Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/18/03 01:10 AM, TheShrike wrote: Why don't we define human as something with active vocal cords? Or perhaps humans use their lungs. fetuses don't use their lungs, so it's clear-cut to me!

There. Problem solved. =]

So it's only when they can scream as they're being killed that it's wrong?

At 6/17/03 07:45 PM, nailbomb wrote: Honestly, what's the difference between a condom and an abortion? They both stop a baby from being fully formed. Sperm and eggs are as alive as a few weeks old fetus, if it can even be called that.

Your definition would place skin cells and hair on the smae level as a baby, though. The biological fact you overlook is that sperm and eggs, seperately, are genetically identical to that person. It is only when they combine that a new, genetically different organism is created.

Killing a sperm is no different than cutting your hair because they're part of you. Aborting a fetus is terminating another life, though.

That can't even be considered human.

So when do you define "human"? We don't know when the "transformation" to "human" status takes place. Since we don't know, we've got to play it safe or we may be murdering tens of thousands and not even know it.

At 6/17/03 12:41 PM, D2KVirus wrote: We've had The Foreigners make their case for their "irrational, jealous hatred" of "The Greatest Nation on Earth" so, just to balance it out, can some of the american users tell us why exacvtly you believe in the superiority on every level your nation has, and why they represent all that is good and pure?

It is the most powerful nation as the last remaining superpower, but I don't believe that we have some inherent superiority. The reason I defend it is because many ill-informed and easily swayed people are told to blame it for any sort of problem and that this is the popular thing to do, so they attack America with the same tired old evidence, no matter how disproven. I gues it makes some of them feel big, as if they're being all "counter-cultural" and "fighting the establishemnt". In reality, they're just more mindless faces in the crowd that uses America as a scapegoat.

At 6/18/03 12:28 AM, AmericanBADASS wrote: im glad the first response i got wasn't being flamed. I feel that the whole point of a cival service test is to see who is most qualified.

When you can get more points on the Univ. of Michigan's entrance requirements by being of a minority than you can get by distinguished community service, a 4.0 GPA or an outstanding admissions essay, then you can certainly cheat a civil service test by being of the right minority.

At 6/17/03 10:07 PM, mwazzap wrote: U know. With the Atom bomb and the 100,000 Japanese civilians killed.

We dropped a bomb to end a long and bloody war that would have cost massive casualities to end by conventional means. You're also making a very one-sided argument because you ignore the numerous Japanese atrocities. Ever heard of the Rape of Nanjing? Bataan? The pillaging of Manila? Probably not, or you're simply not bringing it up because all you seem to know is Blame America.

I blame the religious people.

I stand corrected. You also know the tactic of Blame Religion.

At 6/17/03 12:41 AM, alejandro1 wrote: No. People would start calling us Yankee imperialists if we did.

Well, they're going to do that no matter what, so we might as well....

Nah, that never works out. We know not to do a 'Great Britain'.

At 6/16/03 03:59 PM, nailbomb wrote: "I love my country"
"get out of my country if you don't like it"
"damn foreigners, they hate us because we're superior"
"we are the master race"

Is patriotism that far away from racism and supremacy? Personally I think they're synonyms. Let me know what you think.

Here's an historical example, Imperial Germany.

Imperial Germany was very nationalist and its citizens quite patriotic, but they were not racist. Indeed, they actually treated their black, asian and pacific islander colonial subjects far better thanh any other colonial empire. They loved their country, but that did not lead them to hate other races. Take the colonial Shutztruppen in Africa, for instance. Most of the soldiers were black, yet they were treated exactly the same as white German soldiers and served side by side with whites. Did they fight to the end for "Kaiser and Empire"? Yes, they did, but they were certainly not racist.

At 6/13/03 10:52 PM, nailbomb wrote: I see that you've read your history books.

^_^

THEY WERE AMERICAN

I never implied that I thought they were Vietnamese. Besides, why would they be protesting the war, they would be fighting it.

I also see that you fail to grasp a concept known as sarcasm.

Dr. Arbitrary, there are in fact some theories that have the universe starting itself by space time curving to the point that it loops back on itself.

At 6/13/03 10:30 PM, nailbomb wrote: If you have something to die for you have something to live for. 2 individuals set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War, I don't remember seeing that during the Iraq "war".

Good idea. If they all killed themselves, we wouldn't have to bother with them!

At 6/13/03 10:16 PM, nailbomb wrote: Linking us to a thread where someone wrote such a thing would help your credibility, unless no one ever really said such things. :-P

It was a hypothetical exaggeration of the way people just link to these sites that all promise "fairness" and to cut through the mainstream lies and other such things, but are really questionable on their own merits.

You want examples? Try your own threads for a start.

