Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Anyone who thinks capitalism is evil is a leftist idiot, and I'm one of the more liberal forum regulars here. The economic systems we've come to know today are not inherently good or evil. They only have advantages and drawbacks. I'd post a lengthy rebuttal to your OP, but Warforger and Ranger2 have beaten me to it.

God knows that capitalism is far from perfect, but it has produced massive amounts of wealth for the world over several centuries and has lifted billions of people out of poverty through international trade and is still doing so right now. I criticize many aspects of our capitalist system all the time but I never forget its numerous benefits and the fact that I enjoy them every minute of every day. We could definitely use some more socialism, and people on the right may disagree, which is fine, but capitalism is still pretty damned good at what it purports to do: create wealth.

Fuck off, lol.

I'm fairly certain that THC can be synthesized, so it's not like we actually need marijuana plants to obtain that high that so many of us have enjoyed in the past.

I'd be pretty sad if what you described happened, though.

WHAT FUNNY JOKES ARE NOT MADE OF

THE OP

At 12/23/13 04:14 AM, Powerage wrote:

At 12/23/13 03:41 AM, Light wrote:

Only several years ago, about 5 or so states sanctioned same-sex marriage. The number has frankly exploded in the past few years now, and the time graphs show that.

the progress made has indeed been amazing.

right now, there's been a push from the anti-gay types in my home state of Indiana for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, as they feel that our current law against it isn't enough. you would think that in a state as conservative as Indiana that it's passage is a foregone conclusion, but apparently, it isn't. the fact that something like this isn't guaranteed to pass in Indiana says a lot about the state of gay rights right now. if the anti-gays fail here in Indiana, then they should really consider throwing in the towel.

Interesting article.

You'd think conservatives in Indiana would've learned what many other conservatives have learned—fighting the progress of gay rights is futile. It will happen in Indiana, one way or another. I suspect their efforts will fail there, too.

At 12/23/13 03:29 AM, Shauna wrote:

At 12/23/13 03:20 AM, Natick wrote:

At 12/23/13 03:16 AM, Shauna wrote: We won't even allow gay folk to get married.

17 states allow it actually

I'm not exactly up to date on the latest then. 18 out of 50 fucking states is still horrible. Only how fucking long did this take? Like really.

To be fair Shauna, the progress experienced by gay rights advocates in the U.S. is nothing short of astonishing. Merely ten years ago, the Republican Party could reliably proclaim their proud bigotry against homosexuals and win elections to all kinds of offices, even the presidential one. Nowadays, people give most politicians a strange look if they denigrate homosexuals. Hell, it would have been inconceivable even to most progressive people 20 years ago that a majority of Americans would support same-sex marriage today, which only started to gain traction after 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize it.

Only several years ago, about 5 or so states sanctioned same-sex marriage. The number has frankly exploded in the past few years now, and the time graphs show that.

That doesn't make us Better.

I would say it does.

Everything is in the eye of the beholder. No body has the right to say they are better than others.

Freedom of speech says that we have such a right, as well as the basic ability to reason about right and wrong.

I don't understand why people are making a big deal out of nothing.

This is not "nothing" and you know it. Don't lie to us.

There are worse things than this going on right now.

"We know that if one man's rights are denied, the rights of all others are endangered"— Robert F. Kennedy

And besides, just because "worse things" are going on, it doesn't mean that this isn't a problem. That's fallacious reasoning.

Sad, really.

But as others have mentioned, this can mostly be attributed to several factors:

1. Widespread prevalence of HIV in Uganda

2. The perception that eradicating gay people or otherwise punishing them will mitigate the aforementioned HIV crisis there

3. Lack of education

4. Minority status of homosexuals in every society

5. Demagoguery on the part of leaders that probably serves to distract the typical Ugandan from the real problems, such as inadequate medical care, food, water, and the other necessities of life

With all of these extant factors, it's really no surprise that Uganda and other 3rd world countries in similar circumstances discriminate against homosexuals or any other minority group so severely.

At 12/23/13 03:18 AM, notYert wrote:

At 12/23/13 03:15 AM, Light wrote: Man, this is pretty gay.

Can I join in??

obv

better prep that cock, yert

and that ass

Man, this is pretty gay.

Can I join in??

At 12/23/13 03:08 AM, Natick wrote: i've never been to either of these two places

i don't drink and i hate driving so most of the questions i didn't provide answers to

lol wrong thread man.

I think you meant to post that here.

This quiz very accurately predicted that I'm from Southern California. Specifically, I talk like people from Long Beach, Glendale, or Los Angeles, CA.

I'm from Los Angeles, by the way. Link to my quiz results.

At 12/21/13 04:22 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all."

This may be true to a degree for many people, but many others, myself included, aren't emotionally bound to our views(So far as we can tell, anyway). Furthermore, people's worldviews change all of the time. To be sure, mine have changed significantly over the past several years. I don't agree with this claim that our worldviews are mostly static.

