Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

'Apocalypse Now'. Oh wait :P

At 10/27/08 10:05 PM, CBP wrote: Once again, I was responding to somebody else, but since you insist on debating it here we go.

Let me rephrase my original statement: Present your side of the argument. There now there's no proof, look, religion isn't accepted by everybody. Either you feel it or not. I have faith because I feel it, obviously, you don't because you don't feel it.

Let me explain how religion works in practice. This kid CBP has learned God created everything for 15 years. Thats a long time. You can have all the arguments you want, he's not gonna change his mind.
The day he turned 5 or something he was sitting in church praying for a gameboy he felt a tingely fealing in his head. It was God ofcourse telling him he was getting his shitty gameboy. One week later he gets his gameboy, ergo God exists.
Believing in God gives him a certain feeling (not just security). Partially the same feeling Brick-top gets from convincing Chistians God is fake (if he could succeed). Theres no point.
Having a disussion with a chistian is like having a Formula1 race with Lance Armstrong. Because Christians dont like reason like armstrong doesnt race cars. Brick-top there are enough other atheïsts that can waste their time trying to convince the unconvincible.

At 2/29/08 12:05 PM, Zeistro wrote: According to these guys, if you have European, Asian, African or any other ethnicity you don't belong here solely for that. The most frightening part, over 53% of mexicans share the same sentiment.

Just a little question in between. 53% of Mexicans?? More than half of all Mexicans? or more than half of all Mexicans in the US (which I think is hard to believe aswell). You might wanna add a source to that statement.

In a couple of months they find out the shooter was on Prozac or Serotonin for 3 years. (Like in Columbine right?)

At 5/26/07 03:51 PM, JakeHero wrote: Isn't Che that revolutionary douchebag in Mexico and South America that hated money(literally)?

I think your confused with Zapata. Che wasn't from Mexico.

At 3/20/07 06:25 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Why are many lower class and working class people republicans? I would just like to know because, well, it doesnt make sence that any working class person would vote Republican. It is the democratic party that is for the poor working class, not the republican party, that is for the super rich companies.

To support a conservative party when many people are poor at the moment doesnt make sence.

One word. Evangelism. They vote for the republicans because they're christian, and christian leaders in the US are conservative. Democrats would have won twice as many elections, if all evangelical christians wouldn't vote.

At 3/17/07 02:31 AM, ReiperX wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/14/med.marijua na.ap/index.html

To me this is sickening. According to doctors, marijuana is pretty much the only thing keeping this woman alive because other drugs are ineffective, yet she can be charged criminally for staying alive.

Thats what you get, when you vote for Bush, and he fucks up the Supreme Court, filling it with religious conservatives.

At 2/23/07 09:03 AM, Alphabit wrote: Like a lot of non-religious people I have spent time thinking about what the after-life would be like. And I came up with a very logical conclusion; reincarnation.

Now I'm not saying I'm right, but if there is indeed no such thing as a soul, then that means that our sense of existence can only be attributed to our physical properties.
For example, look at a computer; it's really complex and it can emulate basic human behaviors... Now think about what your computer looks like at any one point in time... And when I mean "What it looks like" I mean, imagine if you could describe EVERY SINGLE property of your computer at any time... This includes which switches in the processor are closed (on) and which are open (off), where the electrons are grouped inside the memory chip(s), the exact physical configuration of the graphics card, the exact metals, plastic, and any other component of the machine... etc... Basically, an EXTREMELY detailed "shot" of every single element and the physical configuration that makes your computer display what it displays on the screen.

Now imagine that once you die, 999999999 billion years or more later, an individual is born with the EXACT same physical configuration as you. And I mean EXACT... Now whouldn't that make that person "you" and won't you be able to live through that person because, technically, their brain is YOUR brain and vice versa.

Also... That could explain why some people get Schizophrenia; maybe it's because they have two instances of their physical configuration existing at once.

Anyway, discuss.

This is only want to believe this is because you dont want to believe that when your time is up, you die and then you rot away, and you will never be seen on the face of the earth again. You need that little bit of hope. How about this afterlife theory: People who live good lives burn in hell, why not? Because no one wants to believe that. That would be unfair right?

Your brain produces sertain drugs in your brain to enlarge the chance of survival (that much has been proven), and I think that one of those drugs gives you the urge to believe on an afterlife, because if you didnt and you decided life is useless, your chance of survival would shrink. Same goes for believing in God.

