Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/14/14 05:02 AM, 1916 wrote:

At 6/4/11 08:12 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 6/4/11 07:44 AM, 1916 wrote:
You're right, I'm sure lowering the drinking age and then immediately afterword seeing much higher numbers of drunk driving deaths have nothing to do with each other.

Actually, I am right. You've clearly demonstrated your belief that correlation *does* imply causation when that's never been proven to be true in every case.

Actually, I was demonstrating a belief that when correlation is observed between variables, and when an obvious connection can be drawn between those variables, and when other circumstances support a causal relationship, one can infer causation from the connection and the correlation and the other circumstances.

Fair enough, I suppose, but I think the possible rise in drunk driving accidents would obviously have to be attributed to more 18-20 year olds drinking and driving. Otherwise, it's only a correlation, and that's pretty meaningless.

Even if it does happen, I still think the drinking age should be lowered to 18. We'll just have to deal with the consequences of that decision and do our best to discourage drunk driving.

It sounds crazy, I know, but if you think lowering the drinking age will cause more driving fatalities, I must ask, why shouldn't we raise the drinking age? It should lower the number of fatalities even further. Why not raise it to 25? 30? How about 45? If the drinking age were that high, I think there'd be very few DUIs, don't you think?

Obviously, this is a matter of balancing liberty with safety. I think it would be logical to make the scales tilt towards liberty because our laws would be more consistent. If 18 is old enough to be an adult in this country, vote, file lawsuits, and die for your country, it should be old enough for drinking alcohol.

Why don't you google "correlation does not imply causation" before attempting to sound witty by using sarcasm when you don't even know WTF you're talking about?

Why don't you just change your name to Light you fucking asshole, huh?

Why did you bump this three year old thread?

Why does the BBS have a topic deploring feminism as some evil force that oppresses men all over the world every other week?

It makes me think you guys are just bitter at women or something.

Just so that no one misunderstands, the WHO and other health organizations are advising homosexual men to take the drug Truvada in addition to using condoms during sex, and not instead of using them.

The drug has shown to be very effective at preventing HIV transmission during clinical trials. This should lead to a reduction in the number of new HIV infections every year.

At 7/9/14 02:59 PM, knight234 wrote: The mods deserve more credit than there given. Yes there are some mods out there that can be complete assholes, but they maintain peace and keeps idiots out of the forums and basically anywhere else.

Having been on one other forum(College Confidential, if you're curious), my experience with online message boards is kind of limited. With that said, the mods here are infinitely more lenient than the mods on College Confidential and probably many other forums.

At 7/11/14 09:47 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/11/14 07:29 PM, Light wrote:

It causes one to wonder whether classism or racism is the bigger problem in this country.

Culture and subcultures are a bigger problem than both. Sadly, no one ever studies this it seems.

Would you elaborate, please?

At 7/11/14 02:02 PM, Phobotech wrote:

I think I've set this up enough to get to the main question. Are men, who support gender equality to the point of ridding the social stigma of slut shaming, FAIR and GOOD PEOPLE, or is there an underlying desperateness about the man, with a tongue in their choke, hoping to tear down slut-shaming in the hopes that this would mean more sex for them?

Is male feminism a self-less act, supporting social justice, or are male feminists wolves and sheep's clothing hoping to have a bone thrown their way for their participation?

I can't speak for other men, but I personally oppose slut-shaming because it is unfair and and unethical. Regardless of whether I stand to gain from the weakening of the societal stigma of female promiscuity, women have no less of a right to have sex with whom they wish without being arbitrarily judged for it as men often do.

Sex is a wonderful incentive, and men are prone to lie, cheat, beg, do all kinds of shit for the power of pussy. Is this no exception, even for the ones that genuinely believe that they're doing it with no intimate agenda of their own...but deep underneath, they're an advanced wingman for the squadron of all who would want them?

I personally doubt that this is the agenda of all male feminists.

If some women want to sleep with numerous men, that's OK with me. I wouldn't think any less of them because frankly, it's pretty sexist. Men aren't stigmatized by society for being promiscuous. Women shouldn't be, either. It's that simple.

At 7/10/14 05:04 PM, AxTekk wrote: Well, if there's anything positive we can take from this, it's that rich black people are just as above the law as rich white people.

It causes one to wonder whether classism or racism is the bigger problem in this country.

At 7/10/14 07:04 AM, Light wrote:

Eeeh, 25-30 years seems enough, unless his corruption has seriously harmed his constituents or the constituents of other elected officials. Just my opinion.

