Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Or maybe it's because they believe in something, torq?

It's not a matter of whether we "need" religion, because we don't really "need" anything except basic nutrition and oxygen. People hold certain beliefs and thus religion exists.

At 6/6/03 07:41 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: I find it funny when people really think an alternative to their religion is still being faithful to their God.

Only if that alternative is belief in another God. I believe in Christ and therefore consider myself a Christian, but I also carry some Deist beliefs. Does that mean I am "breaking the rules" of Christianity? No, I still believe in it, I just have a different way of looking at it.

At 6/6/03 08:10 AM, Slizor wrote: It's nice to see that you discount any information that disagrees with you as propaganda.

Not because he disagrees, but because he slants his works to present only a select side of an issue, (his side). They're not documentaries, they're editorials on film. He asks leading questions to the "right" (read: left) sort of people. Even the New York Times says he uses "slippery logic, tendentious grandstanding and outright demagoguery." And that's from a left-wing paper! His style is lazy, his reasoning that he presents and his methods are slipshod and clearly slanted. His movie doesn't even really answer the question of violence in America, it's just another "Let's Hate America" piece.

At 6/5/03 08:39 PM, nathan1313us wrote: But thanks to american propaganda you never hear about that.

Or, thanks to French smokescreening.

At 6/5/03 08:29 PM, nailbomb wrote: Don't spread lies about people you don't know and I'll do the same. deal? :)

Let me tell you something. I state opinions on topics and back them up. This is not the same as telling everyone that I called you "hippie". What you're trying to tell me is that I shouldn't say anything because all that say is a "lie". I'm telling you, that you have your opinions and I have mine. We can both state them and refute each other's, but don't say that I can't hold and state my own opinion because you don't like it.

At 6/5/03 07:54 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: I didn't see it or I would have removed it. Someone should email me about these things.

He's yelling about a pic I posted in DAG Messages. He completely misinterpreted it, however.

At 6/5/03 07:35 PM, TheShrike wrote: *looks at the forum*

You guys won't stop until every DAG member is banned, will you?

*crickets chirp*

How did "we" get them banned? They did it to themselves.

He would make a good minister of propaganda. Herr Dr. Michael "Goebbels" Moore.

I posted this seperately because there was nowhere else that really pertained to it and I didn't want to steer another thread off topic. I wanted to clarify this because I know cannibal and nitroxide will try and use it as propaganda just like this "hippie" thing. I certainly wasn't going to post in DAG Messages because the DAG filled it so full of their own garbage that Freak had to close it.

Anyway, feel free to use this as a thread for attacking and slandering me. I know you people get a real kick out of that.

Here's a fact for you:

I NEVER called you a "hippie".

You did however pretend that I did and have distributed that lie so much that people seem to believe it. The fact that you complain about someone calling you a name is highly ironic since you love to slap labels on people as a matter of course.

You might get more respect if you didn't spend your time lying, spreading propaganda and being a hypocrite.

Here's a suggestion:

Cannibal and nitroxide, you should understand something about that pic I posted before you continue to complain about it.

I was being sarcastic!

Cannibal had made some statement and was sort of jumped upon by several people that disagreed. He then stated that he had been beaten up on. I posted the pic and said "Yep". That was confirming a fact, not implying that the PC was against him.

You two seem to take everything as some sort of challenge or insult by the PC. Calm down.

They should have grilled and eaten the ostriches while forcing the eggs to watch.

At 6/5/03 05:26 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: I kind of like the idea of an old man sitting on a throne somewhere with infinite wisdom and infinite power. Either that or a 5-year old, as he would act only on what he thought was right.

Would you prefer God to be an old man, or a young child? Just a question.

Well, it doesn't really matter, but if I had to choose I'd probably a massive mainframe that filled infinite rooms and rambled on and on into infinite complexity and length. An AI sort of God.

At 6/4/03 11:37 PM, Lyddiechu wrote:
AHHH AHHHH!!! THE ETERNAL RECURRENCE!!!! ITS COME BACK TO HAUNT ME!!!! I took an existentialism class thru johns hopkins university 2 summers ago.. it was incredible but i gotta say nietzsche was not my favorite author. that would have to be kierkegaard.. that crazy danish (or was it swedish?) bastard.

Never been much on philosophy myself. Searching for the meaning of life? Sure, they can knock themselves out. But, when they try to explain the universe, existence and the nature of reality, they're stepping into bounds of the physicists.

At 6/4/03 08:38 PM, Kenney333 wrote: as for now ill stick with my nihilism thank you

You know that Nietzsche's philosophy of nihilism was proven to be fundamentally flawed, right? He based it on the physics concept of eternal return, which has since been proven false.

At 6/4/03 10:50 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: There's nothing in the Bible that says that Mary and Joseph never had sex. They must have, at some point, kids or no kids. Sex is the most beautiful and sacred act a couple can share, and they would have been "bad Jews" if they didn't have sex.

I'm pretty sure they did, as Jesus had a younger brother born after him, St. James, who became one of his apostles.

Very true. Since God is the underlying driving force of the universe, (if not the universe itself), then science, (especially theoretical physics), is a holy pursuit as it aims to learn and understand his methods.

