Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

i think a few points might help bring us out of our circle-jerk; i doubt everyone here disagrees with the need for change (accountability, a "fairer" system, etc...), but it seems there is a considerable disconnect between these people and the protesters (which could be for any number of reasons such as method, message [or the jumble of messages from a non-centralized movement] or the 1% vs 99%, etc...).
how to overcome it? well we've seen the attempt to draw links between OWS and the Civil Rights movement suggesting they identify with them, yet how OWS is proceeding is very different and i think that's the problem; the Civil Rights movement was an intensely organized and issue based movement intent on achieving small, specific goals intent on undermining the systems of laws and governance that supported segregation, as opposed to changing the entire system in one go.
they used marches/protests (like the OWS), sit-ins (like the OWS), legal action (unlike the OWS [insofar as i've heard], which is the pity because they are claiming it is a legal issue), boycotts (unlike the OWS; again missing a very relevant means of action), etc... but the most important difference, in my opinion, is what they expected from civil disobedience (the non-violent breaking of laws), mainly physical action from police, but there was little in the way of the continuous charge of police brutality or unjust arrest as the whole point of their movement was to show the nation the laws were stupid not that police procedure was flawed (and this was old-timey Southern police [but that's excluding the times the police did go old-timey pointy hood brutality on them]) or infringing their rights to free speech.
as for those arrested there's also their jail no bail non-resistant protest which would be dandy for the OWS because that too hits the man in his purse.

of course if the feeling is that the man is in control of the media and is taking away all your power, they can always buck up and take examples from the South African Anti-Apartheid movement (important note: they had 0 rights); but that too requires getting organized, using financial action (or is not buying stuff too terrible for us?) and taking a beating without losing sight of the goals you came for.

At 12/2/11 10:38 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 12/1/11 01:53 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: x is bad because the law says so. the law says so because x is bad. x is bad because the law says so. the law says so because x is bad. x is bad because the law says so. the law says so because x is bad.

i'm seeing it in this thread right now.

And I saw that alot in the Occupy Wall Street thread.

THOSE HARMLESS PEACEFUL STUDENTS TOTALLY DESERVED TO GET PEPPER SPRAYED YOU GUIZE

i knew we weren't done with our little circle; come on back, we has work to do.

especially if the law is the law is the only thing you got out of it.

At 12/1/11 04:14 PM, akmeteor wrote: Not stupid, just that Freedom of Assembly might work differently. Where as long as you're protesting you can't be arrested kind of different.

meh, don't know if its different, someones gonna have to go do the comparison.

(lolz; tumult)

Canadian law also allows you to go all vigilante on rioters (or those suspected of trying causing a tumult).

another note on the civil rights movement; they were fighting for constitutional rights ignored by the law(s). "fair" distribution of wealth is not in there, and i pray to (non-existent) God it never will be because we all know how well the law works at making things "fair". we need social change, not legal change.

and i think someone mentioned earlier on who civil disobedience has been made illegal by the man to fight the OWS; civil disobedience has never been legal (its the whole damn point).

At 11/28/11 08:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/28/11 08:30 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: if the police ordered you to jump off a bridge...

There's a big difference between an officer giving a lawful order and an officer telling you to jump off of a bridge...

what if the bridge is on fire?

At 11/27/11 08:25 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Just like the students at UC Davis, they were so violent they really had it coming.

whats with all this infallibility of the non-violent?

At 11/26/11 07:43 AM, bcdemon wrote: it belongs to the people in the city, hence PUBLIC park.

in these here parts you can't be in a park past 11 at night, even if you're just walking through.

fancy that BC wouldn't have such limitations for public parks.

At 11/25/11 10:24 AM, ZJ wrote: isn't that essentially attacking free speech?

but they aren't just speaking.

nor would an end to occupation end their message...
it may actually get productive as they start thinking of manners of change as opposed to demanding that everyone else change for them.

At 11/19/11 05:39 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: ...who acceptthat evolutions caused differences between different racial groups in basically every part of the body, except for, quite conveniently, the brain.

but lets not overstate the nature of these differences. (unless there are some i don't know about?)

At 11/18/11 09:56 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No it didn't, it argued for not dismissing a priori the possibility of genetic intellectual differences, like msot racial egalitarians do.

ya, it just clicked i'm throwing arbitrary amount of time around with regards to what could be a tiny genetic differences. sorry about that, i think i just like trying to bring up neanderthal sex. on the bright side, the fact that ancient Asians and Europeans bred with neanderthals would be an example for your argument of such a source of difference.