Well, I suppose being corrupt is seriously harmful as it is to the public.

At 7/10/14 04:30 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/10/14 02:49 AM, Light wrote: How much time do you think he should spend in prison? It's a genuine question because I don't really know what kind of prison sentence is appropriate for politicians who've been convicted of corruption.

Given that he was convicted of 20 counts? At least 25-30 years minimum. Hell, I'd do 10 years in exchange for a few million dollars. I could retire as soon as I get out.

Eeeh, 25-30 years seems enough, unless his corruption has seriously harmed his constituents or the constituents of other elected officials. Just my opinion.

At 7/10/14 02:53 AM, AjaxEpic9990 wrote:

At 7/10/14 02:49 AM, Light wrote: How much time do you think he should spend in prison? It's a genuine question because I don't really know what kind of prison sentence is appropriate for politicians who've been convicted of corruption.

Dunno.., but I think enough to stop them from ever entering politics? Since they'll eventually be stopped from causing democratic problems, I think?

I don't think many people will vote for someone or allow an elected official to appoint someone who's been convicted of corruption, even if they're released from prison after only a few years.

How much time do you think he should spend in prison? It's a genuine question because I don't really know what kind of prison sentence is appropriate for politicians who've been convicted of corruption.

To those of you in this thread who think homosexuality is a mental illness, consider these facts:

1. Homosexuality is not listed as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); this work that I mention is pretty much the bible of psychiatry in the United States and, as the name suggests, contains a list of all official mental illnesses and their attributes.

2. Homosexuality was removed from this list of mental illnesses by the American Psychiatric Association in 1974.

3. No reputable mental health organization considers homosexuality to be a mental illness.

4. Homosexuality has been observed in thousands of animal species.

So, if any of you want to argue that homosexuality is a mental illness, just keep in mind that science isn't on your side.

This thread shall be a repository of knowledge regarding communism and its history(And 'murrica, too).

At 7/4/14 03:44 PM, Korriken wrote:
Every country should have the right to defend itself and I have no doubt that Japan's military, though small, would be interestingly formidable.

Japan's "self-defense force" is one of the most powerful militaries in the world, comparable in strength(And in some ways, stronger than) to that of the United Kingdom's. Japan doesn't even spend that much of its GDP on its military...just imagine how much their military will change if Japan removes the restrictions placed on it.

At 7/4/14 03:44 PM, Korriken wrote: Good on Japan, given that it relies on the USA to defend them and those the USA are in debt to (like China) can hold that over the USA's head as they do as they please to Japan.

Every country should have the right to defend itself and I have no doubt that Japan's military, though small, would be interestingly formidable.

I'll have to agree.

Japan's military was kind of neutered after WW2, presumably so that japanese imperialism could be prevented in the future, but I was always of the opinion that regardless of what a country has done, it has the right to defend itself. Critics might say that Japan's self-defense force is enough, but I disagree. Why should Japan, in this day and age, be restricted from attacking its enemies? Granted, it's often unwise to launch preemptive strikes, but all countries have that right, if it can be justified. Japan's military should be equal to that of other countries' militaries in regards to what it can and cannot do. Restricting them to self-defense force status is pretty unfair and punishes the country for the crimes of its ancestors.

I'm very certain that Japan's expressed desire of developing a full-on military has to do with China's acts of aggression in the areas adjacent to the two powers, such as claiming that the Senkaku Islands belong to them, a claim that Japan disputes and claims is theirs instead(I happen to believe Japan is right on this one. The historical evidence shows that Japan has more of a right to those islands than China does. China probably only wants those islands because of the oil they have). China has been getting pretty bold in recent years and Japan may need to have a full-on military, just in case. They should try to work out their problems with China diplomatically, though. I just hope the U.S. doesn't get involved in any conflict between those two powers,

At 7/3/14 11:57 AM, Korriken wrote:
The problem with democracy in Muslim countries is that you have too many people who want to impose Sharia law, which is incompatible with democracy. Between that and disallowing minority religious and ethnic groups from having a say.

This problem, really, is limited to the Middle East and almost certainly has more to do with cultural and sociological factors rather than Islam itself. It's not like countries with predominantly muslim populations must be vulnerable to large numbers of fanatics expressing a desire to impose Sharia law on others. Your frame of reference is far too limited to make such a bold claim.

At 6/26/14 07:29 PM, Feoric wrote: If only we tried this precisely 233 years ago. Damn, what a shame. I guess we'll never know what a loose confederation of sovereign states would look like and how that government would turn out.

