Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/28/10 01:15 PM, Gorgonof wrote: Wait, so you would disqualify homosexuality based on the actions of a handful of people who happen to be gay? Also the argument is that gay people serving alongside straight people hasn't been demonstrated to be a problem throughout modern or ancient history, not that no gay dude has ever done anything naughty while serving in the military, EVER.

Sigh. Is that what I said? It isn't? It isn't even close?!?

Try reading what I actually said. It helps.

The study only showed most of them have no interest in telling people they're gay, besides, why on Earth would they want a policy that screws them if someone gets some dirt on them?

So, um, wait.

If DADT is repealed...what dirt would people have on them? It'd be like running to the commander and saying "So and so is sexually aroused by belly button lint!" Well, ok. Who cares?

I don't think you understand the merits here...

Well, now with DADT gone gay people who got the shit kicked out of them can finally explain why. Now we can start discharging violent bigots instead. =D

Assault is a felony. The gay dude doesn't have to explain WHY he had his ass kicked. He just has to show he's been beaten like a rented mule. DADT has no effect.

Haha...

Considering your commentary so far has been laughable...I wouldn't mock ANYONE else if I were you..

You can be as closeted as you like, if someone invades your privacy and discovers you're gay in the process, you're gone. I don't believe for one second that most DADT discharges where because the person was a flaming queen, or even open about it.

And we reach a point of agreement. If you are outted by a third party, you should remain in service. This, however, will affect only a handful of gay recruits. Most gays out themselves.

At 12/28/10 02:14 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: DADT was never a good policy. It was an improvement from how things were before, but it was a change from worse to bad. A slap in the balls is better than a kick in the balls, but it's still a slap in the balls.

So it was an improvement...yet it sucked...

I'm sorry...what?

I'm adjusting my rhetoric to match that of my opponent.

So, you're being retarded to counter retarded.

Question: Do you honestly believe that the majority of the 13000 people who were discharged because of DADT were so because they voluntarily came out about their homosexuality?

Yes. Why? Because homosexual discharges dropped. Even as the military became more permissive, gay enrollment soared and kickouts rock bottomed.

There's very little chance of a service member being outted by anyone other than themselves.

Yeah, getting fired is awesome. Getting fired for no good reason is even better.

You're not getting fired for no reason. It's equivalent to saying "I won't smoke marijuana"...then smoking marijuana. Whether we agree with that reason or not doesn't matter. The soldier agreed when he signed up. It's equivalent to agree to always wearing a tie at work...then getting fired for not wearing a tie.

Your fault. No one else's.

At 12/26/10 06:49 AM, Yorik wrote: No, the claim was that no military has ever had a problem related to having gay people in the ranks. Even if he did it because of how the military or its soldiers treated him that is still not a problem with him and is not representative of all homosexuals, it is an issue with military policy.

Well, no. If he did it because of military policy. Or because of unicorns, it is a problem with a gay serving. And since the whole claim was that "gays serving has never been a problem", it's a ridiculous argument. Especially in light of a dude who pretty much claims he dumped these documents cause he was gay. Is he lying? Maybe. Maybe he was a Nazi collaborator sent to the future...or maybe hes exactly what he says.

Have you ever heard of bullshit news, son?

Yes. However, everything I posted was accurate. Have a cookie, chuckles.

At 12/26/10 12:18 PM, poxpower wrote: Replace "gay men" with "black men" and see how great your argument sounds.
Re-read your post with that in mind, see if you still agree with yourself.

Well, then it doesn't work. As 100% of gay men are into men, and 1% of black men are into men, this rewrite doesn't hold water. If a guy gets raped in the military, which is...less favorable...to homosexuals than the general public, it's not a wild stretch of fancy to see a gay, or multiple gays, getting beat up. It's a 0% chance that the Klan would start erecting burning crosses.

At 12/26/10 12:41 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Abiding by an unfair and discriminatory law is stupid. Throwing out competent military men and women because of an unfair and discriminatory law is stupid. Defending an unfair and discriminatory law simply beacause it's the law is stupid. DADT was a disgusting and undeniably stupid policy.

Being stupid and being unfair are two different things.

Was DADT good policy at the time? Yes. Could it have had a kill switch for members who were outted by others? Absolutely. If you disagree, you simply have no clue what you're talking about.

Not according to Proteas, who I was talking to. According to him, being discharged from the military for being gay was "a fate worse than death".

Oh, so you're countering inanity by being inane?

The question was, would you risk punishment by breaking an unjust law in order to protect someone else? And, if you DO get punished for breaking an unjust law to protect someone else, do you deserve praise and sympathy, or do you deserve scorn and ridicule?

But the question is, in and of itself, wrong. There is no law being broken. Unjust or otherwize. There is an employer policy, which, right, wrong or indifferent, is known to every man and woman upon enlisting. If you come out as an openly gay person...well, you're an f-ing moron. You either weren't joining to help others, or your priorities in life changed to where you no longer care.

Either way, you will not be subject to ridicule or scorn. But a simple discharge. Sorry, I cannot muster the energy to care that a dude who violated his contract was released with benefits. I actually think it's a pretty sweet deal.

