Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/18/14 05:52 PM, Tankdown wrote:

At 2/18/14 05:50 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: A world not based on solid moral and ethical fiber is destined for corruption and hurt.

Not the argument I was making, people judge the reality of things more on morals rather than logic.

I would argue that morals are the foundation for sound logic.

At 2/18/14 05:37 PM, Tankdown wrote:

Morals are indeed an important issue.

A world not based on solid moral and ethical fiber is destined for corruption and hurt.

At 2/18/14 05:24 PM, sharpnova wrote:

At 2/18/14 04:42 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I would not say they are all unintelligent that would be false. But I will say that if some not all Gay men stopped acting overly emotional, weak, irrational, Lazy and extremely overly feminizing themselves then they would probably be left alone. Problem is the lack of testosterone can be felt for blocks away by straight men with average hormonal levels. I don't think we seen any big Gay men being beat on that video rather they were small and weak with very little muscle mass.

In the end it's not something I spend any time thinking about though. I find the whole debate tiring. Probably a diversion. A controlled opposition to keep the masses energy devoted to things that really don't matter.

Fuckin hey rights man. You said it and are absolutely right. Who fucking cares if someone is gay or straight or of gay's get beat in Russia. I have my own life here in Canada to deal with. Gay's are just after attention and sympathy to gain special status that set them apart from the rest just like the Jewish people with that holocaust hoax. It would not surprise me if they included Gay's rights into the Affirmative Action fiasco so the Government/s can profit off that minority as well.

At 2/18/14 05:02 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 2/18/14 04:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Non belief in the existence of deities and the out right rejection of deities are both included in the meaning of Atheism which is the non belief in deities.

So in order to lack belief in something, you must also make a definitive statement that that something definitely does not exist?

A raging homophobe that does not outwardly hate on gay men does not change the fact that they are in fact a homophobe. The reality here is that homosexually is most defiantly among us in society but deities are not. I am not challenging ones faith in a deity/s rather I am using logic that ones faith in deity/s cannot be proven or tested. Once again words fail because they can be up to a matter of opinion.

Let's take the question "does life exist in the solar system, other than on Earth?" It seems unlikely given what we know about the unfriendly conditions of the other bodies in the solar system, and I have seen no direct evidence of life existing anywhere other than on our own planet. So, I don't believe there is life in the solar system, other than on Earth.

Radio waves cannot be witness with the human eye or touched, tasted smelled etc but we would both agree they are real. That said I personally don't believe in stories written by man rather I believe there is an energy pulsing through the universe and that this energy has been misinterpreted through allegories.

That doesn't mean that I KNOW for certain that life doesn't exist elsewhere. I couldn't possibly know that. I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

I think there is a popular book that hints that there is life elsewhere.

Similarly, I don't believe god or gods exist (given the lack of evidence for such things), but I'm not excluding the possibility that they might. I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

Anything is possible. Probably misinterpreted though.

Atheism is antagonistic to Theism which cant be proven with facts but rather faith and Dogmatic literary devices and is 100% up to a matter of opinion and choice. It seems you are trying to claim that Theism is absolute truth while trying to slant the meaning of Atheism in favor of your own personal opinions that are in support of Theism.

What kind of crack are you smoking? How is anything I've said supportive of theism?

Well I hope your mind is open to the vast possibilities of this crazy place we live in. Heck we don't even know if the universe is real just that we have been told it is. We could be in a Truman show type thing.

I must say to you then please provide me with irrefutable proof that a deity exists without using faith and dogma.

I can't, nor can anyone else.

Sad but true. I wish God would be proven fact cause it would make life so dam simple to live.

Can you provide me with irrefutable proof that a deity DOESN'T exist?

You can't, I can't, nor can anyone else. You cannot prove a negative. Are you telling me that you KNOW that god or gods do not exist? How do you know?

I know that the Bible is a misinterpretation and allegory with parables written by man which tells me it's full of lies cause men like to control shit.

At 2/18/14 04:23 PM, Entice wrote:

At 2/18/14 03:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I did not see any Gay people being beaten to death did you ?

Maybe not "to death" in this video, but it happens. Especially in places like Russia.

That's to bad. I suggest they move somewhere Gay men are accepted and embraced.

If your Gay keep that shit to yourself. I like pussy but does that mean I have to act like a meat head pig everywhere I go ?

How do you know how these victims were acting or if they voluntarily told anyone that they were gay?

Body language and clothing not words though they problem rocked the typical drama queen type gay man lisp or speech impediment. It just emitted Gayness which is fine but not if it's going to get you hurt. Goes back to the old saying there is a time and place for everything.

