Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/16/05 06:02 PM, DamienK wrote:

:Curse words seem to be the words spoken when the person has nothing intelligent...

This exact phrase is completely correct. Cussing is used when people have nothing intelligent to say (like when you do something really stupid). If you use them excessively, you appear to have nothing intelligent to say. Your Grandpa cussing when he did something really stupid (forgot whatever important thing) is completely appropriate.

However, curse words are for important things-- not for when you have nothing important to say. You don't cuss after you cough lightly. You don't usually cuss after you finish your breakfast. You do cuss when you stab your hand with a knife. You do cuss when you're about to enter a fistfight. You do cuss when your car explodes. Cussing is for important events; essentially, it is a strong form of emphasis.

And just as you'd think someone who says "I car to work today" sounds stupid, someone who uses cussing inappropriately sounds stupid. Generally not using it at all is the appropriate use.

At 10/7/05 07:34 PM, Proteas wrote: I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.

The man writing the editorial went on incorrect facts. There were a total of 5 deaths at the Superdome: 3 of natural causes, 1 suicide, 1 stabbing (during a theft). That's it. There was no rape or intentional murder, anywhere, at the Superdome. There were no confirmed shots fired at rescue workers anywhere, and theft was not rampant (less than 20 cases of theft were reported). Looting was occurring everywhere, but a majority of it is acceptable-- taking food that is lost already to survive.

Out of 35,000 people in a situation like that, 1 accidental murder and 20 thefts is a small amount for a week.

However, I do not disagree with the writer's belief that New Orleans was a decaying slum relying on welfare and without any sort of supporting community. It was. New Orleans had attracted all the scum from around the country for years and was shrinking steadily in size as the respectable residents fled.

All of the pain and suffering from the New Orleands disaster was caused by the conditions of the city-- money stolen from the levee maintenance, welfare slums, pathetic governing, lack of cohesive community, and lack of any sort of plan for something that should have been seen as inevitable.

Nice job supplying context, information about what the hell you are talking about, and proof that you aren't talking about another one of the BS rumors from New Orleans (like all that stuff about shootings and gang rapes-- all lies).

At 9/14/05 06:20 PM, Sevtron wrote: By american do you mean the language English? Also, I do not believe there is a language called chinese. It is possible that conflicts, not of a military sort, could complicate diplomatic relations with China (ie. gas demand). However, with nuclear weapons on each front, a mas scale war will destroy the world for sure, and therefor, would most likely not happen.

There is, actually, a written language named Chinese that was standardized by the Chinese emperors several thousand years ago. However, there is no Chinese verbal language-- there are roughly 5 main languages right now in China, the largest of which is Mandarin.

Also, China lacks significant military power and is actually converting to the same systems that we have. Did you know China is actually a Capitalist-economy/Socialist-government country?

At 9/8/05 07:13 AM, ReiperX wrote:

At 9/8/05 02:43 AM, -Sasha- wrote:

At 9/7/05 05:52 PM, Superdeluxe wrote:

There are still holes in the Theory of Evolution. As far as the macroevolution thing people say cannot exist. Say there is one animal, two herds. One herd moves way up north where its cold, and barren and high altitude, another moves south, hot swampy marshlands. Through adaptation both sets of animals will eventually adapt to their new enviorment, no one is going to argue that. Well adapt or die out. Now given these two different herds with a common ancestor the adaptations over time, and the differences between the two could end up changing them enough where they can no longer breed, hence two difference species with a common ancestor. Can we absolutely prove this? Not at the present, why, it takes a long ass time to do. Does this mean that this should be thrown out the window because you cant' absolutely prove it, no.

You are incorrect. The Theory of Evolution does not have any holes that have yet been found, and it is based off of the closely related Natural Law of Adaptation. Many Anti-Evolution people mistakenly attack the natural law portion, which you can't possibly win because natural laws are generalizations based off of endless observations-- there is nothing to disprove in it, as it is only observations. Adaptation is commonly witnessed and blatantly obvious in the medical profession where diseases are adapting to become resistant to drugs we use to fight them. You can't dispute this natural law without being a fool and telling several million researchers that they are all completely blind and/or liars about what they see right in front of their eyes. This has been absolutely proven.

