Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Very simply, most Marijuana supporters are lying dumbfucks. There's nothing more that needs to be said. Through intentional misunderstanding "Oh, Grandma doesn't matter anymore," outright lying "Bush actively uses pot, 10% of the population used pot this year," and general idiocy "Marijuana isn't addictive" (all seen in this thread), marijuana supporters make total bullshit seem sensible-- but it isn't.

It's effects are still destructive, useless, and using it is totally unjustified for every single person on this forum. Why argue with twelve year-olds, who use pot and can barely form a coherent sentence, when they completely ignore a majority of your argument if they can find one thing to attack.

We don't need hemp, we don't need marijuana, we don't need any of it, and there's no impetus to change-- so why should we? We have less-abusable alternatives for every "advantage" of marijuana, and arguing that alcohol and tobacco are worse won't work-- our societal controls are already straining keeping those in check as much as possible, so we don't need marijuana to fuck things up more.

Alcohol has many dozens of alternative uses that we need-- particularly, it is one of the best disinfectants, potential biofuel, and race car fuel. Tobacco is actively being phased out around the country and taxed to death-- we don't want it anymore, but people are still allowed to use it. Marijuana is only an alternative for some things, things that aren't immensely important and that hold almost no potential, and it produces severely undesirable effects in users.

Again, you're not gonna go anywhere in life if you're a pothead, period If you stop, sure, but not while your using it. No Presidents or Senators have actively used it while in office-- the user who claimed they did is flat out lying. There are unsubstantiated rumors that many important people have used it, but society does not accept potheads, period. If you're found using it, you'll be ostracized because we don't like potheads. There's no justification for using marijuana beyond "I'm dying a very painful, slow death," and that's a weak excuse. Just as there's absolutely no justification for underage drinking or smoking, marijuana use is a stupid, unnecessary action.

Marijuana is unnecessary. We don't like it. It has many negative effects, particularly during use. It is completely unnecessary for anything in our society, and it holds no potential whatsoever for anything useful to the point of necessity. Be a dumbass pothead if you want, but America won't support you. You've got no reason to be smoking shit like that, so why should we accept it?

Legalization of marijuana will not happen. If it even gets considered, we just need to look at places that have legalized it-- they're shit holes right now, and we just need to look at how widespread use of "high" drugs has affected major nations in the past-- ever heard of the Opium Wars and how China was completely crippled by rampant opium use? You're not gonna be potheads in public, period.

Marijuana is useless.

It doesn't do jack shit as clothing-- that's the raw form, and even that sucks.

It doesn't matter one damn bit if some idiot wants to get high for "medical reasons"; we have other pain killers.

Marijuana fuels potheads and druglords, period. That's all it does. It has a crappy history, pathetic supporters, and not a chance in hell of getting legalized.

Yes, marijuana has pathetic supporters. Have any active-potheads become multi-millionaires in the US? No. Have any active-potheads become Senators or President? No. Have any active-potheads achieve anything but a life of decadence and a subsequent crash, or a life of no importance to society.

What are most of you users on here? Students? Most likely. The most useless people in society, and the most out of touch with reality. Marijuana, like any vice, will bring you down and suck out your life and potential. Doesn't matter who you are, you're not important now (or won't survive important) if you actively use marijuana.

Alcohol can be bad, but it rarely becomes a major vice and our culture has many methods for keeping it in check. It is almost impossible for smoking to become a vice-- it can have negative consequences, but it's not mind-altering and thus almost never a crippling vice. Marijuana is almost by a default a major vice, and it does nothing to improve your life in society.

American culture does not accept Marijuana, period. You can sip wine and be high class, you can have a cigar once in a long while and be high class. You can't use marijuana and be high class, or even respectable. We don't want potheads and there is absolutely no reason to have them. "Medical" marijuana is for dying people, and that's the best use you can suggest. Dying people aren't an important part of American society and culture, living people are.

Marijuana goes against everything America believes in. It passifies, it deludes, it degrades, it detaches you from reality. America is active, agressive, self-improving, direct, and very concerned with reality.

I still haven't seen one reason why I should allow marijuana-- is there any reason why I should use it? If not, why should I let you use it? Anything else is dodging the true topic and trying to justify egregiously self-serving arguments.

At 11/16/05 10:31 PM, hellsgift wrote: You are a dumbass. I am a ver intellegent person and i have smoked for a total of 2 years. I make good grades, I work hard, and i am definetly not a useless lump of shit.

Did I say all users? No. I don't give a damn about the exceptions, Marijuana makes your useless while high and ruins the lives of a significant portion of users. Go into any region with high marijuana use and take a look at the users: you're blind if you don't see half of them as washed up, useless people being crippled by an addiction.

Smokers? Still useful to society, only a % chance of long delayed death, huge variety.

What the hell is the meaning behind that? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Smokers are still productive workers, they still function as normal people, they function properly while smoking, and I have not seen smoking drive someone's life to the ground from active use. The long-term cancer can be a problem, but it is fairly rare and doesn't hinder their ability to lead a productive life.

Oh yeah, and smokes come in many varieties: cigars, cigarettes, etc.

