Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/23/06 12:08 PM, Durin413 wrote: Keep in mind that god created MAN is his own image i.e. with a penis. Then he made woman for man to enjoy. Since therefore god has a penis, then god is male.

Who ever said it was literally in his image? If he is a non-physical entity then the only "image" which could be copied is conciousness and intellect. Also, it could be easily justified that it was "tacked on" when Eve was added.

At 11/23/06 12:27 AM, fasdit wrote: But if god created the universe then he would have to understand human forms of logic since he created them and had to implement them into the human race. You also make false claims about jupiter, which does infact have a central point and a boundary.

Human logic is not the issue here; human labels are. Omnipotence can not act on the abstract concept embodied by a label without changing the label itself. That's the entire "paradox" here, and it isn't that confusing. Omnipotence applies to physical, real things, not imaginary, totally abstract things.

I never said Jupiter doesn't have a central point or boundary, and I don't know where you got that from. It has no distinct surface to apply force on (gas molecules would simply shift, not the planet) and there is no nearby point of reference (like the surface of the Earth) from which to "lift" it.

At 11/23/06 01:15 AM, poxpower wrote: Period. Use whatever example you want, the base of it is that: one is the opposite of the other, both cannot, BY DEFINITION, a definition TO WHICH GOD WOULD AGREE, happen at the same time. But omnipotence says it can.

There is no such thing as true opposites in the real world. They only exist in the human imagination, an area where omnipotence does not apply.

Look at examples of "opposites" in the real world: protons and electrons. They seem totally incompatible, right? But in radioactive beta decay, a neutron changes into a proton and emits an electron. Neutrons are the combination of both protons and electrons, supposed "opposites."

Look at another example of "opposites," matter and energy. They have completely different properties; one consists of particles and the other of waves. But wave-particle duality shows that light (energy) is both a wave (electromagnetic radiation) and a particle (photon), while particles like electrons (lepton particles) are also waves and have associated wavelengths.

Opposites don't actually exist, not how humans imagine they do.

proof: can got create two completely opposing concepts? omnipotence says yes
then: can he use them together at the same time without having them oppose? omnipotence says "paradox"

God creates the opposing concepts of "Good" and "Evil." God creates Man, who is both compassionate (Good) and cruel (Evil). Opposites can always be combined when considering multi-faceted or dynamic targets.

It isn't that hard to understand.

At 11/22/06 09:58 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote: Maybe if God existed Pi wouldn't be a number caculable to a million decimal places but would be something more "common sense" like 3.0

But then an artificial creation of man (geometry) would be perfect. Can't have that! The real universe can't actually have a circle or sphere, only what appears to be one from sufficient distance.

At 11/22/06 02:10 AM, MindControlFun wrote: Since when is it the government's job to protect me from myself?

Since the Progressive era of the early 1900s it has become a major job of the government. However, several hundred years ago when the first government-funded mental institutions were created is when it became the government's job to protect you from yourself.

At 11/22/06 09:02 PM, Elfer wrote: Using the same arguments people use to call marijuana a gateway drug, I could probably call alcohol a gateway drug far more successfully.

Except the flaw with that is that alcohol has a very powerful amplification effect on most other drugs you attempt to use and tends to destabilize your body dangerously or lethally if you attempt to mix alcohol and a "heavy" drug at the same time. Also, alcohol has a long-institutionalized set of social barriers to prevent crossover into other substances (which are at least somewhat effective).

The question isn't at all a challenge, and I don't quite understand why you spend so much space trying to explain the problem.

Geometry is an instance of artificially defined systems created by humans. You can never have a four-sided triangle because humans have defined that you cannot. The word "triangle" in this instance is merely a descriptor for a particular class of polygons, and thus does not have any adjustable properties.

Omnipotence is effectively limited to control of "literal" things, which have specific sets of adjustable properties, like a rock or a specific triangle. This paradox is easily solved by realizing that artificial definitions are not equivalent to literal things.

