Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/28/07 09:09 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

Kurdistan, I could perhaps see. It seems to be a stable part of the country, and least violent.

However, dividing the country among Sunnis and Shi'ites would just cause more violence, in my opinion, and further destabilize the region. How do you think you would get the two factions to agree on a border? And even if representatives agree, there'd still be those violently fighting to "take back what's theirs", so you'd end up with a continual near-war condition, similar to that between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

You make a very good point. I think the most poignant issue there is who gets Baghdad or how it would be divided. Problem is it already looks like civil war anyways. :(

Forgot something.

How about dividing the country into three? Iraqi Kurdistan (I don't see why they shouldn't be independent, at least they function well), a Sunni state, and a Shiite state.

As for Vietnam, there the U.S. had one side they were supporting, in Iraq we don't support the Shiite or the Sunni terrorists. Vietnam was a bit more clear cut.

Well, I do not think invading Iraq in 2003 was a wise decision. However, I also question the ethics of just getting up and leaving from a mess you created. Yes, the government screwed up. Does that mean we should abandon the terrible situation that has emerged? Do you really think that after we leave the sectarian violence will stop? Saddam Hussein kept the country from tearing itself up by being a terrible authoritarian dictator. Now it has descended into a cycle of sectarian violence, and if we leave we only make it easier for the atrocities to increase.

But while I think about this I also wonder how much we can do by staying. What I do think is that a retarded half-in half-out strategy in Iraq is inadequate. It seems much more logical to either use overwhelming force or give up and get out. Getting out is a problem because it's abandoning the mess we made. Using overwhelming force is a problem because of the massive resources it will take and whether it will actually work or not. We're in between a rock and a hard place here, and I acknowledge that.

At 4/27/07 02:21 AM, Tancrisism wrote: (Google Earth)

Yeah, I found out about that a week or two ago, it's pretty amazing.

Assuming you got a PC, Grammer, the first thing I would do would be to get some software to save it from the inevitable onslaught of malware.

But C&C3 does look awesome! :)

At 4/28/07 12:18 AM, Grammer wrote: I just want to see a Republican win president in 2008 so I can watch and laugh at the depressed state on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

I dunno, he seems to be friends with McCain, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad for them if he won. Jon Stewart disagrees with him on stuff but I think they're really buddies. :)

At 4/27/07 11:22 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/27/07 08:43 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Wait, so you don't think that Israelis have the right to live there as immigrants, yet Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese etc.. have a right to live here as immigrants? You don't think that it's the same?

Putting the Jews in the Mid East because the Western powers "said so", is like giving Mexicans their own country inside of America because Mexico "said so". It's ridiculous.

I don't think anybody should be "putting the Jews" anywhere. I think they should be allowed to go where they want. :)

Sorry, the Arab countries forfeited their right to own part of Israel when instead of letting the tiny sliver of land the U.N. 1948 Partition plan gave Israel, they decided to go to war over it instead and then get all whiny when Israel won and established its own state.

This was all part of the British mandate of Palestine, so what claim do they have to the land anyways? Why can there be so many official Islamic states that actually enforce Sharia law but no Jewish state that even allows for freedom of religion? Israel is the freest nation in the middle east, excepting the areas of the Palestinian Authority.

The question of God is irrelevant- the Arab-Israeli conflict resulted out of the resistance of some Arab people to allow Jewish people to live in the British mandate of Palestine. It was anti-Semitism plain and simple, Jews had just as much of a right to live in the British mandate of Palestine as they did. So then riots started and after a partition plan was made some people in the Arab leadership decided they just couldn't have Jews living by them so they went to war, and now they complain after they've lost. Terrible things have happened, as do in all wars. But does that mean Israel doesn't have as much of a right to exist as all the other states BASED ON RELIGION? We wouldn't be having the problems of the opression of the Palestinian people if it weren't for intolerant extremist elements. This is not the fault of the Arab people, this is the fault of anti-Semitic extremists in the Arab world. The Palestinian people do not deserve the oppression that has occurred not because of Israel, but because certain anti-Semitic groups insist on initiating violence because of their hatred and bigotry. Don't blame Israel, blame extremism. Blame the terrorists that murder their own people to make Israel look bad.

It's a cycle of violence.

