Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Just to play Devil's advocate...

These people were involved in a shooting. They shot people. It seems kicking is less harsh than a bullet.

Also, you will not get beat by the police, if you don't commit violent crimes. Violence begets violence. Don't expect to be treated nice, if you are running around shooting people.

At 5/2/07 08:19 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:
Basically I argue that since the metaphysical can not be interacted with it effectively doesn't exist, except in the trivial sense that the physical is also the metaphysical, at which point we would know it. So ether it exist as all we see or it doesn't exist at all, making knowledge of it irrelevant.

Well, Kant does make an argument for the existence of an external world. He just says that we can't know its nature or essence. So there exists a world separate from our perceptions, but we cannot have knowledge of it.

At 5/1/07 05:39 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Abso-tutely. But, as (I dunno if the guy you mentioned said this as well) Ralph Waldo Emerson said, we should still TRY to achieve that knowledge, because that's the only way we can achieve our maximum potential.

Kant said we are forced to try. He claims that our "faculty of pure reason" uses syllogisms to arrive at more and more generalized knowledge. The ultimate goal of this faculty is unconditioned knowledge. But, as said before, ultimately we can never reach such knowledge.

So, we are forced to chase our intellectual tails ad infinitum.

I'm not angry. I just like angry faic.

Do you agree with Immanuel Kant's claim that we can never reach metaphysical truth?

I.e. because our minds condition the world, we can never reach unconditioned knowledge. And unconditioned knowledge is by definition metaphysical knowledge. Ergo, we cannot make knowledge claims about the reality outside of perception.

At 5/1/07 02:15 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote: Dulce Et Decorum Est, Pro Patria Mori

Translation: It is sweet and fitting to die for ones country

Not of importance really, I just felt the need to mention it.

“Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.”
~ Samuel Johnson

At 5/1/07 01:40 PM, Tal-con wrote: We don't discriminate here.

Unless you're a liberal, then you're shunned >:|

Is that American Liberal™ or classical liberal?

Can I be a regular, even though I haven't posted in months, if not years?

At 5/1/07 01:10 PM, Tomsan wrote: for my country.. no
for my ideologies.. yes

That is impressive if you are so secure in your beliefs. For me, I feel like I have too much learning to do.

At 3/7/07 10:53 PM, TheSovereign wrote: Populaton increases.

Wouldn't more and more people reach higher and higher levels in the wheel of life after living so many lives? Ergo, wouldn't the human population naturally increase, because humans are considered the highest form of life before reaching Nirvana?

At 3/8/07 07:48 PM, badazz5001 wrote: If sex is natural then why must we hide it? Why cant it be a thing you do in the open? Why do you think sex is considered immoral? Why is it hidden if it is natural? Tell me what you think.

Many things that are "natural" are kept out of the open.

E.g. Death is very natural, so why don't we just throw dead bodies in a pile?

Also, maybe some people consider sex to be a very emotional, private matter. They don't think it is immoral per se, but it is thought to be something that deserves to be treated with respect.

Anyway, looking at modern American culture, it seems like sex is, in fact, out in the open to a great extent. Sex sells. Just as I'm writing this response, I see a banner ad on the top of the page with a woman's bare body being shown, save for her head, clothed in high heels and a thong. Doesn't seem hidden to me.

At 3/4/07 03:13 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Aren't there specific topics faith is needed in to be accepted into religions though? Such as the holy trinity, and that jesus is lord and savior and such for Catholicism, and yada yada.

Yes.

Doesn't accepting such things on faith contradict many of the other beliefs of other religions that are also believed through faith?

The majority of all contemporary religions require faith as the only necessary prerequisite for adherence to said religions.

If one believes by faith alone, then one should accept every single one of these aforementioned religions.

In all likelihood, such religions probably maintain conflicting beliefs.

Ergo, adherence by faith to such religions implies a contradiction.

