Recent posts by some_guy1 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Would anyone,

Can we get incredibly drunk off of our collective ass and die of alchohol poisoning afterwards? Because that would be awesome.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / too much?

What’d I miss.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / CHEERIOS ARE AWESOME!

Originally posted by Lordtatertots:

This got old before it even started.

This thread shouldn’t have been started period.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

Originally posted by Jabor:

One of the large cornerstones of my argument is that the “minority does not overrule group” principle still applies.

And yet you claim that doesn’t apply to explosives.

I’m not sure you’re realizing how inconsistent your argument is.

I realize it fully.

We have demolotion teams, you can kill significantly more people with explosives than with guns. Besides that, explosives can turn a person into a one man army, with the killing power of something a bit larger than a minority.

Basically, I rationalize by noting he has such siginificant killing power that he could kill well over what the minority with guns could, all by himself.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

Why do you get to decide what’s an “acceptable risk” for everyone else?

I was never asking you to accept it. Those are just my thoughts on the issue. Aside from that, how often does this happen? Out of a nation of 300,000,000 people, 1 out of 5 of which being gun owners, very few have actually gone on a killing spree. With what you’re saying, you’re making sound like columbine is a weekly event.

The point I’m trying to drive home, is that people are responsible, and when they are not, they are held accountable.

How can you then justify the legality of, say, full-automatic assault rifles?

One of the large cornerstones of my argument is that the “minority does not overrule group” principle still applies. If you can’t accept that as reasonable, I will never be able to justify my beliefs to you, and you will never be able to justify yours to me.

I know it’s a bad response to a valid question, but I just noticed it’s 2:00 am, I tried explaining this previously, you didn’t accept it, and I realize that this is just going to continue back and forth like so.

I’m enjoying it for the most part, wondering if I can ever describe this to the point where you could truly understand what I’m saying. I don’t believe I’m communicating the point well enough. Are there any tips that you could give me to help convey a view or message (Please shout them on my profile, if you want to, I’ve already driven the thread off track enough).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

How can you then justify the legality of, say, full-automatic assault rifles?

You have to jump through some serious hoops to get your hands on those (level 4 license, I think), and even then, they’re ludicrosly expensive. I’d still have to settle with explosives being more deadly. In a public area, you might be able to get 10 or 30 people with a FA assault rifle(assuming it’s not rush hour or a holiday when the streets are packed) before the police corner you. They usually have a patrol on every two blocks, I believe.

But you have to remember, there are very few examples of people actually going out killing people in huge shooting (I can only think of 3, and out of a population of 300,000,000 people, that’s impressive), let alone with FA assault rifles.

However, using explosives, you could easily go in and out, cause a building to collapse, if done correctly, creating a domino effect that could easily kill hundreds, even if it’s not a busy day at all. You have more killing power, usually live to kill again, and can easily move away from the crime scene.

Generally, guns are kind’ve a 1 scene act. Once you’re out of ammo, you’re screwed, there is no way you are getting out of there. So your killing power is limited by how much ammo you’ve got, your armor, and your aim.

And for an explosive to go off, it has to be armed, and the person with the detonator using it irresponsibly.

Generally, it’s hard to be irresponsible yet smart/sane/not intoxicated enough to know how to arm and place a bomb. I was really assuming that the guy using the gun was either inexperienced in handling guns, or intoxicated.

Originally posted by Jabor:

Because you don’t believe this principle applies, no matter what I may say, and no matter how convincing I may try to be, one of the large cornerstones of my argument is that the minority does not overrule group principle still applies.

If you accept that principle, you’ll have to explain why it doesn’t apply to explosives.

Like I stated earlier, the killing power is upped by such an incredibly significant amount, it’s just not worth the risk. If you need a building demolished, hire an explosives expert.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

Yeah, I’m still not seeing the deal as to why some things are illegal and others are legal, or should be, according to you.

Here’s the problem. I believe the islamic comparison is valid, and you don’t. I believe the same principle still applies, but I can’t convince you that it is valid. Because you don’t believe this principle applies, no matter what I may say, and no matter how convincing I may try to be, one of the large cornerstones of my argument is that the minority does not overrule group principle still applies. If you can’t accept that as reasonable, I will never be able to convince you, and you will never be able to convince me.

The thought of it kind’ve sucks, because it makes the debate seem kind of hollow purposless. Just a back and forth exchange that usually just repeats itself.

Even if we don’t change minds, there is nothing we can lose by debate, and plenty of knowledge to gain.

Pretty much what I just wrote above. I’m kind’ve in agreement with Sheep at this point. All we’re doing is rewording past arguments.

In any case.

It sounds like you are using “implicit” as “likely.” I was under the impression that it had similar meaning to the word “potential,” in which case, I could say that sodium nitrate, arabic immigrants, and cars do pose an implicit threat. Not gauranteeing a threat, but has the potential to be.

