Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The worst part of the article was when they brought Great Britain into the picture - the last thing America should be doing is emulating the U.K. when it comes to laws relating to privacy.

At 4/18/09 10:03 PM, Kev-o wrote: WHARGARBL

Not having an agenda does not preclude one from being opposed to what the powers that be are doing. Aside from which, I know for a fact that not all the people attending the tea parties were Republicans - 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.

To that end, I have translated your quote into English for comedic effect.

At 4/18/09 02:49 PM, altmeister wrote: Logic can only be achieved by reading the scripture of the Lord. Tell me atheists, how can something come from nothing?

Atheists seem to think that we just evolved from a bang, that we used to be monkeys, that seems to be unbelievable when you look at the complexity of the human body. If you tell children there is no purpose of life - that they are just a chemical mutation - that doesn't build self esteem.

You're... kidding, right?

Arguments like this are why people on this BBS don't take us Christians seriously anymore. You're needlessly promoting the irrational antagonism between religion and science - especially bad in a thread like this, where doing so is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Please, for the sake of your own side, stop this madness.

You seem to be forgetting that overthrowing a dictator is usually a bloody, painful affair. No, giving up democracy, however expedient that may seem, is a bad idea.

In any event, people here seem to be confusing "religion" with "faith". Religion is merely the manner in which one expresses their faith in whatever divinity they believe in; the law can never quash faith. However, if my personal religion involved eating live babies to show my belief in God, then could you really blame the law for having a problem with that?

At 4/16/09 08:30 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/16/09 11:27 AM, dySWN wrote: If it's a felony or violates a core tenet of what America was founded on, then it would be time to find a new religion.

You'd abandon your religion if it suddenly was against the law???
Haha that is a new low for you. To suggest that you'd be willing to change WHAT YOU BELIEVE depending on the laws of a country is just absurd.

I think he was referring to membership in more radical religions or cults, where more socially deviant behaviors than my religion (Catholicism) would allow would be more prevalent, so I addressed the question through that lens. If the law came to infringe on the rights of moderate theists, then they would be against one of the core values that America was founded on - at which point, my first point is moot and I would stand firm.

I would suggest that the response would vary greatly, depending on what X is and the extent to which X has been made illegal. If it's a misdemeanor, I'd do it just to frustrate the government ledgers. If it's a felony or violates a core tenet of what America was founded on, then it would be time to find a new religion.

On another note, do we really need an eighth religion thread on the front page?

The problem with legalizing drugs now, as opposed to either before this started or after they've all killed eachother off, is that the drug cartels have started kidnapping and killing people they see as presenting competition. Doctors and government officials should not have to be afraid for the lives of their families because a few people want to get high.

At 4/13/09 10:49 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: If you truly believe in justice, then you believe in quite a lot of things.

You're first mistake? Believing there is right and wrong. What is right? What is wrong? What's the difference? Is there a difference? Let me answer that for you: NO. A big fat no.

Nice assumptions, bro. Moral relativism is so 90's.

At 4/12/09 09:45 PM, Bolo wrote: I guess being on the wrong side of history can often feel like a righteous fight against authority. With social conservatism and evangelical Christianity on a well-defined and quite clear declination from their long-held position of authority, it is natural for these desperate hangers-on to engage in self-righteous acts of discontent and sometimes fury. I doubt their violence will escalate beyond personal indignation, and eventually, they will forget their silly tactics as the reality of the future reigns.

Oh, how quickly people forget how quickly the political winds can change. Only a few years ago, the Republicans held all branches of office. They thought themselves invincible, but then they fell. Now, the Democrats hold all branches, and think themselves invincible. Do you see where I'm going with this?

At 4/12/09 06:38 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: When will we ever have a Jewish president? Or a Muslim? Or an Bhuddist? Or an openly gay president? I think that we need to break these barriers soon, or we will never be a multi-cultural country. We need gays, blacks, women, and people of all ethnicities and religions to feel welcome in America and get all the opportunities that every American deserves.