Detour:
This problem is similar to the one that goes: "Can God create a boulder so heavy he can't lift it?" In this situation, "lift" is an artificial human term that only has meaning with reference to the Earth and with objects far lighter than our planet. For example, a heavy enough boulder, when lifted, would cause the Earth the move the distance. Does that still count as lifting? What about if the "boulder" is Jupiter, a ball of gas which can not be gripped, and which has no point of reference to "lift" it from? The flaw lies with the human definitions, not the logic of the situation.

At 11/21/06 03:45 PM, beardofchuck wrote: The chaos theory means there is a pattern to all the atoms, its just impossible to calculate. :P The fact that a pattern exists is enough to be able to say free will is an illusion.

No, it doesn't. Chaos theory only pertains to certain systems where there appears to be random "chaos" but in fact the system is deterministic. This does not apply to the entire Universe or humanity, as far as we currently know, because of a quantum effects and other non-deterministic variables we believe are involved. Additionally, effective indeterminism is automatically spawned from an exceedingly large or infinite number of variables, which makes a deterministic system not, for all intents and purposes.

At 11/20/06 10:06 PM, Elfer wrote: Which would explain why I'm in engineering, I guess.

Yeah, honestly, who in their right mind would get into such a boring profession as this? Heh, kidding.

But the exception is never a justifiable description of the majority, so the point is moot.

As far as I know, homosexuality has never actually been proven as a widespread or significant occurance in the natural world. Bisexuality, on the other hand, is relatively well known and mostly based on sex, not attraction toward the same gender.

At 11/19/06 06:57 PM, Elfer wrote: Because cannabis is far from a useless plant.

In fact, up until the early 20th century, it was the world's biggest cash crop.

In fact, up until recently, Opium was one of the world's biggest cash crops, and was so popular in China that Europeans conquered that country through control of the supply.

But that doesn't make it right, or justify continued use or further action.

That's really an amazingly intelligent and persuasive post, emokid. I'm am convinced!

Whoops, sorry, I lied again. If you lie, it's your fault; there's really no way to convince everyone not to lie, and that won't change.

At 11/19/06 11:08 AM, Brainstrain wrote: It'd be hard to find someone AGAINST Cannabis, really.

Actually, it's quite easy.

Alcohol has justifiable purpose: we use it as a social networking tool and it provides a safe alternative to water-- and many areas of the world have unsafe, polluted, or otherwise undrinkable water. High concentration alcohol in drinks might be something worth limiting, but alcohol itself has a necessary purpose.

Tobacco is a national bad habit adopted as a fad when we didn't realize the consequences. However, it is slowly being eliminated from our country. My state, Ohio, just passed a law banning smoking in all public places a couple weeks ago. Tobacco is slowly being eliminated, but it will take more time to get rid of it.

Marijuana is similar to tobacco. It has no real justifiable use, it really became popular as a fad, and it is just as worthless. The only thing preserving it is the mental self-justifying at any costs of teenagers. Any form of smoking should go out the door.

At 11/19/06 10:44 AM, Begoner wrote:

At 11/19/06 10:32 AM, JerkClock wrote: Overzealous and abusive sure, but sadistic? Doubt it.

If they didn't derive pleasure from extremely cruelty towards the student, why did they continue to shock him while he was helpless on the floor? It was certainly illegal for them to do so, and they definitely weren't forced to do so. What other possible reason could they have?

See, Begoner, at this point you have just totally departed from the reality of the situation and invented your own fantasy of the event to promote your ideals. That video didn't have sufficient detail to determine any of the things you are claiming, and it especially lacked visual evidence of the initial event.

I've seen people like that before, and had to deal with them, and they do fight, but always shout that they aren't (they lie incessantly during the fight). They're an annoying bunch and intentionally provoke trouble. He continued to struggle, and the police tried to subdue him; he started it, and he could have ended it any time by saying even a single reasonable thing-- he didn't.

