Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I have only read bits of this thread, so don't bite my head off if this has already been said.

I'm 18 and I live in Australia where the legal drinking age is 18.

I enjoy the occasional drink with mates, and I like to think I'm fairly responsible about it.

The problem is that not everybody is responsible. It's all well and good to have a law in place, but it doesn't change an attitude or a culture, unless it's backed up by better monitoring by law enforcement and harsher punishment. Even then, all you really do is push the shit underground.

From my experience, my peers were largely unaffected by the legal drinking age here. They were more affected by the culture, their family and friends. The culture of drinking in Australia at least, is more prescriptive and influential than law. In this way, the issue cannot be solved by any change to the law. Therefore, I can't see the point of the US lowering their legal drinking age.

If you want to fix the problem, understand it first. The law can't fix everything. A different solution is required for this problem. I wouldn't know the first thing about changing a culture, but I do know that law has a minimal effect when it comes down to it.

At 5/20/06 12:10 AM, hongkongexpress wrote: (For one real Christians, are loyal to America, the WBC are proven sypmathisers of Saddam and Iraq, they are traitors to America

Real christians, eg, the Pope, are not inherently "LOYAL" to any particular political assemblies. Individual christians may want to be loyal to the US, but thats not to say that some dont disagree with the countries, and the presidents actions over the past few years.

They're just a bunch of crazy mother fuckers that sully Christianity, with their psycosis.

Yes your right. Some people are just crazy. These people should not be considered christians

At 5/21/06 01:01 AM, JaromirM wrote:
yea, it is due to human error...the ozone hole may be closing, but temperatures are inconsistent still...maybe they wont melt, but we have caused many environmental problems with the waste and filth of humanity

GLOBAL WARMING
Global warming is a natural process. We didnt do it. It wasnt something that we just decided was a good idea. The ice ages, are natural proccesses to. So when people start complaining about global cooling, I know what to say.

Waste and filth of humanity. We manipulate our environment. A tad more extreme than a beaver would do to create a home. Nonetheless, we have the capability of making ourselves at home in this planet. Why take that right away from us. The world may not be "OURS," but i do believe that we should be able to utilize it, to further ourselves as a race, and to help search for that scientific enlightenment that everybody seems so keen on.

thanks

At 5/20/06 05:45 PM, blanblan wrote: There's a description for that. And it comes conveniently in one word: dead. It will be like a desert, all over the world. No plants, no water, nothing. Maybe some domes scientists have built to help with human survival, but overall, the world will be dead. Why, you ask? Some of you may already know the answer, but if you don't, please continue to read on. Due to the heavy amounts of pollution causing the thinning of the O-zone layer, eventually destroying it completely, the sun's blazing hot rays will be able to successfully burn and dry up all of the Earth's plants and evaporate the water. To make it worse, the sun is gradually expanding in the space, eventually becoming a red giant, making it much closer to the Earth and therefore dramatically increasing the temperature on our planet. If we don't want this happening so soon, we must stop polluting and/or invent non-pollutive items, such as electric powered cars. We could resort to walking, or riding our bikes, or something similar to that. Not only will this help the earth, but it will help our health as well. If we walk, ride our bikes, or skate more often to get to places, we will become more fit and it will probably decrease the number of overweight people in America, not to mention the world.

LOL.

ONE MILLION YEARS
not enough time for the sun to become a red giant.

Apart from that, we are smart. Humans ARE like cockroachs, we will never be extinct. We will eventually be able to create out own resources, without an abundance on the world. We may even be able to genetically manifest the rainforests and oceans we will probably destroy.

The environment is smart too. smarter than us aparently. When we burn fossil fuels, and the ozone is depleted, more major storms occur, storms that do yield the required energy to create ozone.

I am not in favour of destroying our world. Im just saying, IF we do end up messing it up, Its not the end of the human race.

At 5/21/06 01:36 AM, Cajunspirit wrote:

Atleast my concept doesn't involve pleasing myself at any expense and giving in to animal like cravings.

Wrong, look at your Signature. Hypocite.

I laugh at you

Lighten up dude.

Firstly, the world isnt as terrible as you might imagine. Im talking about the people. There are millions of aid voluteerers every year, going to third world countries, and helping people. People help each other within their own countries.

As for the issue of sexuality, its not always a choice. People are aroused by different things. You however are living in the early forties. Things change.

People are respected, mainly for the shock that they inflict upon others. Roald Dahl was heterosexual, he was respected and admired. HE shocked people. Thats the point.

If you want people to pay attention to you, you have to blow them out of the water. sixty years ago, long hair may have been considered controversial, IS IT WRONG??????

If you must have a go at people, if you must have a go at EVERYBODY, dont be such a ?!$%ing EMO.

thankyou

lol, you got served.

Iran doesn't have any nukes, youre right.

