Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Slik

  1. Slik


    Believe me, I tried to console myself by researching it and trying to find a logical, rational explanation. I came up with a few theories, but I still think about that day and it has been 6 years now.
  2. Slik

    Brexit - in or out?

    So one of the most important votes I'll probably ever witness is coming up soon, whether or not Britain should remain in the EU. I'm particularly interested in opinions of those who are not living in the UK.
  3. Slik


    I am a firm believer of logic, but I am left without answers after once witnessing a 9 year old girl who was "possessed" throw her 6 ft 2 father across the room in front of my very eyes. I still cannot explain that experience, and it is a fundamental reason why I keep an open mind when considering things.
  4. And how does one determine who should be taxed extra, and who should receive these donations? This argument is pretty far off the topic of the debate, but genuinely curious. If we have learnt anything from the Panama Papers, it is that it is extraordinarily easy to hide our true wealth. If what you propose ever came to surface, the vast majority of people would exploit this and it would fail miserably.
  5. So to clarify, by holy places we are discussing places of worship/religious organisations (Churches, Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, etc.). Many holy places are extremely well financed (e.g. donations, investments etc.), and are exempt from tax on such incomes. What this enables is an opportunity for corruption in holy places to benefit from the tax-exemption. An example of abuse on this scale is the case of Scientology, an organisation with funds in the billions for what is essentially not a religion, but instead a cult that is able to exploit this flaw. Consider holy places that are making investments in shares/bonds/property. These are acquired through donations, yet their earning potential can continue to bring money for a long time. Now should this income also remain tax-exempt? How is the system protected against abuse? Where do we draw the line? On the other side of the argument we have small religious places that are non-profit and are only financially viable due to being tax-exempt and the generous donations of the public. If holy places and organisations are taxed across the board what are the implications across the scale? What about the smaller holy places and organisations that will be critically affected? While on the other end of the spectrum the larger religious organisations can very easily become capable of contributing to society by paying taxes, they will always be contrasted by the smaller religious organisations that are not so fortunate. An acknowledgement we should make is that there is a clear need for distinction between what scale of holy places/organisations should be tax-exempt and to what extent do we consider them to be large and financially sufficient to pay taxes on their incomes. What incomes should be taxes and which shouldn't? This makes it important to distinguish the differences between donations and investments. What are your views?
  6. A cheaper solution to a DDoS attack is using a reverse proxy. Do some research, will be well worth it.
  7. Fair enough, just a misunderstanding. When I was discussing different taxes, I specifically meant taxes for different purposes. A tax for a set purpose can be handled in multiple ways, this isn't the same as a different tax though. You are however, being taxed differently. For example, if we have Tax Code A for income tax and Tax Code B for inheritance tax we can see this more clearly. Tax Code A can be utilized for the generic purpose of collecting taxes from a person's earnings. However, if they have investments and other sources of income, the same Tax Code A is utilized in a different way now to collect taxes on incomes from shares for instance. Even though we are using different functions for the Tax Code A, it is still categorized under the same segment. Now a different type of tax would be Tax Code B which focuses on money you are gaining from inheritance. This isn't the same as Tax Code A because you haven't earned that money, it came to you by other means. Either way, we are debating semantics at this point, we both agree on a re purposing of taxable conditions.
  8. Slik