At 11/19/06 07:30 AM, JerkClock wrote: From the looks of things, he was most likely unable to get up while the police were telling him to. This often happens when people are shocked with tasers. Some recover quicker than others. Those who recover slower, will be incopacitated. This happens, yet police ignore this fact and brutalize the public anyway. We really need to start giving the death penalty for police brutality. Maybe then they'll start recognizing our constitutional rights.

When I watched the video, it was apparent that two police officers were attempting to lift him up by the arms while asking him to stand, and he was struggling by twisting and throwing his weight against them. He was not just lying flat on the floor; he was not just totally innocent and incapacitated. He was fighting against them actively.

At 11/18/06 06:59 PM, Begoner wrote: So you think that it's OK for a police officer to play Russian roulette with the student, as long as he gets lucky and doesn't die?

Yes.

THe police were justified and no serious harm was done, so regardless of what you and elecmonkey say, nothing's gonna change. The student provoked the officers and triggered the incident, and that's that.

That doesn't seem like abuse at all to me. You're just trying to overjustify the student's position-- but he was obviously trying to provoke trouble. The police did not tase him for 5 seconds, as you claim, and when they initially told him to stand up they were trying to pull him up. You can see them trying to lift him to his feet, but he refuses to actually stand. He is obviously being just the kind of little ass that police hate to deal with, and he wasn't doing anything willingly.

If he was high-strung enough to scream "GET OFF OF ME!" when the police tried to escort him out, he was a troublemaker. Plus, the video is pretty inconclusive on most of it because of bad angles or no line of sight.

At 11/16/06 04:59 PM, RedSkunk wrote: No, embryos are not necessarily "easier" than other sources, but yes, science has shown the worth of stem cells. The byline of easily found article says, "Scientists have used stem cells from human bone marrow to repair defective insulin-producing pancreatic cells responsible for diabetes in mice."

I am completely aware of what stem cells are actually capable of-- I keep up with modern science. That wording was a lazy mistake on my part; to be more accurate, scientists have not yet shown that cures for diseases are necessarily possible or economical through the use of stem cells, nor have they shown that they can reliably create stem cell lines without taking a life to save a life.

I am against any move to legalize Marijuana to any degree. It's like throwing a bucket of salmonella bacteria into a giant pig-feeding trough-- and you should know what kind of effect that would have.

I refuse to be backed into the classic defensive position in these types of discussions. Justify your position and I'll show you how it's wrong.

At 11/16/06 09:51 PM, BeFell wrote: Does this seem fucked up to anyone else?

BeFell, if lost employment was a permanent thing, then yes. But those 2.5% can find better or other jobs. Natural job decreases occur, and people survive. This shouldn't be any different.

Also, increased minimum wages would increase the upward pressure on workers capable of reaching better jobs-- a good thing.

As an alternative to just allowing "anyone" to lose a job, a coordinated elimination of the illegal immigrant problem could easily remove 4% of our total population. That would most definitely remove more minimum wage workers than there are minimum wage jobs.

Ha. You show far too much optimism about the Democrats. They are more likely to just pursue vengeance on the Republicans who took power from them than to actually make any improvements.

By 2008, the Democrats will have disgusted everyone enough and the Republican party will have eliminated enough of the neo-cons for a Republican president to replace Bush.

Also, by the way, impeaching Bush would be an idiotic move politically.

At 11/15/06 08:59 PM, hrhomsar wrote: Opinions? Personally I dont see how anyone can be against it. The stem cells used for research are usually obtained from leftover embyos at in vitro clinics that would otherwise be thrown away. How can you be opposed if it can cure diseases like diabetes, Alztimers, parkinsons, and paralysis.

It's all a question of "Do the ends justify the means?" Scientists haven't really shown that stem cells actually can treat those diseases, and embryoes are not the only source of stem cells, just the easiest. I don't particularly object to the methods, but considering the opinion of a large percentage of the populace, I think stem cell research should not be pursued until alternate forms of stem cell line production are established.

At least in my state (Ohio), the election of Democrats was almost entirely a reaction to the neo-conservative faction which has been dominating the Republican party and Congress since 2000ish. Bush is part of that faction. They simply were not adhering to the beliefs of most Republicans, and failed to achieve what their supporters wanted.

