Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/24/07 05:37 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

stuff

I am glad someone told him right

I live in Sweden the country in Europe who has the most islamic immigrants in relation to total population.

that was the only flaw in your post. If you click his link you'll see the percentage.

just play some futuristic shooters, tons of ideas there.

I did read somewhere, in the near future there will be bullets who can change direction.

big breasts are over rated.
and what makes you so sure you can steal her?

At 10/23/07 01:43 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

this is only my opinion

yes so it worth nothing.
Ever considered the idea that people who use pot are more interested in other drugs before they used it? Seems kinda logical, someone who isnt gonna use pot is most definatly not gonna use more heavy drugs. Someone who interested in trying out some stuff is probably more interested into trying out other stuff, its not related to the actual pot-use.

ps havent tried these other drugs yet but am curious and well, cant really say if im going to cause thats forbidden on the bbs)

wtf are u talking 'bout, funny man.

i suppose you could argue that marijuana's status as an illegal drug is what attracts the same type of people to use it, in addition to other drugs, which means it isn't really a causation

oh you said it yourself. But doesnt that sound way more convincing. why would you just assume pot is the cause of other drug use???

I had a discussion with my brother, who has read far more on this subject then I ever will.
I was amazed on the phenomena that the US presidents are often closly related to eachother. I didnt understand this because I would think the 'best man' would make the biggest change, but instead people with good connections make a better chance. I dont know if hilary is gonna win the coming election, but it astonishes me that she is running for president. Also the fact that celeberties enjoy such popularity in politics amazes me. I would want a person in office who has went to college and has some sort of master degree. I would expect him to have alot of experience before he would get an important policy making job.

Well my brother, who I dont think came up with this himself, lsaid this could be due to the fact you are a republic, you have no king.
people want a ruling family it seems, they want a sort of a soap. I cant really put it down in (english) words, but it seems to me that in a way the monarch families are replaced by famous influencial families.

I mean, I think everyone agrees (even the people who like bush) he isnt really world leader material. BUT he is the sun of a relative good president.

discuss

At 10/21/07 05:02 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 10/21/07 04:42 PM, Drakim wrote:

DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON. IRONY ALERT.

gotta love lost in space.

Although I do agree with you on all points, I think the main point drakim is trying to make is that the goverment has a certain responsibility for 'the people'.

They want to prevent you from doing harm against other people (obviouly) but also against yourself.
This leads to rules like: fasten your seatbelts, dont buy guns (well europe not US) dont drive faster then a certain limit, dont use heroin, Go to school, dont use xtc, and in the US dont use weed. Its more a matter of what you would find harmfull.

Drakim thinks pot is harmfull.. I really dont agree, but the thing he points out (being in another state of mind) is mainly the point I think the goverment is making. They want to protect you by restricting your freedom (and I mean this in a good way, not a "ofmg they restrict our freedom" way ).

While I am sure you are completly aware of this, I would like you to react on that, because that debate will almost be as endless as the "there is there isnt a god".

At 10/21/07 09:05 AM, Drakim wrote:

Pot, however, is not so strong in culture as alchole, thus we can fortunately ban it. Don't try to argue that since we have one mistake, another one is okay. That's just stupid.

you are just ignoring the point that pot isnt bad for you at all (in normal use, but everything is harmfull in high dosages).

At 10/21/07 06:38 AM, specimen56 wrote:

At 10/20/07 11:43 PM, jfella91 wrote: IT'S A PLANT THAT GROWS DRUGS FOR US TO SMOKE. LIKE WTF. The common street drugs are chemicals and made mostly or entirely synthetically, but weed just grows like it was a tomato plant or something, only it grows drugs that you pick instead of tomatoes.

And because its natural- its ok..?
And because other drugs are chemically made- they're not ok..?

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time finding a valid point of argument here...

well actually that is more or less the dutch goverment mentality. They feel that you cannot phorhibit something that is 100% natural because it can be found in nature. You cannot phorhibit the use of herbs, it would be ridiculous to restrain such freedoms, So shrooms are indeed legal too.

Anyways, as a long standing smoker I'm in two minds about whether it should be legalised.
Legalisation and taxation would be a good plan- but (and as much as I hate to bring this in- but someone will) there's the slippery slope argument. If we legalise weed, then people will start coming up with arguments for why Heroine should be legalised:

they havent in the netherlands. so no

But a government has to draw the line somewhere. In a state of government where the state was just there to look after its populace and nothing else, then maybe heroine and weed would be legalised or at least could under the guise of keeping it clean, or so the government can highlight heavy users easily/easier and help them if needs be.