The Theory of Evolution is simply the explanation for why adaptation occurs. We know mutations occur, we know organisms evolve over time and change, and we know the mechanisms that cause this, and all these are indisputable in an argument. Any attempt to "disprove" observations of that sort is simply ignorance.

What we don't know with absolute certainty is that these changes occurred because of the process of natural selection and because organisms with certain traits survived or reproduced better than the organisms without those traits. This is what the Theory of Evolution claims, and a massive amount of experiments have backed it up, and none have countered it.

The Postulate of Intelligent Design, which, by the way, is not a theory or hypothesis because it is untestable (thus far) and therefore doesn't qualify, is not mutually exlusive with the Theory of Evolution. The Natural Law of Adaptation is what happened to organisms after they were created to arrive where we are now, and the Theory of Evolution tries to explain why we got where we are now. The Postulate of Intelligent Design explains origin, not what happened afterwards, and is not even in the same category as Evolution.

Let's have a repeat to emphasize this:
Evolution and Intelligent Design are discussing completely different topics! Just because the pencil makes a gray mark on paper doesn't mean the pencil couldn't have been created in a factory!

By the way, to the person who asked: that's metamorphosis. Any change in an organism during its lifetime is metamorphosis. Any change over multiple generations is mutation (either good or bad change) or adaptation (always good change), and thus counts as evolving.

At 9/14/05 03:22 PM, punisher19848 wrote: The point is that it doesn't exist, and therefore nothing can come close to it! You can't come close to things that don't exist.

Yes, things can come close to it. Think of science: things can approach the speed of light, but no matter can reach it. Think of math: limits are all about what happens as you approach a point-- not what's at that point. Stop being an idiot and answer his real question.

Basically, the original poster is saying: What do you think would be the best form of government?

It's not that damn hard to understand his question, so just answer it. I'd say the best form of government is a "perfect" democracy in which all citizens are fully informed on the events in their country and around the world, they all have a direct vote on every issue, no one is apathetic, and the system is streamlined enough that decisions can be made very quickly. It would be nearly impossible to create, but it is possible, given sufficient technology.

Osama is currently hiding in the urban regions near the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is laying low and living like a commoner. US soldiers aren't officially allowed to enter Pakistan, but common soldier units are crossing often and black ops are actively tracking Osama in Pakistan. The US is putting a huge amount of pressure on the leaders of Pakistan to help out or get out of the way, but they appear silent about it because the media doesn't care about that particular issue; people dying in a flood after ignoring a mandatory evacuation gets significantly better ratings.

Oh, and by the way, the bounty is $50 million now, not $25 million.

They're called criminals. In the case of looting, it's all instrumental crimes: people have money problems and most likely lost everything they owned, so they are stealing stuff while they have the chance to either gain what they never had, protect themselves (in the case of guns), feed themselves (in the case of food), or trying to own something after they lost everything.

It's something unacceptable, but you're sitting on your ass in your basement, and you have no right to attack them. Looting is something we want to prevent, but you aren't the one who is homeless, penniless, wading through a toxic flood, trying to survive and possibly even gain something from a hellhole. You can disparage them for looting, but you can't blame them for not helping people they can't help (since they are in the same situation), nor can you disparage Americans as a whole for a situation you know almost nothing about.

At 8/26/05 11:22 PM, HeinousDude wrote:

At 8/26/05 11:19 PM, NarcolepticAlarmClok wrote: 89% of all statistics are made up on teh spot. But... yeah... bush is teh tard.

Well if it was made up on the spot, it wasn't made up on the spot by me.

Yet 29 months into the conflict, that support is faltering. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, 54 percent of respondents said the war was a mistake. The same poll showed that 57 percent said the war has made this country more vulnerable to terrorism. When the war began in March 2003, a CNN poll found support from 71 percent of Americans.