At 12/26/10 02:12 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Congratulations, you can cut and paste. Unfortunately, I addressed all of your arguments, and had no need to post every single word you said (much as you cut off some of what I said). It's borderline retarded to repost your own arguments that aren't arguments, and claim some sort of dishonesty, when your argument was already readable to anyone who can click the up arrow on their web page.

So did you have a point? Or are you just spamming to try and make me seem dishonest, when I addressed your arguments in their entirety?

At 12/27/10 11:01 AM, Elfer wrote: Um, a bunch? Of course, talking about "scientific consensus" more than say, 200 years back is a bit questionable anyway.

Global cooling. Population unsustainability. Etc.

When we talk about "consensus science", the percentage is pretty bad.

At 12/17/10 06:26 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Those were different Republicans Jon... lol. This republican party now is an outgrowth of an anti slavery party founded in 1854. Not that they are pro diversity now. In the mid 20th situation the racists all switched parties and joined the Republicans and the Republicans of that day turned democratic.

Ah the old Dixiecrat lie. Based off Strom Thurmond. Except that every OTHER Dixiecrat returned to the Democrat party. And, until recently, one of them was not only a member of the Senate, but was called the "Conscience of the Senate" by all the Democrats.

No the racists stayed with the D after their names.

At 12/17/10 02:04 PM, Powerage wrote: oh yeah, you mean that whole climategate thing? turns out, they were cleared of wrongdoing, and those e-mails were taken out of context.

There's a few problems here, from your link.

Mike's nature trick.
This assumes that tree ring samples were valid til recently....which is a faulty assumption. It still screams manipulated data.

This site starts from the premise of trying to make the emails fit and justify global warming. It mitigates evidence that hurts, and distorts some real big problems. As such, it's not reliable.

The actual emails reveal some serious problems, that even some scientists are chiding others for ignoring or outright lying about. See here:
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?ei d=6&s=tag160

Writing it off isn't good form.

At 12/26/10 02:44 AM, Antimatter500 wrote: no but i remember people like you scaring America into compliance.

that's kinda like rape...

you conservatives are raping America

Ah accusing people of being rapists. Hooray for honest debate!

At 12/23/10 01:07 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Where did the rest of my post go? It's going to be hard to discuss anything with you if all you're willing to respond to are the more tangential issues, and just sorta running off from there. There are some incredibly key issues you don't seem to be responding to.

Well, it's not like I left anything out to make you look dishonest. You rambled on about falsification. Since it wasn't relevant, let alone debatable, I left it out. Should I have left it all in and at the end said. "Sweet! Cool! So what does that have to do with anything?" Just for the record, I'll be deleting parts of this here. Since it's a RESPONSE, and people can see your post above, nothing you said is deleted.

Do I understand..

Well, obviously you don't.

1 underlines that man has rights that are his that exist outside of social norms.
2 says he has no rights.

Meanwhile the rights that society has not shifted on are still considered wrong to take away. I.E. They have rights that are wrong to take away.

That's a bizarre leap of logic. Once your rights are taken away, they're gone. How can it be wrong...if they are taken away?

If I tell you I'm sick, would you tell me I'm not because once I get better I won't be?

Huh? Sorry, bud. I'm stopping here. There was no point to that last sentence, and, given that I've described my position in detail over multiple pages, I feel little desire to recap it again against such a silly backwards analogy.

Instead I'll simply ask a question. How do you define something as wrong without some standard of rights? In other words, if I convince 50% + 1 tomorrow that your family should be enslaved, or killed...what counter argument do you have?

At 12/23/10 01:09 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: that someone willing to risk a fate WORSE THAN DEATH in order to defend his country is someone worthy of admiration. This has been my point throughout this entire thread.

Sure, he's a good guy. Anyone who risks their neck for their country is. But he's not following the rules, and he's gotta go. We'll pat his back on the way out.

And as I pointed out, it absolutely DOES apply. Providing shelter to these fugitives was EXPRESSLY prohibited by law, just like being gay in the millitary was expressly prohibited by law. If the Law found out that you were sheltering fugitives, you'd be punished severely, just like if the Law found out that you were gay in the military, you'd be punished with a fate worse than death, according to you.

Comparing getting fired to execution is moronic.

At 12/23/10 04:56 PM, Yorik wrote: Homosexuals were allowed to be in the military, sure, but if they said anything about it they were kicked out. Do you see how this isn't fair?

No.

No, they really aren't. Strait people in the military can talk with fellows about their home life, their families, their boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife, or how sex starved they feel from being away so long, etc... A gay person saying anything about any of that could possibly get them removed from the ranks.

As can a homosexual. Contrary to popular myth, there's a little bit more required than someone saying they think you're gay to discharge you. After all, you CAN deny it. Though you have to be rather daft to openly break a policy that you know will can you...

Here's the real question; did he leak that material JUST because he is gay?

Well, that's really irrelevant. That wasn't the claim. When you claim no gay soldier has ever hurt the military, well, yea.