I first learned about this in my high school U.S. history and government classes.

Why so many people(conservatives, mostly) want this return to a more-or-less confederation is kind of beyond me. They're either ignorant of history, have ulterior motives, or possibly both.

Happy Birthday, Jester!

I rarely post in the general forum anymore, but I still lurk here and there, and your posts have consistently proven to be higher in quality than that of the average general forum poster.

At 6/25/14 05:50 PM, Light wrote: A study conducted by California State University, San Bernadino shows that about 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins's name offensive.

Hmm. All the more reason to change the name.

"The survey was conducted based on similar work done on the Cleveland Indians Chief Wahoo mascot,
when analysts found mainstream research agendas systematically mis-identified Native Americans to
benefit dominant ideologies that American Indians supported the mascot and team name."

I thought there was something suspicious about that previous study showing that 90% of all Native Americans didn't find the name offensive.

A study conducted by California State University, San Bernadino shows that about 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins's name offensive.

Hmm. All the more reason to change the name.

lol, large segments of the American population are islamophobic. Lots of people from those hateful segments are Yahoo commenters. Sad, but true.

Hell, a few regulars on this forum are islamophobic. Not saying names, but they know who they are.

At 6/23/14 07:06 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/22/14 02:02 AM, LemonCrush wrote: No, no and no.

I love how you picked the easy target here and completely bypassed Feoric. :)

lol what else is there to expect from LemonCrush?

At 6/22/14 12:35 AM, Ranger2 wrote: It's not like in 1964 racist Democrats decided to switch to the GOP because they felt it better represented them - it was a "fuck you" to Johnson, not a genuine political shift.

I'm not sure that's true. I know you cited examples of Southern Democrats advocating workers' rights and all of that, but there is empirical data to show that the Democratic Party was more politically diverse, with many liberals, moderates, and conservatives many decades ago. Typically, Southern Democrats were more conservative than their Northern counterparts, not only in regards to race relations, but on economic issues, too.

This is relevant because the Republican Party correctly believed it was feasible to appeal to these conservatives and snatch them away from the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, whom these Southern Democrats believed was getting to be too liberal on racial issues and economic issues.

Hmm, then again, one could argue that racial issues and economic issues are, in this country, inextricably interwoven, and that Southern Democrats felt the Democratic Party was getting too liberal in trying to extend its platform of workers' rights and economic security to minorities. That too is a possibility.

And although I'm not denying the shift, it didn't happen overnight. I'd say it wasn't until 1994 when the Republicans finally took over the South and converted them to fiscal conservatism. Heck, Democrats controlled most of the South's state legislatures until the 2010 election!

Correct. Although I maintain that those Southern Democrats were always receptive to the concept of fiscal conservatism. Look up the term "Blue Dog Democrats" to see what I mean. These Democrats are to the right of the national Democratic Party and are most frequently found in the South. You could say that they are what is left of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

At 6/21/14 01:01 PM, Ranger2 wrote: I was working with my fellow Democrats on a campaign for a Democratic congressman yesterday. We were about to go register people to vote on some buses and somebody quipped "It's a good thing we're Democrats doing this; Republicans have a bad history with buses, if you know what I mean."

I knew what he meant, and I disagreed with him.

You were right to disagree with him.

All too often I've heard people explain away our party's past by saying, "oh, those segregationist Democrats back then would really be Republicans today." And i'm sick of that stupidly simplistic argument. Because segregation was not the only issue people back then thought about.

It's simplistic, but true. The segregationist Democrats of the 1960s have mostly died out or switched parties because of the Southern Strategy employed by the Republicans for the past few decades.

We Democrats (which I'm italicizing so nobody reading this will think I'm an angry Republican with an axe to grind) need to reconcile and accept our party's racist past. I'll say it again: the Democratic Party has a racist past. If we put all the notable segregationists in the "would be a Republican now" category, then by those standards FDR, Huey Long, and Woodrow Wilson are all Republicans. Maybe even Bill Clinton would be a Republican, since he competed against Orval Faubus (Little Rock Nine Governor) for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Arkansas in 1986.

As a registered Democrat, I hate to admit that our party has a racist past, but I admit freely that it does. It's just a matter of historical fact.

I'm not sure that FDR openly supported segregation, but he definitely did not speak out against it. In fact, he wasn't even really much of a racist, as the southern Democrats were. Huey Long and Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, were veritable racists, as progressive as they were in other areas and were notable southerners in the Democratic Party.