Is there anything to compel adherence besides faith?

actually, if u lowered teacher salaries, theorectically only the most deicated teachers would continue to teach

maybe you should just stop reading all these "holy scriptures" altogether, because traditional religion as we know it is simply based in human arrogance ........ if u really believed in God, you wouldn't attempt to put any labels on him nor would you try to act as if u or anyone could possibly know what he wants

well, you get urself into trouble when u start throwing around the word "natural" and start debating what is and isnt.

marriage isnt natural in the sense that the first man and woman who fucked immediately thought, "hey, we should get married"

marriage is natural, however, in the sense that our society has developed to accept it as such, because, after all, society is a very natural thing that evolved and continues to evolve as we see fit

FDR is by far the worst

first off, he prolonged the depression, up until the war came, which really saved his ass as a figure in history because anyone can grow an economy during wartime .... its not that hard

what's even worse though is that his craptacular approach to solving the depression (which didnt work as mentioned before) was essentially starting ABC socialism in the U.S., which is still giving us problems today with social security, welfare, and "massive industry regulation" (AKA govt-granted monopolies and oligopolies)

I always hear many people talking about how it is unjust that we still have poor people in the United States, when theorectically we could have them all off the street by noon tomorrow if we really wanted to.

Well, of course it's unjust. But, guess what ... so is life in general.

Now, before you go flaming me about how I am an unscrupulous person who doesn't have any scruples, just think about it for a moment.

It's basic evolutionary theory that the strongest will naturally survive and perpetuate their strength through reproduction. You wouldn't have the human race today if this weren't true.

You could even look at the laws of thermodynamics for a more simple explanation. The natural flow of things is to allow for things to reach equilibrium, that is everything diffuses out equally. However, when that equilibrium point is reached, there is no more potential energy left. The only way for free energy, that is energy available to do work, to stay available is for the system where is resides to exist in a disequilibrium. For example, as humans, our bodies exist in a constant state of chemical disequilibrium. If we didn't, we would die.

This is also very important when examining our human society. A social disequilibrium is actually necessary for progress to be able to be made. Some people in a society must have a disproportionate amount of resources available to them, in order for the society as a whole to make progress. This idea is more easily illustrated if you examine the opposite, that being a communistic system. If you redistributed all resources evenly out among everyone, and allowing for the fact that people will always have unlimited needs and wants, then you would end up with an equilibrium state, at which everyone lives at subsustence levels. The problem is that at this level, there is no possibility whatsoever for growth of any kind, because you must constantly produce only to statisfy the needs of everyone, which of course is impossible to ever fully accomplish.

Basically, then, if one desires to have a growing and progressive society, that society must have people who have more control over resources than others. Of course, a complementary poor class is a natural result of this, but is necessary nonetheless.

Essentially, in my opinion, people need to realize that life isn't fair. It's only a human moralistic fantasy that it ever could be.

At 8/28/05 11:37 PM, mariofan22 wrote: However, when I turn 18, my opinion goes to pot, as I live in the District of Columbia (Washington DC), one of the most worthless places for a Republican to live. In the council there, there's only one republican, and in the mayors office, I don't think a publican has held office since the early 1800s or something...

maybe cus D.C.'s population is like 80% black? ... sadly black = crat for too long

lol the problem we have with gun control is that there is gun control ..... 2nd amendment bitches .....

Neither ..... Libertarian ..... haha w00t im soo 1337 @ teh politiques :-P

seriously though ... free minds and free markets is what I like

At 8/28/05 01:13 PM, RecordClock wrote: PENTAGRAMS ARENT ALL EVIL YOU FRIGGIN IDIOTS
some are ancient symbols of a ancient religion such as athena that was her symbol

wika is a religon that people have god then a godess to be fair to both genders

lol swastikas arent all evil either (e.g. many swastikas adorn buddhist temples as religious symbols) ...... but you dont see me drawing and wearing swastikas in public for the fun of it

haha and i think most people prefer misogynist religions, thank you very much....

But the bible only talks about time as linear (e.g. people waited for the messiah .... jesus rose after 3 days .... judgement day will come eventually)

lol if you want violence take a trip to the middle east

I happened to think about this the other day...

Mind you that this is only a philosophical exercise ... We're not talking social science like Marx's "opiate of the people"

The idea of an eternal hell is not only assinine, but it also contrdicts Christianity itself.

