Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/1/04 04:12 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: If we create a machine with Independant thoughts, feelings AND emotions, we have, in effect, created a human. It is at this point in which the law should step in, and act as if the machine was a person, because it would be as good as.

We have not created a human, we have created a sentient being. Huge difference. Are you claiming anything with independant thoughts, feelings, and emptions deserves equal protection from the law? Because I know many who could make a good argument as to why a chimpanzee is sentient.

Is there any evidence of this man being not fit for the position? I mean you are so fond of that whole innocent until proven guilty approach.

At 5/1/04 02:18 PM, CrassClock wrote: What about the people of Columbia?

They might be a little more focused on the warring between the guerillas and the government.

Anyone else wanna make fun of death squad victims? Come on, I need your clever remarks that all sound the same, aren't even funny and don't contribute shit to the politics forum. You know you want to.

Oh waah waah, for a rich little white boy you sure act like you care about these people alot. The fact that you're using a computer makes you partially guilty for many person's deaths. Opression is all relative.

At 5/1/04 10:36 AM, TheGooie wrote: Yes...

I really don't think we should bomb them, but rather, we should turn some negative attention torwards them.

Do you remember how high oil prices were in the 80's? If it will get oil prices down, then by all means throw a plane our way every once and a while. Nobody gives a crap about Minnesota anyways so I have nothing to worry about.

At 5/1/04 10:52 AM, TheGooie wrote: See? Jimsween gets that Bush is a puppet without a soul, why doesn't everyone else get it?

I think most do; they just don't care. If you voted for Bush why not vote for the GOP party as a collective?

Holla if this thread made you favor eugenics.

Then is a whore with AIDS a hitman?

Probably because anyone who defends the French is a pompous asshole while doing it.

See: Bum's post

It would seem as if WW3 is going to happen, the stupid people will rise, and one by one cause the normal people to kill themselves out of frustration.

The homeless would steal from the middle class, because the middle class don't have gated communities. So... you have alot of poor people.

I think Columbia has bigger things to worry about. Besides, Pepsi tastes like crap.

*sip* ahh... the sweet taste of civil rights abuses.

At 4/30/04 08:35 PM, TheGooie wrote:

At 4/29/04 10:36 PM, Jimsween wrote: Like most dictators, Saddam used to be a good guy. Everyone knows that, you should all be ashamed in yourselves for not knowing it.

Think Bush is trying that path, or did he already fuck it up?

What? Bush is not evil, he is just a puppet with no independent thoughts of his own. And he certainly isn't a dictator, if he ever did have an independent thought, it would be crushed like a campaign finance reform bill.

At 4/30/04 01:20 AM, CrassClock wrote:

At 4/29/04 10:36 PM, Jimsween wrote: Like most dictators, Saddam used to be a good guy. Everyone knows that, you should all be ashamed in yourselves for not knowing it.

Right, he became "evil" overnight.

Where did I say that? He was in power for 21 years, what could possibly at all imply that I meant he changed overnight?

You're a sad man.

He reminds me of a mix between porky pig, Woody Allen, and George W. Bush.

Oh what an evil evil man... just.... evil....

Evil...

Like most dictators, Saddam used to be a good guy. Everyone knows that, you should all be ashamed in yourselves for not knowing it.

Haven't you realized yet, people are stupid. Thats why we have represenatives, because the people are too stupid to think for themselves.

At 4/27/04 04:54 PM, Adun wrote: Does defying the UN break the war code? If not then it should.

You're quite neive arencha? The UN would fellate Hitler if he was alive today, the UN is not only useless, its bad. It gives all the power to a few nations, one of which is a brutal dicatorship, another a corrupt fledgling democracy, and the other three are the same superpowers that have been in power for the past 100 years.

It's one thing to have faith in the UN, its quite another to be so ignorant as to claim the UN is anywhere near fit to controlling the world.

At 4/26/04 05:45 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: You do realize that America has some of the lowest gas prices anywhere?

Bulk discount.

At 4/25/04 08:12 PM, FatherVenom wrote: They don't have value in that you would do just as well to lie in a field of grass.

That doesn't mean they don't have value, it just means they have an insignifigant value, you would do better to lie on a couch instead of the ground.

