Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/7/09 12:18 PM, DannyIsOnFire wrote: I never really liked either of them, aside from there awsome theme song, biscuits and gravy :)
Apparently one of them has a relative in the writting team though so that might play to there advantage.

What it is actually is Jesse is the son of Terry Gordy. Gordy was Michael Hayes's tag partner in The Fabulous Freebirds, and Hayes is the head writer on SD!. But in the end if Vince wants the guy gone, he'll be gone, I think it's too early to say whether or not he'll be released yet, we've basically only had "week 1" of our new post-draft rosters.

Also Jericho/Morrison has been announced for tonights edition of Superstars. I don't normally watch ECW or Superstars unless something catches my eye. This certainly did, should be an excellent match.

If they're given time absolutely.

I hear Jersey could be introducing the legislation soon too, but religious groups are already looking to have a vote on a Constitutional Amendment (that'd be at the state level kiddies) to block it. Good luck with that one guys.

Also More, I completely agree with you. The church should always have the right as a private organization to decide what they are and aren't comfortable with. Gays should have the legal benefit of marriage, but if a church says no, too bad, they need to live with it. You don't always get everything you WANT, but you should get what you're ENTITLED to.

Oh, I forgot to add that Rome condoned if not encouraged homosexual behavior. Despite being a Christian society.

At 5/7/09 08:21 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: It is a very simple matter.

It always is for your kind isn't it.

1) The Bible is the Word of God

No, the Bible is a collection of works that were written by men, purported to have been told to them by God in most if not all cases. When Rome converted Christianity the Emeperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea to VOTE and EDIT together a Roman acceptable version of the Bible. Many biblical texts were then thrown out as "Heretical" and the book as we know it (though there have been some variations since) came to be. So um yeah, always had a problem with it being the word of God since a group of men sat down and made decisions about what the word of God is. Until God himself comes down and declares to us all that he backs the Christian Bible 100% as his last word on how things should go, I say it's open to debate.

2) The Bible speaks frequently and openly about homosexuality being a sin just like any other.

Passages please? Also I'd like to make another couple of points on this:

1. The Old Testament at the least (the oldest bit) was written in part as a societal code for a people that had been largely nomadic and needed rules and law, but lacked stable government to enforce it. So that's where you get things like The Ten Commandments and what not from. It's to tell the Jewish tribe how to properly behave.

2. While on that thread, the Jewish tribe is not just nomadic at this point, and working towards settling, they're small yeah? Not the going concern population wise that say America is today, so you'd need people pairing off and reproducing right? Can't do that if the gays are allowed to give in to their urges. So from that perspective a prohibition on homosexuality makes sense, it's a prohibition that is pretty freakin irrelevant now.

3) Unlike liars, cheaters, etc... homosexuals refuse to accept that their acts are sins

I've known plenty of liars and cheaters that don't accept their actions as wrong and justified them away. Hey, some of them were even subscribers to your book club that I've known in fact!!!

This argument also fails because you're prescribing that your personal belief system is actually indicative of a higher truth, you cannot prove this to be so.

4) To be saved we must accept the selfless sacrifice of Christ and repent of our sins lest we burn in Hell.

Yeah, I always had a problem with that one myself. God loves you, but listen, if you piss him off even in a small way, you're done. But once again, you fail because you're arguing that your personal belief is indicative of a higher truth and you cannot prove this.

5) Any other "gods" are false and designed by Satan for the sole purpose of luring people away from the beautiful simplicity of Christ.

So while everything you've said are flawed, 3, 4, and 5 were a pretty big waste of my time replying to because they can all be summed up as "you are saying your personal belief structure is indicative of a higher truth, and you cannot prove this to be accurate"

At 5/7/09 10:27 AM, zendahl wrote: Yes I'm aware that it affects more than just tax law, but it still makes no difference to me wether they marry or not. None of those other things affect other people any more than the tax changes do.