The elections were a protest, and the neo-cons are going down in flames at this point. They are swiftly being overturned in the party and traditional conservative philosophy, which is more moderate, is taking back control. Bush appears to have realized this power shift is occurring, and he has become more open to the rest of the Republicans' desires in response.

It nevers has made sense to claim that we invaded iraq for anything to do with oil. Saddam was a reliable source of oil, had many major oil deals with the Western world, and traded oil through the UN "Food For Oil" program. America, and Bush, didn't attack for oil.

At 11/5/06 04:56 PM, JohnnyUtah wrote: we had a several billion dollar surplus before the bush administration. oh thats right, we can thank clinton for that.

Ha, no. We can thank a booming economy and a deadlocked Congress for that. But oh wait, didn't that economic boom turn into a bubble that triggered a recession we're still recovering from? Will Clinton take responsibility for that, too?

pay attention. we are only making MORE PEOPLE HATE AMERICA. and therefore MORE TERRORISTS. you're not really so niave you think we can just bomb the problem till it goes away? we're fighting an ideology here kid..

Do you think running away like pussies will make anyone like America more? Terrorists will hate America whether or not we do anything, and the only way to stop them requires angering a few other people. But most of that "hate" is just an illusion provided by mass media-- it's only our interference that has people miffed, not permanently angered. As soon as we finish Iraq, it will die down, but the Democrats aren't helping the American case much by constantly attacking the country they supposedly support.

Iraq is on the verge OF BEING STABLE??? AHHAHAHA holy shit, stop watching fox news. that place is on the verge of civil war. and remember, we didnt go over there with the purpose of "defeating" saddam. stop drinking the cool aid.

On the verge of a civil war, but not in a civil war. Only a fool would believe that it has to degenerate into a civil war, especially when most Iraqis don't want a civil war. Only a minority in each group is fighting.

Also, we did go over there with the purpose of fighting Sadam. There was no other primary reason, only incidental ones, and definitely not what you are probably assuming, that we went in for Oil.

America doesn't get most of its oil from the Middle East, and what we do get comes from Saudi Arabia. Invading Iraq has not increased how much oil we received, or decreased the price-- in fact, the opposite has inevitably happened. We've been consuming more oil (for military vehicles) and the war disrupted the prices. The US also hasn't pushed to gain any benefits whatsoever out of Iraq's oil, and we actually still buy very little of it. Only a politically blind man would believe that was our motivation.

embryoes ARENT HUMANS. secondly, the ones they'd be testing would never have been humans in the god damn fist place. scientists arent out there killing babies. they're using embryos that would normally be discarded. I guess you don't read.

Who the hell are you to declare that embryoes aren't human? You're not God, nor anything close, just a close-minded, liberalized fool. I support stem cell research, but they need to find a better source method. Regardless of ethical dilemmas, embryoes are not a good source.

my point being many of these loudmouth republicans voting for war would never let their OWN KIDS fight. they wuld rather let others - like the poor - do it.

The Republicans don't get to choose who goes and fights because it is the soldiers who chose to join the military, not their parents. No parent wants to see a kid go away to war, so who can blame them?

Pulling out now can only cost more lives. Don't forget that every democrat voted for the war as well. We're in it, and everyone supported it before. Running like pansies won't help.

Oh, by the way, did you know that the WMD theory has only become more reasonable as time passes? Did you hear about the extremely detailed technical plans for how to actually design a nuclear bomb that public translators found while digging through the several million pages of secret documents from Saddam's government? Saddam was far closer to nukes than the Iranian could possibly be at this point, and everyone is already freaking out about Iranian nukes.

Did I say you had to be athiest? no i didn't. the constitution prohibits the merging of religion and politics....you know about the constitution right?

And who says having personally-religious people in the government is violating the Constitution? It isn't. In fact, demanding that religion not be allowed for politicians (as you must necessarily propose as the only means for seperating personal religion from politics) actually violating the Bill of Rights?

marriage is a legal and binding document son. nothing more. all it means is, you get tax cuts and when and if you get divorced, the woman gets to clean you out. and uhh..it still would ber between two people. p.s. "tradition" is a dumb reason to do anything..

