Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Bail is ONLY one million?

oh boo hoo thats what happens, if you don't like it get out of the country personally I think its a good thing because there are loop holes in the whole same sex marriage thing anyways it can be exploited

Oh I understand now. When you protest an old decision from the Supreme Court, you're keeping America's interests at heart, but when we protest a new decision, we're whiny America-haters who are selfish.

You can fuck right off now.

why should I? its all democratic. and another similliar thing was that the catholic church was involved in both cases in Prop 8 and Roe VS wade.

Because you guys have been protesting a decision made by the Supreme Court for 37 years and tell us to stop protesting a Civil Rights issue that was made less than a year ago, that, in addition, had a RIDICULOUS smear campaign going for it.

not really. it was voted by the people of california and it was tried to get over turned and went to the california Supreme court and lost. Oh well.

A similar thing occurred regarding abortion, but people like you can't stop bitching about that either. The difference? Prop 8 was less than a year ago. Roe vs. Wade? THIRTY-SIX YEARS AGO.

So shut the fuck up.

Would somebody like to explain to me how ANY social or cultural situation could POSSIBLY turn a heterosexual male such as myself gay?

I mean, does anybody presenting that argument REALLY think they could turn gay if they wanted to?

At 5/26/09 08:42 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: who cares get over it jesus.

Yeah, Civil Rights are so outdated.

Please GOD I hope this is satire.

*Sigh*

Religion follows a set of rules designed to better yourself and please a deity.

'Science' recommends that you follow a set of rules that will improve your and everybody else's living conditions.

That's like saying you're following an arbitrary set of rules when you brush your teeth, BECAUSE SCIENCE SAYS SO.

So it must be like religion.(?)

At 5/23/09 05:03 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Antisemitism

Is hilarious.

At 5/23/09 06:21 PM, LTmatt wrote:

At 5/23/09 05:29 PM, Silverchaos wrote: Nazis. Because developers in general are getting pretty unoriginal.

People like you.
They never shut the fuck up.

People like you.
Who can't recognize unoriginal and overdone gameplay devices.
And who mistake legitimate complaints with whining.

Since you seem so keen on implying that I only believe the way I do because that's how I was raised, I want to ask you something; does the phrase "all my life" imply that you knowingly chose to be an atheist at birth, or was that simply how you were raised?

My father grew up in an extremist Fundamentalist household and shook it off to become an atheist because he's cool like that.

A truly tolerant society is one in which anyone can make a joke about anything and everyone laughs.

As long as we can all agree that cars are more useful for more people than guns, regardless of deaths and such.

When a baby is born it is both of the parents' responsibility. They should both have to agree on keeping the child. Women, the sentimental little people that they are, should not be given absolute control over such an enormous responsibility.

At 5/17/09 02:41 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: because of the second amendment personally I think the current gun laws are perfect here in the US. people who think background checks and mental evals for guns are unconstitional.

The be-all end-all decision on whether or not a law should be passed should be based on logic, not one single document.

As rigid as the Constitution is a a charter for freedom, even 300 years later, the argument for or against something should be supported by facts and statistics, not the Constitution.

How about everybody who has the bravery to stand up and fight America's enemies across the world respect each other for the fact that they are all risking their lives to defend us?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

SPETSNAZ

If only this was a question FOR a Grammar Nazi.

At 5/11/09 10:32 AM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 5/11/09 10:09 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: However, I don't see a way to eliminate the abuse of this right.

A person could always admit their real reason for doing what they done. Explaining why its not a hate crime. And that the accusation of racial motivation when its been proven not the be the case is racially motivated abuse in itself :)

But only a lunatic or a fanatic would admit to a charge that would put him in jail for longer when the perpetrator's intent can only be proven by asking him.

Police- "Hey, want to go to jail for another 5 years? All you have to say is that you hate chinks."

Perpetrator- "Okay, sure."

If a white guy vandalizes a black man's house by throwing chopped-off black peoples' heads down the chimney, I think it's a pretty valid charge.

However, I don't see a way to eliminate the abuse of this right.

Emo faggot.

Statistically speaking, both of them are going to be fucking awesome.

