Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/13/08 03:21 PM, ReThink wrote: I've been watching these forums and noticed that there are no threads on the Canadian federal election. And while I know that our discussion is overshadowed by the American election, I'd rather skip the rant about American hegemony and get right to the point.

Good idea. I salute you sir.

I believe we're going to end up with a Conservative majority government at the end of the election. And it's all because of the Green Shift plan.

Meh, I think the Conservatives will win, but not a majority. Probably another Conservative minority.

I think the Green Shift plan would have been a great idea 10 years ago, but with gas prices soaring, the whole point of the plan is pretty much moot. That, and realistically, it's a tax plan that's going to disproportionately benefit the middle class, while being a much more substantial burden on the lower class creating an economic divide. The tax cuts across the board are not going to cover the increase in energy costs to the lower class.

Agreed. I'll probably vote Liberal this election, not because I really like Dion all that much, but because I don't want a Conservative majority.

It's an unpopular and poorly timed plan, and it's likely going to cost Dion and the Liberal party a good proportion of their seats.

Again, meh, might cost them some seats, but it all depends. I was listening to the CBC, and they were saying, while a Conservative majority looks likely now, people are in good spirits and happy with the government. By October that could have all changed. The weather will be getting colder, and things won't be nearly as cheerful as they are coming out of Labor Day.

The flipside to this is that the NDP, the Green Party, and (ugh) the Bloc Quebecois might increase their numbers in the Liberal fallout. I can only hope that we end up with another minority government, as it seems unlikely that the Liberals are going to improve their seats.

Yah, some polls are saying the NDP is really going to gain quite a bit in this election. The Greens might win a seat for once, but they're not gonna be a major federal party anytime soon. Bloc Quebecois are actually expected to lose some seats. I don't think it'll be a total disaster for them though, people have predicted the death of the Bloc for a long time, and guess what, it hasn't happened yet.

At 9/13/08 03:10 PM, MercatorMap wrote:

At 9/13/08 07:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I'd love to see those moronic Christians like grammer come in here and apply their bullshit "YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT LOL" logic to Scientology.

Excuse me sir, but that stab at Christianity was uncalled for. Please, do learn to grow up and not hold grudges.

Only little boys and bitches are allowed to have grudges.

He's right though. And I don't see how that's a grudge, he made a good point.

Christians can critize scientology all they want (and they do critize it), but it's logic is no better than theirs. Scientology is no more likely than Christianity. And as SadisticMonkey pointed out, the whole "You can't disaprove it!" logic is the only thing that defends both. But of course, you can prove it either, so why believe it. If it's impossible to prove or disprove, then shouldn't you be on the side that has evidence and logic behind it (the atheist side).

Right and wrong, good and evil, are point of views. They vary from culture to culture, religion to religion, country to country, even person to person. Hence why I absolutely hate "moral politics" and foreign policy idealism. It's all based on the stupid notion that everyone must have the same values as you. Which is obviously bullshit. That's what got us into the Iraq mess, we went wanting to spread values that we find important, like "freedom" and "democracy", but guess what?!?! Many of them didn't want "freedom" or "democracy", they wanted Islamic Law. I'll use my favorite example on this topic:

We, in Western society, believe cannablism is wrong and disgusting. But another culture may believe it's respect for the dead. Who are we to tell them that their values are "wrong"? We can argue pratically why cannablism is hurtful and everything, but we can't argue on the point that it is "wrong". That's backing up an opinion (that we shouldn't be cannibals) with another opinion (that cannablism is wrong).

To move on to a issue more prominent in modern society, I'll use the issue of gay marriage. Many Christian conservatives believe gay marriage is wrong and disgusting. But the homosexuals may believe it's just them living their lives, and loving who they want to love like everyone else. So who are the Christians to say the homosexuals are "wrong". The social conservatives can argue rationally that homosexuality causes more STDS, etc... but they shouldn't argue on the point that it is "wrong". That's backing up an opinion (that gay marriage shouldn't legal) with another opinion (that homosexuality is "wrong").

Well, my rant is done, don't know how relevant it was, but it goes with the issue of "right vs wrong" so...

At 9/12/08 07:13 PM, PineappleWinnie wrote: In short, Chavez accuses Bush and the rich people of conspiring to kill him and Bolivian Evo Morales. In response, Chavez told the USA "to go to shit" and told the USA ambassador in Venezuela to leave, or more precisely, "to fuck off". The USA also responding bys ending back the Venezuelan ambassador. As a consequence, Venezuela is also starting to reduce greatly the number of comemrcial flights to the USA. Chavez, sure that there is a plan to kill him, is more and more leaning towards having Russia install military bases in Venezuela, to cut off cold any potential USA military offensive against Venezuela.

