At 10/9/09 04:24 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 10/9/09 07:00 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

At 10/8/09 09:41 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

Shouldn't god be kind?

He is

True, but, as long as these religions with their scriptures exist, harm will come from them.

At 10/8/09 09:41 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: However, it is not the religion itself to blame if it happens to indirectly promote these horrible things. It is still up to the individual and the people with whom he associates to prevent this from happening. If he follows the Bible literally, he should look at those who don't and instead of wanting to destroy them, ask them questions as to why they don't share the same fervency.

Well if the religion claims and teaches that the bible is the word of god, I would say that this is a big contribution to the problem. What I find odd about people who say, "Well, I only believe in some parts of the bible." is why do you need the bible if you're making your own moral choices anyway.

For example, there is a part of the bible that says that homosexuals must be put to death [Leviticus 20:13]. Now I'm guessing that you or at least most christians disagree with this statement. If you don't believe this part, why not search for your morals elsewhere? Somewhere where their aren't these negative "side effects." Surely you can find other scriptures (or whatever) without such horrible statements. I think that as a society we have actually become more moral or at least less cruel than the god in the bible. Shouldn't god be kind?

I'd like to join the club, and jump right into the debate.

But first a little something about my background.
My parents did not baptise me, thinking and later telling me I should make my decision about god later in life, something I recommend more parents should do. They never told me anything about god or jesus, apart from the Christmas story which I never really associated with Christianity as a kid, somehow. The only religious "teachings" I had really were the ones I got at school, there were a couple of those, such as Sodom and Gomorrha (spelling?), Noah's Ark, the Easter story, Adam and Eve, genesis and of course also the Christmas story (again). But these stories I saw more as exciting stories. I never thought of it as religious.

Now I write it down I realize that the 1st and 2nd year of my school time actually included quite a bit of religious "education". But as I've said it never had a great impact on me. I think my older brother had a big impact on my atheist thoughts and, in general, people I looked up to as intelligent, sensible people seemed to fly the atheist flag. The more I learned about religion and it's history the more I doubted it. Pretty much my whole (close) family is now atheist or only very loosely tied to religion. To me religion is fantasy until proven right, to me it's the same thing as if someone would say "hey there's an orc in the garden." and not show me the orc.

Anyway, to the debate.
I agree that even milldly religious people are partly responsible for extremists. If you tell someone the bible or the koran or the torah is the word of god, then it is only normal that some people will take those books literally with all their atrocious sayings such as (the bible) "homosexuals should be stoned". I understand that normal non extremists use these books for good. But I think there are better inspirations that don't include the evil stuff that the religious books have in them.

To put my views quite simply: religion has negative side effects. A moral upbringing hasn't.

I think an important point to make to all mildly religious people (in this case christian) is, you don't believe everything that's said in the bible. Do you really think people who work on the sabbath should be killed and all homosexuals should be stoned? And when you realize that you don't believe these things, you realize that you never really used the bible to make moral choices in the first place. The problem is: extremists often do.

To give you something else here's an interesting video about anti-atheism and some of the negative impacts of religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMpWRZ7_A 34

At 9/11/09 11:36 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/11/09 10:30 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote: Why?

Do you even have any idea of how many things people would have to vote on on a daily basis if they wanted to truly take part in politics and replace politicians?
You'd have to read hundreds of pages of law documents each week just to keep up to date on everything that's going on.

Of course people wouldn't always vote on everything, i.e. they wouldn't have to know everything that's going on. But they would have the right to, i.e. they get sent a monthly letter or e-mail and vote on what they want to, and abstain on things they don't know or care about. For example, do you really have strong feelings on whether the local gym hall should be renovated or not? Probably not --->abstain. Do you have strong feelings about legalizing pot? Maybe ---> vote. Of course this creates a certain amount of work, but at least some things like counting the votes can be done electronically these days (maybe technology has opened the door to this kind of society). The fact that voting would be left to those who want to vote on certain matters, would also hopefully guarantee educated voting.

