Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/15/10 08:06 PM, letiger wrote: You cannot simply teach children sex at an early age either. They will be too bored with it, or take it the wrong way. Let them learn for themselves. They would be more likely to benefit from that, than to sit around listening to people while all that goes through their heads is, "blah blah blah". Well if that dosn't make sense then the shorter version would be : Teaching them = They wont listen, Having them be self-taught = Learning something.

I don't have to jump out of an airplane understand the consequences of not taking the proper precautions for a long drop. Teaching should be good enough to get the point across.

Anyone also notice that in the ancient times, now I am going a little off here, that sex was free and people were smarter?

:and people were smarter?

:smarter?

Are you serious?

At 2/2/10 12:00 AM, Musician wrote: - A policy that bans homosexuals from serving in the military
- Legislation in some states that explicitly prohibit homosexual marriages or civil unions
- A pro-life movement that would bring us back to the era before roe v wade, where women were dying on the streets getting back alley abortions.

If you want I can go on.

So you're arguing that morality doesn't make sense... with your own moral stances?

At 1/22/10 06:46 PM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote: how is it fair to legalize gay incest but not heterosexual incest?

It's not. Equal protection under the law, and all that jazz.

You can't live every moment in fear. That's really all there is to it.

Sorry, OP, but no one I've met so far has been successfully able to prove that science is a religion. Science can have a dogma at times (see the recent university cover-up of global warming information) and has the faith of millions (most people just accept what prominent scientists say on face value), but that certainly does not qualify it as a religion.

The only thing the two concepts have in common is that both are philosophies that seen to make sense of the world we live in - not mutually exclusive unless we make it so, but different enough to be entirely separate concepts.

At 12/16/09 12:45 AM, Nein wrote: But the drugs aren't specifically illegal! All they say is: "If it is chemically similar to another illegal drug, it's counted as schedule 1". How do they expect the common citizen to know whether or not a compound is chemically similar? It's bullshit. They should be able to make individual drugs illegal with all them money available to them.

I do agree with that. Sometimes, it seems like the government crams all of that verbal judo into a law just to snag people for ignorance; our legislators should be writing for quality, not quantity...

At 12/16/09 08:36 AM, pr0ded wrote:

As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

lol ignorance, like ignoring of the fact that DMT is a endogenous, thus you are in possesion of a schedule 1 substance\\"

There is a distinction between abusing or trafficking in a controlled substance and having it produced in your body to help you survive.

lol and lol

I don't follow. It only seemed appropriate to answer surrealism with surrealism in that instance.

what a confused little christian

If you think you're going to provoke a response by talking down to me like some sort of high-riding academic, then you really don't know me at all. Quit trying to blow smoke up my ass and give me a valid reason why your position is any better.

At 12/15/09 12:23 AM, Nein wrote: Also, what the fuck is up with the whole analog system!? What is the DEA's budget? Why the fuck can't they specifically tell us what drugs are legal? So, I get to buy some 2C-E, Methylone, 5-MeO-DMT, etc. online, only to find out that they're illegal when the DEA kicks down my door? How

As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

At 11/19/09 09:55 PM, LardLord wrote: I'm not worried about an exaggerated fringe group that will be mostly-defunct in twenty years, anyways, because it's composed of stupid, racist old people.

The Jesse Jackson family?

At 11/9/09 09:04 PM, estrago1 wrote: Just because Obama promised something doesn't mean it's automatically going to happen. He is human like the rest of us. And he is a politician; remember, politicians do A LOT of lying to get where they are.

I doubt a lot of people here would have given Bush the same benefit of the doubt.

At 10/22/09 12:34 AM, Warforger wrote: Lack of Human Rights? First of all, its not like America hasn't done this,

It being wrong for us to do it doesn't make it any less wrong for them to join in.
(wrong)*2 < right

not to mention pollution is also a problem ther too

See above.

not to mention they also pushed the Indians out and took there land.

See above.

Why would they care about Religion if they don't do anything? I honestly don't see why no religious freedom is so bad, thats like outlawing imaginary friends, its largly pointless. I mean would you say religion is better or worse for society? It supports indoctrination, hell there alot of people who say that the world be better without religion.

Yeah, you can argue that. But that doesn't change the fact that freedom of belief is a central tenet of a free society; ban that, and you might as well be banning certain forms of thought.

Also, the official athiesm vs. non-atheism thread is not here. Check another castle.

At 11/2/09 03:10 AM, awkward-silence wrote: Right now the bill proposed by the house is estimated to actually save $104B by the end of ten years and opens the door to excercise, what will be redundant health care tax credits, from our books. These credits in question are running $250B/year, thus making the potential 10 year savings $2.6T. Holy Shit!

[citation needed]

We need reform.

This is not that.

You seem to be forgetting about land, money, resources, ambition, and other cultural differences as causes of wars.

Also, we already have a zillion of these threads. Did we really need another?

At 11/1/09 12:34 PM, TheStonePilot wrote:

At 11/1/09 11:02 AM, Elfer wrote:

Also, I don't think marijuana would count as a hallucinogenic.

Marijuana is, technically, a very minor hallucinogen - it alters your perception of time and distances.

At 10/30/09 11:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 10/30/09 11:09 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

The more I learn about American Politicians, the more outraged I become.
SICKO, was a real eye opener for me.

You do realize that Michael Moore is not exactly an unbiased representative of the state of American politics, right?

At 10/22/09 07:09 AM, pr0ded wrote: and one can bring up dutch drug policy
http://www.csdp.org/ads/dutch2.htm

Because that's not a biased source or anything...

At 10/21/09 08:05 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/18/09 09:13 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 10/18/09 02:51 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/18/09 02:19 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

Are you serious? Because, if you are, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in purchasing.

