Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/28/10 01:09 AM, HibiscusKazeneko wrote: Sex was originally intended as a vehicle for reproduction, not a recreational activity. These whores need to learn the hard way that

Originally intended? Sex was not made by anyone, no one designed sex.

In short, I oppose abortion on the grounds that it encourages women and girls to have sex with every man they meet without consequences.

So do you oppose birth control or vasectomies or getting your tubes tied?

To be honest, uh I used to be liberal straight across the board and now I'm not.

I think I'm still clinging to pro-choice just to spite the social conservatives.

I've given it some thought and I've come to conclusion that it's not as important as both sides make it out to be and given the level of vitriol I tend to not get involved in debates.

Although really both sides should realize that people with an opposing view living amongst them is not all that shocking (and it seems like most of them do).

She shouldn't have been allowed to enter the male locker room.

Catholic Bishop blames Jews for Catholic church record on abuse

At 9/21/10 03:46 PM, poxpower wrote: The Vatican has special rules set up specifically to deal with protecting church officials from sex scandals.

Could you give me a link to those? I've heard of them but never seen them.

At 9/21/10 10:20 AM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 9/21/10 04:15 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: seriously though, government censorship is simply tyrannical. with rare and obvious exceptions.

Such as???

Actual child porn (as in involving real children). Also the government censors intelligence from us (like if they release documents that have sensitive information they'd black out the sensitive info).

At 9/21/10 03:45 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: They plan to block "small-breasted women porn" because it is supposedly a substitute for child pornography.

That's how retarded it is.

My guess is they're likely saying it will lead to looking at child porn which I'm guessing they have no evidence to support merely speculation.

Ok thanks for a misleading statement OP the guy was basically being half sarcastic here.

But to say Hitler was motivated by atheist extremism is nothing but pure bullshit!

First off atheist extremism is a non-term.

Hating religion doesn't make you more of an atheist than someone who likes religion (but still doesn't believe in it).

Second even if we pretend his dumbass term actually meant what he thinks it means he'd still be wrong.

Pop Quiz: Did Hitler go after anyone who wasn't an atheist or did he go after a few specific religions (Jews and Jehova's Witnesses)?

The second one obviously, and even then the Nazis treated Jews more like a race than a religion.

Why the fuck should we apologize for Hitler when we had nothing to do with him. That's like saying "as a man with a mustache you should apologize for Hitler".

I'm sorry the monumental stupidity is too much for words.

Speaking of which

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_un s

Australia is proposing Chinese style censorship for all of its citizens. And it's not just illegal sites like child porn but also stuff like regular porn.

Anyway it's very very wrong.

At 9/13/10 09:29 PM, Gario wrote:

At 9/13/10 03:13 AM, FatherTime89 wrote: Because obviously when you open up a business you only hope to attract people from next door.

Yeah, obviously... why else would you chose a location except to attract the customers of the surrounding area (or the customers that tend to pass by)? Other than, of course, the location being the only one around (hello, Mosque debate, and even then it's because of the Muslims that are in the area), but that doesn't happen too often, believe it or not.

You open up a business in a crowded area and there will be those that would prefer church over and it those that would prefer whatever it is over church.

And how exactly does having a bar or a strip club within a couple hundred feet disrupt their business? I'd really like to know.

Whether or not something is 'sacred' probably isn't really a concern for you, but the church considers what it houses to be 'sacred'. Having whorehouses/strip joints tend to disrupt the service because the priest isn't allowed to consecrate the bread near anything unclean, since that's considered sacrilege.

Where does it say that he can't do that if there's a strip club on the next block? In either case freedom of religion doesn't grant you the right to demand everyone else be silent or respectful or whatever in another building whilst you pray.

Hmm... read above. Churches have nothing to do with 'likes' and 'dislikes'. They can't practice their religion if it means desecrating something sacred. They are not telling people to stop what they're doing (well, they are, but only the parishioners). They're telling people to practice somewhere else, and instead of getting bent out of shape most businesses just do it.

That IS telling people to stop what they're doing. That's telling them to stop doing what they're doing on their own property even though the church can't even see them. They have no right to demand other people show their religion respect.

Again, no harm, no foul - why are you so upset about it, other than the sole fact that a religious institution requested the zoning laws?

Because there's no good reason for it. If the churches can't live and let live that's their problem.

It benefits the Church, and it's not going to be prime real estate for the affected parties (because of the fact that there is a church set up, there)

Uh no, when you build a church you don't suddenly convert everyone there into anti-porn/drinking/whatever.

:so those institutions don't care, to my knowledge (if they do, please link the info proving my point wrong).

Why wouldn't they care about being forced to not build where they would like?

Why deal with it when unnecessary conflict can be avoided? Most humans learn to avoid conflict whenever they can, and for those that didn't evolve that far there are 'zoning laws' that fix that problem. Hence what I mean (and presumably what Poxpower means, as well) by 'Common Sense'.

I don't remember a story when a strip club bar whatever provided trouble for a church I do remember a story about a church harassing strip club workers.

At 9/13/10 04:52 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: i don't see what the big deal is about don't ask, don't tell. i don't see any problem with homosexuals being allowed to serve in the military so long as they keep it to themselves.

Because heteros don't have to keep it to thereselves.

At 9/10/10 07:33 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: It's about fucking time. However, I've heard arguments that this California federal judge superseded her authority. Apparently, her ability as a low federal judge to make a ruling regarding the United States military is in question. I say this should be taken up to the Supreme Court so that the matter can be settled once and for all. Or...Congress could just repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Whichever one's easier I guess.

The beauty of this is that even if the Supreme Court says DADT is constitutional Congress can still legislate it away.

And how exactly does having a bar or a strip club within a couple hundred feet disrupt their business? I'd really like to know.