Well, the US consiparing to kill Chavez and Morales isn't that far-fetched. The US has tried and succeded in killiing many Latin American socialist leaders. They've tried to kill Castro 200-300 times, they overthrew Salvador Allende of Chile, and they helped the Bolivians execute Che Guevara, so you can't blame Chavez. Not to mention the US tried to overthrow him.The fact that Chavez told the US to fuck off is hilarious though. The Russia thing was a smart move too.

Well, there you have it. Like it or not, a New Cold War has just begun, and Venezuela, for the first time in history, is having an active role in it (it didn't have much of a role in the previous Cold War).

Amen.

Venezuela to expel U.S. ambassador: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americ as/09/11/venezuela.us/index.html?iref=ne wssearch

Russian bombers in Venezuela amid tension with U.S.: http://cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/11 /russia.venezuela/index.html?iref=newsse arch

Articles in Spanish:

Venezuela denuncia un plan de EE UU para matar a Chávez : http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internaci onal/Venezuela/denuncia/plan/EE/UU/matar /Chavez/elpepiint/20080912elpepiint_12/T es

Venezuela recorta los vuelos operados por líneas de EE UU: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internaci onal/Venezuela/recorta/vuelos/operados/l ineas/EE/UU/elpepuint/20080912elpepuint_
8/Tes

EE UU expulsa al embajador de Venezuela: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internaci onal/EE/UU/expulsa/embajador/Venezuela/e lpepuint/20080912elpepuint_9/Tes

Hugo Chávez secunda a Evo Morales y expulsa al embajador de EE UU: http://www.elpais.com/fotografia/interna cional/Hugo/Chavez/secunda/Evo/Morales/e xpulsa/embajador/EE/UU/elpfotint/2008091 2elpepuint_5/Ies/

Morales expulsará al embajador de EE UU: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internaci onal/Morales/expulsara/embajador/EE/UU/d ividir/Bolivia/elpepuint/20080911elpepii nt_7/Tes

Chávez: Venezuela y Rusia podrían realizar ejercicios militares: http://www3.diariolibre.com/noticias_det .php?id=168359

The New Cold War thing is definatly true. I'm sure people will critize this, but Chavez is just doing what anyone would do in his position: he's joining up with a country that can help him, and that has similar interests as him (Russia). While I usually don't like brining the election into international politics, the person who brought up McCain was probably right...

At 9/13/08 02:14 AM, Oblivia wrote:

At 9/12/08 07:35 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: You'd forgive Mr Chavez for not thinking of the United States on friendly terms since they did support a coup against his democratically elected government...

The locals wouldn't have complained if the US did.

Uh, no... He has a 80% approval rating and he's democratically elected. Your completely ignorant of what the "locals" want.

This is the funniest thread ever. It started with an obviously stupid statement. No, of course Obama isn't going to "take over" the US. Combine this with the dumbasses talking about were the anti-christ will come from (*rolls eyes*). Plently of racism too, it's all the evil Muslims and Russians fault right? Because you know, every single Muslim is a terrorist, and every single Russian is a imperialist (*rolls eyes even more*). Go back to the hole in the ground that you hide in to await the end of the world and read your Bibles silly trolls.

At 9/11/08 09:13 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: ZOMG LOOK OUT SHAGGY YOUR TOO CLOSE TO THE TROOF IT'S TEH CIA THEY COME TO GET YOU!!

Shaggy is obviously trying to make a worthwhile topic for once. He hasn't mentioned consiparacy theories at all, so don't be such a asshole. We can all agree Shaggy says some stupid shit, but if he wants to try to make a worthwhile topic than it's fine by me, so don't ruin it.

Oh noes! Someone who hold a view that not's nessicarily held by the majority of society! The horror! THE HORROR!

Seriously, get over it...she's entitled to her views, not to mention none of that even proves she's a Marxist. Neither Neom Chomesky or Michael Moore are Marxists. Even if she was a Marxist, so what? She's not preaching Marxism to you is she? You only came to this conclusion after visiting her website. I don't see the problem here.

At 9/11/08 01:10 AM, SynicalSatire wrote: The problem is nothing can be found as a fact unless it is repeatable, otherwise it's one person's interpretation against anothers. Even if it the colider does discover evidence for the big bang theres still no way to prove it.

Yah, but it makes it way more likely, thus any argument against it will seem all the stupidier.

If something is scientificaly factual it has to be able to be repeated, and offer some sort of bennefit to the universe.

