Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/14/07 07:30 AM, Bulldog07 wrote: Your age ABSOLUTELY has something to do with the validity of a claim you make. Without sufficient credentials and/or a truly proper education, your adequate knowledge of theology, philosophy, and science are certainly deficient. Just because one has the basics, and that definitely is all you have, one shouldn't assume that elementary understanding is enough to form a complete world-view.

Assumptions, and only assumptions. You assume that a piece of paper on a wall means something more than "Hey, I spent a few years in a class mostly not paying attention and probably hung over or high half the time." My understanding of the concept in full is really just not the subject of debate, is it?

The question of this debate is whether or not the relatively short lives of religions justify them. Or as Pox later clarified, why the line of reasoning that a religion "feels ancient" is bad reasoning. A point I personally agree with.

Additionally, your non-sequitur analogy was awful. For instance, I am only a little bit older than you. And although I am 20, I have thoroughly researched and spent many years learning about quantum physics. However, if I were to enter into a laboratory and attempt to flaunt my knowledge, I would be disregarded. So talking about your age in relation to the statements you make absolutely does have a certain amount of merit. Age and knowledge are almost directly related. You're nineteen, bud. You don't know shit. If I put you up against someone with an ASSOCIATES degree in philosophy, or even a 30 year old who's INTERESTED in philosophy, I'm going to forget about you in either case. All you're doing in this thread is regurgitating what you learned in HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE. Come on, you can't think anyone should take you seriously.

Sixteen, actually. Does it say nineteen on my profile? I'll go check that.

Anywho, once again, you're basically making personal attacks on me, da da da da da... You'd get dropped in a round for that :]

In a world above the safety you have behind your little monitor, you'd be laughed at. You realize this, don't you?

So what? You've won some fancy HIGH SCHOOL debates. Me too, but I realize... of COURSE I was going to win 'cause I'm fucking smart. Winning a high school debate ain't shit, most high-schoolers are AVERAGE. You're COLLEGE age, why aren't you bragging about winning COLLEGE debates? COLLEGE debates and professional debates are entirely different.

One, what events? What resolutions?

Two, big hole in your logic. You're assuming the average high schooler is intersted in debate. This is not the case; generally, only the top academics are interested in the debate activities, with a few exceptions that are referred to as "easy meat". Pile onto this that you often have very academic SCHOOLS competing, private schools and governor's schools and others of the sort.

Clearly, you have not had much experience in a challenging National Forensics District.

Furthermore, philosophical arguments MUST NOT be regarded as sufficient proof-of-concept for something as serious as god's existence. One can't just PONDER supernatural existences and then assume their existence. You MUST take into account, as Pox said, "HARD SCIENCE." Until you present EVIDENCE, and I'm talking about something other than the age old First Cause bullshit, I'm done listening to your repetitive and pedantic displays of HIGH SCHOOL level knowledge. Yep, you're pretty intelligent, we can all see that. You're not as smart as you think you are. You fail to see the OBVIOUS holes in your logic, but only because you're so damn full of yourself.

...Proof-of-concept arguments are kinda the point.

You know... Arguments on a priori principles... Essentially the vantage point from the ancient Greeks to Rawls... Yeeeeah...

Using "hard science" (whatever that means, seeing as these views of supposedly "indefinite and irrefutable truths" fluctuate incredibly through generations) to prove God isn't a good tactic. Mostly, because THAT is impossible. Once again, two COMPLETELY different categories of examination.

Anywho, I'm not trying to convince anyone that they ought to believe what I believe. Pox asked me about why I personally considered God's existence more logical than God's non-existence, and I said from a LOGICAL standpoint (which I consider the only definite science in existence), the causeless-cause theory demands something's existence, and I label that something as God.

You need to take more than Kant into account wen you're thinking about and discussing philosophical and/or intellectual matters. He's all you fucking talk about. That and 11th grade philosophy basics, along with some Creation "Science" crap. You're not showing us that your statements should be viewed as valid.

One, not creation science. Creation science is laughable. The earth is far older than ten thousand years. Don't lump me with those insipid little men.

I mention Kant because he was personally a catalyst for me. Prior to Kant, I believed what too many others believe today: morality is non-existent, at least subjective, in the absence of a God (and probably non-existent in his presence too), considering Cultural Relativism as an adequate proof of this. Kant shows us how morality can be both absolute AND secular.

For anyone interested, I recommend Kant.

I normally would've presented lots of evidence and reasonings of my own, but I highly suspect they'd go in one ear and out the other for you. So I'm bypassing my appeal to logic and just saying what I have to say.

Well, thank you, oh enlightened one. May your piss forever taste of honey.

At 4/14/07 06:15 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/13/07 09:01 PM, Inganno wrote: Suffice it to say I'm old enough to compete in high school debate circles, and win.

So you're in high school.
You think age doesn't matter now, but in 5 years you'll look back on this and think you're retarded. We've all been there.

I know. You are clearly the superior being. Now, show me my errors, oh enlightened one with so many years of vast worldly experience upon a cretin such as I.

At 4/13/07 09:04 PM, Inganno wrote:

At 4/12/07 11:51 PM, poxpower wrote: ok what did he say that's so brilliant regarding religions, and that we should follow, according to you? Because I saw him in a class once, don't remember much. He was smart by 18th century standards...

Read up on him. Kant is perhaps the most famous moral absolutist of this or any age. His moral philosophy is renowned for its complexity, its logic, and its brilliance. Kant is often called the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.

HONK HONK BULLSHIT ALERT.
So he's so awesome that all his words can't ever be taken out of context and you have to read everything or nothing... right that makes sense.
Oh no, wait, you yourself probably don't remember anything about him at this point since you saw him in class 5 months ago and had to do a paper on him, but you haven't read anything on him since....

No, actually, Kant is one of those things I researched on my own, found out about on my own, and expanded upon on my own.

And, if you really want to know, I've been reading many of Kant's works up until very recently. As in later today, I'll probably open up Groundwork For the Metaphysic of Morals again.

At 4/13/07 09:08 PM, Inganno wrote:

At 4/13/07 09:03 PM, LordJaric wrote: If we don't have faith, than we don't have anything to guide our selfs.

Hey, Pox.

This is why people need to read Kant.

Yeah I sure can't figure out how to live my life without religion!
Oh wait, yes, apparently I can since I've been doing it for 22 years without the help of a pompous-ass philosopher from 300 years ago who "figured" shit out like the Aztecs "figured out" that if they didn't kill 100 virgins every day, the sun would still rise.

I don't need "philosophy", I need HARD SCIENCE.
And I've looked for the science, and I have not found nearly enough of it.

...You missed the point.

It's exactly BECAUSE people think they need God for anything that they ought to look into philosophy. Philosophy sets us up as being independent of God.

So basically, yeah, you really missed the point on that one.

Go back to philosophy 101 with Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Locke, Descartes and those other people who have no relevance to us now but who somehow still waste everyone's time in bullshit classes.

p.s. sorry for being so condescendant, but I happen to have just created a religion based on it and apparently that's alright with you, logically-speaking.

...No.

I'm sorry, but two major problems with this.

One, I don't take philosophy classes, I read the books and draw my own conclusions. The way we were meant to.

Two, about that no relevance bit... Yep, you're right. Oh, wait... The United States government was founded upon the Lockean Social Contract... Hm... Okay, that's pretty relevant. Aristotle only set out the groundwork for the scientific method and modern sciences such as biology, pioneering major concepts... Yep, no relevence at all...

You see where I can go with this. Just because people don't appreciate what these gods among men have done for us doesn't mean they're irrelevant.

At 4/13/07 09:04 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/13/07 09:02 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/13/07 08:38 PM, Der-Ubermensch wrote: Would you die for the sake of some devil-worshiping muslims?

I hope you are kidding. I really do.

To clarify, I hope you are kidding that Muslims are "devil-worshipers".

He's a Nietzsche-fan. Your emotional appeals don't work.

Kill it with logic.

At 4/13/07 09:03 PM, LordJaric wrote: If we don't have faith, than we don't have anything to guide our selfs.

Hey, Pox.

This is why people need to read Kant.

See, here we see a common logical fallacy; if there is no God, there is no morality.

However, this is not the case; morality is independent of God, or at least synonymous to the point where it doesn't matter.

Think of it this way: God IS governed by principles; the context of His existence is such that he must act justly, righteously, and with morals.

Now define those morals.

Upon defining these morals, you define a science completely independent of religion: metaphysics.

At 4/12/07 11:51 PM, poxpower wrote: ok what did he say that's so brilliant regarding religions, and that we should follow, according to you? Because I saw him in a class once, don't remember much. He was smart by 18th century standards...

...No.

You can't do that to Kant.

Read up on him. Kant is perhaps the most famous moral absolutist of this or any age. His moral philosophy is renowned for its complexity, its logic, and its brilliance. Kant is often called the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.

I HIGHLY suggest you look into the man. His ideas are amazing.

Anywho, in terms of religion, basically he didn't say much that hadn't already been said. I say people ought to read him really for his MORAL philosophy, which makes perfect sense regardless of a God's existence.

It's brain food.

At 4/12/07 11:24 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/12/07 11:19 PM, Inganno wrote:

At 4/12/07 11:14 PM, poxpower wrote: How old are you?
16??

Ad hominem logical fallacy. Nice try.

Wow, I seem to remember you using that sentence in another post... could it be that... you like to avoid answering questions?

The question is irrelevant. My age has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of a claim I make. It's rather like talking about how cute kittens are and drawing the conclusion that your computer needs more RAM. The two do not relate.

Suffice it to say I'm old enough to compete in high school debate circles, and win.

At 4/12/07 11:51 PM, poxpower wrote: Oh really, then assuming you don't think I'm a total retard who could never understand anything as well as you, why don't you show me what makes you so strongly believe? Surely there must be something you can show me, if you claim it's logical. Link me to things.

I don't assume you're a retard.

Just not someone who wastes an exorbitant amount of time pondering these sorts of things :]

Assumption:
1.) Time is linear. Cyclical time models were conceived in religious models, largely that of the Hindus. Any scientific analysis of time shows a LINEAR progression of events.

Part I: On God's Existance (presented in syllogism):

1.) Every event has a cause. Nothing ever occurs without an event that led to the occurring event.

2.) This leads to a paradox, as this being true means that SOMETHING had to happen FIRST in the grand scheme of things. If we were to trace back every event, then the event of the universe's creation would contradict itself; indeed, ANY sort of origin would contradict logic, as the original creation would need a cause itself.

3.) Therefore, for anything to exist, there must be some causeless cause that is the origin for all existence. This causeless cause cannot be an event in the normal sense of the word, because such an event as we percieve would have to have a cause by its very nature. For a causeless cause to exist, it has to be such an event that is beyond a normal event; it has to be eternal, tied to existence.
3A.) The "Big-Bang" theory is not a sufficient explanation for existence on the grounds that the conditions under which the "Big Bang" occurred are not sufficiently given cause. The "Big Bang" resulted from those conditions, but true to events, those prequesite conditions had to be caused by something else. Therefore, the "Big Bang" theory isn't necessarily invalid, but it cannot be employed to explain the actual creation of the universe.
3B.) As such, the causeless cause, which has to exist by the very context of existence, is commonly understood to be God. God is eternal, as is existence; there does not need to be a beginning in the presence of a God or similar power, and therefore logic is brought into the univers. To illustrate this, I use this analogy: existence is tied to God as light is tied to a burning flame. The light cannot exist without the flame, and yet the flame's existence demands the light. Existence cannot be without the uncaused cause.

4.) While the nature of this causeless cause has not been sufficiently explained, it nonetheless must exist for anything to exist, and for convenience will be labeled God.

Part II: The Nature of Such an Existence:

This is the only matter concerning God that is open to debate. Through my reasoning (I've yet to see it disproved), something has to exist, and I label it God as a matter of convenience, though I admit readily that there's a chance that I might be wrong as to the intrepretation.

Of course, I say this in the same sense that I admit there's a chance that I'm an alien that was implanted into my mother by my alien manufacturers which hail from the Swastikian consellation, which is shaped like a swastika, hence the name.

So, I'll rephrase what I just said; while my faith on the matter considers the Christian God's existence definite, I cannot sufficiently prove it through reason. My reasons, through fair analysis, are not necessarily superior to the Muslim's belief in Allah, or the Hindu's belief in Shiva. I personally consider my system superior (which is, surprise, why I'm a Christian), and I'll present my beliefs in completion at a later point in time. But, in terms of the interpretation of God's existence (truthfully, of the causeless cause's existence), the conclusion is very open, and I accept that.

God could rationally be the form of any religious diety. Or perhaps another force that's much more akin to, say, the sum total of the laws of nature. Or an observer. A clock-maker God. Maybe not even a thinking being in these traditional senses, but any interpretation is valid; as long as it is acknowledged that there is a causeless cause independent of this existence.

I myself, however, subscribe to the Christian God and beliefs. My beliefs are different from those of many Christians (for example, I don't believe that the Bible is infallible), but I do believe in the central tenant of the matter; namely, that there was a man named Jesus Christ who was the direct representation of God on Earth, and that his sacrifice was meant to redeem mankind of its irreversible evil. However, this belief is perfectly compatible with reality (i.e. man's selfish tendencies to the point of what I call "evil", the causeless cause, and once all of the useless components are trimmed, true and absolute morality), and my belief is not founded in childish faith, but in reason.

Belief in God does not require a childish intellect, nor a childish faith, but a rationally guided combination of both.

Summary:
1.) In the absence of a god, linear time is a paradox.
2.) To correct this paradox, we introduce an over-natural power.
3.) This power might not be the Christian God; but we call it God as a matter of convenience. There might not be a heaven, there might not be a hell, but there is some power above this existence.

At 4/13/07 05:34 PM, Imperator wrote:

Yeah, actually, anyone with half a brain could see that it does.

On one side we have Imperator, Memorize, Mortified, SuperDeagle, Inganno, and MoronicLegion.

On the other side: Dre-Man.

Well, Dre, you have two choices. Either you prove that all of the above mentioned people do not have half a brain, or you admit that your argument is complete bullocks.

If you choose neither, you will look like what JMHX described in his 15 year olds thread, and will need to invent a conspiracy theory to back your opinion, since overwhelming evidence points contrary to it.

So either you admit you're wrong, prove that everyone around you is dumber than you, or come up with a conpiracy theory to support the notion that the military action in Iraq is unconstitutional.

Tough choices there bub, but if I were you, I'd go for option A, cut your losses, and learn from the experience.

Dre-Man, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the War in Iraq. PLENTY OF REASONS.

And there are plenty of reasons to dislike Bush. PLENTY OF REASONS.

Unfortunately, impeachment of Bush is not one of them.

Unfortunately, your arguments don't really constitute as legitimate reasons for either.

It's just... I'm sorry, so very proven? We've proven that the Constitution recognizes a difference between war and military action. We've proven that the President can take military action without "thefting Congress's power."

Now, you might have it in mind that the founding fathers [insert extension of this argument here]. That's lovely.

BUT, we have to look to the CONSTITUTION ITSELF in order to accurately and legitimately detail what powers various bodies do or don't have; not imagined pretenses behind said constructions.

I'm sorry... But arguing that George Bush violated the constitution does not stand.

Now, you can argue that he is immorally stretching the constraints of his power, and that's all fine and dandy. That's a new argument, woohoo.

But just... concede that he IS legally allowed to do it.

At 4/12/07 11:25 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/12/07 11:19 PM, Inganno wrote:

Ad hominem logical fallacy. Nice try.

haha ok you ARE a troll.

State Champion, Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

I know shit.

What I got out of your argument was that the validity of religion is in question because it developed within a small amount of time.

more or less.
I'm just saying to those out there who feel like religions are close to the truth because they feel so ancient that, well, they're pretty much nothing compared to so many other things that happened on earth... and earth itself is so tiny..

Just put your human life into perspective with the universe... you're nothing and you last for no time at all. Like a spark in the dark.
Which is a kickass Alice Cooper song btw, get it right now.

One /agree to the Alice Cooper bit.

Two, okay, I'll give you that. If you're attacking a specific line of fallacious reasoning, then this attack is more valid.

There are some very dumb reasons to believe in God. Such as the one you mentioned. But realize that belief is not always stupid. In fact, it's not meant to be.

Simply put, because you seem to be suggesting that something can only exist when organisms have always consented to its existence.

uh no

Once again, I thought you were attempting to debunk religion as a whole, not a specific reason to believe in God. My misunderstanding.

And for one last tidbit, Indian Philosophy = fail. Kantian philosophy = win.

Oh wait nevermind I forgot that asians are at the east.
I don't see how thinking like Kant will make people stop questioning religions.