This is a general observation, not a play by play. You seem like a person so literal minded that if I stated that the sky was blue, you would demand that I take a digital image and examine every pixel to make sure it was "really blue". Of course, then you want to define 'blue' and 'sky'.

And then you'd blame it on Bush....

At 6/13/03 09:13 AM, nailbomb wrote: people were too affraid to go outside of their homes so they flew in US supporters to make it show like all of Baghdad was there to celebrate the downfall of a statue

That's not stated in your "article". You made it up.

and go read the other article linked as well, that wasn't a bad camera angle either, that was a straight-out lie as was the mainstream picture of Iraqis celebrating in the streets of Baghdad.

Some of those blobs are pretty questionable. How do I know if that site didn't just photoshop the pic to make it look like some basic patterns repeated?

How can you confuse a few dozen people with hundreds, if not thousands?

I don't think there were thousands, but at least 100, probably.

At 6/13/03 11:47 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote: yes sterotyping is the problem - but year by year the races continue mixing in the great meltingpot called Human Life.

..we need to reduce religeous and economic imbalance while promoting ethnic mixing.

** gets off soapbox **

That used to be how it was in America, the so-called "melting pot" where many different ethnicities and nationalities merged, but now "multiculturalism" is the official buzz-word of the left and they're pressing it into every area they can. However, it doesn't create diversity as advertised, it just divides people by making them be categorized as members of a particular group.

At 6/13/03 09:57 PM, nailbomb wrote: http://www.undergroundnews.org/ is an internet security website, I don't see what that has to do with Bush Jr. or a NWO

http://www.anarchynewsletter.net is not even a real website.

I don't see how quoting fictional people that are citing fictional articles from fictional websites or websites that have nothing to do with paranoid theories is going to prove anything. You could at least quote someone that said something similar.

They were hypothetical examples; I simply made them up as an example if what I'm talking about.

At 6/4/03 01:10 PM, nailbomb wrote: Yes, so is sitting under an apple tree but I don't see you making a big deal out of discoveries and inventions that weren't based on or indirectly created by the need for destruction.

I never said that all invention was caused by war; I said that war can often speed up the process because necessity is the mother of invention and in war the necessity of winning encourages one to invent and develop new technologies.

At 6/12/03 12:46 PM, misterx2000 wrote: What's beyond the edges of the universe? Before we allegedly had the big bang when all matter exploded from a point the size of a pinhead, what was AROUND it? Whiteness? Nothingness? But how? What came before that?
When was the beginning of time?

It really depends on your interpretation of quantum theory. Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) states that the quantum wavefunction does not collapse, but rather splits forming parallel universes/realities. All are contained on a higher plane of super-spacetime, an all-encompassing region of infinite dimension and possibility. This is the interpretation that I favor, although at our current point in physics research, we can't tell if either MWI or Copenhagen interpretations are correct. We know one is right via experiments done with photons, but both predict the same experimental results. Copenhagen states that the quantum wave function remains in a superposition of states until observed, and then collapses into one state or the other forming a single clear reality. This of course leads down the path to solipsism.

At 6/13/03 09:20 PM, nailbomb wrote: This is why why we have the internet, which serves as an Alternative Media but is regarded by the True Believer as a leftist, communist, propaganda-spewing work of an enraged Anti-American.

The problem is that some people will believe anything they read on the internet.

"undergroundnews.org says Bush plans a New World Order? I knew it was true!"

"anarchynewsletter.net says Rumsfeld has formed a secret Gestapo-like secret police? I better watch out."

At 6/13/03 08:40 AM, nitroxide wrote: Did you know the sign of the cross is symbol stolen from ages before christianity.

If anyone borrowed the cross, it was the Romans. Christianity uses the cross as its symbol not because they claim it to be original, but because it just happened to be the shape of the wood nailed together in Roman crucifixtions.

Hell,the symbol of a man on the cross dint appear until 800 years after his supposed crucifixion.if anything jesus was hung,luke wrote about the two thieves:"One of the malefactors that was hanged with him."The christians at early times were called the "followers of the god that was hanged".

Would be nice if you had sources.

Nitoxide, the big thing you overlook is why Jesus was ever made the center of a religion if he was not a historical figure. Did some people just get together in Judea about 2000 years ago and say "Hey, let's start a religion and invent a savior to go along with it."

The very fact that a religion began around him, is proof enough that he at least existed, even if you don't believe in his divinity.

And once again, the focus is placed purely on Christianity. Many so-called atheists are really just anti-Christian. How about you analyze Muhammed's historicity?

At 6/13/03 04:36 PM, bengui wrote: A no party system=anarchy

Not exactly. Anarchy is no-government system.

For example, there were no political parties in ancient Rome, yet it was not anarchy.

