Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/12/07 12:02 PM, Elfer wrote: I think there's a lot of confusion as to what atheist actually means.

It doesn't necessarily mean that a person believes that there is no god, it just means that they don't believe in a god (i.e. God may exist, but they don't have faith in it).

Then, later on, the term "agnostic" was created, which further muddled things because now everyone thinks that all atheists firmly deny the existence of any sort of god.

Oh well!

Hmm. You're right, it has gotten pretty muddled. But I think that since we HAVE the term agnostic people figure if that you're calling yourself atheist it must mean a strong atheist. Otherwise it would make just as much sense to use the term agnostic, right? I suppose technically agnosticism is a form of weak atheism then.

At 6/12/07 11:05 AM, Piromano wrote: Anyone here have diablo 2?
Yeah, it's a little bit old, but it's an exellent game...

I know some guys on battle.net who play it a lot, as for me I just have StarCraft and SC: Brood War. Can't say I'm not really REALLY excited for StarCraft 2! :D You gotta see the HD video of the developer talking about it during gameplay on gametrailers.com. It's amazing.

Speaking of old but excellent games i just ordered Quake 2 over Amazon. Anyone here remember that?

At 6/12/07 09:00 AM, EvilEgg wrote:

At 6/12/07 05:58 AM, emmytee wrote:

But

Athiests look at religious people and see them basing their beliefs on a story and a magical jewish zombie and, with equally good intentions, want to help the people that believe what they consider to be a fictional story by showing them that its not real, and that basing their morals, actions or anything else off of it is unnecessary.

You see us basing our beliefs on a fictional story but yet you can't prove it is fictional.

Yet you can't prove it's true, either. Don't blame them when they don't believe you. Being an agnostic I acknowledge the possibility of a God, but I haven't see enough proof either way to prove or disprove a God. Some people don't need religion for guidance. You have yet to explain how your story IS true, you've only said "well you can't DISprove it either". So why should we believe it if you can only not be able to prove it isn't true. I mean someone could tell me that there's a flying spaghetti monster and I wouldn't be able to disprove that either because they say he's invisible and all powerful too. Other than the fact that this is blatantly a parody, what makes your religion any more provable than any of the others? How do you prove to a guy who's never heard of your religion before your story is true? Does he deserve eternal suffering because somebody can't prove a story to him? Does the 66.94% of the world that isn't Christian deserve some sort of punishment because noone's been able to prove to them that your religion is any more plausible then their's or lack of their's?

Really, I have no problem with you being a Christian if you want to (as long as you don't violate others' rights not to be), but I think you should be a little bit more tolerant of your neighbor atheists. XD While I don't see why it's totally impossible that there is a God, that doesn't mean I have to pick a religion. If atheists want to believe there's NO way there can be a God, that's their business too. Don't get all mad at non-religious people because we don't understand why your religion is any more provable than the others.

At 6/12/07 10:18 AM, dodo-man-1 wrote: OK, um, yeah. In Virginia, where that V-Tech guy bought his guns, they don't have a form to fill out. Or any process at all. That kid just waltzed into some gun store, asked for some semiautomatics, and they gave them to him. And I'm not saying that the guns are the total problem. They should put you through a process that says, "Oh, sorry, you're mentally ill, we can't let you buy this gun."

Uh, they DO have to do background checks. And they didn't GIVE him the guns, he did have to pay for them after all. Excessive hyperbole isn't going to make what you say any less false. The problem was is that he was not recognized as mentally ill when he filled out the necessary paperwork. This a problem with the process; it just needs to be amended a bit to make sure mental illness shows up on the checks. We don't need to go berserk and ban handguns or anything.

"The fact that there is no control on these guns in most places leads to things like... oh, I don't know, the V-Tech rampage?"

I don't know, what if the other students had guns to defend themselves with, or what if there were more security guards?

One more question: do you think that if this guy was willing to break the law against murder 32 times, he's going to have a problem with illegally purchasing a firearm? Face it, even if handguns were illegal he could have still acquired a firearm; they are in such wide circulation that he could have just bought one off the black market.

Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens and just leaving the rest with criminals and the police/Army (which can't be in your house at 1:30 AM every day) is not a good idea. I think most people have guns like being able to defend themselves.

At 6/11/07 09:33 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Guns aren't the problem, it's the culture that's the problem. Look what happened to that nice korean boy that tried to go to school in your country! You people made him crazy!!!

