you a religious point of view when answering this question. I will, however, be more specific about what I disagree with.

About your first point, there will still be sane, bad people because they will just give in to the immediate temptation of doing something bad that they enjoy and they wouldn’t care about (or wouldn’t think of) the later consequences. A lot of bad people wouldn’t believe in God and be extension they wouldn’t believe that god punishes and rewards them so they won’t be thinking of later rewards and punishments because they don’t believe they exist. There are also insane people. And besides, if you are only righteous because you want to be rewarded later on isn’t that a sin that god will later on punish? So in the end it really boils down to if they are truly righteous or not, so it is still a choice.

About your second point, well if there truly is a second life then what you are saying would be correct but that isn’t what I believe in.

About your third point, well non-religious people know in their minds that you do only live once and religious people know in their minds that you live more than once so both of these groups would act completely differently.

About your fourth point, well, just like most of what we both have said it all boils down to whether you believe in a creator or not so the atheists will use logic over laws they don’t believe in but creationists will use the laws they believe in over logic.

I agree with everything else you said in your post. Thank you for taking the time to come up with a reasonable argument.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The only way to save our species is to dramatically reduce our population

I think that we need to set a birth limit ASAP. Overpopulation is already a huge problem on Earth and, just like all the other problems, we aren’t taking proper action against it just to please first world countries. We need to stop being so squeamish at making a significant change, because if we don’t make a drastic change soon we will have to make even more drastic changes in the future with bigger, worse consequences. We should probably have strict birth control for the next few decades to lower the worlds population and then make the birth control a bit more relaxed but still intense so that the rate of birth is similar to the rate of death. This may seem a bit over the top but it will just stop more deaths in the future.

EDIT: when we finally manage to get to life sustaining planets we should terraform them and move a significant chunk of Earths population to these new planets. When this change happens birth control limits should be removed because if we find planets with lots of space and essential resources overpopulation won’t be a problem any more and never will be.

If things ever get too bad we COULD be cold little buggers and release a lab-made illness into certain landmasses and block off all borders and airports and boats so that the disease will stay in that landmass. This way we can make sure that only a certain amount of the population dies and there is a good chance that the rest of the world will be fine. As long as we control everything well enough we can just throw this disease on the American or maybe even the Euro-Asia-Africa landmass if things get too bad and make absolutely sure that they don’t get into other land masses and when the disease is finally done burn all the bodies and the human race can live on with a significantly smaller population.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Thoughts on Sleep Paralysis

sleep paralysis is freaking scary. It has luckily never happened to me but as soon as I found out about it I have been scared ever since that it will happen to me.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

Originally posted by somebody613:

tghrr
An easy to say but difficult to accept answer:
True Free Choice.
If righteous people were invariably rewarded, and evil people invariably punished – we wouldn’t have a CHOICE between being invariably rewarded and invariably punished.
Not any SANE person at least.
But since we see righteous people suffering and evil people living happily – we DO have a CHOICE to be either, because we can’t be SURE.
That’s still doesn’t even remotely “prove” that there is no Judge – just that WE are made UNAWARE of how He judges.
But given the axiom of there being ANOTHER world (Paradise and/or World to come) and/or ANOTHER lives (reincarnation) – we CAN assume that the righteous people will EVENTUALLY get rewarded enough to make their prior suffering forgotten, and the evil people will be either destroyed with no trace left or punished for everything they had done throughout all of their lives.
Still, since we FEEL as if we only live once, we do have a CHOICE to choose whether to believe in “extended life” (and thus act accordingly) or NOT (and thus act accordingly).
But even that isn’t ALL yet.
Additionally, if we believe that there is a Just and Omniscient Creator Who made us with some purpose and then gave us specific rules for OUR benefit – we will see those rules as inherently GOOD, even if OUR LOGIC tells us otherwise.
After all, since when are we smarter than our Creator?
But, again, there are plenty of “reasons” to NOT believe in a Creator (or in His goodness, or omniscience, or whatever) – and those who DON’T, can bring up plenty of “back up” (including jokes like FSM).
But that’s exactly the point:
To be able to FREELY CHOOSE our own destiny and course in life.
Thus, we can only blame our own CHOICES for the end result of our life, including while still HERE.
Again, there are plenty of “logical excuses” to NOT believe in God – but there are plenty of logical reasons to NOT be so hasty about this either.
It just boils down to one’s CHOICE

I guess you are right about it all coming down to choice, and we have made different choices. I don’t agree with most of what you said because I don’t believe in god but thank you for giving me a decent religious answer instead of what a lot of religious people say.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

my answer: God doesn’t exist. I am going to be giving reasons why but I don’t want any religious people reading this to think of me as a typical atheist arsehole because I am not going to be randomly arguing against religion, I am just answering the question on this post. If anyone replies to me DO NOT quote some verse from the bible.

God can’t exist because why would he allow all the pointless suffering in the world. Billions of starving people, abused people, homeless people, most of which haven’t done anything wrong. If God did exist why would he make our technological advancements be at the cost of the Earth’s resources, or why would he allow Earth to overpopulate. I picked these two examples because these are unavoidable, so if God is all knowing then he would know that these problems are unavoidable and help us out. Why would he allow the holocaust? why would he say that homosexual people are an abomination if he made them that way (it is not a choice, there is a gay gene.)

Now I may be getting a little bit of topic, but where is your evidence that God even exists? I know you can say things like ‘how did the big bang happen without god’ or things like that and we don’t know, but we aren’t just going to say ‘well crap, I don’t know how it happened so it MUST be G-d. There is more stuff to say but it is unnecessary so I won’t bother.

Sorry if anyone found my points offensive, I am open for feedback.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Atheist forced to go to church

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Faith healing, should it be illegal?

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator