Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/8/10 09:09 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 7/1/10 10:40 AM, Amoebaman wrote: I cant quite get the dumbest thing I've heard in my mind but...

That humans have absolutely nothing to do with climate change just because it has happened many times before without us.

This may actually be the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. If a process has been shown to occur several times at predictable increments and the planet is due for the next spike in Greenhouse Gasses...yeah you're right...it's all man's fault!

Oh pipe down, the argument was basically 'the world has warmed up on its own before therefore this has to be one of those times'. You must be able to appreciate the stupidity of that logic.

I swear someone on another board claimed circumcision is what separates us from animals. The immediate response was 'so does that mean you can't tell the difference between your daughters and animals'? (Not even sure he had daughters but whatever).

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.

At 7/1/10 07:17 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: An argument by a feminist who claimed that the fire department discriminated against women by deliberately making fire axes too heavy for the average woman to operate.

I love it when feminists argue that women are weaker than men. The irony is just absolutely stunning.

Unless she was arguing that they give them heavier axes than men in which case it's just another conspiracy.

Really now having sex with someone for money makes you feel entitled to women in general?

How stupid and short-sighted do you think people are anyway?

At 7/1/10 07:19 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 7/1/10 02:09 AM, FatherTime89 wrote:
For me there was a debate over prostitution. One person on the anti-side said that if prostitution were legal men would feel more entitled to women's bodies.

...

Because nothing makes you feel more entitled to something than having to pay money for it.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I don't think it is that stupid. Prostitutes can get killed often because the fact that their bodies can be 'bought' seems to make men think that they really own them to do as they please. Prostitution is not the safest job at all.

Uh huh, so why doesn't that work with all their other partners? The pro and the john set the terms before the err service so it's obvious it's not an actual purchase.

Also if you think all men secretly want to murder someone and all it takes is a pro to unleash them you're a fool.
And besides why the hell doesn't it seem to work that way with pets which you actually do buy?

What's the dumbest argument you ever heard (obviously involving politics)? We've all heard dumb or faulty arguments but are there any ones that stick out in your mind as being so dumb you find it hard to believe that they got there through any sort of thought or logic?

Note this is dumb arguments not dumb ideas.

For me there was a debate over prostitution. One person on the anti-side said that if prostitution were legal men would feel more entitled to women's bodies.

...

Because nothing makes you feel more entitled to something than having to pay money for it.

At 6/14/10 08:19 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Because 'victimless' is a term that can be quite subjective. Is prostitution really victimless? One can argue that it allows malafide organisation to sell women on the street legally and thus let sex slaves run freely (albeit under the cover of a legit operation).

If they're being mistreated or abused they can file a police report which they can't do when it's illegal.

:Also, it allows for moral decline and letting people sleep with sex workers where they should be with their family, hence the families can become victims.

That would be a victim of the member's individual decisions not the profession of prostitution. Someone can easily abandon their family and live in a motel hundreds of miles away. Is the existence of the motel making the family a victim or the decision of the family member? Also moral decline can't exactly be proven.

At 6/3/10 03:51 AM, rorypearce94 wrote: All suposed "Victimless crimes" Do infact have some sort of victim or knock on effect. Take prostitution as an example, one may see it as a victimless crime, when infact this money often funds the drug industry, which ruins lives, ergo, no crime is victimless.

Except it's entirely possible to have prostitution that doesn't fund the drug trade so your point is moot.

It's like say a pizza parlor owner used some of his profits to finance a drug cartel. Would you wwnat to make pizza illegal because it creates victims in a totally separate industry?

At 4/22/10 06:00 PM, darkrchaos wrote: Can we kick her out or something so she stops trying to ruin the government. Everything I listen to her it gets worse and worse.

Out of what? After she quit her job as governor she's not part of the government.

At 4/22/10 02:47 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: What the hell is wrong with you people? Just because she wants to bring a bible to congress doesn't make her a "fascist" or a "retard".

