Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Damn that AlGore. Hoarding all the energy for himself.

At 7/9/08 09:02 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I always like to point this out.

Maybe they took into account.

That we'd be snooping around.

Whoever/whomever may be here or may come here, we won't fucking know, if they don't want us to.

At all.

Aliens, those fucks.
Always covering their tracks.
Damn sneaky bastards.

At 7/9/08 08:12 PM, TigerDemon wrote: Hmm funny because I am both physically and romanticly attracted to both men AND women. I was even married for a time. So please do explain how there is not wigge room.

I wouldn't ask for an explanation from someone who's talking out their ass. Things get messy.

Anyway, back on point.

I believe that it is up to the oppressed to take freedom for themselves. Everyone deserves to be free but, as we've seen time and time again, the change needs to come from within, not from external forces.

For one, it is such a delicate process. The timing needs to be just right. It is simply too difficult for the US, as a huge, external entity to be able to determine when the climate is right for people to embrace freedom. We simply aren't attuned enough to the political and cultural climate.

Secondly, we're creating a dependency. By determining when and how they are going to switch their governing body, then it becomes up to us to set it up, as well. We can't just go in like a hurricane and leave them the mess. If we're going to assume that it's up to us to make the change, then we'd better have a plan for what to do with it, because we sure as hell didn't give them time to think of one.

What I don't have a problem, however, is assisting people who have already initiated the process of freeing themselves from a tyrannical rule. It's arguable if we ever could have managed without French assistance in the Revolutionary War. Of course, that's also a delicate situation in that we have to determine the justness of the cause and the integrity of the people, but at least we don't have to do that as well as everything else.

You're attracted to who you're attracted to. I'd imagine there are very few bisexuals who'd sleep with absolutely anyone. Everyone has some kind of preference in what attracts them to a person. I guess bisexuals just happen to like certain features in both guys and girls. It doesn't really seem that strange or peculiar to me. I happen to like specific traits in girls, I can certainly understand when guys like other traits in girls. How is it much of a jump from there to people liking specific traits in both genders?

You seem to be basing your whole argument on speculation and assumption.

I'll agree with the assumption that some people will assume that a building would have been created by life. Again, we've been over why that's the case, no problem. I don't like where you stop, though. You're forgetting that science is a process. You make a hypothesis, but you don't let it stop there. Now, I'm sure that some scientists would make the initial claim that, yes, it was created by life forms. To say that science condones that is mistaking science for scientists. Humans are impatient and glory-seeking, of course some people will make the claim without checking it first.

Your comment about the bricks? Humorous, but irrelevant. Assuming that bricks on earth would behave the same way as some unknown material on another planet is ridiculous. It could be that the ground is made of a magnetic substance and certain electromagnetic phenomena shapes it a certain way. It could be any number of things. The scientific method says check it out.

You're also assuming that scientists say that they don't believe in God because of some agenda they're pushing. It might simply be because they have no evidence that God exists and so they choose not to believe it. That's a perfectly valid assumption.

Saying that you choose not to believe something until there's evidence isn't being against discovery. Not by any means. That's simply being skeptical. If scientists spent their lives researching everything that had no evidence for or against its existence, almost nothing would be discovered. The best way to make discoveries is to observe and THEN to study it.

How would scientists even begin to start testing whether or not there was a God? Your claim is absolutely asinine.

At 7/9/08 03:12 PM, Memorize wrote: As I said. He didn't need to bring atheism and turn it into an issue.

I apply that to everyone of every religion. I don't care if you're Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or Hindu. If you feel the need to get out your religion, then you obviously don't belong in the military.

I agree with the sentiment. That's why it goes both ways. I think he should have been empathetic and given a token prayer, but, given his situation and that he had just recently revoked his faith, he had a right to decline. In that situation the people asking him to pray were the ones making it an issue. The situation should have boiled down to "Will you pray with us?" "No." "Alright, bye."

And our courts aren't exactly very good at faith either. I mean, over 150 years of putting up a simple cross at a gravesite if the family so wanted has now turned into "How dare you put up a cross there. It doesn't matter if the dead guy wanted one."

People talk about being secular, but all they do is hide behind it, pretending it is secular because it fits in with their own belief system (ie. Religious and Atheistic groups).

I'll agree that this is an issue. I don't understand how the 10 Commandments at the courthouse thing became such a big deal. They were a set of laws, so what.

I do think that, if true, the guy does have the right to not be discriminated against for not believing in God. I'm apt to believe him since it's not like he's even asking for money. He just seems to want to be respected and I think everybody deserves that.

At 7/9/08 03:34 PM, Memorize wrote: Like I said. I do not care for ID. I just find it fascinating that the more complex something is, the less likely it is then considered to have been 'built" or "designed" or whatever word you want to use.

That doesn't follow from your argument. All it's saying is that we're more likely to assume something was created if that's how it comes about on our planet. People, in general, are going to assume that when they see a building, someone built it. Again, that's using prior knowledge and applying it to a situation. The complexity has nothing to do with it. If something looks like a machine that's far more complex than anything we've ever built, people would still first assume it was made, simply because we know how machines are built on earth.

On the flip side, if some alien race had the ability to make things that looked like incredibly complex natural phenomena, we would simply assume that's what it was, nothing more. We'd wonder how it was occurring, but the only reason people wouldn't make the jump that it was being created is because we don't have the prior knowledge to assume as such.

When it comes to the universe, it's not like we have a clue how it's formed. Therefore, it would be ridiculous to assume that something created it. There is no prior knowledge that would lead a rational observer to that conclusion.

At 7/9/08 02:28 PM, Memorize wrote: Key Word: "System"

Perhaps I should've included "complex" as well.

There are incredibly complex systems of caves on Earth. We don't sentient creatures made them unless they show signs of tool work.

When we look at evidence of water on Mars, scientists don't immediately think "Maybe we can't find it because the Martians drank it all."

I'm sorry, what?

Oh, I thought we were coming up with scenarios where scientists come up with irrational explanations without finding data to support it first. My mistake, but you really did lead me on.

No, they wouldn't.

It would be major news. A complex structure of buildings on a foreign planet where no life exists. They wouldn't dismiss anything. They would leave all options open. And even if they didn't find anything to substantiate their claims, they would still include "It was mostly likely..."

And yet, likelihood doesn't equate to a valid theory. It would have to be tested first. You can't make a hypothesis and call it a theory. While I would agree that, yes, it would make sense that a sentient creature created them, to say that's how it happened without evidence would be silly. And, going further, buildings on other planets are more proof than a proposed creator of the universe has given.

Which is why i'm drawing this parallel. We find that particular structure on a foreign planet and we logically come to the conclusion "Who built this?"

We look at the Universe which is vastly more complex and for some reason they conclude "We find no evidence of God/Deity/Alien/Force, therefore we can not say it exists"

Honestly. What kind of double standard is that?

Science doesn't say God doesn't exist. Some scientists do, sure, but that's not the scientific method. Science says there is no observable proof of God, whatsoever, so, unless some is found, we're just going to write it off.

Which, of course, is the logical assumption. If something doesn't exist, there isn't any evidence that proves it doesn't exist. That's just silly to expect there to be.

Besides, a more reasonable question is "What caused this?" You're making a wild assumption based on what you'd say if you were a scientist who discovered buildings on another planet, which, as you've made abundantly clear, isn't rooted in fact. The scientifically appropriate examination would try to determine how it came about, by any means.

Also, as I've said. We actually have a precedent for how buildings are made on earth. Even though it would be presumptuous of someone to assume that they had to have been built, it would be using prior knowledge to make assumptions about something. Saying "who built this" would be the start of the inquiry, rather than the end. I'm sure that if buildings were found on another planet, we would test to see if they were built by tools. That's simply using what we already know to draw conclusions.

If we found another universe within this universe, you can bet your ass that scientists wouldn't say "who built this." We have no prior knowledge that would allow us to make that assumption.

Please. You know exactly how these scenarios would play out.

How they play out in the press has nothing to do with scientific facts. There was a pretty good marketing blitz about how the earth was the center of the universe back in the day.

