Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/9/06 05:27 PM, FeeFee85 wrote: Well I am pagan and dont believe in hell at all so I agree with you that hell is not exsistant. I was just posting something that I read to see what others think.

There is a significant difference between "hell is nonexistant" and "hell is nonexistance."

One implies that hell is a made up idea. The other implies that the concept of hell is real (even if in a form contrary to the idea held by most contemporary christians).

At 9/9/06 02:00 AM, FeeFee85 wrote: The the book Case For Faith by Lee Stroble the cover the idea of hell in a light that I have never seen. They say that hell is just seperation from the God of Abraham for all time. The only punishment that you will suffer is your own guilt. Now before people quote bible at me they say that the fire and all that are metaphores for the pain of your guilt that in time you will get over any how. So what do you think about this concept of hell?

What "evidence" is there to show that hell is an existance separate from God? Or more importantly, what shows that there is an existance at all in "hell?"
Basically, why is hell not simply nonexistance?

Makes much more sense to me. I guess I find the idea that some divine being would sit around toasting sinners over a fire or guilt-tripping a bunch of non-believers for all eternity. It kinda seems like people just want to feel there is some kind of divine retribution for those that "break the rules" in life, as opposed to... just death.

But what do I know? I'm not a biblical scholar.

Long story short, I agree with the hell you describe more than the "fire and brimstone" fairy tale, but I still find it very hard to swallow.

At 7/12/06 11:23 PM, ConservativeKid wrote: Abortion: Conservatives believe that abortion is the one of the worst, most inhumane and uncivilized practices ever invented. Abortion is MURDER, not to be confused with killing.

Yes, it is very uncivilized to kill a lump of cells with no form of conciousness.

Arabs: This is a big “confusable”. WE DO NOT HATE ALL ARABS!!! This is about as true as that spam email about winning a $103044900000 TV you got this morning. We don’t hate the nice Arabs (yes, there are many of them!) we only hate those Arabs who want to blow us into a million pieces for “Allah”.

I would just like to note this sounds racist in the same way "I don't hate black guys, only those that sell drugs and steal my car radio" sounds racist.

Gays: I’d say that people have no clue what conservatives believe about gays so here it is. If you are gay that’s fine. Do not tell me about it, I have absolutely no interest at all in knowing that you are gay. The minute you tell me about it however, you are subject to MY opinion on the subject. I think that being gay is unbiblical (see: Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. http://www.biblegate..earch=Leviticus

I'm cutting that link short, as it already says it all. Leviticus? You've got to be kidding me. Kill all blasphemers, animal sacrifice rules, no eating of pork or shellfish? Wait, you can't even touch a pig. No wearing clothes with more than one fiber? Leviticus is practically ignored by all of American society, and there is a reason for it.

I think gay marriage is a ridiculous, the whole phrase is an oxymoron.

So it's like compassionate conservatism?

If America lets gays marry then that means America would respect gayness which is against the Bible (do I have to remind you---which America was founded on).

Yes, America was clearly founded on the Bible and respects all of its traditions, which is why we kill adulterers, don't allow anyone to work on Sunday, and have Christianity as an enforced official religion for the United States.

Guns: Many people challenge that you can’t love guns and be against abortion.

You're thinking death penalty and abortion, I'd imagine.

Immigrants: Ok, like gays it is pretty safe to say most people haven’t a clue as to what conservatives believe regarding immigrants. Clearly stated, we love LEGAL immigrants. My ancestors were LEGAL immigrants. Most of the time legal immigrants are very hard working and have a lot of respect for America. Laws are there for a reason!!! (Also, it’s not called illegal immigration for nothing.) Then, LOGICALLY (the only way conservatives think) conservatives think illegal immigration is utterly revolting.

“When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” - The Book of Leviticus 19:33-35

The conservative position is wholy unamerican. After all, it requires America to be unbiblical, which means we have failed as a nation. I'm sure you agree with me, as this was your reasoning for thinking gay marriage should be illegal.

And yes, logically is the only way conservatives think (but since they never do, it's a moot point. OH SNAP!). Seriously though, that comment was just silly.

At 7/7/06 04:00 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 7/7/06 01:30 AM, Lhotun wrote: Once again, it costs more regardless of appeals. In Kansas, for instance, appeals make up less than 30% of capital punishment case costs. About 50% of the cost comes from the trial and pre-trial periods. Lets not even note those costs would be incurred even if the person was found innocent.

