Recent posts by SinisterSnake on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun Issues

The problem with gun control laws is that they only solve the problem in the moment. The point I see made by pro-gun advocates is that you can take away a gun, but you still have a murderer; and that is exactly right. The point that pro-gun control advocates make is that implementing laws to reduces the chance of a potential-murderer arming themselves; which is debatable. But even if it was true, it fails to administer the real problem; that there are people who want to take a weapon and massacre innocent people.

I feel that both sides have some valid claims to their opinions. But none of those reasons ever administer the real problem. A problem exists in our society which causes people to consider going on killing sprees, and nothing is being done about it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can Communism Work?

I hate to interrupt a heated argument, but oh well.

1. So your argument for the idea of non-market market economy includes monopoly.

The problem with that argument is the fact that the real-life communists are the only ones who live in the desert. A desert that they built around themselves. The government IS the monopoly.

Under capitalism new markets always pop up and old ones always expand. Can you name one monopoly that is in place?

Cartels and other such organizations do not count as they are criminal organizations. Capitalism is capitalism when under rule of law, which these organizations do not operate within.

“Non-market free market” is an oxymoron because free market economies and capitalist economies are synonyms. In fact, they are the exact same thing.

“free market and capitalism” and “government ownership and communism” happen to be true.

Every capitalist nation has had a free market and every communist country has government ownership.

Prior to the Progressive Era, what he is describing happened in the US. Companies banded together to monopolize the market, forcing people to work long hours with low wages, and sold their products at exorbitant prices. What essentially happened was that, by manipulating the business of a given product, corporations became so powerful that they could buy out failing businesses or force them out of business by offering lower prices. Then, they worked to create the desert-oasis metaphor JohnnyBeGood referred to. Private enterprise controlled the water source independent of government interference; and they thankfully never became the government.

Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

2. Now you’re talking of regional effects of roads and bridges that happen to be built by the government.

Still does not explain how it violates the free market.

But the government does provide services that “violate the free market”. For instance, a lot of countries have healthcare provided by the government. In that case, businesses no longer provide that service to people because the government makes it readily available. Same thing with roads and bridges. Because the government has control in creating policies which prohibit the everyday business owner from either providing that service themselves, or trying to work around the government’s boundaries (like those interfering with government-made policies), the government interferes with Private enterprise.

You can’t just go starting a business on slavery, right? It’s illegal, after all. And that is government intervention, which technically violates the premise of a free market.

3. I don’t see how responding is trolling, unless trolling is defined as “anything that anyone does not like for any reason”.

Cop-out answer. Your white flag is up, I guess. Feel free to take it down if wanted.

In his defense, your views on communism are wrong. You’re reasoning—provided I get this right—is this:

1. Capitalist and Communist economies are based from their theories, which creates two examples of each: the theoretical version (from Smith and Marx’s original models) and the real-life version (the one that turns out in practice). 2. Theoretical and Real-life instances of Capitalism have both happened and function, as they are the same. 3. Theoretical and Real-life Communism are not the same, the former being so idealistic that it has never happened. Furthermore, Real-life communism has and will always fail to bring forth the prosperity theoretical communism speaks of. 4. Thus, capitalism is better.

First of all, today’s practice of the free market is not according to Smith’s capitalism. Any government that has control over the way an economy is run (forcing minimum wage, working hours, etc.) is not 100% capitalist. That is a Mixed economy, because it borrows traits one would normally see in a Command Economy. Most Mixed economies are socialist, even if they run on a modified capitalist economy.

Second, Marx’s idea of a command economy is one where all services are provided insofar as barriers such as class, race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on have no bearing on who gets the base needs to survive. Thus, those in control of the means of production are not exploiting the workers who provide the simple labour. Unfortunately, Russia, China, and other countries inspired by this idea implemented them in a way that was as much a corrupt dictatorship as it was communist. It’s not impossible to get communism’s results, but trying to implement Marx’s idea of Communism isn’t impossible. Capitalist nations have had a long time to develop. Communist nations simply returned to capitalism. Communism can still work though, it’s just that communist nations are almost always pressured in to going capitalist when they start to fail.

Finally, theoretical capitalism is what lead to people wanting real-life capitalism. Theoretical capitalism, if it ever really existed, is what lead workers in the US to form the IWW to improve working conditions. Do you see people on the streets complaining about being sick of working 10-12 hours a day, six days a week? Do you see children in every city of every ethnicity being forced to work dangerous (sometimes lethal) jobs? Of course not, because that’s insane! But according to theoretical capitalism, that’s how things worked. The modern model of free-enterprise used in most European countries, as well as the US, does not have any of these issues. Thus it cannot be the same thing.

4. Okay. I accept your white flag. If you wish to take it back, do so. You have the means. If you don’t want people to suspect data-dodging, it helps to prove that you aren’t.

Also, by living better, I mean living conditions, including average personal luxuries, not amount of government influence in people’s lives.