Oh no, Bill Clinton got a blowjob because he wasn't getting any from Hillary, how that affects his ability to govern the country!! Lying to the American people about the kind of sex you're getting is SO much worse than lying to the American people about the reasons you invade a country!

No.

The whole Monica Lewinsky scandal was way overblown...

I'm fairly sure not all Russians are that petty.

At 4/27/07 04:47 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Excellent article. This is why we shouldnt be a direct democracy, the majority of our nation is a bunch of politically illiterate retards. Of course, politicans know this as well as we do. The difference is they exploit this ignorance to their advantage almost uniformally.

Fucking shame. Our government is becoming so corrupt and wrong.

Most governments have a very significant degree of corruption.. but I don't think it was that much better before.

At 4/25/07 04:48 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Are you sure?

(some chart)

At 4/26/07 12:35 AM, Saveo wrote: There's Taco's cold, hard facts again ^_~ I agree with him on this one.

I hope yall realize that Islam recognizes Jesus as a blessed prophet too. It's even part of Islamic belief that Jesus will return to destroy al-Dajjal (aka the Antichrist) before ushering in a new age of peace alongside the Mahdi.

So while 54% may not be "almost everyone on planet Earth", it's still the majority of people in the world, not even counting the fact that many people who identify themselves as belonging to other religions also recognize Jesus and the concepts he taught/embodied (ie. certain Jews, Buddhists, etc).

Yes, I knew that Islam recognized Jesus as some sort of prophet, didn't know the extent though, thanks for the info. I was mainly disproving it's "almost everyone on planet Earth". I agree that Jesus said some cool stuff too (From what I've read of what he said).

At 4/26/07 09:03 AM, Drakim wrote: This was kinda my long term point. All religions claim to be the right one.

Not every religion claims to be "the right one"... so does that ruin this topic or wuh?

I dunno if every religion continually professes its truth, but I doubt there are many religions that say they aren't true. That would be odd.

Alright, basically: Religion can have a positive effect on people. It can also have negative effects on people, such as when some exploit it for their own ends, such as for bigotry. That's where we get the Inquisition, the Crusades, and such.

A kid can be brought up with good ethics secularly too.

At 4/26/07 11:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/26/07 11:18 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Being vague does not prove your point. I did not try to take things out of context, rather I posted another part of Adam's response because you were making it seem as if he was broadly referring to all religion. Who's nitpicking wording now? We know that he was generalizing, and he also stated that this was not the case for all uber-religious kids, so what are you trying to say?

Because he listed a few religous beliefs which a tolerant religous person may or may not have.

If you wanna discuss the Bible we can do that too. :)

Go ahead. Last time someone tried to claim a contradiction to me concerning the Isrealites, I pointing him to 4 different verses which stated why God did not throw out the Amorites, which was because when they conquered a city, they were told not to take of a certain item and someone did therefore God did not give them what they wanted.

And that's where most contradictions come from, or where people claim there are contradictions. They don't read the book, instead they only read the verse or chapter.

The same thing could be said about fundamentalists who take things out of context to prove their own prejudices, like those who say homosexuality is bad and one reason is because of the laws of Leviticus, but when I bring up the other things in Leviticus then I am told I am taking it out of context... yet some still use it for proof. I am not saying this is a claim you make but it is a claim some make.

God will promise something to people on conditions.

I was not disputing him, I was saying that the title of the article is misleading because it implies that how well-behaved and adjusted a person is is the only measure of what is good.

Is not behaving better generally good for kids as well as better than the alternative?

Yes. I'm being a bit unclear. What is implied in the title that religion itself makes kids good, and not just certain aspects of it that have nothing to do with the theology in many cases. Just because someone is a close-minded little trooper that is devoted to the rules doesn't mean that he may also have gained inner bigotry from fundamentalism, which in my opinion is not good.

At 4/26/07 11:15 PM, Durin413 wrote: Ok, there are some people who through no fault of their own are homeless and have no way to get out of it. They are a small minority however. Most of the homless people do it to themselves, mostly in the mental department (I could never hold down a job, nobody would want to hire me, etc.) and giving up after 1 try. Also, drugs play a big part in this and lead to many mental errors, and even long term mental conditions. People that let drugs make them homeless should be sent to concentration camps (not death camps necessarily) and be forced to do some productive form of labor and in return are paid mostly in the right to keep on living. no work = death for them.

