Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/20/08 05:09 PM, Spankee wrote: If you remember that's why I started this topic...to try to get people to read it!

conspiracy theorist chronic syndrome = "spread the truth!" "everyone has to know THE TRUTH!"
You don't want to debate this. Your mind's made up.

Everything you'll do now is "ok knowing that what I'm saying will happen because I read it on some site by a college dropout, what will happen then?".

For instance, all the reasons why net neutrality won't happen you will take as all the horribles things that WILL happen.
Any argument against your wild claims, you'll take as "see? told you it's horrible!" instead of "yeah I guess that wouldn't make any sense".

btw

At 6/20/08 04:37 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

be good to I remember when I was younger I watch the 100 episode filler arc of Naruto

That was last year and the year before that.
o.O

AH I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS YOUNG BACK IN 2006 AHHHHH YES

At 6/20/08 04:46 PM, Spankee wrote:

I first heard about it at: http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality

Who is that guy?
Why should I believe anything he says?

Why "2012"? Don't you know that's the date "the world ends"?
His email is @movielol.org.

MOVIE LOL.

That looks a LOT more like a loose change type "let's see how many people I can get behind me with this" bullshit propaganda website.

Net Neutrality was brought up a couple months back, it was voted on and... wait I don't even remember the outcome. I think it didn't pass. It's an INTERNATIONAL law btw, since websites are hosted ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Yeah, this would basically COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, TOTALLY destroy THE ENTIRE internet. and it would reduce their own cashflow to NOTHING.

People use the net for PORN, P2P, emails and Blogs.
All that shit would be GONE. Who are you gonna email if you can only email the people who are of your service?
Retarded.

This doesn't make any sense, not for one second.

Btw I've heard Internet 2 only once and that's because there actually is an internet 2 that scientists are using atm that has GIGABYTES of bandwitht speeds.

But what I really meant to stress, was Peak Oil

Oil prices will rise, people won't drive.
Then alternate energy research will rise drastically.

You don't know the incredibly vast amount of alternate energy projects they have going on, from the most strangely non-feasible like cold fusion and gathering solar energy in space to the most promising shit like turning algae into ethanol or using bacteria and mushrooms to turn garbage and plastics back into fuel.

I'd be a lot more worried about global warming and pollution than us not having any more shit to burn.

Haha, welcome to politics, where people call you on your bullshit.

Here's why net neutrality won't happen:

- IT would destroy google. What's the point of google without a vast internet?
- It hurt major sites like youtube and wikipedia.
- It will COMPLETELY bankrupt almost all web hosting companies that provide services to smaller sites.
- It will TERMINATE the internet porn industry.
- It will make having a website IMPOSSIBLE for companies. Every company/artist/movie today has it's own website. That would end.
- It will end the career of thousands of web developpers and designers who make their living doing said company sites and smaller sites.

It would just completely murder the internet. It's not feasible. It doesn't even make any sense. They'd have nothing to gain from this that they wouldn't gain simply from increasing the cost of bandwith.
And that's what they'll probably do.

Net neutrality was about PRIORITIZING the traffic from certain sites. So for instance, youtube would get faster service than newgrounds. I don't remember it having anything to do with "web packages" or other nonsense.

Think about how stupid this is. You could NOT create a new website unless a company allowed you to and paid you to do it. But we all know the internet grows from user demand. What they MIGHT do is offer packages of sites to which the speed will be faster.

See, THAT makes sense. But even then, it's stupid, because the one thing that really sucks up the internet is P2P, not browsing.

At 6/20/08 05:25 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Religion can't tell you how to live your life...

Well, if you sign up for it, yea it kinda can.

Look at religious people.
If you've ever debated them about their holy book, you'll notice they pick and choose what parts to follow and what parts NOT to follow.

And trust me, they're not separating the "metaphors" and the "allegories" from the "real rules". They are 100% picking and choosing WHATEVER they want to follow!
The values of the religious are invariably the same as the values of just about anyone else who lives around them or in their time!

Minus some stupid little club rules against eating bacon and about wearing a napkin on your head. THAT, religion can show you how to do. No idea what's the use of it, but yeah if you want to have to follow lots of pointless little rules and rituals, then be religious.

Good morals? That comes naturally through upbringing no matter the society, the religion or the time.

It's a giant web of stupid and that's the overview: gay christians have just as much a claim to marriage as anyone.

Yea, not so much. Not under laws, and CERTAINLY not under Christianity.