At 6/11/03 08:53 AM, misterx2000 wrote: -The American flag waves in airless space

It didn't "wave", it was unfurled with a wire frame that crumpled and bent in the process. That frame gave the appearance of a waving flag in still shots, but if you watch video, you can see that it doesn't move.

-Astronauts are clearly lit in shadow

Often if you're standing at the edge of a shadow, it won't be high enough to obscure any of you even though it does appear on the ground. Try this with the edge of a building on a sunny day.

-Shadows of rocks come from different angles

Where'd you get that from?

-The "moon" resembles American desert, possibly Area 51

I think the moon resembles the moon.

-Crosshairs on photos overlap the subjects, indicating they were drawn on afterwards

Those crosshairs were imprinted onto the photos when they were taken by special cameras. They were used as reference points to assemble multiple still photos into wide panoramic shots.

-Unrealistic motion in video clips; space module "pops" off from Eagle

It popped off because it was proppeled by a few quick, short-firing rockets. The moon's gravity is very low, so the escape velocity is much less than that of Earth. They didn't need a big Saturn V rocket to ascend from the moon's surface.

And strongest of all...

There would be intense radiation from space after leaving the atmosphere. Astronauts wouldn't survive by the time they reached the moon.

Radiation shielding. How do you think astronauts ever survived in space at all?

Also, the NASA accidents in the past in which spacemen died even before launch day, may be a way of silencing rats.

Now that's completely made up. The only ever pre-launch accident was the Apollo 1 fire, and that was caused by faulty wiring.

The only way to know is when Japan sends its rocket to take close up pics in a few years. But apparently all have forgotten about it...maybe NASA pulled some strings?

Also, consider the fact that we can now bounce lasers off reflectors left on the moon's surface to accurately measure the distance from Earth to the moon.

I don't think bad camera angles are an attempt at propaganda. They shot this impromptu and on the spot with handheld cameras. What are you expecting in a war-torn battlefield of a city, highrise steadycams and helicopter panaramic shots? No, and certainly not on the spur of the moment.

If there was any confusion over the crowd size, it was not intentional.

At 6/12/03 12:15 AM, TheShrike wrote: Silly bunch of crackers.

The n-word and many other racial slurs have fairly obvious origins, but does anyone know where this word came from?

If it's because we're that pale, I'm gonna die of laughter.

The term 'cracker' came from 'whip-cracker' as in a slave-owner or overseer who cracked the whip on the slaves.

At 6/12/03 04:49 PM, nitroxide wrote: List of censored literature

This is just a list of various books, not even censored books, just general titles. How is this relevant?

At 6/12/03 01:28 AM, mwazzap wrote: YOu would get polytheism, or perhaps animism, but nothing significantly detrimental to society such as 3 very conflicting monotheisms.

So this really has nothing to do with religion in general, just your dislike of monotheism. Very rational, I see. Monotheistic values have held society together for many centuries. What held the fragmented shards of the Roman Empire together allowing Europe to hold strong against foreign invasion? Religion. What has enabled the Jews to endure so much persecution? Religion. What created a unified Arab world from warring nomad tribes? Religion.

At 6/12/03 09:54 AM, whyme04 wrote: most of the most bloodiest wars were and are because god told them to.

Only a few major wars have been holy wars. Remember that most wars are an extension of political and economic conflicts, not religion.

At 6/12/03 02:40 AM, poxpower wrote: Yeah, but the point of all this is not to target the fat people and make only THEM eat better. They're just trying to educate people to not eat like that.

Why should government have any role in teling people what to eat?

At 6/12/03 12:49 AM, mwazzap wrote: Are you catholic? or are ur parents catholic, and u just decided to join em?

Are you an angsty little kid who thinks he's cool because he hates whoever and whatever his favorite punk band tells him to hate?

At 6/11/03 08:19 PM, poxpower wrote: The obvious question is: What are they going to do with that money? Let's hope they place it where it's needed...

General funds most likely.

At 6/11/03 05:21 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: Well, in the UK they are introducing this 'Fat Tax' whereby 17.5% VAT is added to fatty foods (including chocolate, cvakes and most buiscuits) instead of the usual 5%.

Will this combat (or help to combat) the growing obesity problem? Will it do good at all? Do you agree with it, and would you support it if it came out in the US?

Another case of the nanny/welfare state deciding what is best for people. It further reinforces thri core message to the people, "We don't think you know how to take care of yourselves, so we'll make the decisions for you." The sad part is that many people are okay with this and even believe the popular rationalization that it is for "the greater good."

I'm not a fat person, but if they dare to tax my chocolate, or tell me what should or should not eat, I'd buy black market or grow my own.

At 6/10/03 08:46 PM, TheShrike wrote: But that's a bad example. Take for instance the movement of asians of every nationality and background into concentration camps in the states during WW2.

A brief wartime measure only. There was no lingering resentment after the war.