What do you mean by "you people"? Americans, I presume. Do you just go around looking for opportunities to attack people from the U.S.? School shootings aren't a problem unique to the U.S. It's highly ironic that you would say that, considering there was a school shooting in Toronto just this May. Relax and realize that the U.S. isn't the worst place on Earth.

At 6/11/07 08:04 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 6/11/07 07:19 PM, Tervos wrote: interesting. but did you know that meat contains protien? a valuable thing that the body NEEDS to survive. and did you also know that the #1 source to get this thing lies within that thing you detest so much...dare i say it...MEAT! as muc

LOGICAL FALSETY!

FACTS:

1- You are what you eat
2- cows are made of protein
3- cows eat grass

THEREFORE I CONCLUDE THAT:
Grass is made of protein
THEREFORE I DOUBLE-CONCLUDE THAT:
Eat grass, jerk

I am made from atoms. Atoms are invisible. Therefore, I am invisible. Muhahaha!

Saying that your church is used by the defenders of humanity in a global crisis isn't exactly bad publicity for your church. But it's even better publicity for Sony when the game gets more exposure!

At 6/10/07 05:15 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 6/10/07 05:07 PM, Me-Patch wrote: Ever hear of of the electoral college.

The worst electoral system ever devised by American democracy?

The thing that got Bush elected even though Gore won the popular vote? The thing that was created because BEFORE in the 1700s it was much harder to disseminate information? The thing that isn't really relevant now?

At 6/10/07 10:16 PM, JakeHero wrote: I've actually asked myself this question before. I also wondered if atheist regard God as a supersititon then why are they so desperate to erase His name from the public forum/arena. It's ironic, atheists bitch that religious people try to convert them, while they're trying their most earnest to disprove my God.

You're grouping atheists (a diverse group) into one pile(extremist atheists that do not necessarily make up the majority). Not all of them are so petty as to try and erase "God" away from everything. However most atheists are more eager to keep separation of church and state because they are a minority group and are sick of following laws based on someone else's religion. The atheists who proselytize probably proselytize for the same reasons many religious people do, because they think they have "seen the light" and want to "show others toward it". I am agnostic, but like many atheists I am very much interested in separation of church and state because I don't want to live under a theocracy. The reasons some atheists push back with their beliefs is because some religious people push them with their beliefs.

At 6/3/07 08:35 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:22 PM, Tancrisism wrote: To make anyone who works legally: He wants to get rid of the IRS and wanted to abolish the income tax.

Uh, that's bad. Bad, very, very bad.

Taxes are important for revenue, people!

Yeah, if you're maintaining a nanny-state.

Yeah, don't you hate it when those liberals try to make the government our nanny? You know, when they take away drugs away from you because "they're bad for you" (we're not kids reaching in a cookie jar after all), and then they spend money making sure that men aren't marrying men and women aren't marrying women while we have a national deficit and a crisis in a foreign country! Then they want to spend all this money monitoring us to make sure we're good little boys and girls with that darned Patriot Act! Then down here in Georgia they make sure we don't buy alcohol on Sundays, because they think gawd said so! It's like we're children that have to be dragged to church! And then when we're bad they say they're tough on crime so they spend more money executing people and sending them to jail for longer periods of time! The nanny is giving us a time-out! Jeez! They ARE maintaining a nanny-state!

Wait, what? You mean those positions are more often expressed by conservatives!? Oh... Yeah, small government my ass, conservatives.

P.S. Yes, I know the alcohol on sundays may seem like a stretch for some of you conservatives, but down here in the deep red south it isn't; our governor is in SUPPORT of the "Blue laws". I am aware that the Dems are not nearly all legalization, but you'll be even harder pressed to find republicans in support of legalization of pot and such. Cept for Ron Paul, he's more of a libertarian than the others. Most Republicans are only libertarian when it comes to economic issues. They have no problem suppressing individual social rights, but when it comes to economic rights, well they better not take their money! At least they have the anti-gun control thing right.

At 6/5/07 06:26 PM, bcdemon wrote: The terrorists that are in Iraq now, were not there before you got there. You are the problem.

The reason that the U.S. occupation is such a problem is BECAUSE of the violence that ensued. If you take away the violence you take away what is basically the root of the problem. Supporting the insurgency is illogical because that's one of the main reasons the U.S. shouldn't have entered in the first place!

By the way, it's not really nice to refer to us as "you" when our GOVERNMENT ordered the invasion of Iraq. Most of the people do not even support it anymore (and i doubt most supported it before the insurgency).