Ah, may bad. I should have made it clear I was talking about people of African/European/East Asian origin within America, for example. I wasn't clear, and to make things worse famas' post lead me to talk about diffrent countries which further makes things unclear.

Racial IQ differences are lower within America than when compared on the basis of nation, but they are still statistically significant and cannot be explained by the cultural and educational phenomena you mentioned.

in an American setting it does make more sense, but the problem is i have little knowledge about the context. from what i've learned about Canadian/Montreal's ethnic communities is that some degree of correlation is more evident, but the issue is that the establishments around these communities and their size is rather exceptional when compared to other cities/countries.

but thats not to say intelligence statistics for the US & Canada aren't similar... i'll look into it soon enough.

At 11/18/11 05:46 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Cool, I'm talking about differences in intelligence, not about being different species.

we're going to have to start clearing things up; your comment argued for genetic origins of intellectual differences, meaning rates of speciation or species change are relevant (hence the neanderthal subspecies reference).
intelligence is also another issue as it could refer to cognition or such measurements as IQ tests, the former is common to all humans in equal measures (barring disorders) while the other is not present in the same level with all peoples. asking how this could be (as everything seems to point towards us being effectively the same) provides a few possibilities outside the scope of genetics, those being test bias (IQ intends to measure intelligence with regards to a Western system of perception and understanding) or socio-cultural influences (if your means of existence do not incorporate or reflect on those of the West then it is highly unlikely you'll be taught much that will help you on an IQ test).
but of course if your point is one about social evolution and its shaping of intelligence/understanding, then yes, neanderthals were irrelevant.

At 11/18/11 08:13 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: That's right, even though two racial groups were seperated for tens of thousands of years in different environements

recent genetic mapping indicates we've been doing intensive migrating (even going back to Africa) and interbreeding since we discovered there was more than just Africa.
not to mention that we've only been around as physically modern humans for 200,000 years.
there was also the proto-human/proto-neanderthal split roughly 400,000 years before that, but that still wasn't enough time to make us so different we couldn't mate.

At 11/18/11 09:21 AM, bcdemon wrote: Maybe she should show her love and respect for him and give it up, or is this "love and respect" thing a one way street?

so the article Korriken linked to provided strong support for the dangers of sex while not fully comfortable/prepared with the action, yet that should be ignored because she said she cared for someone who wants to have sex now?

ignore my homophonic typos please.

At 11/17/11 09:16 AM, Korriken wrote: Huffington Post says otherwise now what? yeah a liberal source telling you this.

the article does seem to describe the more likely issue is the nature of the first sexual encounter(s?) than when they first had sex. not to mention that i would expect some correlation between being taught to wait as a strong moral belief may have something to do with it (if your devout enough to wait for marriage, it doesn't seem to far-fetched to assume they may be a little more serious about the nature of marriage too).
though its a little disappointing that this whole sexual liberation thing seems to have taught people that sex should have no reason to be postponed.

or that avoiding sexual acts has no value.

At 11/9/11 10:29 PM, Korriken wrote: has it ever occurred to anyone except for me that Muslims that are killed fighting the infidel are guaranteed forgiveness for any sins they may have committed and are granted access to heaven? Why would any devout muslim be afraid of death?

meh, while i wouldn't bet against much of the leadership thinking this way, i'm kind of hoping most citizens haven't forgotten the cluster-fuck they found themselves in during the Iran-Iraq war.

but then again memories are short, anger runs deep.

At 11/9/11 12:50 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: as long as the threat of retaliation exists, anyone tactical enough to become a dictator will know that using a nuclear weapon on another nation is grounds for immediate butfucking. They are bluffing and we all know it. If we go in, its because Saudi Arabia wants us to help them maintain their spot on the top of the middle east.

but theres also the issue that dictators [and non-dictators] have a tendency to let a few weapons disappear and reappear in other, less "diplomatic", hands.

At 11/8/11 09:56 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: The first thing that ran through my head was that question. That Russia is being so quick to say "nobody mess with that shit over there!!!" because they're afraid Iran didn't rip their "made in Russia" labels off the tech and materials (maybe even the scientists?) just yet.

i thought i saw an article confirming what i had intended to be a joke some time after posting, but i wasn't able to find it. so for now is still joke.

in Soviet Russia bomb make U!

oh wow, that pic doesn't work with a grey background. found it here.

At 11/8/11 04:38 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Sabertooth Tigers and Woolly Mammoths were still tigers and elephants - simply with additional information in their genes that we do not (and probably will never) see naturally in today's world.

as Famas pointed out, you're making a hell of a lot of mistakes about what species are, or just muddling whole taxonomic families together. to start clearing things up 'sabertooth tigers' can refer to any number of ancient long-toothed cats or marsupials, whereas the following picture should illustrate the enormous differences in lineages between 'elephants'.

