Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/21/06 09:08 PM, Draconias wrote: However, it is true that Blacks are disproportionately involved in crime in America,

that doesnt have anything to do with the genes, though. i doubt there is a crime gene attached to the gene that makes your skin black. if someone becomes a criminal, it has to do with his surroundings, not his genes.

besides that, if you conduct a study thats already laid out to find differences between racial/gender groups, of course you are bound to find differences. also, it makes no sense to shove people in random groups such as race/gender and to then calculate which one of these groups has the "higher" iq. women with an iq of like 150 arent even considered, because you throw them all together, and in the end, its three points less. even though in the male group there might not even be someone with that high an iq. and then that iq system itself - how overrated! what does that actually tell you about a person? nothing! it doesnt have anything to do with doing well at school or being good at whatever job youre working, its just some random number derived from a stupid test where you have to do things youre never dealing with in real life. so fuck that!

At 9/21/06 03:12 PM, N-Antichrist wrote: I feel someone who does nothing to help society and only harms good people is a waste of life.

If they get executed, fantastic.

but who are YOU to decide what or who a waste of life is?! people arent born criminals, and if they do nothing but harming society, its societys own fault. if you had been in the persons position, you might have become a criminal as well, simply because of the circumstances and the environment you grew up in. instead of killing those people, them becoming criminals in the first place should be prevented.

At 9/21/06 04:54 PM, defactoidZERO wrote: I'm not trying to say a woman wouldn't make a good president. I just don't see it anytime soon, especially if this conflict continues the way it is. Hell, even conservative women would probably shun a female president at this point in time.

well, sometimes other issues become bigger than the fact that the candidate is a woman. something else might become more important than her gender, and as soon as that happens, there could be a female president. for example: the other candidate is so freakin stupid and sucks so bad, that people will simply be glad to have an opportunity to get rid of him, no matter who the other candidate is. if it happens to be a woman, oh well.

we have a woman as the chancellor in germany for the first time ever, and she was elected simply because people thought it was time for a change back to the conservative party. the fact that she is a woman just became less of an issue.

At 9/20/06 09:08 PM, velocitom wrote: The answer to all male vs female threads.

hahaha, im glad the guy who conducted the study also claims that iq goes by race and that blacks are "destined" to be criminals, while asians have higher iqs. yeah right. so much to that.

At 9/20/06 06:13 PM, RedSkunk wrote: However, it's a start, and I'd strongly support the ban. We ought to stop making them, they violate international law (they are indiscriminate, the unexploded bomblets cannot be aimed and exploded regardless of friend, foe, or neutral).

i think the problem is that theres a backdoor. even though unexploded bomblets are basically the same as landmines and thus illegal, its not exactly an INTENTIONAL landmine. cuz first its a bomb which is aimed at something, supposed to explode right away, etc., making it legal.

At 9/1/06 01:06 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

At 9/1/06 12:22 AM, SteelReserve wrote: For the topic starter.
http://www.newground..m/bbs/forum.php?id=1

I think there was the possibility this could have been an intelligent topic. There are a great many possibilities of what can be done by with distributed computer power. You could use it to map DNA much faster, much more complex weather tracking simulations that could provide more accurate data, or use it to break currently unbreakable encryption schemes. Unfortunately, it just didn't get off the ground.

i think this distributed computer power thing sounds pretty damn great! but how come ive never even heard of it before, like, ever?! why dont they get it out over the media more, so that everyone finds out about it and can connect to something like that? most people are hanging around online pointlessly all day, so they could at least contribute something by letting their computers do some work for the good of mankind in the background. even more the case for people with gaming consoles.

At 9/20/06 11:29 AM, lapis wrote: his country should use its soon to be acquired nuclear weapons against Australia to hasten the process leading up to the arrival of the Annunaki

what? who? whats going on?! australia? annu...naki? who...? im... confused.

empire:
"1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion"
here

"What exactly constitutes an Empire (from the Latin "imperium", denoting military command within the ancient Roman government) is a topic of intense debate within the scholarly community. Generally, an empire is defined as a state that extends dominion over areas and populations that are culturally and ethnically distinct from the culture at the center of power."
or here

strictly speaking, you cant consider the us an empire, even though they DO control a number areas and populations that are different from their own culture (lalala, im talking about afghanistan and iraq). but not in the sense that the government of the us is directly responsible for the people in those areas, i mean, there are still other governments in those countries. but then again, it all depends on your view of the war down there, what you think the aim of it was, etc. if youre all like "war for oil!" then i guess you could say those are total puppet governments and in reality, the us controls those areas. then you can call the us an empire. but if youre all like "war against terrorism!" then i guess you could say there are democratic governments being established down there and theres absolutely no interference by the us government, so you can in no way call the us an empire.