Wouldn't taxes where the only thing that is compulsory is to pay a certain amount reflect the public will far better than just voting for representatives?

People are not qualified to make these kinds of decision.
Neither of us knows how much money you need to build a road or where roads are needed. You can't just expect people to randomly figure out that they need to give 20 bucks for transport this year or else the potholes won't be fixed.

Well, this is where the politicians as "guides" come in. I think most people would realize that some shit has to be taken care of, like the roads you mentioned. And I think it's fair to say that, if the politicians recommended the right amounts (already taking things like some people not paying for them into account.), most people would gladly pay that amount. However, I bet a lot of people don't think a massive army is necessary, so they wouldn't pay. Despite what some elitist people may think, the vast majority of people aren't stupid enough to completely neglect important things such as: public transport, hospitals, schools and so on. Also I would guess that a few people would even voluntarily pay more taxes if they could choose what for. I don't think that could be said of today's system. This would lead to good institutions being strengthened and unnecessary ones being weakened.

Anyway none of this has anything to do with anarchy.
You're just complaining about things the government does. Join the club.

Giving people more voting power doesn't suddenly turn a democracy into anarchy.

Actually by giving politicians less power you are getting rid of their hierarchical higher standing, thus at least making a step towards an anarchy. Also let's not forget that an anarchy does contain direct democracy (imo the only real democracy), so you can't just act like democracy and anarchy are completely different.

At 8/28/09 02:35 PM, TheStonePilot wrote: Y'know, actually, I would love anarchism. Then I could kill anyone I want, steal with no repercussions, and basically rape and murder my way across the continent! Yay for anarchism! Down with the establishment!

Anarchy has no hierarchy. It DOES, however, have laws. Quick question: Do you not murder, rape and steal from people because you fear repercussions, or is it more because you don't think it's right? Let's face it: anyone who wants to kill someone will do so under any system. The thing about law in an anarchist society is that it would be approved by the people. If you had to vote on legalizing murder, would you vote yes? Probably not. If you could vote on whether you want all your energy sources to be renewable, you might well vote yes. Yet you're not even being asked directly whether you want one or the other. Why? Because your representatives don't want your opinion once they've got your vote.

Humans have a natural instinct to form tribes and groups. The power system is just what comes about.

You're making the assumption that humanity will never change. If this were the case we probably wouldn't have democracy. Sadly most so called "democracies" don't actually allow their people to get involved directly, you can vote for your representatives, but you can't vote on what should be done. Apparently you aren't fit to make your own decisions, you need some corporate sponsored puppet with a Harvard education to do it for you. Why should you have to pay taxes which you don't approve of? For example, if I were a US-citizen the last thing I'd want to be paying money for is the US-Army.
I'd gladly fill out a "donation-form" where I could spread a certain percentage of my money as I wish to. I'd spend it on public transport, good schools, hospital, alternative energies and so on. Wouldn't taxes where the only thing that is compulsory is to pay a certain amount reflect the public will far better than just voting for representatives? Politicians should have a role as unpayed "guides" they should be people doing it as a hobby giving suggestions not deciding for us.

Just because you have to help other people doesn't mean that THE GOVERNMENT IS TOTALLY AFTER YOU.

Haha, because agent orange in Vietnam, dying for oil and bombing civilians is really helping other people. If your taxes were going where you want them to you'd get to help other people, if you wished to do so. About 50% of the US-budget is spent on the army, and I think a lot of that money could be used for better purposes elsewhere.

How much would you like your little piece of farmland after it's been burned down to the ground because someone wanted to?

Yet again, laws would exist. And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't vote "yes" on legalizing "random fire attacks". You might however pay some of your taxes on an insurance that insures those who pay for it.

At 9/11/09 08:58 AM, Proteas wrote: Nice topic

Didn't see that. Then again it is from 2005, so I think it's fair enough to bring it up again.

Please do not assume this just some sort of stoner stuff about how smoking pot is great and shit. I personally have nothing against moderate stoners, but that's not the discussion I would like to focus on in this discussion.

