Recent posts by livingrival on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Suggestions

Is it possible to make a kongregate app for IOS which acts like a hub to the games rather than having to download the games seperately? I know it doesn’t support flash but just for the games that are IOS campatible.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Evolution

Originally posted by Kasic:
and the origin of life was approx. 540 million years ago. So 540 million years of evolution got us to where we are now, its not been a quick process.

Life on Earth is estimated to have begun over 3.6 billion years ago, not 540 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

Technically right but where it mattered

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Evolution

Please don’t pull a Karma and tell me there are different meanings to common words according to how we decide to define them for a particular argument. So far, I am actually enjoying a discussion on this site. This is a first.

Jhco, its not a different meaning to a common word, it’s a scientific term. But you can’t just disregard homonyms either, such as the word ‘bow’ – define it how you like. But put in context such as ‘I shot him with a bow’ it adds context and meaning.

Kasic may have caused a bit of confusion even though they’re right. Unlike religion, science is an ongoing project. The reason why some theories get discarded at a later date is because new evidence is discovered to disprove the original. If the ‘theory’ cannot be disproved for a long time, it is considered a law. i.e. gravity.

Why do we think as species we are ‘unique’ and therefore a God must exist? Because we have the ability to tell stories. Why are you confused about the pyramids? Science didnt exist like it does now, so why would they document an accurate report of what happened? This is why you’re mislead.

Homo-sapiens have only existed approx. 200,000 years. Religion started approx. 10,000 years ago and christianity 2000 years ago. To input this in a larger scale, the earliest signs of our genus (homo) was about 2 million years ago and the origin of life was approx. 540 million years ago. So 540 million years of evolution got us to where we are now, its not been a quick process.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Please Lock This Thread

Originally posted by vikaTae:

There is no logic in giving a person a lower salary, because they might stop working for you at some unspecified future date.

As for your statistics, you will need to show how a female employee is statistically more likely to skip work whilst remaining employed, than a male is. In other words, show how statistically males are far more dilligent workers than females.

Pay scales are worked out on an average and men are more likely to choose construction work or engineering, whereas women are more likely to choose lower salary jobs. It just so happens that construction pays more than say childcare? or care work? I know that is stereotypical but most women I know are in the lower pay careers. It’s a choice thing, if women want more money then choose a career where the money lies.

On a semi separate note:

There are still A LOT of families where males are the providers of the family whilst the women stay at home and care for the children etc. ITS TRADITION and it hasn’t died out.

What happens to those men that need to pay childcare fees whilst the woman has left him and living off benefits themselves because they use a child to grab as many benefits as they can. And there is A LOT of them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Where do you stand on "informational" weaponry?

When the construction of the American system HAARP was launched, with the system supposedly being able to target large regions of the planet by vibrating the ionosphere in brain frequencies (in this experiment the brain frequencies were not used, but the HAARP system can transmit in brain frequencies as well),

Before I even clicked OP’s link I wondered whether it could be linked to HAARP. I think the project should be shut down. If it has the potential then I don’t trust it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

@somebody

The pyramids and Egyptian empires date back before the flood, that means the traditional christian story is invalid, it could however be an exaggerated truth.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

When a guy, much bigger than you, is beating the crap out of you banging your head against the cement and you have a fireman (for whatever reason is irrelevant), he barely pulled the trigger

Trayvon was a 17 year old boy, Zimmerman was 28. Zimmerman even weighed around 25 pounds more than him. Plus the only witness to the violent attack was Zimmerman himself.

I think the possession of a firearm is relevant, it cost a life. How do you know he barely pulled the trigger?

I don’t think panicking made him shoot this guy, either. I think that the fact that he shot him proves he wasn’t panicking, he knew what to do.

Erm……yeah.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

They can test at the station, but they won’t if the officer on scene deems the suspect to not be acting in a drunk-like manner. Again, its less paperwork and less cost to not perform a suspected-to-be unneccessary test.

I would have thought if a firearm had been pulled then that would be a standard test. But as you said, could be some inside cover up.

So, do you dare suggest that ADHD provokes killing?

No. Replace the word ‘killing’ with ‘altered state of mind’

Any state of inebriation won’t help either – there’ll be more blanks for imagination to fill in.

Not to forget the busted nose and back of head, surprised he remembered much at all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

Inebriation tests are standard, yes.

He wasn’t tested at all, the police report said they had no suspicion to, however in the morgue they tested Trayvon who was cleared of drugs influencing the situation (had trace of THC but reflects a few days prior). They only tested Trayvon because Zimmerman reported over the phone that ‘he looked like he’s on drugs or something’. Why was Zimmerman not on-the-spot tested?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

What makes YOU think that neighborhood watch had “duty” assignments?