Even if you don’t agree with keeping guns legal, you can’t exactly deny the fact the black market would suddenly be booming (no pun intended). Pretty much a repeat of pro-hibition. Though possibly more violent, as the guns would probably end up in the hands of those who have connections to the black market, criminals.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

Weak comparison. Guns are build pretty specifically to kill, they’re killing machines.

I was more noting how it’s the fringe groups that give the group as a whole a bad reputation, though I can’t exactly say I expressed that very well.

However, that still doesn’t change the fact (I think it actually helps demonstrate) how incredibly responsible people are with guns. They don’t exactly go mad with power, they are incredibly careful. I only plan on getting a gun once I am sure I know what I am doing, and can accept the responsibility of it, meaning numerous training and safety classes.

There actually are a few benefits to them, 70% of americans (1 out of 5) have guns, which is a deterrent to most robbers, along with invading forces. Should an almost apocolypitc situation occur, communities and neighborhoods could band together and form strongholds, maintaining order in the general area until help can arrive. These people know eachother, in a time like that, they’d be more likely to band together than to kill eachother.

In the same way it wouldn’t be fair to outlaw high explosives because of accidental bombings or purposeful ones?

I don’t exactly how high you’re going, so I would assume that you’re talking about a serious load of c4. In that case, accidental or not, that will almost certainly kill more people. A misfire from the average .22 cal pistol or average shotgun (the combination that most homeowners use, so the most likely to misfire) won’t be likely to kill somebody, unless they are in close range (shotgun has too close of a range, if the pistol misfires, even pointing at the person, it likely won’t hit a lethal organ). However, for either of these to misfire, the saftey has to be off, and the weapon holder using the weapon irresponsibely. That would be one of the fringe groups I mentioned earlier, who give the groups as a whole a bad name.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

I’m arguing that you shouldn’t make them illegal not because they are already legal, but because your fears are, for the most part, unfounded, as all those who would pose a serious threat to society, and own guns are a very small minority(in terms of the stupid or criminally insane, the number of criminals will be higher, but generally they spend more time fighting eachother than they do shooting at civilians not involved with their business).
It wouldn’t be fair to outlaw guns because of accidental shootings or purposeful ones, in the same way it wouldn’t be fair to block all islamics from entering the US. Again, if you’re that afraid, you shouldn’t get in a car. The chances of you dying in an accident are significantly higher than a random stranger shooting you.
Not to mention that this would turn into a huge black market, so may you legalize marijuana, but you just gave crime syndicates an alternitave that just as good, if not better, at bringing in cash flow.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

I’m honestly not sure what to say here. It’s almost as if you just ignored what we were actually saying and instead jumped completely off on a tangent.

Looking at the debate between burningcheez, tasselhoff, and saint ajora, it looked more as if the topic had swayed toward the advantages and dis-advanteges of making guns illegal, at least to me.
I tried showing some of the impracticalities of making guns illegal, the major one being the huge black market that would be made available. Unfortunately, it seems I got a little to distracted with “why should we make guns illegal,” a debate thats fascinated me for a long time, and ended up elaborating too much on an unecessary point, soon forgetting the original discussion.
This seems to happen to me alot, I often have trouble sticking to the theme in my humanities papers.
Sorry about that, would you prefer I delete/edit my posts?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

Originally posted by Jabor:

For starters, you’d have to obtain powerful explosives illegally, as civilians are not allowed to obtain those used in heavy demolition, which is what it sounds like you’re talking about.

…I honestly don’t see how the existing ease of acquiring such items is at all relevant to a discussion of whether or not it should be illegal to acquire them.

I was making the point that, generally, explosives are recognized as a more dangerous weapon than guns, and as such, are illegal. You can only obtain heavy demolition explosives through being part of a demolition company, or through connections in the black market.

I doubt that you know how to access either, at least, I don’t.

I’d still like to know why guns should be illegal, when they could otherwise be monitored and taxed. Not to mention that with all the mucking around our our government is doing in other countries, you’d think that 70% of all americans owning some sort of weapon would be a major deterrent to any sort of invasion planned.
I’m not saying that it would be likely, but having your troops trudging around in 103 other foreign countries doesn’t exactly increase your popularity with the world community.

Who cares if it’s illegal? If you have it, the threat exists. The situations are the same.

We can no longer sell sodium nitrate as fertilizer, as there is the implicit threat someone could use it as explosives: we shouldn’t let anybody in from the middle east, because there is the implicit threat that they could be planning the next 9-11; we shouldn’t let people drive cars, because so many more people die every from car accidents than shootings, purposful or otherwise.

Now before you say it, why doesn’t that logic apply to anything else?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama's Health Care speech

Companies don’t become successful if they don’t provide a quality product.

Tell that to Insurance Companies, who don’t, and still make huge amounts.

That would be the fault of the people who willingly buy from them. Everybody knows these companies are just a huge scam, yet they continue to buy from them, complaining all the way.