For a Cuban, that miracle-working magic healthcare has a habit of going into the record-burner once that Cuban is designated an undesirable, political enemy, or both, then sent to a political prison camp.

At least you can admit that Communist Party members get special benefits.

Don’t accuse him of data-dodging. Sure, wikipedia ain’t the greatest source, but he did cite it every time to refute points you made. Speaking of data-dodging, where are your sources? There are none that I can see. This leads me to believe one of three things: either that you haven’t logged any research for whatever reason, that you’re misinformed, or that this data you use to defend yourself is BS. Because I like to think of myself as kind and understanding, I’ll assume your case is the first one. As such, I’d appreciate it if I could be linked to wherever your evidence is.

Now I’m confused a little by what you’re saying here about Cuba. Are you saying that non-communist Cubans are treated so poorly that it undermines their access to free health-care? Or that Cuba’s communistic health-care system results in it being designated as “undesirable, political enemy, or both” and that holding this idea in areas unlike Cuba could result in being “sent to a political prison camp”? If you mean the former, then how is that different than the US? People have been and are still being sent to prison for protesting reasonable issues. In the latter question’s case, that is not the fault of communism. Rather it is the fault of those judging a person’s character by their beliefs on how to run a state—not to mention how nonsensical it is to do such a thing.

Also; government influence has an effect on people’s personal luxuries. Street lights, public libraries, public drinking fountains, and so on are all luxuries that are not necessarily available in other countries/places. In theory, I could be forced to pay for these things, but my government uses its resources to provide me these luxuries.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Suicide

Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Originally posted by SinisterSnake:

All we can do is hope that they are in a better place.

Dead and under the ground being eaten by worms or in ashes in a filthy river or left in building to be eaten by vultures.
Yeah better place, right.

Their body is eaten by worms. Their remains are in a filthy river. Their corpse is left in a building. There’s no way of knowing that your assumption—that A, they experience the pain and dishonour dealt to their body after death, and B, the person who was killed would even care—is as true as my assumption that whatever life the person once had has since departed their body. There are people who report a presence leaving the air as people die. Whether that’s true or just a feeling a person experiences when confronted by a harsh reality remains to be confirmed.

Until more light is shed upon the subject, I’d rather think of those who’ve past on as being happy in what happens after death. I don’t think people should commit suicide. If a person really feels suicide is necessary, then fine. That’s their choice. But when my friends pass away, I want to remember all the sweet times we had together. Even if they suck a bullet, I’d rather they find some solace in death as opposed to suffering. You might believe that death sucks and just results in more suffering than we must endure in life. Perhaps that is true; we have no real way of confirming it either way. But people ending up in a more desirable place is a better outcome in my mind. Therefore I’d rather believe in that until I know for sure the opposite is true.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Suicide

I recently heard from one of my friends that someone I knew committed suicide. I was barely an acquaintance to them, and yet I feel like my heart was trampled on and left to burn in a forest fire. People are sacred. Every person is like a universe. They bring something unique to the world that no one else could. When they pass away, it is sad. When a person commits suicide, it is depressing. Not only is that world of wonder they brought to the community gone, but the wonders the community saw as so fantastic were in this person’s mind, unbearable; so unbearable that the only path to mercy was through death.

It angers me when people think of “allowing” suicide or not, as if they have the right to say. Do I wish my barely-an-acquaintance was still around? Hell yes. But if that meant making her suffer so much that she would rather die, then fuck that. At that point, the splendour she brings does not make up for the suffering she must endure to bring about said splendour—suffering that I am responsible for if I force/support the illegality of suicide. It is and always will be tragic when someone commits suicide. But the act of making suicide illegal undermines the sacred connection we share with all people. If someone wants to commit suicide, they’ll find a way to do it. Whether that involves sucking a bullet or jumping off a bridge or hanging themselves, it will happen. All we can do is hope that they are in a better place.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Driving without a license

That depends on the circumstances and my friend.

Starting with my friend. I like him, but are they responsible? Do they have the tendency to drink/use soporific substances which could put others in danger? Are there disabilities they have which could inhibit in their ability to drive safely? The answers to these questions can influence my decision one way or another.

Now the circumstances. How do I benefit from turning my friend in? I want to convince my friend to make the right choices, but turning them in could just drive us apart. Is it a life or death situation? I certainly wouldn’t turn my friend in if I knew letting him drive could save someone’s life. How many friends do I have, and how close to this friend in particular am I? I depend a lot on having friends there for me when I need them. If I choose to turn this friend in posthumously, I could lose their trust/friendship, and I would want to be sure that that is something I can afford before doing so.

People are complex, and the answer is not that simple. Details that would influence my decision one way or another are left to be desired in the prompt for this thread. It all depends on those two variables; how responsible/trustworthy/moral/etc. my friend is, and how dire/profitable/helpful the circumstances are to me or my friend.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quote Discussion, Current quote: “The problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult.”