I dont get you comparing weed and heroine, there somewhat different in effect and toxicity

At 10/19/07 10:02 AM, sheffgb wrote: Icing on the cake?

I don't think thats a proverb...

yeahhh thanks a bunch now my finishing sentence is:

All in all an excellent rapport, hopefully some of the given suggestions will be implemented to put the icing on the cake!

I had to review a rapport, again thank you very much.

I need to know a certain proverb.
its something like icing on the dressing, or icing on the topping, topping on the dressing I DONT KNOW...
it means something like: " to finish it of to perfection"

plz help fast thanks

At 10/17/07 12:37 PM, Greensinge wrote:

A) End up with the 'good guys', whoever they may be, deciding that the best/only way to defeat the 'bad guys' is to use some kind of weapon of mass destruction, (i.e. Independence Day)

they take a plane and ram it into the center of the big mamma ship, how is that a wmd

At 10/17/07 03:17 AM, RedSkunk wrote:

3) being the playground of bored, sexually frustrated individuals preying on the aforementioned parties.

Oh I definatly fall under that category

At 10/16/07 08:18 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/16/07 08:15 PM, therealsylvos wrote: a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities
a binary number system

Still dont understand what your trying to tell me.

Hints in quotes.

HAHAHA you guys crack me up, this is the funniest debate I've read in a long while, mostly because of the mental disabilities of therealsylvos.
youre funny man and utterly stupid.

it was pretty good actually, but because of you bitchin about it I gave it a zero.

my grandma plays it, ill ask her to give you her phonenumber

At 10/10/07 05:48 PM, Drakim wrote:

Please, I don't wish to have the same debate we had just one page ago again.

true were talking in cirkels so this will be my last post in here, we just cant agree with eachother.

Then why is there evil that appears to have no point? What possible reason could God have for letting, say, abortion exist? Letting babies die before they even know anything? (which is the common argument). How could it be part of God's plan to create a human and then kill it before it even can think?

yes well I know I am repeating myself, but so are you, only you are just giving different examples of the same, free choice in combination with love concept

(obviously for this argument you will have to accept that sin is related to freechoice and love, like I (and others) have already mentioned a few times)

But God has provided unnecessary ways to sin. And sins can even stop other lives. I could end your very life here right now, and God would not stop me. How is it that you must pay for my actinos?

Well again the famous free choice argument, your examples are not different to the point then your original rape example, so there no real new arguments your putting in. You can make up a thousand more example there all the same, its about the possibility to sin. So we keep spinning in cirkels.

Because, from what I'm seeing, God provided these tools to destroy lives for no reason at all. That's why I don't think he has given us the "perfect" world within the bonds of free will.

Thats an opnion, but I dont think you can accuse god of rape/abortion/killing etc because he decided to give humanity his own freedom of choice so we where not all zombies/slaves to his will.
By giving us this ability, which he saw as our greatest good and most admirable aspect, he inevatably included the possibility to sin. I truely cannot imagine a world where there is free will but no possibility to sin.

I know you are also trying to point out that he could have restrain us more, like we are not able to erase someone with our mind, but I dont see this as a valid argument because its very hard for us to judge the world as imperfect, because we have no reference. Why dont we have 4 arms? I think this would be better and more perfect, but maybe it isnt. What I am trying to say is that something that enables us to perform a horrible sin also enables us to do alot of good.
We can not see downsides from something we dont have. But maybe they outweigh the imagined good (i.e. "anti-rape vagina").

I cant explain it better then this, so well I guess we just cant agree.

At 10/10/07 05:47 PM, VictoryGin wrote: I'm proud to of not eaten McDonalds for about a year now.

why?

At 10/10/07 05:36 PM, Ronald-McDonald-LoL wrote:

Today I had my first Big Mac in my life.

everyone knows US citizens are obliged to eat bigmacs on a daily basis. So youre just lying

At 10/10/07 05:35 PM, Wooblers wrote: Try hitting reply,not new topic.

haha

hmm if you americanas keep doing this you might kill more people then you conceive.