The actions of a government do not necessarily equal the actions of a people. I didn't vote for Bush. So don't say that I invaded Iraq, because I didn't.

Unless you're just using it as an abbreviation of "the U.S. government", but it seemed like you were trying to blame all the people of the U.S.

At 6/5/07 09:25 AM, Darkside-void wrote:
And religion does not provide morality. Morality is the same across religions, cultures, and it's the same for atheists. You can conclude that morality does not come from religion or religious worship.

I disagree. Morality is not the same for everybody; most people have their own opinion of what is moral and what is not. Religion provides a moral code, yes, so many people adopt similar perceptions of morality. However, I suppose that while perception of morality is a subjective thing, there's also the concept of an ultimately true morality....

But again, many people's sense and perception of morality are guided by their religion/religious beliefs, so there is some connection.

Lastly, purpose? I don't need or want a religious dogma to give me purpose. I can find my own Religion is both dangerous and entirely unnecessary.

As it is your right to not follow religion, it is religious peoples' right to follow their own system of belief, organized religion or not. Both religion and lack of religion without ethics can be dangerous. I'm not a religious person but I recognize that ethics is very important.

At 6/5/07 01:48 AM, RydiaLockheart wrote: My apartment is slightly flooded.
But hey, my a/c was fixed today.

That sucks. :\ At least you're looking on the bright side.

Well, I don't think it was a good idea to invade Iraq, however, the main reason for that was the fact that the civil war/insurgency could be too much to handle. The cause of the oppression of the Iraqi people is not that the U.S./new government has authority is in control, it is the unnecessary violence being perpetrated. Neither bombing each other OR bombing American troops is making anything better for the Iraqis. bcdemon, I'm glad you're not supporting the murder of innocent civilians, however, you should know that when the insurgents who only fight the U.S. troop presence (not exactly the majority) attack, they are not doing the Iraqi people any service. If there was nobody was creating that violence the government could progress and become more efficient by doing other things, like building infrastructure (instead of just having the U.S. give no-bid contracts to Cheney's friends over at Halliburton).

One of the main reasons the Iraq War shouldn't have been started is because of the insurgency. That makes the insurgency part of the root of the problem. Therefore, the insurgency should not be supported because it is detrimental to the progress of Iraq by diverting government resources from actually rebuilding the country and maintaining peace.
Remember the initial euphoria after Iraq was liberated from Ba'athist rule? We can surmise:

Iraq+Saddam Hussein= sucks
Iraq-Saddam Hussein+insurgency=also sucks
Iraq-Saddasm Hussein and insurgency=a whole lot freakin better

The problem is multi-faceted, and the insurgency is multi-faceted. The Polish resistance was helping to fight Nazi Germany while other forces were coming in to help take them out and therefore contributing to the war effort. Poland before Nazi Germany was better. They were trying to return Poland to a better time. The Iraqi insurgents are only pushing progress backwards. The current regime in Iraq would be better than Saddam Hussein EXCEPT that the insurgency makes it worse. In Poland the current regime was many times worse than the previous Polish regime; and the resistance was fighting a war to help bring it back, and they actually had allied support.

So basically, in my opinion, by supporting the insurgency, you are supporting what makes the current regime of Iraq worse, and as some would say (and do say), an even worse regime than that of Saddam Hussein. No offense, I'm just saying that the violence (and the subsequent military crackdowns resulting from the violence) are one of the main reasons many Iraqis find the current situation worse than what it was before the 2003 war.

At 6/5/07 07:14 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: you know those people. "homosexuality isnt right, it says so in the bible"
well it also says to not over eat you fat bitch. now get in the kitchen, the bible says women are less then men!

then they turn and say that those parts are old.
the whole bible is old! you can pick and choose what to follow. you follow it all, or none at all.

then they say marriage is holy, god doesnt want same sex marriage.
well guess what, god doesnt want us to idolise false gods, but we do. hollywood is full of false gods we idolize.
the 7 sins, wrath, sloth, envy, pride, lust, glutony, and greed? they are daily hobbies.
wrath- we hate those who are different like the gays
sloth- watch tv all day
envy- we want to be like those in the magazines
pride- we constantly tell others we are the greatest country ever
lust- we date not for love but for lust and sex
glutony- McDonald's
greed- we buy tv's, videogames but wont spare even a dime to a homeless man.

i rest my case

Okay, you need to fact check a bit. The Seven Deadly sins are NOT from the Bible; they are from early Christian teachings from the Roman Catholic Church. The sins you're talking about were listed by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century, which is considerably well before the King James version of the Bible was compiled but still not part of the actual Bible. It would also help to cite your passages. I am not a Christian but when I argue against the using of the Bible as a means to propagate bigotry against homosexuals, It helps to actually cite the passages you're talking about.