Okay, so this is a great idea I think more people should hear about. I'm not going to attempt to articulate it myself, because quite frankly, Jello Biafra has already done a great job of doing that in the following video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcfKFCs-u vQ&feature=PlayList&p=72AB61817B895D7F&p laynext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

Great thread idea.

"Honey I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is: the children I told you were dead, are alive. The bad news is they're shackled to the cellar wall."

So far on newgrounds I've always seen the ads. But for some reason it's doing this anyway. I think it's retarded anyway. Why should we have to buy anything.

At 8/12/09 03:59 AM, poxpower wrote: And I wonder how much worse life was as an average slave than as a tribesman. I mean, what the fuck did they do there all day long? Just look at how bad they have it TODAY. Imagine 200 years ago. As a slave, you're at least fed, sheltered, cared for medically and sometimes allowed to be educated and have a family of your own.

I'm pretty sure most of the black tribesmen were pretty happy with their lives and definitely happier than slaves. They hunted for food, which kept them occupied and gave them food (obviously), and guess what they even had shelter. Also, I'm pretty sure they weren't in as bad a situation (compared to Europe and America at the time) as they are today. I mean to be fair I doubt Europe and America had great medical care at the time. Furthermore I think they were probably okay with "not being educated" and having a family of their own in Africa.

At 8/13/09 01:35 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

Good for you! Patriotism is a great thing.
There is no American Pride though, because you really have nothing to BE proud of. Except Big Macs, Coke, and previously having one of the worst politicions ever created. (Hopefully Obama will make up for him, though.)

And, you know, being the leader of democracy in the world for 250 years. And enormous scientific and medical advances. And everything good in the world.

First of all, why can you be proud of this? I mean what did you contribute? Nothing. All you did was happen to be born in the same country afterwards.

Second, your Democracy is a good thing and certainly was revolutionary at the time. But, it seems to me that the average American has forgotten who founded their country. It wasn't some dipshit looking to make money and police the globe. They were people who wanted freedom and they were intelligent and critical of the rulers they had had previously. What do Americans (sorry about the generalizations) do these days? They just swallow every bit of bullshit without questioning a thing. Because after all, America is awesome and if you aren't a patriot your a commie.

And lastly, you didn't create everything good in the world.

I'm not very good at getting everything I want to say in my first rant, so I'll just stop here and hope for responses.

At 7/6/09 06:55 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/6/09 05:05 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

At 7/6/09 12:44 AM, zero-gravity wrote: with regards to the fact that there is no evidence.

Evidence...

Oddly enough, all of those either either pictures with no reference at all, or say it "MAY" be because of global warming, which means its not conclusive. I could make a pretty grid with some squiggly lines and a few numbers to show pretty much whatever i want if i have no reference to it.

Evidence 1: "Researchers say the invasion is the result of a combination of climate change and overfishing of the jellyfish's natural predators and competitors for food."

Evidence 2: I see your point the x-axis isn't defined. Here's another graph showing the same thing which is more complete: Graph note: Mauna Loa is a CO2 measuring station.

Evidence 3: Again I see your point. This is the original source: http://www.wetterzentrale.de/cgi-bin/web bbs/wzconfig1.pl?noframes%3Bread=147
I made the little montage myself to make it more understandable for you because the original is in German. I also screwed up the first number by accident it says mid-eighties and I wrote 1980, sorry. By the way further down on that page you can see the number of metres the glacier has retreated since 1960, you'll notice that it has gone back dramatically since 1988.

Evidence 4: I don't see anything saying that it may not be because of climate change. The only real statement about the issue comes from the researcher:

"When asked whether there is any doubt that this is a consequence of human-fueled global warming, [the researcher] Ainley offered a flat "No" in reply."

Evidence 5: "Old-growth forests in the Western United States appear to be losing ground to the regional effects of global warming.

That's the conclusion a team of federal and university-based forest ecologists have reached after looking at long-term trends in patches of relatively pristine old-growth forests."

This statement is pretty clear apart from the fact that it says "appear to be" as opposed to "are". Let's keep in mind that I said evidence not proof of global warming. I definetly would say that this qualifies as evidence.