Bullocks. Science doesn't have to have some sorf of benefit to the universe. When Newton discovered gravity, it didn't have a beneficial effect on the universe. That doesn't make it any less true.

The big bang and evolution are not repeatable and have nothing to offer to society, so why waste so much time and money on something that can't be proven and only give people pathetic way not to acknowledge the inevitable PROOFin intelligent desighn.

Uh...evolution is happening all the time. It has been repeated. Scientists have observed micro-evolution, and macro-evolution take thousands of years, but they'll observe it sometime. This experiment will repeat the conditions right after the Big Bang, thus proving it true by your definition. Of course, your definition that it has to be repeated is complete crap. Intelligent design has already been proven false, so your proof is bullshit.

PROOF

Ya, ya sure. Intelligent design is stupidass and you know it.

At 9/10/08 11:06 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/10/08 10:20 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

I've got a even better idea. How about you actually try to disprove my arguments and contribute something to the discussion rather than making some silly remark, however funny, that does absolutely nothing to advance the topic. If you don't have a logical argument against what I said, then I really don't appreciate your post.

its got about the same effectiveness as your post of "Science has disproven god" when in fact, no scientist worth his salt can say "I know for a fact god does not exist" Nothing can really disprove god, unless someone dies and comes back and tells us what they saw. and I don't mean the whole flatlined for 5 seconds in the operating room. I mean seriously dead and actually sees the other side. Of course, the only real way to prove god's existence would be for him/her/it to appear.

Hence why I never said science had disproven God. God can never be proven or disproven, but logically he's a lot less likely to exist.

this machine, it will not disprove god. It also will not prove god's existence. That's not even why the thing was created. It was created to test many theories of particle physics, and among other things to answer the many unanswered questions the scientists have. Will they find a Higg's bosun? No one knows. If they do, it will go a long way in saying "hey, look, this is how this works!" if they don't it'll kill off many theories and they will have to rethink what they believe they know.

And I never said it would disprove God. I said God would be disproven by logic, not by a single experiment.

to say that science disproved god is a fallacy, because scientists can't determine such a thing. To say that religion disproves science is just stupid. God could exist on a separate plane of existence, completely outside of our normal perception. You never know, this machine could very well open up a rift to another dimension..... improbable, but not impossible. Where did matter come from? We could all be very, very surprised, or not. I still use my theory of "It's just always been there."

Now that's all fine and dandy, but why believe in God? If he can't be proven or disproven using evidence, than it's quite obvious that once you think about it he's no more likely than the Tooth Fairy or Santa, and do you believe in them? God himself has not been disproven, but pretty much all the shit in the bible has. Logic and science are on the atheist's side.

Of course, there will always be questions science can't answer, such as "When did time begin?" "If time has a beginning, what caused it to begin?" "What happened before the beginning of time?" "How large is the universe?" "whats on the outside of the universe?" "does the universe wrap around itself? and if so, is it possible to escape that loop of existence?"

Personally, I would laugh if this machine's results threw everything the scientists know out the window. It would be interesting as well, because even that would be 1 step closer to answering the billion questions about out universe. Or it could confirm everything, which would be pretty neat I suppose. With something like this, anything is possible. Life could be created in the machine. Not likely, but possible. It would baffle scientists if a living being was created and could survive in such conditions.

Yes, yes, that's true, but unlikely.

I don't see how the libertarian party has any more "principle" than the major parties, espicially since they picked some neo-con evangelical who goes against everything they stand for to be their presidential candiate...

At 9/10/08 09:03 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/10/08 07:26 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

Likewhise, does anyone want to vote for McCain because they actually like McCain, rather than just supporting him because they hate Barack Obama? This can go both ways. The majority of the population doesn't really vote on the issues.

But they would like to believe that they do, apparently. What was Obama's statement regarding this lipstick pig business? That their outrage was just a show to distract people from issues, and that he's had enough with "phony talk about change." My god, he says this with a straight face! It's as though he sees "change" as some physical object that can be examined, and he holds the only real one whereas McCain's is artificial. And what do all the news media analysts say? "Anything that gets people away from talking about issues and towards Palin's popularity is good for the McCain campaign."

Seriously the whole change rhetoric is getting old. It was bad enough when Obama was the only one using it, but now McCain's trying to use it too. For god's sake people, wake up. I agree with Obama on the whole lipstick on a pig issue, what the fuck was that matter with that?

Incidentally, how does the pig comment help the Obama campaign? It was obviously intended as a mockery of Palin, which doesn't make him a sexist, but he had to know people would interpret it that way and that republicans would get upset. What has he gained?