One, Asia is very east.

Two, Kant is one of the most brilliant philosophers to ever grace this spark in the dark. Follow him on his epistemological arguments, and its interesting shit.

I think his opinion ought to be considered.

Three, I am not against questioning religion. As a matter of fact, I am for it.

But it's because I didn't stop at the inital phases of questioning that I am a strong believer. You have to question EVERYTHING. No line of reasoning is exempt from skepticism.

And it's because I live by this maxim that I am now a stronger believer than I ever was. Personally, I see the existence of a God far more logical than a lack of God's existence.

At 4/12/07 11:15 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Okay, Mr. Lvl 2, 35 posts Inganno.

Read me the part of the Constitution that defines what the word "war" means.

One, Ad Hominem logical fallacy. Nice try.

Two, SuperDeagle has already proved the president's action legitimate. I don't have to find the part regarding congress.

I'm gonna go nap. Have fun, Dre.

At 4/12/07 11:14 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/12/07 09:45 PM, Inganno wrote: Read some of St. Thomas Aquinas, and you'll see what I mean by Christianity being a sophisticated religion.

How old are you?
16??

Ad hominem logical fallacy. Nice try.

At 4/12/07 09:48 PM, Inganno wrote: Of course, from an "enlightened" one such as yourself.

I'm a level 34 monk

Okay, I laughed. I concede this oen.

Saying otherwise is the naturallistic fallacy.

Cool, quote me where I said God/theforce of nature/ whatever the fuck you're talking about didn't exist before we did.
Or are you just saying this for no reason?

What I got out of your argument was that the validity of religion is in question because it developed within a small amount of time.

My point is that this argument, or rather this point, is fallacious.

Simply put, because you seem to be suggesting that something can only exist when organisms have always consented to its existence.

Look into philosophy; if people would actually seek to enlighten themselves in the tradition of western thinking, so much of this bullshit could be avoided.

Yes, they have a PERFECT society. hahaha Why don't you go live in India, smartass.

...That's kinda the whole point. The society as it OUGHT to be, you know.

You know... The great intellectual tradition of Western Society? The love of knowledge? Rationalism? Science? All that?

And for one last tidbit, Indian Philosophy = fail. Kantian philosophy = win.

At 4/12/07 11:10 PM, Der-Ubermensch wrote: Life is so full of blatant contradictions. Keeps things interesting, no? ;)

I'd hardly call an intersting contention a valid one on that premise :]

See, the POINT, Dre, is that while YOU might not differentiate between military action and war, the Constitution DOES.

And in guaging something as constitutional or unconstitutional, we must LOOK TO THE DEFINITIONS SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Sorry, but you don't have this one. Don't play semantics, just bite the bullet and concede your point.

At 4/12/07 10:57 PM, Der-Ubermensch wrote:

At 4/12/07 10:55 PM, Inganno wrote:

That's the exact kind of anti-Semitism that Nietzsche was so adamantly against.

No one man holds all the answers.

I just find it funny that the philosopher you get your username from would be opposed to the point you made. That's all.

Causeless Cause Theory.

Look it up.

Basically, God's origin doesn't have to be explained, simply put, because he IS existence. God IS Reality. Ergo, rather than the universe's creation being like a carpenter building a house, we can shape it more akin to a candle flame that produces light; the light stems from the flame, the light exists BECAUSE of the flame, but the existence of the flame dictates the simultaneous existence of the light.

St. Thomas Aquinas is a smart cookie.

At 4/12/07 10:57 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/12/07 10:53 PM, Inganno wrote: Okay... YOU SAID that the war is unconstitutional beca-a-a-a-ause... Congress didn't declare it...

Yes, the war is unconstitutional, because Congress didn't declare it, that means that Congress decides when it is and is not okay to go to war. Not that Congress has taken over the responsiblities of Mr. Webster himself.

That DOES NOT MEAN that Congress can hand its power over to the President of the United States, or that it can dismiss an OPEN MILITARY CONFLICT as not being a war, but rather a military operation.

What exaclty are you trying to get at?

The entire point... Of the constitution... Is essentially, as you say, to replace Mr. Webster... What you're not getting is that the constitution DEFINES WAR. The constitution DEFINES GOVERNMENT. It DEFINES RIGHTS.

