Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/8/09 05:53 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 5/6/09 10:41 PM, dySWN wrote:
Because they wouldn't really be free - we pay for it with taxes, whether or not we end up using it. That, and why would anyone want to give such responsibility to the government when they can't even get their own paperwork in order?

Noone is really arguing it's free. The government pays for it with your taxes, but it is far cheaper on average. And even if you have a large medical bill from, say, a car accident, you still don't pay out of pocket, or see a tax increase due to your recent expenditure. As well, families wouldn't be so devistated by sudden illness.

That's true.

As for the governmental beurocracy side of it, it's not as if we'd just hand up the Universal Health care plan and say "here you go, do as well as you've always done!". There would be other reforms in conjunction.

Somehow, I doubt that.

And whatever president, senate, or whatever instituted Universal Healthcare would probably have a functioning brain.

I'm hearing a lot of conjecture here.

We have a congress full of nitwits right now, with some of the lowest personal approval ratings in the history of the country. These are the guys and gals who decided that waterboarding was a good idea (before many decided it was politically expedient to go against it), refuse to guard our borders (despite overwhelming support for increased border security), and continuously renege on their promises to their constituencies. We're talking about a group of people here who set up a stimulus bill that largely won't go into effect until after projections estimate the economy will already be recovering, and started funding meaningless projects with amounts of money that not even God has, and yet somehow they're suddenly going to get efficient and penny-wise when it comes to health care?

I dare say your faith is misplaced.

Note that the two president's who most vehemently protested universal healthcare were Nixon and the most recent Bush.

Bush didn't cheat on his wife. Does that mean you should cheat on yours?

At 5/11/09 09:07 PM, ReThink wrote:

At 5/11/09 09:00 PM, dySWN wrote: Seems to me that this flash has been bumping around the internets for some time now. How did this not get whistled for being plagiarized?

I whistled it as a racist piece of KKK propaganda, I did not know it already existed on the internet or if it was stolen. It apparently got through despite this though.

Well, the kid is entitled to his opinion, as bigoted and short-sighted as it is.

As much as I'm loathe to admit journeying so deeply into the pits of internet perdition, I saw this flash on 4chan months ago. And, since everything on /f/ is already heavily plagiarized to start with, it's safe to assume that this thing had been around long before that.

Seems to me that this flash has been bumping around the internets for some time now. How did this not get whistled for being plagiarized?

Ah ha ha. We all get the joke, OP. Cool story, bro - comparing homosexuality with necrophilia to make some kind of thinly-veiled point about slippery slopes, etc etc etc...

It's older than the internet, and frankly not all that creative.

At 5/6/09 10:04 PM, killzone2lover wrote: Free surgery and medicines are good for everyone. Why not?

Because they wouldn't really be free - we pay for it with taxes, whether or not we end up using it. That, and why would anyone want to give such responsibility to the government when they can't even get their own paperwork in order?

At 5/6/09 10:23 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Does infinite even exist?

In practice, I mean.

That would depend on what you mean by 'infinite'. After all, the whole idea behind calculus is that you can find lengths and areas by mathematically parsing them in to an infinite number of tiny parts.

At 5/3/09 09:48 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: LMAO WOW!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!! When you fucking christian extremists realize that all your hatred and bigotry etc etc et al

Overreact much?

At 5/3/09 07:50 PM, SolInvictus wrote: who said i was tolerant of stupidity? opinion does not require a basis in fact, and when people decide to base their views on truth-less opinions they open themselves to righteous ridicule.

Wouldn't ridiculing someone count as ad hominem? Even if, in your opinion, the ridicule is deserved? I mean, even if a person's opinion has no rational backing, going after them instead of the topic counts as an argument against the person, yes?

Anyways, to get back on topic, I think I see what he's getting at - there are people who oppose all marriages (gay or straight), or oppose gay marriage by the virtue of believing that the government should not be in the business of deciding what counts as love, and yet many pro gay marriage people would fallaciously lump them in with the worst of bigots.