This one is even worse check this evangelical fundamentalist brainwashing these kinds who will believe anything, and cant see he's covering up things he cant explain with jokes. <A>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnxQiCg9qpg <A>

At 3/2/07 04:08 AM, ReThink wrote: Alot in the beginning

I think another very important point is that religious ppl want to make convince other people to believe what they do. Especialy there children, this makes fora very narrow minded population (evangelical christains). Alot of religious ppl often assume to much. And they brainwash there kinds <A>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqNLMuijRyU <A>

First you're innocent then you loose your innocence, after that you live of the little bits of endorphin and dopamine you can get out of life, and then you die. Life is good :)

At 2/23/07 02:22 AM, psycho-squirrel wrote: why i think solar energy wont be the primary source of energy for cars and other systems.

despite the fact that we havent came up with a way to gather enough solar light to power a car a efficient as a gas car or that it is expencive research.

i think the reason why it wont be on all cars is because you cant make money off of it. unlike gas where you can charge ever step of the process of gasolien, you cant put a price tag on the sun, even if you wanted to.

since you cant make a profit off of the sun like you can with not so abundant fuels, businesses wont want it.

it wont matter if solar energy becomes twice as more efficent as gasoline. because it doesnt make as much money as gas, it wont be good for them.

efficiency comes after profit in the world of today.

maybe one day when our world get their head out of their asses and realises that effciency is the primary product, we probebly wont see a full revolution of solar cars replacing the gas cars.

I think the fact it doesnt make as much money (and it doesnt cost as much money) is the reason that it could become the primary energie source. I mean free music-downloading works and that doesnt make as much money as CD sales. And not only that but if our planet survives long enough, we will run out of fossil fuels, and that gives solar-energie a better chance.
And if that isnt enough, people always find ways to make money of of anything.

At 9/16/05 09:10 PM, TheRunningBear wrote: I have some ideas, I just want to know from people that are not form america

1. Because of George Bush
2. Because of fat people
3. Because of Evangelical Christians (the most important reason for me)

Holy shit you got expelled for being drunk in school?
On an early morning when me and and a few of my classmates found out the teacher we had the first period was sick, we decided to smoke a newly bought pipe out in the park close to school. But there was allot of wind and we were still very tired (and stupid). So we decided to smoke it on the schoolyard. There wasnt anyone there at the moment.
And so we got detention and we had to find an artikel about the terrible side-effects of marijuanna (hard to find :)). So we got of lightly, but getting expelled is too much.

So if a country in which smoking weed is now legal would legalize it, society would completly change and all of a sudden think smoking weed is OK?
The accual crime a smoker ussaully comits is buying from a dealer. If weed is legalized, the dealer makes less money, the drug baron makes less money, and the smoker can smoke safely. What's wrong with that?

At 1/15/07 05:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/13/07 11:39 PM, YHWH wrote: Victimless crime should never be crimes.

According to the theory of crime, there is no such thing as a victimless crime, because crime by itself is a pain to society.

But what is a crime in some countries isn't a crime in another. So smoking some pot in your backyard in the US is a pain to society, but smoking some pot in your backyard in Amsterdam isn't?

Legalizing prostitution isn't all good ya know. In Amsterdam prostitution is legal and the problem is it's great camouflage for pimps who have who force women into prostitution or under aged prostitution. But the original idea behind prostitution was to lessen rape. All the creapy men fuck prostitutes instead of random women.
As for softdrugs, I think it should be legal everywhere.

Nutmeg is a better idea. A spice you should be able to get a most supermarkets. Just grate off the outside, eat the powder youve grated off and drink some water to make it go down well. It'll take at least 2 hours to start working. One nut for just a little high and more for hallucination, but that can make you pretty sick. Not something I'd advise, just a last resort.

If you just think about it you dont need any rules. If you're not raging with anger and just think about it on the spot, you can easily come to the conclusion if your assaulter deserves to be hit back.
Lets say you're in an argument with a women and you accidentaly yell something bad about her sick mother, you dont really have the right to freak out if she slaps you in the face.
But I think men shouldn't just think twice about hitting a women but a also anyone physically inferior to you, and if whatever they did to you really deserves retaliation. But still women have like this little bit of extra right to be left alone even if they struk first, and it never really looks that bad when one of those Sandra Bullock-ish kind of women beats of a geaky guy who surely can't defend himself, but when a women is severly hurt by a man (in a movie), it's almost always one of the most dramatical scenes.
But in real life it's never hard to know what to do.