At 11/7/11 10:25 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: What you said does nothing to promote macroevolution - simply supports the idea that similar animals and plants lived and died in similar places.

but isn't that the issue? the fossil records provide an accurate timeline of species existence and change over time (isn't that whats meant by transitional fossils?). non of it supports original coexistence of all creatures following spontaneous, full-form creation, but rather continuous change through space and time; processes still observable today (i doubt you're arguing that the world works differently today).

At 11/7/11 07:22 PM, Tstelie wrote: Well let's see, the whole "gay gene" thing was never proven to be true, and how would even be passed on?

i don't know why we ignore that homosexuals seem to present the same interest in procreation (and knowledge of how to procreate) as heterosexuals, meaning there is no real barrier to their abilitly to reproduce and pass on their genes.

At 11/7/11 07:00 PM, WallofYawn wrote: What do you think of it? Personally, I'm a supporter of a social democratic republic with laws and regulations, that distribute power and wealth evenly between the people, the government, and business. Making sure that no one from the top, to the bottom, can exploit the classes through economic or political means.

the issue i have with greater representation is that i'm not sure most people know what they want, or is good/feasible/advisable for them and their social system, but of course greater centralisation is generally much less productive [read; asking for abuse]. so in closing, i'm hoping we find some magical means of adequately educating everyone on how to be part of a productive system before implementing such reforms.

woo, non-commital positions!

At 11/7/11 04:47 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Regardless, this does nothing to promote macroevolution (or even micro for that matter), and still remains a conclusion-to-observational study (interpretation / not science).

...i just presented a scenario in which conclusions are deduced from findings and comparison, but apparently that's irrelevant. fancy.

At 11/7/11 03:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Iran is saber rattling and Russia is shouting from the deep hole it is fallen into hoping someone will listen.

or did they sell the Iranians the know-how/weapons and hope no one finds out while clearing through the rubble of an Israeli airstrike?

At 11/7/11 12:09 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Macroevolution "studies" are basically done in reverse scientific method - which is part of the reason there is so much controversy and creationism has not yet gone extinct. We attempt to find evidence for an idea, rather than develop an idea based upon evidence (this would be a legitimate theory).

not really, considering that while what becomes fossilized is only a small percentage of life that was present at any given time, there is still more than enough to allow for an understanding of flora and fauna of the past. between individual remains and the masses found in death traps or other accumulation of organisms, there is one hell of a lot to establish the prevalence of certain species within a certain area and time and the differences between other specimen from other areas and times.

modern biodiversity surveys operate on the same sampling principle, which is why we don't seek to study every single example of every species, but rather observe what would be equivalent to the 0.000...001 percent alluded to earlier.

At 11/6/11 06:41 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: It's not a fallacy to assert that homosexuality is natural

asserting that something natural is inherently good/allowable is.

some opponents of homosexuality in general assert that homosexuality is unnatural.

and the issue i have is that most of the attention of pro-LGBT rhetoric is centered around addressing the above claim despite the fact that it is irrelevant in a conversation about our rights. not to mention that it implies inherent and profound differences between homo-, and hetero-sexuals when it would seem we should be considering the opposite.

At 11/5/11 09:55 PM, Yorik wrote: There's no reason to care how other people live their lives or whether or not they choose to include you in their lives so long as you are able to live comfortably without anyone infringing upon your rights (which you can't do under theocracy because the state forces you to go with the group or be punished, hence the problem with theocracy and the topic of this thread.)

religious life isn't solely social, nor is secular life solely individual. secular people are constantly getting "punished" for doing things outside the society's norms.

The punishment for apostasy in many religions is death. Punishment for being gay in most of those same religions is death.

but now we're generalising both in attitudes towards certain behaviours and accepted punishments for those behaviours; for example, we haven't been burning many witches despite our growing surplus.

At 11/6/11 02:06 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: It's a good argument when used in conjunction with the well-known fact that homosexual activity is largely harmless to those who aren't involved.

so presenting a fallacy in conjunction with a good argument is quality rhetoric?

the issue with a picture as opposed to posting a thought out argument is that its hard to tell what the precise stance is. punishment for disbelief is one thing while infant baptism and the like are another, i.e. i'm pretty sure i'm technically still a Catholic (through baptism) despite my disbelief, and yet i never had to face any issues about lapsing despite the fact that my parents and family were responsible for my baptism.
this isn't an art gallery, its the politics forum and its serious business.