Alcohol? Hundreds of uses besides getting drunk, keeps workers under control, central part of our society, liquid (diluted), depressant, huge variety, tastes good.

Alcohol does not keep people under control. When people get drunk they become violant and unruley. I bet that if you walked into a hash bar in amsterdam you would not see people breaking beer bottles over each others heads and fist fighting. they would all be chilled out in a chair acting civilized.

You're a bit of an idiot. You fixated on one portion of my reply and got it wrong. In the long term, alcohol is good. It calms people down, lets them work out issues, and provides a social atmosphere. In the short term, brawling and whatnot is perfectly fine. Who cares? That's a sideline benefit to the extremely long history and major benefits of alcohol for other things. In hash bars, they are out of their minds and talking like dumbasses. They lose the will to do anything and lose their decision making abilities. In the long term, their ideals become deluded (like your own, I bet) and they often lose a sense of reality.

Marijuana? Creates useless potheads, doesn't have long term mental benefits (provides deluded vision of "happiness"), produces a "high" instead of an acceptable "low", no variety, tastes like crap, no usefulness except as drug, concentrated solid (hard to dilute), not necessary.

Again i state that YOU ARE A DUMBASS! Hemp can be used for clothing and many other usefull things

No one wants to wear fucking hemp! Alcohol is a strong disinfectant, provides a drinkable liquid when the water is polluted (major problem in many areas), numbs pain, and had dozens of makeshift uses. Marijuana, in its non-drug form, can make crappy clothing. Who gives a damn? We have cotton, wool, awesome synthetic cloths, and more. We don't have anything better than alcohol for the things it does well.

Can processed marijuana save your life, or otherwise help you? It lets you get high, but that's useless. It can't do anything, it's just a brainbuster.

If you want something legalized, arguing that it shouldn't be illegal is a BS argument. It doesn't mean anything. What you need to do is provide a solid, useful reason why it should be legal, not why it shouldn't be illegal.

We have been makeing a solid argument for years! If you paid attention you would know that

Solid argument? "OMFG! It makes clothes that suck!" "OMFG! It tastes so good!" No, there is no solid argument. It's all "I want!" arguments, not "We NEED" arguments.

You are saying the same things over and over again! But if it was legalized then we would not have any marijuana related crimes you dick.

You're a dumbass. No marijuana-related crimes? None of it would change, you'd just legalize drug lords (and they would still sell the same drugs, both legal and illegal), and you'd just let potheads act like shits (and they would still do the same things). By the way, theft and other crimes driven by marijuana use (any at all, in fact) are "marijuana-related." By the definition of the law, those sort of crimes can't go away.

Ok im tired of responding to your weak ass arguments, either make a stong case that is based on facts, or just shut up altogether

Hypocritical fool. Marijuana does nothing but let potheads get high. NOTHING else. That's not a reason to legalize it. There is no reason to change the status quo, therefore it should not change.

At 11/17/05 06:12 PM, fattysnacks wrote: A 1 to 10000 chance, that's pretty crappy
And we use the iron to build a space station
I want to know why we want the space station
You say the reason we have a space program is so we can get iron to build space ships and stations
But what do we do with THEM

Are you an idiot? What do we always do with something new? Use it to expand and conquer stuff! The other planets, and particularly the asteroid belts, contain absolutely massive quantities of resources. Our supply on Earth is not infinite, but it's a speck of dust compared to the massive pile of supplies we can harvest from elsewhere in our solar system.

Also, think of the land: we're getting a bit crowded down here and pollution is getting annoying. If we can take over some more planets, even if they are only within our solar system, we now have a huge amount of room for new things-- like toxic waste dumps. If we manage somwhat cheaper space flight through further research, Nuclear Fission would become an absolutely perfect energy choice.

There's also technology-- there are literally millions of things you can't do on Earth or, especially, in gravity. New medicines, technology, and everything you can imagine can be built in zero-G that you can't construct on Earth. Got cancer? $100 flight to space for a permanent cure. Running out of food on Earth? Literally hundreds of trillions of free "acres" in space and on the moon. Need an observatory? The moon has no atmosphere and no light pollution; astronomer's heaven. The list goes on.

Ever wanted to explore? The variety available in space and on other planets is seemingly infinite and the amazing things you could encounter are beyond your imagination. Also, the only way to meet alien life is to go out and explore. Wouldn't it be awesome to meet multiple other species radically different from our own?

Ever wanted to live forever? Many of the complex technologies we need to develop benefit greatly from or rely entirely on our further expansion into space. Just the economic power of mining the asteroid belt and creating some space technologies would free up trillions of government dollars for research. Healthcare & social security are more than 65% of our government's budget. Can you imagine how awesome it would be if we could reduce that to 10% by developing new technologies, like age-prevention, curing many costly diseases, etc.?

Want to prevent the extinction of the entire human race-- including you? At this point, the slightest mistake or bad luck could kill us all with ease. If you can get off this rock, your chances of survivng to a full age (100+) at least quadruple: no pollution, no murderers, no war, no giant massacres, no nuclear warfare, no biological weapons, etc. None of that stuff works in a space colony-- it's just not feasible. It's in your own best interest to push Space as hard and fast as possible.

