Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/22/06 05:16 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: there is a much better case for owning a .50 rifle than there is for owning a hand gun, or automatic weapon. they are used for sport and hunting and are rarely used in robberies, drive bys or any other gang related violence, unlike hand guns and automatics

Thats untrue. Unless you enjoy blowing a hole the size of a basketball in the deer and sending it flying about 50 feet. 50. cal's, although rarely used in robberies, are meant for use in a war zone, against APC's and such. This is a gun meant for piercing the armor of a bradley fighting vehicle, not for shooting some deers.

Censorship is a growing force in our society. If is subversive to our way of life, or, as in this case, people are just massive idiots and don't see what an amazing piece of art the book is, books will get banned. And MoralLibertarian, private schools won't prevent censorship. On the whole, private and parochial schools are more conservitive than the public school curruculum (with many major exceptions, of course, but I'm talking about on the whole.) So if parents don't want censorship, they will send their kids to the non-censoring schools. Supply and demand will kick in, and the prices of the non-censoring schools will skyrocket, while the censoring schools will go out of buisiness. Then there won't be any non-censoring schools that the vouchers will cover, and not even any conservative schools left. By far the easier sollution to that problem than turning the schools into a free maket economy is parents just joining the schoolboard and helping determine the curriculum, what books are read, etc.

At 1/22/06 09:25 PM, fenrus1989 wrote:
I love New England.

hippie.

so that I can shoot through thick plated steel armor and show my phallic potence.

At 1/20/06 08:23 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/19/06 10:13 PM, Quanze13 wrote: Well, thats modern economics for ya -- import goods on the cheap, sell them at home for a fantastic markup. And if some some children end up living and dying in dangerous sweatshops sowing my Nike Dunk Low iD's, not like anybody cares.

That's classical economics.

oops, sorry
>_>
<_<

1) Is child labor absolutely, without a doubt, 100% wrong, or is it relative to the country's economic development? Remember that all of the great economic powers today have employed children at one time.

As Redskunk said, all current major industrailized nations have waged wars of conquest.

Skunk didn't say that. He said "burning witches and polluting environment."

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not making the point that child labor was necessary to the development to a countries economic development. I am arguing that it might be a natural development for countries socially. Child labor isn't a natural wrong like murder or thievery: it's societal evolution.

murder and theivery are social evolutions too. Killing somebody in a duel used not to be frowned upon -- many of our greatest presidents were esteemed duelists, Andrew Jackson killed at least 18 men in single combat (and thats a conservative estimate). So saying that child labor is a social evolution is meaningless.

At 1/18/06 01:27 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Most of us Americans reject child labor, at least the kind that takes place in the United States. We've come to the conclusion that it is morally wrong, but we don't mind it as long as it takes place in other countries and it keeps prices low.

Well, thats modern economics for ya -- import goods on the cheap, sell them at home for a fantastic markup. And if some some children end up living and dying in dangerous sweatshops sowing my Nike Dunk Low iD's, not like anybody cares.

A couple questions for discussion:

1) Is child labor absolutely, without a doubt, 100% wrong, or is it relative to the country's economic development? Remember that all of the great economic powers today have employed children at one time.

As Redskunk said, all current major industrailized nations have waged wars of conquest. All major industrailized nations have had colonies. All major industrailized nations have had slavery. All major industrialized nations have committed genocide. Just because countries that have done these things are sucessful doesn't make them tolerable. Might certailny does not make right.

2) Would the development of a country be faster with or without child labor? For example, if children had access to a decent education system, how would that affect growth in the short and long term?

Well, in the short term, foreign companies get your labor for cheap and invest the profits outside your country. In the long term, you end up with stunted and badly educated adults. Neither in the long nor short term does child labor help the economies of modern developing countries. (this of course was not the case in industrail era america and britain, since investment capitol was coming from within their respective nations and being reinvested into those nations' economies. In the current day however, that is not the case)

3) How did the US and other western nations come to the conclusion that child labor was wrong? Today it just seems like common sense, but is there any Divine Laws against it?

The fight against child labor started in Great Britain, where industrial sweatshop child labor began. A series of reports detailing the horrible conditions that child laborers faced were published, eventually leading to the practices' outlawing in that country. Similar reports as well as journalism pieces and books such as The Jungle swung american oppinion against child labor, and it was outlawed here two in the early 20th century.

Ahhh, reminds me of my good old days as a follwer. Back when we all had those gay man love sigs, and when we all changed our names to something_skvnk.

