Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/9/09 02:11 PM, ReiperX wrote: Well because there are currently two active on the front page. If there wasn't any active ones then I'm sure they would have allowed any of the new atheist or god threads stay open until people lose interest. But it's annoying to have 10 threads about the same subject on the front page.

I agree with the second part, but somehow I doubt it has to do with the number of active religion threads. I've seen up to six going at once, on the front page, without any locking going on (despite the fact that they have a tendency to descend into flames and trolling later on). This is one good reason why I think we need a separate forum for philosophical and religious topics - or just exile them to general unless they have some direct relation to politics.

At 3/7/09 03:08 PM, poxpower wrote: Any idiot who bases his life on a book that predates printing presses is lost.

All the great philosophers and mathematicians of the classical era frown on your shenanigans. Well, except for that Roman emperor that invented stoicism - he's just kinda sitting there.

Yo dawg, we heard you like failing, so we put a generalization in your generalization so you can fail while you debate.

At 3/4/09 09:14 PM, Evark wrote:

At 3/3/09 06:06 PM, Jagos wrote: Hmmm... I thought there was a discussion about who is supposedly to blame for recessions or surpluses. It was Bush Sr's usage of Reagonomics lite in his 6-8 years that gave us a surplus. When you look at him cutting taxes and believing in supply side economics, that makes sense. To say that Bush Jr "fucked that royally" is just sensationalist. Might wanna work on that. Some of the things, as said, started with the Clinton administration. Why not give credit where credit is due? Bush did what he could but the man can't solve every last problem.

For the most part, I don't believe that either side is 'to blame' for our current economic situation. I just see [lengthy Bush Derangement Syndrome rant]

Riiight...

Republicans only have a 'NO NOT WHAT DEMOCRATS WANT" to offer.

I don't have a link, but I remember hearing somewhere that the Republicans in the Senate did offer an alternative bill, but were rapidly shut down by the majority.

The oyster's presence will cut down on pollution and consequently improve public health.

This is good and all, but it has no place in a bill that should be all about economic recovery. How does saving an oyster translate to decreased unemployment or growth in private investments?

but I DO think that earmarks have no place in federal legislature.

See above.

Congress just loads up a bill with the bullshit and it's presented 'take it or leave it/as-is'. I'd rather the earmarks didn't exist, but I think they're small potatoes and ultimately have some merit to them anyway, so I don't think it's the big deal nay-sayers make it out to be.

Honestly, it should be a big deal - especially considering that Obama:
A. Promised during his campaign to get rid of earmarks, and
B. While pushing to get the bill hastily passed, promptly waited days (without even having read the bill) to sign it despite rhetoric on his part not one week before stating that the bill needed to be enacted as soon as humanly possible.

Anyway, for your information, the logical basis is common knowledge that those of college age tend toward liberalism, and consequently, the Democratic party.

Some would argue that this is rather a product of youthful idealism than of attending college - many of the strongest conservative voices of our time are college educated, and common knowledge also dictates that older folks tend to lean to the political right.

At 3/3/09 05:43 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 3/2/09 08:08 AM, Drakim wrote: I think the opinions people have on overpopulation is hilarious, in a slightly retarded, slightly I-just-want-to-cry, way. I mean, as a long term problem for humanity, it's a pretty grave issue. As a problem for people personally and their personal well being, it's a very grave issue. What I find hilarious is that people reject all the realistic solutions, while holding some vague dreams about living on the moon and Mars.

Well Darkim, I'd say you unmoral greedy mfer son of a bitches are the cause of the hunger and overpopulated areas, as are you for the crime,drug abuse, all the things you claim morals to be responsible for.

People like you are in the government and you soak up all the wealth and fatten yourself up until you choke on it and die n go to Hell.

That's a little harsh, I think.

This is why we need some kind of new revolution to get these greedy fuckers out of power and spread the wealth to people who need it.

Is that some Communism I smell there?

not just give momentarry relif but reverse the entire thing, maybe have some laws of how amny kids u can have, some people are insane for kids (point - greedy bitch who had 8 kids so she can collect the welfare) anyway you get my point.

I don't know, man. Overpopulation seems like a pretty lame reason to encroach on civil liberties. I do agree that octomom has problems and someone else should care for her children, but birth limits have a tendency to run into the same legal landmines as abortion legislation.

At 3/3/09 08:02 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: I thought shaggy said he was done with NG? oh well he is just a joke on NG now ever since he got troll and Worst Poster of the year award I thought he wouldnt show his conspiracy trashed head.

But trolls have regeneration...

At 3/2/09 09:15 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 3/2/09 06:37 PM, Ericho wrote: We'll just keep up with those wars and stuff...

The wars? The death toll is not really significant compared to our population growth.

I think the Greatest Generation would disagree.

I love how people living in first-world countries are the ones complaining about overpopulation when said countries themselves are, on average, not growing. If you're so worried about running out of elbow room, then Africa and central Asia are the places that really need to be scruitinized - get your collective hands out of my American pants, will ya.