There is one overpowering reason to never accept Marijuana: it turns users into useless lumps of shit.

Smokers? Still useful to society, only a % chance of long delayed death, huge variety.

Alcohol? Hundreds of uses besides getting drunk, keeps workers under control, central part of our society, liquid (diluted), depressant, huge variety, tastes good.

Marijuana? Creates useless potheads, doesn't have long term mental benefits (provides deluded vision of "happiness"), produces a "high" instead of an acceptable "low", no variety, tastes like crap, no usefulness except as drug, concentrated solid (hard to dilute), not necessary.

If you want something legalized, arguing that it shouldn't be illegal is a BS argument. It doesn't mean anything. What you need to do is provide a solid, useful reason why it should be legal, not why it shouldn't be illegal.

Does legalizing it take money from crime lords? Nope, it just makes their job easier and gives the government control of a mind-altering drug. You can legalize it to help people in pain... but why marijuana? There are thousands of other options and marijuana is the crappiest, most abusable one. You can legalize it for already-potheads to fuck up their life more and add more potheads. Why would we want that?

Illegal marijuana means limited distribution, and that's what keeps it from crippling our society. Legel marijuana means massive expansion of the drug lord territory, no ability to fight back against it, and a massive slew of exposure-without-consent lawsuits because it is a smoke.

Give me one reason why I should want it legalized. I don't want to use it, and I don't believe in legalizing it so some other idiot can use it. If you don't get involved with it, it won't fuck up your life, and the drug lords who thrive on it live elsewhere. Why should I want to let the number of potheads grow?

Creationists, I have one simple question:

If God created man, what created God? "He just existed" is not a valid answer, since it invalidates the entire need for a God since humans could "just exist" as well.

Scientific theories propose rational explanations based on observations of the natural world that explain our origination with strong logic. Logic is the only acceptable form of evidence in arguments for obvious reason.

Simple reason for a Space Program:
You know humans: we're violent and we like to blow stuff up. As time progresses, it just becomes easier and easier to kill everyone on Earth. The Space Program is intended to get humans the hell off this rathole before we blow our own brains out.

If we put our eggs in several thousand baskets (self-sustaining planets) within two centuries, the chances of some random idiot killing everyone is much smaller. Even with our current technology, it only takes one idiot to kill us all.

According to the various faiths, the result is different.

To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic faith says those children will go to Purgatory and have to semi-live until they earn heaven or go to hell. The same is true for anyone unbaptized.

Most Protestant faiths don't care for this "Hell" stuff and generally say anyone who believes in Jesus goes to Heaven and the others "just whatever."

Atheists would argue that the child never goes to Hell, it simply ceases to exist before it exists, therefore experiencing nothing and meaning nothing.

(Post overflow)

For any Intelligent Design explanation to become a theory, you must first answer one question:

How were the Intelligent Designer(s) created, and if another being created them, trace the origin back to the original Designer(s) and explain their origin.

Unless this question is answered, ID is just a bunch of bullshit to dodge the question of origin. ID simply says "Someone else made us." For someone else to make us, that someone else must exist. How did they come into existance?

Evolution and related theories can trace our origin back to the very beginning of life and beyond, explaining how the possibility of life even came about. Intelligent Design doesn't say jack on the topic, simply cutting it off at "Someone did it."

By its very incomplete, useless nature, Intelligent Design should be thrown out, regardless of validity. It does not answer the question of origin at all, so it can not be the complete theory of origin.

At 11/14/05 04:52 PM, Vercades wrote: Evidence to consider on ID.

Fact: Every cell has an ultra-sophisticated molecular machine.

Claim: The existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a challenge to Darwinian theory.

Counter-Fact: Short time-scale evolution has proven that random development can create functional systems of astounding complexity, far beyond what any human could design.

Claim: Evolution has no trouble explaining the compelx systems of life because every process exists for obvious and clear reasons. The processes are not perfect, nor are they always positive things within a cell, but every evidence points to Evolution as the developmental process of life.

Fact: When you bleed, your blood forms a scab this scab is formed through an exquisitely coordinated mechanism. Hemoglobin.

Counter-Fact: Hemoglobin is not the right answer. Coagulation (blood clotting) relies on processes we understand very well and a cascade of effects that plug the bleeding hole and repair the blood vessel. This is not an "exquisitely coordinated" process, it relies on a series of chemical triggers to begin the next phases. No active coordination is involved, as is true with almost every biological process.

See: http://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Blood_clotting

Fact: In biochemistry text books, they explain the inner workings of the molecular machines within our cells but, stop short of explaining where and why those machines exist.

Claim: Scientist's will admit bewilderment at the origins of these molecular machines but, refuse to entertain the concept of it being designed.

Counter-Fact: You're looking in the wrong damn book. You want a full, professional-use Biology textbook for those answers, not a Chemistry textbook.