Son? Don't hand me that crap. You're probably younger than me, and far less knowledgeable. The entire point of marriage is the tradition. It is a tradition.

And don't bursh off traditions as unimportant-- why do Americans wear tuxes to formal events? Why do they wear ties? Why do they wear certain uniforms in sports? Why do they honor a piece of cloth? Why do they sing a national song? Why do they have a federal government system?

It's all traditions.

i believe I have effectively supported my views, and blown holes in yours.
but thanks for trying.

Tunnel vision? Delusion? I can't figure you out.

At 11/5/06 07:17 PM, JoS wrote: Law enforcement is just one example, sports, academics, and health are other areas people seem to pretend race doesn't matetr when science says it does.

That's a lie. Science says nothing of the sort. THe only actual differences that science has identified are the prevalence of genetic disorders, such as sickle-cell anemia. Race has absolutely nothing to do with prevalence of crime, athletic ability, intelligence, or overall health (with the exception of genetic disorders, as mentioned).

It has been proven that socioeconomic and cultural influences are the key determining factors for race-related behavioral differences, not genetics. So no, it should not be used in any discriminatory manner.

At 11/4/06 05:05 AM, ironzealot wrote: I love the canadian liberty party's motto: "Life, Liberty, Propety" You can't be truely free without real property rights, something socialists don't/can't understand

Sorry to rain on your parade, but you do know that the "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" phrase in the Declaration/Constitution was actually modified from the exact phrase you just uttered? At the time, the property version was the common saying, and the happiness one was just a tweak made by the authors.

At 11/5/06 03:05 PM, dELtaluca wrote:

At 11/5/06 01:46 PM, XAVlER wrote: That time travelling thing one of you posted is rather incorrect actually, if you go back into the past and murder someone then go back into the present time and the past you was arrested and let us say was put into jail for 20 years, when you go back into the present time from the past wouldn't you be in jail?

no, its impossible that you would be in jail, because if you were in jail, you wouldnt be able to go back into the past to get yourself into jail, therefore its impossible to change what had happened, because if you change anything, it would automaticly create an impossible paradox

That's based on the assumption that all of your actions occurred in the same timeline, and that the "you" who traveled back in time and returned is still the same as the "you" who exists in the timeline. If travelling back in time simply stole energy sufficient to create your body and systems (since matter is equivalent to energy) from some existing system, then no paradox occurs and both "you"s can exist, meet, interact, etc. without paradox.

At 11/5/06 04:20 PM, JohnnyUtah wrote: 1. republicans say - democrats will raise taxes. well GUESS WHAT? they have to because republicans have been spending all the money in the world giving the rich tax cuts and not killing osama bin laden.

So in other words, the Republicans are telling the truth: Democrats will probably raise taxes, and are no less likely to be fiscally irresponsible than the Republicans. The spending of the current administration is highly unusual for Republicans and actually has many party members upset.

2. republicans say - terrorists want democrats to win. In actualilty, bush and cohorts inflame that radical islamic hatred towards america, then run on offering to protect is from that? WHAT?

Again, it sounds as if the Republicans are telling the truth: you believe the Democrats will attempt to placate the terrorists, and act tantamount to surrendering. If killing terrorists and foiling their plots enflames them, then too bad. They need to be angry, and frustrated, and so defeated that they stop threatening us. Clinton proved that hiding from terrorists won't make them stop hating us. Only fools would try that again.

3. republicans say - democrats will "cut and run". no sir, BUSH LOST THE WAR PERIOD. republicans are so arrogant they thought we wouldnt even need a post war strategy...and this is where they got us.

How can Bush have lost the war if the war isn't lost? We defeated Saddam, an Iraqi court just sentenced him to death, all of his followers have been eliminated, and Iraw is on the verge of being stable. The only problems are foreign insurgents fighting us in Iraq and the religious feuds causing violence. It is nowhere near lost, and it should have been obvious going in that it would take a long time.

