Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Euthanasia is cool as long as I make the decision, and it's for someone I like and it doesn't matter if they want it or not. At any given time I may choose to have them go through the procedure.

At 6/1/06 12:23 PM, SmilingAssasin wrote:

At 6/1/06 02:40 AM, JadedSOB wrote: My opinion toward canadians is generally postive, but my thoughts on this topic starter is that he's a complete asshole.

Really? I have no idea how you came to that conclusion but i suppose i'll never know.

Look at his signature pic and some of his posts.

At 5/31/06 10:02 AM, elkrobber wrote:

At 5/30/06 11:32 PM, Gon_Jinetik wrote: If it tastes good, and won't kill you, eat it.

I bet people taste good. Why don't you eat them?

Because eating people spreads proteins that attack the nerve cells and brain. Cannibalism also spreads diseases like Mad Cow Disease, Kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob and other neurodegenerative diseases that ravage those that eat humans. I'll put it simply, humans weren't meant to be eaten, or at least by other humans.

At 6/1/06 02:54 AM, facksfunny wrote: Why would people live longer back then? Something as simple as a swollen apendix would be fatal. Poor hygene, bad medicine, improper nutrition(by that I mean poorly cooked food, especially meat) sounds like a recipe for desease. The average life expectancy:

Neolithic Era : 22
Roman Era : 28
Medieval Europe : 33
England, 1800 : 38
USA, 1900 : 48
USA, 2005 : 78

Seems to me like it is increasing over time, not falling like it should be, according to the bible.

The difference is in the Bible it states that over the ages, as a result of sin or evil w/e the natural life span of humans would decrease. You know, cellular division. The reason the age is going up is primarily because we have cures for various diseases and food is more abundant. So people can live to their fullest lifetime. Nothing is genetically happening to increase our life expectancy. So your point doesn't really have merit as conflicting with the Bible.

Yeah, this thread has certain taken a U turn away from intelligent dialogue. It's just "ZOMG, Bush iz da idiot," or "Bush iz a tarist, rofl lmfao" I'm surprised it hasn't been locked. Then again, this forum would get flooded with useless Bush topics by twelve year old Greenday fans.

My opinion toward canadians is generally postive, but my thoughts on this topic starter is that he's a complete asshole.

At 5/31/06 04:40 PM, F_R_C wrote: STFU!!! ill say what i like BITCH!!! now shut up and get the fuck in the kitchen and make me sandwiches!!! preferably before you cry your pathetic ass off. the very fact that you could agree with the topic starter is an outrage! a human travesty! GTF off the internet.

Wa wa wa, keep crying bitch. Your tears are delicious.

At 5/31/06 06:09 PM, ErwinR0mmel wrote: Jaded
You are sick dude. First your ancestors con their way to dominance in the East coast then they launch parties to take the rest of the country burning, killing, murdering along the way and you still see that as insufficient? Now you want to ristrict them by abiding by international boundries? Sick.

What the hell do you mean "Your ancestors?" For all you know I could be oriental.

Fuck, I still hate the french. A bunch of stuck up bastards.

At 5/31/06 03:49 PM, F_R_C wrote: you should die aswell, shall we stick you in an arena full of convicted RAPISTS (i'd prefer high-class crimals killing each-others, there, prison overcrowding sorted.), and see how YOU like it? if you think thats a bad idea, then shut the fucking hell up!

Geez, F_R_C, no need for you to act like alittle bitch and bleed out your vagina about my statement. Seriously, should I send you some fresh milk from my teat?

France betrayed the US in the UN. By going against the American government because the french were getting paid by Saddam in the Food for Oil Scandal. That's why France and the UN was so opposed to the US invading Iraq.

Besides, as NemesisZ once said: You know Iraq and France were together, how else would the Iraqi Republic Guard know how to surrender so well?

At 5/31/06 03:54 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 5/31/06 03:09 PM, SundayBest wrote:

I am an athiest.

There's no such thing as an "athiest".

I've had this damn discussion with you already. Yes, there is such a thing as an atheist, as you admitted last time you tried to raise that ridiculous point.

It's not whether or not atheists exist or not, it's what kind of atheist exist. The simplistic atheist, people who don't believe in anything, do not exist, while the mundane atheist, people who don't believe in any supernatural factors, do exist.

I believe mundane atheism is a religion in itself because it require faith to believe just as any other religion does.

I agree with the topic starter. Poor people are useless, smelly, and wasteful people who should be used in gladiatorial pits where they fight bears and lions for our amusement.

I give up debating Penal, completely unreasonable girl.

I automatically hate anyone who uses the term "Native American," the viking explored the North and Southern American continents before the indians were even settled in the new world.

I agree though, your friend's an insensitive moron.

At 5/31/06 12:22 AM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

I told you. People still have religious values where they believe displaying their body for all to see is a violation of modesty, which they believe their deity said was obstruction of etiquette. There's no other reason better than that to be against it.

But why does everyone else have to pander for their needs? We have to move on at some point.

No one does have to pander to their needs. They're afraid on public tv their kid or they might turn to a channel with somebody whose has their dick/vagina out there. So that's why it's censored on public tv. Parents can't patrol their kids 24/7 so they need alittle help from tv companies to try and filter the stuff they don't wish their kids to see.

Besides, there isn't exactly a good argument why nudity shouldn't be censored?

Ugh, a neo-con tactic. I don't have an argument so you defend yours instead.

I was stating a point. You said there was no good argument for censoring nudity while I was reiterating there was no good argument against it. It's a slippery slope issue. This issue isn't about logic or morality. It's about a person's social preference.

You wishing nudity to be displayed without censoreship because you feel it's a way of self-expression, correct?

While other people believe it's uncouth to do so despite the circumstances, and that the human body is a sort of sacrament that shouldn't be so easily displayed.

People are able to log unto the internet if they wish to see nudity. No one's stopping them.

That's sexual nudity. Censoring nudity in the media, and having it found in abundence in a very seedy and negative life is sending entirely the wrong message, especially to younger people.

Unfounded claim *sigh*

I call bullshit on this. You can do a google search for "Artistic Nudity" or something similar and I guarantee you'll get hits. Don't say it like the only nudity the internet displays is in a sexual manner.

At 5/31/06 12:18 AM, lollerskaters wrote: Yeah, and no fat chicks!

Woops, guess that means you're out, lollerskaters.

At 5/31/06 12:07 AM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: I don't care for "Old values", I want to hear a valid reason why nudity has to be censored in the media.

I told you. People still have religious values where they believe displaying their body for all to see is a violation of modesty, which they believe their deity said was obstruction of etiquette. There's no other reason better than that to be against it.

Besides, there isn't exactly a good argument why nudity shouldn't be censored? People are able to log unto the internet if they wish to see nudity. No one's stopping them.

At 5/30/06 11:53 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Am I the only one who's absolutely disgusted that it's still taboo in most cases to show the image of your own damn bodies?

It's not a case what YOU feel is disgusting. Most people still abhere to old values where showing ones body in public is still uncouth social behavior. I don't see what the big deal is about nudity, but I respect the people who don't wish to see it out in the public medium.