Claim: An improper understanding of the sciences led you to believe that every bit of information in Biology-- like the exact locations of every process and the means by which they are triggered and controlled, as well as the purpose for each process --could be found in partial-biology books. Chemistry only extends to describing the molecular reactions, but goes no further, and thus a Chem/Bio book will be limited.

Suggestion: Ask a biologist before you make a foolish claim based on a school textbook. Check a professional-use Biology "Bible" (that's irony for you); they contain all the critical information of an entire profession. Talk to a professional Biologists if your current misconceptions remain.

Evidence to consider on Evolution.

Fact: Bits and pieces of irreducibly molecular machines may serve different purposes when dissected apart.

Counter-Fact: First, your fact is impossible. "Irreducible" things can not be made simpler or smaller, therefore they can not be dissected apart. Second, the number of proteins that function properly when sections have been removed from a previously functional protein is very small-- roughly 10 out of several hundred thousand different proteins.

Perhaps your mangled statement was a reference to "Irreducible Complexity," a flawed concept?
http://en.wikipedia...reducible_complexity

Fact: A small group of proteins from a bacterial flagellum can work independently. Although it's original design was to inject poisen it can still perform a different task without the rest of it's machine.

Counter-Fact: Your statement is entirely false. Bacterial flagellum are not for injecting poison and your claim is completely incorrect.

Flagellum are for propulsion and function like a propeller in bacteria. It absolutely can not function independently as every section, except for the motor, is an inert group of proteins. The motor runs on a proton pump, which is only possible with a membrane, so it does not function independently, either-- it must be where it is in the cell.

In fact, baterial flagellum are so interconnected that they spawned the "Irreducible Complexity" concept, so you've chosen the worst possible cellular feature to make false statements about.

(Personally, a bee stinger can still inject poisen after it's been severed from the bee but, the bee dies off and so does the stinger)

Bee stingers are not alive and function regardless of the bee. The venom sac remains intact without the bee and is usually ripped out when the bee stings. It's actually one great example of how organisms are not perfectly designed.

Fact: In a 1998 article in the journal Cell, a group led by James Rothman, of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, described the remarkable simplicity and uniformity of cellular mechanisms

I was unable to find the referrenced paper. Put in a link next time. Regardless, that doesn't matter: on a general level, the processes of cells are very simple and reasonable. However, on an atomic level, they are amazingly complex and by no means simple.

Darwin's case in point is that all things in natural selection was up to chance and, necessity, there was only a natural explaination to all evolutionary events. FACT.
In ordinary life the only explanation to these are chance, necessity, and design. Design being the most overly sufficent example.
But, how do we know that there was or wasn't an intelligent design in our world?

How do we know there wasn't? Very simply, because nothing has yet suggested that there MIGHT be an Intelligent Designer There is nothing in our world or outside of it that even suggests the necessity of an Intelligent Designer. A simple Law of Logic comes into effect: the simplest answer is usually the right one. A basic organism started, then it did whatever it could to survive. Boom, simple answer, done. An Intelligent Designer is not simple-- what created it? why? how? etc.

In special science's SETI, archeology and, forensics, in these sciences there are well developed techniques to identify intelligent design.

Wrong. SETI is for radio-capable sentient species, not "Intelligent Designers." Archaeology and foresnsics study evidence of non-living creatures on earth, not an Intelligent Designer. Do not link them to this topic incorrectly.

Intelligence design leaves behind a marking that is not repeatable by chance or, necessity. That's how it can be proven.

Does it? We have no way to identify what marks would be left behind.

The chance of dying to a terrorist in the US is smaller than the chance of dying from a coconut falling on your head in Alaska. Stop worrying about the remote and amazingly unlikely deaths and think about the closer ones.

Car Crashes: More people die every year in car crashes than we lost in the entire Vietnam War. #1 cause of death for people <50.

That's closer to home, yet no one cares about it? Life is 1000x safer than it was a century ago and it is only getting safer. Terrorists can't do jack, and nothing you hear on the news is likely to kill you.

Probably our best bet is, on Dec. 23, 2012, to target every Aztec and Mayan ruin and shoot it with a cruise missile. Teach those b**tards a lesson for predicting our doom.

At 11/13/05 09:46 PM, Vercades wrote: I'm only responding to this because you did your own homework on this but, fossil evidence doesn't make a bit of difference. An archaeologist finds a 1000 year old pile of bones, no one can say when that animal died, no one can prove that another animal chewed on it's bones, no one can prove that gravity compressed the bones, finding the bones and writing a history for it based on visual interpretation doesn't constitute a fact in the theory. The only fact here is that the platypus existed in our past. Carbon dating can estimate the age.

First of all, nice contradiction within your own statement in bold. Second, do you have any idea how ignorant that sounds? Finding archaelogical evidence and using extremely well-known and reliable methods to determine information about the bone's history does constitute a fact.

Four different species of platypus have been very reliably identified in Australia, three of which only exist in fossils. The current, living species has fossils that date to the same exact period as well. Either you find an error in the irrefutable analysis or you throw out any form of achaelogical evidence. If you throw out that sort of evidence, you might as well throw out all evidence because archaeology is the primary method humans use to study creatures who don't currently exist.