Evidence 6: This one isn't really evidence I just wanted to show that the scientific world doesn't doubt global warming. Also I'd like to show you this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_
opinion_on_climate_change

Quote from that article: "Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
If you have faith in science then this is a pretty big point.

At 7/6/09 12:44 AM, zero-gravity wrote: with regards to the fact that there is no evidence.

Evidence 1

"The trend is likely to worsen as water temperatures continue to rise, the scientists say."

Evidence 2

Evidence 3

Evidence 4

Evidence 5

Evidence 6

And I could go on

At 7/4/09 03:35 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/4/09 02:27 PM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

I know it's not perfect but I can't really find anything better to recommend. I'd just generally recommend informing yourself on the matter.

you don't inform yourself by watching 'documentaries' made by people looking to make a bunch of money off of other peoples' fears. You turn to actual scientists and listen to BOTH sides of the story then form you own opinion. that is the ONLY way to be informed about something. Listen to both sides, and form your own opinion, instead of listening to what some propagandist has to say, and accept it as the infallible truth.

My chemistry teacher who is a Dr. of Biochemistry says pretty much the same: there is no doubt in his mind that climate change is taking place. He's very informed on the subject and a scientist, heck he's even written stuff on the greenhouse gas effect (some of which I have read), so I think his opinion is worth quite a lot. I have other sources. I've read things that explain it fairly neutrally. To tell you the truth I was sceptic about climate change myself, but having looked at the subject more closely I have changed my mind. Also I've listened to the other side (hence being sceptic) and all they have been able to produce just isn't convincing to me anymore. So stop going on about me having mentioned that film. I have formed my opinion in a perfectly good way.

At 7/4/09 12:11 PM, homor wrote:

At 7/4/09 05:31 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote: you ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth"?

you mean that inaccurate biased propaganda film that makes Ben Stein's "Expelled" look like the Frost interview with Nixion?

I know it's not perfect but I can't really find anything better to recommend. I'd just generally recommend informing yourself on the matter.

At 6/30/09 05:28 PM, zero-gravity wrote: It doesn't appeal to me, at least not at this moment. Sure, saving the environment is great and all that jazz, but do we really need sudo-tariffs in a recession? Should we not be ensuring the economic futures of our children rather than the environmental.

I think saving the planet from a catastrophe is far more important than the economy. Besides, who says the economy has to suffer greatly if you want to protect the environment? I really don't know much about this particular policy, so it could be crap it could be good. However, in general, I think climate protection is important.

Now some of you will say "w/o environment you can't have economy." My response: "well if you don't have economy to begin with, whats the difference?" I say we deal with it AFTER we clean up the more immediate crisis.

I've seen statistics that say that we have already changed the planet irreversibly and it will get worse. For example, the zone around the mediterranean is partly becoming a desert and more of it will follow. Not to mention other things, and here's another thought, the effects of climate change will damage the economy a lot more than preventing it will.

Fighting climate change is urgent.

Now this even brings up a bigger question: Is there even global warming? Yea you can reference greenhouse gasses and CO2 and such, but i need some hard, peer reviewed, scientific evidence saying that global warming exists before i buy into sapping away our potential economic growth.

There is no doubt that climate change does exist. Why do you think it doesn't? Because you can't feel it yourself immediately? Have you ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth"? I think it makes the point about climate change quite well (I'm not saying that the sun shines out of Al Gore's ass, but he gets the message across and backs it up).

Inform yourself on the matter. Something tells me you haven't been looking for scientific evidence, but have been waiting for somebody to wave it in your face.

I find posts like these extremely frustrating. I don't know what it's like in the U.S.A., but here in Europe only the stupidest people doubt climate change. It annoys me to see that the biggest contributor hasn't even done the first step to solving the problem: realization.

I hope you will soon inform yourself on the subject and realize that it is of urgence.

Just a short question out of interest: are you taught about climate change at school? Because we are.