I agree that using the passage from Leviticus (Lev. 18:22) is ridiculous; considering the other things said in the chapters around it (like in Lev. 19:27 forbidding rounding the edges of your beard/head).

At 6/3/07 03:21 AM, Mathaeus wrote:

At 6/3/07 01:54 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Right, the guy who came up with the idea of a Jewish homeland wasn't Jewish.

Unless one considers Judaism an ethnicity.

I think you're just confused. Herzl personally didn't want to actually live in the new Jewish homeland, but he wanted to make it for Jews who did want to live there.

There was nothing to stop them from doing so.

Israel is completely a Jewish state,

The Neturei Karta (a mostly Jewish organization) says otherwise.

only unlike other Middle Eastern countries, they let other religions live there, too.

Other Middle Eastern countries such as Turkey, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia?

Also, the Qur'an states that "there should be no compulsion in religion." (Qur'an 2:256)

The actual words of their own scripture hasn't stopped people from using their religion as a tool of oppression; the Spanish Inquisition and "Do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you" comes to mind. And Saudi Arabia is an extremely oppressive nation.

You're trying to tell me that these countries aren't based on extremist Muslim belief

"Allah loveth not aggressors." (Qur'an 2:190)

and Sharia law.

What's wrong with laws that prohibits and punishes murder, theft, rape, vandalism, and other things that are particularly looked down upon in just about all other nations?

That also forces women to cover themselves up whether they want to or not or whether they're Muslim or not (in the more oppressive regimes, some are more progressive, but see Yemen or Saudi Arabia and it's still very backwards), and that limits sexual freedoms, allows stoning as a method of execution and continues violent persecution against homosexuals? Regardless of what the actual Qu'ran says, people can still pick and choose the passages that support their own methods of oppression, and that's what they do in countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, etc.

And you're damn right it's a direct contradiction. The Qu'ran considers the Torah and Bible to be holy books and Abraham, Moses, and Jesus to be prophets. These leaders aren't real Muslims, they're just power-hungry radical maniacs.

I'm glad we can agree on something.

It is indeed.

At 6/3/07 02:07 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Then could you cite where exactly it does refute each argument?

Just about everything provided in the link refutes your claims.

Well, if it does, could you point out where, please?

Alright, then what is Zionism!? AskOxford.com defines it as "a movement for the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel."

AskOxford also defines 'jihad' as "holy war", which is not true. Jihad is the Arabic word for "struggle". Just about anything could be labled as jihad: from doing homework to climbing a tall mountain.

That's the common usage these days, however.

And if you ask me, there is nothing "holy" about war. Most Muslims (and non-Muslims) hopefully can agree on this. The only time a war should be fought would be in defense.

And hopefully only violence would be used when it's necessary and actually useful, which in many of the cases it is being used these days, it is not. Such as burning public buildings to protest something some Danish cartoonist made. :\

What do you define it as (minus all the hyperbole)

Pretty much the same way the Neturei Karta defines it.

? How is that?

Apparently I'm not so naïve that i can't explain my own side of the argument with actual statistics

...without any sources to back them up?

I cited the Freedom House Freedom in the World Report and Reporters Without Borders Freedom in the Press; Wikipedia has their
current statistics
,check them out.

and rational thought

That mostly depends on the viewer's perspective, not the writer's.

True.

and not just post a link to a website without defining where its information applies to the arguments being made.

It all looked so good I didn't really know where to begin.

Besides, I really don't want to cram the forums with walls and walls of text.

Would help to just to cite it and show part of it.

I have thought my argument out enough that I can respond without just dismissing your entire post, you apparently can't. Please prove me wrong by actually responding to my previous post with counter-arguments. If you're going to debate you should actually try to tell how your sources support your argument and not just post a link and just insult the other guy for the rest of your post. You are not changing my opinion by just calling me naïve and not explaining how you think I am wrong.

I'll try and do that next time.

And I do apologize for the put-down earlier (when I called you naive). It's just that I see so much injustice going on it makes my blood boil.

Again I apologize. It was totally uncalled for.