At 5/2/09 11:00 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/2/09 05:22 PM, dySWN wrote:

Yours never refuted mine. What's your point?

Wow great defence there.
"nu-huh".

I wrote an entire giant post explaining why the "center vs fringe" argument is crap.
Yeah just pretend it's not there.

Yeah. Of course, it's too bad that the lynch-pin of the post was the a premise that, as I mentioned, didn't really even refute what it was responding to.

Also, trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls.

At 5/2/09 09:48 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 5/2/09 09:40 PM, dySWN wrote: FTFY. The same can be said for any social group. It happens all the time in politics, religion and, yes, even in the various fields of science. It only makes sense that people would want to distance themselves from the "black sheep" in the group, if only to prop up their public image.

Dare this wee post be a fallacy?

I never said that that made it right - only that religion doesn't have a monopoly on being unable to admit mistakes.

At 5/2/09 08:25 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: People have a problem with using an individual persons behavior as an indicator of the behaviour of all members of their particular ideology, when the behaviour is bad(fair enough), but not when it's good. : /

FTFY. The same can be said for any social group. It happens all the time in politics, religion and, yes, even in the various fields of science. It only makes sense that people would want to distance themselves from the "black sheep" in the group, if only to prop up their public image.

At 5/2/09 03:26 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/2/09 03:14 PM, dySWN wrote:

Considering that the guy that I was talking to (who was arguing from your side, BTW) brought up extremism first, I would have to say that it's only appropriate to respond in kind

You do realize none of this refutes any of my points, right?

Yours never refuted mine. What's your point?

At 5/2/09 02:58 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/2/09 01:45 PM, dySWN wrote:

Right, because we all know that focusing on the extremists of any ideology gives a clear, unbiased picture of the ideology as a whole, amirite?

250 years ago, it was the norm to have slaves.
40 years ago, it was the norm for Mormons to be racist.
2000 years ago, it was the norm to stone people

What's really an extremist? Someone who doesn't act like the majority?

I love this way of thinking btw. Every time you see a behavior you don't like, you chalk it up to extremists.

Considering that the guy that I was talking to (who was arguing from your side, BTW) brought up extremism first, I would have to say that it's only appropriate to respond in kind - especially since, had I not responded in kind, people would be perfectly justified in accusing me of avoiding the issue.

The most ironic part about the whole thing is that you're the one to bring this up, when arguably vocal anti-theists like yourself fall on what most folks would consider the "extreme" end of atheism in public discourse.

Since the rest of your post pretty much branches out from here, I'll just leave it at that.

At 5/2/09 11:22 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 5/1/09 01:46 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 5/1/09 10:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Like this place
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

This is why Atheists are fucking idiots.

;;;While you are not ...right !

I'll agree with you here. Generalizations and ad hominem are why the running disagreements between theists and atheists tend to dissolve into epic trollfests.

That site is parallel to zeitgeist. Full of the most inaccurate "facts" ever, there only to give weight to a highly politicized inaccurate point.

;;;;everything is a NWO conspiracey bullshit with you dude...you really need to get out more.
The radio show that that site links too is pretty interesting.

...except that he's mostly right with this assertion. The website you provided was more about talking points for vitriolic Athiest diatribes than a genuine discussion about belief. It was pretty obvious that the authors were having a difficult time taking their own emotions out of the equation.

Nazareth not existing?
Archaeologists disagree.

Yeah it existed as a graveyard...not as projected in the bible. Archaeologists rarely agree with others views ...they all want their view to be mainstream & one only needs to look at any subjective archaeologist site & you get more than one view.

[citation needed]

There are sites that offer differing points of view using legitimate arguments.

The site you offered is NOT one of them.

This site has links etc. to the fallicy of Christianity...the plagerism of earlier religion's dogma & in some cases exactly transfered. Like virgin birth, son of god etc.

But I offered it up to point out the extremists views on Christianity... like Ken Humphrey's .

Right, because we all know that focusing on the extremists of any ideology gives a clear, unbiased picture of the ideology as a whole, amirite?