Yawn

Seriously peoples. The Davinci Code was a pretty good novel. NOVEL. it was fiction, and dan brown has repeated this in various press conferences and interveiws. The fact that he names FACTS at the start of his book, does not mean that the rest of his book is true. As with all religous things, this is a matter of faith. It doesnt matter what you say, people will believe this book as truth, and others will condemn it as the work of Lucifer. Such is life.

The blood thing. The book suggests that Davinci was the decendent (blood) of Jesus. But this is fiction, and as such, it cannot be proven. As such, it must be accepted as artistic material, not as fact.

thats the lot

I remeber the Party Party Party, Party. They wouldn't have had a problem with badges. badges are in right now. i think war is a bit extreme in this situation. So Iran is standing up to the US. Get over it.

Anyways, this badge thing is most probably made up by the media to degrade and put down the Iranian Government.

Thats all I have to say

At 4/19/06 08:40 PM, Lhotun wrote:

but why do people not follow the same logic with regards to God?

Because God matters to people, whereas unicorns do not.

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."

Thats no basis for saying that they don't. Its a good basis for saying that they don't affect us so they don't matter.

You can't say that somthing wont happen because its not likely. its like a twenty sided dice. to say that the dice wont land on twenty is just as valid as saying the dice wont land on one. If you repeat this with all numbers you come out saying that it is unlikely that the dice will land on any number. This is stupid, and it's not a valid arguement.

Its the same with the unicorns. To say that its not likely that they exist is not to say that they don't exist. If it is unlikely in your eyes that they do not exist, then so be it. Thats no reason for telling everybody that unicorns certainly don't exist, because you can't know that.

Just because something is unlikely, doesn't mean that its impossible. The same applies to God. If you think its unlikely that god exists, then so be it, you can't prove it, so stop trying to. God is a great deal more complicated than unicorns tho. God, by definition, is supposed to be impossible to us, because God is a supernatural entity. God is beyond our understanding. by mere definition god cannot be disproved, or proved. This is the way God wants it to be.

At 4/19/06 07:38 PM, Begoner wrote:

Occam's razor HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVING ANYTHING.

God is a theory that should not be scientifically accepted according to Occam's Razor.

Ha, good work. I didn't even have to try. You proved yourself wrong.\

God is a theory that should not be accepted. Non existence of God is a theory that should not be accepted.

WHAT is more likely. the answer is neither. you cannot use science to disprove religion. BECAUSE: science cannot say what is more likely than god. to remove god, a scientist would require another cause. Such a cause does not exist. To remove god, one must create another god. Tis the nature of religion and science.

At 4/19/06 07:28 PM, Begoner wrote:

:: Obviously you can't disprove God because you cannot prove that something does not exist. If God doesn't exist, there is not proof of its existence or non-existence, so nothing relating to it can be proven. However, it is accepted scientific fact that God does not exist because Occam's Razor tells scientists that there is a much simpler and more acceptable explanation for everything. From a scientific perspective, God does not exist. That doesn't mean there's proof God doesn't exist, but in science, lack of proof will invalidate any theory.

Occam's razor HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVING ANYTHING. Occam's razor is a way of estimating, or presuming the outcome. I SAY AGAIN, YOU CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING WITH OCCAM'S RAZOR. Occam's razor says that the simplest answer is ALMOST always the correct one.

You must ask yourself: What is simpler
\
The universe magically spawned itself into existence with not outside actions
OR
There was an outside action that started it all, ie god.

Occam's razor would say that there is a good chance of outside forces. Its not definate of anything.

At 4/19/06 07:08 PM, Begoner wrote:

You cannot scientifically prove anything. You cannot scientifically prove the law of gravity. However, all the data points to gravity being correct, so it is widely accepted as fact. All data points to God not existing, so it should also be accepted as scientific fact.

Dude, a great deal of scientists believe in God. You can have science and religion. they don't interact with each other. they don't cancel each other out. Science is trying to prove what causes things to happen, while religion searches for the reasons why things happen. tho they may appear very similar, they are quite distinct in their approach. Its like saying this.

Science: the big bang is how the universe began.
Religion: God creates the unvierse, god MADE the big bang.

Relgion does not refute the science, and the science does not refute the religion.

All evidence simply cannot point to a non existence, thats not the way science works. Science doesn't disprove things without presenting evidence of another cause. It simply cannot disprove God, and therefore does not even begin to try.

I dont think you really understand Science or Religion.

At 4/19/06 06:56 PM, MarkyX wrote:

Yes, that's how you get rid of occupying forces...by killing doctors.

I don't call them soldiers, I call them trigger happy immigrants

I would like to think that most soldiers do the right thing. There are some complete jackasses of course. Sometimes i get the feeling that some soldier either should be given more training or not be in the army at all.