That's alright, I think where we differ most on the issue is the cause of the injustice and how to stop it.

I do not place all the blame on Israel, and most importantly, I do not believe that the violence of the PLO and the intifadas help to stop the injustice. Rather, I think the continuous wartime atmosphere and violence (against civilians AND military) have been keeping down the progress of civil rights by forcing Israeli crackdowns and preventing the enacting of new laws to help defend civil rights in the Palestinian Authority. Responding to atrocities with more atrocities does not help the Palestinian people; it just makes Israel push back more. I think peaceful democratic change is the best solution here.

They're probably just looking for somebody to blame; since the criminal is dead they can only find the police to blame. It's a natural (but misplaced) reaction. =\

I remember when someone told me "Well, once they say 'Oh, don't worry, it's okay to be gay in the military! :D', that's when they're getting ready to reinstate the draft." Getting rid of DADT and allowing gays in the military will let less people escape the draft is their thinking, I suppose.

By the way, when I first saw the topic I thought this was going to be a psychological debate about the connection between guns and sexiness and all those movies with women with guns. Guess not!

Personally I don't have a problem with gays in the military. Seems like unnecessary discrimination to me.

At 6/4/07 03:47 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Ah yes the South and it's traditions.

Men wearing t-shirt flannel shirts and making redneck jokes.
Black People hating.
Secession.
Krispy Kreme(seriously what donut place doesn't serve fucking coffee.)

Dude, at least Krispy Kreme glazes most of its doughnuts, unlike Funkin Gonuts, or dunkin' douchebags or whatever.

Just kidding, I like Dunkin' Donuts too, because they also make me feel my health slipping away from me when I eat them. :D

At 6/4/07 04:59 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 6/4/07 04:45 AM, lapis wrote:

At 6/3/07 09:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Osama

Doesn't the fact that he was born in Saudi Arabia make him ineligible to run for the presidency?

lol Freudian slip

I think i heard he was from hawaii.

Same thing... Well, not really. But they both have lots of sand! You're right about Hawaii though, it's on the wikipedia article Apparently he's the only Obama deemed worthy of his own page! XD

Part 2:

When the BRITISH Mandate of Palestine was given the 1948 U.N. Partition Plan that gave Israel only a tiny piece of land, it was not good enough for some arab states' leaders. Instead they started a war to make sure that Jews could never be equal in the society they live in.

Jews were equal long before the British Mandate. There were large Jewish communities all across the Middle East. What suddenly changed? Colonialism and talk of creating a Jewish homeland in Arab land.

Except the land wasn't just owned by Arabs, as you said, there were Jews living there too.

You dont know these new people, dont understand them, dont understand what they are like, and you are quite distrustful of outsiders as a result of the investor so you decide to try to force the new people out of their house by whatever means necessary to reclaim it as your own. Get the picture?

I wouldn't describe the Jews as being "complete strangers". Like you said, there were Jewish settlements in the Middle East before so many migrated in the 40s. Why should legally immigrating Jews who legally acquired land be given any less claim to the land than Arabs who legally acquired land?

This conflict is born out of anti-Semitism.

It is born out of colonialism. Anti Semitism is an excuse to destroy debate on a legitimate debate topic. A paper that comes immediately to mind highlighting this is John Mearsheimer and Steven Walts paper on the Israeli lobby. Which, of course, Alan Dershowitz, the famed Harvard attack dog for all things that even remotely criticize Israel, did not waste a second to whip out the anti-Semite label and accused them of shoddy scholarship to boot. Now if you have ever read much on International Relations, you would know John Mearsheimer is one of the golden boys in the field now. He was big in the field long before he penned that paper with Stephen Walt. And if you know anything about Dershowitz, you know he is raving pro-Israeli, raving to the point beyond fanaticism. Who to believe? The crazy labeling people anti-Semites because he doesnt like what they are saying or the people calling it as they, and many others, obviously see it? Take a step back and consider things before you label, bro.

I'm not just trying to play the race card like some people abuse it (you are right that the label is abused sometimes), but as with the stuff I presented above, anti-Semitism is a big part of the agenda of some anti-Israel organizations. I think a lot of hatred that Israel gets would not be there if it weren't founded by Jews and Muslims instead. There is plenty of prejudice, but it is true that sometimes people abuse that to cover any argument as you said.

Look at how far the state has come, it is a developed first world nation.