At 2/27/09 10:42 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/27/09 09:39 PM, dySWN wrote: is the single greatest reason that the public at large does not respect atheism as much as they do other philosophies.

People hate to hear "you're wrong" and as soon as any atheist says to a religious person that they're wrong, they turn red in the face and start saying how arrogant atheists are.

Maybe because, most of the time, vocal atheists don't bother to use diplomacy. Winning people over to your side is all about verbal finesse, not just saying "you're doing it wrong".

And no amount of being polite would ever turn shaggy.

It helps if you can be polite and persuasive at the same time. The second part is the real trick.

At 2/27/09 03:35 PM, poxpower wrote: What do you think?

I think that the belief that many atheists hold that all theists must be mentally backwards to believe as they do, and lording their supposed intelligence over others, is the single greatest reason that the public at large does not respect atheism as much as they do other philosophies. After all, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, as the saying goes.

At 2/27/09 12:20 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: I'm going to say one thing about this.

Technically, I did vote for Obama.

But if you want the harsh-reality explanation: I was voting against Sarah Palin, and I didn't know enough about the third-party candidates to pass judgment.

Sarah Palin wasn't running for president; John McCain was. Why one would compare her against Obama instead of against Biden is beyond me, but that didn't stop the media from doing it.

In short, congratulations for failing at politics.

At 2/27/09 06:27 PM, Ericho wrote: Hope this doesn't make a new supervillian!

TEACHER is using ESCAPE.
It's super effective!
TEACHER is evolving into PEDOBEAR.

/never played pokemon, but it's still funny

At 2/26/09 09:53 PM, Patton3 wrote: Are you really so thick as to think experimenting with cells obtained in a humane way, and experimenting on holocaust victims are even in the same category? Why must certain people, when they disagree with something, try vainly to tie it to Hitler, or socialism, or something else most people see as detestable?

A. The Nazi reference was partly in jest. Seriously, I labeled it as such for a reason.
B. The humaneness of obtaining the cells in the ways that we do is the real crux of the issue, don't you think? For a pro-lifer, killing a fetus for his stem cells is just as morally bad as killing a jew to learn about how his lymph system. Would you want your tax dollars to go towards something you find morally inexcusable, when private investment and research accomplishes the same goals and allows the public to vote with their dollar on the issue?

At 2/26/09 09:09 PM, Patton3 wrote: And in addition to not wanting to waste them, they can be obtained from umbilical cords immediately after birth, and from adult bone marrow. If you don't support this reseach which has a good probability for curing paralysis, organ damage, cancer and so many other diseases, don't tell it's supporters why. You can go tell the kids on the Jerry Louis Telethon, or the man dying of cancer, why this research is "immoral".

Great reasoning you have there. Why should we have stoped Nazi medical experimentation on concentration camp prisonsers, right? After all, look at all the cool medical advances that came out of them! And to think, all we had to do was forget that whole pesky issue of medical ethics...

/sarcastic Godwin's Law shtick, in case anyone missed it

At 2/23/09 07:08 PM, Sexydude01 wrote: Democracy is one of the best possible forms of government, because NOTHING GETS DONE!!!

Oh, hi. Just fixing your post so that it fits reality. kthxbai

At 2/26/09 05:35 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/26/09 05:26 PM, yinyangman wrote: Law. Should Sky Walker be convicted of murder by the grand jury or should he be placed in an autism home?

That makes sense.

In order to have a discussion about an issue, background must be provided. You've given none beyond what you've posted, and there is no mention of autism, and neither is there mention of autism in the original article preceeding this "update" either.

This was my problem.

So...

(1) Either the kid is NOT autistic and should (a) rot in prison or (b) fry for his crime.

OR

(2) This kid IS autistic, and the press member writing this story was to stupid to remember that fact.

I agree. However, one has to wonder how the case for autism would be argued. Diminished capacity might be provable, but I guess that would depend on the degree to which his autism manifested itself prior to the crime. Pleading insanity would not be the smart way to go about this, in any event.

At 2/26/09 03:50 PM, fortdeath wrote: I am a strict atheist.

How does that work? It's not like real athiesm has a dogma to it that you need to follow.

Kidding aside, I still don't see why we can't have civil unions for the state, marriages for the church, and just leave them at that.

At 2/24/09 01:09 AM, KemCab wrote: Except the nationalization is only temporary.

Heh. The folks in power always say it's temporary, but really what they're saying is that they don't think that the average voter is smart enough to look at history and call them out on it years down the road when it's still nationalized. One does well to remember that a bureaucracy always resists alteration, no matter how small.

I, for one, am looking forward to the next elections already.

How is this relevant to politics again?

At 2/25/09 08:16 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 2/25/09 04:50 AM, dySWN wrote: Would I support it? Probably not. Would I do it to my child? Most likely, no.

But is it immoral? I don't really think so.

Why?

Serious question.

Are we talking about the ear thing, or circumcision in general? Because there are differences in the argumentation that I would need to address should you mean the former.

At 2/25/09 12:08 AM, Ravariel wrote: doublepost cuz this got posted while I was typing.