They take it in turns to patrol the area in vehicles, that is the arrangement they made for that area (its all in the report if you want to read it). He however was not on duty, but when he spotted Trayvon he then switched to ‘on duty’ mode whilst being equipped with a firearm.

However, if you’re referring to defending himself, that’s a matter of self defense which was another question all together.

An interesting thing I noticed is that the only eye witness to how the attack came about was Zimmerman. The only witness reports there were, was when the fight was already in progress. Additionally his wife conveniently moved his car before the police arrived. Was he even in a car? With no viable eye witness accounts how can a court of law take his word as the truth.

Originally posted by Pulsaris:

Why do you guys go so far to prove that Zimmerman is a jerk? We know that there is no objective way to deduce whether a person is a jerk, and we also can agree that Zimmerman IS a jerk.

Being a jerk isn’t illegal.

He hasn’t got a clean criminal record. This guy had assaulted a police officer before. He takes meds for his ADHD….he could have forgot to take them that day, which lies in his responsibility but this is too much speculation – my point is, he was not drugs tested or medically tested at all, even though he fired a firearm, where its against the law to operate if you are intoxicated, wouldn’t that be a standard test?

Fourth, “leaving a car” is not assault. It will also be nonsense if we can’t leave our own vehicles when some aggressive being is around. (By common sense you won’t, though)

But he took responsibility for the situation by acting on it in the first place, he made himself visible to the criminal, he then persisted to pursue and entice the criminal and when losing site of him he stepped out of his car in an area where Trayvon was able to sneak up to him, even though he was instructed not to wait there

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

How do YOU know SPECIFICALLY what his “role” was?
I think ya’re assuming waaaaaay to much on this issue.

He was detained on that accusation alone and yet dropped without any justification why……

NOW….try telling me why ya think Zimmerman wasn’t “ON DUTY”?

I didn’t miss the point. You were stating that even an off duty police officer still has a ‘duty’. But he wasn’t a police officer. He was coming back from the shops when he noticed the boy. He wasn’t on duty that night, he could have reported it to the person who was actually on duty rather than rushing things. Even on the phone conversation he had with the police department he seemed rather frustrated that the boy was going to get away. And I say that he was frustrated because I read the phone dialogue and he wasn’t cooperating in a professional calm manner.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

livingrival, can ya go into more detail on your thoughts about Zimmerman’s “ROLE” and how he “acted beyond it”…at least in regards to what ya think HIS neighborhood watch entailed and his role as its “captain”

His role is to observe (which he did), communicate with authorities (which he did) but stand outside of his vehicle (where he already knows that a potential dangerous citizen is running about and out of site so could be anywhere) carrying a firearm…..I’m pretty sure that wasn’t his ‘duty’.

And, FYI…a police officer IS ALWAYS “ON DUTY”.

He wasn’t a police officer

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

Originally posted by Trickymist98:

coulda shoulda woulda and hindsight is 20/20.

He made a choice from changing to being off-duty to acting on duty.

Trayvon wasn’t local to the area – so he wasn’t recognised as a local and therefore Zimmerman sat in his vehicle observing him – Trayvon wouldn’t know that Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain. So the site of a ‘random man’ staring and following Trayvon is intimidating behaviour. This would have encouraged the attack.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

Originally posted by Trickymist98:

“he didn’t need to pull that trigger though”

You were not there, you don’t know that.

The whole reason he got off was cause there wasn’t good evidence he wasn’t fearing for his life.

Zimmerman might not have been in the right ‘state of mind’ to make that decision and ‘panicked’ – seems liable.

^^ I justified that. Still neglected his duties though. Could have been prevented.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

I think Zimmerman should have been charged for manslaughter:

He was a neighborhood watch captain, his role was to liaise with the Sanford Police department, not to make direct arrests himself, he was even instructed to not follow the suspect over radio.
So why did it end up in an attack in the first place? – He should not have looked for Trayvon Martin any further in the first place – He was acting beyond his role.

He had already told the police that the boy was ‘checking him out’ and then Trayvon ran. In a later statement he reported Trayvon had been ‘circling his vehicle’ and he locked his car (this is before the boy ran though), however no report of this was given over the phone. I would have definitely mentioned that to the police if I was already on the phone to them – I wouldn’t have the proceeded to remove myself from the car to ‘get a better look’.

Then ‘out of nowhere’ Trayvon appeared, confronted Zimmerman and then attacked him. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise, other than poor witness reports. There is evidence however that Zimmerman was holding a firearm, if Trayvon had already ‘circled his car’ I would consider that as threatening behavior. – So why didn’t Zimmerman pull his firearm immediately to prevent himself from being attacked – It was approved to him for self defense, so why not draw it? – His role was crime prevention, didn’t manage that as well as he could have done.