That's how I tend to feel, nobody has ever shown me anything but a "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage. As you say, there are gay people already living as though they are, in suburbs like any normal family, some even adopt children and raise them. There is no secret gay agenda to turn everybody gay or undermine anything. It's all just prejudice, simply that and nothing more.

Hey, they used to say in the South before the Civil War that God said in The Bible all blacks should be slaves too...I betcha if I asked the religious arguers about that one they'd tell me that's a horrible use of their holy text to discriminate and take away the rights of a group of people. I agree it is...but you're doing the same sort of thing to gays :)

Oh this is so funny! I love how the slippery slope fallacy has not only NOT become a fallacy for some people, but they think it's an acceptable argument.

"If we let the gays marry, then all bets are off!!! Polygamists, necropheliacs, anything goes!!"

Yeah no, it doesn't work like that, here's why: BECAUSE THERE'S STILL LAWS TO PUNISH THAT STUFF!!! You yourself have pointed that out. By this logic polygamists should probably be claiming right now that because straight couples can get married why can't they? Oh right, that wouldn't work because you can always fall back on the "marriage is defined by a contract between two people" oh hey! There you go! That's how we can make gay marriage work while slamming the door on the arguments you all seem to think will be renewed by true deviants and undesirables.

This logic equals fail, and this thread will be monitored since right now it seems right on the borderland of acceptability to me.

Yeah...this is really not a good idea for a thread since it sure as shit looks like the topic starter is asking for a fight. Please re-read the rules about trolling and such.

It has been awhile since we got a WW3 theory hasn't it?

Come on, some of can think of other stuff besides implausible global annihilation can't you? Pretty please?

At 5/5/09 09:45 PM, fatape wrote: there are atheists who simply don't belive in god but don't deny he exsit's, but still know the concept of god ,

Really? I've never heard of those. I'm not trying to be snipey or argumentative, just that my understanding of atheism was always you believe there is no god, no christian god, no pantheon of gods, nothing. This almost sounds like kind of an agnostic situation here.

and there are atheists who say there is no god.

Which is the standard definition, atheist=someone who believes there to be no god or theistic deity.

At 5/5/09 08:49 PM, yinyangman wrote: If there were an Adam & Evan or an Adriana & Eve, I'd support gay marriage FTW.

I love how people make these statements like they're facts when there is a mountain of evidence that says that the world didn't start with only two people. So how about we base our ideas on actual fact and stop hiding behind a story in a book that an omnipotent being (who I think should have other things to worry and think about) is supposed to have related to a man on a mountain all by himself. This kind of religious argument is just prejudice masqeurading as unimpeachable logic.

At 5/5/09 07:06 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Unless ofcourse if the president were drunk ne accidently ran into a nuclear powerplant, that might beat the flu lol.

Well yeah, but the president isn't allowed to drive.

Seven, drunk driving just isn't as "sexy" as killer flus. I mean, think about it, would people still talk about The Stand if it was a massive drunk driving epidemic that destroyed the human population? Hell no!!!

Sickness sells, murder sells, but things like drunk driving? No, that's only for the local news, you need viruses and shit to sell real panic dammit!!

At 5/5/09 05:59 PM, poxpower wrote: Trolling = trying to get a rise out of someone.
I'm not trolling.

Doesn't seem like it to me, seems very much like you're enjoying contiously going into any religion topic there is and proclaiming people's beliefs to be bullshit and how stupid they are. Sounds like what we tend to consider trolling and flameing and baiting to me.

You know what? I think some people should have a better grasp of these terms before they start citing them as reasons for bans.

Woooooops.

And I think some mods should set better examples for the forum then to constantly run around picking fights and calling everybody who disagrees with them stupid or full of shit.

If you want to start questioning each other's mod abilities, feel free to PM me or let's take it somewhere else that's out of the public view like we're supposed to do.

At 5/5/09 05:09 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Still their loss, I am now "the computer guy" for a company. The place has a relaxed atmosphere etc, so its all cool. But if I ever had a conflict of interest, I would stick by my believes. And the Wal-mart example you describe is something I don't think is right. The workers should have control of their work environment, folks have fought for the rights we enjoy now. Why simply give them up?

