Recent posts by vikaTae on Kongregate

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?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Enlightenment

Make more sense to seek out textbooks and experts on any subject of choice and exercise your brain muscles that way. Pushing people to go down one single path always seems a bit silly, and more than a bit presumptive.

You’ll make a difference to the lives of others, no matter what subject you choose, so long as you find it rewarding to study that subject / area of expertise, and apply your knowledge when you get the chance.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Was math invented or discovered?

Our system of math itself is an invention. The basic system of numbers is axiomical in nature.

The application of that math to systems already in use in nature is however a discovery. Our system of math would work equally fine with no relation to nature; indeed pure math does exactly that. However, applied math deals with the discovery that our invented system of math is compatible with the natural math systems found all around us in the physical world.

This doesn’t mean the two are necessarily the same thing; just that they are compatible.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / GST stuffs poor

Flat-rate for everyone
This seems like the most equitable arrangement.

Scaled rate by income
This seems like the most equitable arrangement.

They can’t both be the most equitable method. Decide on one or the other please.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by sabercow:

Can I marry pluto

Sure, if Pluto can demonstrate it has a sentient, self-aware mind, understands what is being asked of it, and gives informed consent to the marriage. Up to Pluto to produce evidence of that mind, communicate with us, and express its informed consent to the union.

Until or unless it does that of its own free will, the proposed union isn’t going to be considered for legal recognition.


Originally posted by petesahooligan:

In a polygamist marriage, how does it work if a person wants a divorce?

The same way as in any other marriage most likely. Once one party wishes out, the contract is dissolved, most likely in a divorce settlement, with the assets of the group split between all members equally according to value. Those who wish to stay together can then have a new contract drawn up including just those individuals who wish to re-enter the state of marriage, excluding the party or parties that do not wish to rejoin.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

I was just kiddin’ ya about The Hoff.

I know, but I wasn’t sure if you’d taken my serious point on board as well. I used Knight Rider because it’s an easily-accessible example. Not because of who the male lead is :)

But, since the genetic issues involved w/ child-birthing wouldn’t be a factor,

Still would, but you won’t get those cropping up as a serious problem until you’ve been doing it for several generations.

However, we’re back to consenting, informed adults again. So long as both partners know the risks and are fully prepared to deal with any consequences – it’s their lives, their right to do with them as they wish. A legal marriage is really just to recognise the individuals now form a familial unit with all the priviledges and responsibilities thereof. If they wish to do so, I don’t really see a problem. If they’re sleeping together they’ll continue to do so regardless of any legal documentation or absence of same.

It’s just providing the legal protections / responsibilities in a formal framework that the state could offer, and I see no reason to deny that to two consenting and informed adults.

What about marrying your ADOPTED child upon their reaching age of consent?

You might well face some serious social backlash for that one, but again, it’s simply a legal acknowledgement of the priviledges and rights of such a union that would be acknowledged. Still two mature, reasoning and consenting minds involved, so again, it be their lives to live as they choose, and a marriage lisence doesn’t really impact on anyone but them, so allow it.

It’s only when one potential partner is not capable of giving consent, not capable of understanding what a marriage means, already in another marriage, or suffering from stockholm syndrome (or similar conditions that negatively impact their ability to freely give consent) that the state would be well advised not to grant a marriage lisence.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by Kazeelex:
I think what everyone here is going by is that gender is a social construct. Its not. Its genetics.

Sex is genetic. Gender is a social construct. There is a difference.

What happens in your world-view when you meet someone who started out genetically neither completely male nor completely female, but stuck in-between the two genetically? There are numerous very real conditions on the intersex spectrum where the genetics do not say the person is male, and do not say the person is female; rather they say the person is genetically a mix of the two.

Do you deny them the right to identify as either gender? Specify each intergender affected individual as a new gender all of their own according to the degree of intersex? Or do you allow them the right to choose which gender they identify with most?