That's a bit harsh don't you think? Being sent to a concentration camp because you made yourself homeless? Robbing people from their liberty because they have impoverished themselves is illogical. Liberty is a fundamental right, and it's not necessary to take that away from them just because somebody is poor, even if it is their own fault.

At 4/26/07 11:00 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/26/07 10:51 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Then later he made it clear he was talking about the fundamentalists: "I have no source, I just notice that the uber religious kids at my high school seem to be less accepting of people who are different as opposed to the lesser religious kids"

Uber religous kids can mean a different type of extreme to different people. And judging from his first paragraph, he seemed to have labeled "uber" to those who do not accept homosexuality, though people like that can be tolerant of it as well. But he made no distinction.

I'm putting it into context with the rest of his post. Rather than you, who seems to like to... cut and paste what you see which will fit what you want to see.

And that is how people confuse the Bible for contradictions.

Being vague does not prove your point. I did not try to take things out of context, rather I posted another part of Adam's response because you were making it seem as if he was broadly referring to all religion. Who's nitpicking wording now? We know that he was generalizing, and he also stated that this was not the case for all uber-religious kids, so what are you trying to say?

If you wanna discuss the Bible we can do that too. :)

Plus, he said "one-sided extremes." Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Regardless of what Adam said, you get the idea: over-religiosity contributing to small-mindedness, just as totally close-minded atheism can.

But also notice the topic starters post. All he said was that religous kids generally behave better. And what was your first sentence? That it does not mean it is better for the child. And yet... everyone knows that and there was no need to bring that up. No one was arguing for or against that. Yet you felt the need to try to bring down the study a bit so you can cope with it.

I was not disputing him, I was saying that the title of the article is misleading because it implies that how well-behaved and adjusted a person is is the only measure of what is good. The article throughout displays different views as well, I just think the title is a bit misleading. It leaves room for doubt.

What? What does that have to do with "the more rules the better"? We're talking about a concept in general. "Small government" applies to state government as well.

I only apply it to the Federal Government. Just my personal looking at it.

And that's the way today's conservatives believe. Small Government = less central government. Who's the central government?

Fair enough, but I would argue that allowing the state governments total control is just as bad because that creates authoritarianism as well.

Whether I'm left-leaning or not depends on the issue, I do not fully devote my self to the right or the left because I enjoy individual thought.

And who's to say that those on the right and left do not have individual thought?

I said fully devoted, not merely leaning to one side. Individual thought in regards to politics would be more detailed. Fully devoting yourself to one broad political philosophy or side is quite rare, though, most people fall somewhere between.

At 4/26/07 10:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

Now if I said, "Nothing like one sided extremes with no moral guideline crammed into someone from birth" while talking about the general atheist, i'm sure you would've had a much different tone and would be less likely to accept that statement.

Also, no moral guidelines =/= atheism. Atheism merely refers to whether or not God exists, not whether or not there should be no moral guidelines. There are secular ethics, too.

And I'm an agnostic, not a strict atheist-type.

At 4/26/07 10:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/26/07 10:34 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Okay? And that's supposed to mean?

Take a guess.

I don't think he's an anti-religious extremist based on that post. He said he knew nice religious kids, he wasn't even calling them bad, or calling religion bad, he was denouncing fundamentalism and the effect it has on people, not religion.

We're talking about religous parents in general. Therefore i'm going to assume he's talking about religous children in general because he didn't mention fundamentalism.

He says "one sided extremes crammed into someone from birth". Otherwise known to a lot of people as brainwashing while also listing Death Pentalty as if it were an extreme.

Now if I said, "Nothing like one sided extremes with no moral guideline crammed into someone from birth" while talking about the general atheist, i'm sure you would've had a much different tone and would be less likely to accept that statement.

Then later he made it clear he was talking about the fundamentalists: "I have no source, I just notice that the uber religious kids at my high school seem to be less accepting of people who are different as opposed to the lesser religious kids"

Plus, he said "one-sided extremes." Sounds like fundamentalism to me. Regardless of what Adam said, you get the idea: over-religiosity contributing to small-mindedness, just as totally close-minded atheism can.

Uh, not really. I thought conservatives were supposed to be for small government..

D'uh. But you see, if the government doesn't make the rules, then the states will and that is also control.