IT'S A DEFINITORY DOCUMENT.

IF YOU READ THE CONSTITUTION, what it says is that for a war TO BE A WAR, not for a war to be a constitutional war, just a war PERIOD, it must be put forth through Congress.

You're confusing semantics. Again.

At 4/12/07 02:27 PM, Potempkin wrote: There IS evidence of revolution, as scientists have studied the DNA of humans and chimpanzees, and found small likenesses that humans evolved from chimpanzees, and there is proof of the big bang, using thermal imaging, there is remnants of the heat and radiation from it!
Google these things!

In a linear time model, the big bang contradicts itself.

Simply put, because it's a law of EXISTENCE that an event has a cause.

The big bang merely explains an event, not the cause of this event.

If this event basically even occurred, then it must have been caused by something preceding it, which brings us back to square one.

If EVERYONE would just open a goddamn philosophy book, both the dumb atheists and the dumb Christians (both groups DO exist, just admit it) would realize just how fallacious their positions inherently were.

At 4/12/07 10:53 PM, Der-Ubermensch wrote:

At 4/12/07 10:49 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/12/07 10:48 PM, Der-Ubermensch wrote:

This was no orchestrated coup d'etat..but a failed conquest.

History tends to highly disagree with you.

A history written by Zionist propaganda machines, perhaps. I couldn't care less.

Nietzsche hates you.

...Okay, that's not saying much at all, BUT... Well, you get it.

That's the exact kind of anti-Semitism that Nietzsche was so adamantly against.

At 4/12/07 10:48 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/12/07 10:43 PM, Inganno wrote: Okay... on THAT DEFINITION, IT'S A WAR.

THAT'S NOT THE DEFINITION THE CONSTITUTION USES.

THE DEFINITION USED BY THE CONSTITUTION IS A MILITARY CONFLICT PROMPTED BY FORMAL DECLARATION THROUGH CONGRESS.

Seeee?

You think Congress decides what is and is not a war? PAHAHAHA!

Okay, arguing with this kind of stupidity is just useless, I digress.

...God help me.

Okay... YOU SAID that the war is unconstitutional beca-a-a-a-ause... Congress didn't declare it...

M'kay?

Now, here's what you're doing... You're running TWO SEPERATE DEFINITIONS for War... Two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT definitions.

One is military conflict.

The other is the formal declaration set forth in the Constitution.

Do you see what you're doing?

At 4/12/07 10:39 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/12/07 10:35 PM, Inganno wrote: Why is the war in Iraq a war at all?

It's a military fucking conflict! WHAT WOULD IT HAVE TO BE TO ACTUALLY BE A WAR?! WOULD THERE HAVE TO BE A BOMBING ON AMERICAN SOIL?! A NUCLEAR ONE PERHAPS?! WOULD IT HAVE TO BE FULL SCALE, WITH ALL OF OUR FORCES INVOLVED?!

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE CONSTITUTION GAVE CONGRESS AND ONLY CONGRESS THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR?! SO THAT THEY COULD SIT AROUND TWIDDLING THEIR THUMBS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT INVADING A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND FUCKING TAKING OVER THE GOVERNMENT IS A WAR?!

Okay... on THAT DEFINITION, IT'S A WAR.

THAT'S NOT THE DEFINITION THE CONSTITUTION USES.

THE DEFINITION USED BY THE CONSTITUTION IS A MILITARY CONFLICT PROMPTED BY FORMAL DECLARATION THROUGH CONGRESS.

Seeee?

At 4/12/07 10:34 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/12/07 10:29 PM, Inganno wrote:

At 4/12/07 10:24 PM, AwesomeSauce wrote:

At 4/8/07 10:49 PM, Dre-Man wrote: You are a stereotypical, prejudice, atheist, ass hole.

I like how you nestled 'atheist' in there as if it's even remotely relevant as to why he sucks. Nazi.

While I think the point you just made is relatively pointless, I have to commend you for pointing that out.

Nice analysis of semantics there.

Similar to how certain people add "liberal" to describe anybody they don't like, whether they're actually liberal or not.

Especially seeing how liberals nowadays are not liberals.

Liberalism as a philosophy developed out of the Enlightenment, and is actually similar to modern Libertarianism.

Then the Socialists took it, killed the right to Property, and bastardized it.