I honestly doubt everything you typed here.

I don't really care. Seeing as it was in every major newspaper and internet news, your doubt doesn't matter. See above.

At 12/23/10 08:36 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: If it's not too much trouble, would you provide a link to a reputable study to verify this?

How about the Pentagon study? Since that's the one that everyone loves so much?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30 /dadt-study-pentagon-gays-military_n_789 626.html

Of those respondents who said they were gay, only 15 percent said they would want that known to everyone in their unit.

Which means 85% of gays DON'T want their units to know.

At 12/23/10 01:23 PM, Ravariel wrote: Potayto, potahto.

No, not Potayto. Potato, Mitsubishi.

When you sign a contract agreeing to X, you agree to X. If you agree to not be an open homosexual, you agree to not be an open homosexual. So if you're a flaming queen and you join the army, and then get kicked out when you're a flaming queen...who do you blame but yourself?

Apparently not.

Except most gays are not dishonorably discharged. But whatever.

I'm not addressing the issue of the jews and slaves being sheltered because the situation does not apply here, as was previously pointed out.

So choosing to violate what you view as an unjust law, that works for the greater good, and puts your own livelyhood and even life at risk is not the same as choosing to viola... eh, screw it, you get the picture. But hey, keep dodging the question if it means you can keep denying that you're in the wrong.

It's an administrative policy, not a law. If you go to a job, and they say "hey, random drug screenings, if you sign up!", and you sign up...you agree to random drug screenings. Whether or not drug screenings are ok, or drugs are ok...you agreed to it. So when you smoke pot and get canned for failing your pee test, you need to look in the mirror for who to blame.

At 12/23/10 06:02 AM, Yorik wrote: Reasons for repealing DADT:
-Anyone willing and able to fight and die for their country should be allowed to do so.

And are allowed to, under current law.

-It's not fair that heterosexuals can speak freely about sexual issues but homosexuals have to watch what they say.

Both persuasions are under the same rules.

-There were homosexuals in armed forces all over the world before, during and after DADT and it has never in human history caused any problems in military operations. If anything, DADT harmed the US military by discharging people that were perfectly capable of fulfilling their duties.

Well, now we have an issue. There's a pretty big news story right now of a gay soldier who leaked military documents because he was gay. Does this reflect poorly on all homosexuals? Ofp course not. But does it mean that your blanket statement is wrong? Well...yes.

Reasons against repealing DADT:

-Strait people, particularly religious types, think gayness is yucky and/or amoral.

Wowza! That's it? Straight people think gays are gross? What about the fact that the vast majority of gays in the military don't want DADT revoked? Yup, all homophobia. No valid reasons. Which is why even gays agree it should stand. Hmmm.

At 12/23/10 02:32 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: That's also the case if 2 is true.

No, it's not. Once society shifts, then it is no longer wrong.

That's also the case if 1 is true.

No, it's not.

Look, boss. Simply claiming that "it is true" over and over, doesn't make it so. As I've pointed out 6 or 7 dozen times in this thread, as human beings, our tendency is to hurt each other. Outside of some objective standard, other than "majority rules", it is impossible to condemn these actions. Sure, we find slavery abhorrant now, here in America. But in other parts of the world they don't. Who's right? Well, I guess no one. Or everyone. In America, the biggest worry a gay person faces is "I can't get married!", but in other parts of the world, they're stoned, or hung, or shot, etc. How do you tell other parts of the world that's wrong?

Seeing rights as man made...you can't. We may not like what's happening...but if rights come from government, well, they're doing nothing wrong. Just exercising a different choice than us.

At 12/22/10 10:29 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: By your reasoning, anyone who has knowingly broken any law and gotten punished for doing so are idiots and can blame nobody but themselves, regardless of how evil or unfair the law was to begin with. Take the underground railroad from 19th century America, anyone caught sheltering runaway slaves would probably have been hanged. Should they not have done that, Lawful Neutral? Were they idiots for breaking the law?

Well, yea. I mean, there are a lot of shitty laws on the books. But no one forces the average citizen to sign on the dotted line that they will obey XYZ. In the military, you acknowledge that being gay ain't ok and you will get discharged for it. So, if you agree to that...then come out as a flamer, yea you're a tard.

Or how about in 1940's Nazi Germany, when people would hide Jews in their homes from the Nazis? Would they not be punished severely for breaking that law? Have they no one to blame but themselves?

Are the gays who are discharged being killed?

No, they're being HONORABLY discharged? Shut up then.

According to the law, she should be executed for impersonating a man and joining the army, but the General decides to spare her life instead.

A harsher example. However, Mulan understood, going in, that was the penalty. And she excepted it. She was only spared because she saved China. Kinda hard to execute a national hero for having a uterus.

My point being, that it is sometimes heroic to break an unjust law, and the risk of punishment makes it even more so.

It's not heroic to agree to something, than to break it. Ever.

At 12/20/10 05:56 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: I really don't get this notion that other than orders pertaining to the execution of your job or the stability of the military, you have every right granted to anyone else under the Constitution. My superiors cannot walk into my house right now. I am free to say whatever I want within the exact same confines that another person with a job would be (and sure; if I said "fuck the military," I would be held to similar repercussions as if you were to say "fuck (whatever fast food restaurant you work at)!").