Please cite.

This does not change the fact that minorities are given the death penalty at a higher percentage. Ten black people and five white people kill someone else. The black guys get the death penalty, the white guys life in prison. "More black people went to trial" is not a reasonable argument for why the the white people got a lighter sentence.

Here again, you are wrong:
http://experts.about..cement-341/White.htm


From the article:
Number executed was 885, from 1977-2003. 510 of those, or 58%, were white

That would be the majority by the way.

I didn't even know the figures, I was mainly pointing out your initial "more blacks are put on trial" to be a godawful argument.

I honestly believe bias to not be a good argument, since that sweeps through the entire system.

The reason people kill varies, but most probably don't enjoy it. Using your example, lets say I decide to rob a house. I'm robbing it, but the homeowner wakes up and pulls a gun on me. Knowing I either kill or be killed, I shoot him. I might've put myself in that situation, but that doesn't make the outcome enjoyable for me. Either way, I wind up on death row.

No, but when you robbed that house, you knew that you might encounter that. Despite the fact that you might have to kill someone, you do it anyways. You want whats in the house. If you carry a gun, you went into the house, prepared to meet resistance and with the intent to kill. You have weighed it in your mind, and that human life means less than getting money, jewelry, whatever. So either:
a. You enjoy killing.
or b. You don't give a damn about other human life.

Either way, I say fry you up.

When someone goes to rob a bank, they carry a gun. They don't intend to kill anyone. They may very well be rather unprepared to meet resistance. Guns are many times used to intimidate. But if a gun is pulled on you by a civilian, you will likely pull yours. You really think whenever a criminal goes into a situation armed, he is planning on shooting up the place?

Your idea of what prison is like is fairly incorrect, I'm pretty sure Martha Stewart didn't have it that nice.

She had constant access to internet and phone. They brought in a turkey (just for her) on Thanksgiving. To show you how hard she had it:
http://www.bobfromac..com/marthadiary.html

Constant access to internet and phone is equivalent to both a PS3 and an X-BOX360? Either way, my point was that you made heaven sound like a dream. Yeah, if you want to get free internet, you steal a loaf of bread. You don't murder three people. Where you get sent to for that isn't quite as sweet.

It's not silly. Your comparison was stupid. The person committed a crime. Their family gets time to say what a great guy he was. Other than that...who cares? You're trying to act like the family should have some great override button, just because they're family, and to hell if he committed a crime.

I'm acting like state-sanctioned murder doesn't exactly solve any problems and only causes new ones.

Not only can a furlough program be restricted or completely removed; resulting harm caused by inmates out of the prison are a result of the program.

Yea, tell that to the victims of Willie Horton. Removing it after the fact doesn't mean the victims of crimes go away.

And you proove my point exactly. "Lets let loose a convicted murderer, that should be fun."
That is just stupid. Thats like when they convict a man for a life sentence and the guy gets out in 15 years. That isn't because we can't contain him. Thats a stupid system added onto it. Capital punishment is irrelevent.

Hey if we didn't have morons running around saying "Let's let Charles Manson out of prison, maybe I'd agree.

We have people that run around saying that the end times are upon us. And they've been saying that for quite a while now. That doesn't mean people take them seriously.

Well, let's look at it this way. Most families of victims want the killer dead. Not behind bars for awhile. So while you disagree, it means very little. So take your little "it's subjective" quote and throw it out the window.

You may as well be saying "Hey, you know, whether or not people want anesthesia during surgery is subjective....numbers? I don't need to see those."

What numbers?
I was just recalling a testimony from a witness of McVeigh's excution and an Israeli woman's response to Mossad's post-Munich assassinations.
I guess I'm foolish for thinking some people actually would rather get the worst part of their life behind them.

And for the note, "the rest of your life in prison" is not what I'd refer to as "for awhile"

At 7/7/06 03:39 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 7/7/06 01:30 AM, Lhotun wrote:

Of course you can't. Purse snatchings are not a capital crime. What a pathetic retort.

You referred to a lower crime rate, and my entire point was that the crime rate alone is entirely irrelevent, as most crimes aren't capital crimes. Thanks for unintentionally agreeing with me. Pay attention.

Texas has over 30% of US executions, yet has a murder rate higher than the national average. It has a murder rate that is 1.7 times the average of states without the death penalty. Lets not even look at other countries, like the UK, France, or Canada.

