Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

What the kid did took balls, he stood up for what was he believed in & for that I salute him.

But all in all it was a pretty useless gesture most people I know think the anti-pot laws are ridiculous & I'm pretty sure most of the population agrees, though I've had a difficult time finding a reliable study to confirm this.

At 6/7/09 10:23 PM, Brandon539 wrote:
umm okay yeah i'm just a guy that follows the law i guess, and dosen't it say that weed is an iilegal drug?......wtf you guys are talking like all of you have all used it.....i mean....wtf?

Every law?
I doubt that there are a lot of laws in my area that are unenforced, & few people follow all of them.

Not to mention in the us 48% of people over the age of 12 will admit to a government official taking the poll that they have.

At 6/7/09 10:40 PM, milinko959 wrote:
You can't honestly argue that it has health benefits.

ActuallyI can it's been shown to promote programed cell death, regenerate nerves in the brain & much more but that's a discussion for another forum

At 6/7/09 09:28 PM, Tabascork wrote:

At 6/7/09 08:39 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Milk isn't addictive. It might be good for your bones and stuff but it doesn't get you high like marijuana does. You can't seriously suggest that marijuana is just as unlikely as milk to spark an interest in harder drugs.

He's not suggesting that, he's stating that the only data that backs the gateway hypothesis is a correlation that the majority of hard drug users used cannabis before hard drugs, & thus the same logic would suggest that milk is a gateway drug. Funny fact tobacco use is a better indicator of future hard drug use than cannabis.

How many people actually do heroin? Anyone? I don't know a single person who smokes weed that has tried hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, or meth.

I know a few a buddy of mine died about a year ago from heroine/phenobarbital overdose, it was weird everyone thought he would die of kidney failure or alcohol poisoning,I didn't even know he used heroine.
And I know quite a few tweakers as well, and I know a lot of people ('self included) that have tried cocaine, but I get your point most people(85%) who use cannabis have never used hard drugs.

Personally I think the kids got moxie, he stood up for what he believed, and accepted the conciquences.

I define human life by sentience, so before 6 weeks(when brain function starts) I don't consider it possible to "murder a fetus" after that I don't know at some point it does become murder but there's no way to tell when a fetus gains sentience so there is no way to tell when it would be murder.

The funny thing I find is that few pro-life people consider it murder to pull the plug on a brain dead body, but they still consider "pulling the plug" on on unborn fetus with a nonfunctional or no brain murder.

At 6/7/09 10:29 AM, Ericho wrote: Not to sound cynical, but what does it really matter if space is dirty? It's massive, we can just put it something else or throw it into the Sun. I don't think it's going to cause a lot of trouble for astronauts at least.

It's more of a problem with satellites a piece of debris can hit one & it's bye bye birdie

An atheist will never be forced to do an immoral deed in the name of god.

Considering the death toll isn't particularly high & the only people freaking out about it are the same people who freaked out about bird flu & west nile, That doesn't seem likely.

To be honest the only thing I've heard recently that makes less sense than that was someone last week telling me the NWO made swine flu to cull the population & that guy at least had what he thought was evidence("...it contains genes from three species, how does that happen?").

Why the hell is everyone so paranoid nowadays? Every other day someone comes up with another crack pot conspiracy theory.

You think that's bad according to NASA,we need to clean up the man mad debris in orbit.
How did we manage to go and clutter up space?

At 6/6/09 11:43 AM, zero-gravity wrote: Dude, its called shrooms, salvia, or DMT. Be a man, use the big boy drugs.

Or at least use otc drugs like Dramamine, or dextromethorphan.

At 6/4/09 11:07 AM, Drakim wrote:
3. There appears to be a lot of unnecessary evil in the world. I could get that God can't stop you from having evil thoughts, because that would mean that you can't think freely anymore. But how does that explain earthquakes? Why is our planet so prone to natural disasters that devastate and kills millions?

Even it may appear to be unnecessary there is no way to tell if it is because we do not know the goal, I think all human acts of evil would look unnecessary if you didn't know the reason any of them were happening.

All evil may be necessary to whatever god's goal could be.

At 6/2/09 10:00 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
The point should be over whether or not government subsidies can even achieve the desired medical break throughts better than the free market.