I found this to be profound. We cannot "think" our way through all of life's circumstances. We do not have the time or the energy to do so (yes, thinking can be exhaustive)

This much is probably true.

Most of our actions, feelings on matters etc. are the result of our feelings. We are emotional beings. And these emotions are determined by worldviews which are, most often, developed when young, or, less often, by events.

I don't know if this is true. Events shape our perspectives, sure, but feelings? I don't know.

So back to the topic title. Why do you believe the things you believe? Did you come to a conclusion on each matter individually using contemplation, prolonged thought and reasoning?

On pretty much all major issues, I(And I'd like to think that this goes for most other people as well) reasoned and contemplated and decided to believe the things that I believe.

Or do you use your feelings to determine the best course in a subject?

I almost never use my feelings to do this. That's illogical.

Yes, but probably with a time of 9:30 minutes or so now. Years ago, when I was on my high school's track team, I was able to run a mile with a time of 6:10 or 6:15.

I'm no expert in medicine, but if I had to guess the cause of this tragedy, I'd say that one or more of the surgeons failed to properly sterilize their surgical equipment and inadvertently introduced deadly pathogens into the girl's body. It's deeply saddening to hear about this tragedy. It seems a malpractice lawsuit would be warranted here.

At 12/17/13 06:59 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 12/17/13 06:52 PM, Light wrote:

At 12/17/13 06:33 PM, AxTekk wrote:
Yeah. He's a smart guy though, the stuff he wrote on linguistics is straight ridiculous.

There's a possibility that I will take philosophy of language classes in the future(I'm a philosophy major), so if I decide to do that, I definitely will look forward to reading his work.

Damn man. It's hard to believe anyone after Wittgenstein could really write stuff of worth in that field, but I found him really insightful and eloquent. But yeah lol kinda off-topic

David Kaplan is a world-renowned philosopher of language at UCLA. He teaches the philosophy of language classes at that school that I hope to transfer to soon. His work is probably worth reading since he's so famous in the world of philosophy, lol.

At 12/17/13 06:33 PM, AxTekk wrote:
Yeah. He's a smart guy though, the stuff he wrote on linguistics is straight ridiculous.

There's a possibility that I will take philosophy of language classes in the future(I'm a philosophy major), so if I decide to do that, I definitely will look forward to reading his work.

At 12/17/13 02:18 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 12/17/13 01:29 AM, Light wrote: This is very true. Noam Chomsky, the famous public intellectual, is said by zionists to be anti-semitic just because he thinks Israeli foreign policy is just as deplorable or worse than that of the U.S.

There's a whole section on the allegations of anti-semitism on his Wikipedia article. They're baseless as far as I can tell.

To be fair, Noam Chomsky did kind of back up that holocaust denier, saying how the "holocaust question" had never been fully answered. He backed the fuck up on it later, but holocaust denial is a pretty big deal for most Jews I've met.

Ah, didn't know about that. But I still stand by my claim that the term "anti-semitic" is thrown around a little too freely, though.

Funny they should call him anti Semitic though, I mean, Chomsky is kinda a bit Jewish for that label. Guy just loves being non conformist a little more than is intellectually healthy imho.

I must admit that sometimes it seems he's being a nonconformist for the sake of it.

At 12/16/13 06:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/16/13 05:53 PM, orangebomb wrote: Protip: it doesn't make you a racist to dislike another country. I don't know where you get that from.

If you talk to the very pro-Israel types, especially if they're from Israel, they will often equate dislike of Israel with hating Jews.

You can say "Israel as a nation has poor international policies" and you'll get a response stating "Don't be anti-semitic."

This is very true. Noam Chomsky, the famous public intellectual, is said by zionists to be anti-semitic just because he thinks Israeli foreign policy is just as deplorable or worse than that of the U.S.

There's a whole section on the allegations of anti-semitism on his Wikipedia article. They're baseless as far as I can tell.

At 12/15/13 05:46 PM, Joelle wrote:
The best user doesnt need to ask to be nominated.

Do you see any question marks in my last post?

I'm not asking. I'm telling.

Nah, but in all seriousness, I'd be surprised if anyone nominated me for anything this year since I'm barely active on the general forum. I've now moved to the politics forum.

Oh, and I hope your mom gets better soon.

Your reaction isn't abnormal. In your situation, I wouldn't feel bothered by it much, either. It'd be something to think about, sure. But to think of it as something to worry about or anything like that? Not at all.

Everyone nominate me for best user.

Some of you have seen my better posts on this forum in past years.

You know you want me to receive this honor, because I deserve it.

Or nominate Sekhem. His posts are hilarious and interesting.

Can't go wrong with either of us, really.