By the way, you never actually addresed my argument. I hate it when people who are trying to hold up an unsupportable argument try to focus on one tiny, inconsequential part of your argument. Platypus are very obviously not what you think they are, natural selection has been absolutely proven on a short timescale (geologically), and we have massive evidence of it on a long timescale.

But none of that matters, because I still have one question:
If humans are so complex that intelligent creator(s) are necessary for our existance, who created the (necessarily) more complex creator(s)?

At 11/13/05 07:33 PM, Vercades wrote:

The platypus is not explainable according to natural selection, it's a completely random species, as are certain insects. That is something that credits ID.

Umm, no. Actually, you're entirely wrong on this point. A quick search will reveal quick information about the fossil history of the platypus. Guess what: there used to be four species of platypus. The other three died out thanks to natural selection because the modern species became more specialized. It does everything successfully and is undeniably one of the fittest, so how in the hell does that make it "not explainable" by evolution?

You seem to think that something wierd can not be the result of evolution, but isn't the exact opposite true? What kind of intelligent designer would make something as wacky as a platypus? Common sense would suggest that the platypus was put together randomly and survives because it works, the two defining features of evolution.

Basic Platypus Info: http://www.amonline...tsheets/platypus.htm

Another find archaeological was the nazca lines one appeared to alien, some want to think it's an extra-terrestrial others want to think it's the imagination of the the ancestors.
There has actually been another find supposedly older then the nazca lines. Here's the article.
http://paranormal.about.com/b/a/150576.htm

Honestly, who gives a crap about some stupid lines? That has nothing to do with evolution. It may suggest that sentient aliens have visited the planet, but that absolutely does not mean that they created life. Those supposed drawings don't even date to the appropriate time for creating life on earth.

At 11/13/05 08:07 PM, Dranigus wrote:

Hey retard... there are no laws. Those are all just theories that are dictated by idiots.
The only true scientific laws are those that you can find through wisdom and inner knowledge. If you venture out and try to learn everything, you'll only be learning about nothing.

Actually, you're wrong. Science is divided into Theories and Laws. Theories are testable, supported hypothesises that have not been proven wrong. Laws are a set of indisputable observations about the natural world; ex: if something is dropped, it falls. Laws explain what happens, theories explain why or how. By the way, that "inner wisdom" BS does not qualify as scientific laws.

For all scientific studies are done by people who for the most part aren't even aware of their own mental disorders.
Einstien had a mental disorder... so why must everyone take credit to his work... when it so obvious to have a critical flaw in it. And why must people be so retarded not to had seen or agree with this logic?

So, by your statement, anyone who isn't perfect can not be trusted on any account? Einstien's ideas proved themselves, so your claim that he had a mental disorder means nothing. Sorry, but your entire claim here is simply stupid.

Don't you know... you have to be clear of thoughts if you are truely going to find an Oasis in a desert?
You do know what a mirage is? Don't you know something like that could occur while doing an experiment?

Example: The law of Gravity. Everything that comes up must come down.

But what about anti-gravity and when something is thrown with enough velocity to excape gravity?

Anti-gravity is imagined and does not exist. You can have cancelling gravity (pulling equally opposite directions), but humans have found no way to produce a reverse-gravity. Actually, we don't even know what the hell gravity is just yet.

Your second "contradiction" is actually a confirmation. The Law of Gravity is not "Everything that goes up must come down." That phrase it the initial observation, within the frame of reference of Earth that triggered the creation of the Law of Gravity. The actual text is

"Each object in the universe attracts each other body.
If object A has mass Ma and object B has mass Mb,
then the force F on object A is directed toward object B
and has magnitude

F = G*Ma*Mb / r2

where G is the gravitational constant equal to 6.6742 (+/- 0.001) x 10^-11 N*m^2/Kg^2"

Do a google search for "Law of Gravity" and "Gravitational Constant." It's easy. Don't be ignorant. You'll notice that your "contradiction" actually means nothing at all.

They want everything god damn thing to be as they first looked at it, because they are afraid of it all being different. And as a result, they fear the whole cosmos crumbling down on them. I hate those bitches. They all need to be hunted down and killed on sight.

...what were you saying about mental disorders again?

At 11/13/05 08:16 PM, Vercades wrote:
:On a side note, go look at any ID site and see that it is not an emotional belief, it's an unbaised approach to explaining our origins.

You absolutely can not call a postulation (not theory) designed around proving a personal, religious belief "unbiased." It is highly biased, based on faulty (or no) evidence, and it does not even explain our origins. Sure, it tells us one level of our origin-- it says someone else created us. So, what about the next level? How in the hell were our creator(s) created? If we are too complex for chance and oriented development (adaptation) to create, then these necessarily intelligent and mentally complex creator(s) can't have come from chance and oriented development. Guess what? You've got an endless chain of creators which absolutely is not sustainable.

Tell me, with finality, where the original creation came from (God is not an answer; his creation is, though), then I may actually believe Intelligent Design. Tell me "Umm... that doesn't matter!" and I will consider you foolish.

Whenever the Gay Marriage debate comes up, I wonder one thing: why marriage?