You mean the free market with out the augmentation of government subsidies? Because the question of whether the free market could do it better is moot , since the free market businesses would still do research regardless of whether or not the government subsidized research, thew only difference would be if subsidies are granted then the free market researchers would have someone elses work in the pool of data.

At 6/1/09 04:37 PM, stafffighter wrote:
A bit of a diversion but why is it the death of the newspaper is taken as an evolution where as a car company having run itself into the ground conjures Americana?

Good question.

I guess it's because GM has such a long history & has employed so many people , not to mention unfortunately not to many people read news papers.

At 6/2/09 12:55 AM, Johnny-chimp-0 wrote:
Thats the thing, it feels like there would be more chances of her cheating on me if we ever went out but only because shes bi and that seems kind of jerky of me.

Are you basing the likely hood of her cheating on you based on the fact she's bi, I don't think a bisexual person is more likely to cheat than a straight person.
Loyal people, are loyal regardless of sexual orientation. Of course if she seems likely to cheat anyway then she has more of an opportunity to.

Works for me.

In my opinion the statement was a little racist, she did imply that white people are not as able to make good decisions.
But it could have been taken entirely out of concepts, either way though it doesn't instantly mean she is incapable of being unbiased, everyone is prejudice the question is if the are capable and willing to act wit out bias.

Oh and a few people have said that one can not be unbiased as all people are products of their upbringing/environment, I respectfully disagree, one can not be unbiased on a personal basis but one can separate there own biased from reason & logic, judges are expected to do this, as a matter of fact that is the reason being a judge is considered an honorable position because one is required to apply the law without their own biases playing a part.

Red bull can give you ulcers, so I'm gennerally going to say it's bad for you, but all things in moderation.

At 5/30/09 04:56 PM, Stelyu wrote:

:Stuff

You're aware we have a service economy right, the plan is to inject money into peoples pockets so they'll spend it & that spending will create more jobs.

I really want to know what grounds this lawer is suing on?
Breach of contract?, even if a contract was signed it would not have stated he could include a sermon & any idiot in this country knows that a public school is obligated to distance themselves from all religions, so that would be implied regardless of the contract unless it actually stated he could give a sermon,so I see no grounds there.
religion?, no ones trying to suppress his rights there
speech?, he can't claim that as no one tried to stop his speech, only remove there students & themselves, though he has the right to speak he has no right to force others to listen.

Seriously what is this guy suing for?

Most religious people believe in evolution (what's an evolutionist?are there gravityist?stringist?etc..)
But you already know why they don't believe evolution there religious beliefs are that it did not happen, that's it that is there whole reason.

At 5/27/09 12:46 PM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote: wow, good job on only taking a piece on what I wrote, I said I dont think anyone goes like "They are communisists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" for the government advocating condoms

Unfortunately your incorrect, a few religions (Catholicism included) believe that sex for purposes other than procreation is immoral, & thus some of the more fanatical members of these religions insist on forcing the practices of their belief on others and get angry when people are taught about birth control methods, This is why some regions teach abstinence only education, you could only imagine how upset these nut jobs feel whenever people try to implement a system of to provide free birth control. And the reason I said they would call it communism or fascism is my impression of such people is that they are not very intelligent and tend to call anything they disapprove of as something else they disapprove of w/op ouyt knowing the meaning of the term.

At 5/27/09 12:18 AM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:

At 5/26/09 11:03 PM, kraor024 wrote: In your opinion what does make us human?

Far too many things to post. However, pertaining to the relevancy of this conversation I believe that the genetic information that is specific to human beings makes us human.

If you want to define human life to genetic information your drawing the line pre-conception, so if that's not the case you need to be less obtuse.

One thing technically there is no "less than life" w/o life their is nothing, so you just said "I know parents who would give up a whole lot more for their child to have less than existence" which is impossible.

You misunderstand so I shall clarify:

I know parents who would go through pain and discomfort (perhaps greater than 9 months of physical and emotional discomfort) so that their children don't have to go through pain and discomfort themselves. Having to deal with pain and discomfort is a much smaller deal (much less) than the prospect of having your existance taken away from you (especially before you are able to even defend yourself.)