Those statistics are severely misleading.
A. Different test groups in different demographics in different geographic regions.

B. Inaccuracy in leading questions: "Don't you think the war was a mistake?"

C. Inappropriate naming: the war is over and done with. Popular support for a continuing and possibly multi-year occupation is lower than popular support for the war. Thus 25% didn't decide the war was a mistake, they have just decided that they do not want a long term occupation, which is completely seperate from supporting the war.

D. The sample was fairly small and of unknown reliability. If 30 million people were in the poll, the numbers would be reliably accurate. When only 2000 people are in it, the poll means nothing.

Etc. That's enough reasons for why the cited information is misleading and actually inaccurate in the respect your were considering. Never take politics at face value.

At 8/26/05 11:17 PM, TheMartyr18 wrote: Your seing a trend that youg people are becoming liberal.. and most consreervatives are older? Maybe you have things backwards.. maybe its a sign that the future is embracing a liberal philosophy...

Actually, no, he's perfectly accurate in his statements. Approximately 140 years of statistics and cultural observations have made it plainly obvious that youth (i.e. anyone still in school, especially college) are significantly more liberal than adults (i.e. anyone who has paid their own way through life for 5+ years).

The basic reason is that during school, youth have no real realization of what happens in life can focus on the liberal topics, thinking they are important. Then the youth get out of college, have to get a job, have to deal with taxes and real life. . . and they realize that liberal ideas suck for the average worker. Older aged populations (50+ years) are approximately 85% conservative, and have been for 80+ years.

It all has to do with experiences in life.

At 8/26/05 08:58 PM, fastbow wrote: Evolution is a theory.

True

It has not been proven in any lab condition tests.

FALSE!

Evolution has been demonstrated successfully thousands of times in lab experimentation. A favorite demonstration is to take a fast breeding organism (like bacteria) and grow several thousand generations in varied conditions over several months. The bacteria will adapt and change to better suit their environment in undeniable and (often) obvious ways, or at least mutate in significant and measurable ways that make no evolution impossible.

Here is a simple scientific paper I can reference you to:
10,000 Generation Bacteria Experiment

Simulations do not count.

Simulations are simply a computerized form of the prediction equations for any natural law (as we know it), so they would never count.

Creation is a theory, that requires a little more faith than evolution.

FALSE. Creation is not a theory in any sense. It is not a demonstratable hypothesis, and thus no experiment is possible, which means Creation does not meet the criteria for either a "theory" OR "hypothesis" title. Creation is a belief, and calling it anything else is incorrect and often meant to mislead.

How could something as complex as the huan body come about totally by chance?

Who said something as complex as the human body came about totally by chance? In fact, it's the exact opposite. While the first replicating strands of molecules came about by chance in a situation where the probability of such an occurance was around 99%, all the processes that lead to humans were the opposite of chance.

All those proccesses were organisms creating infrastructure, protection, security, alliances, unified organizations, and improved abilities.... just like humanity has done! These things are created out of necessity, regardless of the organism's size.

Example: You've got your self replicating strand of molecules, it makes many copies, but acids in the environment are destroying many of the strands. Random extra reactions are always occuring in the replication and lifespan of the replicating molecules, and eventually the right random reaction lets many of the replicating molecules link together to form long chains. The long chains make many copies, but other, competing chains are consuming all the raw materials. The long chains eventually use the hydrolysis they use during replication on an enemy chain, which is likely considering the close proximity. Suddenly the chains which use hydrolysis to break apart the enemy chains flourish, and the ones that do not diminish. The upgraded chains copy themselves... etc.

This process goes on for millions of years and eventually you reach a complex "civilization" organism where trillions of smaller replicating systems work together to protect their own replication, and that organism is called "humans."

How could every type of creature on the earth be easily classifiable, if they came about by chance?

Classifications are not easy, and are not nearly perfect. Many traits have been haphazardly spread between different ancestral lines and there is frequent discussion of ways to updated and fix the taxonomic classification systems because they are rudimentary and inaccurate due to the endless mix of traits.