At 9/19/06 09:15 PM, MetropolisAndMecca wrote: Life in prison is a lot better than you think. People who are imprisoned for life get priority on Organ-Donor lists because the state is faced with the issue of reckless endagerment if a inmate has a life-threatening condition and the state fails to provide treatment or organs. Inmates have every meal prepared for them and will never go without food, something that millions of law-abiding citizens living in poverty are not guaranteed. Inmates get cable TV, chances at higher education, internet access, tobacco, money, and many other things that are undeserved by any murderer. If anyone in my family got killed and their murderer was granted a life without problems that many other people have, I would be unspeakably angry.

so youre trying to say life in prison isnt all that bad? that it might even be nice? that "millions of law-abiding citizens living in poverty" would consider themselves lucky could they spend the rest of their lifes in prison because everything is being provided for them there?!

you forgot to mention all the other things that make a prison, especially the most obvious one: no freedom. youre locked in all the time, either in your cell, or in the greater compound of the prison facility. youre being watched all the time. you have to follow strict rules. you are forced to work a shitty job. if you break the rules, you can be shot. you live in the constant danger of getting in trouble with your fellow inmates. the chances to have a crime committed on you are much higher than anywhere else, since everyone around you is a criminal. now, i wouldnt call that a life without problems.

oh, did i mention youre not free to go where you please? so where are you getting any unfair advantage of being provided a chance at higher education if you wont leave prison to get a job with your degree, anyway?!

At 9/20/06 06:48 AM, xboxbob11 wrote: Right now, congress is probably voting on a bill that would decide whether or not you would need picture IDs to vote. This could affect the way people 18 and over choose their elected leaders. Two of the majors states being affected by this is Florida and Georgia. Tell me, do they really need to know who we are to vote or is this all a big setup?

what are you talking about?! is there any source you could link to?

and dont people need id to vote, anyway? arent there voters lists and you have to identify yourself before youre allowed to vote? otherwise theres no way of knowing if someones allowed to vote, or if someones voting in place for someone else, etc.

and how, exactly, would picture ids change the way people vote?!

and how would it be a setup?

At 9/16/06 08:30 PM, Pwnage-In-A-Can wrote: Alright, the crew's made. How's that for starters?

i faintly remember me saying something about an oil platform somewhere far out in the atlantic... how... why... i dont get it.

At 9/17/06 01:15 PM, Night-Mare wrote: Your 9 year old daughter wanted a magazine.
You brought her the magazine.

now, why would you buy her the magazine if you know the contents and disapprove of them?!

She read the magazine.
She found that article about masturbation.
She tries it out.

i dont see the problem there. okay, it might be a little... weird... to think of a nine year old girl masturbating, but if shes, you know, physically far enough to do it, then wheres the problem? i mean, come on, dont little boys do the same as soon as it starts working down there?!

Then 2-3 years later she wants more and wants to have sex before she is even a teenager.

just because she "tried out" masturbation she wants to have sex? theres a big difference between masturbation and actually engaging in sexual activities with another person.

And because sex ed isnt tought in schools until highschool in some schools, they would most likely not know how to use protection, and then if they are misfortunete they might have a child before they are even 14 and most likely die because of the birth because they are so young and if the girl does survive she has to raise a child at 13-14 years old.

first of all, school isnt the only place kids could be taught about sex. ever heard of those people called parents? if kids arent taught about sex in school early enough, their parents should tell them everything about it, if they didnt anyway. i mean, what kind of parents would let their kid get into puberty without even knowing what the hell is happening to them?! horrible! so if the kid at some point does have sex and doesnt use protection for whatever reason, and then in fact does get pregnant... i dont think she will die. she can have an abortion. and if she doesnt, i doubt she will "most likely" die.

also, i think you cant really expect people to comment on a magazine theyve never seen, read, or heard of.

At 9/16/06 07:08 PM, zeus-almighty wrote:

At 9/16/06 07:06 PM, rockizzy wrote: yay, exalting nation above the individual!
yay, centralized autocratic government!
yay, a dictatorial leader!
yay, severe economic and social regimentation!
yay, forcible suppression of opposition!

And the problem is?

who ever said there was a problem? anyone who wants a fascist state may go buy an oilplatform somewhere out in the atlantic and create one of his own. i dont care.

At 9/16/06 07:02 PM, zeus-almighty wrote:

At 9/16/06 06:26 PM, rockizzy wrote: that exalts nation and often race

Often not always. Yay go facism!

yay, exalting nation above the individual!
yay, centralized autocratic government!
yay, a dictatorial leader!
yay, severe economic and social regimentation!
yay, forcible suppression of opposition!

fascism:
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control -early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge

there

At 9/16/06 09:38 AM, Pivotstick wrote: bad things happen to good people.

bad things happen to bad people too. and good things happen to good people. all types of things happen to all types of people. thats what i like to call life. chaos. coincidence. and some of coincidental fate, at most. if that makes any sense at all. ;-)

At 9/16/06 05:53 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: So if something has no name, it does not exist...