You can not have something taken away from you that you do possess in the first place.

You seem to be leaning toward the life begins at conception ,
you either need to give me a definition of human life and your definition must be uniform to what you consider the entirety of human life including what you consider to the termination of life, Other wise your telling me that its wrong to eliminate potential life and you must explain the rationale behind it.

At 5/27/09 01:45 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:
A young child can't survive on it's own anyway, wtf are you talking about?

But one can & does survive with out a host body to feed off of, & can survive w/o the mother .

An unborn child really should be considered a living person, it isn't apart of the father or mother, it has it's own DNA and the mother is simply caring for it n thats it, saying an unborn child isn't alive is pretty much like saying a disabled person isn't alive (variations of disabled would have to be said to understand but I'm not going to right now)

How is it not apart of the mother because it has it's own DNA, defineing life as possessing DNA defines life at fertilization & I see no logic in defining life at that point,nore.
The fetus is a part( I assume "apart" is a typo) of the mother in the sense that it gets its oxygen & nutrients, solely from her, even gets hormones from her as well.

Abortion is actually murder, imagine what murder is for a sec, its when a person destroys your body, kills it, an unborn child may not be made up of many cells for a period of time yet it is still it's own and the termination of those cells is the equivilent of the termination of all of a full grown person's cells or anyone's, I don't like to spoon feed this to people but it seems like people constantly forget.

What are you talking about cells for? No one forgets that they are cells we just don't think possessing human cells makes something a human life.

I've already explained it, an unborn child is in fact alive and it is in no way part of the mother's body and so the mother really shouldn't have any say, I know I said the oposite ealier but that is because I'm still on the grounds of people choosing for themselves, I can say its wrong all I want n that isn't going to stop them.

You have not explained it, you failed to explain how a fetus is apart from the mothers body, And you defined human life as possessing DNA, this is not rational as even bodies considered dead can possess DNA. It's a bad idea to define DNA as life(see previous my post)

Anyway abortion is not the answer to any situation a pregnancy occurs in.

You've defined life in a way that makes birth control pills murder, i want to say I hope you intend to adopt a lot of children but I really hope you don't.

At 5/26/09 07:36 PM, Bolo wrote: If the Supreme Court of California had gone against public opinion for a second time, there's no way they would still have the trust of the people, and there would be an outcry about judicial activism, etc. It is a sad fact that they must uphold the petty prejudices of their constituents expressed in the outcome of the 2008 elections.

I think it's sad, I watch a prop 8 commercial on youtube & the tone of it was in blah blah blah these blah judges ignored public opinion blah blah blah

People who think that judges should follow public opinion are idiots it's a judges job to interpret the law w/o bias, taking public opinion into account would create a bias,So going against public opinion is really the mark of a good judge.

At 5/26/09 10:19 PM, adrshepard wrote: What I don't understand is the activism for gay marriage. If civil unions already provide the same benefits and legal status, what difference does it make to gay people their partnership is called marriage or not? Isn't the whole "coming out of the closet" struggle about self-acceptance? People truly comfortable with who they are don't need validation from others.

Civil Unions do not provide the same legal status, for one thing a civil union is only recognized on the state level whilst a marriage by law must be recognized by every state & the Federal gov, also it immediate family can claim a deceased persons estate even if that person had a civil union, it's easier to transfer pensions to a married person than a civilly united person, etc....

At 5/26/09 09:14 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:

a fetus is not a human being, it is a clump of cells .

Opinion. Though it is a "clump of cells" I believe that what makes us human already exists at that point.

In your opinion what does make us human? & a zygote is just a clump of blank cells not yet even programed to have any function, so why the quotations?

I back up this opinion based on the fact that all the genetic information we will ever contain for development and for the rest of our lives is already present after conception.

So you define human life by possessing DNA, well you realize that means oral contraceptives are murder as well as in vitro fertilization, and also disposing of medical wast would require a waiting period for removed tissues, and actually not attempting to make said tissues survive would be manslaughter as well .(also if I remember correctly some cells DNA changes after you are conceived.)

You see why most people don't consider DNA the same thing as life.

it dosent even start having brain function until after 6 weeks and it dosen't think, it dosent have sentience, it's not a human being.