Because for some people, that's the best job they can get. From the two job history you just gave me, you're obviously an individual who has skills in at least two trades, most wal-mart employees or employees in similar places don't, that's part of why they're in that position to begin with. We can go round and round about what they can and can't do to improve their situation, but facts are facts, I agree some people should be more open to standing up for themselves like I am. But when the system is conditioned to where that either doesn't work or is discouraged, you're living paycheck to paycheck and you just can't afford not to be working, it's very easy for people to just shut up and vent their frustrations elsewhere.

At 5/5/09 04:42 PM, poxpower wrote: No, I have actual arguments in other posts, none of which you ever challenged.

Because when you actually argue, you make some pretty good ones. But you're need for ad hominem, for calling people names and basically trolling is offensive and I wish you'd stop.

What?

Nevermind, I'm not getting into that sort of thing in public, forget I brought that up.

At 5/5/09 04:10 PM, TheMason wrote: Here's the other thing. Why is it so many people think that you need 'education' to own/fire a gun? Now my assumption is you're talking about formal education. A government-approved class.

Overkill. (Pardon the pun.)

It only takes about 15 minutes to tell a gun owner everything they need to know about the basics of firearms safety. Hunting safety takes experience. And specific gun training takes like five minutes. These are actually very simple principles and very simple tools.

Sure, they are simple. They're also freaking deadly. So yes, I would like a class or training to be required, so that if someone is too dumb to handle a deadly weapon (and some people are) they don't get to do so.

As I've acknowledged, I have not seen him specifically push this. However, I have pointed to several indications that this policy is a definitive possibility. Yes, it may be jumping the gun (pardon the pun...again)...but it is not the tin-foil hat, paranoid delusions of someone like Shaggy or PurePress.

Did I say it was sir? No I have not. This is what is frustrating my. I'm not saying it CAN'T happen, I know it can. I'm not saying there's NO REASON to believe it could happen, there's at least evidence that conditions exist to say it COULD happen. What I'm saying is I hate the moronic slippery slope that people have gone down considering these factors to say it WILL happen and they'd best get all stocked up now and run around telling all their friends and you spark this kind of nonsense thinking and rallying cry that the government WILL and IS going to do something that they have not said they're going to do, which is tax bullets and take guns. Like I said, you're being responsible and logical in your points, people who are running around saying "GET THE GUNS, OBAMA GONNA TAKE 'EM!!! BUY SHIT LOADS OF BULLETS, OBAMA GONNA TAX 'EM!!!" are the kind of alarmist annoying people that make gun owners look bad, americans look bad, and the human species look bad. I'm railing against those people, I want them to shut up. I am not however saying that one day these things COULD happen, but I don't personally feel they're likely because of the military thing that was pointed out, and because state governments and such are already making good money licensing people to hunt and trap, and at least in New Jersey they continue to make that more and more expensive. Why would you want to potentially kill an existing revenue stream by saying "I think we can get a little more out of them?" especially in a bad economic situation where people have to be more careful about what they're spending their cash on. I just can't see the federal government thinking it'd be a good idea to burden hunters and gun owners a little more financially and potentially hitting that point where most or all of them go "screw this, this hobby is just too expensive now to pursue". That's my opinion though, I could absolutely be wrong and giving them too much credit.

Hope that clarified it for you.

That I agree with...it makes it hard for a guy like me to stockpile ammo. I tend to take several of my classmates to the range and spend several hours there. It is nothing for me to burn through several hundred rounds in an afternoon of shooting. Plus on sites such as www.cheaperthandirt.com I could buy in bulk and save money.

But no...cheaper has upped their prices and sold out. Damn rumor mongers!

So see? Now we have a situation where the rumor mongers are great for the guns and ammo suppliers, and anybody else who profits off this fear, but now they're hurting their own fraternity for lack of a better term. So again, you and I are pretty much on the same side here I think, we want the stupid rumors to stop, though you have a more pragmatic and practical reason then I myself do.