This is getting pretty exotential.

language is a window through which we perceive the world! without language, we cant perceive the world! if you dont have words to describe something, its incomprehensible. erm... *trying to think of more catchy phrases i picked up in some literary theory lectures*

At 9/16/06 01:03 AM, SilentObserver wrote: For example, most of us have learned mathematics in school. But surely it does not follow that the core principles of mathematics are a human invention - something we could have made differently had we liked? I place right and wrong in the same category as mathematics.

and... what "category" is that?

mathematics might not be a human "invention" as in some person woke up one day and decided it would be fun to have something like maths, how about create it now? and came up with mathematics out of nothing. but then again, it HAS to be a human creation, because without humans, it wouldnt exist. it only exists because humans gave it a name, started thinking about and using it. mathematics is only mathematics because we say it is. without us, it might be there, but nobody would give a shit about it. since there wouldnt be anyone to give a shit about it. same with right and wrong. if you dont have a name for it, and if you dont think in terms of right and wrong, it doesnt exist.

At 9/14/06 11:57 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: what's a peaple?

hahaha... sounds like a fruit i would eat. but maybe im thinking of pineapple. which is basically the same, if you cant spell. p(in)eap(p)le. mmmh, peaple...

At 9/15/06 12:55 AM, troubles1 wrote: Well, we already have a goverment in place faster than in Germany, after ww2. I would say most likely up to 2 more years. What we have to do is get them a military and police force that is stable enough ,And has a certain amount of respect from its people. to protect it's self from terrousts, civil outbreak. and any problem it might face.. Until then it is our responcibility, to protect and keep it as secure as we can.

you cant really compare post ww2 germany to iraq, despite the fact that both had a dictatorship and were under occupation afterwards. but its obvious that iraq has a very different culture from the us, while germany and the us were not all that different in terms of culture even back then. okay, maybe germany didnt have a great democratic history either (only a very short time of democratic government between both world wars), but you STILL cant compare it to iraq with its weird middle eastern type of problems and its culture that a person from the western hemisphere fails to understand.

At 9/15/06 12:48 AM, KingCharles wrote: I had an interesting thought the other day: Are the age-old concepts of good and evil real? I mean, is morality really more than just a human invention?

no. of course morality is a "human invention", where else would it come from? also, morality only exists in a society in order to make it work. if you have just one person living by himself in some cave, there is no "morality" and no good and evil. unless "good" becomes everything that the person likes and helps survive, and "evil" becomes everything the person dislikes and possibly keeps from surviving.

My thoughts went sorta like this: Nobody really sees themselves as EVIL. We see OTHER people that way, sometimes, but never OURSELVES. Nobody ever goes "Oh, I'm gonna murder that guy 'cause its the WRONG thing to do." Normally, there's other motivation.

well, id say people see themselves as evil AFTER theyve done the wrong thing. regardless of their motivation. and why do they see themselves as evil? because there is a sense of good and evil that society teaches them, and the same society puts pressure on the individual to stick to the rules of whats "good". if the individual doesnt stick to the rules, it will be punished by society in different ways. this pressure is everywhere, also inside every individual that has grown up in that society. so ultimately, the person who has commited the murder will realize what he has done will be considered evil by society, and therefore he will consider himself evil as well, since he is part of society.

Rather than boiling down to "Good and Evil", it came down to "SelfISHness and SelfLESSness." For example, "evil" actions like stealing and rape are really motivated by personal gain or pleasure. Meanwhile, "good" actions like giving to charity are "Selfless" actions, things we do to help OTHER people.

well... arent you already considered a good person simply by staying out of trouble? you dont have to be all that selfless to just NOT do anything evil.

At 9/14/06 07:56 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: I’d say it’s a simple matter of what comes first, political pressure back home reaching boiling point for the troops to be pulled out or the Iraqi government becoming relatively stable enough to handle things themselves.

It should be the later, but I bet it’ll be the former.

yeah, i think so too. always the same, this kinda stuff. it makes me tired. whatever happened to isolationist policies... so much less trouble back then. but then again, fewer cars too. *insert rant about the iraq oil -connection here*

so i estimate: within the next presidency. if the next president is a democrat, that is. if he isnt, i bet the us will try to get more countries involved. un or something. to somehow get out of the responsibility.

At 9/14/06 07:38 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 9/14/06 07:27 PM, BlisteringFreakachuu wrote: Estimate, please.