$135 Billion in official American aid over the years and a continuing $5-$10 billion a year, it would be damn hard for that country to have any excuse to not be first world. Not to mention the estimated $1.5 billion in private donations to Israel each year from the US alone.

It takes more than money to become a democratic and free (by today's standards) nation. Israel just turned out particularly well because it had a greater focus on democracy than some new countries. But you are right that the donations are a big help.

not another one ruled by corrupt anti-Semites

Arabs are easily more Semitic now than the majority of Jews. I would have a tough time justifying the label "Semite" for Jews, now, other than using it in its historical connotation. Just FYI.

Technically, yeah, but I'm using "anti-Semite" in the common usage, which refers specifically to Jews; but you're right about the Arabs being Semitic people. It's just nowadays when people use "anti-Semitic" they usually mean "anti-Jewish". Didn't mean to cause any confusion.

Given time to think about this more, I suppose the bottom line on this issue for me is: Yes, the Palestinian people have gone through a lot of terrible things, some the fault of Israel, more the fault of the PLO and other militants, but the current state of intifadas and violence are not helping them or the people of Israel. Violent revolution is not the answer here, it is only causing more trouble and more oppression. It is bad for the people of Palestine because it's just causing Israel to crack down more (causing hassles and more injustice, bulldozing, etc.), and because some(most?) are so nuts about their cause they'll kill their own people and innocent civilians from both Israel and Palestine to prove it. It's bad for the people of Israel because if the PLO ever did take the whole land of Israel, the number of military and casualties from the fighting would be absolutely obscene. It's not going to be given up easily. And if the PLO did take control, what are the chances of it giving anywhere near the amount of free press and civil liberties that the citizens of Israel had before? (Look at the statistics I posted, they're better than any other Middle Eastern nation) Every other Middle Eastern state is ranked Partly Free or Not Free... I think it's highly doubtful after such a huge and bloody war that ANY part of Israel would be free like a First World nation anymore; the violence and struggle of a conflict erodes civil liberties, as we are seeing in the West Bank and Gaza strip. In my opinion, the best solution for this crisis is peaceful democratic change, not violence.

Okay, I'm gonna have to spread this out over two posts. (sorry.)

At 6/3/07 02:45 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 6/2/07 01:35 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Hamas's official policy is to kill ALL JEWS.

That could be argued as being not true now as they have begun to politicize now and have negotiated with Israel in limited amounts. Also have had some form of limited cooperation with Israel now. But yes, they have written they want to destroy Israel (not Jews).

I admitted that statement of mine was more hyperbole than fact. (I am not an expert on Hamas official policy) However, just having looked up some more information about Hamas, I'd have to say they're quite anti-Semitic.

From the Hamas Charter:
"Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him

"The clandestine organizations which it has established strive to demolish societies, to destroy values It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion. Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

Against peace: "The clandestine organizations which it has established strive to demolish societies, to destroy values It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion. Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

Here's some quotes from Hamas :

Here's something they have to say about the Taliban in comparison to the U.S.: " "The Taliban are 1,000 times more honorable than the American occupation and its collaborators We are not a copy of the Taliban... Judge us according to what we are. Everyone must stop blaming the Taliban for things that in fact characterize the people of the West, who seek to turn the international community into a swamp of corruption and destruction, and to spread abomination and disease in the name of absolute freedom.

"We are part of Allah's promise that Islam will enter Palestine and every home in the world, with a revelation of the power of Allah the Omnipotent, and a revelation of the inferiority of the infidels. Hamas is leading this plan in Gaza, the West Bank, and the 1948 territories, and the Muslim Brotherhood is leading it everywhere else. This is part of Allah's predestination.""- (Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, interview in Arabic with elaph.com, October 11, 2005, MEMRI)

"This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our nation was tested by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation Be certain that America is on its way to utter destruction, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine Make us victorious over the community of infidels Allah, take the Jews and their allies, Allah, take the Americans and their allies Allah, annihilate them completely and do not leave anyone of them."

Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Bahar, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, April 20, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007)

"the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder: 'I kill, therefore I am' Israel is based only on blood and murder in order to exist, and it will disappear, with Allah's will, through blood and Shahids [martyrs]."

Dr. Yussuf Al-Sharafi, Hamas representative, April 12, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007)

Sure, Hamas makes very forward-thinking statements of peace and tolerance when the guys they preach hate against are there, but when they're not, you can see they do have much more than their fair share of bigotry and war-mongering.

It's not about stealing land, they just want to destroy Israel because it allows Jews to have an equal place in society.