I don't know...the pig comment seemed pretty innocent. It's hardly any worse than what the McCain camp has been saying about him. I guess he didn't expect the media to be so petty, but he probably should have. That's politics for ya, screw the issues, Obama said something about a pig!

At 9/10/08 09:55 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/10/08 08:21 PM, Saruman200 wrote: utter anti theist garbage.

I know a great way to prove or disprove god's existence. you take this here pistol. you place the end of the barrel to your forehead and pull the trigger. when you see whether or not there is an afterlife, come let us know.

I've got a even better idea. How about you actually try to disprove my arguments and contribute something to the discussion rather than making some silly remark, however funny, that does absolutely nothing to advance the topic. If you don't have a logical argument against what I said, then I really don't appreciate your post.

At 9/10/08 08:40 PM, Frattochino wrote:
God hasn't been disproven.

Neither has the Tooth Fairy or Santa.

You have to know that before science or anything the same description of God has stayed the same and it generally fits everything that the world around us provides.

The description of God has not been the same. The Greek and Roman Gods, who were a pantheon of flawed human-like deities are very different from the Christian God. The Muslim Allah is very different from Hinduism's Karma and the whole wheel thing with Shiva and all. God is anything but consistent.

You need to be more open minded and see the Science is observation, so just because a scientists names it one thing doesn't mean anything, Humanity itself doesn't know anything about why the world works or what created it, we just know how.

"Why" is a stupid question. Not everything happens for a reason. As for being open-minded, I was raised Christian, but discovered that it was all BS when I got a higher education.

The big bang was basically an explosion, we can't figure out what caused it. If you read the bible and you look at anything in the world, you'd see that nothing in your science book contradicts it.

We can figure how the Big Bang happened and what caused it. But it didn't happen for the some predetermined reason, something you religious people can't seem to comprehend is that not everything has too have a reason behind it. We can use science to explain how it happened, and sometimes why, but not always.

the world is just a bunch of matter that reacts constantly for unknown reasons, those reactions and actions that happen in events are what we observe. It has nothing to do with God, because God is the being that supposedly created us; therefore if there IS a God the world would be the exact way it is now with the exact discoveries. A world with a God is not different than a world without God because God undisprovable and unprovable.

God is undisprovable with evidence. With logic, God is plainly not real.

Its like what you think. What you think in you're head is a premeditated action that you can never prove that you thought. Sure brain scans can show brain activity, but what you said in your head cannot be proven though it would fit with the story that goes with it. For example if you thought "I better eat" and then ate, you have not proof that you thought that but you did eat. Science would take the fact that you did eat and religion would be the thought of you saying "I better eat"; the thought can't be disproved or proved but the action of you eating can. So know one would ever know whether you thought that or not, we'll just know that you ate, just like no one will ever know if there is a God or not, just that we exist.

Uh...you can find out what you think. Your brain sends signals through your body with the nervous system, and the rest of the body reacts. There's no way you can do something without thinking, because in order for you body to move or make sure of any of it's functions, your brain has to send out the message. So, yes, we can prove what you though before you did something. We may never know for sure if there is a God or not, but logically there being no God is a lot more likely than there being a God.

At 9/10/08 08:20 PM, stafffighter wrote:
Well evolution deniers don't exactly have "It challenges my feelings of signifigance" on their protest signs either. Even though that's clearly the hang up.

"My feelings of signifigance". How does evolution reduce my feeling of signifigance? It makes me happy that my species has been able to throw off myths and legends and use science to expose the truth in the world. I get the point your trying to make though. We're a lot more signifigant if God made us specifically then if we're just one evolved species among many. But truth is more important to me than feeling good about myself. Once you face the fact that we are just one species, it's not really that bad.

As for bringing aliens into all this, I don't see why aliens shouldn't exist. UFOs are all bullshit, but intelligent life somewhere else in the universe isn't far-fetched at all. What is far-fetched is that they are little grey men (highly unlikely, anything the evolved on a different planet would be so different than what evolved here on on earth that to try to predict what they look like would be beyond the human mind) who zoom around in little spacemobiles. For all we know, alien life could be primitive, equal to us in the ancient times, or have completely different technological path than we could ever imagine. Hollywood aliens are complete bull, but logically intelligent life elsewhere isn't that impossible. It's been proved that there are earth-like planets elsewhere. Not to mention, life doesn't have to have developed somewhere like earth. As I noted before, aliens would likely be so different than anything on earth, who said they would need water or oxygen? I believe the existence of extraterrestial life is possible, but I'm no alien conspiracy theorist.