There's gay christians.
??
There's pedophile christians. There's murdere christians. All of whom are convinced just as you are that they're heaven-bound.

And you have the balls to tell me that your interpretation of a book is better than theirs? hahahaha

Typical. Every kind of religious person thinks they are the right kind, and that's without any sort of soul-searching, evidence, logic or knowledge. From the day they're old enough to talk to the day they're old enough to die, their religion is invariably the right one.

So the ones in the majority pass rules against the ones in minority, without anyone having a real say. Religion can't be part of a democracy because a democracy implies debate, and a religion is anti-debate. It's "that's what it is, shut up and accept it".

At 6/20/08 06:47 AM, hotfacts4you wrote:

How would that change any of society now? I mean there are people already believing what they want and doing what they want. There will be protesters and crazy people no matter what.

Depends on what kind.
What's better? Some random kids protesting against scientology, or muslims saying "if we find Salman Rushdie, WE'LL FUCKING KILL HIM".
It's very possible that one day, the kind of bullshit muslims pull won't be around and we'll all be better for it.

With free religion, they wouldn't have to hate gay marriage.

What? We have free religion already. They think hey OWN marriage, that's how arrogant they are.
Well they DON'T so though shit.

They own the priesthood, so they can deny gays entry to that as much as they want.

You can't say just because it didn't work for them, it won't work for us.

The important think is to see WHY religion failed them. What kind of religion do they have?
They have a theocracy with a really STRICT and UNFAIR religion. What happens when you have that? People know it's not fair, so they will fight against you, and the only way to make this go away is to be REALLY REALLY strict.
That means beating women, killing nonbelievers, killing people who talk badly of your religion, killing people who commit the most minor of crimes etc.

We're not there yet and I don't think we can go back, but look at the history of the christian nations and the history of the muslims, it's quite telling. They were on par with the romans and the greeks all the way up till the crusades or so when religious fervor nipped their enlightment in the bud. They started burning "heathen" documents etc. and it was the christian nations who saved most of it and who had their own enligtment and here we are today, far more advanced socially, economically and technologically than they are, and we started out BEHIND them after the roman empire fell.

That's what happens when you pick religion over everything else. Religion is NOT an agent of change and progress, it is a resistor. Regardless of wether a religion would be good, bad, fair, unfair, we know for certain that they don't want things to change because as a premise to all religions is the "we're right, this is the word of God for now and forever".

At 6/20/08 02:02 AM, THEJamoke wrote:

13) Spinal Tap

What this means: this list is for ironic purposes only.

At 6/20/08 02:03 AM, jackkniphe wrote:

I've seen that, but I can't throw out the things I've read. Like David Rockefellers book.

You just read all the wrong things.
I'm 100% sure you didn't watch the videos grammer posted, nor did you read any of the debunk articles.

All you want in this topic is post all the things you've read about the conspiracy thinking we won't fight back and we'll all be convinced instantly like morons.

Sorry.

Btw, people all over the world have been believing in the Loch Ness monster for probably 80 years now.
TO THIS DAY.

That's what it means to be a conspiracy theorist.
NOTHING

AND I MEAN

NOTHING

Can convince these people.

At 6/19/08 11:58 PM, Grammer wrote:

Does that make it wrong?

Only by definition.

Except no one has a claim to gay marriage as long as people vote against it.

If you say marriage is religious and then you say we can vote against it, then you're saying the government can shape a religious institution, which is not constitutional.

If you say it's not religious, then religious people can kindly shut the fuck up.
Can't have both and be constitutional.

And your question is: are they only in it for the legal benefits or the sex?

same reason as anyone.

Which is...?

Pick any possibly reason you could ever think of for a man and a woman to get married, and you can also apply it to gay couples.

Own a house?
Live together?
Love?
Sex?
Tradition?
Raise a family?

There's nothing a man and a woman can do that two gay people can't, except put a penis into a vagina. So apparently, putting penises in vaginas is really holy.

At 6/19/08 10:29 PM, hotfacts4you wrote:

For example, one religion thinks abortion is okay while the other doesn't.

So who gets to pick the law?
See? Problem. If you make it okay as a society to "just believe what I want" then you'll get all these insane divisive issues that can't be resolved with discussion because both sides are EFFIN' CRAZY.

"I believe blacks are the devil"
"I believe women are stupid".