Basically, all the creatures didn't come about by chance because they aren't easily classifiable, you just are not educated on that subject.

How could our atmosphere have achieved the perfect balance of gases, by chance?

The composition of the atmosphere is constantly shifting in the long term and short term in localized and global changes. There is no "perfect balance of gasses," there just needs to be enough oxygen for our systems, and enough cardon dioxide for plants... both of which happen to be created in a cycle so that both of us provide the necessary gas for the other!

Basically, the atmosphere isn't perfect, and life simply adapted to work with what it had available. Additionally, all the critical substances are transferred around by all the organisms to create a sustained cycle.

Reality never supports religion, and I wouldn't suggest trying to force religious support out of it. More often than not you discover that what *seemed* like evidence was just your own ignorance of the real situation.

How long on average, does it take for a country that's lost many lives being bombed by the US during its 'conversion', to 'earn back' the lives it would otherwise have lost in that time if it was still dispotic / dictatorship / communist?

Well, if you consider Iraq:
During Saddam's reign, the average death toll per month was 10,000 people.
During the American bombings, less than 200 people died per month.
In the 2 years since the war started, less than 6,000 Iraqis have died in the fighting.

Since the American Invasion began, 234,000 lives have been 'saved' that would otherwise have been lost under the government Iraq had before. These lives were given freely, so there is no "earning back" required.

Infact, the glorious democracy that Iraq now is (to me) looks like it has a few years to go yet until anyone can say "it was worth it".

You obviously haven't been paying attention, then.

Did you see the fork of the Tigris and Euphrates, where thousands of the most ancient wetlands have been rehabilitated in the past 2 years after Saddam drained them and nearly obliterated an entire culture built around them?

Did you see the newly-constructed power plants all over Iraq that replaced the jurry-rigged, ramshackle, barely-maintable plants that the operators barely kept running before, especially in places like Baghdad?

Did you see the democratic elections held all over Iraq for writing their own constitution?

Did you see the major sanitation infrastructure that has been constructed all over Iraq to replace ditches on the side of roads?

Did you see Saddam's statue crashing down as hundreds of Iraqis gloried in their new freedom to literally throw down the dictator who opressed them for so many years? If this last one wasn't worth it, you can't deny any of the above weren't a worthwhile accomplishment.

At 8/18/05 09:56 PM, SpinnerClotho wrote: Prostitution should be legal. If someone's going to go and have sex for money, they're going to do it whether it's legal or not.

Plus, if it's legal, there'll have to be regulations, like making sure all the hookers are regularly checked for STD's and such.

How can you make those two statements one after another?
"People will do whatever they want, regardless of the law" then "If we make laws about it, everyone will follow them!"

It won't work how you seem to think it will, but that means nothing in the larger view because of one overwhelming reason:
The People will not support legal prostition because it is morally, ethically, and socially unacceptable, regardless of any "benefits" legalizing it may provide.

It's been this way for 3,000 years and we're going to keep it that way.

At 8/10/05 10:39 PM, FBIpolux wrote: I'm always thinking about what will happen in 40-50 years. The world will not be like it's right now, and I don't think it will be better. We are getting worse by the years.

:In the 20's, all mens were gentlemens and saluting everyone in the streets;

And WWI broke out as petty nationalism and misguided patriotism ripped Europe apart, and the worst war in history began. More horrors occurred in WWI than any other war: mustard gas, suicidal infantry charges against machine guns, and a level of disillusionment never seen before.

:In the 1970's, people were always interrested in protecting their planet (okay, I know it's hippies but whatever);

And those same people, only about 20% of their actual generation, caused waves that devastated many aspects of our society for decades afterwards. Their massive abuse of drugs killed thousands and introduced dozens of dangerous illegal drugs into the American markets that are nearly impossible to remove now; their misguided attempts at being "free" shook economy and created a huge division in our society; their poorly thought out idealogies lead them to harass and demean soldiers who risked everything for their country, and especially those who lost; their later conversion to the opposite extreme, "yuppies," drove the corporate balance between employer and employee into a devastating crash which left millions of Americans living lives with significantly more stress and significantly more pressure to be perfectists (like the Yuppies) that can be possibly considered fair.