Their history of supporting a fair minimum wage and a higher standard of living for the working-class American is admirable, but many Democrats simply ignore or deny the racial history of the labor groups they support.

Yep. This is all true, as far as I can tell.

I am not writing this to say that anti-imperialism, Wilsonian values, or workers' rights are bad, or inherently racist. I'm not saying that the Democratic Party today is racist (we've all come a long way). I am a Democrat, and except for a brief period from 2010-2011, always have been, and will always be. What I am sick of hearing is the whitewashing of our party's past. Many prominent anti-Imperialists and labor rights activists our party looks up to had very racist views, and they saw no contradictions there. We cannot ignore our past and just say that any Democrat who was racist back then would be a Republican today, because otherwise we would have very few historical Democrats to call our own.

You are right, but it is worth noting that quite a few of those democrats, the more conservative ones anyway, switched parties, which helps explain why the Republican Party uses racial dog-whistle politics whereas the Democratic Party does not.

But yes, even the heroes of the Democratic Party were flawed. Your point is correct.

Yes, our party stood against the freedom riders. We supported the KKK in the late 1800s. But at the same time, our party also fought for workers' rights, against imperialist conquest, and an international governing body to put an end to war. We cannot simply take the good and ignore the bad. We Democrats need to realize that our history, like the history of any political party and any country, has skeletons in the closet. Let's stop calling the other party racist because frankly, as Americans we have come so far. Our history is not perfect-no country's history is, but I am tired of hearing that there is such thing as a party that has always been on the right side of history. Like the GOP, we have done great things, and we have erred. I'm not saying we need to apologize. I'm not saying we need to demonize either party as "the racist party." Let's accept our past, and move on.

</end rant>

I'm not going to stop calling the Republican Party racist because it is racist, or, at the very least, it uses racist sentiments to win elections. It has done so for almost 50 years now. Yes, the Democratic Party has a racist past, but the Republican Party has a racist present. Until the Republican Party fully and explicitly rejects the Southern Strategy it has used all these years to win votes, Democrats will be correct to accuse them of being racist.

It's sad, really. When the Democratic Party was filled with racists, it was the Republican Party that looked out for Black people and minorities in general, and didn't have a problem registering them to vote. Then, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Ironic that a Southern Democrat signed this bill, widely considered to be the most important bill signed into law in the 20th century) and the Republicans saw an opportunity to obtain the votes of disgruntled, middle-class Southern White voters. They've had their support ever since, as evidenced by their near total domination of the South in presidential elections.

Super Street Fighter 4-Crumbling Laboratory

At 6/19/14 12:30 PM, lapis wrote:

At 6/19/14 01:29 AM, Light wrote: I used to listen to right-wing talk radio like it was nobody's business(Mark Levin in particular and sometime Sean Hannity), opposed gay marriage and supported "family values" and all that other stuff. I basically identified as a conservative Republican.

I thought I was right in holding those views, but the events of the past few years(The Tea Party and all its craziness, along with how evil most Republican politicians actually are), along with increased time spent analyzing my views on the issues and why I held them led me to believe that I was wrong to hold these conservative views.

I don't really see what gay marriage or the merits of family values have to do with the Tea Party. It sounds like you didn't move away from conservative views, but from other conservatives.

No, I moved away from conservative views.

And to be honest, the Tea Party isn't libertarian like it wants people to think. It's extremely conservative on both social and economic issues.

I abandoned my conservative views on economics and social issues in part because of them.

In that sense, naronic may have a point when he says that you didn't think those issues "properly". I realise that you wrote that the increased time you spent analysing your views had an impact, but maybe you spent more time analysing your views because you had begun to find them unattractive due to their association with right-wingers whom you didn't like, and you were rationalising your desire to shift your political views. This is not really meant as criticism of you, just as something to think about.

If people who are visibly crazy share your views, you should probably reexamine them. That was what I was thinking several years ago when the Tea Party emerged.

Upon reexamination of my views, coupled with the research that I did on them and on the arguments used against them, I found conservatism unappealing and embraced more liberal views.

The Tea Party was merely one of the impetuses of the changing of my views. They didn't directly cause me to change them just because I didn't want to be associated with them anymore.

At 6/19/14 04:02 AM, TheMajormel wrote: mfw lgbt movement keeps comparing themselves to the black movements

pls stop

Why? The comparison is completely appropriate.