    Your perception around the morality of suicide is skewed by your limited insight in life. How could you possibly compare nothing to "the shittiest situation" when there is absolutely no consistency in what that means for each individual. The depths of lows people have experienced in life will always be different. For example one person might feel that the death of their father, their role model, was their lowest point in life. However, how does that compare to a person who was orphaned at a young age and has had to struggle far more just to survive. Also, just because a person isn't religious, doesn't mean they don't believe in a concept of life after death (energy preservation, existence in a different dimension etc). As a matter of fact, a person can choose not follow any religion and still believe in God and the generic concept of life after death. You make a bold statement, 'People should always hold hope and faith in their life...'. Now if a child was abducted at a young age and kept as a slave that was repeatedly raped daily, having known no education or ordinary life, who are you to tell them they should have hope. For them, in their eyes, death may be a blessing opposed to life. The nothingness you discuss may be the hope you are requesting they have in life.
  9. [quote name='Arix']Disagreed. Religion is not special anymore. I don't think it should be a scapegoat for "advantages" over other companies. Perhaps there should be a different kind of tax. Tax is a broad term and there are alot of possibilities with it. I however do not know enough about it to form a 'good' way of raising taxes on a company.[/QUOTE] Sorry for the late reply, I don't think it is a matter of a different kind of tax, but instead a matter of what and when to tax. For example, profits from investments should be taxed depending on the scale of the organisation in question. This allows small organisations to thrive, while taxing those organisations which are clearly capable of paying taxes and thriving.
  10. [quote name='sprxtes']i tihnk they should just b/c of religion[/QUOTE] Care to elaborate?
  11. [quote name='Arix']Are you not showing, with this example that it would not harm them as they raise the price of their product?[/QUOTE] That example shows that them paying taxes prevents them from either being viable operations and/or goes against their motives and intentions, that being providing something as cheaply to the consumer as possible. They will be taxed across all their operations, which means they will be paying tax directly or indirectly without necessarily making any money. That effectively means that they may have to become a scalable business to meet the cost demands of operating, otherwise they can't function. Don't forget that businesses don't pay taxes on losses, which in the case of a non-profit being taxed would probably being very frequent.
  12. [quote name='Arix']Hmm I suppose you're right there. However, a non-profit organisation earns money like all the others do. They just don't earn it with the intent of making profit. They earn it to make up for costs, just like charities do. As such, tax would be just another cost and I don't think it would harm them.[/QUOTE] Taxing non-profits would absolutely harm their ability to remain operational/non-profit. Let me explain it with an example, think of two medium-sized organisations. One of them operates to make a profit while the other is a non-profit. Both of them are selling a product that costs them $5 to make. The for profit business will have to work out their costs and price the product to make money on top, so their price could range anywhere from $15-20+. While the non-profit business will also work out their costs and say, okay we need to make $7.50 per product to give it as cheap as possible and still be able to stay in business. The key difference here is that by taxing the non-profit they are no longer able to offer their product for $7.50, but now instead must charge $10. They are not running their business for personal gain, but instead are what is known as a social enterprise. By that we mean they are offering a service to society out of goodwill and not greed. Taxing this business affects the very people who it is supposed to support, which would be unpopular across the board. An important consideration for you in this debate will be to separate businesses from religious organisations, even though some basically operate as businesses.
  13. [quote name='Arix']No. Simply stated, what makes them different from other companies or organisations? 'Holy' doesn't exist nor should it matter in business. If such rules would remain, then I'm starting a business and I will create a new religion to avoid taxes.[/QUOTE] Well for a start they are non-profit organisations, their tax-exemptions are on par with charities (whom also avoid taxes). Most businesses are for profit and therefore taxable, that is the difference. If you were to create a religion for tax relief, you certainly wouldn't be the first.
  14. Slik

    GEEZ whats goin on

  15. Slik


    [quote name='Game Master']I like your perspective on this. However, I did note that one should seek assistance before enacting the end of his/her life. Great chat![/QUOTE] Yeah I know you mentioned that they should seek help first at the end, but I chose to ignore it because you were contradicting yourself with my own hypothetical argument. It just made more sense to leave it out since it becomes implied that you agree with that aspect of the argument. It is actually a pretty good debating tactic, since it allows you to have more ground in dictating how the debate flows ;).
  16. Slik


    [quote name='Game Master']My apologies for the delay - I must have overlooked this. Nonetheless, you also mentioned being appropriately justified regarded suffering. In that case, living most of your known life believing that life is pointless could cause one to become greatly depressed and suffer internally. This individual could go years without speaking a word of this, in turn, causing this suffering to gradually incline. To me, I would think that's justified enough. However, I believe one should try and speak to others before enacting the end of his/her life.[/QUOTE] Justification is perceived differently from individual to individual. You may personally believe that scenario is enough justification for suicide, while I can disagree, and without any other context, argue they should have sought help/treatment and the lack of effort for whatever reason therein doesn't justify it in my eyes. Justification in this context is an extremely perceptive notion, and as such is dynamic in interpretation.
  17. Slik


    [quote name='Game Master']In regards to your last paragraph; wouldn't it be considered selfish for others to expect one to remain alive? It's not their life. The same concept could be used if one expected to be able to use, let's say, your phone everyday. It's yours, this person shouldn't expect to use it everyday. It's my life, people shouldn't expect me to live it everyday.[/QUOTE] Like I mentioned, it all comes down to whether or not the suicide is appropriately justified or not. If it is well justified, then it would be selfish for loved ones to want the person to remain living. However, if it isn't well justified, the loved ones are not being selfish - they are being reasonable. While you're technically correct that it isn't their life, you should also consider that your loved ones are a part of your life. They contribute to what your life is, such as when raising you, teaching you/sharing life experience; they are an aspect of your life. It is plain that your passing would affect them greatly, most likely for the rest of their life. So unless your suicide can be justified, it isn't exactly selfish for them to want you to live up to the potential they still believe you can soar to in a lifetime.
  18. Slik