My point is that science is a wonderful thing in that every claim has to be held to scrutiny. Reputations are made by finding out something about our current ideas of the universe that throws the realm of science on its head. That means that, while people would automatically assume that structures on another planet are proof of aliens (which, as I mentioned, they would actually have some grounds to say, since we have prior knowledge about how structures are created here on earth, making it a ridiculous analogy in the first place), that doesn't make it a valid scientific theory. While religion may be able to make the "x number of people can't be wrong" claim, science isn't so lucky.

No matter how much something seems to be the case, you still have to test it. Hell, number theory is based around the principle that we still need to prove, with certainty, that 1+1 actually equals 2.

Not my problem. Just pointing out their blatant inconsistancies.

How is needing to prove every claim you make an inconsistency?

Your whole argument is based on some delusional view of how you think scientific theories are formed. When you look at the facts, there is no inconsistency. The claim that buildings are made by aliens needs to be proven just as much as whether or not the universe was created by God, or even if God exists.

Here's an old argument, but it's an apt one. Prove to me that rabbits aren't all-powerful godlike creatures that exercise their power when they aren't observed by humans. By the logic that you have to prove something is not true to a certainty, then it's true.

Again, not having proof that something doesn't exist, while in conclusive, for sure, is still far more powerful than not having evidence that something exists. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. That's how science works.

I won't say God doesn't exist. I do believe in God, actually. I have no scientific basis for saying that. In fact, I cannot make the claim that God exists. I can't honestly make the claim that God exists. I have no scientific basis for saying that the universe was created by anything. I'm not going to try to have it taught in science class because, guess what: it's not science.

At 7/9/08 12:13 PM, Memorize wrote: Typical Scientific Responses to specific situations:

A Castle/Palace-like building on a planet discovered (hell, make it a system of caves discovered)...

Typical Scientific Response: "Who built this?"

The Univerise...

Typical Scientific Response: "We have no proof of a 'God/Deity/Force/Who, so therefore we cannot say 'it' exists."

lol

How does that even make a logical jump?

Even if a system of caves was discovered, scientists wouldn't assume it had been built unless there's clear evidence that it had been. If anything, the immediate hypothesis would be if water had ever existed on the planet, not some knee-jerk assumption that any space creature had to have created it

When we look at evidence of water on Mars, scientists don't immediately think "Maybe we can't find it because the Martians drank it all."

I'll even bite on the far-fetched scenario. Structures, as we know them, necessitate a builder. Seeing as how we don't have a frame of reference for how universes form, we can't exactly say "well, this is how they usually come about." And yet, even still, scientists would examine the structures for observable evidence that they had, in fact, been built and were not a process of some natural phenomena exclusive to that planet. You can bet some scientists would claim alien construction, but, without any basis for their claims, they would be dismissed by the scientific community until they were able to verify their claim. That's how science works.

Applying an irrelevant analogy to one of the great mysteries of the universe and trying to pass it off as some kind of explanation just strikes me as insane.

If it turns out there was a creator and we find evidence as such, the scientific thing to do would be to follow up on it and accept it as the current theory of the origin of the universe.

You may feel free to provide your evidence to the scientific community. I'm sure that you telling them your assumption on how they form theories is going to sway them.

At 7/9/08 11:40 AM, MercatorMap wrote: Not relevant to the current party, but relevant to the OP's post.

In the semantics sense, I'll grant you that. His wild accusation and all-encompassing hyperbole grant the room to say that, yes, the Republican Party has done some tremendous things. You're technically correct. Nobody's disagreeing with that point.

However, in the spirit of relevant discussion and, in the spirit of what he was trying to get across, no, it's not especially relevant.

At 7/2/08 09:55 PM, Guest8792 wrote: Newgrounds, I have come to you, a Wapanese free society, to help me clean My girlfriend out.

Alright, but I have two conditions: I'm not getting sloppy seconds and I don't want you joining in. I'm not into that.

At 7/9/08 01:34 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote: How many times must I say this? I AM A CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN. I go to mass every sunday, I study in a Catholic School.