At 2/24/09 11:23 PM, dySWN wrote: I'm still not seeing how this is a moral wrong.

So would you support a culture in America that cut off their childs' ears while they were infants? We can still hear without those silly things sticking out of our heads... not quite as well as before, but probably well enough.

Would I support it? Probably not. Would I do it to my child? Most likely, no.

But is it immoral? I don't really think so.

At 2/24/09 09:49 PM, TimTheGreat wrote:
Cutting of a piece of the childs body is morally wrong. It may be Socially acceptable but the Child has no say in it. It's not the right of the Parent to take that away from him. He should chose for himself when he's of age.

I'm still not seeing how this is a moral wrong. Parents make all sorts of decisions for their children, some important and some not so much, but these decisions fall within their rights as parents. Other than in clear-cut cases of abuse or neglect, the rights of the parents always wind up trumping the rights of their child (who doesn't have the mental wherewithal to make most of the important decisions for himself yet).

Furthermore, while many people consider this a serious issue, for the most part it can be argued that circumcision has few ramifications beyond the cosmetic.

Oh, and it doesn't help that your rebuttal of my criticism on your punctuation style was also poorly-punctuated. Those responsible for sacking the people who did the sacking have been sacked. [/obscure refference}

Do not know if trolled?

At 2/20/09 07:14 PM, TimTheGreat wrote: Seriously mate. Circumcision is outdated and wrong. I hope by the time you have kids. You'll realise that.

Extra punctuations are also outdated and wrong - they went out of style in elementary school.

On a more serious note, I still have yet to see proof that circumcision is "wrong" in the moral sense. Schools make kids get certain vaccinations to continue attending, but there's little seriously-taken outrage about that, even though the issue of consent is still there.

I propose we call this new form of currency something that reflects its source. Mmm... ener.... ENERGON! YES!

The Autobots would be proud.

At 2/22/09 12:24 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 2/21/09 11:44 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Hmmm, I'd have to say Disney may be the most evil company, what u guys think?

0_0

Based on what?

All the unwanted sequels they put out, of course.

At 2/21/09 12:39 PM, NeglectfulSpawn wrote: Give me one source of pork barrel spending and ill switch my opinion in a heartbeat. ( dont cite something that helps in the long term and creates job for the short term)

One could argue that the Las Vegas to Los Angeles railway is pork - not in the sense that it doesn't create jobs or pump money into the economy, but in the sense that it's clearly a play to Harry Reid's personal reelection chances.

I direct you to page 53, under the heading "Historic Preservation Fund." While maintenance of historic sites does create jobs, one has to wonder why special preference is given to primarily black colleges and not to other sites of historical importance, even those relating to other minorities or institutions. Wouldn't this fit better under the funding given to educational facilities for maintenance, as opposed to being out there on its own? This smells of special interests to me.

Or how about the part shortly thereafter discussing endowments for the arts? While art is an important part of our society, it doesn't really contribute to the economy right off the bat. We're spending millions betting on the presumption that people will produce something of artistic worth, not just sit in a loft and splash paint on the walls (aka "unemployed" in the traditional sense of the word). How will this create jobs in the short term or grow our gross domestic product?

What about that part on page 62 going to medical research? Who else is going to do this research other than white collar, educated folks who already have jobs in the health care industry? This money won't wind up creating jobs for the "little guy" in the short term; it might help worker productivity and the market for scientific materials in the long term, but for our current economic crisis this is useless.

I could go on, but frankly my eyes need a rest.

At 2/21/09 12:17 AM, NeglectfulSpawn wrote: There are no "pet Projects" or "pork barrell spending in the stimulus bill that was passed. If you believe there is please cite a source and show me because i havent found one.

Have you read the actual bill? Because congressmen are good at hiding their pork in otherwise innocuous language, and frankly it should not take that many pages of plain text to enumerate the spending as indicated on the graph in the link you provided.

At 2/21/09 10:33 AM, mikailus wrote: What's going on, ppl? When the hell's Bush going to get what he deserves for destroying the world?

Hey, here's a thought - why don't we, while we're on the warpath, throw Bill Clinton in the stocks for his various perjuries and military debacles as well? What about Tim Geithner and his tax evasion?

You see, if we're going to clean house, we should at least do it on both sides of the aisle (lest the hot air on the remaining side set up a rather nasty crosswind).

Redundant bill is redundant.

As in, we shouldn't be passing it on the grounds that it adds needless paperwork to an already set Supreme Court precedent. I happen to be against abortion on personal philosophical grounds, but even that aside I disagree with this bill because it complicates an already convoluted and sticky legal issue. Besides, doesn't congress have something better to do right about now, like maybe dealing with our gargantuan national debt or excising the fiscal corruption that's preventing our economy from moving forward?

At 2/20/09 02:50 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 2/20/09 01:00 AM, dySWN wrote: This is a fail argument. Companies aren't living, sentient beings ,and therefore have no intrinsic morality beyond that of their constituent members.

Corporations, like Monsanto, are legally considered people.

But then again, we're talking about a moral judgment, not a legal one.