This is the best I can find here:
http://www.disasterc..om/crime/txcrime.htm

17th highest for murder. True this is in 2000. But unless you wanna show your figures, that shoots your ridiculous "highest crime rate in the country" bs out of the water.

First of all, I never stated anything about Texas having the highest crime rate in the country. I never even said it was in the top ten. I only stated it was higher than the national average, which you already pointed out that it is. Thanks for unintentionally agreeing with me. Pay attention.

Either way, 17th highest for murder? Isn't that kinda high to show anything as far as deterrence goes?

By the way, my source was: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/
The full document is huge, but check for Table 4.

I will note one thing you were right on, people fight tooth and nail to avoid the death penalty. True, but that has little to do with deterrance. That fact plays out more in plea bargaining. The offer to take execution off the table is, for some, quite a nice deal. But of course, I don't think plea bargaining is a very good system, and really seems to just aim to save money.

Now about appeals...
What level of appeals would be appropriate? You'd want everything that occured in the case to be checked at least once. How about twice? After all, when turning in a college paper, I usually proofread twice. Is a man's life worth more than my grade in "English Composition?" I'd hope so, so let's add on a third time. Are three lookovers enough to ensure that the prosecutor didn't withold information, the confession wasn't coerced, the jury wasn't biased, the counsel wasn't pathetic, there were no expert testimonies that were blatantly misleading, or any number of things that could cause the entire case to be thrown out?

Keep in mind, more than one of the above has occured in a capital case and it took over ten years for the person in question to be exonerated. You'd think something like "misleading expert witness testimony" or "prosecutorial misconduct" would be caught rather quickly, especially for a man on death row.

The problem that capital punishment has already demonstrated is, as I already said, if we hadn't had "unlimited appeals" and a long wait to be executed, we'd have killed at least several innocent people.
It blows my mind with I hear people point out that we haven't killed any innocents, then they want to get rid of all the reasons why we haven't.

Next we'll hear people saying we should remove the safety locks on guns. They're not dangerous, accidental shootings are going down.

At 7/6/06 05:56 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Yet, no case of an innocent person dying has ever been produced.

Innocent people have been on death row for over a decade. That is undeniable.

No, the monetary cost of the death penalty is less. The cost of the endless appeals is more. so the solution? Cut out all those appeals.

Not only would that have caused many of the above people found innocent on death row to have been executed, it still does not make the death penalty less expensive. Death penalty cases have greatly increased costs from step one. For instance, in some cases, there are actually two separate trials that take place; one to determine guilt or innocence, and another to determine whether to give the death penalty.

And to my knowledge, Texas has a smaller crime rate than lets say New York. Texas and Japan prove that capital punishment DOES deter crime. And people don't generally fight life sentences that hard, but people fight tooth and nail to avoid the death penalty. No, we know it's a deterrent. It'd be MORE of a deterrent if they didn't sit there for 30 years, knowing they've got a good chance of an activist judge or a parole board releasing them, or of the penalty being revoked, or of dying in prison.

It isn't a deterrent. You can't point to fewer purse snatchings and say that capital punishment is the cause.
Texas has over 30% of US executions, yet has a murder rate higher than the national average. It has a murder rate that is 1.7 times the average of states without the death penalty. Lets not even look at other countries, like the UK, France, or Canada.

Also, those murder rates were straight from the FBI's crime statistics, not some random anti-Capital Punishment site that may have "fooled around with the numbers" a bit.

The appeals cost more, the death penalty itself is cheaper than life in prison.

Once again, it costs more regardless of appeals. In Kansas, for instance, appeals make up less than 30% of capital punishment case costs. About 50% of the cost comes from the trial and pre-trial periods. Lets not even note those costs would be incurred even if the person was found innocent.

A poor minority is more likely to commit a crime.

This does not change the fact that minorities are given the death penalty at a higher percentage. Ten black people and five white people kill someone else. The black guys get the death penalty, the white guys life in prison. "More black people went to trial" is not a reasonable argument for why the the white people got a lighter sentence.

People don't get the death penalty for a single "clean murder". You either have to kill several people (Andrea Yates) or it has to be especially heinous. And considering there is a concerted effort to free Manson (a definately sick man, who has said "if freed, I'd do it again"), LWOP doesn't protect us from them.

Death penalty can be given for "first degree murder" in some states; but I won't go into that. I'll go straight to Texas, since they're the experts. In Texas, you can be executed for killing someone in the commission of a crime. That is one murder and it isn't especially heinous.