At 5/5/09 04:01 AM, poxpower wrote: What's that supposed to mean?

I was just trying to justify qouting that text, my whole argument is basically that as stupid as you think religion is, and how they're logic and arguments are at the level of elementary school kids, so are yours.

Wow, nice argument. Is that how you plan on breaking it to NASA that there's actually life on the moon?

Case in point, is all you have here just personal attacks and insults? Is that all?

Wow, I'm mean. Boo hoo, get over it.

If you weren't a mod dude...seriously, why are you even participating in this thread if all you've really got to "raise conciousness" and free people from the "evil" of religion is to just call everyone you don't agree with morons until they submit?

At 5/5/09 04:02 AM, Tancrisism wrote: I hope that you weren't referring to me there. I simply wanted at least one person to respond to some of my arguments so I can refine them, or perhaps discard the faulty ones. I was getting seriously frustrated, though, as I have spent a lot of time researching the topic, and I spent a lot of time writing in that thread, but I only got one person to respond to anything I wrote in 5 pages of stuff, and that was when I disagreed about something small.

No, I think you're one of the better posters on this board and a big reason I locked that topic was because looking through it I'm seeing you putting out lots of effort and people are ignoring it because like I said, with topics like pot it's very difficult to see real debate on it because most of the people attracted to such debate are pot users that just want to spew out their "why pot is great" and considering the age group it's probably people just parroting what they read off sites like weed.com. They're not interested in a discussion or a debate, their interested in just saying with a mass of others how they should be allowed to smoke up if they want and this is the most logical thing in the world so why defend it? It's also a topic done to death. So yeah, you're post was the tipping point, but only from the "goddamn, if we've got a reg like Tan, a reg that represents to me the good on this board getting pissed and ignored, this pit is done"

It seems like the attention spans of many posters have decreased... I used to be able to spend a lot of time writing an idea and get really interesting responses to it.

Yeah, I think part of the problem is because a lot of new posters don't have the proper role models anymore for how they should conduct themselves here. They think it's an anything goes free for all, or that it's general with political talk. Some of this misunderstanding though I believe is because there are people here who DO post a lot and who ARE basically "regulars" but are using bad habits and are encouraging bad habits either because they don't see anything wrong with it, or because it amuses them to do so. I like to think I'm a nice guy and I try to be protective without restricting the freedom of ideas and all that happy crap, but damn, enough is enough sometimes. That kind of thing has to stop. Can't rise above ad hominem, false evidence, and name calling? You really aren't welcome here. That's how this section was when I arrived and I'd like to see it that way again.

At 5/5/09 01:55 PM, Jon-86 wrote: If I had any problems in work I would just tell them, what ever happened to the days when workers went on strikes to improve their working condition? Instead of just suffering it and then moaning about it online?

To strike, you must have, or be in a union. Many companies are violently anti-union (Wal-Mart for a prime example), and therefore the employees are on their own when it comes to ability to improve conditions. Which of course brings up the other point about it's all about how your managers and company operate. I have managers who seem not to give a rats ass when I have a problem at my job and have only found one so far that has ever even made a real attempt at redressing my grievances. The culture is they don't care cause they don't have to, and the company has policies to reinforce the fundamental problems we're all dealing with. Sometimes you have very few options to remedy the problem and quitting is an even worse option. So what's wrong with frustrated people venting to each other?

Are you in the work force at all man? Because this post makes you sound like you either aren't, or you must have a really great job that you never have any problems at to not understand simple concepts of how jobs can be.

At 5/5/09 08:46 AM, TheMason wrote: The people who make this argument state it as if it is beyond belief that an assault rifle may be a legitimate firearm for hunting small/medium sized game such as deer. The result of this presupposition is that they, like you just did, do not support their own base assumption. So I ask you View; in your obviously expert view: why would using an AK-47 be an illegitimate hunting rifle?

