Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/24/11 12:24 PM, djack wrote: All rich white people back then were slave owners but that doesn't mean that they were happy about it. It was a necessary evil that they planned on ending until it became too profitable to eliminate. It wasn't right or good until people needed it to be right and good.

meh, we may be getting a little apologetic about things; we can't forget that people often don't have problems doing terrible things to people if you can demonstrate that those other people are in some way not like you.

religion, race, taste in music, etc...

At 8/23/11 02:35 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: but also there is the misconception that these "mutations" are always beneficial when they're more like defects of the design brought on by natural or unnatural/manmade causes

i'm not sure how many people have this misconceptions, but lets not forget defects sometimes have their own benefits, i.e. sickle-cell anemia; its a pretty shitty genetic disease, but on the bright side you get to screw malaria over.

...put any breed of dog and have it meet an actual wolf and see what happens...

so since humans can't fight apes mano a mano, it makes us inferior?

At 8/18/11 07:48 AM, Korriken wrote: well, while the republican candidates are going after each other, Maxine Waters want go after Obama, but cant because he's half black and she's afraid she'll lose the black vote next time she's up for reelection.

too bad whiteness isn't as powerful as blackness. i say we (whites) take back(?) Obama; his momma was white after all!

plus hes mother-ucking Hawaiian... why haven't Hawaiians tried to claim him too?

At 8/16/11 10:27 PM, djack wrote: Actually most of the western converts were either introduced to Islam in prison or were raised as orthodox Muslims and taught by their parents that all infidels need to be killed so it isn't quite as varied as you think.

while i can't say how radical the parents and upbringing of most American members of Al-Qaeda were (wiki doesn't say for most/a number were indeed raised as Muslims), the idea that prison time is a source of indoctrination seems to be completely false. even those raised in radical Muslim households did attain university degrees and relatively lucrative jobs before going "fuck this shit; i should blow up everyone".

which is what brought me to say that this is a little more worrisome than (and not as dependent on) the spread of fundamentalist Muslim culture.
probably not complete, but this is who i looked into; Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Sharif Mobley, Aafia Siddiqui, Bryant Neal Vinas, Najibullah Zazi, Naser Jason Abdo, Anwar al-Awlaki, Hasan Akbar, Nidal Malik Hasan, Michael Finton
p.s. i'm not saying Al-Qaeda is very interested in having itself a rainbow team of diverse backgrounds and ideals, but it does seem to have little trouble taking what it can get.

At 8/16/11 05:25 PM, Ranger2 wrote: When you're raised in poverty and the people who give you food and money tell you to kill the infidels, you kill the infidels. These people haven't been raised like your or me. This hatred is all they know. They suffer from no education and a backwards culture.

meh, the background of Islamic terrorists (both leaders or operatives) seems to vary pretty widely; from poor individuals who have been promised their families will be cared for monetarily by Al-Qaeda, to well educated, metal-loving western converts. when Americans aren't immune to switching sides, it would seem their ideology is more complex then the misogynistic and xenophobic leanings of certain cultures.

thats not to say that an American military presence in Saudia Arabia can reasonably be considered an insult to Islam, but we seem to be unable to convince some people of that fact.

At 8/15/11 09:02 AM, Ranger2 wrote: What did Norway do to deserve Anders Breivik's actions? They must've also been stepping on his toes.

but he did have a a reason and "rationale" to his attack, as did Al-Qaeda on 9/11... so did Hitler for trying to take over the world and kill the Jews...

who said motives have to be sane and considerate of innocents?

At 8/7/11 11:58 AM, Warforger wrote: ...and when that happens an Islamic state will appear all over the Middle East and the golden age of Islam was be brought back (basically bringing back the Caliphates and the prosperity they had).

don't forget that he thought God would love him and his so much they would get a bonus round and set up a global Islamic state/community.

i'm curious if the laxity and self-indulgence of the Caliphs and their rule ever bothered him?

i forgot to mention Buddhists and Confucians but i think we have more crazy than we have members of either faith/philosophy/belief/wtv on NGs

At 8/7/11 12:10 AM, Proteas wrote: My definition of atheism is based simply on the one posited on these forums the most often; the rejection of all things religious and lacking physical proof.

so in itself, this isn't a thread about atheism, but what this board purports as atheist beliefs (or the manner in which most self-identified atheists define their beliefs here).
while that definition does work for most people here, what about the nutbars who identify as atheists but love their crazy? (i.e. JordanD, who doesn't believe in God(s) but does believe there's an afterlife and that man can become God... and a lot about vibrations).

or are we differentiating between the arrogant and the crazy?

At 8/3/11 10:15 PM, Proteas wrote: The first question is simply this; how do you feel knowing that after death, there is nothing?

... or is there?

At 8/1/11 10:10 AM, Killersepp wrote: Quite the opposite, I was (somewhat obtusely, I have to admit) the common creationist argument of "But it's still a dog!".

dang internet making such confusion so difficult to clear up.