I assume by ‘Iraq war’ you mean the ‘Collation of the Willing’ versus Iraq, which has been over for ages now…

The civil war that currently exists however in my opinion in Iraq will be going on for many years.

maybe the real question was supposed to be "when will the occupation end?".

At 9/14/06 06:44 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 9/14/06 06:31 PM, fli wrote:

"Drinkers typically tend to be more social than abstainers."
Well, you know what? People who socialize will go to places to socialize-- like bars.
They just so happen to be drinking at the places they socialize.

Drinking makes people social. It's how most other people come to be

well, but id say fli is right and being social is the main point. you can be social without having a drink or two. especially if youre used to being social without drinking. so then the main point is that people who go to bars make more money because they socialize there. but you can go to a bar and socialize without drinking, you can still just order a coke. if you do this nonalcoholic thing without being obnoxious, people wont even realize youre any different from them.

At 9/13/06 12:27 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/12/06 11:13 PM, Crysthala wrote:

For Christ's sake. Fight Club. Read the book, don't watch the movie.

I don't think I've read anything more pretentious.
It would be funny if the book had been written after the movie haha.
Did it?
No one read it anyways. I could probably say whatever I want.

i read it. it was written before the movie was made. and you get the picture a lot better when you read the book than when you watch the movie. just like with a clockwork orange. even though a clockwork orange is a lot better book than fight club. whatever.

i think its important to have some sort of dream or goal that you want to reach, however unrealistic it may seem. but its also important to know that you actually have to DO something to reach that goal. and you have to be lucky and what people want. a lot of psychiatrists and lawyers are cabdrivers cuz theres simply no need for them, even though theyve gone to university and everything. but if you dont set yourself some sort of goal, its pointless to do anything at all. but of course thats just a certain mindset as well, i mean, if you like to drift without a plan you dont really need a goal. but if you want to give your life a meaning, you do. this doesnt have to be connected to a career, though.

At 9/13/06 06:19 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

:There is no afterlife in which you're rewarded, and you are not rewarded here.

i dont consider this a hypothetical question. this is what life is like now. there is no afterlife in which you could be rewarded, and most of the time youre not rewarded here for "being good", either. the only time something happens is when youre NOT good, cuz then youre punished. i dont consider not being punished as being a reward.

the way i see it is that whatever you do, you do for yourself. if you make the conscious decision to "be good", you do it cuz it makes your feel good about yourself. if you give money to charity or feed the homeless man in the street, youre not doing it cuz you care about them. you do it cuz it makes you feel like you are a good person, and you like that. if this doesnt affect you and instead other things make you feel good, like beating up that homeless man in the street, exploiting illegal workers, or stealing candy from a baby, then this is what you do.

well, maybe if youre not punished anymore for being "bad", the lines between "good" and "bad" would blur and itd be harder to tell what actually IS good or bad. it all depends, though. cuz if you think about it, a to a certain degree "good" behaviour is necessary in any kind of human community. so if there were no punishments anymore, you could go around beating up and killing people, but as a result the whole community would break up. like, people couldnt live together anymore, cuz itd be just too dangerous.

At 9/11/06 04:08 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: The government gives you your rights

no. the rights you have are universal, nobody needs to "give" them to you. if you dont have them, it means someone has taken from you what should naturally be yours. this is what a democracy should be based on, and if the government should do anything concerning your rights, then that would be protecting them, not giving to or taking them from you. and you dont owe your government anything, either. you just owe society, meaning if you want your society to work, you need to either follow the laws, or do something to improve them. like changing the government by electing a new one. or, in the worst case, get rid of the government that destroys your society in a different way.

At 9/4/06 11:45 PM, Draconias wrote: Those are the primary aspects of Life as I have come to understand it, and as I have time to describe. Every individual must choose what aspect he wishes to pursue, and how he wishes to pursue it, but everyone will eventually pick one or more of these paths (often unintentionally). No one can choose for you.

i really like how you put those different aspects together, seems to make sense to me.

what i read out of it as pretty important though is this: not only does every individual have to "pick" his own meaning of life, he has to create it for himself. it originates within him and there is no "outer source" for the meaning of life, no master plan or old granddaddy with a long beard moving along people like chess pieces. its all us. were the players. (hahaha, were the players...)

At 9/2/06 02:22 AM, -TheThing- wrote: Ronald Reagon didnt destroy the Berlin Wall, freeing Germany from communist rule. it was Ronald McDonald.

no, it was david hasselhoff. he said he did it, and you gotta believe the hoff. hes the king of all germans, east and west.

i dont see why a white woman shouldnt be allowed to get married to jabba the hut. i mean, there are humans closely ressembling jabba the hut, and they are allowed to get married to white women, so why not him?