Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/4/07 10:52 PM, jasperace11 wrote: Why I Do Believe We Should Fill Out Paperwork To Purchase Guns,They Shouldn't Be Banned.
I Mean,Not Everyone's A Psychopath Out To KILL US ALL.

They shouldn't be banned, no, but they should do background checks to make sure you don't have a bad case of violent insanity.

In an anarchist society, the anarchists would rejoice for approximately five minutes. Then, they would get angry when they realize there's no police to prevent anyone from stealing their stuff. Soon afterwards, some people who aren't anarchists will form a government that will discriminate against them and then they'll be worse off then they were in the first place.

(Exaggeration, yes, but what's to keep people from forming governments after anarchy onsets?)

At 7/2/07 09:44 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 7/2/07 09:29 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 7/2/07 05:53 PM, K-RadPie wrote: stuff

more stuff

I never said anything about it being an easy process. Although maybe "pwned" wasn't the wordage I was looking for, more anti-terrorist troops need to be trained around the globe in places like Darfur and Iraq to maintain security in these places, discourage terrorist ideals among the youth, and above all, kick terrorist ass to the best of their ability.

Okay. I agree that the extremist left-wingers who think that the U.S. is worse than Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran, China, etc. are nuts. But moderate Democrats are not the enemies here. What we need is a government that will be willing to defeat terrorism when it threatens, but not invade unrelated countries and spawn more terrorists. And then, when people said "Uh, let's not invade Iraq, Saddam has no WMDs and Al Qaeda doesn't even have a significant presence there", the hard right said they were terrorist sympathizers? How does that add up? How does wanting to prevent war in a country where you KNEW there would be a significant terrorist uprising count as sympathizing terrorists? All that aside (what's done is done, we're stuck knee deep in international political and violent shit in Iraq), what we need now is to stop pissing our allies off. When we piss them off, what do we create? More extremist left-wingers! More ACTUAL terrorist sympathizers, not people who want to prevent terrorism from starting! We don't need to bend over and take it from Europe, but we don't need to say "I STILL SUPORT BUSH LOLOLLOLOLOL" after the Bush administration that didn't destroy terrorism- it created it.

Now I'm somewhat iffy on what we should do in Iraq, but I think the best thing would either to admit that we screwed up and hightail it out of there, or put as much of our military effort into it as we can. No more halfway crap. The problem with the first is that it seems like we won't clean up our mess and just abandon the people; the problem with the second is that our mere presence in Iraq is creating so much anger. So either we withdraw and see what happens, or we actually send in our military to secure the country. A lot of our problems result from just staying in there with half of a presence leaving us more vulnerable to attack while simulataneously creating international fury and casualties.

But was Iraq the right country to invade if you want to stamp out terrorism? It sure doesn't seem so- there are a ton more there then there have been in a long time, if ever.

So don't apply the "pussy liberal terrorist sympathizer" label to me. :)

I see, JakeHero, you hate terrorism, so you supported a war that would spawn terrorism in a country that had no terrorist threat before. Smart.

At 7/2/07 09:20 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Though rates of individual murders can be disputed, mass murders will be almost eradicated with strict gun control.

How so? Why would a person be willing to commit the crime or murder be unwilling to commit the crime of illegal possesion of a firearm?

At 7/1/07 06:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/1/07 04:43 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Not really. Hindering people's choice to smoke is a violation of their right to use their own property that they legally acquired.

Yes, really. The fundamental freedom to do what you will to your own body is not your freedom when it interferes with the bodies of others.

For example: Guns are restricted not to restrict your freedom to own one but to protect the essential liberty to life that others have.

Except smoking in an establishment that's not non-smoking isn't interfering with the bodies others because nobody's forcing you to go to that particular establishment. Saying that smoking should be banned in these establishments is like saying that saying the word "fuck" should be banned on HBO. In both cases, nobody is forcing you to endure the thing in question if you don't want it. Go to the non-smoking section, or turn the channel, don't complain about the thing if you know that you don't own the channel/establishment and you can just go somewhere else where the thing isn't there. We don't have a right for other people to run their businesses the way they want to.

