Recent posts by vikaTae on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Was math invented or discovered?

Originally posted by 0Gamer0:

My point is that it seems you could apply the same reasoning to language as a whole and yet we consider language invented rather than discovered.

Any individual language was invented (usually a bit haphazardly) by the people wishing to use it as a shared communication system. The concept of language itself was discovered.

That’s the difference.

Likewise we invented a system (multiple systems actually, by multiple civilisations) of working with numbers to total up what we had, and later to perform advanced calculations. It was discovered that nature itself is also using one (or more) math system(s) of its own in everything it does.

We can use our system of math to understand and work with the system(s) the universe uses, but we did not create those systems. They were in use long before we even had any concept of math as a species, and so we discovered them rather than created them. However, in order to discover them, we had to invent a system of our own to work with numbers, in order to be able to use it to discover the natural math systems all around us.

Make sense?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pedophiles, people like that

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

However this whole thing does raise an important question….

If you’ve got a person who can only seem to find joy in doing things that cause suffering to others in real life, but hasn’t yet acted on that impulse (or hasn’t been convicted of it), and there doesn’t yet seem to be a fully working cure for it….. What exactly should society do with this person?

If they haven’t acted on the impulse, then I see no reason to villify them. Offer a confidential therapy service for those who believe they may have a brain wired in that way, but wish to learn to control it more fully, so that unintentional behavior never happens.

It would have to be confidential to remove the stigma such people suffer from, when they have the urges but haven’t acted on them & do not intend to. We should only be punishing for actual wrongdoing, not potential wrongdoing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Foetuses most vulnerable

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

Then again most doctors are reluctant to follow up on a request to remove functional reproductive organs even if the patient requests them (even after they’re done having kids, and might be dealing with abnormally painful periods, etc).

They are functional, nothing has gone wrong with the organs themselves, and they are not causing the patient any significant mental distress. So it would be harming the patient to remove them – the opposite of what medical care is here to do. Artificial replacements are available, but are nowhere near as functional as the originals, so you would unquestionably be doing more harm than good to remove them.

Anyway, we’ve pretty much ripped the filter off our gene pool with medical technology… It’s likely that GATTACA style embryo selection or genetic engineering might eventually become necessary to undo the long term damage to the overall health of the population after enough generations of being removed from ‘natural selection’…

Gattaca itself though, will not happen. In the film, the protagonist was denied access to a fulfilling life because a slight chance of a defective heart left him with an elevated risk of death. In reality, that’s the gap prosthetics will fill, so the idea of an ‘ex-perfect’ fellow living his life in a chair, or a person being denied careers because of defective organs is highly unlikely to occur.

On an individual level we can replace the bodyparts that are defective. On a species-level, yes genetic engineering to strengthen all systems will be the way we go.

An embryo has no nervous system, and is incapable of suffering.

Prior to the tenth week of development, yes. After that, it has a nervous system, and starts to be capable of suffering.

Hopefully we don’t eventually get to the point where our society is so desperately strapped for resources we resort to a “Soylent Green” scenario….

Not if we don’t wish a kuru epidemic sweeping the population, no. Best to stay away from the idea of humans as food. Bad things happen that tend to bypass our immune response.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pedophiles, people like that

Originally posted by mysticvortex13:

i have evidence to suggest that, at least in schizoprenics, that there might be reason to believe they’re older than their bodies..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25110609

You’re misreading the study. It’s not saying the mind of a schizophrenic is older than their body. Rather it is saying the condition is prematurely aging the body through a buld-up of cellular damage brought on by severe oxidative stress.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Marijuana

3. Marijuana can be fatal if there are certain kinds of pre-existing heart condition in the user.

4. It’s another substance you really should not be using whilst driving or operating heavy machinery, as your concentration will be shot to hell and back.

Efforts to make it legal across the globe are fine, but they should be moderated with the addition of easy access to health care literature detailing when and why pot should not be consumed, so that the user can make an informed choice, and understand their responsibilities with the chemical.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

Sorry, I forgot to put the quotation mark before the link. Link was present and correct in my post if you had quoted it, but the syntax error made it display incorrectly. Also, I’m not sure why you’re so hostile towards me, Doomlord?

Anyhow, the link is fixed now.

As a further issue (assuming Doomlord is still interested in anything I have to say), This link backs up the other point I made. As the table shows, corn ethanol is the second least productive crop for generating ethanol. Yet, for whatever reason, this is the crop the US has endorced for most biofuel production. It doesn’t have a hope in hades of meeting demand, being slightly more than half as effective per acre as the most productive crop.

