Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/14/10 08:32 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 8/14/10 07:53 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Children don't buy mcdonalds. parents do.

Have you ever seen the way children react when they're in the car with their parents and they drive near a McDonalds sign? Parents end up feeding that shit to their kids just to get them to stop screaming and crying. I've seen it happen.

Learning how to not give in to you child's every demand is an important part of being a parent. It's still the parent's fault.

"the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument is just really a cover argument "

No kidding, in fact the whole sanctity of marriage argument has unfortunate implications that betray their motives.

It follows that if gays lower the sanctity then they must be somehow lesser than the straight couples that all ready make marriage.

"Of course many people will say "It's not slavery, you don't HAVE to work"... but how true is that when you think about the consequences of NOT having a job in North America?"

Yes they may have to live on Welfare the poor bastard.

It's not slavery and to compare it to slavery is quite frankly idiotic.

In slavery you do not even get the opportunity to choose your profession in the current system you can quit your job and try your luck at something else.

Some people deserve to make more money than others, it's just that simple.

Also what happens if/when someone stumbles onto wealth? You going to let them have it or are you gonna take it from them in the name of equality?

At 8/11/10 02:19 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

They are human, just like us, and they have to behave, just like us.

"Behave just like us." ??? LOL okay, just because they're human doesn't mean they should or even will act in a manner that agrees with how you think they should act. If you come from a culture that abhors violence, then of course you're going to up and assume that everyone else should abhor violence too. But what happens when you're dealing with people for whom violence isn't looked down upon, and is even promoted as a virtuous action when taken against 'enemies'?

Wow I never thought I'd see someone openly endorse moral relativism. So because they come from a different culture they shouldn't be expected to act like decent human beings? They are not animals you realize this right?

So guess what? You insulting someone in a bar and getting your ass beaten to death for it, or you sleeping with some guy's wife and shoving it in his face then getting yourself killed over it... neither of those would even be considered murder in a U.S. court.

And your sources for this stupid claim are?

I love this logic. What if Hindus suddenly got their panties in a twist over you eating beef, which comes from the holy cow, and I was like "I'm all for you being allowed to eat beef, but you'll have to expect to get your house firebombed at night though".

LOL you're acting like these Dove Outreach people are burning Qurans just to warm their homes or something, as if they aren't intentionally trying to insult Islam. You're acting like A) "purposely insulting someone" and B) "what that someone does in response" are entirely unrelated to one-another, like there's no strand of cause and effect connecting them at all.

So if you intentionally eat beef to upset a Hindu then that would make it OK for them to beat you? Why shouldn't the Hindu learn tolerance or self control like an adult? No one has a right to be free from insult.

It's just stupid and unfair. As long as you keep within the laws set down by society, bad things like that shouldn't happen to you, and if they do, society at large should strive to help you. If laws are wrongful, we change them. That's how the system works.

Ahh, "the system". But whose system?

The system of whatever country you happen to be in at the time

:Different places have different cultures and different laws. Not everyone holds the same values as highly as others, and not everyone is playing by the same rules. As a matter of fact, not everyone is playing by the rules period. THAT'S LIFE.

So because people beat each other up anyway we should let it happen? If that's wha t you're saying why even bother having police?

Also, nowhere did I suggest that a violent response was an appropriate response. What makes the idea of "people should live non-violently" irrelevant here is that people DON'T live non-violently. Like you said, if you insult someone in a bar you might get your face punched-in. Just because you think they don't have the right to do it, and even if the local law says they don't have the right to do it, doesn't make it any less likely to happen!

That's not the point. The point is if it does happen it would be the fault of the people who committed the act no one else.

All I've been saying is that this is a dumb and potentially dangerous use of that freedom, and that they shoulder some amount of responsibility for whatever the results of using said freedom are.

No they do not. If someone angers you that does not give you an excuse to attack them, it doesn't work that way. If people decide to attack them because they don't like the non-criminal act that they did then they are entirely to blame. The church should not be held liable for the actions of others they cannot control.

But if you try to pin blame on them if somebody else innocent gets murdered, then you would be wrong because it's the murderers fault, entirely, and nobody else.

Wrong. Mostly, but NOT 'entirely.'

The murderer CHOSE to murder someone. No amount of bullshit you spew can change that simple fact. They chose to do it when they could've easily chosen not to do it. Anger does make you lose all free will and self-control. Therefore it is entirely their fault.

By talking about how the whole deal was provoked and how it's a consequence of some other action, you are legitimizing the action of the murderer. "Sure, murder is wrong, but the guy was provoked.". There are no buts. There is a crime, and we have laws to deal with it.