No.
You can't "just believe that under a religion", it will affect your life. You'll do things based on that, and those things inevitably conflict with laws, and when it gets there, there has to be a debate to try and figure out what's RIGHT.
And in a country where people don't understand critical thinking or the scientific method and use "Jesus told me" as arguments, you'll never get anywhere and you'll destroy democracy eventually, turning it into a theocracy.

This is EXACTLY what happened to muslims. Did you know that in the time of crusades, muslims were an advanced nation of intellectuals? They had the best science and the best morals around. But then extremists took over their country, who though JUST LIKE YOU "it's ok to think what you like under a religion" and look where they are today.
They live in a HELL HOLE.

At 6/19/08 10:32 PM, Grammer wrote:

Well first of all, Christians widely believe you must be married to have sex. Secondly, gay sex is a sin. So my question is, if they're really gay Christians, do they want to get married for the sex, or for the legal benefits?

there's about 2394239423 kinds of christian.
Since there's no evidence for anything in any religion, who's to say they have it wrong? They have just as much evidence as anyone who'd say that "you can't have sex before marriage" or "you can't be gay god hates that". It's a giant web of stupid and that's the overview: gay christians have just as much a claim to marriage as anyone.

And your question is: are they only in it for the legal benefits or the sex?
Well what about normal couples??
???
Do they NEED to be married to have children? What about infertiles? What about adoption?

It's just a huge load of things that are modern and hence the bible can't predict.

To put it simply: it's really dumb.

You can be a gay Christian, but I'd like to know why a gay Christian would want to be married in the first place.

same reason as anyone.

At 6/19/08 10:17 PM, hotfacts4you wrote:

I will hop in about religion. I think people should be able to believe what they want to under a religion.

Why? That's crazy.
Would you say "I think people should be able to believe what they want to under a political party"?
"I think people should be able to believe what they want in a science department".
"I think people should be able to believe what they want in a courtroom".

Obviously you can't convict people simply of thought crime, put it's perfectly alright to point out that they are WRONG to believe something and I don't have to "accept" what they believe.

Some things are facts, some aren't. It's not ok to believe in things that aren't founded in reality, it's just stupid. I can't punish you for it, but I'm not gonna praise you for it or respect you. It's DUMB, and that's that.

At 6/19/08 10:08 PM, Grammer wrote:

What ABOUT gay christians?

Why can't they get married under God?
You're basically saying that even though they believe in God, they don't believe in God properly, not only attacking their gayness but their beliefs.

At 6/19/08 09:58 PM, jackkniphe wrote: Thes\

dear lord, spellcheck please?
holy balls.

btw:

So, guys, do you think it would be power abuse to ban shaggy for 30 days?
On premise of "dumbassery"?

haha nah just kidding. Though I wish we could ban him from politics or something. Oh well.

At 6/19/08 09:04 PM, jackkniphe wrote: Steven Jones, PhD physicist discovers previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust which blanketed lower Manhattan. Sizes are up to 1/16" diameter. The findings are corroborated by EPA but not explained. Molten iron is the byproduct of Thermite. It contains the chemical signature of thermate.

this page answers all your molten metal claims.
http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

===========================
If you continue posting without ever replying when someone debunks your claims, I will simply lock this thread. I'm tired of what you're doing, i.e. someone refutes you, you just post some other random thing and on and on.

You've been warned.

At 6/19/08 08:11 PM, Grammer wrote:

1.) CU can be the exact same thing as marriage
2.) CU won't offend anyone

What if I decide it offends me?
Wow let's make laws based on if they offend people or not!

Btw answer: what about gay christians?
Answer it.

At 6/19/08 06:58 PM, Grammer wrote:

Morals aren't based on evidence, they're based on social norms.

Which are based on repeatable tests.
To say that there's a definitive set of universal moral rules is a very huge preconceived notion that tons of people fall into, on all sides of all debates.

No, morals change all the time. You have to constantly question them. You should never ever use "it's not morally right" as an argument, ever.
Why?

It was morally right throughout history to burn witches, kill jews, enslave black people, rape little girls etc. It doesn't even have to do with religion, it's just a fact that it changes, so it's important that people question their morals and it's not what religious people do, in fact the whole point of a religion is so you have a set of morals that can't be changed ( in your lifetime at least ).

Polygamy is illegal, why? Because people find it immoral. So they banned it.

I know how it works, but if we're gonna debate it, then we shouldn't say "that's how it works, so that's that" we should try to figure out HOW it should work, and then change it according to that.

I've already given an argument against it.