Marriage is not defined by sexual intercourse, so why should we create a new form of marriage for people who like a different type of sex? Marriage isn't about who you're banging, so by definition that means anyone can have the same sort of soulmate bonding that makes marriage appealing with anyone. It's all an issue of how you choose to recognize that bonding.

In our culture, if you have a close bond with someone and do not intend to have children with them, then you are "good buddies." Gender means nothing. Your preference of sex means nothing. However, marriage is for when you wish to have children. That's the simple reason why it remains heterosexual; I have yet to hear of a man who has carried a baby to term or a woman who has impregnated another woman. The government has laws to try and make life easier for people who are married for the specific reason that they will have children making their life a hell of a lot harder. However, the government also has laws doing the same for people who adopt children, regardless of marriage.

So all this tells me something simple: people in favor of gay marriage equate marriage to "who you want to fuck for a long time." Marriage is not the combination of "good buddy" and "sexual partner," it is for creating and raising children within our society in the method universally considered the most stable and appropriate after 3000 years of history. For that simple reason, I am against legislation for gay marriage. A similar system for gay couples that adopt children is acceptable, but that's not marriage and shouldn't be masquerading as marriage.

At 11/13/05 02:11 PM, jmaster306 wrote: I don't remember the exact values, but it is something like 100x to 1000x more than fission.

Also there is still the danger of radiation since we would be basically creating a sun for our personal use as well as finding a good source of deuterium and trittium.

Nuclear fusion is 100,000x more efficient and sustainable than nuclear fission. It does not produce radioactive materials, not does it produce radiation beyond the heat release of the reaction. The sun produces radiation primarily because of the excitation of the surface, burning Hydrogen, not the actual fusion process. Once the process of fusion starts, the only (final) waste of nuclear fusion is an iron lump-- not radiactive, and not dangerous in any way.

Fusion is, put simply, the best natural method for energy production (just look at the rest of the universe). It is self-sustaining and very easy to control. In fact, if any fusion plant ever threatened to overheat and meltdown, all you would need to completely halt the process is to throw an iron bearing into the center of fusion. It would halt instantly.

Even if you did let it overheat, the worst it could do is burn a hole in your floor, but it would halt the instant the containment failed or it touched iron or heavier. Steel/Iron reinforcement bars that are standard in concrete floors would halt the process even if it somehow did the impossible and ran out of control, broke the containment, and continued even on the floor.

However, we can't create sustainable fusion on a small scale.

Evolution is a scientific theory; it is based on a testable hypothesis that has been supported by all reliable evidence for the past century. It has been absolutely proven on a small timescale, there is a massive amount of archaelogical support for evolution on a large timescale, and it accurately explains every organism currently living. Evolution has been tested by literally hundreds of thousands of people, and no evidence has contradicted the theory. Evolution is not an origin theory-- it is a development theory. Other scientific attempts have shown that it is possible for every part necessary for a first organism can form naturally in an environment matching Earth at the time of the first organism, but no full-fledged organism has been created successfully.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory; it is not testable and has no evidence beyond the word of a dozen men dead for several thousand years. It does not explain any archaelogical finds and has not been proven on any timescale-- no human has managed to design and create a modern cell or proto-cell, so we can't even confirm that it is possible to create modern life directly from scratch. Intelligent Design has never been supported by any reliable evidence and remains only a belief. Actually, Intelligent Design does not classify as "science" at all; it breaks the definition of science in its attempts to explain the natural world.

Intelligent Design is essentially "Creation through (Judeo-Christian) religion," so why should it be taught as a scientific theory? It doesn't match any definition of science. Even worse, it doesn't even agree with a majority of other religions, which makes it religiously offensive if taught in school.

The entire Evolution/ID debate stems from misinformation and ignorance. "Gravity" can not make a human skull with a significantly thicker brow; deeper chin; wider, always open throat; uniformly shorter bones (regardless of orientation in the ground); deeper, larger brain cavity; barrel chest; shorter, stouter body (even in skeletons found horizontally in the ground); and all these things found uniformly in every Neanderthal skeleton, regardless of placement in the ground or location in the world. An Intelligent Designer is not necessary for complex life, especially a "superior being." Simply take a look at "evolutionary" programming to understand why random generation within a limited enviroment can produce amazingly complex "organisms."

Also, Intelligent Design begs one major question: if humans are so complex that another intelligent being must exist to create us, who created that other intelligent being? Either that other intelligent being came into existance through evolution or another even more intelligent being is required and the question is repeated. Either way, the need for an intelligent designer is invalidated; it just isn't logically justifiable.

At 11/13/05 06:43 PM, Redbob86 wrote: Yes, I know, there are countless molecules just about everywhere on this planet. But the thing is, cells are perfectly formed, it seems as if there is too much of a coincidence. They form perfectly designed systems of interaction within themselves and with the outside world.

Sorry, but you're a bit of a fool. Cells are absolutely not perfectly formed. They are messy and chaotic and very often error-filled. There are many error-checking systems within cells and there are many flaws in their design.