And why oh why are you bringing up gun control? We know that some restrictions are necessary (i.e. not letting insane violent people buy them and doing background checks), but if you're going to talk about hardcore gun control (heh i just coined a term! :D ), we've got plenty of counterpoints there. Like in the gun control thread: you can give me statistics about guns all you want but you can't prove that illegalization will make them any better.

At 7/1/07 10:39 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: And yet the CDC states that 55% of murders of persons under age 19 (in 2004) were committed with a firearm.

Interesting.

As cellado' said, how will banning guns make the rate of murders go down at all? You can provide all these statistics but you cannot prove that illegalization will make the statistics drop.

The CDC said that firearms will kill a lot of people, but did it say that banning firearms will prevent those people from dying? No.

At 7/1/07 11:03 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

There are certian rules and regulations, while defacto, within the news organistation.

They can be defacto within the industry but they must NEVER be de jure.

At 7/2/07 01:15 AM, SolInvictus wrote: a little while a go my cousin found a linked metal belt of 79 .223 rounds at a concert hall. no powder though.

Maybe it was a prop, if the stage was used for drama too?

At 7/1/07 07:16 PM, Memorize wrote:

The most likely explanation is that Hell is a scare tactic and Heaven is a bait for people to be good people; and that hopefully one day people would have good will without needing this sort of mythology.

Why?

If they didn't, then there would be nothing preventing people from doing whatever they want.

Then again, you making this claim is nothing more than trying to bait religous people into an arguement, making it worthless.

There would indeed be something preventing people from doing whatever they want;
secular ethics.

At 7/1/07 05:56 PM, Chickenlump wrote: I agree that people are just blaming violent behavior on violent video games, television, and rock and roll music! I have learned much by watching the movie Bowling for Columbine. Video games are just a place to escape to and play brain-incapacitating activities.

Bah. Gun control probably won't make it any better. Michael Moore is misguided in that movie.

Hahaha, I usually support the Democrats more these days, and I still found that laugh-out-loud hilarious. Good one. :)

At 7/1/07 05:48 PM, Memorize wrote: People say that earth is 6,000 years old (or however long) because of "1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day". But they skip over the part that comes before that where it says (and i'm quoting it directly this time, Drakim) "God created the Heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form and void". Who's to say he started with earth at the very time he created Heaven, eh?

Good point. :) Maybe I'll point that out the next time somebody tells me the earth is so young that humans would have been around at the same time as dinosaurs.

At 7/1/07 06:58 PM, Memorize wrote:

The bible it self can not be used as evidence for it self. It a contradiction.

It can, however, be used as a historical document.

Only in some cases; historians dispute the validity of some parts- there was a Penn and Teller about it.

Fine, but when did god create them? Where did god create them? And perhaps more importantly why did he create them?

Why do you eat when you're not hungry?

Because food tastes good?

Then why dose child birth still hurt? Why do we get sick and grow old? These are the sins man kind is cursed with for eating from the tree of good and evil.

According to the Bible, this is all because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. If they had not, then they would have lived forever. There was no disease and no death. This all didn't happen until afterwards.

Christ is known as the ultimate sacrifice. Basically covering the sins we make in our lives much like how in the Old Testament they would sacrifice animals for the sins they made.

It didn't mean that everything in life was going to be perfect and that we wouldn't feel any pain.

Then I ask again, why do we still suffer for them?

The point was that if you continue to obey God's word, then you would die and be in heaven.

Think of it this way. If you do not obey God's Word, then your sins will not be forgiven when you die. If you do obey God's word, then they will be.

It's not a "Well, Jesus died for our sins so we can do what we want" kind of thing.

According to you. You can only prove that using circular reasoning as I illustrated before (i.e. why is the bible true? god says so. How do you know god says so? the bible is true. why is the bible true?, etc. etc.) Eternal damnation serves no purpose. The most likely explanation is that Hell is a scare tactic and Heaven is a bait for people to be good people; and that hopefully one day people would have good will without needing this sort of mythology.

But that's just what I've surmised.

At 7/1/07 05:30 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: The new testament has passages against gays as well. Also, women aren't supposed to cut their hair, or ask questions during a sermon, dammit!