So your only argument is "it offends some religious people so let's not do it"?
Seriously?

Laws aren't always based on evidence. Sometimes, they're based just on what we feel is wrong.

You didn't answer about the gay christians. Love to hear about that.
And I know we make laws without thinking about it sometimes, it's a very slow process, but now we have a chance to change it for the better, let's take it.

Many of the morals and social norms in society today come from religion.

None do, as evidenced easily by showing that society and laws came far before religion and that the same morals are prevalent all over the globe in places that never heard about your religion.

Morals come from laws, philosophy, survival etc. They don't come from religion, I'm 100% sure of that. In every case you can check, you see that morals and laws come before religion. Always. And every time there is a moral change in society, it happens despite religious opposition.

I mean seriously, you should know this :o

They have every right to be offended, however if it was in America, the 1st Amendment would protect the newspaper.

Are you aware that in america and canada, they banned that cartoon?
That's right, in AMERICA, tons of major news outlets, newspaper etc. refused to show the cartoon out of fear.

Common sense doesn't really dictate that gay marriage is okay. It would piff off Christians, common sense is to have civil unions so everyone is happy.

except gays who want a marriage and not a civil union.
The question is:
Should they give up their claim to marriage, or should the religious?

In my opinion, it's extremely clear that religious people would lose absolutely nothing and are just bitching. They have no claim to marriage, it's not a christian, jewish, mormon or whatever institution, it's now secular and gays can marry, wed, civi unite, bond or whatever the hell they want to call it. They're people just as everyone else, fuck every biggotted piece of shit who thinks he's got the god-given right to force others to adopt a certain language or certain rules.

to hell with them.

There's a mushroom that turns garbage into ethanol.
That's pretty interesting.

Lots of potential in genetics. I think that it is by far the most promising sector of technology.

Not only can you cure human diseases, but you can make better food, better animals and most important: micro-ogranism that do amazing things they couldn't do in nature like digest plastics, turn some kind of waste into energy/a good product etc.

At 6/19/08 06:33 PM, hotfacts4you wrote: I just joined today. I won't hate him until I see him do something wrong. I haven't seen anything wrong but according to you guys, it will be soon.

Just read the thread.
Look what he's doing.

He posts something.
Then it gets destroyed.

then he completely ignored what people have said and moves on to another thing.

It gets destroyed.
HE moves on.

etc. etc. etc.

All the way until he actually comes back to the FIRST point that has been destroyed and he keeps the cycle going.
He does that every time.

At 6/19/08 06:01 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

cuz look really can be decieving

just not this time.
haha

Man we're really mean, but you have it coming. You just plow through logic, tear reason apart and ignore 100% of everything anyone posts.

All you're interested in is mind-dumping your crazy ideas, you don't want to interact.

Though I think that may be because you haven't figured out how to quote people yet.

At 6/19/08 05:18 PM, Grammer wrote:

It's not sad, it's perfectly fine to vote based on your religious OR moral convictions.

That's implying it's perfectly fine to believe things without any evidence and then vote laws based on that.
Welcome to crazyville.

I have no argument against gay adoption; I support it.

Against gay marriage I meant.

Listen, people view marriage as a holy sacrament. Americans do. Americans who vote. It's not infringing on anyone's rights because we're giving them the exact same thing.

Giving who the exact same things? Gays? You're not giving them a marriage.
There are gay Christians.
What should they do? Accept the persecution of the other Christians?

So some people, who'd lose NOTHING by letting other marry get to ban it because of their own ego and vanity?

Why is it sad? People vote on their morals ALL THE TIME.

Don't equate morals with religiosity, please.
Morals are completely separate from religion.
Christianity hasn't change in centuries, yet the "christian" morals have. How can that be if they take it from religion?

Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone

Except gays.
Think about what you're saying, really think about it.

What about the muslim cartoons? Sure, not doing them won't really change anything, but they have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to threaten others because they're "offended". Noooooooone.
Especially when it comes to religion where they have absolutely no evidence or logic to back their sensitivity up.

It's ok to be offended by, say, people trying to ban evolution, because we KNOW it's true. We have the evidence for it, it's a fact, banning it is retarded.

But where the hell is the "proof" that God doesn't want gays to marry? There's none. It's insane to prohibit things based on that. Purely, 100% completely insane. We should never ever get back on that theocratic slippery slope that took centuries to escape.

That gays deserve the right to marry, yes.

So that's a preconceived notion based.. on ..nothing?
What about: common sense?