That's nonsense. Most killers enjoy killing. Or they WOULDN'T DO IT. And last time I checked, there were no innocent home owners who shot an intruder in self defense on death row.

The reason people kill varies, but most probably don't enjoy it. Using your example, lets say I decide to rob a house. I'm robbing it, but the homeowner wakes up and pulls a gun on me. Knowing I either kill or be killed, I shoot him. I might've put myself in that situation, but that doesn't make the outcome enjoyable for me. Either way, I wind up on death row.

The whole argument against the death penalty is that it is "cruel" and that the executed "suffer. So yea, I'd say there's pain involved. We know the electric chair hurt like a son of a bitch. We know hangings sucked. We know firing squads weren't pleasant. However, having three solid meals a day and a free XBox 360 AND a PS3 with new games all the time, doesn't seem all that bad to me.

Your idea of what prison is like is fairly incorrect, I'm pretty sure Martha Stewart didn't have it that nice.

8.And of course, lets not forget about the killers family. Do they not get a say? No, they don't matter, they're reletive killed someone so their opinion is worthless.

Um, are you kidding? The relatives always get to get on the stand and say "my brother/father/cousin is a good man". Beyond that...do they get a say? Of course not. Did the victims family get a say in whether or not THEIR family member was killed?

The analogy to the victim is silly. It implies that the killer's family was somehow responsible for the pain of the victim's family; therefore, their pain is irrevelent.

Furlough program. Cells don't protect us.

Not only can a furlough program be restricted or completely removed; resulting harm caused by inmates out of the prison are a result of the program.

"This guy killed five people. Then we willingly let him out of prison, when we didn't need to. Then he killed someone. Clearly, the only way we can contain him is to kill him."

It gives the family a sense of relief and closure.

Does it really? First of all, that is entirely subjective. There some who would say quite the opposite.
Second, why is locking the killer up forever not closure enough? Where exactly is "closure" met? I'd imagine closure is more about getting done the trial and moving on with your life; and considering a death penalty case would mean a longer trial, I propose that closure is delayed due to the death penalty.

At 7/1/06 05:55 PM, JadedSoB wrote: Once again, GSgt, that is because of all the appeals they get. I say we give them one trial and only one appeal. After two weeks on deathrow they get death by firing squad. And no, I don't want to hear the argument "BUT JADED, WUT IF THAE R INOSENT?1 LEWL LMFAO!!!1111" With the progression of new technology we can find the murderer with DNA evidence on the victim. So in the future it's only going to get more efficient at tracking down the criminal.

I say we need to get rid of this seven year waiting period for inmates on deathrow and do it with the utmost haste.

Court costs in pretrial and trial phases are much greater in death penalty cases. Forget about appeals, those can count for less than 50% of the total costs.

And DNA is not some infalliable godsend. How is that DNA going to magically stick to the victim? How can you show that the only explanation for that DNA is the commission of the crime in question?

And considering the number of people that have been released on death row after being shown that there was police, forensic, or prosecutorial misconduct (and some even later proven completely innocent thanks to DNA evidence); I hardly think that the legal system is reliable enough to handle life and death.

At 6/29/06 08:37 PM, AccessCode wrote: People who get traffic violations and don't show up to court get worse treatment in prison (for the time they're there) than the murderers and such.

For Example: My dad forgot to show up on the court date. So he spent a weekend in prison. When he got home he said "You know something isn't right when the serial killers and rapists get to watch cable tv, but the minor traffic offenders can't get squat".

Monitored 24 hours a day in nearly complete isolation with one hour a day for either showering or outdoor recreation with almost no telephone, no TV, and no radio. Yeah, that sounds like the life.

Prison conditions vary greatly and generally get worse with the crime.

If you're referring to private prisons, then they might be rather nice places to go... but since they're private, they're irrelevant.

Besides, none of this has anything to do with the fact that these things help pacify the prison population, which increases the safety for those that work in prisons.

Oh yeah, and I agree. All criminals deserve to be killed and tortured. Not only does that make it more fun when you convict innocent people, it will really show how we can beat China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia in the blatantly pointless cruelty department.

At 6/29/06 08:03 PM, AccessCode wrote: It seems to me they're escaping punishment with actually a quite nice cozy cell, with a nice bed, relatively good food, and of course cable tv. Oh, and you can't forget about the tennis courts and basketball courts which they have available through out the day.