It has one that can be incorrectly interpreted as being against homosexuality from what I understand. If only I could remember which one, maybe it was in a letter from Peter or something.

At 6/30/07 02:54 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It makes smoking inconvenient, so perhaps you cause less people to smoke that way. Of course, that's the best case.

Not really. Hindering people's choice to smoke is a violation of their right to use their own property that they legally acquired. They shouldn't go around smoking in people's faces but likewise people shouldn't run into a restaraunt they know allows smoking and bitch about it as if they could just go to a restaraunt with a no-smoking section.

At 7/1/07 04:37 PM, Memorize wrote: Because it doesn't. The problem is that there are idiots like you out there who believe there are by taking small parts of verses out of the book and putting them next to each other without taking the words in context of the chapter or book.

Way to go, smart one.

And yet religious conservatives take passages in the bible out of context to justify their irrational predjudices against gays, etc.

At 7/1/07 03:43 PM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: Guys come on. Let's stop. I'm sorry I made that joke, can we just stop, please?

It's a religious debate; continuing it isn't harassing you- it's just part of the debating process. :D

At 7/1/07 10:08 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

You do realize that a newspaper is also supposed to show non bias and acts as more of a medium for other people that want to ask that.

If that's what the guy who owns it wants to make it about. A newspaper can be as biased as it wants; what annoys me is when they are biased and claim to be unbiased Fox News-style.

I think Jerry Falwell had the same sort of opinion. I think he thought the WTC was destroyed because "AMERICA HARBORS GAYZ LOLOLOL" or something like that.

At 7/1/07 03:57 PM, Memorize wrote: Now what you do is take the crackpot and have him strapped to a chair while a professor teaches him on the science of earthquakes and floods.

But, Memorize, what if it's not in the bible? I thought science was pure lunacy; I mean, after all, scientists keep talking about this evolution stuff with the same sort of rational evidence they use to estimate how earthquakes and floods happen, why should you believe anything they say? Gravity is really only because God yawned really loud one time, right? </sarcasm>

But yeah, I expected this sort of thing from peeps like Jerry Falwell, but the Church of England? I thought England was supposed to be more religiously progresssive. :(

At 7/1/07 01:15 AM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: I don't have a religion, I just believe in God, and Jesus, so rules out Jewish. ^^

Jews believe in Jesus; they just don't think he was their Messiah.

I just saying that wouldn't the idea of still living after death, be nice? Just think you? I'm sorry for saying some of the stuff, trying to persuade you guys. Sorry.

Nah, it's fine. Life after death doesn't sound half bad- but just cause it's something cool doesn't mean it's true. The idea of Santa Claus is pretty awesome but that doesn't mean it was true. Not to be derisive, I'm just saying "wow that would be great" doesn't exactly verify that something's true. :)

So let me say something. The whole Planets around the sun shit. I don't believe in other planets, because I just think it's the government feeding us some more shit. I watch the 1969 lunar landing, and there were no stars. We can't see the stars on the earth because the little shield thing, ozone, i think, blocks a lot out, plus the lights. So on the moon, where is like.. a dead ball of rock and sand, why do you see no stars. I mean...even in recent landings, there are no stars. So I don't think we've been to the moon, nor in space. It's just me. I don't want to get off topic with that.

No stars were in the photos? The sun was shining. Cameras were set to daylight exposure. Here's a recent topic showing humans have been to outer space. Regardless of the first moon landing, humans have been to outer space.

I believe in what The Bible says man. We came to America and they mostly worshipped god, cept that ben frank guy, he was a satanist, little pedophile guy that liked to play with women and do illegal acts of oral sex! I mean, it's cool what you believe.

?? Ben Franklin wasn't a satanist, he was a Deist; which means he did believe in God, he just believe he doesn't take an active part in the going-ons of the day. As for "illegal acts of oral sex", that's his business, not ours. :) And I have never heard he was a pedophile before, I'd like to see a source on that one. I don't think Ben was like that. o_O

:: Possibility that god did the big bang? Sure man. It's what you think. I don't think it, but it's all chill. Let's do a topic on AREA 51 now XD

There's nothing in the bible that says he didn't. :) And that's what you go by right? We've all got our own opinions. A topic on Area 51 sounds cool, but I bet someone's done that already; you might wanna do a search on the topic and just post in one of those so it can be revived again.