Well, actually, you're not. You're not allowed to comment on politics AT ALL while in uniform. Going to any rally, even a pro-military one, in uniform is not allowed. While in combat, or in warzone, your free speech does not exist.

There are all kinds of military rules that abridge the 1st amendment. They don't have the same rights as us.

I'm sorry that gay people scare and disgust you and you can't come to terms with them serving your country. I take it that you must be extremely up in arms about this because you do serve in the military, and the amount of discomfort that this causes is making you reconsider joining? In that case, I'm very sorry and hopefully you can turn your respectable service into a more comfortable career elsewhere, almost the same as if you're uncomfortable working around women, or blacks, or some other pointless differentiating factor that people have no reasonable control over.

Unfortunately, this is 1/2 of our combat forces. Right, wrong, or indifferent, this has the capacity to cripple our military as about half of the people in combat now say they will not accept this.

Moreover, the vast majority of gays in the military don't want this.

I'm not really rejoicing myself. Sure I'm happy that there's a greater chance that competent individuals will have more of an incentive to enlist. I think if there's any way to increase the number of people without dropping ASVAB requirements, waiving prior lapses in moral character, or ignoring other standards like mental health capacity or physical readiness, then by all means. But if you aren't a homophobic bigot, then what is your concern about it's repeal?

Homosexuals are less than 1% of the population. Most have no desire to enlist. However, overall, 1/4 of our troops are considering dropping out over this. We stand to lose a lot of troops for this non-existant gain.

I'd call 65-70% of surveyed individuals a pretty clear majority. Hell; you could amend the Constitution with that much of a majority. But you're right, it includes reservists and military spouses; and obviously they are not a part of the military whatsoever. I guess they should've just asked active-duty personnel. Better yet; they should've only asked STRAIGHT active-duty personnel, although the irony is that they technically wouldn't be able to ask that they only interview heterosexuals. Damn.

People who think it mixed or don't care are not the same as people who are in favor. FYI

At 12/23/10 01:47 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: What I'm arguing against is the kind of idiotic argumentation that brings about things like "Manifest Destiny" or what not where you take away from one to give to another and thus it leads to instability, violence and death. Israel is there...how it got there and the legality of such is for others to debate in my mind. To me it's a lot of wasted air though because it's not going anywhere. It's there, it exists, so let's figure out how to get it and Palestine to stop trying to kill each other.

So how do you propose to get peace betwen two sides when side A says:
"Whatever it takes, we'll do it."
And side B says:
"We want side A dead!"

That's quite the problem! It also doesn't help that the current situation STEMMED from a two state solution. Israel was broken into two. Palestine was created, for the first time in history, out of Israel's land. Their first act? Attack Israel. So Israel fought back, took Palestine, and expelled the violent rebels. Ever since we've had the current debate.

So what makes us think things will be different a second time around? Both Fatah and Hamas are terrorist organizations. Both have used Gaza and the West Bank to launch terrorist attacks. Why would a two state solution work this time, with a more volatile Palestine, when it didn't work before?

At 12/23/10 01:36 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: For the sake of clarity... are you saying...

"I'm a Christian, otherwise morality is subjective and arbitrary."

We have two choices:

1. Rights come from God, or something outside us.

2. Rights come from man.

If 1 is true, then we have rights that it is wrong to take away. If 2, then it is simply majority rules. If XYZ group is disliked, they can become slaves. If women are weaker, they can be forced into sex. Etc.

1 holds that, by nature of our humanity, we are special and have rights that cannot be taken away, while 2 arbitrarily changes over time.

So yea, basically, you summarized what I have been saying all along.

At 12/19/10 01:38 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: (in essence) so you agree

Not necessarily. I'm just showing that bad logic doesn't help the Palestinians. There is simply no case, even under bad logic, to give the Arabs control of Israel.

At 12/18/10 09:24 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Ctrl+F "beyond human reasoning" hmm nope.

I HAVE mentioned I'm a Christian haven't I? I'm pretty sure I have...

Otherwize, morality is subjective and arbitrary...wait I think I mentioned that too...

Why do I feel like we're retreading old stuff with only one of us getting that we've debated all this before....

completely missing the point is something you excel at though.

I never miss the point. That's a small problem in this debate. You keep throwing things back that I mentioned PAGES ago and pretending I've never considered that before.

How's that a problem? I gladly accept that. I like my system more than yours, and think it's better for the health and happiness of society. I don't care whether it's "right" or "wrong" beyond that. And I reallydon't care whether you or whatever God you believe in thinks my system is "right" or "wrong" either.

Then you can't argue me. No one cares if you like your system. It's not right. If tomorrow we decide you have no rights, and deserve to be a slave, it's just as moral and correct as today's system.

This is what I've argued and you are incapable of grasping because you're not that bright. After this admission, I feel no need to go through the rest of your worthless argument.