:in 2001, Terrorists starts attacking the occident again;

And in the following years the Kyoto Accord paseed, the IRA finally made peace with London and a war of terror ended after 45 years, the American economy recovered greatly, Americans managed to recover from their eating binge slump, and production of Nuclear Power Plants resumed again, just to name a few events.

Just because you can not see the good things for not looking does not mean they are not there, and vice versa. Except for the brainwashed terrorist generation the Muslim clerics and terrorist leaders trained in the Middle East, life is better now than it ever has been before.

:If we continue on this way, in 25 years California may no more exist, since the North Pole, melting, would have increased the water's level. There will be hundreds of hurricanes everywhere, all countries in the equators will be unlivable because of the heat...

Do a little research. Global warming is not as bad as you imagine.

First of all, global warming affects the higher latitudes more significantly, and has a negligible effect on the equatorial region. This means more crop lands, more habitable land, and better crop yields for the Bread Basket in America.

While a significant amount of coastal land will be lost, the largest expected loss is about 20 miles inland, which is hardly all of California. The East Coast will suffer the most monetary losses, assuming they aren't smart enough to build sea walls similar to those in the Netherlands, but considering how only 5% of the United States is populated, there is no reason to worry about crowding.

Even better, for all the land Americans may lose, the benefits for Americans outweigh the negatives by a hefty margin, even though the same is not true for many other countries. Of especial note, however, is the major colonizable landmass of Antartica which will become available, and will most likely have soil and climate perfect for crops, if it reaches the surface successfully.

I'm basing all my ideas on scientific researches and on our actual situation. What do you think?

Now you have the rest of the story.

At 7/31/05 02:03 PM, MTeK wrote: Freedom = Chaos
To have total freedom is to be able to do anything you want with no one to stop you. Laws restrict total freedom. But no one really wants total freedom.
There needs to be resraints on what everybody does otherwise the world would be a pretty awful place. Because of the nature of humans, we cant just leave ourselves to do as we please.

There is a major difference between "total freedom" (actually Anarchy, as you decribed it) and Freedom.

Freedom = Free will, the ability to choose your own actions.

Anarchy = The ability to do whatever you want.

Civilization = An organized society designed to control how actions, chosen by free will, are executed and to encourage smart decisions from individuals for the purpose of protecting the freedom and safety of the other individuals.

Living in a civilization where everyone has Freedom does not mean Anarchy. It means that the execution of freely-chosen actions is controlled by an agreed upon third party. Laws are made to encourage the less reliable individuals within a society to do things safely and avoid harming the body or freedom of another individual. Punishments are executed to deal with those less reliable individuals when all the other individuals deem them a significant danger.

In America, we have Freedom. However, when you try to harm the freedom or safety of another through actions like theft, murder, using machines you are not capable of using safely (driving w/o license or while drunk), etc. then you will be "strenuously encouraged" by our agreed-upon third party to cease your actions, not to reduce your own freedom or safety, but to protect my freedom and safety.

At 7/29/05 04:48 PM, Dinodoode wrote: Heres what you would need for world peace to be a reality:

1, no religion

This is not necessarily true. While no religion is an option, religious tolerance is also an alternative. However, a single religion is not an option.

2, no currency

Currency never caused war. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Wars have been prevented because of currency, but never once was a war started because of currency.

3, no countries

Countries themselves are not the problem. It's the people who are leading them who are the problem. Example: Italy has existed for thousands of years (counting Romans), yet it was a country which gave Italy 200 years of peace (Pax Romana). It is the temporary leaders who cause the problems in their mistakes and hunger for power.

4, Everyone would need to be the same race

Are you serious? Race doesn't matter one bit. What does matter is the acceptance of others, rather than the "My Way or the Highway" attitude. You obviously didn't think much when you wrote this thread. Did you ever realize that it is usually the cultures of different societies which cause bigotry like racism, not the variety itself.