You act as if every prison in America is a glorious vacation, with murderers getting the best.
Prisons vary widely, from the level of security (in some facilities even phone priveleges are minimal, so you could imagine TV and radio) and from state-to-state.

Either way, I don't think "prisoners get to watch TV, so we should kill them" is a very compelling argument.

Also, you act as if nowadays it is impossible to wrongly convict someone, which is a purely foolish assessment.

At 6/28/06 11:48 PM, YoureAllStupid wrote:

At 6/28/06 12:19 PM, Lhotun wrote: The problem is, how is this an effective deterrent?
it isn't difficult to check for.

It actually is, if you read the website it would explain to you that the product cannot be seen once inserted.

Visual inspection is not the only means of checking for things. A rapist probably wouldn't be too bothered by violating their victim with something other than themselves prior to forcing themselves on her.

At 6/28/06 09:18 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 6/28/06 08:58 AM, Billythesnipe wrote: Well wouldn't you still get in more trouble probably for cutting the guys meat up like that?

You're allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. In the case of rape, I believe this condom would qualify, since it is primarily a deterrant rather than an active stop.

The problem is, how is this an effective deterrent?
Not only is it not that difficult to rape someone in other ways, it isn't difficult to check for.
Basically, if it is well known enough to be a deterrent, then it has lost any effectiveness.

This entire concept just seems like a bad idea.

First of all, it does not prevent the violation. This seems more retaliatory than anything else.

Second, it may sound foolish, but this is basically a lawsuit waiting to happen. I could even
imagine a convicted rapist to be awarded damages.

And third, how will this prevent rape? In fact, if this was to become a popular product, I'd imagine either rapists would either start checking or take advantage of other orifices.

Keep in mind, all of my points only pertained to the events of actual rape. This doesn't consider the possibilities of this device effecting innocent people, whether accidental or otherwise.

I'd like to note that if you place a trap at the entrance of your house to kill would-be burglars, you could very well be charged with a crime should the trap prove successful. This pretty much falls on the same principle.

At 5/11/06 10:34 PM, Taleynet wrote: I'm assuming nothing about the nature of God. I am taking His word straight out of the bible and following it to the best of my abilities. This specific argument doesn't apply to other religions, just atheism. Compare Christianity to atheism. If i'm right, i go to heaven and they burn in hell. If i'm wrong, then we all end up in holes in the ground. I'm not arguing every world religion, just mine. It's not theology, it's statistics.

First of all, you are assuming a lot about the nature of God. Just because it is written down somewhere doesn't make it correct. Besides, who isn't to say that Christ isn't merely a deception by God to lead people into sin?

Also, by only limiting it to Christianity and Atheism, it is a pointless argument. If you limit it only to athiesm, bam, right 100% of the time. Since you can use the argument on other religions to invalidate it even shows how weak it is.

Besides, you can't say it is a 50/50 chance. That ignores the fact that there are alternative beliefs than Christianity and Atheism and it also assumes that they are equally likely.

At 5/11/06 09:17 PM, Taleynet wrote: If you're right, you end up in a hole in the ground and we're in the same boat. But if you're wrong, you spend an eternity in Hell. Either way, i have nothing to lose and you have your eternal soul to lose. I have a 100% chance of being in the right place at the end of my life, and, at best, you only have a 50% chance. I guess my real question is, do really have that much faith in humans and numbers that you are willing to gamble with your soul?

Pascal's Wager has already been covered and this thread as an irrational argument as it assumes the nature of God. God could just as likely (from all knowledge we have of him) hate Christians and like everyone else. That means you'd burn in hell, and everyone else would be saved.

Prudential reasoning for belief is silly. If you found out that another religion had a worse hell than Christianity's would you convert to it because you "wouldn't want to risk it?"

The Mossad of Israel is both a defender of Israel and a terrorist organization. I think the fact that they are terrorists is practically an indisputable fact. It is just we seem to feel free to overlook any terrorist activities carried out by Israel.

Besides, I'm not sure if you can justify assassination for every single enemy that ever pops up on your radar.

At 5/11/06 04:12 PM, hongkongexpress wrote: I watched the movie Munich, featuring the Mossad. That was a pretty cool movie. Like what did the Isreali athliets do? did they shoot at the 8 year old Palistinians, or bulldoze Palistian homes? no, the soldiers did. So the Athiliets were victims.