    [quote name='Game Master']And what are your thoughts on individuals who perceive life as "pointless"? In some cases, that could cause dire misery.[/QUOTE] I respect certain suicide where it can be justified. I do not respect those who commit suicide because they believe their life to be "pointless", even if this is due to ignorance. While I agree that their perception of their life may be a major influence (for example depression), this still doesn't counter the fact that we have come long strides in treating depression. I think suicide is inheritently selfish not just because of the implications to your loved ones, but the fact that you are wasting potential. That wasted potential of what could have been their life [b]must [/b] be justified for me to respect their decision to commit suicide.
  19. Slik


    [quote name='Chronicscape']Explain what part again you are 'quantifying' because last I checked suicide wasn't an addition problem. I do believe you meant 'qualify'.[/QUOTE] First of all, if you read carefully I stated clearly that I believed suicide was a [b]solution[/b] to [i]certain[/i] problems. I did not claim that suicide is some problem plaguing us, as you insinuate. What this statement refers to is the next body of text following it in which I highlight examples of [i]certain[/i] problems, which specifically was the incurable disease example. Secondly, I absolutely meant quantifying, not qualify. By quantifying, I am implying data which is of statistical nature, for example numerical data. This is in direct correlation with the neurological disease example, since that is something we have a solid working knowledge of, which is comprised of quantitative data. Thus we are able to measure in a very predictable way, which is what you want in a situation as sensitive as this. You want solid results which are consistent, which is inherently a characteristic of quantitative vs qualitative as you seemed to infer. What I was basically getting at was that when it comes to physical pain, we are better able to measure it accurately. So if we establish a framework that is universal to clearly outline the extent to which physical pain is felt by the body, we can then identify a threshold at which pain becomes unbearable to live with. If there is no cure, at this stage the person who is afflicted has the right to have their life ended. [quote name='Chronicscape']But in any case what ARE your thoughts because I see you sitting on neither side of the fence. If a person wants to not exist in this ruined world then they can do whatever they want to make themselves feel more at ease. And that part about the no cure stuff and having a dr give them an optiomn are you insisting assisted suicide? That was outlawed for the fact the one doing the lethal injection had some mental issues after a certain amount of patience they asked them to kill. This is why now all doctors are pro life. There are trains, cars, boats, electricity, and water to go take on that job.[/QUOTE] I think a lot of what I said just went straight over your head to be honest. I'm not sitting on the fence about suicide at all, I just don't see suicide in black and white as you seem to do. By that I mean, you're either for or against. I see the grey in the situation, which is that in certain circumstances, we as human beings should have the right to end our life when under certain conditions. While that being said, I think that in other situations where a person might end their life without seeking another solution to their problems (e.g. therapy etc.) that their suicide is less justified on a moral basis. Suicide is no doubt something that is unmistakably selfish, so I can only respect it when it is appropriately justified. tl;dr - I'm not only [b]for[/b] or [b]against[/b], but a compromise of both. Yes I am talking about euthanasia, but I think the word you were looking for was implying, not insisting. Euthanasia is very diversely practised around the world. I'm not sure if you meant it is outlawed where you live, but that certainly isn't the case [i]everywhere[/i]. You're just generalizing by claiming [b]all[/b] doctors are prolife, this obviously isn't really the case. Also this doesn't mean that a doctor [i]must[/i] be the individual to end the afflicted person's life. At the end of the day, they could very well have a lot of support from their family who don't want the person to be in unbearable pain. [quote name='Chronicscape']Basically put please post your own opinions because your way of copying answers was easily read. You state the same this in the first 5 sentences in different words with same meaning. Every person is different and will feel pain in a different way, so measuring pain and putting a quantity on it belongs in math not psychological statements as this.[/QUOTE] Well as laughable as this paragraph is to reply to, I shall nonetheless. What I am explicitly discussing is the difference between pain that we are able to measure using math and what cannot be accurately measured. You are correct, every person is indeed different. They have different tolerances for pain, yet a threshold refers to a limit. So what I am talking about is a distinction of limits. For example, imagine someone has a sharp pain that is so intense they pass out from it. Regardless of how intense this is on a universal scale, at this point that pain is significant of its own accord because of how dangerous that could be. It doesn't matter if people feel less or more pain to get to that stage. People do not need to feel pain the same way in order to establish what extent physical pain becomes unbearable.
  20. Slik


    I believe suicide can be a viable and even possibly an ethical solution to [i]certain[/i] problems, however the line to draw this at is one easily blurred in our society. For example, if a person has some disease in which he/she is in incredible pain, for which there is no cure, and it is their wish to end their own misery - then simply put, suicide [i]should[/i] be acceptable. If however, there is some psychological pain a person is experiencing, it is extremely hard to establish the differences in a person's pain in this regard, and what possible treatment/help can be obtained through a lifetime (with medicine advancing). Therefore I believe we should place a particular emphasis on what we can quantify, such as neurological damage and establish a clear distinction on what is unbearable living situations, allowing people in these situations to take their life.
  21. Its funny how Israel has previously used biological weapons in warfare, and then complains about another country (Iran) possibly having biological weapons. The whole time, this nation which is actively engaged in war, maintains a nuclear stockpile and refuses to sign the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Yet somehow they are consistently painted as the victim in western media, despite being able to fully outclass their enemy and being comfortable targeting children.
  22. Slik