We’re not going to solve our reliance on fossil fuels down this route.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

Originally posted by DoomlordKravoka:

America is already overfed, besides, the alternative is relying on a limited resource.

There are many other alternatives, such as transitioning away from the internal combustion engine.

But America isn’t overfed. Rather it’s use of processed foods as a cheap food vector that results in obesity. Our bodies can’t fully digest heavily processed food because of the density of nutrition in them relative to the speed they are broken down, so relatively vast amounts get stored as fat.

Worse, as you take more and more arible land for fuel production, you risk being put in a very real situation where production of harvested replacements for petrochemicals start to take up altogether too much land.

It doesn’t particularly help that corn based biofuel is one of the worst sources of biofuel around.

The Congressional Research Service has estimated that even if 100 percent of the U.S. corn harvest were dedicated to ethanol, it would displace less than 15 percent of national gasoline use
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

Originally posted by DoomlordKravoka:

The thing is, we don’t even need oil. Corn based Ethanol fuels are a perfectly functional substitute for petroleum.

Which carry with them a whole host of other issues, including the not-insignificant fact that the more ariable land is dedicated to their growth, the less is available for food production.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Is it just me or does this conversation just seem like a ridiculous waste of time?

Perhaps, but trollmedic’s opinions do seem to gel with those of other regs we’ve had from time to time who are from countries in the middle east. I’m happy to play along whilst there may be a good chance that medic’s willing to listen to other stances on the subject, and consider the evidence.

I realise the thread is about homosexual marriage, not ‘curing’ homosexuality, but there’s a large enough subset of the population who truly (and irrationally) believe it is a ‘mental abberation’ which can be cured, that it’s worth addressing as a related subject to the thread title for so long as it’s likely to help others learn.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

You cannot expect a homosexual person to ‘benefit from therapy’, as a hormone wash in the womb has literally altered the way the brain was wired at a very early age, and everything since then has built on those connections made in the womb.

That’s not even counting those cases that have a genetic cause in the first place. There’s no ‘gay gene’, but rather a large number of genes which all contribute towards sexuality a little bit each. You cannot use therapy to ‘correct’ a genetic construct, no matter how much you may wish to classify it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by James146:

I think it would be excellent if we stopped feeding the troll. Wouldn’t you agree?

It was worth trying to see if there was a real argument there. I still don’t think trollmedic is an actual troll. They’ve put too much effort into their posts for that. I’d like to thank Medic for bringing the argument back to the thread, but honestly there’s so much to address in that post that is badly misinformed (the reasons why homosexuality develops is a good example) or a serious cultural difference (such as the belief that violence is the key tool to solve social disagreement) that I honestly cannot bring myself to put the effort in to correct it all.


Originally posted by SirEthan719:

Morality can be defined in many ways but, I personally dont agree with you.

Morality is fluid, which is a problem when anyone tries to define ‘this is what morality is’ as an absolute. We know it varies from individual to individual, and have a pretty solid idea of why it varies. There is not one single morality that applies to everyone.

That’s why we needed laws in the first place; to set a code of conduct for everyone to follow whren they interact in a given society, superceding their own individual morals where necessary. An artificial construct that’s necessary to give us all a standard to work together in and to refer to.

When you pretend that morality itself is that set standard and try to enforce that as if it was a law, that’s when it all falls apart.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Well could you at least try to make your points public for the rest of us, if not for him? Right now, this is extremely one-sided.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Foetuses most vulnerable

No, there are limits. When we start introducing chemicals into the system that are not going to arise in mother nature’s cookbook, then we’re starting to move away from nature.

Under the definition we’re both using, a prosthetic arm would be considered unnatural, because it won’t arise through organic interaction, or response to external events. Under the wider definition of nature meaning everything within the scope of the natural laws, then yes a prosthetic is natural.

However, it’s obvious that’s not the definition of nature you’re using, so its not the one I’m using either.

You’re referring to the nature of biological systems specifically.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Ninja, is Medic deleting their posts? All I’m seeing is a long line of your own posts.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Foetuses most vulnerable

It’s still a product of nature yes. Human nature is still nature.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Foetuses most vulnerable

If people end a pregnancy with their own hands, then that is also part of nature. I get the feeling medic, that you don’t really grasp what is natural, and what is not.

The Zygote has an unknown status until it can act, but it’s still alive.

A bacterium is alive. Should we stop disinfecting in case we kill some?

Spermozota are alive. Should we prevent men from ejaculating, as that would kill millions by the man’s own hand?