At 7/31/11 11:49 AM, Killersepp wrote: However, since the point of my post was to show that the classification "species" is mushy at best, one will be hard-pressed to exactly define which is the "last" species of ape and the "first" species of human in our line of ancestry. So maybe a little bit of generalisation might actually be helpfull, no?

i'm glad you realized your mistake, but your understanding of what is a species seems to be lacking.
not to mention the logic behind believing that fault with taxonomy represents an error in the theory of evolution.

or, that an error within taxonomy invalidates all taxonomy. thats just silly.

At 7/30/11 11:46 AM, Killersepp wrote: Furthermore, according to some taxologists, one species never stops being that species. So birds are technically still dinosaurs, and humans are technically still monkeys.

good thing "bird" and "monkey" are species. *eye-roll*

and yes, humans are apes. *extra eye-roll*

At 7/25/11 10:15 PM, djack wrote: 1) Nazis had German scientist show "evidence" of genetic inferiority and claimed that the Jewish people were inferior from an evolution standpoint.

the theory of evolution is not based on genetic inferiority or superiority.

bam; line of discussion over, back to whatever this thread was about.

At 7/21/11 09:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Oh, and FYI. Anybody with a steady girlfriend will tell you get more sex with monogamy than you get with promiscuity.

*warning; this is little more than comic relief, warning*
my friends in such a situation would disagree. zing!

as do many comedians; maybe funny is a sex killer.
double zing!

have we discussed what happens after the abstinence only kids grow up?
does the increase in STIs amongst the elderly represent a lack of knowledge, a lack of self-control or simply what happens when you give the senile boner-inducers?

At 7/20/11 10:12 AM, YK-Blaze wrote: that's strange, one of the officials of the red cross actually said the opposite:
"Red Cross: No humanitarian crisis in Gaza"

apparently that isn't particularly accurate.
though it does go on to say that Gaza technically isn't suffering a humanitarian crisis; it simply exists on the brink of one.
and why not obsess over Israel? its a democratic ally faced with the near constant threat of destruction and it is treading a fine line in so far as human rights are concerned.

not to mention that unlike North Korea and Syria, Israel has generally remained sane and relatively cooperative with regards to the international community; so if you're going to obsess over a nation, why not one that might listen?

At 6/20/11 02:11 AM, frigi wrote: I don't think material items are worth killing for.

money is a material item, without it we can't buy any materials such as food, shelter or water, without which, one dies.
makes materials seem pretty important to me.

i don't know if anyone asked already; but is there an established connection between mode of dress and sexual assault?
with numbers as high as 1 in 4 women being victimized (i think that was the number i remember) i have a hard time believing the majority are beautiful, scantily-dressed models.

i.e.; opportunism > temptation

At 6/13/11 11:04 PM, Proteas wrote: Click.

your link seems a little inconclusive; it can't say with certainty that abstinence is on the rise or that it is in fact abstinence that is spurring the drop in teen pregnancies and not the correct use of contraception (not to mention the decline itself seems uncertain).
it also makes no mention of STDs, and whether abstinence only is actually reducing their spread.

don't forget about the recent spike in STDs (or is it STIs now?) amongst the elderly, would education have helped us there?

At 6/10/11 01:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: ..."stop destroying the environment", especially when millions of people are struggling to keep/find a job .

i didn't read the proposal, but i'm curious if one of the reasons their considering this is to avoid the infrastructure expansion necessary to support the growing driver population. cars are fun and all but i wonder how long we can keep supporting large, individually controlled transportation mechanisms, regardless of fuel source.

especially in Europe, i don't see them being allowed to tear down the Colosseum to make driving room.
that said; i wonder how far they'll get with this.

ahahahaha; you'll all be in my hood!

At 5/9/11 05:28 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: I don't really beleive you have you such a shallow opinion of the events surrounding 9/11. They'd declared war on the US in like 1998. And they didn't bomb "The west", it really was just America.

how members of al qaeda present their justifications and what they had hoped to achieve is consistent with my shallow opinion.

They wanted Western influence out of the Middle East and to end American military occupation of the east.

how do you address this logically or in a manner to sufficiently appease extremists? you can't, American and Western influence extends beyond military action and the result of said actions.
Bin Laden was incensed by the establishment of an American military base in Saudi Arabia, no invasion led to it.
they are ideologically opposed to the West and accuse us of spreading our filth when we are not actively forcing people to watch furries and burn the quran online.
the only compromises with regards to the fate of Israel are its destruction, and maybe that of its people.

Al qaeda does not present a centralized and consistent goal (or organization) and as such there really is no way to address their grievances in a full and conclusive manner.
i'd like to draw a parallel with pre-war Nazi appeasement, but as batshit as the Nazis were, they still had more coherent goals and ideological demands than does al qaeda and modern Muslim extremism.

proportionality is out of place in legitimizing war; goals drive wars not the cost or number of dead. kill 3000 al qaeada operatives and all you get are more extremists and little impact on their infrastructure and modes of operation. imprisoning and killing them won't do much more, but continually limiting their ability to act (or focusing their actions on troops as opposed to us here) does limit their options; something that would have been impossible without military action.