Well, Israel bombed Palestinian refugee camps in retaliation for the Munich massacre. What did the civilians in the camps do? They were victims, killed by Israelis, because they were Palestinian. The athletes were victims, killed by Palestinians, because they were Israelis.

At 5/10/06 12:05 PM, Guitarmy wrote: There's obviously a huge difference between being expelled and being threatened by a stupid teacher. Money awards are given for Slander in it's own, lossing time trying to explain it away is a viable reason to sue someone, if you can proove it of course.

Of course there is a huge difference between the two cases. After all, it is totally unreasonable to think the principal was overly anal about being openly insulted and decided to strike back at the kid through expulsion. There is no way for a principal to be as stupid as that stupid teacher.

Losing time explaining it away means there was something to actually explain. If nobody believed the page was real, then no explanation would be needed. Since it seems nobody took it seriously, there would be no monetary damages.

At 5/10/06 11:31 AM, Guitarmy wrote:

At 5/10/06 05:22 AM, fli wrote: Slander isn't illegal--
It's not protected speech.

You can be sued if you defame somebody else, but-- slander not "illegal."

Mmm...
Girl should be expelled at most. Have her halt or somebody moniter her online activities.

Unless her actions did actually create some kind of value loss, which the school so far I've read didn't experiance or find else where, they shouldn't sue for money.

The most important thing that we could do is actually read whatever she's written on her teachers. The severity and seriousness should reflect that in the text because... George Bush could sue Will Farrell for a lot of money because of insinuations of alleged dumbness and etcetra...

You're an idiot, people get huge claims in civil cases for slander. Honostly, you look at SNL and you can tell that it's not really Bush. But on the myspace I'm sure she covered it up, and fully intended for everyone to get the wrong idea because someone noticed it and expelled her.

You're an idiot, people get huge claims in civil cases for slander by showing they suffered losses as the result of defamation; which was his point. Generally, "emotional distress" doesn't quite cut it. There doesn't seem to be any real damage done in this situation, so the school wouldn't be able to sue her. Of course, this isn't about suing anyway, this is about expulsion.

You can look at a MySpace profile of a school principal that says something along the lines of "I love touching little kiddies" and know that it probably isn't real. While it may have been less blatant, it could very have easily been as much so. It isn't like teenagers tend to be particularly subtle when making fun of people they don't like (but still, this debate is silly without a page to actually look at).

And "how anal the school got" is not an indicator of how clear it was that the site was libel. There was a problem at my own high school a while back about a girl who openly insulted a teacher on one of those journal sites and the teacher threatened to expel her if she didn't take it down (of course, she took it down). However, what she said was fully protected by law (clear cut, in this case; no question about it).

At 5/10/06 04:47 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 5/10/06 03:23 AM, Lhotun wrote: I've heard worse jokes. Besides, are we going to make jokes illegal arbitrarly based on whether they are tasteful or not?

You're pretty dense. This isn't about a joke being "tasteful".

The site could clearly be a joke and thus probably not libel under US law. You can say the joke is unfunny and tasteless, but that doesn't change that it can still be easily described as parody.
You're pretty dense (OH SNAP! I just told you off! You got served!).

Someone who doesn't like the principal and wants to make fun of them.
I think most people will agree its a stupid thing to do. However, it isn't illegal.

Yea, it is. It's called libel. The deliberate printing of things you know not to be true. And you can be sued over it.

Not really, as already pointed out more than once. I would think you'd have a much better shot if she went on myspace as herself and said that the principal was a pedophile than the current case (where she made a profile of him admitting to be a pedophile).

Either way, its still a pointless assertion to either claim the ACLU was right or wrong without seeing the MySpace profile to begin with.

At 5/9/06 11:09 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Just because you don't agree with the source doesn't make it invalid.

Just because you don't agree with the ruling doesn't make it wrong.

At 5/9/06 10:35 PM, The_Last_Cynic wrote: She's with in her rights. Can't you people come up with something better to attack the ACLU with, I'm sure one of their members has a parking ticket O.O

Within her rights. Bull. You know, cause there's so much similarity between a traffic ticket and impersonating someone to pretend they're a pedophile.

I know, she is so outside of her rights, the ACLU lost the case. Oh wait... no... they won.

At 5/9/06 10:41 PM, mofomojo wrote: The ACLU defend people's rights to joke. If I lose my right to parody and satire, god knows what will happen.