Thanks, assholes.

At 4/12/07 10:33 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/12/07 10:21 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: The answer is:
There is no correct definition, but the one they gambled on.

You're hilarious, arguing without even a leg to stand on.

I applaud your stupidity.

Now, are you done calling me stupid for actually going in accordance to the english language, which the Constitution of the United States happens to be written in, or are you going to keep going with this hilarious hypocrisy and idiocy?

Okay, I give up.

I've tried, but you haven't even almost made a coherent response to the point that the only thing you've proven is that the war in Iraq isn't a war.

That's all you've done.

Now, I'm going to sleep, and maybe if you think about it it will dawn on you.

I don't know how else to say it.

I can try one last time:

Why is the war in Iraq a war at all?

At 4/12/07 10:24 PM, AwesomeSauce wrote:

At 4/8/07 10:49 PM, Dre-Man wrote: You are a stereotypical, prejudice, atheist, ass hole.

I like how you nestled 'atheist' in there as if it's even remotely relevant as to why he sucks. Nazi.

While I think the point you just made is relatively pointless, I have to commend you for pointing that out.

Nice analysis of semantics there.

At 4/12/07 10:22 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 4/12/07 10:15 PM, Irelevent-tree wrote: america needs to pull out for a year or so, see what happens in that year, and then pull back in if need be

umm? no...
that would be the worst plan ever

The suckage would be over nine-thousand. And I mean that for seriously.

At 4/12/07 10:16 PM, Imperator wrote: War is Peace.

DUDE.

FUCKIN' WIN.

I AWARD YOU THE INTERNET.

At 4/12/07 10:02 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/12/07 09:58 PM, Inganno wrote:

At 4/12/07 09:53 PM, Dre-Man wrote: The word war means... ZOMG... war. The word war is not an abstract word. The word war has a single meaning.

Okay, a lot of your argument is semantics.

My argument is that these dumbfucks don't even know the basics of the english fucking language.

To them, "I'm going to the store to buy a bicycle for my daughter." could mean "I'm going to go kill five hundred mexicans, fast for 20 days, and then go eat lollypops while watching Alice in Wonderland."

Well, by your definition, the conflict in Iraq is NOT a war. Alright then.

Not true, Iraq is an armed military conflict, hence a war.

Now what? I'd like you to clarify on your arguments; if the conflict in Iraq is not a war, what does this imply?

It implies that it's an unconstitutional war, because Congress did not declare war before invading Iraq.

We call this circular reasoning.

Basically, your argument is quite literally this:

"The War in Iraq does not fit the definition of a War by the constraints laid out in the Constitution. Egro, the War in Iraq is unconstitutional."

All you've done is prove that the War in Iraq... isn't a war by the definitions of the constitution.

That doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

Let's play semantics some more.

If an action is unconstitutional, it is in DEFIANCE OF the principles laid forth in the constitution.

Example: legislature banning a word or two.

The conflict in Iraq is NOT a war by the definitions set forth in the U.S. Constitution, but it's still constitutional; it qualifies as SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN A WAR. JUST NOT A WAR.

That's all you've proven.

At 4/8/07 06:56 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/8/07 06:31 PM, Memorize wrote: And yet... no complaints about Islam or Judaism.

Islam or Judaism rarely tries imposing their religion on everybody.

LMAO.

At 4/12/07 09:53 PM, Dre-Man wrote: The word war means... ZOMG... war. The word war is not an abstract word. The word war has a single meaning.

Okay, a lot of your argument is semantics.

Basically, the definition of "war."

Well, by your definition, the conflict in Iraq is NOT a war. Alright then.

Now what? I'd like you to clarify on your arguments; if the conflict in Iraq is not a war, what does this imply?

At 4/12/07 09:46 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

At 4/12/07 08:55 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 4/12/07 08:53 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Because these people probably don't even have the first 10 ammendments memorized. Oh, and they're dumb.

It's at this point that I have to say memorization is probably irrelevant, as long as they comprehend the gist of the matter and have it on reference.

Such a reference being the internet.

And the fact of the matter is that the bill of rights has absolutely nothing to do with technical legal qualifications for a state of war... So really, that was a bit irrelevant... Unless you were attacking their intelligence... Which is really just the Ad Hominem fallacy, and therefore doesn't stand...