At 12/17/10 03:18 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Your argument has been that even when the Jews did not control the land, they still held the right to the land because they never explicitly gave it up.

But that's also Palestine's argument. So, by your admission, the argument is weak.

Total irrelevance. I'll say it again: There is NO basis in the LAW, in HISTORY, in EVER that grants a certain people in this case THE JEWS an ETERNAL and PERPETUAL right to a property even when they CLEARLY DON'T HOLD THE TERRITORY. I'm addressing your eternal right argument. Are you admitting an eternal right did not exist? That Israel is not Israel unless it is being governed by those who would call it Israel?

But the Jews clearly hold it now. So an "eternal right" theory is irrelevant.

Not in the least. If you are the recognized ruling power of a territory, you own the land. Whether others like it or not. Lots of people don't like the Iranian government, but nobody disputes they are the owners and ruling power of the territory known as Iran. What I'm giving you is not really a theory as much as it's fact. It's how things are done.

Unfortuantely, that still makes Israel right. Everyone acknowledges they rule the land. They just want them not to....

Not if that government doesn't clearly own that land. Also the stability and strength of that government come into it as well. There are revolutions all the time in many African nations. So if I buy a patch of territory this week from ruler A, and he gets deposed and ruler B throws me out for his brother...what recourse do I now have since ruler A is gone?

And here's the game ender. No one claims any African rebels are the legitimate government. We can dispense with this further.

At 12/14/10 08:23 PM, The-General-Public wrote: We're not claiming morality doesn't exist, we're asking you why you believe an objective morality given by god exists. Which you've failed to do so far.

Actuallly, I have. I've given two options. I've given the existance of morality, which exists beyond human reasoning. Or there is preference, which exists at public whim. I've given these answers DOZENS of times. And I'm tired of repeating myself so I'll just ignore stupid answers that ask me to from here on out.

Ok stop signs, I'll add "analogies" to the things you're bad at.

There's a huge amount of intersections without those either. We'll add "knowing what you're talking about" to the things you suck at.

I'm not denying that there exists a code of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). In fact I'm arguing that many different codes of morality exist. You're arguing that only one does.

Yet, here's the problem. It's impossible to call one right or one wrong under your worldview.

Actually that's completely false, Abortions are more frequent now than at any point since the 1970s. Not only that, the Supreme Court at its most conservative held up the precedent set in Roe v Wade several times. Now the court is more liberal than it was even then. Oops.

Jesus. That's devastating. And if any of that was right....I'd be sad. Of course, every single part of that is wrong, or irrelevant. The Supreme Court (apparently more conservative now than ever) issued the first ever upholding of restriction on abortion by upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story .php?storyId=5029934

Aw, well that sucks, contrary to your narrative, liberal laws went into effect til 89, then started swinging back. You're wrong. Darn.

You pointed out evidence that directly refuted your argument that a universal morality exited. Good job.

I've done that repeatedly since my first comment. You're a stupid one aren't you?

Man, if you could read, you might be dangerous in a debate.

At 12/16/10 12:52 PM, Imperator wrote: I'm pro-women.

The way I look at it, pro-life is anti-women. Restricting women of their reproductive rights makes them second class citizens.

Ah, anyone who thinks I'm wrong hates women! The oldest and most ridiculous trick in the book!

At 12/7/10 01:37 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: And how do you know the concepts of 'right and wrong' exists? Can you point out that right and wrong exist objectively in the world? When you see a baby being stamped on, do you point. Look out! Over there! Its badness! Because I don't.

I don't have to. That's the problem here. IF there is no right and wrong, if everything is equal, then the dude who stands on his argument wins. While the moron who claims "everyone is identical man" falls to the wayside. If morality doesn't exist, then I am right, because I say I am right and you say there is no right. If there IS morality, one of use may be right, but you've already acknowledged it isn't you. See how that works? (I'm getting tired of explaining basic human logic 101).

At 12/7/10 01:59 PM, The-General-Public wrote: It's not immoral, just risky and unsafe. It's immoral in the sense that not having a stoplight at an intersection is immoral.

That's a big bowl of fail. More than 90% of all intersections don't have stoplights at them, and things work out just fine. You really don't have a case do you?

Well seeing as you still believe in an objective morality, not quite.

Yes, quite. And here's why you're an imbecile. You're arguing that your position is undyably right...while denying the existance of morality. You simply can't have it both ways.

Well seeing as abortion is still legal, I'd say the same of your opinions.

And it's being curtailed. Oops. Hmmmm.

You're funny when you lose your temper.

I didn't lose my temper. I used history as a guide. You're just not bright enough to get the point.

Keep saying it, it's bound to come true eventually if you say it enough

Yea, say that to the Japanese and Germans who spent years in detention who came out with nothing. They did nothing wrong, they hurt no one, but their lives were ruined.

That's the joy of being too stupid to look at history. It tends to disprove theory... And if you don't look at history, you miss all those things that prove you an idiot.

At 12/7/10 09:37 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Labeling your particular brand of morality objective doesn't make it objective, and neither does deferring authorship to God.