If Gay men learn how to act in society without offending others then they would not get beat up

Victim blaming.

Your coddling the Gay community. Shit if I was gay I would move to San Fransisco where it's the straight men that are consider weird LOL. In this case the gay men victimized themselves by not keeping their own person safe.

Why do you even bother posting here?

Why do you respond ? would be the greater question to ask.

At 2/18/14 04:27 PM, sharpnova wrote:

At 2/18/14 03:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/14 02:58 PM, Entice wrote:

At 2/16/14 09:46 PM, sharpnova wrote: It is *not* a phobia. That term is liberal horse shit designed to emasculate people who dislike gays. It makes it appear as a weakness.

This is just a red herring. Gays are literally being beaten to death in the streets, yet still you feel the need to talk about how liberals are setting out to emasculate people.

I did not see any Gay people being beaten to death did you ? If your Gay keep that shit to yourself. I like pussy but does that mean I have to act like a meat head pig everywhere I go ? If Gay men learn how to act in society without offending others then they would not get beat up. That or move to San Fransisco.

I don't hate gays specifically. They fall into a much broader group of people I can't stand though. Overly emotional, weak, irrational, extremely unintelligent human beings.

I would not say they are all unintelligent that would be false. But I will say that if some not all Gay men stopped acting overly emotional, weak, irrational, Lazy and extremely overly feminizing themselves then they would probably be left alone. Problem is the lack of testosterone can be felt for blocks away by straight men with average hormonal levels. I don't think we seen any big Gay men being beat on that video rather they were small and weak with very little muscle mass.

At 2/18/14 04:10 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 2/18/14 02:13 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It doesn't have two meaning. Stop trolling man. The definition does not have dual meanings. So in your logic Theism has dual meanings. Believing that there is no Gods and Rejecting the belief in Gods is the same dam thing. Moving Forward . I believe there are no Gods so I therefore would reject the belief in gods which is Atheism. Stop playing word games.

Example 1:

Q1: "Do have a belief in god (or gods)?" A1: "No." Q2: "Does god (or gods) exist?" A2: "I don't know."

Is not atheism.

Example 2:

Q1: "Do have a belief in god (or gods)?" A1: "No." Q2: "Does god (or gods) exist?" A2: "No."

Is atheism.

Non belief in the existence of deities and the out right rejection of deities are both included in the meaning of Atheism which is the non belief in deities. Atheism is antagonistic to Theism which cant be proven with facts but rather faith and Dogmatic literary devices and is 100% up to a matter of opinion and choice. It seems you are trying to claim that Theism is absolute truth while trying to slant the meaning of Atheism in favor of your own personal opinions that are in support of Theism. I must say to you then please provide me with irrefutable proof that a deity exists without using faith and dogma.

At 2/18/14 03:49 PM, Gario wrote:

There, the thread I was talking about - I'm sure that thread is suitable for AHCA, if you have future problems. Now that we have that out of the way, did you want to answer my question, or do you want to spew more crap on the NG moderator conspiracy? :/

Problem is that thread is not about debating the fallacy behind AHCA rather it's simply about complaining about some laggy Internet site.

Anyway putting absolute power in the hands of Insurance companies when they are all about making money and not about providing health care is absolutely atrocious.

At 2/18/14 03:28 PM, AxTekk wrote:

It's never been between gays and straights anyway. Straights need to be tricked into thinking gays are pedos, witches or whatever bullshit. The beefs always between gay people and latent gays.

My point is do whatever the fuck you want to in life so long as it does not hurt or offend others. I think sticking a penis or anything up anyone's rectum man, women or beast is nasty, disgusting, unattractive, stinky and unhygienic not to mention against the natural laws of sexuality. Point being is that what people do in private and between consenting adults is their own dam business and Gay people should not be reprimanded if the love and bond between two Gay men is actually legit in their own minds. I stand by the fact that if select gay men are being ostracized and abused in society then they have at leased a couple choices to make 1 is man the fuck up and stop acting like women and be proud to be a man or 2 move to somewhere like San Fransisco where a strait male gay basher has a real good chance of getting his ass worked by a pumped up steroid monkey homosexual. I like Gay's cause that means less competition for me to peruse and love women. I think I might move to San Fransisco and get hooked up with a rich gay man so I can turn around and hook up with some fine Females in a whole other socioeconomic class that I would have never attained before LOL. Who knows maybe I will fall in love with the man even though I still would want to fuck the women. Bromosexual FTW !