5, Everyone speaks the same language

Not at all necessary. While a universally common language would be helpful, no war has been fought over language.

6, Everyone wears the same clothing made by the same name brand etc.

HA! This is the worst one I've ever heard. Are you so jaded by your own experiences that you believe VARIETY is the cause of war? You are completely wrong, and this claim is the worst of them. No one gives a damn what brand clothes you're wearing, and the range of acceptance in huge. I can't believe you even mentioned this one.

So as you can see, world peace will never come to be, add more if you think they should be on this list

I know of two you should add, the real things that plague humanity and cause war. Your list is totally inaccurate. You want to know the two real problems: extremism and ignorance.

Just look at the current world order if you want proof. Why are the terrorists blowing up London subways and killing innocents in Iraq? Extremism. Why is another genocide occuring? Extremism. Why did we even go to war with Iraq? Extremism (theirs) and ignorance of the real situation. Those are the only devils that prevent world peace.

Actually, the entire premise of this thread is incorrect. Capitalism is actually COMPLETELY American. The problems come in when the original poster deemed certain attributes "required" for something to be American, and if those were lacking then the certain thing must be "Anti-American."

Lack of through-and-through Patriotism in activities completely unrelated to Nationalism or any political events whatsoever does not make something "Anti-American."

Lack of appropriate concern about the quality of a product is not "Anti-American," nor does that even have anything to do with America (it has to do with individuals and companies).

Etc.

None of the things the original poster listed have anything to do with being Pro- or Anti-American. Therefore, the entire argument is baseless and badly stated.

In fact, Capitalism (as a whole) is the most "American" thing you can have. It is an entire economic and social system designed around the freedom of the individual, bettering yourself (both mentally & physically), and pursuing happiness.

Individuals are free to choose their jobs, lifestyles, what they buy, how they do things, etc. Additionally, people are constantly trying to improve themselves through things like school, continued learning, and scientific research (larger scale than individual, usually). To top it off, the ENTIRE point of Capitalism is to pursue happiness and foster self improvement (through competition). How is any of this "Anti-American"?

I can't remember the exact procedure, but for some countries you can use your foreign license in the US for a period of like 6 months (before you have to leave our country), or you can always apply for a license in the US when you arrive.

However, I would suggest searching the internet for the government section dealing with licenses and read the information there. It may be a little tough to find, but it WILL give the right answer, 100% of the time.

At 4/21/05 09:44 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Men are a larger factor when it comes to sexual abuse. I say we remove rights from men in order to keep children safe from sexual preditors. This means that a man cannot raise a child. *nod*

I never proposed taking the rights away of these guys. But if I were looking for a sexual abuser, I don't think I would be looking at women as hard as I'd be looking at men, because men are, as you said, more likely to be sexual "preditors." Is that not logical?

He is completely correct in his response. When worried about sexual predators, men are much more suspect than women, and anyone you contact will respond to a possible molestation of a child (girl OR boy) by a man much faster than they would if a woman was suspect.

HOWEVER, you must realize that active searches soley for that reason are illegaI. Gender, culture, and age play a constant role in how other people treat us, and there will always be people who react negatively to you due to one of these three groups. When you try to do something, like cross a border after going to a giant religious convention, there may be a reaction from the border guards due to your culture (not actually your religion).

In this case, the border guards were suspicious of large numbers of people from a culture they were previously informed had ill intent towards their country and all those people were flooding towards a major population center and one of the most dangerous attack targets possible. They most definately had a reason to detain them, it just probably wasn't a very good reason.

So you can be wary of men you don't know when you are on a walk with your daughter, but it is completely illegal for you to do mass searches of houses owned specifically by men or prevent them from raising children. However: men do have to prove in court that they are capable of raising a child, and with even a single tip the investigation of a man for molestation is likely; while for a woman, the default in court is capability (and they only must prove capability after failing), and more than a single tip is required to start a molestation investigation.