At 1/19/06 09:14 PM, 1WingedDragon wrote:

At 1/19/06 09:04 PM, metalhead676 wrote:

At 1/19/06 07:37 PM, 1WingedDragon wrote:

At 1/19/06 05:56 PM, mackid wrote: It seems to me that you're ignoring the fiscal aspects of the issue.

After the defendent has been found quilty in a case of second and first degree murder just take them to the back of the court house and unload a few caps in his ass. None of this bullshit that liberals want, giving the guilty one with 8-25 years on deathrow with countless opportunities to appeal. That's just a waste of money.

Problem is, fucking idiot, that a lot of people are wrongfully convicted sometimes, all you need is a good lawyer (like the state) to win, and a bad lawyer (the defendant) to lose.

Incase you didn't notice, I was being facetious in my first setence.

First of all, that was not the point of my statement, you stupid piece of shit. My point was the liberal pussies insist that these prisoners who've already been found guilty two, three times say they should have more appeals and have a longer time on deathrow (even though it is extremely costly) instead of simply adhering to a two year waiting period before execution, which is sufficient enough to for someone to organize a rebuttal.
You should consider hooked-on-phonics before you post again, dumbass.

However, the point is, many 'convicts' on death row are acquitted 10-12 years after their initial conviction because of new evidence that comes to light. It has been shown that aprox. 1 in every 50 prisoners sentenced to death is an innocent man. The question is, how many innocent men are you willing to kill in order to save some time and money in our criminal justice system?

Judeasm. Oops, I'm already a jew!

http://feeds.feedbur..ters/topNews?m=13770

Even the Pope says that Inteligent Design is bullshit. I don't really see how anybody could possibly pitch it as a valid theory anymore.

At 1/18/06 11:51 PM, -Michael- wrote:

At 1/18/06 11:47 PM, red_skunk wrote: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB

*CREEPY*

damn right. but i'm still keeping the picture.

Two words gentlemen: Henry Kissinger.

Ach, you just reminded me. I hit 1337 posts the other day and forgot to photograph it/ Damn.

I would say that we are moving towards nineteeneightyfour. With the wiretaps, loss of civil liberties 'all must bow down before the industrailists,' the perpetual war, etc etc etc. BNW would be nice, but just won't happen.

At 1/18/06 10:12 PM, BeFell wrote: Does my receding hairline balanced out with badass sideburns make me cool?

wonder twin powers, activate! Form of, sideburns! Form of, receding hairline!

well, considering that we just used our laser guided rocket technology to vaporise a house where Osama's second in command, Zarcaqui was not eating dinner, or even in the vicinity of, no, we don't know where osama is, or else we woudl be destroying places where he isn't.

recently, I have been seeing the number of star syndicate flashes in the portal pick up by alot. And despite the fact that most of them are shit, by and large they are voted through. Why do people stand for this crap? Is there something i'm missing?

At 1/17/06 09:14 PM, Nighthawk24us2002 wrote:

At 1/17/06 09:01 PM, Quanze13 wrote:
considering that this topic has become kind of a neo-nazi convention, maybe a mod should close it.

The neo-nazi's remarks were deleted. He's probably going to talk to his buddies about how newgrounds is oppressing the aryan race.

oh, sorry. didn't see that. i left my computer for about an hour inbetween writing that and posting it, so it was probably deleated in the meantime. my fault.

At 1/17/06 09:16 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 1/17/06 08:24 PM, fli wrote: What's with commercials and Iggy Pop's Lust for Life song?
I love that song (ever since Trainspotting, and all...)
But it seems every other travel or cruise commerical plays that song. What is more, that song is starting to leak into other commercials. I heard it on an ad for carpets...

I hear you.

ever see the onion article 'song about heroin used in commercial for bank'? Exept it was true.

The Forum Rules Say:

There are two huge rules that you simply must follow. Breaking these rules is an automatic suspension. No warning, no nothing. You will most likely get the maximum suspension, too (currently 30 days) for breaking these simple rules.

b) No hateful or racist remarks. You may have noticed that the "n-word" is not allowed on the BBS. There is a reason for this. Using trickery or any other shenanigans to get around this is bannable. Over-use of the word gay or any other homosexual put down is also prohibited.

considering that this topic has become kind of a neo-nazi convention, maybe a mod should close it.

At 1/17/06 03:51 PM, psychedelicjesus wrote: Samuel Alito will probaly make it in to the supreme court. personal i think he is a nazi that will help bush take are rights away. i liked to see what conseratives think of him.

well, they like him in part because you did more in that post for the democrat cause than ted kennedy and all of the democrats on the judiciary committe combined.