At 5/2/09 01:31 PM, Kev-o wrote: My parents are Conservative Republicans, and we debate all the time.
2 of my 3 brothers have no political affiliations, although my oldest brother is left-leaning, and my older brother is left-leaning. My younger brother and I are both Libertarian socialists, or simply anarchists.
I really wish my parents didn't have such warped views, but they're still my parents.

Self-avowed anarchists calling mainstream political ideas "warped." Oh, the irony...

Of course, if someone wanted to establish a Christian court, people would get all uppity about CHURCH AN STATE ZOMGWTF.

There should only be one brand of law, established by the state in accordance with the wishes of the voting public and some basic precepts about human rights. Dividing the judicial system along religious lines has always been a bad idea, IMHO.

Everyone in my immediate family is a raging conservative. I tend to be more diplomatic about my beliefs, but otherwise I'm no different.

At 4/30/09 05:32 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: I found some linkies to make a thesis state for me. Seriously though, Christians should check out this link.
Hello world

The Bible is misogynistic, homophobic, unreliable, slavery approving, authoritarian, anti-intellectual, arrogant, egocentric, cruel, and dishonest.

So were the people at the time - and, since the Bible is basically a running commentary on the Hebrew culture of the time, it wouldn't make sense to hide it.

Also:
2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
You can't pick and choose with the Bible. You must take ALL of it literally.

Context would be helpful here. It's easy to take a single line from somewhere and make it sound bad - hell, the Democrats did it to Bush for eight years, and the Republicans will return the favor for the next four, but everyone with half a brain realizes the inherent quackery involved with that kind of argumentation.

Besides, 2 Peter is a letter written by by a human being with his own opinions on religion - I'm sure there were notable Christians of the time that differed from his outlook on the literal or figurative nature of the scriptures.

Jesus himself rallied his followers against the strict orthodox interpretations of the Pharisees, did he not? He even ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, which pushes the limits of the Old Testament admonitions against allowing oneself to be "unevenly yoked" with sinners. Seems to me that even the savior that Peter is talking about might have something to say about interpretations.

At 4/30/09 05:21 PM, dude23 wrote: Recent research has actually shown that smoking weed does NOT cause cancer. Look it up.

You made the statement; the onus is on you to provide the evidence.

Besides, you're still inhaling smoke and causing those around you to inhale smoke - which is bad no matter how you look at it. If you want to be consistent, either ban marijuana and cigarettes for giving off second-hand smoke, or remove the restrictions from both; too many people take the hypocricial position of wanting to ban one and legalize the other.

At 4/29/09 03:57 PM, MetalSlimeHunt wrote: Wow, what a hard choice.

Slippery slope, etc.

At 4/26/09 01:38 AM, Generalissimus wrote: Hopefully the authorities will be able to prevent it from spreading.

From Mexico? We can't even prevent people from spreading across that border.

At 4/22/09 08:59 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 4/20/09 07:24 PM, dySWN wrote: Sorry, that was massive sarcasm - but I hope you see my point. Personal suffering is no excuse to murder and pillage at will. Laws exist for a reason, you know.

But if your personal suffrage is caused by someones greed, then don't you have a human right to protect the life you have built? I certainly think so.

First off, sufferage means voting rights.

Second off, no. Piracy is one of those laws that pretty much applies everywhere. I feel sympathy for the plight of the poor and disaffected in Africa, really I do - but that doesn't change the fact that there are means of recourse that don't involve threatening the lives of sailors (many of whom, by the way, have families of their own to feed) with little or no tangible connections to the people at fault.

Your right to self defense ends when you become the agressor.

At 4/20/09 08:12 PM, thedo12 wrote: all drugs should be legalized .

whatever I do to my own body is my own buisness , if you want to help people on drug's hat's fine but throwing them in jail and forgetting about them isn't gonna solve anything.

I certainly hope you didn't vote against tobacco, then.

At 4/20/09 05:13 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: Please share your opinion on the issue.

