Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/25/08 07:21 PM, Earfetish wrote: Actually, as for how credible Fox News is, didn't they report on Jenkem?

You do realize that news organizations are vulnerable to hoaxes as well, right?

At 7/25/08 03:12 PM, Earfetish wrote:

At 7/25/08 02:13 PM, Memorize wrote:

I just lolled at how he posted from the Mail and then used Fox to back it up - obv accurate reporting tho

It's not a question of accuracy. I think you could be trying to point out a general trend of right-leaning bias in his post (which would be correct), as opposed to a general trend of un-credibility (which would be incorrect unless referring to the beliefs of more left leaning circles). Ultimately, if he got something from the BBC and backed it up with CNN, then we could say the same.

The only part of this thread that has anything to do with politics is Earfetish's remark about media credibility. That's usually a bad sign

Go back to General.

At 7/25/08 11:47 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

My point is that the thread title is 'Don't hate Islam', then you boast about 'hating all religion', but it's okay because you 'hate them all the same'.

Yes, exactly. The title would have been, 'Don't Hate Islam More Than Other Religions', but there's a title limit and all that.

That's not really an improvement. Hating a belief system because it fails to correspond with your own is closed-minded - even if your own belief system stems from a lack of belief to begin with.

At 7/25/08 02:33 AM, misterDAK wrote:

At 7/25/08 01:05 AM, dySWN wrote: LOL. You say that as if politicians from other parties are any better.

Not really. But I know well how the republican party functions.

And how would you know that? The media is not a good resource on these things, and unless you're a savvy congressional insider I sincerely doubt you're privy to any knowledge that the rest of us aren't in regards to ANY of the major parties.

At 7/24/08 11:35 PM, Llama-of-Death wrote: Asinine. Religious people are allowed to hate on anything they want, as long as they sling their book at whoever is arguing against them.

You seem to be confusing the radicals with the moderates on this issue.

At 7/24/08 01:10 PM, misterDAK wrote: And if by "right" you mean "enabling human progress", then they are wrong 90% of the time.

LOL. You say that as if politicians from other parties are any better.

At 7/25/08 12:39 AM, Imperator wrote: .....since we're inevitably gonna be talking about this upto and including the period when the US ceases to exist as a nation.....

What the heck are you talking about?

At 7/22/08 02:35 PM, poxpower wrote: haha I just noticed in Britkid's profile that he thinks I will ban him for disagreeing with me.

You haven't banned me yet, and we disagree all the time.

Of course, I'm sure there's times I've tempted you. LOL.

At 7/20/08 02:23 PM, Creek wrote: Have robot children, because robots are more fit to survival.

How is that supposed to work?

At 7/21/08 02:20 PM, Wolf-Raven wrote: It's all perception, really.

Meh. Moral relativism is so 2004.

At 7/22/08 03:56 AM, freddorfman wrote: you look only towards bettering yourself through materilsm and greed

While we're busy looking out for ourselves, you might do well to take a look in a history book and take note of the fact that communism is, by and large, a colossal failure.

At 7/22/08 02:18 PM, drDAK wrote: And President Bush has made no improvements in solidifying the United States as a superpower.

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe we've developed a reputation as a nation likely to jump to military action before diplomacy, but on the other hand that means the threat of our military being used on someone carries a greater sense of seriousness.

At 7/22/08 02:10 AM, zekeet wrote: ha much as killing soldiers is a bad way for promoting peace. i feel no empathy for a dull witted soldier who takes another mans life and find it romantic

Wow, sure feels new in here...

At 7/22/08 02:07 AM, zekeet wrote: Its all very simple. people who vote Republican are weak minded fear mongers who will vote for anyone that promises them safety.

As opposed to the Democrats constantly proclaiming the arrival of the end times over global warming?

At 7/18/08 10:13 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: One who is bad for failing to pratice what he preaches, and one with the nature to change their mind on an issue when the facts support the other side.

Can you draw a line between them?

Al Gore vs. ???

At 7/17/08 09:34 PM, Petro355 wrote: I have a question:Do you people enjoy arguing?

I mean, seriously, there really is no point. There MAY be a God, there MAY not be a God, and the world MAY be taken over by evil flying monkies, but it does't really make a rat's shit worth of difference whether or not we can prove who is right and who is not right.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're new around these parts.

Some of us have been making this point for years, but it does little to bring people off their high horses in terms of whether or not they believe in some higher power. In short, you get an A for effort, but nothing you or I can do will stop the endless cycle of arguments here.