Back to opinion. Though I cannot prove otherwise I believe that brain function and therefore sentience is not required for a fetus to be considered human and perhaps even live therefore entitling it to the basic human right to exist. I especially don't believe the current lack of brain function exhibited in a fetus of less than 6 weeks is justification for halting it's development and therefore terminating it's existence. I believe this to be murder.

So you believe that if someone is brain dead they are still alive & if on life support pulling them off it would be murder.

after living 9 months with the seed of a rapist living inside, making you remember it the entire time.

9 months of living with physical and emotional discomfort so that your child may have life. I know parents who would give up a whole lot more than that for their children to have a lot less.

One thing technically there is no "less than life" w/o life their is nothing, so you just said "I know parents who would give up a whole lot more for their child to have less than existence" which is impossible. Also not a child before birth.

At 5/26/09 01:28 PM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote:

stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you consider yourself a religious nut job?

At 5/26/09 03:18 AM, sushi13 wrote: Megadeth is better than Metallica.
Much better

You got that right

I bought the saint anger CD when it came out, and a soon as the last track finished, I through it out the car window, I've never had the urge to do that to a Megadeth album I never heard a single song I completely despised, but I had to hold off the whole way through St Anger damn that POS sucked

Theres no way for the government to reduce unwanted pregnancy with out the religious nut jobs saying that it's fascist or communist or some other kind of ist

I don't believe we have the technology to use fusion reaction as a power source, but fission reaction would work well, though I am a bit worried about the dangers of nuclear wast.

At 5/25/09 11:36 AM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:
This makes good sense.
So as a pro-choicer would you support a ban on abortion after approxamately six weeks or when brain function begins?

That's a good question and the answer is, no I'd generally stay neutral after all odds are someone is not sentient at this point, but it would be impossible for sentience to occur before this point, me personally I'm happy with my states ban on third trimester abortions & would fanatically fight against banning abortion before the six week mark, but anywhere between that point is up for grabs in my opinion.

At 5/24/09 07:54 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:

At 5/24/09 03:05 AM, kraor024 wrote: We don't define whether a human is alive or not on the same basis we do life in general, if you shot me in the head causing all brain function to cease theoretically you could be charged with murder even if my body is still functioning, the reasoning being that I as a individual no longer exist & all that's left is an empty (living) body.

I could be wrong but I would probably be charged with attempted murder until such time as it was determined by the doctors and especially your family that there was no chance of you recovering and they ceased life support, then I would be charged with murder. Even though technically I would have been guilty of murder even before life support was de-activated and the official charge was issued.

I said 'could' be charged because some states do have laws stating that life ends when brain function ceases,while some expand this definition to include when the heart &/or lungs cease to function. And FYI you can't recover if brain function ceases, you are gone completely at that point.

So I guess what that means is that our cultural perceptions of death and when it occurs are in conflict with the scientific reality of death. Interesting, but it occurs to me this is a discussion of life...

Death is by definition the termination of life, we define human death as the termination of brain function(or sentience),therefor life = brain function(or sentience)

Regardless, I don't believe this argument changes anything and leaves the question unanswered. Is a baby alive or not alive while still in the womb? Clearly there is activity while in the womb so the baby is not un-alive but if it is not alive either, as according to pro-choicers, then what is it?

Most pro-choice folks like myself do believe life starts before birth , we just don't believe life starts at conception, we don't know when it does occur but we can narrow down the time span it occurs within

so to recap

Death=termination of life= termination of sentience
Total lose of brain function = total lose of sentience
Therefore
Termination of brain function = termination of sentience = termination of life = death
Therefore
Life=sentience
Unfortunately there is not a way to test for sentience & a child most certainly gains sentience before birth but we don't know when it does, but we do know it's sometime after brain function starts, & we also know that brain function starts approximately six weeks after conception.

So to summarize we don't know when human life begins but we do know it does not begin before six weeks after conception.

Unless you choose to define human life as self replicating molecules(simplified definition) or some other scientific definition.

At 5/25/09 03:23 AM, MrFlopz wrote: A hunting rifle or a handgun for protection (not recommenced) is ok. But owning your own AK47 is just ridiculous

How so to my understanding they make fair hunting rifles?