At 5/9/11 03:04 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Was the retaliation made by America following 9/11 proportional to the damage done to it?

proportionality is difficult to measure in these situations, especially when the intention is to start a war with the West.

what if its meant to convey the notion that this was an operation intended to protect the lives and freedom of peoples (America), as was its namesake.
there are a whole bunch of non-slanderous interpretations.

maybe a little self-aggrandizing, but eh, no ones perfect.

At 5/6/11 11:04 AM, newave wrote: ...The fact of the matter is there is only one christian system. The bible gives strict instruction on what to do in every aspect of life. People simply chose to take pieces of it... I have personally heard many people who do not believe state their reasons because of flaws of the practicioners. This is a silly notion.

would this be an example of a "no true Scotsman" fallacy or just some good ol'fashion prejudice?

At 5/3/11 10:49 AM, Camarohusky wrote: He's burning the book assuming that his own book doesn't do the same exact thing, or that ANY book for that matter.

nothing wrong with hypocrisy.

I mean hell, if Cather in the Rye (one of the worst books I have ever read) can motivate someone to do bad acts any book can. Does that mean that is how the book is supposed to be read? Not a chance.

who says that wasn't its real intention, and that burning it out of existence is our only salvation from the apocalypse it was intended to unleash?

The pastor should also heed the parable "those in glass houses"

i'd rather he not; things are so much more fun when people fighting religion for religion don't realise why it doesn't make sense.

Also, don't you think that if the violence was a true part of Islam it would be the rule as opposed to the exception?

and as an exception, how could a violent act be the responsibility of the offender and not the instigators and perpetrators (the world saw the Quran burn [there are a whole bunch of different Qurans burning online as we speak] but only a small group in Afghanistan cared)?

Again, the pastor shouldn't throw stones...

meh, his sin is immaterial in comparison to the heresy of Islam.

I'm not blaming society for anything. I am blaming the pastor. The pastor is insulting and provoking the Muslims at a time when relations are icy at best. There is a fear among the Islamic community at large that the Christian west is trying to subjugate them, and when you see people like the pastor you begin to understand why.

yet huge swaths of western hating and internet connected Muslim populaces sat at home and hurt no one the day the pastor burnt the Quran; except for a small group in Afghanistan. what was the difference? individuals over there encouraged violent action, and people took violent action.
who knows how many Muslims saw and felt insulted/revolted when they saw the pastor burn the Quran but only a small group in Afghanistan did anything. that should say something about who is culpable.

At 5/2/11 09:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It's better because it is showing many of the people that what he did was wrong on numerous levels. That just because some is an atheist doesn't mean that religious people's view and feelings are automatically BS.

ffs; a Christian pastor also assumed that everyone else's beliefs were BS because of his faith. does that make his faith wrong? does that make the Muslim faith wrong? no, it makes the pastor a dick and the fanatics that attacked the UN employees murderous dicks.

At 4/30/11 02:46 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: Putting aside the cost of medical treatment, the loss felt by loved ones, the proximity of house and bar to on-ramp and exit-ramp, and so on and so forth... the highway would be void of careful sober drivers and their families.

televise it!
medical costs are paid with some left for non-drunkfucks, pump money into the economy, set examples and remove themselves from the rest of the world; useless slobs now contribute to society. utopia is attained.

At 4/30/11 09:47 AM, JonBro wrote: Just because I'm stating my own opinion and it happens to be different from yours doesn't make me a troll, you know. People who use that logic are just as dense as you accuse me of being. But that's off-topic.

opinions are worth nothing, how you defend them is what counts. your defense was asinine, ergo your opinion is asinine; how do you think that reflects on you? :P

Releasing the birth certificate sooner would have been further proof than having released it now.

just because hes the present doesn't mean he no longer has private personal information. (not to mention that hes probably had to prove his Americanness multiple times as a public/political figure well before considering running for president.
or is the American system that ass-backwards that you're only forced to prove you're who you say you are after you become POTUS?

Less time to prepare a fake certificate

photoshop doesn't require days of work to make a single page with some writing on it...
research included.

less time to doubt

do you really think people wouldn't have flipped their argument around and said "hey wait a minute! whys he so willing to release this so quickly? it must be fake." its about as sound an argument as the one you are presenting at the moment.

and the whole ordeal with Donald Trump doing extensive research about Obama's origin would not have started yet. But I think I see what you mean about time not being an important factor in the scheme of things.

Trump is having himself a publicity field-day while flip-flopping with regards to what he believes hes accomplished. for some reason sensationalist celebrities don't seem that trustworthy (but you know what, lets put it on hold and see if Trump ever comes through with this 'investigation' [my money is on hes just talking])

I also find it suspicious the great multitudes of money Obama has spent simply to defend that he is an American citizen. That's another reason I think the certificate isn't actually his certificate from birth--evidence could easily be falsified for his benefit of being president.

...and he wouldn't have had to spend all that money if...

At 4/30/11 12:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Do you think the cartels will sit back lightly and watch their multi million dollar business disappear?

prohibition quickly went in favour of the gangsters; it was repealed and they didn't try (or were capable of) anything.
increased production with limited interference (achieved through legal means) trumps the price and convenience of illegal products (hell, even if it still costs more, convenience and access shouldn't be underestimated).