4. stem cell research has great potential to save lives. seems like republicans are greatly conflicted here. they want to save protoplasmic slime that isnt evena person yet, but dontr mind sending troops to their deaths - as long as it isnt them.

"Great potential"? Stem cells don't have to come from embyroes, and recent research has shown that mature cells reverted back into the stem cell form are actually more effective than embryo-grown stem cells. You don't have the right to declare that embryoes are not living humans, and that's the entire issue: even if it means possibly saving lives, we shouldn't sacrifice people. It's an extension of a strongly-held American philosophy of never sacrificing the one for the "good" of the many.

And who says they don't mind sending troops to Iraq? It may pain them greatly, and be a source of great regret, but the troops are fully-aware, voluntary soldiers. The difference between an embryo and an adult is the difference between pedophilia and legal sex: the former cannot legally consent to anything, while the latter can. Soldiers choose to enter the military with the knowledge that they will be going to war. It is their choice.

5. ENOUGH RELIGION IN POLITICS. taking the bible literally is bullshit, and I've had enough of politicians letting that nonsense influence them.

So, even though America is the most religious country in the world, politicians must be athiests? If someone is religious, they can't completely ignore that even if you tell them to. I may not agree with their beliefs, or want to see them act with too heavy a religious influence, but they are completely free to practice whatever religion they wish and believe in it however they want.

6. think what you will of gays, but they're not destroying marriage anymore than straight people are.

Of course they aren't: they aren't allowed to marry, so how can they destroy? However, your arrogant opinion does not affect the debate over whether they should be allowed to marry, and I do believe that redefining marriage to be between any two people would destroy the traditions for which it exists. It would no longer be marriage, and no longer be meaningful.

Your opinion isn't everything, and you aren't necessarily correct on anything. Unless you actually support your positions more effectively, the only thing that anyone will listen to is your single vote (or, lacking that, nothing). Your opinion will have no sway.

At 11/4/06 04:17 PM, MrPariah wrote: Unfortunately most of the people who believe in religions do so on emotional reasons. They don't often stray to think about why science contradicts them. Thing is it doesn't but they believe it does because they are told so.
Indeed God did and didn't exist for a while (He purpled first. Read my "If I were god rant" for more on that) God created time with time created he began existing... In one way you could say that God made time and time in turn made god exist.

Pariah, to be honest, all of that translates to one simple phrase: there is no reasonable answer to how God can possibly exist because he isn't a logical concept, he is an emotional necessity.

That does actually answer his question by telling him that there is no answer, and no one will give a straight response because there is simply no way to have one that justifies the existance of God in a non-contradictory manner.

At 11/3/06 11:01 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote: mankind seems to have made survival of the fittest obsolete.

Not true. It has just taken a form you are not easily able to recognize. We have only changed the environment in which "survival of the fittest" can operate, not the effectiveness of the mechanism or its existance.

At 11/3/06 06:31 PM, Begoner wrote: To imply that information prevents progress is absurd to the extreme. It might be a typical opinion in the Dark Ages in Europe, but not in modern-day America.

No, it is not absurd.

The Middle Ages are a perfect example of why it is completely possible and reasonable. When received information creates pre-conceived notions, such as the belief in geocentricity and that stars orbit in perfect circles, it stifles new thought and development, just as the Catholic Church attempted with those ideas.

It is only when the people broke away from old, false information and ideas, and developed a brand new set of ideals through which they could observe the universe (science and rationalism) that major advancements were made (the Rennaissance).

It is completely rational to assume that information can be both dangerous and beneficial, especially "truths" enforced by one group of people. Science has fought with such problems continuously throughout its history, and religions have proven just how lethal conflicting information can be (Crusades, Jihads, Holocaust, etc.).

So don't give me all that crap about "More information can never be bad!" History has proven time and again that more information, especially conflicting or domineering "truths" and ideas, can be thoroughly stagnating and dangerous.