Instead of wasting your own money paying them, and your tax dollars trying to fix them, just stop buying from them and force a new system. If people are apethetic to the point where they won’t even bother to organize themselves with a goal as simple as a boycott, then they deserve every moment suffering and every consequence that they are allowing to be forced upon them.

Could you explain why a private comapny shouldn’t have interest in their profits?

When they profits means that hundreds of thousands die from their actions?

Who is the problem, the tyrant, or the people with the power to remove him who sit idly by?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Nobody is selfish

You can also desire to do something for the benefit of one group or the hinderence of another. This is not greed, as it is selfless.

You wouldn’t be trying to hinder another group unless it would be a net gain for you, other wise it would just a be a waste of time and effort.

Of course though, your point about desire to do something for the benefit of others holds true.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama's Health Care speech

The difference between the state-owned enterprises and private corporations is that private corporations have a vested interest in their bottom line, rather than in providing a quality service.

I’m kind’ve ignorant of the world around me, meaning I don’t really pay attention to the news, economy, or the world outside my interests in general. What you said brought up 3 questions in my mind. The first question is the most important, because what you said sounded wrong. Companies don’t become successful if they don’t provide a quality product.

So, if the company’s main interest is the bottom line, their profit, why don’t the provide a quality service, thus attracting more customers?

Could you explain why a private comapny shouldn’t have interest in their profits? It’s not exactly the company’s duty to any person to provide quality service. It was the customers decision to do business with them. If the business does and continues to provide a bad product like you claim it does, than why do people continue to purchase from them? It doesn’t make any sense.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans?

I think that this might have already been covered, but wouldn’t outlawing guns just create a huge black market for them? Why not just crack down on ID verification and give guns a higher tax, similar to what most people want to do with marijuana?

And yes, there are a few gun nuts who end up snapping, and there’s is a gun lying around. There is the irresponisble owner, who ends up accidently hurting himself, and possibly others.

But those are just two small extremes on opposite sides of the spectrum, the clumsy and irresponsible, and the highly organized who are under pressure. There is a much larger group of truly responsible people inbetween those two extremes.

Why should the rest of the group of gun owners have to suffer or be labled as part of either of these groups, having done nothing to deserve it? As much as people may try to label entire groups, we know that all muslims aren’t terrorists, but that the hype is just caused by a small extremist group of people. We can understand that homosexuals aren’t girly men who like to wear frills and pink dresses, for we know that it is only practiced by a smaller group which is part of a larger whole. We know that christians aren’t gay hating nazi’s, but that what you see, like with all the other examples I’ve listed, is just an extreme minority undeservedly stealing spotlight.

Why is it that this same principle, that we all can recognize, doesn’t apply to gun owners?

So why aren’t they the same?

For starters, you’d have to obtain powerful explosives illegally, as civilians are not allowed to obtain those used in heavy demolition, which is what it sounds like you’re talking about. But if you want to go into greater detail;

What type of explosive, how much, how is it transported, how is it hidden, is it stable, how adept is the person at crafting, planting, and organizing the demolition of buildings or public centers?

What make of gun, how many rounds, how would it be transported, how well maintained, how experienced is the person using it, does he have a silencer or other equiptment?

Those are really the determining factors as to which is deadlier in any given situation. Explosives can only do so much if you don’t how to make them, set them, or store them. Guns can only work well if you have good aim, know how to reload, and know precautions to avoid injuring yourself.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Sorry but...

Someguy, you’re wasting your “talent” and everyone elses time.

Go try out the ABS forums. You can get away with anything there.

Here’s a random thread from their version of the SD forum.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Sorry but...

Jesus. What the hell happened here?

I leave you guys for some amount of time to go search for better forums, and come back to find some sort of OT post apocolypse.

Explain yourselves.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / my new avatar

On that idea we could make the Death of all those jews even worse and completely Leave the fags of america out of the war…AWESOME

Alternatively, America could be like some sort of Team Rocket spin off.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / my new avatar

Somebody ought to make a turn based RPG, similar to final fantasy for the NES, except it should star all the dictators we just listed, and instead of saving the world, you should be trying to enslave it.

Best game ever.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / my new avatar

Originally posted by AwesomeX2:

Just a Paladin.

What about Hirohito?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / my new avatar

Originally posted by AwesomeX2:

Stalin is still a wizard.

What about Hitler?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / What you reppin

Not to mention horribly cold beaches.

I went to texas in the summer. 103º there, 103º here. If the sand wasn’t so loose, you could fry an egg on the beaches.

That was just this year, at least. Usually it’s only in the 80’s or 90’s.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / What you reppin

Seattle.

Land of Starbucks, Microsoft, and angry coffe drinkers with a serious vitamin D deficiency.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Wow!

They were right below our noses the whole time.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / goodbye

Originally posted by Traud:

In my time here, I haven’t seem him post anything notably good or bad.

He used to post much more way back. Not so much nowadays. Even then though, he would rarely post something good or bad, mostly short neutral statements. Occasionaly a joke or something stupid, but not too often.