The cell walls of the womb are alive. Should we prevent women from menstrating as that will kill hundreds of thousands?

Red blood cells are alive. Should we prevent them being destroyed by the liver & spleen?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

Originally posted by trollmedic:
You value Freedom too much for a supposed non-American.

Would it surprise you to know that many countries other than the US also value freedom, and even have their own constitutions? Somehow I suspect from the attitudes you’ve presented here, that would indeed shock you.

Morals themselves are Opinions. We have the choice to select which to believe and how to enforce them.
A Raze Fan is a pseudo-moral creature that thinks his/her Morals are good ebcause he/she finds Information on the Internet and became somewhat intelligent that way.

Make up your mind, are morals opinions that differ between individuals, or are they some set standard, such that it would actually be possible to be pseudo-moral? You’re arguing against your own arguments a lot, and this is a prime example.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Actually, if/when he pushes that law through, everyone will have to be paid a minimum of that amount, including those interns. Unless of course you have some evidence his staff will be immune to countrywide laws?

Edit: I cannot find data on what the US wage ceiling is for political / campaign interns. The British wage ceiling for the same job is £14 per hour, with MPs legally prevented from increasing the wage any further. I’ll have to keep digging, but there might very well be a similar legal reason preventing his team from paying them more.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

Originally posted by issendorf:

4) Lincoln Chafee wants to go metric.

This probably belongs in the pro column, not the con. Yes it’s hard for those who grew up in the imperial system to change, but the newer generations don’t have that problem, and it is the standardised system in use in science for a reason – it’s simple to calculate with and is standardised.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

Shit, I was being a little generalizing when I suggested everyone on this site is pedantic because of my frustrations with this site.

More than a bit, yes.

I get making generalizations, but I also try to understand why I am making a generalization when I do it.

As I said before, it comes down to at least studying the group you are making generalisations about before you make them. If you encounter someone who self-identifies as a member of a given group and comes off as a first-prize idiot or complete asshole, then fine, label that person as such.

Don’t label the whole group with the same brush until you’ve looked into them and examined their various stances. After all, every group has at least one of those people.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Enlightenment

‘Good’ is an entirely subjective viewpoint anyway. What’s good for some may be bad for others and vice versa.

Yes peopel do what makes then “happy” all the time by going to school, getting textbooks and studying.

If that’s what they personally enjoy, then that’s what they should do, yes. If they don’t enjoy it then perhaps they shouldn’t do it. All ‘enlightenment’ is, is another path to feeling happy, fulfilled, satisfied with life. That doesn’t mean it is the only path, nor that it is in any meaningful way ‘superior’ to any other such path.

All that matters is that the individual finds it fulfilling, whatever the path may be.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Modern Feminism and SJW's.

Basically I think we can agree that indiscriminitely applying labels to diverse groups is bad. Especially so if you haven’t taken the time to understand that group and its disparate camps & aims in the first place.

I’m aware the brain tends towards lowest energy state computation, but that doesn’t give you a lisence to be intellectually lazy. If you’re going to hate a group, at least do some research on them first.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should we relax marriage laws even further?

Originally posted by TheBSG:

It would also be considered fraud in today’s laws, as being married to more than one person is illegal.

Implosion’s not talking about bigamy, BSG, but rather a ‘colony’ if you will, of separate marriages, sharing a single set of insurance, monetary and legal documentation, like a commune.

Implosion, I’m not referring to custody contracts, but the simple necessity of being legally recognised as part of the same family group as the other members. Across marriages of unrelated individuals in your solution. That’s the one aspect lacking. It’s a good solution, but it lacks the legal recognition of being a single family unit for the members themselves. Not the progeny (if any).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should we relax marriage laws even further?

The marriages would still be separate, and you wouldn’t gain family status with the other groups. A request to get to see another woman’s husband after an accident or serious illness, would get you exactly nowhere with the hospital administration. The groups aren’t legally bonded as a family between all of them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is corporal punishment legal?

No good reason really other than tradition, or that it’s immediate cartritic relief for some parents to lash out at something to relieve their own anger, and a child is as good a target as any.

There are a great many reasons to ban corporal punishment, however, and a great many studies showing the harmful psychological effects. 31 states of the US do see corporal punishment as illegal, as do most of the countries in Western Europe, and it is heavily regulated in Australia. Other countries, I’m not sure of, but it’ll be a patchwork quilt of allowed, allowed with heavy regulation, and outright banned.

Where do you live please, that you’re still seeing it?