By the way, I just found your audio stuff, pretty interesting stuff. Sorry to be offtopic, though, I'll PM ya about it.

But I'd like to know what makes you so sure the bible says the big bang didn't happen, and if it did, why you regard it as being so infallible.

At 6/30/07 03:01 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Guns allow for crime. That's a well-established fact.

Are you sure? But regardless, here's a better question:

Will making guns illegal actually prevent gun crime?

Proving that the current circulation of guns causes crime is one thing. But can you prove that making it illegal will make the situation any better/

Making something illegal doesn't just make it magically disappear. And it doesn't necessarily make it better. We found that out during the alcohol prohibition, didn't we? Illegality is good for some crimes; such as murder, rape, etc.- but for stopping gun crime? Banning guns will not solve that one, I believe.

At 7/1/07 12:59 AM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: Dude. Science passes many test. That's why there is the 'BIG BANG THEORY.'
It passed the test, but was NOT proven, therefore, it's only a possibility!

And yet it has actual evidence/rational reasoning behind it. Sure, it's only a possibility, but it's a possibility with scientific rationality behind it. Where is that scientific rationality in "God just made it all, lol." What if God made the Big Bang happen? Is that not a possibility too? Is there any more evidence behind "God just made it all, lol" than "The big bang happened, and it might have been caused by God."

At 7/1/07 12:52 AM, Everlasting-Elements wrote: Notice in science, many things are THEORIES. That means..Maybe.
Read the bible again, Adam and Eve DID NOT populate the world. They had 2 sons, and the one was killed by his brother. God banished him and the surviving brother said "The others will kill me out there" which states, Others were around, and Adam and Eve are not our Great great....Grandparents.
Some science is believable. But I don't think our world has been around for as long as science says. I mean, over the years, I think our world would be a rotting pile of shit, you know. But I have a question for you man.

?? How would our world be a rotting pile of shit? There's absolutely no evidence to back up that claim. But continue.

If you don't believe in God, then you don't go to heaven right. The eternal life thing. Wouldn't you rather go to heaven and never die, rather than just laying in the ground? I mean, at least believe something.

Okay, and how do you know that? Because it says so in a book? And how do you know that book is right? Oh because God says so? Oh, and how do you know that's what God says? Because it says so in a book? And how do you know that book is right? Oh because God says so? Oh, and how do you know that's what God says? Because it says so in a.... and on and on and on and on.... That's a logical fallacy. (It's a mistake in logic.)

The question "Wouldn't you rather go to heaven..." assumes that we believe in your religion. If we don't believe in your religion it has no standing.

I'll never say science is wrong, but I will say, the Bible is right, in my opinion, of course.

And it's within your rights to believe that, just as it's in my rights to believe in what has more ratinonal reasoning behind it. :) But I guess we've got different opinions on what that is.

At 7/1/07 12:45 AM, Everlasting-Elements wrote:
Also, Pokemon is bad. It teaches kids they can beat their pets and worship Satan because they fighting machines. The theme song, supposedly, when they do the 'Pokemon Rap' says 'I love Satan' backwards when they say 'Gotta Catch em all' coincidence, I think not. Damn Satan worshipers XD

Are you serious? It doesn't teach kids they can beat their pets; only obtuse kids who don't realize it's just a TV show would beat their pets because of it. In Pokémon the creatures actually like to fight; and they never die from it. That's pretty unrealistic; it's not like it's a show about dogfishting or something. And when you play something backwards you can say it says a lot of things too; and people will believe it because they'll look for the details they've been told and interpret it as such. Pokémon does not equal Satan worship.

And if you're kidding, that's pretty funny. :)

At 7/1/07 12:31 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

At 7/1/07 12:16 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 7/1/07 12:15 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: It's insane how your country treats it's youth. No wonder america is such a shithole.

Says the person in the America-wannabe country.

oh boy here comes the american nationalists. Oh yes, it's true i'm so jealous of your country, because that makes any fucking sense whatsoever.