Bringing a bible to Congress would not violate separation of church and state. Although she's not a member of Congress so I don't know what she'd be doing there anyway.

NO! it just means she has her own fucking beliefs.

I take it you don't understand what separation of church and state actually entails.

At 4/11/10 10:29 AM, poxpower wrote:
Shit if they so much as find child porn on your computer they'll get your ass on trial. The Pope is the leader of a international gang of kid diddlers. He's the Al Capone of bad touch.

Mind if I quote you on that one? It's pretty funny.

Incest between independent adults should be legal, but if it's parent child and the child still relies on the parents (no matter what age) then you get into a questionable realm.

At 1/12/10 10:05 AM, Elfer wrote: See the difference here though is that the intruders in this film weren't the white man, they were the human race as a whole.

So in the same way as those other movies mentioned, it's racist, but for humans in general instead of white people.

Incidentally, all of these movies are about a white person renouncing his whiteyness to save the good minority people from the evil white people. The person says "It would be nice if we could save ourselves," but that's a different kind of formulaic movie rather than the formulaic type that Avatar is.

Maybe they're right though. Maybe people would be much happier if there was a movie about a barbaric horde of black people who were threatening a noble tribe of whites, then one enlightened black person earns the trust of the white man, and helps them defend themselves against the black invaders. I'm guessing that everyone would be real happy about this guys.

Also, extra-funny line here:

"When will whites stop making these movies and start thinking about race in a new way?" wrote Newitz, who is white.

Yeah if anything this is racist against whites.

I'm getting so tired of the same 'big bad evil corporation' plots that I've considered Atlas Shrugged just for the change of pace. The only thing that's kept me back is the book over 1000-page length.

Sorry for the triple post but the comparison to District 9 just made me realize how completely unoriginal Avatar's plot is.

""It's really upsetting in many ways," said Lee, who is black with Jamaican and Chinese ancestry. "It would be nice if we could save ourselves.""

Well sweetie that would destroy suspension of disbelief. Hell it's still a big stretch even with him.

They have better weapons, better technology, etc. etc.

How the fuck are the Navi supposed to win without their little former inside man who knows their tactics and technologies?

At 1/12/10 03:01 AM, KidneyThief wrote: I noticed this while checking my mail.

Article.

I can't stand it when people try to interpret art that wasn't meant to have a message. Some things believe it or not are just meant to look pretty. I'm sure there are underlying themes in the movie, but I don't feel racism is one of them. Sure the bones of the movie are not the most original, but simply because the main character was cast as a white male does not make him the "white savior."

Thoughts?

Yeah it's a white hero but who is he saving them from again?

Oh yeah a whole bunch of other whites with less than noble intentions and better weapons.

It doesn't take much to see an anti-colonization message but to see a racist message takes a big level of stupid.

You hit on the appeal to tradition fallacy. It also has an inverse which is appeal to novelty (i.e. if something's new that doesn't mean it's good).

Just because something had a purpose or a good reason for existing when we first started doing it doesn't mean it has one now.

At 12/6/09 06:09 PM, joe9320 wrote: This has been a very touchy issue for everyone here, especially for Australians like me. So I'll ask you Americans your opinion on censorship in any country: do you think it's good or not?

My opinion is that censorship is bad because it remove freedom of speech from citizens, and alos it is horrible to censor.

Err that's too vague a question.

FCC mandating swear words be bleeped is censorship.

The military releasing a document to the public and blackening out sensitive information, that's also censorship.

Also I heard during one of the World Wars the military would view letters troops sent home to their family and blackened out information that might've given away where they were in case they should fall into the hands of the enemy. If that's true that would also be censorship.

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

Big government doesn't necessarily equate to better law enforcement or national security, so put me in smaller government. As for what that means I say we scale back some of the things the government gets involved in.

At 11/19/09 09:29 PM, Gorstak wrote: This picture says it all :P

Actually no that picture misses a huge feature of libertarianism. Yes they like fewer government, yes they generally don't like government but yet they still realize that we're going to need one. Do you like paying taxes? If no would you still agree that they're a necessary evil (and I mean taxes in general)?