You may want to update me, or remind me if you think you already explained it, on how the existance of the inherent value of a life defies the laws of existence because I just don't see it.

Because it contradicts itself, if one has the right to a life, then we must do our best to protect it, but then in doing so we often lose our lives in the sense that they become devoted to protecting the lives of others.

Hmm.... meh.

I thought I already went through this, beauracracy is wasteful, corporations are corrupt.

At 4/25/04 09:54 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 4/25/04 09:31 PM, Zeratul86 wrote: The perfect country would support free ...:

You know more or less thats Canada right?

Except he didn't say anything about it being a complete fuckhole... oh well, almost.

Grrr.... I hate India sooo much... with thier.... caste system.... and... long names... grrrr...

At 4/25/04 08:07 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: So you're just going to ignore the evidence, huh?

Technically they aren't expanding the area under thier control Skunk, they already control the West Bank.

At 4/25/04 07:57 PM, FatherVenom wrote: The value of sofa couches is debateable.

No, they all have value, some less, some more, but they all have value.

Where are you going with this whole "must conform to the laws of existence"? Some things just aren't definable or knowable with the conceptions that we have at our disposal.

Well, if they conform to the laws of existance, then they can't exist if they disobey them. And if it contradicts itself, then it doesn't exist.

At 4/25/04 07:30 PM, FatherVenom wrote:

At 4/25/04 07:23 PM, Jimsween wrote: Money has value, so then we all have the inherent right to money?

The value of money is debatable.

Fine, Sofa couches have value, so then we all have the inherent right to Sofa couches.

I would counter that the existance of a life is only varible in that it's there or it's not. And something inherent doesn't mean it's immutable but for this argument about the inherent value of life let's just say it is and not go into that. Yes, life in and of itself is not inherent. A body doesn't necessitate life. But if there is life in a body that life has a value.

So if life is not inherent, and the right to life is, the right to life must follow the laws of our existance.

At 4/25/04 04:53 PM, FatherVenom wrote:

His quote is to prove that lives have value and thus should have the inherent right to life.

Money has value, so then we all have the inherent right to money?

You asked me what I would do. Just because I hold certain beliefs doesn't mean I have the strength of character to hold to those beliefs. I tend to be too caring. It's like Vash in Trigun. "I want to save them both."

Ok fair enough.

Further inherent traits can be known to contradict. One can be born male and yet not be male. Math depends on a system with rules and boundaries, lives do not.

Lives are not inherent, they are a variable, if something is inherent it is constant.

At 4/25/04 06:58 PM, IonBlaster wrote: i think they should leave iraq. they have no reason to be there. there were no weapons of mass destruction and people are dieing.

And leaving will just magically make everything better. You're a genius.

At 4/25/04 02:16 PM, FatherVenom wrote:

At 4/25/04 01:21 PM, Jimsween wrote: Alright, but I still would like to know what makes you think having the ability to survive makes you have a right, is it just a given, and if so, does the same apply to any living being, and if not, why not?

All lives have the same inherent value[...]
-Shih

Came across that while going through all his old posts and I think it expresses my point in an eloquent way. Unfortunately, I think there is more to it than that, but you might appreciate that his evidence is more concrete and I agree with his logic. Yes, I believe that is is a 'just is' type of thing. I believe that every human has a right to life. If that's not what you mean by being then please tell me so we can go off on a whole new tangent that I'm prepared for.

I don't see how his post goes any further in proving that we have a right to life, his just says that life is important. In order for something to exist there has to be a preponderance of evidence of its existance.

By your standards, you would consider not helping someone who would die without your help illegal, or against the right, or something of that sort, correct?

It all depends. I believe in survivai of the fittest. So I believe a lot of it depends on the situation. If the person is going to need constant help to survive, so much so that a person has to stop living their own life to help the person live theirs I think that's a bad trade off. Still if it's just a quick fix like some traveler is starving and sees me with some bread and that bread will help him get to his destination, yeah I'll give it to him. I know it's sort of a double standard but different situations call for different actions.

But you said it yourself, we all have a right to life, in essence of a persons life was devoted to keeping another person alive, that would become thier life, so it would not be taking away thier life. Inherent things can't disagree with eachother, thats like mathematical equations disagreeing with eachother, it doesn't work. If it did it break the very laws of our existance.