Now obviously Zimmerman was able to grab the gun first in the fight, so why did he feel the need to pull the trigger immediately. He did choose to shoot the gun but didnt ‘plan’ murder Tayvon, that was an accident (with no evidence to suggest otherwise) but he still felt the need to pull the trigger rather than use it as a threat. If Trayvon had already been attacking Zimmerman, surely at the site of Zimmerman holding a gun would strike enough fear into Trayvon for him to stop, as Zimmerman now has a good reason to shoot him. He didn’t need to pull that trigger though

Zimmerman might not have been in the right ‘state of mind’ to make that decision and ‘panicked’ – seems liable. However as a person who was already studying criminal justice, he should know how to handle situations. He had also no reason to carry a firearm that night. The firearm Zimmerman carried was approved by the Sanford Police Department as a self defense item in 2009 for a loose pit bull. Was there any reason for him to be carrying it 3 years later? Whilst on a trip to the shops? I don’t think there was and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was covered up – wouldn’t look good if the son of a retired magistrate was carrying around a firearm unnecessarily – However the Sanford Police said that he was licensed to carry it…

I think that Zimmerman didn’t plan on killing Trayvon but that situation shouldn’t have arose in the first place, it was preventable and Zimmerman neglected his roles as a neighborhood watch captain who was off-duty and went above and beyond his duties as a civilian, with no good reason as to why he had a firearm in his possession at the time of the incident.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

Originally posted by somebody613:

So, even someone as SCIENTIFIC as Newton, still gets blamed for “being TOO religious” when he tries to combine both sides.
Not surprised, not at all…
BIAS is rampant, really…
“Religion MUST be wrong and CAN’T be true – we’ll do and claim ANYTHING to make this SOUND REAL.”
Seems like a nice motto for excusing one’s own bias…
BYE.
I forgot this forum was doomed for one-sidedness long ago… :(

You were not taken seriously if you weren’t religious back then. I mean Darwin wasn’t even around until like another century after Newton.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The concept of "playing God"

Originally posted by vikaTae:

I don’t accept the anthromorphic gods of our history actually exist, but have no problem whatsoever with us continuing upon the path towards either becoming gods ourselves, or truly birthing them as a species.

Birthing gods ourselves … Now wouldn’t that be a twist!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by livingrival:

So, its a historical document, in the same way as a Tom Clancy novel is a historical document.

I tend to disagree with this. A historical document is based on factual events. So a Tom Clancy novel isn’t one. The Bible however is a historical document: it produces a picture of how society functioned in the past.

No a historical document does not need to be based on factual events. We can learn from a fictional source like a Harry Potter novel or a Bible through two ways.
1. We can look at the society before, after and during the time of writing and compare that to the content to get a better understanding how people of that society thought and acted or what thoughts and motivations drove the Author.
2. We can also compare descriptions of things and events in them to other more credible sources, to see if they can contribute anything to the validity of more credible sources(the validity of harry potter or a Bible is beyond salvageable, at best certain things in them can be validated).

The same Methods are actually used even on documents including actually credible non-fictional content (they are just more useful for the 2nd Method).

So does that mean any book is a historical document? Then the term ‘historical document’ has lost all meaning and therefore means the same as ‘book’? I’m slightly confused now!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Please Lock This Thread

Am I the only one that reads that graph as only 10 get jailed ….. 20 faced trial and 50% were then ‘innocent’, yet they are not included in the falsely accused? suspicious look

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

So, its a historical document, in the same way as a Tom Clancy novel is a historical document.

I tend to disagree with this. A historical document is based on factual events. So a Tom Clancy novel isn’t one. The Bible however is a historical document: it produces a picture of how society functioned in the past.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

Golden Rule of SD

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Please Lock This Thread

I think one of the rights that should be fought for men is their rights to their children.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Please Lock This Thread

What equality is that? Please elaborate.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Please Lock This Thread

Originally posted by niceman555:
Originally posted by urine420:
Originally posted by niceman555:. I feel we need to have a Men’s Rights for god fucking sake.

you’re wrong, and you’re probably too stupid or young to be posting on the internet. hope that helps.

Wait, really? you are too young to be on Kong to talk about how i am stupid. where is your evidence saying that i am wrong?

LOL – see the bold for evidence

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Real-Life Application of Genomics

The United Kingdom may become the first country to legalize the technique, which involves transplanting nuclear DNA from eggs or embryos with faulty mitochondria into healthy donor cells.

Would this not just prevent diseases associated with the faulty mitrochondria?

There are arguments to be made on both sides of the issue on the ethics of genetically engineering humans – which is what this comes down to. However, if you were presented with such an option, what traits and characteristics would you have excluded, and why?

Programmed cell death, ‘immortal’ children sounds kind of fun. That is our ultimate goal after all.