At 10/10/07 10:55 AM, Drakim wrote:

However, as I said before. The idea of an all-loving and forgiving God does not fit with a permanent hell. It just doesn't make sense to call something very forgiving when it only forgives for a limited time. In fact, if I was to sin, and die of a car crash 10 seconds later, then all the Christian God would have offered me is still ten seconds. Should I not seek forgiveness within those 10 seconds, then I'm forever damned.

This is just making assumptions, maybe god made it so that your last living second lasts a lifetime.

He made rape and murder part of reality, and I cannot, and neither has somebody else up to this point, been able to provide just exactly why these things must exist.

lol so many already have done this, but you just dont agree, well I am an atheist and I agree with their logic.

Bill Gates (God), has picked option 2. He has given us a world, and he has given us the possibility for happiness. However, he has not done so in the best way he could.

you are already bending, thats good to see. How do you know he did gave us number 3? I think alot of people thinks he did.
(obviously for this argument you will have to accept that sin is related to freechoice and love, like I (and others) have already mentioned a few times)

At 10/9/07 03:52 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/9/07 02:47 PM, Tomsan wrote:

At 10/9/07 10:25 AM, Drakim wrote:

Saying that rape is a byproduct of sex doesn't make sense with this in thought, since God should have no trouble limiting rape without limiting sex, due to being omnipotent.

No I said that rape is a byproduct of free choice (I was pretty darn clear)

Why can't God prevent that byproduct? Is he that weak? Is he simply unable to create a world were sex exists but rape does not?

I also explained this already.
In order to love someone, there must be free choice and so the ability to sin.

At 10/9/07 10:25 AM, Drakim wrote:

Saying that rape is a byproduct of sex doesn't make sense with this in thought, since God should have no trouble limiting rape without limiting sex, due to being omnipotent.

No I said that rape is a byproduct of free choice (I was pretty darn clear)

At 10/9/07 06:20 AM, Drakim wrote:

Erasing people with your mind is not a physical thing, that's why you can't do it.
God decides what is physical and not. He could have made rape collide with the laws of physics, and let erasing people with your mind be a natural thing like jumping. Remember, he is God.

No I dont agree, he chose to let us live under the law of natural rules to which we have to oblige (gravity etc), being able to move the way we can icw free choice automatically allows us to rape.

obviously he could restrain us from being able to move.

Preventing rape would stop sex, and doom the human race
Yet again, we are talking about God. It should be well within God's power to make it simply impossible to have sex unless both people agree.

not if there is free choice like so many have told you, the argument still counts.

Rape can't be prevented in the same way as mind erasing because the mechanics are different
Yet again, God. Omnipotent. By definition, nothing can be too hard for him.

We're limited by our physical forms
God defines what is physical and what is not. He could have made rape and murder impossibilities.

I think the free choice argument still counts. god created us to love, not to have. By givin us a free choice he could love us, but this also led to the ability to do bad. Taking away the possibility to sin, means takin away free choice. one who cannot sin has no choice, so that would make us unloveable.
But I think more people have sort of said the same before me.

Free will is just about thinking, not action

Thinking is an action too. By thinking of a math problem, I use energy of my body. Thinking also changes your mind slowly, making your person. So, it isn't a "non-physical" action that you are hinting at. And, we do act our other actions, such as jumping, based on what we have been thinking.

agreed I dont see how this would backup any of your statements though.

At 10/9/07 06:16 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 10/9/07 05:57 AM, Tomsan wrote:

if god is omnipotent and all knowing, as well as the past as the future, can he then alter his own destiny?

No. If something is... just one huge mess of flogic (false logic).

yes so exactly the point I am making down here..

if one knows his own future one can change it meaning it didnt really knew its own future. Or when you state he can only travel in his own set future (not able to change it) meaning he is not omnipotent.

More or less correct.

yes I know so why did you just put this argument in other words?

At 10/8/07 06:50 PM, Brick-top wrote: What amazes me is God can have eternal knowledge and power yet still give humans free will. Isn't that a contradiction?

no its not, you what is?

if god is omnipotent and all knowing, as well as the past as the future, can he then alter his own destiny?
if one knows his own future one can change it meaning it didnt really knew its own future. Or when you state he can only travel in his own set future (not able to change it) meaning he is not omnipotent.

At 10/8/07 02:21 PM, RockAmbole wrote: I looked all around and all I got was the pumpkin to the upper-left of the clock pumpkin looking like a creepy moon, but I'm sure it's not that.

thats the salad finger guy man, how can you not see that

dude thats old already

this post cracked me up, what a ridiculous comparison.

around 8 or something