I'm just saying why do you need it? I know it can be used and all, any gun works if you want to shoot at something, I'm just saying why is it necessary? I guess for me it goes back to I don't like the idea of potentially more powerful and dangerous guns in the hands of crazy people, probably not the best logic in the world, but honesty is honesty.

Now to clarify, I am talking about an AK-47 'clone' that is legal for any citizen who can pass the background check to buy. This firearm differs from the military version is that they are semi-auto only...they are not "spray & pray".

Well, as I said, I'm cool with anything that people can legally own, with a thorough background check and proper licensing and education. If we don't have these things to keep people safe and what not, what's the point of government?

First of all, when speaking on matters of policy it does not always have to come from the president himself. Others often speak on their behalf, such was the case on 26 February 2009 when Attorney General Eric Holder said:
"Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."
LINKY

Ok, so you're saying he wants to ban assault weapons again, WE KNEW THAT!!! I'm not arguing he never said that. What I want is I want links and justification for the crazy shit I hear of "HE'S GONNA TAKE ALL OUR GUNS!!!" and "HE'S GONNA TAX OUR BULLETS!!!" Assault weapons ban we know. I'm not debating that was said, I know that was said and it's on the block (and I tend to expect Democrats to do that since they do tend to be more stringent with gun control). But I want somebody to give me a legit source on bullet taxation, or ALL guns being confiscated by the government or I want these people to shut the fuck up. Because that is paranoid idiocy that so far has no basis in reality. That was the point I was saying show me evidence for.

So I do not think these concerns are far-fetched.

Maybe not, but they are being portrayed as FACT not "well, maybe it'll happen, let's get to responsibly protesting and lobbying against this" there's a lot of ignorant people who fit the redneck stereotype acting like the residents of South Park going "he's gonna take our guns and tax our bullets!!!!" There's a large difference between someone like you that can say "I know this isn't happening, and I'm concerned this could happen in the future" vs. the idiots who think this is an imminent reality with no hard evidence or even circumstantial evidence to back it up.

At 5/5/09 04:07 AM, poxpower wrote: Here's how I see it: if people should be allowed to take drugs, they should be allowed to own guns.

Agreed.

There. Ironically, the people who are pro-guns are anti-drug and the people who are pro-drugs are anti-gun.

Not actually true. I'm for a much less regulated drug control policy (if for no other reason then it doesn't make sense to me to waste so much money picking and choosing what people can and can't do to kill themselves, and hey, we can make money off the stupidity) and I'm fine with people owning guns in a responsible manner and what not. So really, you're once again being too simplistic on the issue at hand.

At 5/5/09 12:26 AM, Outlaw88 wrote: I missed most ofRaw but I just got finished reading the results. So it looks like Shane will be out of the picture for a while. That is a fine way of getting him out of the storyline so the actual wrestlers will get the attention.

Agreed, it's well past time to get the Mc's out of this thing again and go back to focusing on the boys.

I'm also guessing that Regal will be gunning for the U.S. Title. Not a bad fued there since both he and MVP are great workers.

They are, but this is CM Punk all over again. MVP is now going from being a peripheral guy in the top storyline to being in a meaningless feud with William Regal for a secondary belt. Just like Punk went from World Champ last year to being in a pretty meaningless feud with Regal for a secondary belt!!! WWE has got to stop elevating guys, then knocking them down, then elevating, then knocking down. This does not help people be seen as stars.

Well my work schedual changed so that I'll be working Tuesday nights. Guess I won't be seeing ECW for a long time now. I'll have to make an effort to keep up with it and watch some of the results at the web site.

You don't have a working VCR? Cause I mean, if you get the channel, why not just tape the show? Or is this one of those "well, it's good if I'm HOME..but if not? Eh..."

At 5/5/09 01:59 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: that would be true IF said agreement did not itself violate the constitution. Those disclosure agreements are wielded through litigation only in the context of malice or gross negligence resulting in measurable "loss." This was a grasp at incriminating the plaintiff on the grounds that she signed a document and could be found to have violated it. BUT if violating that very agreement was an exercise of her unalienable rights as an american, the agreement would be irrelevant.