Errr, no. Im not sure what logical fallacy that is but it is whatever one is that makes up an argument that is not true at all. Straw man maybe?

Not straw man, more like excessive hyperbole; I was a bit too incensed when I typed that, I admit. But you can see that many of the anti-Israel groups are angry because Israel allows Jews to have the ability to have power as well, and not just be second-class citizens as they are in many other Arab nations. The fact that they are Jews and not Muslims does make up a fair share of the anger, despite the fact that Jews had been living there before.

In the non-Palestinian authority regions of Israel Arabs and Jews can live side by side with no problems, but it is the hate-mongering Islamist extremists who break every treaty and ceasefire they are offered and continue to extend the cycle of violence who should be fought against, not the State of Israel which is just trying to protect its people.

Nope. Besides, it was Barak who stopped negotiating, not Arafat.

The original 1948 Arab-Israeli war was created by aggression not by Israel but by aggression from hostile Arab forces.

"The UN declared a truce on 29 May which came into effect on 11 June and would last 28 days. The cease-fire was overseen by the UN mediator Folke Bernadotte. An arms embargo was declared with the intention that neither side would make any gains from the truce. At the end of the truce, Folke Bernadotte presented a new partition plan that would give the Galilee to the Jews and the Negev to the Arabs. Both sides rejected the plan. On 8 July, before the expiration of the truce, Egyptian General Naguib renewed the war by attacking the Negba position"

Israel even was prepared to offer back the lands it had taken in 1967, but the Khartoum Resolution kind of messed that up.

Doesn't seem like Israel started the "no-negotiation" thing. Regardless, it's not like that anymore; the last time I checked Israel was still open to negotiation. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

It may make its fair share of poor decisions in handling the conflict but this does not mean that the PLO or any of its hateful Islamist anti-peace groups are any better.

Ignoratio elenchi

Not quite. I think you're trying to say that I'm trying to justify some of the bad actions by Israel because the PLO do bad things. I'm not saying those actions were justified; I'm saying that because that while Israel has made its mistakes the PLO is worse and therefore should not be given control of the land (Israel). It's less like saying Person A has control of Land 1 and is doing bad things to Person B, but that's okay because Person C does bad things to Person D. It's more like saying Person A has control of Land 1, but Person B wants control of Land 1 too. Person A has made some mistakes in Land 1 but Person B will make it worse in Land 1 and therefore should not be given Land 1.

At 6/3/07 01:55 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 6/3/07 01:47 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Not really. The partial veto wouldn't be word for word. The president would just be able to pick off unwanted riders, which Congress could vote to override.

Yeah, but when does 3/4 of Congress ever agree on ANYTHING?

Good point, but if the President couldn't veto those certain parts he might just veto the entire bill, and then you'd need 3/4 of Congress to agree on that to overturn that veto.

At 6/3/07 01:45 AM, Mathaeus wrote:

At 6/3/07 01:29 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Okay, cite exactly where it refutes my arguments or tell me yourself, because I see no counter-reasoning on your part.

I did not ignore everything you said and the link I provided does refute your arguments.

Then could you cite where exactly it does refute each argument?

Well, if it's not a "Jewish" state, then it isn't Zionism is it?

Judaism =/= Zionism.

Alright, then what is Zionism!? AskOxford.com defines it as "a movement for the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel." What do you define it as (minus all the hyperbole)

More Zionist propoganda.

You are so wonderfully naive.

Apparently I'm not so naïve that i can't explain my own side of the argument with actual statistics and rational thought and not just post a link to a website without defining where its information applies to the arguments being made. I have thought my argument out enough that I can respond without just dismissing your entire post, you apparently can't. Please prove me wrong by actually responding to my previous post with counter-arguments. If you're going to debate you should actually try to tell how your sources support your argument and not just post a link and just insult the other guy for the rest of your post. You are not changing my opinion by just calling me naïve and not explaining how you think I am wrong.

Relax, buddy, this is just the natural reaction of oppression over a long period of time. In some cases it is going too far, to the point of oppression of non-minoriites, but we should not respond to it with a resurgence of anti-gay, anti-black, and anti-female mentality. Keep in mind that in some places there are still various degrees of oppression for these groups (especially for gays).

At 6/3/07 01:18 AM, JakeHero wrote: Well, DeadSun, your first problem was you were this guys bitch and not belligerent enough. You seem to go out of your way to appease him instead of telling him to fuckoff.