To be fair, you started it, Fork. On the world scale, Canada and the U.S.A. are both good countries compared to most non-First World countries. As many gripes as I have with the U.S. government I would not call it a "shithole". There are good places and bad in the U.S.

Dr. Strangelove is a GREAT movie.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"

At 6/29/07 12:45 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/29/07 04:29 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

You sound like the idiotic bush-bash crowd.

"Bush is a liar"

'Prove it'

Actually, we can prove it.

Bush: THERE ARE WMDS IN IARAQ SO WE MUST INVADE LOLZ

Weapon Inspectors: Nope, no WMDs here.

Bush: INVADE LOLZ!

U.S.A. Military: We looked around but we didn't find any WMDS, sir.

Bush: UM... LOL. I MEAN, WE HAD TO INVADE TO LIBERATE THE IRAQI PEOPLE! YAY! LOLZ!

Most of the U.S.: Well we knew that was bullshit.

Less than 30% of the Ameican public: K, lol, he didn't lie, he meant to say something else.

To be fair I would much more likely support a war if it was actually going to liberate the people, but giving the circumstances of Iraq (the clashing ethnic groups; international backlash, strong opposition back home) we should have known that the end result would most likely be pure chaos. Bush the First knew that and withdrew, after all.

At 6/28/07 07:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

And I don't regard it as a weakness. I regard it as being confident enough in our country that we can handle giving out the rights we promise while still defending against the people who try to take them away from us.

These trials usually wouldn't be underway until after the end of the conflict.

Well, it looks like the end might be coming pretty soon. If it is surely we can afford those trials.

I agree that the ACLU is a little extreme sometimes but it's getting pathetic what qualifies as a "felony" these days. (ex: drug related crimes)

No, you just think pot heads should be able to vote. You don't like the idea of them being a felon, because that could possibley have you end up being a felon.

Hooray, the classical "U JUST WNAT IT TO BE LEEGAL SO U CAN DO IT LOLZ!" argument. Just becaues I want something to be legal doesn't mean I actually advocate its usage. As I expressed in the Fairness Doctrine topic, I don't want to run a conservative radio show but I respect their right to spew their conservative thoughts without being forced to include content from the liberal side. In the same manner I respect people's decision to use marijuana without actually smoking pot myself. I don't want to put mayonaisse on my potatoes when I'm eating meatloaf but that doesn't mean I'm going to advocate it's illegality, even though I think that's rather disgusting. But it's someone's personal choice, and it's not my business. Just as it is someone's personal choice granted to them by our Bill of Rights to run their own biased radio station. So no, I'm not going to "possibley" become a felon if pot smoking is made a felony, but I still don't think it should be made one.

And there was PLENTY of POW controversy in Vietnam, and the reason we didn't see much in the Gulf War (though there was the Highway of Death controversy) is because Bush the First didn't decide to set up residence for so long.

No. It's just that the media and all of the other idiots didn't decide to drown your thoughts with stupidity which would've caused you to bitch like you do now.

? You said the media didn't cover POW abuse before, and it did. So what exactly are you disagreeing with?

At 6/30/07 06:51 AM, Cheekyvincent wrote:

At 6/28/07 10:50 PM, deepspace wrote: Even if fireworks are banned. I'm sure plenty of people will start to smuggle in fireworks.

the black market and the mafia sure will profit

Just like they do with the drug prohibition, eh? But all political insinuations aside, I doubt we'll see gangsters on the streets saying "heeyy kid, you wanna try some of these fireworks? first one's always free!". People will probably just cross the border.

They still shouldn't be illegal, though.

At 6/30/07 08:11 PM, Memorize wrote: What? Are PC liberals good? They certainly like to censor anything they don't like like those religous wackies. Only, their censorship is more on free speech.

You just said that you wouldn't mind a law severely restricting free speech.

Apparently free speech is only good for you when they're saying what you want them to say, just like the PC liberals you decry. :)

Oh, and topic poster, no, most Christians are NOT like that. I wasn't when I was on; you'll find that most Harry Potter fans in the U.S. are Christians anyways; since most of the U.S. is Christian!

So yeah, it's just a fringe group thing, not a mainstream thing.