Gender, age, and cultural bias exist in this world, so learn to live with it.
Passive bias influence is (usually) acceptable, but active biased actions are not.

At 4/18/05 05:02 PM, Sandaasu wrote: Fortunately, it stands no chance of passing. As people learn more about it, they're coming out more and more against it.

Then tell me, if you think his idea is so terrible, how can we PERMANENTLY fix SS? I am not gonna pay more taxes, I'm not gonna accept a tiny fraction of what I paid in when I retire, and I'm not gonna accept a minor patch-up job to last 4 more years.

So, tell me, how do you (or the Dems) think we can fix SS?

Your argument in favor of race-seperated sports is incorrect and a very bad idea.

Regardless of race, men are all equal and women are all equal. The only thing that effects how many members of a particular group participate in a professional sport is the emphasis on that sport within their culture. You can expect members of the black culture (actually regardless of race) to play Basketball as a primary sport; you can't expect to see many members of the black culture playing Hockey. This isn't due to physical abilities, it is due to cultural inclination (basically, whether or not they played it a lot as a kid).

Racism is never an appropriate or sufficient reason, and I am disgusted that you actually used it as support for your claim that sports should be split by race.

At 4/12/05 05:01 PM, H-Dawg wrote:

:Would this kind of incident be as "thinkable" if our country weren't in the political/militarized/hyper-terrorized state it is in today?

Most definately. This appears to be part of a standard procedure that has been around and essentially unchanged for decades. This has absolutely nothing to do with your perceptions of the current state of the country, but rather with standard police training. If you receive reports of a possible murder-attempt and the suspect must be stopped with force, police are required to pull out their guns in most areas, and this wasn't a new law.

Again, this has to do with police training and traditional standard responses, not whatever you imagine the current state of the country to be.

At 4/4/05 04:42 PM, -BAWLS- wrote:

At 4/4/05 02:14 PM, punisher19848 wrote:

:: Yeah, the earth has warmed and cooled over history, but this time WE'RE DOING IT. It doesn't HAVE to happen. The ozone layer can't just disappear, and then come back again. Or at least not soon enough to prevent any major damage.

There is insufficient evidence to prove that humans are a substantial factor in the recent global period of warming. Nothing absolutely has to happen, but there is no proof that humans are the sole cause. The Earth and everything on it has proved amazingly hardy, and only choices that are dangerous regardless of scale (pumping hazardous materials into public water, etc) have been incontrovertibally identified as harmful.

For other things, like the thickness of the ozone and other extraordinarily complex systems (especially the ones that propagandists oversimplify, like the greenhouse effect), there is no way we can conclusively say what all the factors of the problem truly are. We can guess and make choices to have the best effect, but otherwise we can only try things and wait.

Life can adapt to anything thrown at it.

Why did the dinosaurs go extinct then, huh? I thought life could adapt to "anything thrown at it"?

Dinosaurs are only a subset of "Life," therefore even if they go extinct and another subset of Life survives, then the set Life survived. Oh yeah, and several species of dinosaurs have survived to modern times, including many aquatic reptiles (especially crocodiles), and even birds (direct descendants of dinosaurs who adapted).

Why we need to care about animals and the environment:
Currently, humans are not capable of fully understanding every aspect of the effect we have on this planet. We are not masters of the universe, and a huge amount of effort would be required to fix any major messes that we create. The current ecosystems and stable biosphere that we have is an effective method for keeping a balanced planet with no major work on our part. The Earth is our space ship, and only a fool would destroy his own life support systems before he knows how to build new ones.

Every action we (humans) make, from small things, like chopping down a tree, to big things, like a cow farm, have an effect on our related ecosystems. Every action we take effects the environment. We need to keep this in mind at all times. Nothing is ever perfect, so no action can ever be without side effects. Moderation is key if we wish to keep our planet intact until we can colonize other planets. Huge amounts of anything will cause an imbalance and severe damage. Even too much of supposedly "environmentally friendly" things will have a major impact. From power generation to waste disposal, humans must consider the impact we will have on the balance. If we are not careful, we may knock out our life support systems and kill all life on the planet.