Black people in the days of the civil rights movement(And even now, really) were denied their civil rights and protested the injustice that they suffered and the lack of government protection of these rights that they were entitled to. With regards to marriage, Black men and women were prohibited from marrying Whites until the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, resulted in the nullification of all state laws that prohibited interracial marriage. The contemporary Supreme Court case known as United States v. Windsor resulted in the nullification of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriages on fairly similar grounds. Gay people fought hard to convince the courts to strike down that section of DOMA in this day and age, just as blacks(and whites) fought hard to persuade the courts that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional.

Just like black people 50 years ago, gay people today are fighting for the right not to be treated as second-class citizens and to be able to marry who they love.

The comparison of the LGBT rights movement to the civil rights movement of yesteryear is completely appropriate. Hell, I'd say that the LGBT rights movement is just the civil rights movement of the 21st century.

Now, why exactly do you disagree?

At 6/18/14 10:38 PM, naronic wrote: If you flip flop on an issue you haven't thought about said issue properly

I'm going to have to agree with @Feoric and @Ranger2 and say that you're wrong. I consider myself very liberal, but once upon a time(up until about 2 and a half years ago, anyway), I considered myself very conservative. I used to listen to right-wing talk radio like it was nobody's business(Mark Levin in particular and sometime Sean Hannity), opposed gay marriage and supported "family values" and all that other stuff. I basically identified as a conservative Republican.

I thought I was right in holding those views, but the events of the past few years(The Tea Party and all its craziness, along with how evil most Republican politicians actually are), along with increased time spent analyzing my views on the issues and why I held them led me to believe that I was wrong to hold these conservative views. So, I eventually went from being as right-wing as Rush Limbaugh to as left-wing as Ted Kennedy over a few years.

There's nothing wrong with flip-flopping on the issues. Doing so is usually a sign of open-mindedness, which is a virtue, not a vice.

At 6/19/14 12:49 AM, Light wrote:
You do realize that Native Americans fought to successfully persuade the patent office to cancel the Washington Redskin's trademark registration, right?

*to add:

It was Native American activists who led this charge and continue to do so against the team's name, not upper class white people, as you seem to think, Memorize.

At 6/18/14 09:05 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 6/18/14 08:23 PM, Light wrote: Did you even try to understand why they're offended? They believe the name is racist, and to be honest, they're completely right.

good god put the race card back in the deck.

Considering the fact that the history of the U.S. and contemporary American politics is inextricably linked with race ,it'd be impossible not to play the race card in these kinds of discussions.

Can you show to us today how and why the team's name isn't racist? Please, put some effort into your post this time.

chiefs, Redskins and the Vikings (because we all know they raped and pillaged those scandanavians!),

"Vikings" and "chiefs" aren't ethnic slurs. This has already been discussed.

the teams who use those names have always been used in the highest respect to make sure not to cause insult, say for instance opposing fans who wear Redskins Sucks Shirts would be asked to either remove them or turn them inside out, and believe it or not they enforce those kinds of ethics. a majority of natives really don't give a SHIT and 90% didn't see it as a slur.

Did you even read the article you cited?

The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive,although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.

I think that's worth noting. And, historically, the term "Redskins" has been used to denigrate Native Americans. Who cares if it has been used in inoffensive contexts? It's kind of like saying that a team called the "Atlanta N*ggas" shouldn't change its name because the name is supposed to honor black people and a lot of black people have no problem with it. The term is racist, and so is the term "Redskin," regardless of whether Native Americans are, by and large, OK with it.

a regional College where I live use the Fighting Sioux as their mascot and the local tribes of Sioux OK'ed it except for one trying to hold out because of internal politics even though they even got a percentage of the money out of the mascot , but the college discontinued the name because they were getting tired of the bullshit that came with it because of politically correct assholes like you.

Camarohusky already responded to this question, so yeah.

At 6/19/14 12:13 AM, Memorize wrote:

You're still a fucking idiot

"In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive..."

Refer to my response to Tony-Darkgrave

You know what I do find offensive? A bunch of upper class white people sitting around telling minorities what they should and shouldn't feel offended by.

You do realize that Native Americans fought to successfully persuade the patent office to cancel the Washington Redskin's trademark registration, right?

And by the way, I'm not upper class or white. lol, learn not to make those kinds of assumptions.

So fuck you, for one.

And secondly, try actually reading up where the term Redskin originated from. It'll help you morons do something you've done in your entire lives...

I did. It's been used in many contexts that weren't derogatory, and many others that were. Kind of like the word "n*gga."

Learn.

You first.