The Iraq has been quite bad for army procurement PR. Remember that little incident when the soldier asked Rumsfeld why soldiers were getting unarmored humvees when Rumsfeld was on his goodwill tour to the troops? The last thing that the military needs is it getting out that the armor that we, the nation with by far the largest military budget in the world, are proiding with our troops with body armor that is inferior to commercially available body armor. Hmm, throwing lives away for PR, doesn't seem too out of place for this government.

At 1/16/06 09:33 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/16/06 09:16 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 1/16/06 09:09 PM, stafffighter wrote: And what exactly is this game? Is it better than final fantasy 8?

Grim Fandango is a good game.

That's equitable with telling me a song has sounds in it. I was looking for particulars, a genre perhaps

Its in the genere of classic lucasarts adventure game, one of the best of its kind. If you can pick it up and play it, do, because its amazing.

At 1/16/06 09:54 AM, mackid wrote: Yeah, but why should I have to be 17 to see an R movie? It's not, in actuality, that terrible.

ahhh, now the true meaning of this thread comes to light -- angry minor shut out of his favorite r films.

At 1/16/06 08:40 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 1/16/06 08:10 PM, Empanado wrote:

At 1/16/06 06:17 PM, Elfer wrote: You just have no skills, sir.

I don't have skills, I have skillz.
It's just that nobody seems to know how to make the crack file for that game. And/or a patch for certain bug that makes the game crash on certain computers.

What game?

grim fandango

arg, fuck these finals

At 1/16/06 03:54 PM, Tengutrickster wrote:

At 1/16/06 03:30 PM, Quanze13 wrote: There would be hatred towards Jews wherever they are, weather its Cossacks burning shtettles or palistinians blowing up busses and marketplaces, non-jews in many cases hate and fear jews, and will thus always attempt to kill jews. Israel has given us a state were we are the rulers, rather than being subjects in Gentile or Muslim nations.

Again this whinning that what i hate from jews, always the crying that they always suffered more than the others, and that there always hated, sorry to burst your bubble but many, MANY, people suffered in history and they werent all jewish.

Chirstians, were also persecuted does anyone care no, why? because they were not exterminated, like the jews in WW2.

WW2 now that the turning point of Zionism, and ever since then, jew became a somewhat untouchable, because dont dare say something against them, because your gonna be labeled as a Nazi, that as only the jewish extermination in mind.

You know, its anti-semite shitbags like you who make things like the holocaust possible. Because its just so easy for stupid people to be intolerant and biggoted against minority groups. Come back when you have something inteligent to say, other than this empty-headed jew bashing.

At 1/14/06 01:23 AM, shi_huangdi wrote: first off i'd like to start by saying that i know there are other topics regarding zionism, this is different

i would like to ask in your opinion what has the zionism movement and creation of Isreal done for Jews. personally i think the zionist movement and foundation of Israel did very little to benefit the Jewish people. i believe all it has managed to do is create more tension and hate towards them mainly from Palestinians and other middle-eastern countries. of course i am not saying that Israel must go, it has been established since 1948 and has the right to exist but since then it has become a major target of hate which spills over onto the Jewish people world-wide because of few.

There would be hatred towards Jews wherever they are, weather its Cossacks burning shtettles or palistinians blowing up busses and marketplaces, non-jews in many cases hate and fear jews, and will thus always attempt to kill jews. Israel has given us a state were we are the rulers, rather than being subjects in Gentile or Muslim nations.

before Israel was created Jews were allowed to live in Palestine and from what i know there were no clashes as there are now. I am just wondering if it was really worth it to recreate a country that had disapeared over a thousand years ago and make a home for a fraction of the world's Jews? once again i would like to state that i have nothing against Jews and that this is meant to be an intelligent conversation about the topic

Jews were allowed to live i Palestine before Israel was founded because it was a British colony. You can bet your ass that if there hadn't been 50 thousand british soldiers chillin' in Palestine before 1948, there would have been a whole lot fewer jews. In fact, as soon as Israel was formed, the Jews had to fight the palestinians almost as soon as they stepped off the boats from Europe. It was worth it. The Jews need to have Israel, just like the muslims need Mecca and the Christains Rome. Its just how it is.

We need a benevolent dictator. But our having of a benevolent dictator relies on an uncorruptable and impartial genius who loves his country. And since that kind of person is purely theoretical we can't have a benevolent dictator. Thus we must rely on republic.

The veto is representation that the military might of even one of the security council nations is more than enough to desroy all the shitty two bit nations in the rest of the UN