While I do agree that the office of POTUS should be open to all law-abiding citizens, I think that it sets a dangerous sentiment to say that we "need" a President that belongs to one particular race/ethnicity/gender or another. The highest office in the land should be elected based on merit as a leader, not on physical or sexual miscellany - and even if we seek to break down barriers between different social groups, such decisions should never be rushed.

At 4/12/09 02:45 PM, Ericho wrote: If you were truly religious, you'd learn to accept people of all different kinds.

I don't follow. How does being religious relate to acceptance?

I don't feel that gay marriage needs to be legalized in every single state but since it is in some then they can just take a roadtrip to the few,since a few states that'll let them marry so they stop whining about being discriminated against would be better than all states legalized so we'd get a truckload of complaints from everyone else.

That is a point, but some people just don't want to leave their home places, and seeing as how it's restricted to some areas, doesn't that remind you of segregation?

Leaving up to individual states to decide doesn't really mesh with the idea of segregation. Segregation would be like if there were two tiers of civil unions, with clearly different legal protections, throughout.

As it is now, people have the opportunity to vote with their feet. If you aren't willing to pick yourself up and move to prove your convictions, then can you honestly say that you're doing them justice?

At 4/10/09 10:43 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Also, it's funny because morons like you are also the people that tend to be against teaching children about safe sex and contraceptives, and instead use the idea of teen pregnancy and Stds as a way of trying to frighten them into being abstinate

Generalizations? In my BBS?

It's more likely than you think.

At 4/11/09 03:20 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: You actually think you preserving something of value? What are you trying to prove? You're only proving that you're a bigot, a fascist and an Asshole!

...because stamping your feet and using continuous ad hominems against your opposition has always been considered a rational and logical form of political discourse, amirite?

At 4/10/09 09:10 PM, Proteas wrote: Now, say some of the people (I'm of course speaking of the Afrikaners) started coming to America and becoming naturalized citizens. What do they put down on their census form here in a year or so? Do they...

a) mark "Caucasian of European Descent"
b) mark "African American"
c) mark "other"

Wouldn't that wind up depending on the amount of intermarriage that occurred during those 12 generations, as well as the amount of time spent before them in the European genepool?

At 4/10/09 09:18 PM, MetalSlimeHunt wrote: I call 70% as usualy.

It's nowhere near that here in the US.

At 4/10/09 12:45 PM, MetalSlimeHunt wrote: Marriage usualy ends in divorce,

You're kidding, right? Many marriages end in divorce (statistically, around half), but that's nowhere close to the quorum that the term "usually" implies.

Aside from which, who is to say that this is the way that it should be? People who have reliable companionship tend to be happier and more socially successful in the long-term - at least, from my own observation. Aside from which, the legalities of raising children and dealing with emergencies are much simpler when a couple is legally married.

At 4/9/09 02:38 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I think it is 16. Of course, noone is still a virgin at 16 anymore. So practise does not equal law.

Do you have statistics to bear that out? I think not. Hell, I'm living proof - and by choice, no less.

At 4/7/09 01:07 AM, RaharuHaruha wrote: And then it is discovered that you were a member of a internet community called NewGrounds as a teenager. Are you embarrassed or ashamed? Do you even have something to worry about? Or are you proud of it?

Newgrounds membership. Pssh, that's not controversial. 4chan or some similar hole, on the other hand...

At 4/8/09 09:25 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 4/8/09 07:34 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: There aren't any other qualifiers for nature than not believing in god?
I would think that atheism is a mere quality of the state of nature. An aspect.

Where did I say this? I said that atheism is a fundamental constant of nature, not the entire definition of it.

...because, you know, it's not like a natural being has ever invented a religion for itself, right?

At 4/9/09 09:24 AM, frigi wrote: its stupid and a waist.

Oh, the irony...

At 4/6/09 11:01 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Sorry, dySWN, missed your last bit there.

But my point still stands, the argument against incest that it causes genetic defects is fallacious.

I was careful to phrase it that way, wasn't I?

Still, that doesn't change the fact that, for the purposes of this argument, incest does have degenerative effects on the human gene pool and is, therefore, not comparable to gay unions (which, at worst, simply don't contribute to it). Everyone has a lurking allele or two, just waiting to be expressed and cause havoc - and incest is one good way to bring it out.