A cell isn't "perfect" if a flu virus can simply waltz inside the membrane by wearing a fancy glycoprotein coat. A cell isn't "perfect" when it often has genetic coding errors or mitosis errors; just take a look at the very long list of illnesses from genetic errors. Example: Down syndrome, from the incorrect seperation of two chromosomes early in development.

Cells don't interact with their environment in a "perfect" manner, either. Eample: Diabetes is caused by glucose resistance developed erroneously by cells when too much glucose is present for too long in their environment.

Cells are not perfect, so your entire idea falls flat on its face.

At 11/10/05 03:48 AM, RedScorpion wrote: lib·er·al (l-b'Yr-Yl, l-b'rYl)
con·ser·va·tive (kYn-sûr'vY-t-v)

Don't you get it?
The modern usage of "conservative" and "liberal" do NOT refer to the dictionary meaning. Anyone who believes that quoting the dictionary in this situation proves your argument does not even understand modern politics.

This is an issue of connotation, not denotation!

At 11/10/05 09:52 PM, Desert-Drifter wrote: true but really i don't care if ppl smoke pot. as long as it doesn't affect other ppl it should be legal. i mean alchohol is legal and that affects ppl that aren't drinking all the time. so if some one is smoking weed it doesn't bother me, but that doesn't mean that if its legal that i'll do it.

You just hit one of the major reasons we can't allow legal marijuana. Tell me, when you use marijuana, doesn't it normally become a smoke? As with tobacco, second-hand inhalation occurs. The US is going through a series of major backlashes against public smoking of tobacco-- and it only does harm after years of exposure. Marijuana, on the other hand, is mind altering even in second-hand form and strips people of freedom of choice.

Marijuana is compact, hard to track, easy to overdose on, has a crappy history with America, supports drug lords, can't be allowed in public, is mind altering (and produces a "high" not a "low"), has a very poor overdose protection system (alcohol knocks you out first in nearly every case), corrupts your sense of reality (both during the high, and afterwards with a belief that the high was "happiness"), and promotes criminal activity to support drug habits. Why would I ever want to support the legalization of ANOTHER vice?

At 11/11/05 07:48 PM, Aapo_Joki wrote:
The overwhelming unfairness and unsustainability of the current form of global free market economy.

Unfairness? I'd call the process simple: you work, you think, you prosper. Throw in a bit of luck and initiative to spice it up, and you've got the Capitalist system. No one is in an "unfair" position-- everyone can achieve what they wish to achieve.

Rather, isn't Communism the ultimate in unfair economy? If I work my ass off day and night for three years, what do I get? The same as that asshole down the street who got drunk every night for three years and never did any work. And who does succeed and live happily in a Communist society? The government and the criminals. Either you cheat and create your own Capitalist system through crime or you become a corrupt politician and watch the country collapse as all motivation and initiative is drained from your country.

There's no reason to do anything for anyone but yourself in a Communist society, so how could that possibly be better? Well, unless you're that type who failed at living in a Capitalist society and say "I'd rather drag everyone else down than work my way up."

Now, unsustainability, isn't that the #1 problem of Communism? No one wants to do anything because they don't gain anything for working, so how can it possibly sustain itself? Capitalism has survived for 7,000+ years now, so I have no idea what you mean by "unsustainable." All the implemented forms of Communism didn't survive 50 years.

I don't think you get it: "Liberal" has taken on a slang meaning. It refers to the following aspects of the Democrat party:

- Socialism (major one)
- Big Government
- Welfare
- Reverse-Racism
- Throw Money at Problems
- Government does everything
- Against Free Market
- Belief that humans are innately evil and must be controlled
- "In the moment" thought; no longterm consideration
- "Pass the Buck" ideology; make the next people deal with it
- Indecision; Lack of strong beliefs; Follows political expediencey
- Weak; Lacking proper leadership qualities
- Deceptive; Will lie to your face (think Clinton)
- Relies on fickle Polls to decide important issues
- Hates military; doesn't care about protecting our country
- All talk and no action
- Most likely to slander opponents and compare them to Hitler
- Most likely to use drugs
- Arrogrant upper-class, but "concerned" about lower class slaves
- In politics for power and money, not to serve the people
- No shame
- Huge ambition, weak initiative
- Easily swayed through emotion
- Poor logical reasoning skills
- Refuses to listen to an argument if it does not agree with their views
- Wastes money
- Loves pork barrels (political corruption)
- Loves Unions (moreso than the Republicans love Business)
- Loves loopholes, especially one-sided loopholes

That's a long list, and it's not even complete. "Liberal" refers to all those things. The dictionary meaning is something positive, but rarely used; the slang term is severely negative and common. The relation is similar to "crack" being something you see in a sidewalk and a dangerous drug that supports massive crime organizations.

"Christ" "All" "Night"

Bah, stupid UN.

News for you: This story is 14 years old!

Mills first proposed the idea of "Hydrinos" in 1991. After 14 years, the evidence for it is still weak and there has been no conclusive proof that it can be used to produce large quantities of energy.

There has been no experimental support for his currently theoretical hydrinos. No significant experiments have been performed and he is "still raising capital" after 14 years.