Hey guys check it out, I stumbled upon something that explains a lot about our friend here.
It turns out he has a youtube video account!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eujmq-vKJ LA

haha.
When arguments just bounce off someone, it's ok to make fun of them 8-)

At 6/19/08 03:56 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

Good point, the government is making it look alot like a conspiricy even if they don't want it to, confiscating the videos from cameras around the pentagon? If a plane hit the pentagon, why the fuck did they take them?

because there's a giant hole in a building filled with secrets and classified info?

conspiracy theorist tactic # 4 : "false duality" = "look at this strange event that I can't explain, either it can be explained easily or it's part of the conspiracy".

conspiracy theorist tactic #7: "moving" = As soon as one piece of "evidence" is destroyed, simply ignore the answer and present 3-4 new lies that you pull out of your ass.

At 6/19/08 04:41 AM, TheCrook wrote: Imagine if two people in a public library were reading this thread, and suddenly both turned their heads to face each other.

Given the near-infinite amount of universes that may exist, this could very well have happened.
Like, for REALS YO.

At 6/19/08 03:23 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Too much responsibility for me.

haha
On the world list of "things that take effort", moderating a forum is probably right above breathing.

I think the mod team is generally too eager to do something. Just pisses people off generally.
Meh. I only ban the dumbest of the dumb.

At 6/19/08 03:00 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/19/08 02:55 AM, poxpower wrote: that would be entertaining. I wonder if we'd hear the end of the bitching.

If he didn't completely abuse it the entire time he had it?

haha I don't think he'd abuse it.

People would just hate him for being a mod instead of being patriotic.

I forgot about this.

Be sure to get a glare ready. It will only work one time out of like 1000 but when it does, YOU'LL WIN SO HARD

cellardoor for mod.
haha.

that would be entertaining. I wonder if we'd hear the end of the bitching.

At 6/19/08 02:01 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

No, it's a tax on everything that people buy, forcing people to pay taxes, instead of robbing people of their money.

Well if you tax the useful things less and the useless things more, then how is it not a tax on luxury?
A "fair" tax would really be taxing anything by like 20%.
And if we had that in Quebec it would be like 500% haha we suck

Weren't you just making the point that it would help rich people? Now you're arguing against it because it would be a hassle for companies that make luxury items?

Rich people don't need 50 tvs, but if the middle-class people feel like tvs cost too much now, they won't buy them and my guess is that electronics make most of their cash with middle-class people, not rich guys.

The same thing could apply in the US. If people are going to bring things in from other countries, they wouldn't really be able to avoid paying taxes because they'd have to declare it to the government. I can't order a car made in India and never pay US taxes on it as it is. Having fair tax wouldn't change that.

I see.

Are you saying this because you think rich people deserve to have their money taken away from them?

Not really, but to suggest that they would spend the exact same amount of money on luxury items that they would save on taxes sounds pretty far fetched.
They can do what they want, but it's just sort of obvious that this puts a lot more money in their pockets that they would have to struggle to waste instead of investing it, which is still a smart thing to do and good for the economy in general anyway.

I mean, if you made 500k a year and suddenly the government gave you back 200k, would you buy 10 cars or just keep the money or invest it? Keep in mind that you are not a rap star.

You're apparently unaware of capital gains tax.

So that would still be going?

I'm still trying to figure out the details of this system.
If there's a 20% tax on everything, then the government has to collect it from companies based on how much money they've made that year, right?
So I guess that would just eliminate the whole IRS part that deals with people but keep the ones who deal with businesses?

Anyways, this is why I'm not an accountant. Or a banker. Or a rich.

Btw I don't think it's really such a bad idea and it might help people get out of debt simply because they would know exactly how much they make instead of wondering how much in taxes they will owe.

Anyway, here's another fun problem:
What about tax deductions?
Let's say I'm an artist ( for example, not that I am or know anything about this ) or whatever, and my job revolves around owning brushes and pencils. Do I have to keep all my receipts, then like mail all that shit to the government so they send me back the tax money I paid on the items? What about really expensive things like computers?
I know that right now you have to spread certain deductions over like 3-4 years. So are they going to have to keep tabs on you for 3-4 years keeping in mind how much money they have to send back?

Meh could work.

The only way shaggy will change his mind is if we all agree with him about the conspiracy, then it won't be a conspiracy anymore and he'll believe the opposite: that the twins towers were actually brought down by terrorists but we're all being fooled by everyone to think it was the government.