Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The problem with tinkering with genes is that you're altering a process that has been fundamentally random for billions of years, and when you do that, things that have always been protected against by nature can become problems. What if a certain popular genetic trait contains a hidden susceptibility to a certain type of disease? By the laws of evolution, a disease to exploit that susceptibility will devlop and could wreak havoc when the population is homogenized to a large degree.

Personally, I favor technological enhancement, neural chips, cyber-tech, etc. Genes are hard coded and inflexible once you're born. Technology can be upgraded, swapped out or turned off.

At 6/11/03 12:18 AM, alejandro1 wrote: Damn straight; placing a state between Iraq and Turkey for the Kurds would inevitably lead to war.

This is probably true, considering there are also Kurds living in SE Turkey, and other neighboring countries and that the Kurdish nationalists generally want to incorporate land from all these countries into a Kurdish state.

It's ironic (read: hypocritical) that the same people who are defending Michael Moore from criticism about his lifestyle, looks and from being personally judged are the same people who attack Bush with the same criticisms.

At 6/10/03 05:49 PM, Slizor wrote: It has been the policy of Zionists (and Israel, right since the start) to expand into "Greater Israel" (the Israel of King David.) Which means that they have never intended to give anything back (we can see this with their policy of expansion through wars.) Israel has maintained their rejectionist stance throughout the peace process.

Only certain hard-line factions in Israel have constantly supported expansion above everything else. Most Israelis seem to support abandoning the settlements. And while Israel's hard-liners have maintained somewhat of a "rejectionist" policy, Palestine's hard-liners have maintained a murder/terrorism policy.

Both sides need to unseat the hard-liners to achieve peace.

Why are we even responding to this n00b topic?

At 6/10/03 03:57 PM, nailbomb wrote: Entertainment aside, even the news is censored, you didn't see what happened after the bombs were dropped on Iraq. Well on the mainstream media anyways. Here's something you didn't see on FOX news.
More info/pictures at http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/a...;headline=CRITICAL%20CONDITION

You could try to stay on topic rather than turn this into another "I Hate America/Fox News" rant. We all know your opinion, get over it.

At 6/10/03 03:33 PM, nailbomb wrote: This has been going on for years and it was on the news yesterday. I'm surprised that the U.S. isn't liberating Congo, it's mostly French and Canadian troops that are trying to keep the peace.

If the U.S. did, it would undoubtedly be criticized for doing so.

We could try, but the rest of the world would all want to dictate to us exactly how and what to do and then call us "dangerously unilateral" if we didn't cave to their demands. Then, once we went in, we would be flamed for any little slip-up or mistake. Afterwards, we'd be criticized for "not doing enough" and then our methods and results would be condemned, no matter how it turned out.

And punk-teen leftists would balem it all on "that dumb texan" and Fox News.

At 6/10/03 10:20 AM, misterx2000 wrote: War and violence is never the best answer.

But sometimes the only one.

A wise general is one who gains victories without fighting.

Then they're not a general but a diplomat.

Obviously Bush needs more diplomacy classes...

Or the U.N. needs non-obstructionism classes.

I know that it's fun to hate war, but sometimes it's the only means and, ironically, the only route to peace. True, there is no such thing as a "good" war, but there is also no such thing as a lasting peace.

At 6/9/03 06:40 PM, nailbomb wrote: Despite what you were told on Fox News and on White House press conferences the world is still on a poo-poo slide down to hell.

Despite your hatred of Fox News and the White House, they've never told us that the world is a safe place.

At 6/9/03 01:01 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: The argument goes that it forces poor little foxes to be torn apart (literally) by a pack of dogs, and thats cruel. The British Aristocracy don't give a stuff though.

Being across the Atlantic, I don't know much of it. However, if they don't eat it, they shouldn't hunt it.

At 6/9/03 12:39 AM, alcohol wrote: Except for of course Turkey

Turkey is sort of in the Middle East. They're at such a crossroads that they really don't get into the politics of either the Middle East or the Balkans. Turkey is....Turkey.

At 6/8/03 12:33 AM, nailbomb wrote: Isn't that the purpose of the emergency broadcast system?

That's DURING an emergency, not a pre-emptive notification to be careful.

At 6/8/03 05:03 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: What the hell is it with you and philosophy?

Well, it makes him sound smart and increases his chances of getting laid. ;-)

How is it worse than any other type of hunting?

I do agree that when a nation has a clear enemy, it can bring them together. A common enemy does wonders for uniting people and may not be such a "bad" tactic at all.