At 2/18/14 02:58 PM, Entice wrote:

At 2/16/14 09:46 PM, sharpnova wrote: It is *not* a phobia. That term is liberal horse shit designed to emasculate people who dislike gays. It makes it appear as a weakness.

This is just a red herring. Gays are literally being beaten to death in the streets, yet still you feel the need to talk about how liberals are setting out to emasculate people.

I did not see any Gay people being beaten to death did you ? If your Gay keep that shit to yourself. I like pussy but does that mean I have to act like a meat head pig everywhere I go ? If Gay men learn how to act in society without offending others then they would not get beat up. That or move to San Fransisco.

At 2/18/14 02:28 PM, Gario wrote:

At 2/18/14 01:28 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 2/18/14 08:39 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/14 08:10 AM, AxTekk wrote:

By the same token though, to cover them in the government health plan could be extremely expensive and not very effective. I genuinely think the debate does boil down to AHCA. Maybe this should have been posted in an existing AHCA thread.

I don't think their is one. That said if these HIV victims were not forced into AHCA then they would have been covered. Once again we are witnessing the inefficiency of monetary economics.

Yeah, then I think this is the proper place for this discussion. This is basically the new AHCA thread guiz

There actually was a thread on AHCA set up a few months ago - I'm not going to look for it, but it's a place to talk solely about AHCA. Enough on that, I have an on topic question, here.

There were two AHCA threads set up this week and both were taken down by mods before the first post was submitted. Me smellz some serious censorship going on here. This thread is directly about AHCA and how it delegates the responsibility of public health coverage to the middle man being the Insurance company's to dictate who get's health care coverage. This can be said to be economic bigotry.

At 2/18/14 12:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If HIV is such an insurance time bomb, why wait until now to deny them?

It does not matter about the why rather the how. This is a classic example of the Government interfering and controlling people to much.

At 2/18/14 01:44 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

The word Atheism HAS ONE MEANING end of story.

Not according to the links that YOU POSTED.

It doesn't have two meaning. Stop trolling man. The definition does not have dual meanings. So in your logic Theism has dual meanings. Believing that there is no Gods and Rejecting the belief in Gods is the same dam thing. Moving Forward . I believe there are no Gods so I therefore would reject the belief in gods which is Atheism. Stop playing word games.

At 2/18/14 12:50 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

You didn't actually read the pages you linked to, did you? Both clearly identify the different types of atheism Light mentioned in his post (weak vs strong).

The meaning is the same. There is only one meaning for the Atheism. You can also use your logic for the word Mormon. In your opinion the word Moron also must have two different meanings based on how strong or soft their belief in their faith is ? No the answer is no because you can't bend the English laungage and lie when you see fit. The word Atheism HAS ONE MEANING end of story.

At 2/18/14 01:09 PM, Light wrote: Angry-Hatter pretty much stated what I was going to say in response to your post, leanlifter1. Thanks Angry-Hatter. :P

leanlifter, you didn't read the material you linked me to, did you?

Atheism means you don't believe in God/s or any other word/s used to say it. It's a simple concept. You are wrong. Atheism means the lack of belief in a God/s. There is not another meaning for the word. Stop being Ignorant when you are wrong.

At 2/18/14 10:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Is there an article that has some insight into why, even just a guess? This article is so short it's nearly meaningless.

The question is why would people be turned away from Obama Care Insurers when the Insurance is mandatory by Law. I suppose someone will have to Insure them By Law or else the Gov should foot to bills.

At 2/18/14 08:10 AM, AxTekk wrote:

By the same token though, to cover them in the government health plan could be extremely expensive and not very effective. I genuinely think the debate does boil down to AHCA. Maybe this should have been posted in an existing AHCA thread.

I don't think their is one. That said if these HIV victims were not forced into AHCA then they would have been covered. Once again we are witnessing the inefficiency of monetary economics.

At 2/18/14 04:59 AM, Thecrazyman wrote:

At 2/16/14 08:37 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The only thing we know for a fact is that Obama Care really really sucks and is a huge discredited to the American people.

The Healthcare Overhaul and it's website are without a single doubt a joke, it's not the kind of joke I simply laugh my butt at but one of THE most sickest jokes I've ever known.

That Healthcare Overhaul website is only going to keep draining lots of money for the most ill reasons imaginable, it doesn't go for freedom, it in fact goes against freedom itself. Needless to say the Healthcare Overhaul has made things corrupting and complicating, rejecting HIV patents is one of those things.

That said, if I wanted a Health Care system going, I rather go for something pure and simple, easy for people to understand, not this corrupting and complicating crap that causes HIV patients to be turned down from Health Care.