Hmmm, I see it, but to me the big thing for them to try and hang their hat on here is to say they leaked proprietary info. That's the only thing they could really do to even come close to trying to justify what they did.

i agree that a timeline and intent or context of the "proprietary information" is required... and given the nature of the lawsuit i cannot see that the company would be given the right to supersede the intended nature of a password protected forum. That should, in the eyes of the law, equate to a hacker employer stealing information on (the) employees.

I would like to believe so as well, but timelines are going to be crucial here, as well as proving that such information was indeed leaked. Because as much as rights to privacy should absolutely be protected, the company also should have it's rights to have it's information kept confidential as well here. This really is going to be a difficult and potentially long case for both parties.

voluntary or not, contracts that infringe on the scope of personal rights are never held as binding. i think in their intent of the disclosure agreement, the writers never intended the contract to be held in such a loosely interpreted light, as a court will inevitably examine. the employee had not intended to benefit from this disclosure, simply contextualized as a forum for conversation and "airing of grievances" pertaining to a small, private, password protected, group of employees.

If that's all that happened, then yeah, I'd say the company is well and truly screwed here, and well they should be. It all comes back I guess to how much was actually getting out to the public I guess.

At 5/5/09 01:41 AM, SolInvictus wrote: you were in the right, i just hate the fact that no one can have a decent discussion around here. plus its fun to talk about pot. speaking of which; i haven't been high in a while. pot, pot, pot. and theres a suspicious looking plant growing next to my house.

Could it be....mmmm....POT?!!!

But yeah, that's what I want to see too, people have a decent conversation, and talk about some stuff other then the same handful of topics.

but ya, keep up the anti-troll patrol.

will do.

At 5/5/09 01:05 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: BUTTTTT i may be beating a silent drum here but hunting in an economic "depression" is not that big of a stretch. given the circumstances of the average joe's finances maybe it behooves people to go get free meat.

I'm not arguing against owning guns man. Nobody in this thread has taken that stance so far. My question is, was, and always has been "why would you need an assault rifle to hunt?" what is the point of that really? My uncle hunts with a shotgun and does just fine. I sign up lots of hunters to licenses and they use shot guns or bow and arrow and seem to be doing ok. Why do we need assault weapons other then the reason of "cause I wanna!"? I'm fine and dandy with people owning guns, so long as they're legal weapons that they've been educated on the proper use of and have a proper license for.

feel free to say thats bullshit but im still not convinced its just obaman being a dem. thats going to tax their bullets and try to snag their guns away... which is, remember, very unconstitutional... and very unamerican to boot.

SHOW ME WHERE HE'S SAID THAT!! Please, show me where he outright said he's going to do that, or show me where it's in a currently considered piece of legislation, because this all sounds like a massive game of telephone to me.

At 5/5/09 12:35 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No, this doesn't work. If you sign an agreement that says you don't get to disparage the company, or disclose it's private information to the public, you cannot use the first amendment to defend violating said agreement.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This they might have a case on, since even if they did disclose proprietary information, the question that would then be before the court is when and how did the company become aware of that and was it BEFORE they got hold of those passwords and looked into these postings? If not, then I think the 4th Amendment may be in play here and that may be the end of it, if the court rules the other way, it could set a quite scary precedent.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

lib·er·ty (l%u012Db'%u0259r-t%u0113)
1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.

# Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
# A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Ok, now I get where you're going, at first I was like "the hell?" but yeah, the 4th and the 6th may have some bearing here, but the first absolutely does not because the contract they signed as a term of employment which they did VOLUNTARILY enter into takes the 1st Amendment totally out of the equation.

At 5/4/09 09:48 PM, SolInvictus wrote: well i hope he sees it eventually, its pretty funny.

Indeed it is.

i had a look around and oddly enough (well all right, it isn't that odd) most of the weed threads are in general. i guess all the threads i remember passed beyond the nether regions of the politics forum.

