Recent posts by congregate5 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Compliments <3

i’d hit it

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Redskins: deraugatory or salutary?

And, that a woman being raped should….how was it put? Yeah, the victims should take offense less seriously and realize their offender really isn’t meaning any harm.
Hyperbole well acknowledge and used to drive the point home.

I don’t think they are even on the same scale in the first place. For one, the intent is very different on the part of the rapist and the benign “redskin” user. In the situation with the rapist, there is a very negative intent. In our situation, it isn’t negative at all, and likely completely inadvertent. Are you saying the victim (or rather “offendee”) should not make any effort to try understand the perspective of the “redskin sayer” and to not try to alleviate their own upset? Upset that, mind you, is purely in their own head, unlike the situation with the rapist, which is very much not just in the woman’s head. The seriousness of the situation is also very different, which does matter—after all, there has to be a line somewhere. Are people always going to be “justified” in whatever offense they decide to take at anything at all? Of course not. If I decide to take offense at being called a “person”, or a “white,” it doesn’t suddenly become everyone else’s responsibility to tread on their toes around me, it is primarily my issue.

Also, if a woman was capable of relaxing in such a situation, that would be helpful for them. Obviously it isn’t a complete solution to the problem nor is it possible in most if not all cases, but the principle is the same—you should always try your best to stay present with the situation, regardless of what it might be, instead of spinning in circles of indignation or whatever brand of upset may be going through your head.

I encountered a lot of ppl who had no offense intended when they used the word nigger. A southern boy simply said: That is what we call them.

And that makes it much more acceptable! People still use it, and in many cases it’s just fine. If someone calls his buddy “my nigga” in an affectionate way, is that really some terrible racist transgression? Words are just words, and they only acquire meaning when we give it to them. No word has any truly inherent wrongness, and while we do need to take into account how others will take it (even if we are pure in our intentions), there is a line where it simply shouldn’t any longer be the public’s responsibility to take care of everyone’s individual upsets, and where individuals should just work on their own issues (which they should be doing always anyways, for their own happiness and well being).

Lastly, no I haven’t read the links, as the principles that I’m discussing are quite clear to me and whether or not other team names have been changed isn’t all that relevant in regards to whether this one should be.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Redskins: deraugatory or salutary?

I personally see no issues with the term Redskin, as long as it’s not being used with actual derogatory intent. It’s just a descriptive term, not anything inherently insulting. For the same reason calling a black person “black” or a white person “white” is acceptable, I think using the term “redskins” should be acceptable.

Of course at the same time there will be people who do get bothered by its use, even when it is being used with benign intent…I suppose I’d say that, in my opinion, they should try to take it less seriously and realize that people are not using it with any harmful intent, and that in the meantime everyone else should be a little bit sensitive about using it. I don’t think that any team names should be changed because of it though.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / List 20 Of the Best Games Ever

smash bros

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Hard Concept To Grasp

I don’t anything is entirely un-sentient. If the matter that composes us produces sentience of a particular sort, why wouldn’t matter composed in different arrangements produce different sorts of sentience? It would be very unlike the experience that we have, but I think it would be experience nonetheless

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / I Went Ninja On This Asshole At School

yea, the spinning back kick is def my favorite method for dealing with bullies

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / opinions on this picture

fucking SICK bro

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quote Discussion, Current quote: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

I’d say it’s certainly a goal. The way I see it it’s the only thing at all with any objectively positive value, and so the only thing that makes sense to even be a goal. Everything else is only evaluated as good or bad to the extent that it generates happiness/suffering. Why is being nice good? Because it makes people happy! Clearly others’ happiness has to be taken into account along with the happiness of oneself, but I still don’t see why it isn’t the ultimate goal.

I think the motivation behind her quote was about trying to stop people from focusing on “why am I not happy,” “I want to be happy,” etc. and start focusing on their real life and what’s actually going on now…which is the best way to be happy. So basically if you are “obsessed” with the idea of happiness and dwell on it all the time, you likely will not be happy, but on the other hand, I think it’s a little excessive to claim that it’s not a goal at all. One just has to take a more balanced approach in achieving the goal…

 
Flag Post

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

This sort of aggressive behavior occurs in people on all sides of all arguments on the internet, not just atheists. So why stress atheism in your post? I feel like your question is more of a jab at a particular group than it is a genuine interest in whether or not people act the same in real life as they do on the internet (the answer: no, they don’t).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Debate: Is Human Nature Inherently Good Or Evil?

Well, both. But the evil lies primarily in conditioning that occurs to the mind (although the mind’s inherent “ability to be conditioned” is what allows this), whereas I believe the good is more inherent (i.e. get rid of conditioning and you are left with goodness).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Chicken or egg

Egg. The change in genetics occurs with each egg that is laid, so whatever was the first animal with “chicken” genes began in its egg. The genes don’t change anymore after the egg is laid.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Amanda Todd

Everything happens as a result of some cause or another… she was the person she was because of her genetics, upbringing, society, etc. This doesn’t make her any less worthy of sympathy than someone who lost their life due to a slightly more ‘external’ cause.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are viruses and fire considered living things?