Similar principles apply.

Libertarian: We need a government but don't need/don't want it to be anything more than law enforcement, a military, and things like the CIA, and FBI to protect us from foreign threats, although they should be limited in their reach (no spying on the general populace, need warrant for search and seizure etc. etc.). I think I may have missed a few other functions they also think we need so don't yell at me if I missed some. Anyway this is the extreme libertarian, I think most of them are fine with the existence of state funded fire departments and schools (or at least they can be and still be considered libertarian).

Anarchist: We don't need a government. I've heard some talk about competing law enforcement agencies so it wouldn't be complete chaos but it was complex and I've forgotten a great deal of it.

Hope that helps.

America love it or leave it truly is BS.

How was America formed?

A bunch of colonists were piseed at the way King George was treating them.

They could've left but instead they tried to change it, and eventually they started a violent revolution.

So if anything saying 'bite your tongue and put up with whatever the government is doing' is pure unAmerican Bullshit.

Here we be posting the distance records we got, if you have a screenshot post it. Also please mention how many nukes you used to get there as well as other bits.

Here's one I got using the tank, the gold gun, the max upgraded jetpack and 3 nukes (how much distance does a nuke give anyway, I'm not sure)

I had another record of 2540117.1 ft without any nukes.

The race baiting truly is pathetic in more ways then one.

First of all it's an attempt to silence critics with a logical fallacy.

You're a racist therefore we don't have to take you seriously is ad hominem.

Let's pretend that all the tea party protesters were racists, does that fact make them automatically wrong? No. Does it lower the validity of their arguments in any way? No. The taxing, spending and health care issues they are protesting are not racial issues so the fact that they might be racists is irrelevant.

I love how some uber-conservatives were claiming protesting Bush/Iraq war/their favorite policy makes people un-American and the liberals (correctly) contested that stupid logic. Now some libs are saying that protesting Obama might make you a racist which is almost the exact same bullshit. One does not need to be racist, or anti-American to disagree with the president.

At 7/25/09 01:21 AM, Crazyhobo51 wrote: It bothers me so much these days about how liberals, democrats, and intellectuals are advocating "humane" executions and lengthy prison sentences, all just wastes of money! We should just get rid of the whole trial system and execute anyone who is found to commit a crime, Judge Dredd style, none of this crap about juries and stuff. In my opinion, felonies should be instant executions, delievered by the arresting officer of course, and misdemeanors should have a fine of 5,000 to 10,000 dollars, depending on the severity of the offense

So unless you agree with using the death penalty for felonies, ignoring parts of the bill of rights, and
dismantling our criminal justice system you're a liberal?

I think that would make most of the US liberal then.

^
Err flies are animals dude.

At 6/13/09 12:11 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 6/12/09 11:29 PM, satanbrain wrote: Judaism is a religion, Jew is a race. and you know what happen to those think themselves "master race".

A Muslim believes in Islam, a Christian in Catholicism, a Jew in Judaism.

Know the difference between race and religion!

Muslim Christian and Jew are not races.

They are descriptions that point to religion.

One does not have to be a certain race to be a Muslim Jew or Christian nor does someone's race change if they convert.

At 6/12/09 10:50 PM, holmzito wrote:

At 6/12/09 07:00 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 6/12/09 06:05 PM, SeraphimFalling wrote: You know what, I think that jews are the master race, and aryans deserve to be put in camps and slowly killed and tortured.

Judaism is a religion not a race!

Tee hee, you sure are cute when you are completely wrong.

Actually he's right

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/j udaism

At 2/24/09 08:50 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Also Black History month is racist, just like you.

Also, wow, making generalizations to support your claims.

Atheists, racists, and fundamentalists dancing in a tree, which one makes me sicker, only time can see.

And what pray tell is it about atheists that sicken you?