Funny stuff, pretending you're someone else and then hunting for underage "sex prospects". That can end someone's career. Sorry, that's not funny.

I've heard worse jokes. Besides, are we going to make jokes illegal arbitrarly based on whether they are tasteful or not?

This is just an example of what happens when it goes wrong or the joke is bad. Fuck, who wouldn't want to slander their principal for pedophilia?!

Um, number one, slander is illegal for good reason. And two, who in the hell would want to pretend to be their principal online and then pretend to be a pedophile to boot.

Someone who doesn't like the principal and wants to make fun of them.
I think most people will agree its a stupid thing to do. However, it isn't illegal.

At 5/4/06 06:39 PM, DingoTheDog wrote

5) It's based on a tired puritan ideology.

and government testing that links long term use to mental health disorders such as Schizophrenia

I just have to comment on this one, since it is so way off base and nobody has brought up how wrong it is yet. Yes, there is a link between Schizophrenia and pot use. However, there is nothing that shows pot use causes Schizophrenia.
If you knew about this subject, you would know schizophrenics generally self-medicate. They do this with marijuana, even though in reality, it only worsens their condition.

It is also linked to depression. Of course, so are other drugs.

On a side note, THC has been shown to help prevent cancer and shrink already developed tumors.

At 4/24/06 03:07 PM, CorbanX wrote: Here, excerpted from "The Collapse of Evolution" by Dr. Scott M. Huse, is one of the many humorous examples in nature that make evolutionists look silly.

Boring Stuff

But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to be beneficial and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop. But such a process does not make any sense, and to propose that the entire defense system evolved all at once is simply impossible. Yet, nature abounds with countless such examples of perfect coordination. Thus, we can only conclude that the surprising little bombardier beetle is a strong witness for special creation, for there is no other rational explanation for such a wonder.

Another pointless and not very well researched attempt to foil evolution. First it was life, then it was shown how life doesn't necessitate God. Then it was the eye, and once again, it was proven to not need "intelligence".

The bombardier beetle has been shown to have only minor alterations from other, less complex varieties of beetles. Just as the eye didn't start out as it was, this system was far different and simpler originally.

Just because you can't see a simpler version of a complex system does not mean there isn't one.

Irreducible complexity is a fool's argument. If you are going to argue for God, try something with some meat to it.

At 4/24/06 07:17 AM, Einsidler wrote:

At 4/24/06 01:19 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 4/24/06 01:17 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: oh and by the way....you're sick.

You're the one who's sick, trying to strip people of their civil liberties. I'll bet you're against interracial marriage, homosexual couples, apple pie, and baseball as well, too, right?

Why does everything that says that something is wrong have to be about "civil liberties" and "free speech." Anti-incest is all but universal, these concepts are only taken to the point of idocy in America. The world is not America and not every shares the rediculous ideal of "everything should be free, unless Bush doesn't like it" which is what I'm hearing alot of in the thread. As I have said many times, the attitude against Incest is much like that against murder, pedophilia, rape and many other sexual deviancies, should all these other things be legal as well?

I doubt Bush approves of incest, so what does that have to do with anything?

And also; murder, rape, and pedophilia all lack consent. There is no comparison.

And just because something isn't liked, should it be acceptable to discriminate against it; despite the lack of solid reasoning? I mean, the "white man's burden" was a fully acceptable ideology quite a while ago; and we all know how well the following imperialistic campaigns worked out.

There is nothing in your post other than "a lot of people don't like it, so it has to be bad." Of course, if I asked why they didn't like it, I'd probably be told "because it is bad."

At 4/23/06 11:35 PM, jlwelch wrote:

At 4/23/06 11:30 PM, 2good2b4goten wrote: If prostitustion was legal, the prostitutes would need to be sexual disease free and can prove it. Other than that... I honestly dont see what harm it could do

See this is exactly what I am talking about! The issue is not that simple and I would be outraged to see the day prostitution becomes legal. First, here is some reading material:

http://www.lib.msu.e..3/crimjust/human.htm

http://www.guttmache..r/08/1/gr080112.html


Now imagine your daughter or whatever is kidnapped and forced into prostitution somewhere several states away. Would you want that kind of activity to be legalized?!?!?!?!? HELL NO!!!

What does kidnapping have to do with prostitution? After all, I would feel pretty bad if my daughter was kidnapped and forced to work in a factory several states away. Does that mean it should be illegal to work in a factory?