At 4/6/09 01:38 AM, Liptons wrote:

At 4/6/09 01:28 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 4/6/09 01:25 AM, Liptons wrote: I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I'd really rather not sift through 38 pages to find out.

I'd just like to point out that there are a handful of cases of incest in The Bible. So then why is incest illegal and morally wrong?

Because incest actually harms other people (by bringing out defects in the gene pool), where as giving legal unions to gay people doesn't.

Yeah but it's the Bible, and it's always right. /sarcasm
Thanks also for saying that giving legal unions to gay people doesn't harm other people. At all. If our reason for illegalising incest is because it causes defects, what's our reason for opposing gay marriage?

I don't really think the two can be argued together like that - one is banned out of necessity and public health concerns, while the other is a matter of lexical and/or ethical debate. It's a rare person who can rationalize the idea of gay marriage being as detrimental to the human race as the genetic defects that incest brings about. If we're going to debate gay marriage, then we can't compare apples to oranges.

At 4/5/09 10:03 PM, ievi wrote:

At 4/5/09 09:18 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 4/5/09 08:53 PM, ievi wrote: Can anyone come up with a coherent, and logical (that means un-religiously charged, and fact based) argument AGAINST gay marriage that differs from those I have outlined and torn to shreds?

Government should not be involved in marriage. Give everyone "civil unions" in the eyes of the law, and let people get "marriages" in the eyes of religion if they see fit to so so

/thread

Thats a good idea, but why not call it marriage? I don't understand your reasoning. Also, just because a word means nothing to you does not mean it doesn'ty mean something to someone else. I know many married couples who would be outraged if they were told, because they are athiests, they can no longer be married, but only 'civil partners.' I think this is a clash of values, and calling it marriage hurts no one, so why change the existing marriages? Just let gays marry and everything ok, right?

Maybe so, but giving separate terms to the religious and legal aspects to the union between two consenting adults simultaneously reduces the outcry from people who believe that it would degrade the sanctity of marriages and satisfies the desire of gay rights activists to give homosexuals equal treatment under the law. It's a win/win situation that minimizes bickering on both sides - you may not be able to please everyone, but at least this will go a long way towards pleasing the majority.

At 4/6/09 01:25 AM, Liptons wrote: I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I'd really rather not sift through 38 pages to find out.

I'd just like to point out that there are a handful of cases of incest in The Bible. So then why is incest illegal and morally wrong?

Because incest actually harms other people (by bringing out defects in the gene pool), where as giving legal unions to gay people doesn't.

At 4/5/09 04:22 PM, moose3642 wrote: Big Mod didn't allow me to post this as a new topic, so I hope it gets as much attention here.

Let's stop arguing about the technical definition of "marriage", and really think about this for a second.

Of course, since the whole issue is one of definitions, this is where I stopped reading.

At 4/5/09 12:39 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 4/5/09 12:33 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: "I believe there are no deities."

Sure sounds like a belief to me.

So...by your definition, not believing in anything is a belief?

No, not believing in something is not a belief. Not believing in anything is nihilism.

/snark

At 4/5/09 12:27 AM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote: If not for religious reasons (If you arent jewish or a muslim) then it shouldnt be for the parent to decide what will happen to the body of their child

That would kinda suck for kids with cancer.

At 4/5/09 08:53 PM, ievi wrote: Can anyone come up with a coherent, and logical (that means un-religiously charged, and fact based) argument AGAINST gay marriage that differs from those I have outlined and torn to shreds?

Government should not be involved in marriage. Give everyone "civil unions" in the eyes of the law, and let people get "marriages" in the eyes of religion if they see fit to so so

/thread

At 3/31/09 05:32 PM, Patton3 wrote: We all knew to expect some sparks to fly at this year's G20, but who knew that some shit would hit the fan before it even started? French President Nicholas Sarkozy may drop out of this year's G20. Discuss.

Hey look, a European leader calling for more regulation. Why am I not surprised?