What? What does that have to do with "the more rules the better"? We're talking about a concept in general. "Small government" applies to state government as well.

I'm for small economic government. People need to accept responsibility for their actions, which left leaning people like you have attributed to the lack of.

Whether I'm left-leaning or not depends on the issue, I do not fully devote my self to the right or the left because I enjoy individual thought.

I can generalize people too.

At 4/26/07 10:34 PM, Elfer wrote:

I would say that a reasonable degree of rules and structure is beneficial though, with the ultimate goal presumably being a child with self-discipline. Also, sometimes kids just need to get smacked. I think there's a lot of idiot hyper-liberals today who are too dumb to draw a distinction between discipline and abuse, or corporal punishment and beatings.

Just as there are hyper-conservatives who believe in total lockdown. Either of each can lead to a kid being screwed up and have the kid go nuts. Balance is important.

The UN doesn't have enough power. Having the nations that are DOING the evil as members is part of that, but it is good that there is one national organization like that. But it's difficult to intervene, and there just doesn't seem to be enough support for it. A lot of people say "Well it's not our business," or "It's Africa, they're supposed to kill each other, lol". And when the U.S. goes in, it gets called imperialist, and now that it stays out it is called heartless. Personally I'd rather it be called imperialist and help stop the REAL slaughter in Darfur, but there just doesn't seem to be enough focus there. The African Union is too new to take care of it, apparently. Maybe someday the UN will get its stuff together.

At 4/26/07 10:25 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/26/07 08:56 PM, Proteas wrote:

I know a lot fo you are going to write this off at the onset as impossible-to-prove-pseudo-science, or question the scientific approach of those who conducted the study,

Ok ok. I read the entire thread as well as the topic starter's post. I also read this little statement right here.

But then I read these.

At 4/26/07 09:54 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: The evidence doesn't say its "good" for kids

Well, there's one person trying to be technical about it. Let's move on.

Okay? And that's supposed to mean?

At 4/26/07 10:00 PM, AdamRice wrote: Children with religious parents are also less likely to be open to the ideas of others when they grow up. Nothing like one sided extremes crammed into someone from their birth.

Anti-Religous extremist #1 from Adam's own definitions.

I don't think he's an anti-religious extremist based on that post. He said he knew nice religious kids, he wasn't even calling them bad, or calling religion bad, he was denouncing fundamentalism and the effect it has on people, not religion.

Kind of funny really. If supporting the death penalty makes someone extreme, then you're statement on brainwashing is a little farther out there.

That's not the only thing he said.

I feel sorry for the people you come in contact with. I cry for them. I guess that explains why religous kids are better than those who aren't.

ANYWAY. Is this really suprising? Religous parents generally do mean stricter rules. The more rules, the better.

Uh, not really. I thought conservatives were supposed to be for small government..

Even if we redistributed property as well as money to everyone equally, eventually an upper and lower class would quickly evolve once again. This kidn of massive change isn't feasible, and it's highly unlikely that it would be corrupted by individual greed from the people in charge. It also eliminates the free market and many civil liberties.

Sorry, it would be great if everyone had unlimited access to what they wanted, but scarcity prevents that. :(

At 4/26/07 09:44 PM, TheMason wrote: Can we please send all the far leftists and rightists to this planet to screw it up? Please! Please! Please!

But then we may find an IGBM (Intergalactic Ballistic Missle) heading for Earth someday. :(

At 4/26/07 10:00 PM, AdamRice wrote: Children with religious parents are also less likely to be open to the ideas of others when they grow up. Nothing like one sided extremes crammed into someone from their birth.

I have no source, I just notice that the uber religious kids at my high school seem to be less accepting of people who are different as opposed to the lesser religious kids. Obviously there are always exceptions, I know a few nice extremely religious kids, but I've simply noticed that in my area the more religious tend to be less accepting.

I've heard plenty of comments from supposedly good fairing Christians along the lines of:
Those gay people are gross and they should put people in jail for being homosexual and marrying.
Gothic people suck, why don't they just go be normal instead of scaring everyone, or just kill them selfs.
I support the death penalty

Just a real life observation in my high school. Obviously doesn't apply to everyone.