Should marijuana be legalized? I don't know, but right at this moment it would be a bad idea. If we did legalize it now, with the current violence going on south of the border, we would see the cartels trying to take out the distributors as if they were competition - and doctors should not be made to feel in danger because a few people want to get high.

At 4/20/09 03:03 PM, Contipec wrote: If there are pirates, its the fault of the system. I mean, they didn't become pirates just for fun, they became pirates because they are poors and out of need. Don't act like they are the most evil people or anything, they are just trying to survive in a harsh world.

Cool. I guess I'll be over at your house soon to steal your food and bang your mom. After all, I'm just trying to survive in a harsh world.

Sorry, that was massive sarcasm - but I hope you see my point. Personal suffering is no excuse to murder and pillage at will. Laws exist for a reason, you know.

Meh. Moral relativism is so last decade.

At 4/20/09 12:57 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 4/20/09 10:47 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: In this viewpoint, why do we spend money on science and research, where we could spend the money to helping improving our infrastructure and let the needy be helped (solidarity).

Hahaha, there is NOTHING that will improve the infrastructure and help the needy more than science and research. Without science and research, there would be no modern medicine, no fertilizers, no efficient irrigation systems, no clean water, no contraception, population control etc. If we stopped spending money on science, the death tolls of starvation and illnesses would increase by hundreds of millions.

Then again, if we sunk all our money into research and left nothing for anything else, then we would all be the most educated muck-dwellers in the universe. After all, it takes money to build houses and pave roads.

At 4/19/09 12:03 AM, Kev-o wrote:

At 4/18/09 11:53 PM, dySWN wrote:

So, in short, you're just going to repeat what you said the first time, and hope that it comes out more correct the second time around. Let my know how that works for you.

I don't see how I was wrong, and I definitely didn't repeat myself. But I'll take that as "I have no basis for my opinion".

As I stated above, I supported the protests because they were a means of bringing attention to the issue of tax system convolution.

Most of us aren't accountants, and therefore don't know what can be done within the framework of the law to fix the tax code, but all the same we realize that something is wrong when our bank accounts shrink to fund the above-average pay raises that congress gives themselves almost every year, or to cover "bridge to nowhere" projects. Why should the paperwork be so complicated, or the process so exacting? Why should things like tax shelters even exist, and why does the tax burden fall so disproportionately across our collective backs?

I don't have the answer, and I doubt you do either. But I'm sure that some guy sitting in the IRS basement or some gal on the senate floor does - and if protesting is one way to spark movement on their behalf, then I'm going to support it.

At 4/18/09 11:36 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 4/18/09 10:52 PM, dySWN wrote: one need not be a hardened ideologue to look at the current state of our tax system and feel more than a little bit cheated.

But do they have any bright solutions? Sure, our tax system is really, really in need of reform but everyone is bound to have their own idea as to how to fix it or what they want done. Is it just wanting to pay less so that they have more in their own pockets or are they truly concerned about the country's future?

Does it really matter? You and I both agree that the tax system needs reform. Coming out in numbers to show dissatisfaction is a tried and true method to convince the folks in charge to reexamine the issue and make changes.

Most people don't have the political wherewithal or economic insight to fix the tax system (that's why we elect officials to do it for us), only that there's a problem with the way things are. Wasn't that basically the stance that led the Democrats to victory this time around in the first place?

At 4/18/09 11:29 PM, Kev-o wrote: Sure, but we can blame what the "powers that be" are doing due to the last administration. Maybe they're not all republicans, but they're all right-wingers, and even if they aren't all republicans, it's still backed by the GOP chairman, and advertised by FOX news. Of course the people have been cheated, that's the system at work, the system these people believe will save them. Capitalism has fucked them in the ass, and they don't even see it. These Tea Parties are frauds, and a way to regain support for the republican party.

So, in short, you're just going to repeat what you said the first time, and hope that it comes out more correct the second time around. Let my know how that works for you.

Why would you listen to people who have no definite message, no real solutions, and propose less economic regulation in a time when companies are most reckless?

I don't know. Why would you listen to anyone arguing on the internet?