In my school, evolution is taught in SCIENCE. My religion teacher even said that Genesis isn't supposed to be taken literally, and it answers not HOW God made us but WHY.

See, now this is exactly how it should be.

Intelligent Design is not science. It must be taken on faith that some supernatural force is responsible for natural phenomena. That's not science. In no way is that an acceptable hypothesis by any stretch of the imagination. Science does not work on belief. Everyone on the planet could believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but that wouldn't make it so.

However, I think if people are curious to learn more about their religion or another religion, then they have their right to do so, as well. There is nothing that says public schools can't teach religion, just so long as they don't get hung up on, or detract from any one religion. With religion being such a huge issue, in America especially, I think there should be a broad religion class offered as an elective in high schools.

At 7/8/08 10:31 PM, Del-Toro wrote: your an idiot, as far as I'm concerned, this has been in the makings since the crusades, where christian armies marched to the Holy Land at the command of the Pope (those motherfuckers were evil as hell back then) and wreaked havoc, launching attack after attack against the muslim, jewish and non-conforming christian populations of the middle east. these attacks would have ended an entire culture had it not been for Saladin, who had united much of the peoples whom were under attack by the Catholics, whom eventually were forced to end the fighting. The first bitterness between east and west was born.

You do know how the Muslims got to Israel, right? Their moms didn't ask the Jews' moms to set up a play date. Don't pretend like the Crusades was where all this started, that's dismissive of the blood on the Muslim side, too. Everyone involved is knee deep in each others' entrails. To try and make a case for a moral high ground or even a justification is absolutely ridiculous.

Islam isn't just retaliating to unsolicited acts of violence like you're trying to claim. They're as guilty as anyone for what's happened to them. Making the claim that ANY innocent person deserves to die for someone else's actions is absolutely fucking delusional.

At 7/9/08 02:17 AM, RaharuHaruha wrote: The republican party is the party that freed the slaves.

The republican party is the party that passed the civil rights act.

Which are both irrelevant to the political orientation of the parties today. Just because a party did something in the past doesn't mean that it still holds those beliefs to that day.

The government does not know how to spend my money better than I do, so why should I shut up and let them fuck around with my money?

I definitely agree with this. Social Security is fundamentally flawed in that it trusts the government, a body with no financial accountability, to make a return on your money. The government cannot be held accountable to the same level of performance as, say, a reputable investment firm. If an investment firm doesn't help you meet your goals, then they lose your business when you move to another group. Not so easy to do with governments.

That said, this is also a case-in-point for my previous statement. The Republican Party used to stand for fiscal responsibility. However, with the death of classical conservatism, that's no longer the case. The Republicans today have just as big a hole in their pocket than the Democrats, only they spend it on pork DoD projects instead of misguided social programs.

It seems that the only major political group that believes in tightening government spending are the Libertarians. Too bad that, by and large, they're fucking crazy.

At 7/9/08 10:05 AM, thenemisis14 wrote: good finally says wat the war is really about oil

Yes, finally repeats an ill-informed opinion that they've heard over and over, ad nauseum. It's about time.

At 7/8/08 11:53 PM, hrb5711 wrote: I never ONCE mentioned terror suspects, I only spoke about enemy combatants, that is all I was talking about.

Which is why your post failed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. We've already been over the fact that actual enemy combatants are treated as prisoners of war. There is no debate over how they are handled, tool.

At 7/9/08 12:39 AM, Proteas wrote: I question the veracity of this claim, as former presidential candidate John Kerry not only knew what the Patriot Act was about, he actually wrote a section of it. Clicky.

Yeah, John Kerry's an asshole, that's why. Of course the co-authors read the bill. The problem is that a great many of the other people didn't bother. Now, I hear in Fahrenheti 9/11 a couple congressmen talk about it, but I didn't put much stock in that. The whole documentary had a bias and could have been edited no problem. After hearing a Senator talk about it, I did a little more looking and it appears that, maybe not an overwhelming majority, but certainly a significant amount of people didn't read the thing before voting. It was one of those political moves that you made because it was right after 9/11 and you wanted to look like you were tough on terror. Damned shame, really.