I agree with Adam. Sure they may be well-behaved, but often the ones that are taught hard-core fundamentalism can still harbor undue hatred for groups that don't deserve it because of they're devotion to the smaller aspects of a religion that have nothing to do with why they are well-behaved. While they may be well-behaved, they can also grow up to be close-minded and agree with the suppression of minority rights... of course they're entitled to that opinion, but that effects certainly does not prove that religion is "good' for kids.

At 4/26/07 01:03 AM, Imperator wrote:

Some choose one, some choose the other, some ignore the question.

And some (like me) simply never fully comprehend the quetsion. Haha!

Being the agnostic I am, I still don't see all that as evidence of the sort of conventional God we hear about in most major religions

What you actually might find interesting to do is to take a few theology courses in an academic setting. They'll allow you to better understand the different religions and how people live with them. I think you'd be surprised, I don't think theists are as strict about their faiths as you would hear otherwise. Most are not of the "Convert the heathens!" mentality you most often hear in the news or read about online......

Being a former Christian I know that most Christians are not the fundamentalists you hear about, just as most nonreligious people are not Richard Dawkins. The problem is the fundamentalists that try to take the vote away from the majority of moderates who promote intolerance and often end up preaching and practicing the opposite of the core values of their religion. (like loving your neighbor as yourself)

Tacos:

Go here and add what you can to our talks there. You'll find it completely devoid of insults in debating religion. We need fresh blood in there anyways, since the concepts we discuss actually require (for me at least) quite a bit of thought before posting.....hence the reason it has a whopping 900 views and less than 75 replies. Not bad for a religion thread on NG.

Thanks man. :D

The evidence doesn't say its "good" for kids, it says they're better behaved and adjusted. We can't peer into their minds and find out if they're really ethical. That said, most religions have guidelines of ethics and morals. Secular ethics are much less well-defined.

Also, not teaching your kids a religion =/= bad parenting.

It's true that religion is very helpful to people sometimes, and you do find that churchgoing people who are very confident in their faith are brought joy by it, and they are often good people. But that doesn't mean that kids who are taught secular ethics can't be good kids either. It's the absence of any sort of ethical thought that often create problems, not the lack of an organized religion. Though I suppose it could be a problem if they get made fun of for not being part of a religion.

Also, consider the percentage of religious schools to normal schools when you ask why there hasn't been a shooting.

Sometimes religion backfires and makes a person very unnecessarily bitter towards religion and the world. And that can create the kind of stress that causes school shootings as well. When you have these kids rebelling against society and going postal, consider that they might also be rebelling towards the religion they were taught as well.

The article also said this:
Bartkowski points out that one limitation of his study, to be published in the journal Social Science Research, is that it did not compare how denominations differed with regards to their effects on kids.

“We really don’t know if conservative Protestant kids are behaving better than Catholic kids or behaving better than mainline Protestant kids or Jewish kids,� he said.

It’s also possible that the correlation between religion and child development is the other way around, he said. In other words, instead of religion having a positive effect on youth, maybe the parents of only the best behaved children feel comfortable in a religious congregation.

“There are certain expectations about children’s behavior within a religious context, particularly within religious worship services,� he said. These expectations might frustrate parents, he said, and make congregational worship “a less viable option if they feel their kids are really poorly behaved.�"

From what I can see the positive effects come from the sense of belonging, the social network, and the specific ethics that the Church teaches, not the theology or other things the Church teaches.

It's really interesting stuff. But it's amazing how something that's relatively "close" is really so ridiculously far away. @_@ Then again, who can predict what kind of big leaps and bounds in silence will be made in the next century?

Mortified, of course there's going to be common mental trauma related to abortion. Having an abortion does not make you a dirty whore as it is generalized to be. If you see the kind of emotion a lot of women have about having a child you can see how emotional it would be if they lost one.

But I thought it wasn't the government's job to interfere in that, right?

At 4/26/07 01:04 AM, Saveo wrote:

Why are you dealing with nonexistent numbers when there is a finite number of trees?

Because he's funny. :)

At 4/26/07 12:54 AM, Elfer wrote:

Source:
1) Go to any parking lot outside a fast food joint.
2) Count the number of cigarette butts you see.
3) Since there should be an infinite number, you will be long dead before you reach this step. You obviously haven't been following instructions.

I'm tired, your sarcasm flew straight over my head, sorry. :o