At 7/2/09 07:57 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: What if they learn to swim and evolve into polar sharkbears ? Now we will be fucked. And you will regret saying that.

They're way ahead of you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSWa8DZEy 84

At 7/2/09 05:08 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 7/2/09 03:38 PM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

At 7/2/09 03:18 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 7/2/09 03:15 PM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

Yeah, but in my opinion fighting climate change is the major task we face. And I don't give a fuck if some idiot thinks it's "hippie". They'd rather see the earth die than be a "hippie" morons. Judging by your statement you're on my "side" though.

I agree completely and yes, I am on your "side." Sacrifices need to be made now to prepare for the long haul.

Yes, sacrifices need to be made, but I am convinced that they are not as large and as many people try to make out. The main sacrifice is money, often environmentally friendly solutions aren't the cheapest. Let's take energy as an example: using solar or other alternative energies can often be more pricy than others, however, the more people using it the less it costs and if we invest money on developing the technology we can make it cheaper and more efficient.

I think America has to develop a good public transport system (from what I know it's not great) and reduce the need for cars.

We need to get together in groups to fight climate change in every way we can.

Note to Brick: Lol.

Note to Brick: I'm afraid I don't know what a "Fox News Style Broadcast" is.

At 7/2/09 03:18 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 7/2/09 03:15 PM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

You say you're not usually for the whole enviromental movement. Why not? What's wrong with it in your opinion?

It has the whole negative "hippie" connotation, you know? When in reality such an attachment is bunk.

Yeah, but in my opinion fighting climate change is the major task we face. And I don't give a fuck if some idiot thinks it's "hippie". They'd rather see the earth die than be a "hippie" morons. Judging by your statement you're on my "side" though.

We need to get together in groups to fight climate change in every way we can.

All the money you'd invest in saving ONE species would be better invested in stuff that can help solve the WHOLE climate instead of just treating one "symptom" of it.

You say you're not usually for the whole enviromental movement. Why not? What's wrong with it in your opinion?

At 6/29/09 05:56 PM, metalsmith32 wrote: it dosen't matter when it happened it happened. and it's past. we should just get over it and move on with life even if hitler did mass genocide he proved he was a pussy because he killed himself.

We should never forget the Nazis and the Holocaust, otherwise History can and will be repeated. Never again should such incidents be repeated!

At 6/27/09 11:55 AM, ReiperX wrote: do you have a good alternative to this bill to help curb pollution?

How about forcing out coal energy and using solar, wind and other green energies.

Also revolutionizing America's public transport system, so that people don't need to drive cars all the time.

Making SUVs accessible only with a special permit that can only be obtained if you actually need an SUV (not counting reasons such as I need the space and security for my family, there are other spacious, safe cars).

Growing pot to make paper and other things. This video explains what exactly I mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcfKFCs-u vQ

Those are just a couple of things I can think of, off the top of my head.

At 6/27/09 11:40 PM, Steeped wrote: Yes, I agree with people - he was talented and the king of pop. But I do not praise him. Especially if he actually did sleep with children. All child molesters deserve to be castrated and then shot in the head. I just hope to god that this messed up guy never touched any boys. If he did, I hope he burns in hell. If he didn't, I hope he can get some therapy in heaven

Guess what pedophilia is just a sexuality like any other. People don't choose to find children attractive, they just do.

The problem with pedophilia is that the kids don't have a right to choose. But what do you expect pedophiles to do? Maybe live their whole lives with surpressed urges? Would you like to abstain from sex with women for your whole life? I doubt it.

Child molesters are just in the shitty role of having this sexual preference. I'm not saying doing these things to children is okay, but you've got to see things a bit differently than your crazy view.

Do you think it's better to ask for another to be castrated and shot in the head? Who's the real arsehole the guy who happens to find kids attractive or the guy who asks for a painful humiliating death of another, including the wish that the person spends an eternity in your little fantasy of hell.