It's sad that some people put a price on Human life and even deny people health care because of the bottom line. It's even worse when your own Government enforces and promotes people to put a price on your head and then they have the audacity to tax you. Somethings gotta give.

At 2/18/14 02:08 AM, Light wrote:

At 2/18/14 12:59 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/14 12:43 AM, Light wrote:

At 2/18/14 12:03 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/17/14 11:35 PM, Light wrote:

So, what do you have to say to the definitions of atheism that I have listed and my rebuttal in general?

There is not multiple definitions of Atheism it means one whom does not believe in any .

a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

There are multiple definitions of atheism. The dictionary agrees with me here. Sorry to nitpick, but philosophically speaking, there are different kinds of atheism.

Nope there is not. You are incorrect. Replace the words God/s and supreme being with deity. There are many words for God but atheism means you are without faith in any God, supreme being, deity, Allah, Buddha, Thor, Zeus etc.

I just linked you to a dictionary website that listed two definitions for atheism. Other dictionary websites also have two or more definitions.

If you're seriously denying that there are multiple definitions of atheism, then you might just have a double-digit IQ, son.

In your mind a God or Gods and Supreme being or beings are separate definitions LOL ok. I think you are best served to use a better dictionary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atheism

There I linked to two definitions that proves there is only one definition of the word atheism. I suppose you must think there are multiply meaning of Theism as well.

At 2/18/14 02:10 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 2/18/14 12:50 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Not like the US hasn't used bizarre behavior and tactics before like in every war they have started and carried on in the past.

You don't know the rational actor theory.

I don't think war is cost effective rather I believe it to be quite the opposite. If the US stopped spending more money on Military than all other countries combined then it would be much better off from an economic standpoint.

More like every other country is threatened by the US. I hardly think that Korea has enough Military personal and highly trained personal in general let alone weapons and technology to make a stand against Canada let alone the US LOL.

leanlifter1 you have nothing but insults and attacks. Those are not substitutes for real arguments.

So your insulting myself because you think I am insulting Korea instead of saying your opinion is grounds for your argument ? That is no argument at all. That's trolling.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

North Korea is pretty far down the list. I think your beloved America is safe for now unless China and Russia decide enough is enough. I really hope that does not happen. I can't even say with certainty if Russia and China would buddy up. When it's all said and done National security comes down to acquired and secured Oil reserves and between what the USA has already stole and in control over and the fact that Canada has the largest Oil reserve in the world I think North America is about the safest place in the world to live being that the US commands the best and largest Military in the world. North Korean LOL.

At 2/18/14 12:43 AM, Light wrote:

At 2/18/14 12:03 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/17/14 11:35 PM, Light wrote:

So, what do you have to say to the definitions of atheism that I have listed and my rebuttal in general?

There is not multiple definitions of Atheism it means one whom does not believe in any .

a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

There are multiple definitions of atheism. The dictionary agrees with me here. Sorry to nitpick, but philosophically speaking, there are different kinds of atheism.

Nope there is not. You are incorrect. Replace the words God/s and supreme being with deity. There are many words for God but atheism means you are without faith in any God, supreme being, deity, Allah, Buddha, Thor, Zeus etc.

At 2/18/14 12:20 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 2/17/14 10:55 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

The US was funding Saddam with WMDs. Would not be a surprise if US is giving WMDs to kim. The US is in no way or form in danger of a radical Korean regime.

1: We didn't give him WMDs. We, the UK, France, and Russia armed him with conventional weapons in the '80s.

Sorry Bio Chemical Weapons that can kill 100,000s and infect generations of people to come is not considered a WMD technically LOL sure.

2: Why would we give WMDs to Kim if we have sanctions on him?

Not like the US hasn't used bizarre behavior and tactics before like in every war they have started and carried on in the past.

3: I don't believe we the US is directly threatened by NK either. I was telling Th-e that he needs to watch his rhetoric when arguing in favor of ousting Kim.

More like every other country is threatened by the US. I hardly think that Korea has enough Military personal and highly trained personal in general let alone weapons and technology to make a stand against Canada let alone the US LOL.

At 2/17/14 11:35 PM, Light wrote:

So, what do you have to say to the definitions of atheism that I have listed and my rebuttal in general?

There is not multiple definitions of Atheism it means one whom does not believe in any .

At 2/17/14 10:49 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

If by legitimate concern you mean a concern to US security, you're more correct. But both Kim Jong Un's North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq have had horrible humanitarian concerns.