This is just a definitional question—the answer simply depends on your idea of what the word “life” means. So if you want an answer to the question you have to provide a definition of “life” that we can decide based on.

But one way or the other, our understanding of “viruses” will still be exactly the same, and they will have all the qualities that they had prior to us answering the question; we will simply categorize them differently.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / a quote for life?

“It is better to travel well than to arrive.”
-Buddha

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Morals.

I don’t see why morality can’t be objective without God. Consciousness and experience is objectively, ontologically real—the most certainly real thing that there is—and the experience of happiness is inherently good. Thus, a moral system oriented around happiness would seem to be objective. Simply because happiness is a “subjective” (i.e. internal) phenomenon doesn’t mean that it cannot be quantified and accounted for in a single system. I suppose you could call it “objectively subjective,” but it wouldn’t be relative, per se (meaning that one can still have an ‘incorrect’ view on morality; everyone’s views are not equally valid).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Morals.

You did not use the definition:
Right = benefits the greater good

You used, and I quote you here:
Right = intending to benefit sentient beings.

I meant “sentient beings” as the whole of all of them, and thus benefitting said whole would be the same as the “greater good.” I suppose my language could’ve been a little clearer though.

Also, to reiterate, it is the intention that is crucial. The motivation behind the actions. Just because something happens to benefit the greater good in some way doesn’t make it a moral action. After all, it is ultimately impossible to accurately judge the final effect something has had on the greater good (chaos theory etc.). We can only make the best judgment we can.

Punching someone quite clearly causes much more suffering than having someone be a little hungry for a while.

That’s entirely your opinion. It’s quite easy to this argument around.

It’s certainly my opinion—as is everything else that I can ever communicate to anyone. All ‘knowledge’ is opinion, based on possibly fallible information and inferences. And from looking at the situation, my best judgement would be that punching someone and stealing their food to feed my slightly hungry girlfriend would be highly detrimental to the greater good, and thus it would not be something that would arise out of my compassionate intentions. Of course, if the particulars of the situation were different—perhaps my girlfriend was starving, we were unable to acquire food elsewhere, and the person was himself well fed but still unwilling to give it to her—then I very well might do such a thing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Immortality: A blessing or a curse?

I think I’d enjoy it. I’d have plenty time to develop my mind to perfection, and everything after that would be easy.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Morals.

Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by congregate5:

Right = intending to benefit sentient beings. Wrong = the opposite.

Imagine the following scenario:
Your girlfriend is hungry. You see someone coming out of a McDonald’s with a cheeseburger in his hand. You walk over there and knock him out. You take the burger and give it to your girlfriend.

Helped a sentient being. Knocked another one out in the process. Since only intentions count, this obviously was morally right, right?

How does this benefit the greater good? Punching someone quite clearly causes much more suffering than having someone be a little hungry for a while. One’s conceptualization of the world would have to be pretty seriously fucked if their compassion expressed itself in that manner. But regardless, as long as your actions are motivated by genuine compassion they are moral, as you are making the best decision you can. Maybe it doesn’t work out, like a doctor who performs an emergency surgery and makes a mistake resulting in the patient’s death, but it was motivated by compassion and thus is moral.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Morals.

Right = intending to benefit sentient beings. Wrong = the opposite. The intention itself is the only thing of importance when it comes to morality; the resultant actions are based on specific information and reasoning which can be fallible due to luck etc.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What do you think that happens after death?

It will simply be a swirl of ever changing experience with no notion of self, past, or future. The experience that occurs will also be of a very different sort than the sort of experience that is happening now.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Do you think eating other people is morally wrong?

There’s nothing inherently wrong about it. It’s all situational. If, for instance, you are starving and the only thing to eat is a dead body, it’s common sense just to go ahead and eat it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Moral philosophy?

I would say that the closest thing to an objective moral code is simply acting with the intention of bringing about the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. I believe happiness itself is an objective good, and therefore it would seem to follow that actions that aim to increase it are moral, and those that aim to decrease it are immoral.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is happiness?

Happiness is simply positive subjective feelings and states, from simple physical pleasure to mental bliss to states such as the flow state.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Infinite question

^ Xeno’s paradoxes.

Also I don’t know much about it, but in mathematics there are actually infinities of different sizes. The number of real numbers, for instance, is greater than the number of integers, despite the fact that they are both infinite in the general sense of the word.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

^ Just because things are determined doesn’t mean we don’t influence our own path. The brain itself is part of what determines what happens to the brain in the future, and our consciousness arises from that brain. So striving to change oneself is the equivalent of the brain altering itself in order to form a state that equates to greater happiness. As a consciousness yourself, you have choice. The choosing process itself just happens to be determined as well. Determinism is an interesting philosophical idea, but it has few practical implications.