At 7/8/08 05:34 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Since everyone is talking about Guantanamo Bay and national security I'll throw in my views from the military.

War and national security is a messing fucking business. We don't have the luxury of doing our job and keeping our hands clean. America wants the same security it has now, but without the compromises and dirt.

Everyone wants fair trials for these combatants, but how do you expect us to do that while we are being shot at and blown up? We don't have the time or manpower to collect enough evidence. The best we can do is to say "he shot at me, I saw him." And if we took that to a federal court it wouldn't hold up. Civilian courts shouldn't be involved in Military courts, they are two different worlds. We can't do the same thing the civilian law enforcement can over there.
Does it need to change? Yes. Can it? No.

I hope it changes soon and that place is shut down because we have a better way to deal with it. Taking military cases into civilian courts is a horrible idea though.

The only people talking about enemy combatants are you and MercatorMap. That situation is cut and dry. If you're attacking our soldiers, then you are an enemy combatant and are either killed or taken into military custody as a prisoner of war.

WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN TAKING SOMEBODY TO PRISON FOR SUSPICION OF TERRORISM.

If you're too lazy to have read it twice before, there's a key difference in shooting up a convoy and simply having the government think you have ties to a terror cell. If you don't believe that the government should have to prove that you're actually connected to a terrorist organization or not, then you're completely opposed to the principles that this country has bled for.

What's sickening is that, somehow, the radical right has managed to create the illusion that bogging down the government with "accountability" and the "Constitution" is somehow unpatriotic, even though it's the unshakable foundation of our country. Of course we're at war, but being at war does not give the government carte blanche to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Sure, measures must be taken to preserve our security, but that does not include doing away with the rights that the people who forged this nation fucking died for.

At 7/8/08 04:56 PM, Earfetish wrote: With enough time, a self-duplicating HTML code could blossom into the BBS with the right e-vironmental pressures. It's unnecessary bringing Tom into the equation, when history shows html was born almost at the dawn of the internet.

We have fossil records of many extinct BBS's that show the development of the BBS over the history of the internet which prove this.

At 7/8/08 02:42 PM, Memorize wrote: And surely the html code didn't pop up on its own.

And here we have a never-ending supply of "who dun it?"

We're not discussing the origin of the html code. We're merely discussing how it developed into the BBS.

At 7/8/08 02:08 PM, MercatorMap wrote: So nobody can go after private companies that participated in a government fuck up.

There's a precedent for this. If the government tells you to break the law, it's still illegal.

Yes, and these people are not fighting on a battlefield. They are fighting in streets, markets, homes, and stores. But they are still combatants and terrorists.

Except the ones who aren't but are still held for suspicion of terrorism. Innocent before proven guilty, or is that too antiquated an idea?

Lets say the police pull you over and have probably cause to search your car. They find 2 kilo's of coke and methamphetamine. You tell them that its not yours and that your friend told you to hold it for him. They will still charge you with possession and distributing or selling the stuff.

Because it's a crime to have it in your car. And, what's more, they're still going to have to PROVE IN COURT that you intend to sell it. They're even going to have to prove that it you knew it was actually in your car. Even in cases that seem open and shut, they still have to try you in a court of law. That's the law. They can't simply throw you in prison for a few years and skip the messy court business.

That's a major problem with these guys in gitmo. They are claiming not to be insurgents or terrorists, but are holding shitloads of rockets, grenades, ammo stockpiles, and copper pipes in their homes.

I'm sure that every single person who is in Gitmo has a weapons cache in their study. Besides, if they do, what's the problem with holding a trial? With physical evidence like that, there shouldn't be a problem. Or does your motto: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" only applicable to the citizenry and not the government?

The law as it applies to US citizens my friend. Not to internationals. No, we have the Geneva convention for that one.

US citizens are immune from being suspected of terrorism. Sorry, I forgot about that law. Where is that again in the Constitution, Article Crammed, Section Up Your Ass?

Even for internationals, are you making the claim that America has the legal right to arrest someone on the suspicion and hold them indefinitely without a trial if they're not a citizen? Wow, screw International Law, huh? The writ of Habeas Corpus only applies to red-blooded Americans.