Let's not get into side arguments on parties.

This decision is not a good one, though. The media conglomerates are nearing monopoly status in many areas.

Fantom, here's a suggestion, since you feel a need to steer everything over to something about America and/or Bush, why don't you just make another thread so we can discuss THE ACTUAL TOPIC here.

W00t! Vote negative fifen!

At 6/2/03 09:39 PM, fantom326 wrote: i was referring to the blind faith the political party system manifests. many people simply vote a political candidate because he represents a certain party, without actually being aware of what they stand for. case in point, read this

Personally, as to whether Bush is doing a good job or not, I don't have a real strong opinion right now. But, I dont', as that article's author seems to, judge someone mainly on their public speaking ability.

At 6/2/03 10:25 PM, OpIvy420 wrote: 2003, America. The leader is not a dictator, but a president. George W. Bush and the Republican Party killed as many as 7,000 civilians in a war*.

Statistics?

The Republican Party represents less than half of the people of America, but nearly the whole country seemed to go along with his plan.

The country is nearly evenly split between Democrat and Republican. The last election certainly showed this.

Why didn’t anyone protest this war?

You mean that you missed all the protests? Where have you been?

At 6/2/03 04:50 PM, fantom326 wrote: id like to know your reasoning for this.

"War is for Retards and If You Don't Agree, So Are You" and other such statements.

... *sigh* if you didnt it the first time, i wont bother elaborating, as its somewhat abtract.

You're trying to to accuse me of just toeing the "party line". Of what party, I don't know, though I think that you assume I'm Republican.

The truth is, I don't subscribe to any one party. I love my country and have nationalistic feelings, but I also think our current government is very flawed in terms of structure and purpose. I defend its actions during the Cold War and Iraq because I believe they were necessary to our security.

In terms of parties, I lean somewhere between the Republicans and Libertarians.

At 6/2/03 12:06 PM, nailbomb wrote: My point is that only a handful of inventions were originaly used in warfare, or were based on inventions used in warfare.

Internet: based off of DARPANET, a Cold War military project to provide a decentralized information distribution system that could survive a nuclear attack.

Calculator: based on computer technology which was greatly advanced and developed in WWII

War is not the only source of invention, but it and the military itself are excellent catalysts of scientific and technological development.

At 6/2/03 03:47 PM, fantom326 wrote: they still havent porved that iraq had any "WMDs", did they, commader asshat?

I will overlook your offensive attitude, pathetic name-calling and general n00bishness and give you a reply:

You seem to think that I'm am saying that Iraq had WMDs, even though this not related to the topic and you are very obviously picking a fight over a trivial piece of side information. Even if you don't believe that Iraq has or had WMDs leading up to Gulf War II, you can't deny that in their history, at some point, they were developing some. The UN even confirmed this after Gulf War I, that's why they were ordered to destroy them.

All, of this is irrelevant to the topic which happens to be North Korea. It was a piece of side information provided for comparison.

You won't get any more responses from me on this so discuss North Korea or:

At 6/1/03 10:22 PM, antiqkk wrote: I believe he pointed out the fact that when we state something, which is rather an opinion, you accuse us of not using enough facts to back the thought up. If however, we use facts, you seem not to be satisfied with it either.

Let me clarify this. I'm not saying that facts should not be used. What I'm talking about is when people just copy and past a list of facts and say, "So there, America is evil, here is a list of their military actions." Yes, they've put a lot of facts on the table, but without interpretation and discussion and analysis.

They present a one-sided view by stating a list of things America has done without providing or even mentioning the bigger picture. Why did America do these things? What was going on at the time? What about the Soviet Union; could America's actions and theirs have been inter-related and linked in a chain on cause and effect and international policy?

You don't get any of this type of information or discussion. All you get is "America took military action on all these occasions, therefore they are an evil empire."

Raw facts are not an argument unto themselves.

At 6/1/03 07:47 PM, fantom326 wrote:
can you? it seems like when someone states an opinion, you can them for being an opinionated lefty, and now youre branding them as putting forth too many facts.

Please use a valid verb. I have no idea what you're saying.

you seem at times very intellectual, k25, but at times your misguided valor leads to you looking like a dumbass.

After reading a bit of your site, I wonder how you can call anyone a "dumbass".

washington was right, its a shame we sprouted political parties.

What do political parties have to do with me?

At 6/1/03 09:15 PM, nailbomb wrote: Jimsween, Commander-125, what's wrong? Cat got your tongue?

I will only argue with irrational people up to a point. You can't make a coherent point and when cornered you whine, call names or mumble about "American injustice" as if that somehow explains everything.

In short, I don't think you have anything worthwhile to say so I won't bother.

At 6/1/03 07:58 PM, fantom326 wrote: they still havent porved that iraq had any "WMDs", did they, commader asshat?

If you could:

A) spell,

B) read what I wrote more carefully,

C) not jump to conclusions

and

D) not resort to petty personal attacks,

I might give you a real response.

At 6/1/03 05:38 PM, nailbomb wrote: Sources?

This is a general observation on what are often called "cuts". My statement does not refer to any particular statement of yours, it's just a reminder to read between the lines before accepting that what is called a "cut" is really a cut in funding or just a cut in increase.