Probably because it always boils down to the same arguments for or against every time, and mostly these threads seem to me to be a lot like the communism and other threads springing up recently. It's teenagers or college age kids thinking they're intelligent by arguing a "controversial point" without having all the facts and figuring the forum is full of like minded individuals who will agree with them and agree they're geniuses.

At 5/4/09 09:38 PM, SolInvictus wrote: not to second guess the closing of the legalize weed thread, but everyone is aware that no one is going to bother with the search bar and we'll be stuck with another three within the week?

Then those get deleted or locked. What's so hard to understand about that? It's called mods doing what they're supposed to and locking and deleting the shit. People have been getting too comfortable trolling and being prejudice lately too, so they're getting drop kicked out too. I'm not liking how standards have slipped in this forum, and I have to admit, part of that problem lies with me as I'm charged with doing what's right by this board.

So yeah, I see more pot legalizing, abortion, other repeat threads? Gone.

I see more racist, prejudice, hateful statements? Ban.

I see evidence of trolling or flame baiting? Stopped.

That's what mods are supposed to do and that's what I ought to be doing next time before I make posts about how I don't like the way the forums are going. If you don't like these things either, then make sure to help me out and report this kind of crap. It's not tattling, it's keeping the forum clean and not letting it deteriorate and fall to the nastier elements.

At 5/5/09 12:29 AM, Stoicish wrote: No, no, this was a different story. However, I can't find it. If I can then I'd link it, but at best you all can ignore it if you don't believe it's true.

No proof means you pretty much can't use this as it endangers you're entire argument that you're willing to use a "take my word for it" story as "fact" and "proof of point". I do agree with you up until that bit though, the whole way this anti-obama on guns sentiment has been presented sounds like what has sadly become prototypical conservative overreaction to anything the other side does.

It was all fine and dandy to pee on the Liberals and yell that anything we said negatively about the policies of you guys when you were in charge was crazy overreaction (and sure, in some cases it was, but most of it has come out fairly dead on I think) but now a president merely says "I'd like to make it harder, or impossible for people to get their hands on deadly weapons they don't really need" and it's "he's taking away our guns and our freedom!". Sad and ridiculous. But hey, for gun shops it's great, and for groups like the NRA it's great that people have this mindset all by themselves. Hey, even better for them if they can help FOSTER it cause guess what happens then? Yep, that's right: They get more gun sales and more members because people are so afraid their rights will be "trampled" and they "need to stand together to show those jokers in Washington who's boss!" Sad when people allow themselves to allow their ignorance to rule their lives. Worse when they allow themselves to be manipulated by those who would take advantage of it.

At 5/5/09 12:02 AM, poxpower wrote: lol
Religion has never done anything against me and I have never done anything against a religious person other than call them morons on the internet.

Uh huh.

The truth is that I do this because I'M RIGHT ALL THE TIME because it's so damn easy to be right about the issue of religion. There's NO DEBATE TO BE MADE. Religion IS BULLSHIT. 100% sure.

Because you say so. Interesting.

So I always win :D
It's awesome.

It must be to live in that kind of world with that kind of surety.

Also I'm waiting for the day a religious person really stumps me with some brilliant remark. But after having watched countless hours of debates featuring eminent religious minds ( the 4th graders of the intellectual world ) I can say that day will not come any time soon :D

So religious people are 4th graders in mentality...says the guy who just got done claiming he's always right and calling everybody on that side morons...which is obviously such higher use of one's logical and intellectual faculties that no one could ever compare it with juvenile or elementary school level thinking. I think I understand this perfectly.

It's mostly entertainment and consciousness-raising. People need to stop pretending like everything is an opinion of equal value and they need to be able to defend what they believe in.

I agree, you should be able to defend what you believe in too...without resorting to name calling and the kind of tactics you're accusing your opponents of. You're not "raising conciousness" you're just pissing in the faces of people you think are inferior to you and laughing when they understandably get angry about it. You're cloaking what you're doing in righteousness, but it looks like just good old flame baiting and trolling from where I sit.