The law is FILLED with "buts" regarding justifications, motivations, what's legitimate, and what isn't.

And this isn't one of them.

What you're trying to do is separate cause and effect, as if the effect wasn't really caused by the cause!

No what we're saying is that even when provoked people are still responsible for their actions.

It's basically like the whole girl wearing revealing clothing in a dark alley and gets raped. Sure, it was stupid of her, but it's still 100% the rapist fault.

If I wear a police uniform but I'm not a cop... is it 100% your fault for coming to me for help? I'm 0% responsible for you having thought I'm an officer of the law? GET REAL.

That is THE stupidest analogy I ever heard. So impersonating an officer is equivalent to getting raped? Or are you saying skimpy outfits are a sign you'll have sex with ANYONE who happens to grab you in a dark alley? Lay off the drugs kiddo.

At 8/11/10 05:52 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 8/10/10 02:20 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: 100%...? is that uh, an accurate number?

Yes it is.

like... if you intentionally provoke a pit bull, is it 100% the dog's fault for biting you?
as if you being intentionally provocative had all of 0% to do with it?

I simply love how you are comparing al-qaeda to a pit bull, as if they are just a lowly creature who don't know better than to attack us when we use our freedom of speech.

<cut for brevity>

Great post, I agree with it completely. It reminds me of the twisted logic that two wrongs cancel each other out. They don't. It's still wrong to shoot someone even if they stole your car a week ago.

At 8/10/10 09:29 AM, Ericho wrote: I think probably the only reason there are any people protesting against this is because it is Christians who are doing it.

Really, you think that's the most likely reason?

I think it has more to do with the fact that it's a disgusting display of intolerance, it makes Americans and Christians look bad for being associated with them and it has ties to the Nazis.

But whatever enjoy your persecution complex.

:If it had been atheists who were burning the Quran, no one would have any problem with it, because there are so many people who support atheists.

Are you a psychic? No? Then shut up.

:As for me, I believe people have the right to do this no matter what their religious affiliation is, or lack of, in some cases. The Quran has certainly inspired more violence in today than any other book.

No one was saying it should be banned they're just commenting on how disgusting it is.

Another one

prostitution = rape that you pay for

Yes some people are literally forced into prostitution but some aren't and to argue that it equals rape is akin to saying

Farming = Slavery.

Poxy it's err unusual to see someone agree with their interpretation of the Qu'ran. Fundies will ascribe their own beliefs to the religion often in spite of the text.

At 7/31/10 05:09 PM, poxpower wrote:
Ideas motivate and shape people.
To not recognize the dangers of bad ideas is to spit in the face of history.

Yes it's a bad idea but that alone was not enough to motivate them into committing atrocities, they take the blame for their actions, they had a choice in the matter you can't just blame a religion for it.

"All of these people use their personal situations as the basis for their points of view (rather than even attempting real objectivity)"

So I take it you have polls showing that most of the people in those groups argue based on emotion.

Because if not then you'd basically be committing the sin you accuse them of doing.

At 8/3/10 05:46 AM, roojames wrote:

At 7/25/10 11:46 PM, sharpnova wrote: -most celebrities

Anyone who attempts to generalise a group of people based on their status/fame.

Or the color of their skin or all the monumentally stupid things he tries to generalize people with in that dumb post of his.

In fact I think that entire post qualifies for the top spot of dumb arguments.

At 8/1/10 02:17 PM, orangebomb wrote:
It's the same with Rock music in the 50s and 60s, and porn films in the 70s, they will piss and moan about how evil they are, yet they are part of the American culture in 1 way or another.

People still piss and moan about porn being evil even today.

At 7/31/10 02:27 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Oh looky another crap comment from Anderson, the guy who compared video games to cigarettes despite huge problems with that comparison.

Sorry about this but it seems that most anti-games study come from him and only him. And he seriously compared games to cigarettes. One of the things he brought up in the comparison was that

'video game companies and the tobacco industry both spend a lot of money to fight the idea that they're harmful'.

I hope I don't have to explain how irrelevant that is.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/03/01/v ideogame-violence-researchers-battle-non -violently

At 7/31/10 02:27 PM, riemannSum wrote: Don't know; don't care. I only linked an article contrary to his position to illustrate what a moron he is. I don't hold views either way on this.

A possibly flawed study contradicting his opinion does not make him a moron.

I think it takes a fool to believe video games cause real violence.