Maybe some people would simply prefer that the enormous companies that are throwing money away and basically trashing the economy might have a little government oversight? Because, as far as I can see, shit was going great in the Clinton years. Almost every measurable standard of success was increased during his term, and you know what?

He was a demented, immature, crazy liberal.

MAYBE, just MAYBE, there's more than one right answer and all liberal vs. conservative arguments are pointless because different scenarios work better for different countries?

I can see that you have no apparent bias whatsoever between the two political stances.

At 5/6/09 10:38 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 5/6/09 10:23 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Does infinite even exist?

In practice, I mean.

That would depend on what you mean by 'infinite'. After all, the whole idea behind calculus is that you can find lengths and areas by mathematically parsing them in to an infinite number of tiny parts.

By 'infinite', I mean an endless amount of. Not just an endless amount of a contained measurement, but infinite anything.

Because the way that I see it, the practical application of infinite destroys most other conventional rules about time and space.

Of course, infinite not existing brings up even more questions.

Does infinite even exist?

In practice, I mean.

Thief 2?

Any war in between the West and the Middle East would be a slaughter. I'd worry more about Russia and China.

They probably both do. But the people who simply believe Christ's teachings without all of the politics that the Bible brings are definitely to be considered Christians. They aren't Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. etc., they are Christians. You know? That's really all that's required.

The sects will of course say that their sect is the only sect, and so on.

Similarly, all you need to be a Muslim, technically, is to "submit to god".

Right, but both of those belief systems have been split into various factions because of different interpretations of their respective literatures. Atheism cannot divide, there is no interpretation.

At 5/4/09 10:09 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Because there is exactly one rule to being an atheist, and I fulfill it. Furthermore, I am not following a rule set down by other people. I wouldn't believe in a God even if there wasn't a definition for the word Atheism.

I see, you are just saying you fit the word by its exact syntax.

Right.

To be a Christian you must be a follower of Christ. That is the one requirement. You don't need to believe in every word of the bible.

There are verses in the Bible saying that you are not a true Christian if you don't, ect. ect. ect.

Then there's the verse that says the rules set down by the Bible are not open to interpretation.

Or is that the Qur'an?

They, however, ARE following rules set down by others, and we all know that Christianity wouldn't exist if the Bible was never made.

But Christianity existed before the Bible was made, so that isn't actually true.

All right, it would be VERY DIFFERENT had the Bible never been made.

At 5/4/09 10:26 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/4/09 10:06 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I have provided the definition, 'The lack of a belief in a God' as in, 'Not believing in God', as in,'There is no God'.

And I have corrected your definition, as being an atheist requires and expressed denouncing of God and Religion in addition to lacking a belief, whereas a simple "lack of a belief" lacks that expressed denouncement, and could therefore be taken to mean either (a) agnosticism or (b) irreligion.

...
...
...You're right.
I misinterpreted what you said. Replace every time I have said, 'A lack of a belief in a God' with 'A disbelief in the existence of God' and we're all set.

If you're not equating Atheism with a lack of a belief in a God, then what the fuck are we talking about?

Re-read what I said; I was not equating the whole of atheist philosophy with militant anti-religious overtones, despite the fact that such atheists do exist. That was a point YOU proscribed to me without fully understanding the argument I was putting forth.

I admit that I am both too tired and apparently not intelligent or old enough to understand what you put forth. Please repost your argument here with smaller words. I'm sorry.

Explain. My argument is that I perfectly fit the one and only definition of Atheism. That's a pretty solid argument.

"The followers of a belief do not actually represent the belief."

That's what you said, and by such, you can't claim to be atheist much less represent the philosophy.

Your argument, your words.

I'm not representing a belief when I'm saying I adhere to it perfectly. I can still claim to be an atheist, I just can't claim to be the spirit of atheism.

Quit playing stupid.

My knowledge of WW2 is somewhat lacking, so there's not much "play" there with regards to Stalin.

Ah. Well, that was the only subject I have ever gotten 104% on in History, so pardon my assumption.

I'm having a civilized conversation here, you're the one pitching a fit.

I am absolutely not pitching a fit, I just realized we've been arguing on two different points.