Originally posted by zomgsilverore:

Lao Tzu was a brilliant man. this quote is as it says “He who conquers others is strong; He who conquers himself is mighty.” Think, really… When you are very angry at someone, and have a strong urge to beat them down. By doing so, you would be conquering “others.” If you don’t, you’ll notice that is it VERY difficult. This is conquering “himself.” Lao Tzu, in this quote, is speaking in terms of a strong body versus a strong mind.

Ah, you beat me to it. I believe humility also plays a role in this. Pride usually is what leads people to one-up others. It is easy to make others submit defeat to you. But it is tremendously more difficult to get yourself to admit defeat—not to anyone else—but to yourself. It takes a lot of guts to change. As they say, “the first step to solving a problem is admitting there is a problem.”

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are you like this face-to-face?

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

As to vika’s accusations I suggest she is indeed guilty of false testimony, of bad ethos. She accused me of misogyny on the same day that I had a very strong feminist post.

I hate to contribute to this increasingly off-topic discussion, but just because one has “a very strong feminist post” doesn’t mean one is any less guilty of misogyny. For instance, let’s say I just delivered a rousing speech in support of LGBT rights. If I then spit on someone’s shoes because they’re a homosexual, I’m still accountable for my actions. Of course, if she was wrong, then it is a non-issue. Still, I hope you understand that the reason “I had a very strong feminist post” does not refute an act of misogyny.

In response to the original post, religion tends to be a topic that people are deeply attached to. Thus, it is very easy for debates to fly out of control and spiral in to flame wars. While I am an agnostic, I think that every viewpoint is capable of descending to that kind of “I’m-right-you’re-wrong-just-admit-it-already” kind of attitude—even agnostics with viewpoints similar to my own. Hell, I know I tend to get a little too passionate when it comes to certain subjects. What’s more important is not to let the fact that people disagree get to you. Religious debate can be frustrating, but the best moral dialogue I’ve had is with people who are interested in coming to a better conclusion about the world; not necessarily trying to convince someone that the one person’s ideas are right. That’s more of an argument, since the opposing sides are set out to prove that they’re right and the opponent is wrong on some level, as opposed to actually contributing to a greater collective understanding.

Unfortunately, the internet creates an environment where trolls are easily able to degrade conversations to that point of no return. If a debate you have with someone is so frustrating, it’s probably better to just walk away. It’s not easy to do so sometimes, but at least you avoided an encounter which was most likely going to be fruitless anyway.

Topic: Monsters' Den Chronicles / The evade/miss rate is fucked up!

Originally posted by Sailorleo:

“But here comes Chronicles and something is really bugging me. In most game with a ‘’hit percentage’‘, when you are over 85%, it’s always a hit. With very few exceptions.”

Funny thing about odds like this: the Law of Averages does not exist. Every single attack all game legitimately can miss, and you need a lot more than fifteen incidents to show any significant possibility of something going wrong.

Basically what he said. A chance to hit is never a guarantee, since the math you see on paper only sometimes correlates to real-world chance. Besides, it would be more accurate to do a test of hitting a hundred spectres, and calculating the result, but even then that won’t guarantee great results. Because that chance to hit is just that. According to the math, 85 attacks out of 100 total should hit. But in the end it all comes down to the dice.

Also, I find perspective plays a key role in this. I have experienced terrible odds as well, but then I recall all those times where I didn’t miss when the possibility was there, and I find it balances out. I remember when my warrior got blinded and his accuracy was at 35%. I took the chance to kill the target, and it worked, despite the incredible odds. I find at least I have a tendency to accentuate the negative. Of course, you could be unlucky, but there are ways to change you’re bad luck so it doesn’t keep cursing you (use +accuracy items/abilities, etc.)

Topic: Monsters' Den Chronicles / Can't use scroll of deception?

Well, I’m not much of an expert when it comes to troubleshooting, but did you check to see if you had any? You’ll have to buy some if you don’t have any. Did you try clicking it in the inventory, or clicking the button that appears on the dungeon map? If one didn’t work, it might be worth trying the other. If neither of these help, than I have no idea.

Topic: Monsters' Den Chronicles / What Attribute Determines Power?

If I’m understanding your question correctly, you’re asking what stat influences max power and power regeneration. If that’s right, then I think I can say that power is not influenced by any stat. Intelligence can help indirectly by increasing the chance of a free skill use, but power shouldn’t be too much of a problem with the right party configuration.

There are, however, items which help with power. Skulls, orbs, and other offhands have a bonus to power regeneration, and rogues can wield bandoliers which grant them +10 to maximum power. Unfortunately, items with power regen are much less common than they were in Book of Dread (probably because the stat was pretty OP in that game, but I digress), so boosts to the stat are limited for characters that aren’t mages/healers. Anyway, hope this helps.