Oh looky another crap comment from Anderson, the guy who compared video games to cigarettes despite huge problems with that comparison.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2007/02/19/r esearcher-finds-scant-evidence-linking-v iolent-games-with-aggressive-behavior

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/01/21/r esearcher-no-link-between-violent-games-
amp-school-shootings

How did your study define aggression exactly?

At 7/29/10 02:20 PM, poxpower wrote: The issue isn't whether Islam is responsible or not, because it MOST DEFINITELY is.

Bullshit!

Is Catholicism responsible for pedophilia or the Crusades (and I said Catholicism not the Vatican), is Christianity responsible for abortion clinic bombers?

Islam is an idea and an idea can't kill people, people kill people.

We were discussing how much is too much regulation of the airlines and the interstate commerce clause was brought up. Then someone tried to argue that the airlines don't fall under interstate commerce.

At 7/21/10 11:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm 100% in support of a mosque there or anywhere. There is no reason at all why people would not want it there.

No there are reasons, but we should not ignore the constitution when people feel it's in bad taste.

At 7/16/10 05:24 PM, CommanderFalcon wrote: A jack-off at my school had this to say:

"Obama's a Nazi fascist!"

To which I replied:

"What makes you say that?"

To which he replied:

"The Bible says so!"

..............

Are you sure he wasn't joking.

I mean really all you have to is point out that the Bible was written way before Obama or the Nazi party.

At 7/20/10 02:21 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I think the Mosque is in bad taste.

I don't neccessarly oppose the idea of a mosque there, but of all the places in New York City, why does it have to be near Ground Zero?

Everybody wants to say "be tolerant" to those who oppose the mosque but isn't it a bit rude of the Mosques owner to choose that site as the place for his religious temple?

No is he not responsible for those maniacs.

True, it's not fair to blaim every muslem on the planet for the act of a few, but at the same time the muslem population needs to understand what their people did and show some respect to the non-muslems of the world who lost their entires lives that day.

Building a mosque is not disrespectful. It wasn't the Muslim faith that brought down the towers it was a bunch of crazy fundy assholes .

I don't think it should be allowed... not there anyway. Build it a mile down the road.

To say you can't build a mosque because people will be offended is a definite violation of the first amendment. Would you be OK if we didn't allow Catholics to build churchs near say ohmes for abused children.

To me, this is like going to Hiroshima and building a museum that honors the greatness of nuclear fission.

Nuclear fission is a tool, the fact that people use it in ways you disagree with can not be used to shame nuclear fission which has peacetime uses.

At 7/12/10 05:49 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Although if you really want to piss them off ask them if you think they should be held responsible for driving while drunk or trying to steal something.

When they say yes ask them why all of a sudden they should be responsible for what they do while drunk.

You know what forget it just ask them yourself what they think of both drunk.

Although if you really want to piss them off ask them if you think they should be held responsible for driving while drunk or trying to steal something.

When they say yes ask them why all of a sudden they should be responsible for what they do while drunk.

At 7/10/10 10:19 AM, The-universe wrote:

The simple rebuttal is, men would have to drink severely moderate amounts so he is rationally capable to refuse advances while woman can drink themselves under the table.

I never actually saw a feminist that said that it should only apply to drunk women, they probably exist but I don't see them (then again it's not like I talk to a lot of them). Although if they were both drunk than technically they both raped each other under drunk=cannot consent, although if that's the case then neither party would be stupid enough to tell the cops.

At 7/10/10 05:16 PM, TheMason wrote: Ice core samples going back 750,000-1,000,000 years show a spike in CO2 levels and temperatures at regular intervals of about 250,000 years. Now the last spike was 250,000 years ago...which means we are living at the time that the geological record predicts another spike in CO2 levels and temperatures through natural processes totally unrelated to man.

Ok then I was confused as to what the argument actually was. Sorry about that.

At 7/10/10 07:30 AM, DanteDelfuago wrote: Because a few crazy people have lost touch with our world and belive in those worlds

That is true but the argument is that most people are like them.

I'd like to add one more.

Men/children/teens are all complete idiots who cannot distinguish reality from fiction and thus they will slowly become violent/sexist/dangerous when they consume [insert media here].

This has been used against porn, video games comic books, rap rock and roll, crime novels, movies, TV etc. etc. etc.

Also used in porn with the implication that 'men are idiots who will think most women behave like strippers/are sex objects if they ever watch strippers'.

It's so head smackingly stupid

At 7/6/10 11:57 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

At 7/3/10 02:55 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so are we supposed to be debating these dumb arguments or just listing them... do they have to be politics related?

Well this is the politics forum. They don't have to be about policies though.

You know what screw it, it can be non-politics if you wish.