This entire "hydrino" prediction is based off of a radical Grand Unified Theory, and has no conclusive supporting evidence. Quantum Theory has a huge amount of a support, this has no support. Therefore, at this stage, Hydrino Theory is BS.

At 11/5/05 02:27 AM, Wyrlum wrote: Assume there exists a finite logic system M which completely describes the universe and is consistent. Consider the statement

"This statement is not provable in system M,"

which we will denote "P." If P is FALSE, then it is provable, whereby the universe is not consistent. This would contradict our assumptions that M is consistent, so P is indeed TRUE.

P is both true and false, a contradiction.

Therefore, no such system exists.

Sorry, but your conclusion is severely flawed.

Error 1: Logical statements can not determine their own validity.

This error relates to your interpretation of your statement. You treat it as "This statement is not true in system M," which is an untenable position. Logical statements can not delcare themselves true or false under any circumstances. A logical statement can determine the validity of other statements, like if P was "Statement Q is not true in system M," but they can't declare themselves true or false.

Saying "This statement is false" is not a logical statement-- rather, it is simply gibberish from a logical perspective. It has no meaning whatsoever, and thus the meaning cannot be considered logically.

Error 2: Your logic is incorrect.

If statement P is "provable," then you can determine whether it is true or false in system M. Statement P can only be FALSE. If Statement P were true, it would be impossible to prove or disprove it, a situation which is recognizable, and thus provable. Since it cannot be proven when it is true, and being true will make it provable, then the statement must be FALSE.

Conclusion: The universe remains consistent, but your logic has failed. M is absolutely consistent. According to logic, statement P can only be FALSE. The mistake is in your understanding of your own statement. "Provable" means "can be proven or disproven," so if it is false, statement P says you can prove that it is false. You interpreted (falsely) that statement P would say that statement P is true in that situation. Since no statement can determine its own validity, your interpretation is incorrect and your argument collapses.

The universe exists and remains consistant.

The reason why the government has thrown money and preferential treatment at the "problem" of economic inequality in most minorities is simple: a fad called Political Correctness, and Democrats.

This is the primary strength of the Democratic party; they give minorities benefits and in return get all the votes from those groups. They introduced Political Correctness. That's where the problem you're wondering about came from.

At 11/2/05 10:25 PM, HinesDaMan wrote: Election turn out has grown smaller in America. Fewer and fewer people are voting.

Put very simply, the voter output has not been growing smaller. In fact, for the past two elections we have reached record highs in voter turnout. The problem you believe exists, doesn't. Apathy always does exist, but that's perfectly okay.

Rape is definately a crime, but this guy isn't "sick." In quite a few states in the US the age of consent is 14. A significant part of the US says "14 is old enough for her to decide," so why is this man sick? Hell, with parental consent, <14 is okay also (assumning not rape).

That story is false. Just one week ago a squad with one of my buddies attacked a terroist training camp. Osama was positively IDed with a photo of his face recorded, but they were unable to kill him before he fled. One of his bodyguards was killed in the process.

So, let me get this straight. . . 808 people out of 320 million were polled, and we can trust those results as an accurate reflection? And it was a phone survey? Are you an idiot or something to believe that survey?

The stats on the conservatives was definately skewed; many conservatives refuse to answer phone surveys as a matter of principal, and quite a few (country folks) don't own a phone. Especially in this case, the pro-God people are more likely to answer while a pro-Evo person is more likely to hang up the phone.

These statistics mean nothing. The sample size is so tiny that it is worthless and the survey method is highly unreliable.

At 10/19/05 04:54 PM, LordXanthus wrote: Seriously, we should feel honored that people want to live here. I don't see what the big deal is about Mexicans coming into this country to do the jobs that no one else wants to do. Honestly, how can people be so upset about inexpensive, hard-working labor?One of the greatest issues here, I would say, is racism. Caucasians are losing their majority status in the United States, and some of them are quite upset about it.

You don't seem to get a simple concept related to illegal immigrants:
They don't pay taxes but they still get to use the free healthcare and services our government provides. You are charged $400+ per year for illegal immigrants to stay in this country.

They use all our free services (and especially the strained healthcare system and hospitals, which can't refuse them) but pay little or no taxes whatsoever. Additionally, a majority (70% or so) send the money they earn back to families in their home country, removing a large chunk of cash from our economy (a bad thing over time).

The situation in Mexico (the main source of illegal immigrants) is not terrible, nor is the country overpopulated. In fact, Mexico is suffering from worker shortages at the moment because there are higher paying jobs just next door for illegal immigrants. They may get "paid less" in the US, but not paying taxes make it so we pay more for them to work than an American citizen would cost and they fall into all sorts of major trouble. In many cases, they earn more money post-taxes than a normal American, and in many other cases they create terrible poverty situations (on their own) or join sweat shops that leads to blackmail and encourages crime.

Put simply, illegal residents hurt the US in hundreds of ways and don't help one bit. Any of the arguments for them doing jobs others don't want is BS, and if it was actually true, would only make the case stronger against removing them since exploitation of minorities is not something we want to support.