Yeah, I say prostitution should definitely be legal.

At 4/24/06 01:17 AM, HogWashSoup wrote: because incest creates major health problems and deformaties.

Name any major health problems and deformities directly caused by incest.

At 4/23/06 07:23 PM, zeus_almighty wrote:

At 4/23/06 06:36 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: I agree that they're not particularly nice in their beliefs or practices (at least, how they WANT to practice), but how much better are you if you want to beat them for what they believe in?

Much better actually. WHich is more evil doing evil or doing nothing to stop it?

The problem is that you would not only be counterproductive, your action on its own would be evil. Therefore, you would be doing evil, and you would be breeding evil.

We all know how well beating up black people stifled the civil rights movement; teaching those "black folk" their place in society once and for all. Hell, if someone wasn't there to give them a few black eyes, then they might've actually gotten the right to vote.

At 4/23/06 08:41 PM, CorbanX wrote:

At 4/23/06 08:16 PM, fuSEEk wrote: I mean, even Harry Potter books make more sense than the Bible.

Harry Potter Books are written to be understood at a third grade reading level. Are you still in the third grade?

And the King James Version of the Bible is at a fifth grade reading level. Not exactly very high.

Either way, understandability has nothing to do with reading level. Reading level is generally associated with the complexity of the language and words; not the complexity of the actual book or on whether the book even makes sense.

I would contend the Harry Potter books do, in fact, make more sense than the Bible.

Why put all your faith in something when there is no evidence to support it? Utterly pointless....

You could say the same thing about the Evolutionists.

You missed the "when there is no evidence to support it" part.

At 4/23/06 10:33 AM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: "Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygosity, that is, the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair. This occurs because close relatives are much, much more likely to share the same alleles than unrelated individuals." Which means that there's going to be MORE defects...

There are only more defects because of the occurance of negative recessive traits.
If incest was practiced much more commonly, these traits would've been bred out long ago.
Also, who is to say there aren't positive recessive traits that could occur from incestual marriages?

Besides, we don't prevent parents from having kids due to bad genes. Why does this not apply to married couples practicing incest?

At 4/19/06 10:06 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/19/06 08:02 PM, Lhotun wrote: Actually, it makes complete sense.

Yes, that's nice, but it doesn't stop the fact that religion really isn't a "science" to be "proven". It doesn't make it wrong, I really hate it when people assume just because we have science that must mean religion is therefore nullified.

You keep acting like that was ever disputed. In fact, it seems like you were the one that questioned this to begin with.

At 4/19/06 08:08 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 4/19/06 08:02 PM, Lhotun wrote: All data points to unicorns not existing. This isn't because there is evidence for them not existing. There is no magical "Unicorn Detectors" that show us the existance (or lack of) of unicorns. We just simply have no evidence for unicorns. While I can't prove Unicorns do not exist, I can certainly say that "all data points to unicorns not existing."

Actually, in reality, there is no data whatsoever that points to unicorns not existing, there is just a lack of data that points to unicorns existing.

What you're doing right now is called "argument from ignorance," a common logical fallacy. As you may have heard before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Good day sir.

While I agree with this personally (as what you said is true), I was attempting to show the dichotomy between the various levels of proof (or evidence, or lack thereof) people seem to need to believe various statements, albeit very poorly phrased. My mistake.

We consider unicorns to not exist. Of course, it is impossible to prove this. It is impossible to even produce any evidence for this. However, most people would contend that they don't exist. Despite this, using the same evidence (or lack thereof), many take the stance that God could exist.

It is clear that the argument for the nonexistance of unicorns is a fallacious argument (but a commonly accepted one, nonetheless); but why do people not follow the same logic with regards to God?

At 4/19/06 07:37 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/19/06 07:08 PM, Begoner wrote: All data points to God not existing, so it should also be accepted as scientific fact.

At 4/19/06 07:28 PM, Begoner wrote: Obviously you can't disprove God because you cannot prove that something does not exist.

Contradiction much? Maybe that's just me.

Actually, it makes complete sense.

All data points to unicorns not existing. This isn't because there is evidence for them not existing. There is no magical "Unicorn Detectors" that show us the existance (or lack of) of unicorns. We just simply have no evidence for unicorns. While I can't prove Unicorns do not exist, I can certainly say that "all data points to unicorns not existing."