P.S. It's better not to retaliate in any case if it isn't necessary, but I know that it can be hard sometimes.

Ice coffee??! There are sertain unwritten rules about drinking coffee. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE GODDAMN ANY ICE IN IT!!! I object your joining the Coffee Club. Go make your self a Tea Club.

We realy shouldn't underastemate the power of scientolagy. No seriusly, the things they believe may be bullcrap, but some people believe in that stuff. You now the guy that just had something bad happen in his life. Walks past this guy from scientolagy. He asks the guy to join. Well wat hell. Thats how people get converted. And there money is taken. And groups with plenty folowers is really something you want to evade. Dude the guy who invented it (I forgot his name) was this guy who wrote science fictionstories, who knows wat he's up to. This is when you gotta start believing in conspiracie theories.

This is the same battle between the intellegent potsmokers and the ignorant alcoholics. The potheads keep telling the others about the long term affects of alcohol (kills braincells and your liver). And vice versa. Now there are also the people who don't give a shit about all this and just do both :). And then once in a while, they tell the alcoholics that they said someting stupid. Like mabye that pot has no variety. Which is not true, thers lots of differents kinds. Or that weed is useless and alcohol isn't. Well medical weed is used alot mostly by people in pain. And ofcourse everybody just chills the fuc* out. Thats why there aren't that many roits in Holland, like you have in Paris. Now this isn't entairly true, because you can get pot anywhere legal or not. But ofcourse don't think legalizing weed is gonna stop dealers from selling it. Ther will always be stronger and cheaper weed out there. But it's still better to smoke legal so you don't have to worry about being caught.

I drink easy choise 457(espresso) on the coffee machine twice a day. Can I join?

Aren't kids always inesent? They can't go to hell.

At 11/15/05 03:55 PM, Newground_Freak wrote:

blah bla bah, keep drugs illegal

Who would you rather profit from drugs, orgonised crime and drug dealers, or the government?
On the plus side, when it is legalised it can be measured and controlled, now as it is illegal (at least here in the UK) you cant be sure what's in the drugs you take or if they are genuinley what the dealer says they are.

Accualy that could be a down side. If the goverment changes it too much dealers might still be able to make some money. If the goverment starts selling expencive safe(weak) pot and the dealers sell cheap strong pot nobody will buy the goverment pot. The dealers can afford to make the pot cheaper 'cause the people who plant the crops are under paid farmers in forein countries. But the govermant has to make it them selfs (if they want to controle it). And that isn't cheap.

Binge drinking will come and go trough each generation. When they start to drink they'll drink increadable amounts, and then they'll do real stupid stuff, and not want to get as wasted. Then they wont drink as much untill the next generation starts to drink. You can't do anything about that. (And ofcourse some people keep binge drinking, but not as much).

If it is legal, yes that kid might smash his car into mine(if i had one), but if its not that same kid will get drunk and more likely hit my car. Driving a car or flying an airplane is easyer on coke or weed then booze. So if coke and weed are legal, there wil be laws against driving under influance and definetly flying an airplane.

At 11/14/05 04:35 PM, psk21 wrote:

At 11/14/05 04:04 PM, Newground_Freak wrote: I my view, all drugs should be legalised.

This is a pleasing step in the right direction.

I would agree with this one, imagine your on a plane to New York on your airline pilot just snorts a line? Wouldn't that make you uncomfortable? Knowing that someone in that position could legally do that would cause alot of uproar.

Dude, Pilots dont get drunk on planes do they? Why would they do coke on a plane, even if it where legal.

Most things natural are okay, as long as you dont destill them or overdo it. Dude, lets say u went out to some party (in Denver). You smoke some pot. You will make it home. Now in my case i decided to drink Tequilla (thats destilled) insted. I got some very bad bruses on my face from falling on the floor. They should legalises pot everywhere!!

I don't have to move to Denver. I live in Amsterdam!!!! WHAHAHAHA :) , where u only have to be eighteen, to buy weed and theres coffeeshops everywhere! And cops dont care if you smoke in parks n stuff, so you can look at the trees...,