Labelling my brand of morality objective means that I acknowledge that rights come from outside me. Things annoy me all the time that I still defend the right of people to do. For example: We have a lot of people who have no clue what they are talking about bashing Christianity. But that is their God given right, as free will and free speech are God given characteristics.

There's a big difference between being objective and being absolutist.

It's fun to make statements we don't understand what they mean!

At 12/7/10 11:55 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

But laws change. Social precepts change. And as I have REPEATEDLY pointed out, what is socially acceptable today will not be tomorrow. And what was acceptable yesterday isn't today. Unfortunately, under the "society rules" clause, slavery just isn't immoral. Nor is rape, genocide, etc. All were once hallmarks of our culture, and all were abandoned because it made us feel warm and fuzzy inside. With the "majority rules" banner, it is simply impossible to say what happened before was wrong because...well...majority ruled. This is what you don't get. And this is why, no matter how many times you simply claim "right's just are", I'll continue to point out that you're absolutely wrong.

Terrible examples. Neither of those involve taking control of somebody's body for personal moral reasons.

Buzzer sound. Wrong answer.

Explain to me, without morality, why drugs are bad. Take all day, I'll read a book while I wait. Cause you can't do it. Justify to me, in rational terms, why 40% of the people we put in jail every year are pot smokers.

See, that's an impossible task. Moreover:

Why can't I sell my kidney to you. You are dying. You need one. I have no desire to part with it for free, but I will for money. So this benefits us both. I get money, you get to live. OOOOHHHHH! Feds think it's immoral. The horrors.

You. Do. Not. Have. A. Case.

No it isn't. I could believe the earth is round because I think aliens told me. Just as there's an insanely unlikely chance that abortion kills a being that is capable of feeling, and that a God exists who is against that. It wouldn't change the fact that you've argued for those two things spectacularly poorly.

I've argued my case insanely well thank you. Which is why you fools keep bringing up points I made pages ago to try and trip me up...and then are surprised when I say "No Shit Sherlock. Just figured that out didja? I pointed that out two weeks ago!" You, quite simply, have no idea why I believe what I believe. You're just an idiot who assumed "hey, he thinks abortion is wrong, and he knows what the bible says....he MUST be a bible thumper!" So, to be brutal, you are the fool who is assuming everything, and is REPEATEDLY proved wrong. Pardon me if I erase idiocy on your part that I have addressed more than a dozen times...

As a member of the society I'm part of, I disagree.

And now I stop being nice. No one gives a fuck about what you think. You are certainly less important than any of the Asians (many of which had no Japanese connection) that we shipped off to camps. I doubt you are any more useful than any Jew that was put in an oven or a gas chamber. You certainly have less to offer the world than those on the Trail of Tears.

People suck and kill each other all the time. Without setting a right and wrong standard that transcends people, rights do not exist. Period. End of discussion. And there's not a person alive smart enough to argue otherwise.

No, I have my sense of morality, and you have yours, you just pretend that yours is divinely sanctiond and "better" in some metaphysical way than mine. It's not.

And when some dude comes to rip your face off, ry and explain to him why your morality is better than his.

My morality is superior to yours. My morality acknowledges right and wrong, and yours doesn't. As such, mine is better.

At 12/5/10 08:59 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Actually, all I ever said prior to that post was that your logic was unconvincing. Which, as a matter of fact, it was. Your entire argument rested on the strange assumption that when people do things you don't agree with, they should be legally prevented from trying to fix their mistakes. Do you think that people who walk around barefoot outside and get hookworm should be legally prohibited from getting treatment as well?

When someone is so stupid as to claim that "removal of a fetus" is an abortion, then they have no room to mock anyone else on their logic ever again.

So shut up.

At 12/2/10 10:21 AM, The-General-Public wrote: That doesn't mean rights don't exist, learn to read. I'm not saying you're a liar, I'm saying you're not smart enough to actually look up the word "right" in the dictionary. Rights don't have to be inalienable to be rights, they can and have been given and taken away by societies at different times throughout history.

So you're an imbecile who is agreeing that everything I said is absolute fact but arguing with me over the name I give it? Oh good grief.

So society gives you something, and can take it away. How can you claim a right tothat? You can't. By your own admission, you're a moron.

Taking control of someone else's body for your own moral reasons is an extreme view in our society. Maybe if you lived 500 years ago it wouldn't be extreme, but it is now.

Um, it's not today either. Have you not watched the news? I'm pretty sure drugs are illegal. Selling your organs is illegal. Etc. Sorry, bud, you can't make a legal claim here. You're simply not correct.

Well, I don't claim that Al Gore talks to me and tells me to make pregnant women have babies, so yeah, it actually is.

No, actually, it's not. Sorry, I'd debate further, but I see no reason in wasting characters on someone who refuses to admit clear error on the most basic of things.

Just because your argument is idiotic, incorrect, poorly-informed, and guaranteed to make people miserable doesn't mean it's necessarily "wrong". It just means it's idiotic, poorly-informed, and guaranteed to make people miserable. My position that a fetus isn't a person is neither inferior nor superior to your position that a fetus is, it's just not retarded and guaranteed to make people suffer.