    ISIS Discussion

    I firmly believe that ISIS as an organisation is simply a pawn in the grand scheme of things. The amount of publicity this organisation gets is symmetrical to the way the press handles anything 'terror' related. With the shit storm that hit intelligence agencies via various leaks, such as Snowden's, they require more justification to maintain the 'national security' cover agenda. If you look at recent events and how much each of them gets in terms of publicity, nothing quite compares to how much attention is being placed on ISIS. There is far more savage events occurring in Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil, Ukraine and yet world wide news seems to place a great deal of time focusing on this particular organisation. Snowden explicitly stated that the CIA/NSA used and continues to use 'terror' as a front for mass surveillance. They need to maintain a façade so that we feel that their operations are justified. The less hung up we are on ISIS, the less effective their tools are.
  23. I have been recently reading some posts and noticed that activity (still) seems to be an issue. I was thinking about the bigger picture and it came to me that we need more reason for people to actively use the site. Considering the fact that the forums are fairly restricted by the niche industry of RSPS, we could potentially look at providing "resources" for 'new to programming' members of the site. This could include providing links and perhaps a general overview of IDEs. We could include a variety of video guides and tutorials on the basics of java (and possibly other languages eventually) that our members can then post feedback on such as how helpful it was. We could even showcase opensource projects that are either donated by members or gathered for external sources (allowed and easily obtainable for educational purposes), which we could then have our more experienced members provide a detailed explanation of the mechanics behind the code. This would not only allow members to better understand java, which they can then utilize in their RSPS projects, but it will also encourage the more knowledgeable members to step up and take part in explaining the various open source projects that available in that child board. I believe that once the ball starts rolling we could create initiatives to further develop the resources we have available. For example, host a competition that gives a cash prize to the person who best improves a documented open source project, and explains how and why their improvements benefit the quality of the previous code. This could entice more knowledgeable members from other communities interested in making some money, while at the same time attracting new visitors interested in learning from prestigious members of other communities.
  24. [quote name='Ikiliki']I'm in negotiation for a different domain that could work well on this project. You should all understand that this'll take some time. We'd first need to change domains, then wait a month to three months make sure all links are properly updated on Google. After that we'll need to change website paths, etc.. Can't do all at once, that'd become chaos for Google.[/QUOTE] Its a total overhaul, it will definitely take time. And by all means, take it. Make sure it as good as its going to get before you release it. On the plus side, the time it'll take for the links to be updated on Google gives you time to work on the new version of the toplist.
  25. [quote name='Ikiliki']I'm unsure about the dynamically displaying. I somehow think it'll take loads of memory because of the large amount of visitors :([/QUOTE] Well you could look into: [url]http://sproutcore.com/about/#tab=what-is-sproutcore[/url] OR [url]http://visjs.org/[/url] Also regarding the domain name, you could go a few different directions. You could retain 'locus' as the ending for the subject area and then host the support per toplist you expand into. The downside is that would get really messy as you expand. It'll be fine with a small expansion for example runelocus/minelocus/wowlocus. But ultimately you're going to hit a limit that way before it becomes a nightmare to have so many different support forums and sites to maintain. You could be bold and rebrand with the launch of your new toplist to fully commit to being the leader of the toplist area and completely redesign the layout of the forum so that it can easily support new industries you wish to expand into. That way you can expand later on, or separate later on if demand builds. By that I mean don't have 'rune' in the name, but instead maybe have a board called RuneLocus. How about [url]www.toplistlocus.com[/url] (its available), you can then just redirect all your traffic from runelocus to your new site and explain the changes. You then have one support forum for all the toplists you want to expand into. That way you can scale how much you want to grow by the demand, and you can grow easily because of the new design of the support forums for the toplist. You can also grow two ways from this point, by either having toplists for private servers of games, or/and by having a toplist for legitimate games. [quote name='StevenAbraham']Yea, it would definately look cool, but considering most people just look at the first page and how little the ranks change at the homepage, I feel its not worth the time and effort. [/QUOTE] Well you are thinking about how things currently are, but what about when things expand? The newer toplists when they launch will no doubt be much more competitive (due to less initial traffic), and you admitted it would definitely look cool so it would very much be worth the time and effort really. On those newer toplists, it might change very frequently throughout the month whereas on the RSPS toplist it will be like that at the start and then not much after. If you want to be the leader you got to innovate and keep innovating and doing what competition is still thinking about.