Is George W. Bush using this tactic? Well, many of the same people calling him stupid are now calling him smart by accusing him of this. Maybe he is, or maybe this is just a time of conflict when war is necessary and inevitable. History will sort it out.

Most of those who is against religion seems to think it is "outdated." How so? Religion is belief in something. Is the very concept of belief outdated? Maybe because it is not fashionable these days to think that there is anything besides the most shallow and material aims and things we can see around us.

At 6/7/03 11:03 PM, nailbomb wrote: Well I'm sorry but if you go claiming that micheal moore's documentaries are nothing more than propaganda films people will want to know why.

I said "I ALREADY ANSWERED THIS IN THE MICHAEL MOORE THREAD". I suggest you read it!! Do you have some sort of reading disability?

At 6/7/03 11:06 PM, nailbomb wrote: The one statement which is unjustified name-calling?

I admit that might have been wrong, but I did explain my position when asked later.

At 6/7/03 10:47 PM, nailbomb wrote: What ideas and/or actions of Moore are you criticizing here?

You can do better than latch onto one statement like some leech. Read what I wrote on his way of making films!

At 6/7/03 10:33 PM, nailbomb wrote: Criticize ideas, not people.

Maybe if you wouldn't lie and exaggerate?

How is it propaganda? You always dodged that question when calling Michael Moore a master of propaganda or whatever term you used to put him down.

Criticizing ideas, huh? You're saying I dodged it, which is a criticism of me. Besides, I already answered this exact question in the Michael Moore thread!

At 6/7/03 10:29 PM, nailbomb wrote: Criticize ideas, not people.

When the topic is a person, what else can one criticize but the person's ideas and actions?

At 6/7/03 06:18 PM, Slizor wrote: However, I am also against the idea of the PC, as it is also against the nature of the forum (I joined because I wanted to post on the Snooble forum.)

Then why don't you leave?

At 6/7/03 05:36 PM, OpIvy420 wrote: The Holocaust wasn't religiously motivated? The systematic genocide of millions of people because they happened to be Jewish wasn't religiously motivated?

Judaism is a race as well as a religion. I know of Jewish people that don't really believe in the Jewish religion.

At 6/7/03 01:49 PM, nailbomb wrote: Everytime his name pops up in a topic you pull out your "master of propaganda" card and flash it to everyone within a 50-mile radius.

I called him that once, and once again you attack me for holding an opinion, hypocrite.

You don't like the fact that he is the complete opposite of what you stand for?

I don't like the fact that he produces one-sided propaganda and calls them "documentaries".

At 6/7/03 10:53 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: Guys, DBF is right. I say to hell with the whole PC/DAG thing too. We gotta learn toget along if we want to stay on this board.

Only if certain elements of the DAG, *cough*, can learn some respect and that a flame does not an argument make.

At 6/7/03 10:56 AM, OpIvy420 wrote: I agree, religion really doesn't do enough good for the world to be worth the effort. The Crusades, the Hollocaust, hate crimes, the KKK, the conflicts in Israel... if there was no religion, then none of these horrible things would have existed. I don't understand how so many people can still hold a religion like Christianity.

You focus on only the negatives of religion, OpIvy and blatantly overlook all the good that religion has done. In fact, if religion had not existed, our modern society may not even exist today for it was monastic orders that carried the seeds of knowledge and preserved them in the Dark Ages.

By the way, the KKK and the Holoaust were not religious in any way, they were racially motivated; the conflict in Israel is primarily fueled by land disputes; and most hate crimes are racial in nature.

I also like how you focus mainly on Christianity, not bothering to mention any other religion. It seems to me that you're not opposed to religion, you're just a bigot who hates Christians.

At 6/7/03 11:06 AM, bumcheekycity wrote:
Commander, you know just as welel as I do that Americans are very nieve. They will tend to believe what their government tells them and follow them, partly because of patriotism, I believe.

That is your opinion, not mine. And the fact that you live in the UK makes it all the more informed. I'm not saying that you're entirely wrong, because it is probably partially true, but Americans are quite different than the average stereotype that is widely believed.

Begone. Back to the General Forum, for you....

At 6/7/03 02:25 AM, torq wrote: All these terror levels do is cause people to panic. What good is it when you tell your citizens "You know, you can't do anything about this, but be cautious, you have a higher chance of being blown up. Have a nice day!"

Well, if something happened and there hadn't been any alert beforehand, then everyone would whine that someone should have sent out an alert.

At 6/7/03 01:48 AM, torq wrote: Americans only hate the French because their government told them to.

I just love unsupported one-liners....