Oh, sweet Jesus. Yes, if someone's opinion is idiotic, it's wrong.

Of course, your opinion meets your own criteria, but you won't admit that.

Yeah exactly, for somebody who believes that rights are inalienable and given by God, you don't seem to have a problem admitting that they've only actually existed for .0001 percent of human history. Your God sucks at protecting people's rights. If you had any intellectual rigor, you should actually be claiming that rights don't exist period.

....

Fuck, you really are an imbecile aren't you.

It really takes a conceited little twat to reiterate what someone has REPEATEDLY said, (and discredited when they didn't like it) to prove them wrong.

I'm going to try this once more, very slowly, cause you're a retard. Small sentences when I can.

People suck. They often hurt each other. Slavery, genocide, rape, murder. People will do these left to their own devices. If society defines what is right, then these are all right. As long as society is ok with them. So, you have only what society wants to give you. If society decides your daughter is cute and want her, they can have her. If they decide your house rocks, they can take it.

And you have no position to argue otherwise.

As I've said before, crap happens. And without an objective sense of morality, you have no frame to argue morality. You're done.

At 12/2/10 10:19 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Hes gonna be blamed for doing nothing by the end of his term, believe me.

he was already blamed for not being responsive enough for BP's oil spill, and now that the republicans can repel any law he wants to pass, its gonna be pretty hard for him to respond to any problems. guess who they are gonna blame for that?

Well, I could point out that a Republican Congress was so effective they got Clinton re-elected.

Regardless.

No one will blame him as a do-nothing. His stimulus package was extremely destructive. His insane health care plan was destructive. His "gender equaliy" laws have cost jobs. His crap enforcement of polling laws was awful. Etc.

He is hardly a do-nothing President. And he'll be remembered as a halfwit boy prince who tried to play President.

"XYZ makes people violent." Because violence never existed before XYZ.

"You religious nuts...." Because if someone is religious, that automatically invalidates anything they said. Same for "You Democrats" or "You Republicans". Don't address the argument. Just the person.

"I disagree." Who cares. Back it up. Give some reasoning, stats, whatever. Try to argue. This isn't grade school. "You're wrong" isn't a valid argument.

"Fox News has a right wing slant."

At 12/1/10 09:56 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: This will allow them to blame Obama for doing nothing because we all know how willing to co-operate Republicans are, If the Democrats write "we change nothing" on a piece of paper and attempt to pass it, you can garentee those Republicans will be all over it until the last drop of blood.

Except that people voted against the Democrats because they didn't like what Obama was doing and voted to make him stop doing it. Not to blame him for doing nothing.

But whatever...

At 12/1/10 02:40 PM, The-universe wrote: That's impossible.

He needs to be competent on something first. Or honest, or even smart.

But he's just another half witt who'll bullshit his way into annoying people until they go away and he claims a win.

Nice! The second of the three stooges has come about!

Never claimed a win. Just that I'm smarter than you. Which, really, is like saying I'm smarter than a child. Not really much of a boost to the self esteem.

At 12/1/10 02:07 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

Um, why? You've already admitted rights don't exist above.

I haven't said that once.

Um, actually yes you did. I really am lazy and hate to go back and look stuff up. But I hate being called a liar worse. So here's the quote:

You still don't know what rights are.

"Rights are whatever society give you."

Ok, maybe you do

So, um. Yea. You did just say that rights don't exist. Because society can just say you don't have them anymore.

Equally valid doesn't mean I can't prefer one over the other. I don't want to live in a society where the government can control what people do to their bodies because of what they believe God wants them to do, you do. Both those positions are equally valid, I just think that yours would lead to a miserable and awful society.

Preference is fine. But you STILL have no room to call me an extremist. Because if both of our views are equally valid, then neither one is wrong. And it's simply a matter of preference. Which is a bit like saying that I'm a Nazi because I like spaghetti and you like Ravioli.

Moreover, Chuckles, what world do you think we live in? The government already tells you tens of thousands of things you can and cannot do with your body. Even if your absurd view of me was correct, and it isn't, using God as a justification is no more insane than following Al Gore. Someone either has a massive disconnect with reality, a severe prejudice against anyone who believes in God, a ridiculously exaggerated self importance, or all of the above.

Reading comprehension isn't one of your strongpoints

Sure it is. You've even reiterated here that we both have valid points. Therefore, to you, we are both equally right, tho you prefer yourself. Whereas, I believe I am valid and you are not. In both worldviews, I am correct.

See how that works? The guy who cannot assert he is right over his opponent is, by his very admission. inferior.

Infanticide was practiced in nearly every society throughout antiquity. It's still considered moral in some societies even today.

So is slavery. And rape. And cannibalism.

I feel like I'm talking in circles. I've mentioned all this already. Long before you.

Does the fact that it is practiced make it right?

At 12/1/10 02:09 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Actually, I was commenting on how it seemed that you'd withdrawn from the debate and had stopped answering any questions unless they were related to the bible. Now granted, given the quality of your new responses, It probably would be better for you to stick to the one thing it seems you're not completely ignorant about.