Besides, the Geneva Convention is for enemy combatants, most of the terrorism cases don't apply.

At 7/8/08 02:08 PM, McZero wrote: She's fugly.

No shit. Beautiful people have sex for clothes, jewelry, self-esteem, or cash.

At 7/8/08 02:06 PM, ThoseSneakyFrench wrote: Just like religion helps you escape from your virginity?

Religion makes you lose your virginity? Well that explains why people say "oh God" during sex.

At 7/8/08 01:39 PM, xscoot wrote: I am perfectly fine with the gun laws in America, but what pisses me off is that they use a 300 year-old constitution as its base. They should ignore that constitution completely, and just make up a new one, that doesn't foreshadow an invasion by Britain. That would be the best thing to do.

Except for that document was founded on principles to avoid tyranny. Do you know anyone more qualified than people who fought against a tyranny, themselves?

At 7/8/08 01:48 PM, Memorize wrote: If you God, you mean: Tom, Jim, Stamper

But who made them? Surely they couldn't have coded themselves.

I guess the old saying should be amended to say "ass, gas, and/or grass."

"...the witnesses - "D", "B", "A" and "C"..."

Somebody was having trouble with their alphabet that day.

At 7/8/08 01:45 PM, MercatorMap wrote: As for the patriot act being "right", this is a highly controversial area in which nobody can claim more validity than another. Right or wrong are about our perspectives. Where I believe it is right, you believe it is wrong (example). Nobody is searching your personal belongings or anything that will be looked upon as defamations your character.

Then tell me why they're trying to legalize their actions after the fact. Again, that's an admission of guilt if I've ever heard of one.

Prisoners of war:
Both of you mention uniforms, but I have yet to see a terrorist or a member of the insurgance wearing some common identifier. No patches, no tattoos, no scars, no nothing. In which the case is that you'd have to try and find them during combat as you say. Not always possible, but if I see a man wearin the exact same set of clothes that was worn earlier during a firefight, and the man fits the body build, height and appearance of the combatant, then I will look for a weapon. Finding one, I'll toss him in a prison camp and label him as a combatant.

And yet, you still need a trial to determine you've got the right guy. Even in a situation that simple. The big problem is that the situation is almost never that cut and dry. I'm mainly talking about the people who are brought up on suspicion of terrorism. They don't have to have been on a battlefield at all.

Also, you're right, I do mention uniforms... in relation to prisoners of war. The whole point I made is that terrorists don't wear uniforms. I already laid this whole thing out. In a situation of uncertainty, I'll side with the Constitution. When you bring somebody up on suspicion of anything, you give them a fair trial because that's the fucking law.

At 7/8/08 01:27 PM, TomFulp wrote:

At 7/8/08 01:22 PM, Gunter45 wrote: So, does Batman deliver you the money himself? If so, tell him I want a toy train for Christmas because I've been really good this year.

All you get is a batarang. As many batarangs as you want.

I'm calling bullshit. You tell Batman I get a toy train or I'll become a train conductor-themed villain. Nobody wants that.

At 7/8/08 03:12 AM, ngman7 wrote: It changes your behavior and impedes development and your coordination and motor skills-you act like a completely different person when you're drunk. Many times you have no recollection of what transpires when you are drunk.

Because that's what happens every time. Sure, if you get absolutely hammered, these things happen. However, getting hammered is retarded. There is no pleasure in being drunk off your rocker.

I do enjoy a few beers, though. It gives me a pleasant warmth and loosens me up after a hard day. By all accounts, I act like the same person.

Even further, I have never lost time while drunk. When I was younger and more stupid, I'd get rather drunk every now and again and I remembered everything that transpired.

I don't know how people stand to drink it-it smells like urine.

By that logic, I can say that all hamburgers taste awful because McDonald's sucks. You're talking about skunky, cheap beer. There are beers that smell incredible. My favorite has a very light, sweet smell, but has this rich, dark, complex flavor.

I'm not saying everyone should drink, far from it. If you don't want to, that's your business. I do, however, have a problem with people talking out of their ass.