2 spooky 4 me bro

At 12/12/13 06:38 PM, Stereocrisis wrote:
They work for an elite group. They have been groomed all their lives to be president. We are given the illusion of choice. How would the general public really know if their vote counted? Presidents are secretly elected years before actually taking office. Every American must know this.

Please refrain from citing BS conspiracy theories as facts in my thread about surprising facts. Thank you and have a nice day.

At 12/12/13 01:11 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

Don't worry Secret Service you precious man child is safe.

So you just called the President of the United States of America a "man child."

Is there no limit to the childish shit you say, Tony? I mean, Jesus Christ come on.

Anyway, I'm surprised that no one performed a background check on that guy.

At 12/11/13 07:51 PM, Memorize wrote:

Think carefully, and take your own advice... dumbass.

After you.

At 12/11/13 07:24 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/10/13 10:07 PM, Light wrote:

As a liberal/progressive, I do find the fact that conservatives have lower IQs entertaining, but I don't use that as evidence that progressives are generally smarter than conservatives.

"Look mom! I can say it without really saying it!"

I just said in that post that I don't think IQ tests don't measure all or most aspects of a person's intelligence. Learn to read.

At 12/11/13 12:55 AM, Entice wrote: I think they'd be better off focusing on single issues rather than trying to sell a men's rights movement that will likely never be taken seriously.

I agree. Although there are serious issues that affect men that should be rectified as soon as possible, the terms "men's rights movement", "men's rights activists", and so on are pretty comical, to say the least.

Actually that's what feminists should do as well.

I think it might help curb the "us vs. them" mentality on both sides, then maybe there could be some actual solutions to these issues.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that's what feminists should do. The term they've adopted to describe themselves and their cause reflects their beliefs and their political/moral philosophy rather neatly. I think they and their movement would benefit much more if they actively denounced stereotypical feminists who claim that men are the source of all evil, that men are pigs, women are smarter, and who generally express hostile attitudes towards all men.

I had a very positive experience with a self-described feminist, once. She wasn't stereotypical at all and we had a pretty interesting discussion on feminism. She talked about the discussions she had with her fellow students and professor in her women's studies class. She also mentioned her concern that young men were not enrolling in college at the same rate as women(The overwhelming majority of colleges and universities in the U.S. have student populations in which the majority is female, sometimes as high as 60~65%).

Interesting facts that you guys have listed. Keep them coming!

Hey Newgrounds.

I was wondering if any of you have any facts to present to me and others that would both enlighten us and, frankly, surprise/unsettle us. I'm sure most of you can contribute weird facts that are almost inconceivable.

I'll start first, of course. Fred Phelps, the pastor of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church is widely known around the world for his toxic bigotry against homosexuals. He's probably the most hated man in America. He and his family are banned from entering the United Kingdom. He's just that hated.

But did you know that he was a former civil rights lawyer who aggressively fought for numerous African-American clients in the Kansas and federal court system? Yep, it's true.

"We took on the Jim Crow establishment, and Kansas did not take that sitting down. They used to shoot our car windows out, screaming we were n*gger lovers." In the '70s and '80s, the Phelps law firm made up one-third of the state's federal docket of civil-rights cases, according to Phelps-Roper. They represented minority Kansans in separate actions against Kansas Power & Light, the Topeka city attorney's office, and Southwestern Bell, and they represented female professors who were alleging discrimination at two Kansas universities." Source.

You'd think some crazy bigot who thinks homosexuals should be put to death(He's actually said that) would also probably hate other groups of people, certain races of people. We all know racists are ignorant people and those who are extremely homophobic tend to be ignorant, and that there's a lot of overlap between those two groups. So it's hard to imagine that Fred Phelps would be A-OK with desegregation and interracial marriage but not with gay marriage or even the most basic gay rights, such as the right to respect.

So again, what crazy facts do you guys know?

At 12/10/13 09:36 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 12/9/13 11:05 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Intelligence, and the lack thereof, exists in equal measure across all political lines.

A strange thing to say since most Progressives are eager to point out that self identified liberals have higher IQs than Self identified conservatives, at least as far as 'social issues' [so called] are involved.

That is, after they make it clear that IQ scores don't measure anything, social construct, flynn effect, yadda yadda yadda.

As a liberal/progressive, I do find the fact that conservatives have lower IQs entertaining, but I don't use that as evidence that progressives are generally smarter than conservatives. In fact, I don't make the argument that progressives are smarter than conservatives at all. Not that there's no shortage of conservatives who are as dumb as rocks. ;)

IQ scores, in my opinion, don't measure all aspects of intelligence. I would therefore never conclude that a person with an IQ of 160 is smarter than me because his/her IQ is almost certainly higher than mine(I don't actually know my IQ). I and others would determine if he/she is smarter based on less tangible qualities, such as good decision-making skills, competence in making good arguments to support one's views, and possibly open-mindedness as well as a whole slew of certain other qualities. IQ tests don't really measure these qualities, but those who do have higher IQs tend to have these qualities.