Except, I haven't made a single post yet making the Bible even a central focus in my argument. Nor have I had a single post which DIDN'T discuss other factors. So, we come back to: "You're a moron for bringing up the Bible in shooting someone down who brought the Bible up to you." This is a fucking stupid argument. So if someone tries, and fails, in quoting scripture, and I correct them, I'm a bible thumper? Goodness that's moronic.

And for someone as stupid as you, I'd shy away from trying to tell people to "only talk about what they know", cause I'll still be speaking tomorrow, and you will not. Now screw off.

At 10/9/10 07:01 AM, The-universe wrote: The person you're replying to is talking about the validity and accuracy of Fox news, not it's political stance. But nonetheless, let's have some fun.

The political stance of Murdoch doesn't affect the news segment? I mean that WAS his argument.

During the time when he created Fox News he was a conservative (due to his public support of Margaret thatcher)and made Republican Roger Ailes the CEO. He's been switching parties for years. But either way it doesn't sound like the actions of a "left-winger" right?

Um, no he wasn't. He supported Al Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Clinton in 2008. He may have supported a conservative at one point...but if he did, I was in single digits of age, and the internet wasn't recording that at that point.

Also if you want to argue semantics, he doesn't own Fox news. Fox news is owned by Fox Entertainment group. F.E.G is owned by News Corporation, which is a conglomerate and has many owners.

Who directly owns and operates Fox News? Rupert Murdoch. As acknowledged by the FCC, and the US government. But hey, slight of hand is fun!

At 11/30/10 02:20 PM, The-General-Public wrote: It's telling that you can't respond to anything anyone here says that doesn't directly involve the bible.

I responded to a biblical claim with the Bible. Fuck you're a stupid tit aren't you?

"Bible thumpers always respond to biblical arguments with Biblical responses!"

Imbecile.

Oh sweet babies. For God's sake. If you're going to call me a liar, don't prove me right.

At 11/27/10 09:14 AM, The-universe wrote: No I didn't you fucking liar.

I said:
"Abortion is generally defined as the termination and/or removal of a fetus by an external party."

Do you not know the meaning of sentences? Let's rewrite your sentence above. "Abortion is generally defined as the termination of a fetus, the removal of a fetus, or both." That's what and/or means. One or both. So you DID indeed say that removal of a fetus is an abortion. I'm hoping you're just trying to be a disingenuous little prick, and are not serious in your lack of knowledge of basic English... But wait, the rest says you aren't.

Abortion n. premature expulsion of a foetus from the womb.

Ergo, the bitch had an abortion. Moses, the priest, and the couple would know what would happen if she drank the cursed water. So they had full knowledge of the outcome if she was pregnant.

Yawn. There's a problem with this.
Not all translations agree with this.
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?passage =Numbers+5%3A11-31
This translation tends towards "she's not pregnant".

Damn.

Just checked all the replies you've made to me. Not once have you made mention of any of your errors whatsoever.

I guess it's because I haven't made one with you.

"You just take shots and say "damn, you're stupid". "

YOU'RE A FUCKING HYPOCRITE. You moan that I call you stupid when you've been doing it to me since you made the second reply to me.

Except I'm not a hypocrite. I said that I don't call people morons for simply disagreeing with me, and being wrong. I do, however, mock self important schmucks who have no clue what they're talking about. If you'd like to recheck:
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1207 410/7

I respond rather nicely at first, despite you just asserting over and over that you're right. It's not until two pages in that I start mocking you. Yes, you accused me of using ad hominims. And I absolutely do. Once I write you off as stupid, I'll say you're stupid. But I never just say "You suck at life, please die." I'll mock you, but then I back up WHY I'm mocking you. Such as "Abortion would include birth under your definition." Or "Making someone infertile is not the same as having an abortion." Or even "The Bible is the first book that says..." But we get the idea.

However, you gave such ridiculous responses as "Since you can't give birth to a two month old baby, my definition applies!" So since a two month old can't be born, your definition of an abortion as any fetus removed from the womb is correct? What kind of retardery is that? It's like saying "Since Ford doesn't make Chevys, my monetary policy is correct!" It simply doesn't follow. No one claimed that a two month old could be born. However, as shown above (by you), you did say that every removal of a fetus from a womb was an abortion. Taking something no one disagrees on and claiming it makes you right on a wider point is insane. Moreover, on claiming that the Bible was the first book to say slaves and women had rights, you idiotically claimed "Except for Numbers, Leviticus, etc". This is moronic claptrap. Because the Bible didn't define female rights like we do today, they didn't mention rights? Find an earlier book that claims that slaves had the right to be freed after seven years. Find a book that claims that rapists have a right to make their victims whole. Again, nowhere did I claim that the Bible made men and women, slave and free equal. Only that it mentioned the idea of basic human rights. This is indisputable.

But you don't seek to argue in fact. When the case is against you, you argue some inane little point that noone made, and call yourself brilliant! When the scripture doesn't say what you claim, you simply assert again that it does. And you wonder why I call you stupid? Piss off you little moron.