If he just told him to fuck off he would only be reaffiringthe Turkish guy's prejudices against Americans in his mind. I think it was a good thing he tried to prove that not all Americans think the way their President does.

At 6/2/07 10:25 PM, Mathaeus wrote:

You just ignored everything I said and just posted a link that refutes none of my arguments.

Did not.

Okay, cite exactly where it refutes my arguments or tell me yourself, because I see no counter-reasoning on your part.

The hypocrisy of saying there cannot be a Jewish state (Israel being a "Jewish" state that is democratic and allows religious freedom) while there are so many officially Islamic states that do NOT allow religious freedom is amazing.

Israel is far more "atheistic" than it is "Jewish". Even Zionism's founder, Theodore Herzl, was an atheist.

Well, if it's not a "Jewish" state, then it isn't Zionism is it?

Democratic and religious freedom? Israel is the only 'Western' country to legally sanction torture, and the Israeli Defense Forces use bone-breaking and shoot-to-maim policies against Palestinians, and even reporters. Furthermore, Israel forbids marriages of Jews to non-Jews, just like nazi Germany.

Israel is also not even 100 years old. I'd have to say it's doing pretty well, consider it ranks higher than every single other nation in the Middle East in press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders (Surprassing some Western Nations, including the U.S. and all members of the Arab League), and it is also the only nation in the region to receive a "Free" rating from Freedom House, while most other nations in the Middle East received Not Free with the exception of about six nations, which received "Partly Free" rankings. I also assure you that it is not the only Western nation to have allegedly participated in unscrupulous interrogation and battlefield tactics, but I doubt you're going to find many non-Western nations doing better. They are considered "Western" nations because they are modernized nations that while, not PERFECT are still better than the oppressive regimes you find in many places in the rest of the world. I think that the term "First World" is probably better because the geographical connotations of "Western" can make it misleading when you consider some of the freer Eastern nations, such as Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan.

Wrong. Israel does NOT forbid marriages of Jews to non-Jews, it forbids marriages of Israeli citizens and Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza; religion has absolutely no standing in this law. In fact, the law was only upheld in 2006 by a 6 to 5 vote. I don't support the law and it is unlikely that most Israelis do. In democracies crappy laws occasionally get passed, and Israel is no different.

Most of the problems that you say makes Israel like Nazi Germany are not results of the policy of Israel but the results of the government of the West Bank and Gaza. Blaming Israel for what is happening in the Palestinian is ridiculous. Israel does not govern the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinian Authority does. Don't blame the Knesset, blame Hamas. The reason that the Palestinian Authority ranks so low on Freedom House and Reporters without Borders is because of what the government there is doing, not the government of Israel. Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip, and was greeted with rocket attacks. Israel has offered peace and it has offered land back, but when it did it received armed uprisings and cries of "NO PEACE!". The reason that the Palestinians are oppressed are not because of what Israel has done, or the fact that Israel exists, but the pride of their own government leaders and refusal to accept peace or give decent civil rights to their own citizens.

Why is there such a double standard? Every other nation in the Middle East has a terrible human rights record, but whenever one terrible incident happens in the Palestinian territories Israel is accused as if it was Nazi Germany? Israel is not Nazi Germany, and it gives much better rights to its citizens than any other country in the area. Please don't blame Israel for the misdeeds of the PLO and individual wackos and terrorists. It makes mistakes, but its overall record is much cleaner than its neighbors.

Okay, the ad hominem wasn't necessary, but really, if we're gonna debate a subject, actually argue your point, don't just post a link.

I think that if the President is awarded the power to veto certain sections of those bill and sign the rest in the law, Congress should still have the power to overturn the veto on the parts he did not sign into law by means of a 3/4 vote. However I do see the problem of making the legislative process even slower this way.

At 6/2/07 04:47 PM, Mathaeus wrote:

At 6/2/07 01:55 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Nothing new

Israel is a joke.

Ah, I can tell you're an expert debater. You just ignored everything I said and just posted a link that refutes none of my arguments. Nice one. I thought you might actually have a thought out response, but nope, apparently you're not here to listen or learn; apparently you're just here to troll us. And don't complain about me using ad hominem, dismissing my entire post and replacing it with "Nothing new" and then just posting that link is pretty insulting.

The hypocrisy of saying there cannot be a Jewish state (Israel being a "Jewish" state that is democratic and allows religious freedom) while there are so many officially Islamic states that do NOT allow religious freedom is amazing.