And just as a little reminder child molesting doesn't always mean raping the kid and killing it, which obviously is terrible. But it can also be, and usually is, more harmless than that. It can be watching kids in the shower after gym or something like that. It doesn't have to be the most terrible and harmful thing to the kid. My dad said that his gym teacher used to watch them in the shower, has it scarred him for life? No. In fact he only realized this guy may have been a pedo recently. The somewhat edgy question I'd like to ask about (non rape) pedophilia is: Do the kids even give that much of a shit?

At 6/23/09 12:53 PM, EpicFail wrote: I'm super stoked!

I hate that word so much I could scream, I mean "stoked" what a shitload of fuck.

More to the point though: Why were you in tears at the concert?

At 6/21/09 02:16 PM, GodsBitch wrote:

At 6/21/09 02:09 PM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote: Anybody know them?

I've never heard of them myself. I'll look into them when I have a chance. Which country are they from? American punk is a lot different to British punk and I'm not such a huge fan of it.

They're from England. Their live show was awesome the singer came into the crowd and led the biggest circle pit ever (yes he ran ahead).

Here's a vid from the concert (this is a smaller circle pit and he's singing in the middle) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSgFxLtwS fk

They did other cool stuff but that was the highlight.

At 6/18/09 04:08 PM, EpicFail wrote:

At 6/18/09 04:05 PM, TheMaster wrote: Best subgenres.

Celtic Punk is fucking sick to drink to, nothing better than drinking to some Flogging Molly.

I saw Flogging Molly at a Festival last week, cool shit.
But there was this Hardcore-Punk band called the Gallows, now they were the dogs bollocks. Anybody know them?

7.77 Total Voting Power!

At 6/7/09 03:35 AM, TheFaces wrote: So if you had the option to sell out and make millions of dollars, you wouldn't do it? Come on.

And that's exactly why I admire CRASS so much. They made tons of money (without a major label backing them) and they kept a reasonable bit for themselves and gave the rest to good causes. I think any credible punk band would do this. I know some may think it's a tall order, but seriously if you really mean all that stuff you're singing you should do what crass did. You see so many stupid hypocrits that this sort of thing is a breath of fresh air.

I'd like to throw in a recommendation for McEwans Scotch Ale it's the nicest beer I've ever had hands down. I wouldn't want to drink litres of it though. My standard beer is just shitty lager (it's cheap and available). Sadly where I live good beer isn't common in super markets and bars.

I enjoy Weissbier and Ale when I get my hands on some (my granddad in England bought two kegs of Adnams when we went to his place for christmas, that was good).

Cheers

Are any of you guys politically "active"? ie. go to demos and shit? Because if you are I think that would be a good topic for conversation.

Last weekend I went to a demo in my town for an autonomous youth centre. After that a group of people squatted a house and we had a party there it was pretty cool (and I got damn-how do-I-get-back-to-the-station drunk). Tomorrow there's a solidarity concert for the group of squatters where they'll raise some funds. There's gonna be a post-hardcore and a ska-punk band. Sounds like a laugh to me.

To be honest a lot of the bands I've seen listed here aren't what I would call "real" punk. I hate to be the guy who says this, but yeah it's my opinion.

I listen to some of those bands myself. They can be a lot of fun, but if they're the only thing you listen to and you consider yourself a punk then that's a bit off. Anyway, to get you guys interested in some cool bands, here's my list (with links to youtube videos). Please comment and say which ones you like and which you don't. This will give us something to talk about ;) (and yes I want to join)

Los Fastidios: Johnny and the queer boot boys
Dead Kennedys: (I think enough people have already listed them so I won't bother with a video-link)
OiPolloi: Bash the Fash
Crass: Contaminational Power
Conflict: Mighty And Superior
Chumbawamba (not completely punky but I like them): Revolution Enough is enough
Ahead to the Sea (very unknown and don't have the greatest English to be honest, but great style): Jetzt erst recht und sowieso (sadly you'll be hard put to find more of their songs without owning one of their albums)
The Oppressed: Joe Hawkins

Okay, I think I'll leave it at that for the moment. I'm looking forward to your feedback. One last thing though: Does anybody else here let the boots do the talking (by which I mean do you wear combat/worker boots).