I know of no religion though that demands that everyone and everything within an X feet radius not upset you, and no freedom of religion isn't absolute so you can't just demand everyone live to some standards.

Also dealing with people you don't like is part of civilization, someone opens up a business nearby you don 't like tough shit.

It's not common sense there's no reason other than 'the churches don't like them and they want to pretend they're entitled to not have to put up with things that offend them'

Because obviously when you open up a business you only hope to attract people from next door.

What do you think of the zoning laws saying X and Y must stay 300 feet away from a church or school or whatever? I'm not talking convicted criminals I'm talking legitimate businesses like say gun stores, bars, porn shops, tattoo parlors or whatever.

Not sure about the ones keeping things away from schools but the ones keeping things away from churches have to go away.

I'm not sure if they violate separation of church and state (since they are giving churches preferential treatment at the cost of other businesses) but either way they have to go.

I can't see any basis for them other than the factor that the church goers are extra sensitive and wish to keep their heads in the sand lest they be aware of all that damn "sin".

At 8/30/10 06:21 PM, DaftDog wrote: Pretty much anyone saying gay marriage is allowed

You must've meant something else. Gay marriage is allowed in some states and some countries.

At 9/1/10 08:17 PM, Black487 wrote: The argument went as follows:

Men have natural urges which cannot be controlled. Therefore, if the manner in which a women dresses can be interpreted as lewd, she is at fault for having been raped. The man couldn't help it.

That's right men lose all free will when looking at women dressing lewd.

I hope the asshole saying that realizes
A. How incredibaly stupid and wrong that is
B. The argument would be a HUGE help to anyone trying to ban porn, or the swimsuit issue of sports illustrated (or even violent games).

At 8/30/10 03:41 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: Any man declaring "If women are allowed to breast feed in public I should be allowed to masturbate in Public."

Now THAT is really really stupid.

Any of you know of a woman who considers breast feeding to be a form of masturbation or sexually arousing?

At 8/10/10 01:20 AM, MrFlopz wrote: T Atheists don't say "I know for a fact that there is no God."

Untrue, some atheists try to argue that science has proven there can't be a god (or at least the god of the Bible). I think Hitchens might be one, not sure about it though.

Sure, just as the government shouldn't put 'in God we Trust' on the currency they also shouldn't put 'there is no God'

I hope that's what you meant.

At 8/16/10 09:28 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 8/16/10 07:58 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: I find it funny that you bitch about wording then try to pretend selling children toys is exploiting them.

I find it funny that you are incapable of composing all your thoughts into one post.

I find it funny how you are ignoring my counter argument and just resorting to insults.

At 8/16/10 08:01 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: So you think including a toy is somehow fradulent marketing? Do you even understand what 'fraud' means?

"Fraudulent" would be a perfect word to use to describe McDonalds' approach to advertising. Fraud is basically dishonesty.

And giving kids a toy is not dishonest.

I personally think protesting at someone's funeral is akin to harassment and should be treated as such (harsher actually).

I do believe that free speech covers their hateful BS though just not any funeral protests.

"I am not supportive of companies using blatantly fraudulent marketing/advertising techniques to get children addicted to crap that will kill them."

So you think including a toy is somehow fradulent marketing? Do you even understand what 'fraud' means?

They claim they'd give them a toy and they give them a toy. There's no fraud because they aren't lying to people.

"Again, you choose your words carefully to make it sound like I am some kind of advocate of police states. If by "forcing people to do things" you mean "forcing people to obey completely reasonable laws which are in place to prevent them from exploiting others", then yes."

I find it funny that you bitch about wording then try to pretend selling children toys is exploiting them.

At 8/16/10 06:45 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/16/10 05:53 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

It does.

Not in california, where they've had the same benefits for years.

Nope although the whole point was to show how utterly stupid the 'you don't need it therefore it's OK to ban it' line of reasoning is.

lol, you obviously don't know his position on gay marriage, do you?

I'm guessing he's for it because he called it marriage equality I was just simply reinforcing his point that you don't need it isn't a reason to ban things.

At 8/16/10 05:28 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/16/10 04:50 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

You can live without uncensored internet/privacy/video games etc. stop being a whiner.

What's the difference between loving individuals staying with each other, and marriage?

Nothing.

Wrong. Marriages enjoy state sanctioning and comes with many state sponsored benefits. Also married couples don't have to live together. Take the many soldiers overseas who have spouses back here.

Not exactly like the Government telling you "you can't use the internet... ever."

Telling someone they can't be state-sanctioned "married" doesn't mean they can't have EVERYTHING in a typical marriage.

It does.

So how about you just shut the fuck up, alright?

Nope although the whole point was to show how utterly stupid the 'you don't need it therefore it's OK to ban it' line of reasoning is.

At 8/16/10 06:06 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Knowing California I bet they would because of it Liberal Views, is alright to smoke Marijuana and have Same sex Marriage but you can have happy meals because its entrapment for children to eat unhealthily.

So San Francisco represents all of California? When the fuck did that happen?

At 8/15/10 05:38 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 8/15/10 02:03 AM, fli wrote: I can't see much of a problem--
They can still sell a happy meal sans toy.

It's not the end of the world.

You can live without equal marriage rights

its not the end of the world

stop being a fucking whiner

You can live without uncensored internet/privacy/video games etc. stop being a whiner.

At 8/14/10 01:44 PM, poxpower wrote: Well it's official, San Francisco is THE GAYEST PLACE ON EARTH: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010 /08/the_other_guys_movie_poster_di.php

Chicago buses tried the same thing with GTA IV ads (which didn't even have guns on them). It was a policy of forbidding ads by M rated games. That was thrown out due to the first amendment so I betcha this would be to if the film makers tried to fight it.