Oh please, China had more university graduates ( I think 2x as many or something like that))in 07 then the US, makes everything the US uses practically, and there on there way to becoming a super power while the US is on its way to residing as a average country just like what happened to Russia.

Really? Because it would seem to me that you're ignoring their terrible human rights record, and authoritarian, "police state" mentality - not to mention their terrible pollution problems and tendency to shove established ethnic/cultural groups out of land that they want, apparently never having learned the lessons of other nation's histories (including our own). Religious and political freedom are severely curtailed in China, and the highly centralized government is not answerable to the people it rules over.

Sounds like a real barrel of fun to me.

At 10/20/09 04:18 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: These people who argue against drug legalization simply do not understand the fundamentals of human action. The illegalization of drugs has done nothing beneficial on net to society. The only reason the drug war continues is probably because of corrupt law enforcement officers that keep up these myths. or perhaps the drug lords themselves are bribing or strong-arming politicians.

You know, it could have more to do with public health and safety (something that the government is actually required to think about under the Constitution). Drugs frequently have detrimental effects on the body that vary greatly, and (as we've seen from alcohol) people cannot always be trusted to use controlled substances responsibly on their own.

In fact, one could argue that those who support public health care would be acting in a hypocritical and short-sighted fashion by also supporting drug legalization with the full knowledge that subsequent cases of drug-related illness would increase - and, yet, many of the people who do support legalization come from the same end of the political spectrum as they do...

I wasn't under the impression that one needed to make a case for religious beliefs. You either ascribed to some form of God or not, but either way you would do so knowing full well that there was no evidence one way or another (hence the faith aspect).

Also, another religion thread, needed or not, etc.

The difference? Simple:

Dogs and cats are more entertaining, and they have multiple uses other than as food products (hunting, guard duty, pest control, lolcats, etc.)

Cows, pigs, and chickens? Not so much - but they are tasty.

At 10/18/09 12:17 PM, amaterasu wrote: Interesting article I found earlier

He doesn't really site any sources for his claims though.

That's madder than a (tin foil) hatter.

At 10/18/09 12:15 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/18/09 01:54 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 10/18/09 01:44 AM, Warforger wrote:

name a single country that is better.

Germany, France, Russia and China
Russia and China
CHINA

Are you serious? Because, if you are, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in purchasing.

At 10/14/09 11:09 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Not exactly my favorite bill, but if the Patriot act didn't get Bush beaten on by a long line of irritated citizens with rubber mallets this isn't even going to make us blink.

But, if I recall directly, it did get him beat up = albeit at the polls rather than with sticks.

At 10/13/09 07:26 PM, pr0ded wrote: seems all too based on subjective experience, whats big and whats smell, is that object green? or is it ultraviolet as seen from some other species

The answer is that its all relative.

Also, WTF?

At 10/12/09 09:43 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 10/12/09 02:43 AM, dySWN wrote: Also, unlike what Franken said, it did specifically apply to Haliburton. While the company should not be given further government funding or contracts if it comes to light that the allegations of official misconduct are true (obviously the individual assailants should be prosecuted), that doesn't change the fact that the way the bill was worded makes this sound like a political witch hunt - particularly after the Democrats got stung for the systemic misconduct of ACORN employees.

Actually, the amendment didn't specify any company in particular:

Sec. 8104. (a)

Oh - I hadn't seen that. I guess I misread something on one of the links provided on the site. Disregard my preceding rant about that, in that case.

There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about this amendment or it's wording what so ever. The people that voted against this amendment are basically promoting workplace sexual and physical assault, despicable.

I agree, and I think my point still stands about really putting teeth in the enforcement to try and snag other egregious offenders getting government funding.

At 10/11/09 10:30 PM, pr0ded wrote: sure, like calling artists and scientists 'druggies'

...except that the co-workers I was referring to would call themselves druggies, and were mostly more or less average guys. Most of them were your average college students - not particularly cerebral or artistic, but otherwise solid guys save for their addictions. Maybe it doesn't fit the paradigm that you're looking for, but I think it represents a more realistic take on the demographics involved in the issue; I sincerely doubt you could name one case of a scientist actually being better for his substance abuse.

Besides, I wasn't using the word in a derogatory sense (although obviously some people would take it as such more than others). There's no need to try and insult me over semantics or the fact that we happen to have very different life experiences.

At 10/12/09 02:48 AM, fli wrote:

At 10/12/09 02:38 AM, dySWN wrote: This whole thing smacks of wild innacuracy and/or creative editing to me. Did anyone else notice the big red credibility warning, or the fact that the article is connected indirectly to a story that first broke on ThinkProgress (a website in part dedicated to staining Republican credibility)?

Well, the facts check in this time if you go to the senate's website (you can click on Glaiel's link, or search it for yourself.)

It could be spun, I guess... but if you want the facts without the commentary, then look at the list who voted "nay" and you will see that those names match up.

I don't take issue with the vote attribution - I take issue with the way that the story is reported and with it's source.

That said, had it been me, I would have tried to make the bill broader to cover other, similar cases of misconduct without naming names. As long as we're cleaning the books (first ACORN, now Haliburton), we should just go ahead and set the FBI loose to hunt down and purge the other ne'er-do-wells on the government dole. It would have been a real gas to watch hundreds of amoral political pressure groups go straight to hell, along with the subsequent spin that the congresscritters responsible for funding them would try.

Its time to cut the corruption from our government with a flaming chainsaw of JUSTICE.

Also, unlike what Franken said, it did specifically apply to Haliburton. While the company should not be given further government funding or contracts if it comes to light that the allegations of official misconduct are true (obviously the individual assailants should be prosecuted), that doesn't change the fact that the way the bill was worded makes this sound like a political witch hunt - particularly after the Democrats got stung for the systemic misconduct of ACORN employees.