What interests are we persuing by staying in Iraq? peace? forced democracy?

Alternative fuels are plentiful. I've seen a prototype car that is run on compressed air. that would probably be cheaper than petrol. In saying that, people don't like change, even if a change could be a good thing.

The governments of the world are making too much money off the sale of petrol. do you think they are going to stop because it gets more expensive. hell no, they charge more tax on it. Its about money, and as soon as everybody realises they are being screwed by the government and the car manufacturers, they might come around. they might agree that alternative fuels are beneficial. And they might actually do something about it and go to a manufacturer that uses alternative fuels, even if it would be hard to find.

God by definition is omniscient and omnipotent and all those other omni words. Therefore, god is omni-gender, both genders

At 4/18/06 08:52 PM, vulcanus_1313 wrote:

The world will be a true Utopia, and everyone will remember the great leaders who died for them.

Very vivid imagination. You should make a flash cartoon about it. I missed the part where the world ends. could you point it out for me?

At 4/19/06 01:23 AM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

How does something humanistic sound?

It sounds alright, why?

The only real faith worth having is one that SEARCHES for reason. One that searches for answers, instead of just supposing answers that sound plausible.

Therefore, both atheism and agnosticism are poor choices. They are just like the rest of organised religion. They just choose something that sounds good and run with it, instead of really searching for a reason or meaning of life.

You can say that you have searched and atheism is the best you have found. The real truth is that no faith on Earth is the best, because Earth is flawed. I believe in a faith that searches instead of assuming a great deal of things. Even if you never find anything, it would be better than living a false worship.

Everything in Chirstianity is taken from pagan practices and rituals. The Romans wanted people to accept the Christian religion, so they adapted the religion to include the pagan ones at the time.

Where do you think the altar in the church come from, if not the sacrifical altars of ancient pagan worship.

At 4/18/06 02:26 AM, Steel_Swilla wrote: I think war is ok, if the goal is self-preservation.

Define Self preservation. When does a nation's "self preservation" become the preservation of more than one's self. Self preservation could be applied to a great deal of wars. Its what the US claim all the time: "To protect our own interests." This is a type of self preservation is it not.

At 4/18/06 12:07 AM, altanese_mistress wrote:

Okay, you go and tell that to Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Ghengis Khan, Julius Ceaser, Adolf Hitler, Hirohito, Benito Mussolinni, the Khmer Rouge, Kim Il-sung, Richard the Lionhearted, Tsar Peter the Great, Tsarina Catherine the Great, Babur, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussien..... wow, still this huge list of names left.

I would, but they are all dead, exeption of Osama and Saddam and they didn't start anything did they. It was Saudi money behind the 9/11 attacks if i remember correctly. neither of these people lives in Saudi Arabia.

Firstly, do you seriously think that all those people lead wars just because they were assholes. Thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. They had their own reasons for wanting war. War satisfies a need. AT THE PRESENT TIME, which is what we should be talking about, a big problem is lack of freedom for the people of smaller countries. Thats why I say Freedom is a good reason for war.

Soldiers fight for peoples rights. If there was no war, we wouldn't be able to complain about anything. Basically war is just a way of maintaining the rights and freedoms of the little people.... and stealing oil.... but mostly to preserve freedom.

At 4/17/06 08:50 PM, Zalbun wrote:

That's why Suicide is a Sin.

I was not suggesting a mass suicide. I was merely questioning the reason for our earthly existence.

If heaven accepts those that have not sinned, then it accepts no one. I don't think that our mortal lives can be a basis for a judgement of our worthyness for heaven.

OK people. If heaven is so great, what are we doing here? Why dont we all just die and go to heaven?

But really. we should seriously figure out what we are doing on this planet. If heaven is the ultimate goal and it comes after life, then why to we work so hard to preserve a life, on earth, that is crap compared to that of heaven.

At 4/17/06 04:07 PM, Skele-Ty wrote: Good point BeFell... Maybe the whole Heaven-Hell thing is just that --

Seriously, can any serial killer truly believe he's doing good?

George Bush is still doing it with the Iraq war. He thinks hes doing good.

At 4/3/06 07:17 AM, blinddragon wrote:

::

He wanted to change things because he got the idea that he was better than God. There were no Humans in heaven then.

Have you READ the eden story. adam and eve. The snake was lucifer, there were humans in heaven (eden) at that time, adam and eve. Thats only if you believe in a semetic religion tho.

At 4/17/06 08:16 PM, Wadezilla wrote: Which one do you like more?

I like your attitude. irony is fun. I'd have to say I like this thread the best, so versus threads are for me.

At 4/17/06 08:20 PM, Mzeltoc_IV wrote:

but he cannot, because in doing so he would negate his own existence.

Sorry, I didnt mean to say: "he"
finger reflex on the keyboard, sorry