I'm sure this topic would be much busier if not for the fact that most of us NG users don't know jack about economics.

Obligatory.

At 7/11/08 09:20 AM, freddorfman wrote: it is good to see another working man who sees the way i do good fourtune be upon you comrade

AT ZEJE KOMMUNISMUS ANO V KAMARADE

LOL.

Brotherhood in failure is still failure.

At 7/10/08 08:03 PM, Callojero777 wrote: I think you hit it right on the damn nail. I've been carefully moniteting the situation in Russia and surrounding areas of the middle east, I wouldn't be suprised to see a large increase of activity in the next 5 years.

I, for one, would be totally unsurprised.

At 7/9/08 09:06 PM, drDAK wrote: Someone needs to force people to keep their beliefs to themselves.

That would be a violation of basic free speech rights.

Right here, in fact.

At 7/8/08 04:19 AM, Callojero777 wrote: It looks like cities such as D.C., Chicago and NYC are going to have a swarth of people now able to carry firearms after the supreme court's decision in favor of the 2nd amendment. How does everyone feel about this?

Like there's already been a thread about this.

You know, Pox, you remind me a lot of Shaggytheclown. The only difference is that you're a radical on the opposite extreme, and you have moderator status.

At 7/6/08 08:31 AM, DaleyPaley wrote: What do you think would be the best form of government?

None.

Although, in reality, we do need a little bit of government.

At 7/7/08 09:30 PM, drDAK wrote: "The Status Quo SUCKS." - George Carlin

You know, it's also said that those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

For example, you writing this thread before noting that other obviously biased threads have fallen to the wayside in favor of real debates.

At 7/7/08 07:41 PM, poxpower wrote: You do realize that this is NOT christianity right?
Or any other religion? In all those texts, it states PLAINLY that you should always devote your LIFE to religion and do whatever it says.

I'm sorry, you're NOT a christian or whatever you claim to be. The book is clear on this point. So I guess you have to stop saying you're christian now and admit you're just another vague theist with a penchant for the bible.

Because once again: you are not christian.

What I get from my reading of the Bible is that, while it is true that the Old Testament still applies, God also realizes that humans are fallible beings who can't be trusted to follow all of his edicts all the time (hence Jesus dying for our sins, etc). It also shows that God is not a static being, either - he changes his own rules from time to time. Aside from which, much in the way of the violent tendencies set forth in the Old Testament were canceled out by Jesus' commanding his followers to love one another and setting an example by accepting sinners.

In short, if you are somehow arguing that I'm not a Christian because I don't stone gays or go on witch hunts, then I respond by saying that all that means is that I'm your standard, fallible human - and that you're too caught up in your own predispositions to objectively assess the Bible as a literary work.

At 7/7/08 07:41 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/7/08 07:21 PM, dySWN wrote:

As with eating, religious moderation is key.

You do realize that this is NOT christianity right?
Or any other religion? In all those texts, it states PLAINLY that you should always devote your LIFE to religion and do whatever it says.

I'm sorry, you're NOT a christian or whatever you claim to be. The book is clear on this point. So I guess you have to stop saying you're christian now and admit you're just another vague theist with a penchant for the bible.

Because once again: you are not christian.

At 7/7/08 07:25 PM, dySWN wrote:

Usually, citing a website that has obvious signs of opinionatedness in relation to the topic at hand in its web address is not a good way of wining a debate.

they are quotes taken straight from the bible.
How is that biased?

I was saying that people will take it as biased regardless, simply because it shows a clear disposition to one opinion in its very name, not disputing its contents.

And before you even come back with the "it's out of context", "we have to interpret the message as a whole" bullshit: no.
These quotes, all of them, are extremely precise and clear.
They say "do this, and that". And I've been challenged on it before and I DID go back to read some of the source chapters where the quotes come from and the context changes NOTHING.

Wasn't going to. In fact, I've read a good portion of the Bible myself, and I don't need some website to tell me its contents - I'll just look for myself.

So I heavily advise that you do read this and beware that if you're going to challenge the "context", I am fully ready to go right back to the source and check it.

Good for you.

At 7/7/08 05:56 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Oh give me a break.
You say that most Christians are not crazy fundamentalists. which would mean the overwhelming majority are moderates, yet somehow the atheist minority manages to give said majority a "hard time".

That's more the result of radical athiests and radical Christians mixing it up in public settings. I know plenty of moderates on both sides who never make a scene whatsoever, even when they do meet.