About animal cruelty specifically. . . animal cruelty is a singular situation: mistreatment of animals due to neglect or ill intentions and without just cause. Things like fox hunting are an example, since it is a large event for the sole purpose of brutally slaughtering animals. This does not mean anything else except for nonsensical mistreatment of animals. The main argument in favor of fighting against animal cruelty is the negative habits and tendencies it creates; if you beat your dogs daily, you are more inclined to use violence on other people. Also, compassion and empathy come into play because many people believe that humans have the power to try to act responsibly and improve life, so they should. Punishment for animal cruelty is less a response in favor of animals than a reaction to irresponsible actions by humans. Actions like torture, unjustified violence, and negligence are universally discouraged in human civilization, regardless of the situation.

Also, your argument that we should ignore everything important to integrity and morales in favor of fixing specific problems one by one is invalid. It is not possible to improve the situation overall if you allow a majority of situations to decay while you focus on a single or a few situations you believe are important. Compared to past history, there is much less suffering, starvation, etc. in modern times. The only way to achieve our end goals is to work to fix everything. You do not ignore one important problem in favor of another when you have the manpower to spare to work on both. Especially for situations like starvation and poverty, it is more of a problem of creating a properly streamlined systems and logistics than it is manpower or priority, so focusing more on problems like that would not fix them any faster.

At 4/3/05 09:37 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 4/3/05 09:20 PM, Catsofthebase wrote:

I wish everyone would just quite saying that. What's done is done and there's nothing anyone can do about it now except move on with your lives.
*head explodes*

First of all, you obviously can't see sarcasm, man. That guy was being sarcastic and he was saying that Saddam should have been taken out of power anyways.

On Topic: We've known for awhile that the US Intelligence system has been flawed. We've known that since Clinton slaughtered their ability to actually gather intelligence by making rules and limitations that essentially made it so they couldn't have any ground units anywhere and they couldn't listen to traitors for information. Basically, they have to ask the Intelligence agencies of other countries to hand them information, and those other countries were wrong. It's that simple. . . not really.

The huge sums of money spent on security for events like that is given a pre-determined chunk of the budget. Any extras from one year go to the next, so they have a mini-treasury to pull from for security events. It doesn't get much money, and not nearly on the scale Social Security or Education would require. In fact, Social Security takes up an entire 25% of our 2005 budget as things stand now, much more than the 18% for Military.

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Tell me, anywhere in there does it say that legislators are not allowed to let their personal beliefs affect their decision? Rather, those two clauses state that we can make no law prohibiting legislators from believing in a religion and letting it influence them! Therefore, you should not rag on a politician (Bush) for believing in a religion or making decisions based on personal beliefs (Gay marriage) because that is perfectly fine and dandy according to our Constitution.

There is one simple way to explain why meditation is useful: relaxing is good for your health.

Meditation is essentially a formalized form of relaxation. It allows you to slow down the activity of your mind (giving it a break) and relax your muscles and other bodily systems. This is something anyone can do and it does not have to be through meditation. Someone who is feeling healthier, more energetic, and refreshed will feel happier. Why do you think being in good shape can make you feel happier, and exercising is a good way to work off anger? Refreshing your system makes you happy. The key is to find the best way for you to relax.

And the point of this thread is? You made no statement, there is nothing to discuss, and at best you may provoke a misdirected insult at Bush.

I don't care for Bush's plan very much, but I find it intereting how no one else will get off their ass and suggest another idea, even though in every single speech about it Bush keeps telling people to bring other ideas onto the table.

The Freedom Tower design sucks because, if you look at it, it truly symbolizes how Freedom has been weakened, and had the greatest part shattered into uselessness, with only a weak frame left behind after the terrorist attacks. That is an absolutely crappy idea that symbolizes how we have fallen and truly can't get up again, which is also crap. Down with the crappy Freedom Tower!