First of all, what could we possibly do in our lifetimes that would justify God punishing us for all eternity??? I mean, an eternity is incomprehensible ... what could possibly justify that?

Secondly, isn't the purpose of punishment to reform? Then how is reform supposed to take place if you are damned to be somewhere for all eternity? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of punishment? Also, doesnt that just make God a sadist?

Finally, the idea of hell is contradictory to the rest of the tenets of Christianity ... Christians are supposed to love their neighbors with all their heart and whatnot. So what is God's problem? Could he really hold a grudge against you for all eternity? And if so, wouldn't that make him inferior to human beings? I mean, if someone killed me, I be pissed for awhile, but eventually I'd get over it...

I'd like to think that hell doesn't exist. If there is some kind of afterlife, the logical form would be a kind of purgatory to make up for the sins you did commit, but eventually you would go to heaven and receive enlightenment or whatever.

Thoughts? Critiques? Flaming?

At 7/17/05 04:26 PM, SadisticSatisfaction wrote: The problem with abstinence is todays generation dont care about long term consequences and live for the moment. They dont seem to realize that yesterdays orgasm could mean tommorows rude awakening of being pregnant.

lol ok disregarding this ageism .....

there is only one minor flaw with teaching only abstinence ...... people want to have sex

people have wanted to have sex since the first two humans discovered that they could copulate and gain pleasure from procreation

sure, you can teach kids that having sex at a young age is not a good choice, for a myriad of reasons, BUT you also NEED to teach safe sex as well, because at least one of those kids in that sex-ed class is gonna go fuck a guy/girl in the near future, and he/she needs to know how to at least be safe when doing it

who cares about a f*cking mouse?

seriously .... who gives a shit? really ....

they are just animals ......

i guess this issue really goes into all the animal-rights stuff anyway, which i think is really assinine.

think about it ...... animals dont live in harmony with each other out in the wild .... the faux-morality we place upon our pets and the cute ones we keep in the zoo is just that, fake.

sure, it was nice that there is now one less dictator in power

however, and thats quite a large however, look at the shithole we got ourselves into just to take down this one dictator.

we're basically stuck in iraq now because of the fact that we are the ones who invaded

also, remember that the original reason we even went into iraq was about WMDs, which were never found ....... not to depose the reigning govt

so now we spending billions of tax dollars to try and prop up a proxy govt that will most likely fail in a few years or less .... at least when we finally do exit iraq

my question to you is was invading iraq really worth it, or even appropriate???

At 7/15/05 07:42 AM, fenrus1989 wrote:
heres another thing, your country is already having problems with gangs and all that, would you really want a gang in newyork city to be equiped with M16 or AK47 or maybe even an RPG.

just look at this, if a libertarian ever won the presidency, your countyr would fall apart. he would try to legalize loads of things, soon enough murder would be legal or theft.

lol I think I platonically heart JimSween .....

anyway, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this whole exchange, myself having recently discovered the Libertarian Party.

Ok, onto my fenrus quotes ....

It's actually funny that you mention the US's gang problem in this discussion of libertarianism ...

Simply consider this eerie historical parallel:

In the 1920's, alcohol was outlawed in the U.S. As a result, the nation saw the rise of the gangster bootlegger and his city-street shootouts with fellow bootlegger competition.

Fast forward to present day America. We now have a prohibition on narcotics. As a result, the nation has seen the rise of street gangs, whose main busniess is drug trafficking, and their city-street shootouts with fellow drug-trafficking gangs.

Very interesting ..... One almost begins to realize that the guns themselves aren't the problem .....

The next fenrus quote I used really got my goad...

The reason that I was somewhat angered over his libertarian president comment was the fact that he seems to think libertarianism equals anarchism, and that we libertarians are some immoral species who would legalize murder and theft.

Of course, that is utterly false. Libertarians hold the rights of man higher than anything else, and those certainly include but are not limited to life and property.

None of the above. I'm Libertarian.

The phrase "free minds and free markets" basically somes up my political views.

At 7/2/05 07:53 PM, Jimsween wrote: Tell them youre gay.

lol congratulations ... you just pwned this thread!!!1