The US was funding Saddam with WMDs. Would not be a surprise if US is giving WMDs to kim. The US is in no way or form in danger of a radical Korean regime.

What OP is saying is that ignorance is bliss. So come on everyone lets fuck technology and advancement and go live in caves and fling shit at each other because shit doesn't hurt people but Science does LOL.

At 2/17/14 06:06 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 2/17/14 05:39 PM, JackFrost23 wrote:

take action or be acted upon

What he said ^

This is why everyone should be packing heat.

I will just stay or move somewhere safe while the morons duke it out in the streets with street violence instead of Virtue and knowledge.

At 2/17/14 06:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 2/17/14 06:02 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: No I am saying that the Federal reserve is corrupt. This topic needs it's own thread.

If you'd actually be willing to defend your position for once and play by the rules of honest debate, I'd be in support of that.

Definitely I will. What I need to do is not easy as just like within Politics debating Politics is highly inefficient when the meaning of words can be convoluted and loop holes used. My position has always been Morals and Ethics before money and politics. Problem is how can you be moral and ethical in a world ruled by the gun.

At 2/17/14 05:33 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 2/16/14 07:21 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Just saying to Tonydark to take what the Federal Reserve says with a grain of salt. To develop a well round opinion on any topic you have to get your information from various sources preferable reputable ones. One can go on believing that Government is great and everything is fine because the Government says so but that is a fallacy and discredit to ones self.

That's not my point. You're arguing that just because the Federal Reserve is supported by the government that it's inherently wrong, ...

No I am saying that the Federal reserve is corrupt. This topic needs it's own thread.

which is why you compare it to fucking Hitler. I'm pointing out that this logic is deeply flawed.

I did not compare the Fed to Hitler I said that you would not ask a Nazi for a well rounded opinion outlining the good and bad rather you would get a one sided opinion if you asked a Nazi about what they believe. You go to the FerderalReserve.gov you will get a one sided opinion filled with Dogmatic rhetoric outlining what they dictate to the public as truth. Lets create a new thread on this topic please.

At 2/17/14 04:24 PM, Light wrote:

At 2/17/14 03:12 PM, NightmareWitch wrote:

At 2/17/14 01:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Atheism means one has no faith in a God/s.

It believes there are no gods.. which is a faith.

There are two different kinds of atheism: strong atheism and weak atheism.

1. Strong atheism asserts that no God exists. You can say that this is a faith-based statement.

2. Weak atheism makes no claim as to whether God exists or not, but people who are weak atheists state that they don't believe in Him. They don't claim to believe that God doesn't exist. They just withhold belief in his existence because they don't think there's sufficient evidence to justify such a belief.

I'm certain that most atheists are weak atheists, so, in that regard, it's simply wrong to state or imply that most atheists subscribe to some sort of faith.

Even if most atheists positively asserted that God doesn't exist, this doesn't mean that your beliefs are any more justified than theirs. You're just as blind in your faith as you claim to think or imply that strong atheists are. Simply put, you're not in a better position than they are, philosophically speaking. Don't ever delude yourself in to thinking that you are.

In reality atheism is just a word. You can be hard or soft in your theistic beliefs as well. I stand strong that in order for myself to believe in anything you have to back it up with truth not faith. I can have faith that Thor is real but that does not mean that he is real because it has not be proven as fact rather just an allegory to try and make sense of actual reality. The allegory's and parables of some of the writings in some Bibles I believe are true and factual however misinterpreted they might be.

At 2/17/14 05:18 AM, ASmallOstrich wrote:

At 2/17/14 01:40 AM, xxxcreep wrote:

At 2/16/14 11:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: In the healthiest countries in the world everyone gets the same level of health care and it is payed through taxes. In the self proclaimed best country in the world you would think they would take some notes from countries with the best health care in the world.

I agree with this. I'll never understand why we don't follow the same healthcare laws that the UK, canada, France, and Cuba have.

Canada always has economic issues, Cuba is under a facist regime that calls itself communist, and the UK has a plethora of financial issues on a personal basis. I don't care if it makes us a less healthy world, any system that says I have to give part of my earnings to this and that is a system I will always disagree with. And before someone brings up taxes, I'm not a fan of them either.

The problem with this type of thinking is that "The Economy" should never trump or interfere with the health of Humans. Canada has less economic troubles than the US and Canada has better health care than the US as does France and the UK and Sweden, Denmark etc. The affordable Care act is more about lining the pockets of a few people rather than providing excellent health care for everyone. If you don't have your health than all the money in the world means fuck all to you. Health is infinitely more valuable than money. Health is priceless.