After reading some stuff and listening to the statements by the inventors of the machine, all this fear-mongering about the end of the world is pure BS. The black holes would be the size of a fly, and they would quicly decay, being unable to escape the earth's gravational pull and would be rapidly decay due to Hawking radiation. Multiple reports have been done regarding the safety of the machine, all of which have come to the conclusion that it is completely safe.

Well, now the doomsday theory has been discredited, I'll move on to the political consquences of this device. If the machine doesn't work, nothing changes. It won't discredit the Big Bang in anyway, it'll just show we don't have the ability to replicate it. If this does work however, the political effects will be immense. The Big Bang will essentially be proved. However, the religious will come up with some bullshit theistic metaphor for it all.

To quote myself when it comes to theistic metaphors:

At 8/20/08 07:34 PM, Saruman200 wrote:
Science will never be able to disapprove or religion because people are stubborn and hate being wrong. Religion used to deny that Earth revolves around the sun and that the Earth is round. When the evidence become overwhelming they finally admitted it, but in the end they read through the bible and found "hay, look, a theistic metaphor. The bible was right all along." This will happen with evolution and the big bang eventually too.

Theistic metaphors are hardly accurate however. The people who find these things find them because they specfically look for anything that might hint as some kind of metaphor. When you already have a certain view in your head before you read something, your going to come up with the conculsion you want. Say someone has never heard of George Orwell or Animal Farm. I could tell them George Orwell is a renowned kid's writer, and they would read Animal Farm and determine it's a story about some pigs that take over a farm. If I tell them George Orwell wrote that book as a criticism of Soviet Communism, they'll see the metaphors right away.

In the end theistic metaphors are crap, and really, all religion has to prove it's theory is a book. A book that could have been written by anybody. They believe it's true because the authors are claimed disiples of Jesus. But if I tell a naive person J. K. Rowling is a visionary prophet, they just might believe Hoggwarts is real. So, which is more true, the Bible or Harry Potter? I mean, Religious people may say "God works in mysterious ways", but doesn't Harry Potter explain that there are magic invisibility spells or something that Muggles can't see the wizard world? It really isn't that different. Harry Potter's explanations are just as believable as the Bible (or Torah, or Koran, or any other religious text) if you go into it with the right mindset. In the end, there is not suitable explanation for religious belief other than faith in a single book or scroll. Please, prove me wrong, but I doubt you can.

At 9/10/08 08:13 PM, Frattochino wrote: What you guys don't get is that science is the observation of the world around us. The names of events that occur. God creating us and quarts being thrusted at each other are no different in a religious perspective. Its all just how God made us and the names human give it.

Bullshit. God is a myth, no more likely than the Tooth Fairy or Cinderella. Science is an observation of the world around us, and the world around us proves God is complete fallacy. This is the kind of bullshit theistic metaphor I was talking about. People trying to cover up the fact that God has/will be utterly disproven (and not by any specific experiment either, by pure logic) with the whole idea "God created this as a metaphor" crap. It's the pure bullshit, religious people trying to cover their ass when they've been proven wrong yet again. They said the same thing when it was discovered the world was round and that the earth revolved around the sun.

At 9/10/08 07:07 PM, adrshepard wrote: Christ, does anyone actually want to vote for Obama because of a specific policy that isn't populist rather than because he hates Bush so much? You may hate that Bush's tax cuts included the rich, or that large corporations recieve tax breaks, or that he wants to open up offshore oil drilling and exploration, but these things have minimal impact on the country as a whole.

Does Obama even want people to consider him an "issue" candidate? The only substantive issue he attacks McCain on is Iraq (and that's gradually becoming moot, given the tour limits of soldiers), and everything else is "he's just like Bush." Are half or so of all voters going around thinking "the most important thing the US needs is universal healthcare?" or are they just being taken in by pretty words and jealousy-inspired hatred for the upper class?

Likewhise, does anyone want to vote for McCain because they actually like McCain, rather than just supporting him because they hate Barack Obama? This can go both ways. The majority of the population doesn't really vote on the issues. The reason George Bush won was because people wanted to sit down and have a beer with him, not because of the issues. That's democracy for ya folks. Some people will be educated and vote on the issues, others will vote on personality. Nothing it perfect. There are idiots on both sides, and the people that vote on the issues will just have to put up with it. I hate personality politics as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to whine about it and blame it on the other side...

I think that anyone that doesn't admit FOX News is biased is foolish. Most radio programs also have a conservative bias. But the big three networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) definatly have a liberal bias. CNN probably does to. New York Times and the Washington Post are pretty left-wing aswell. I think this is a testiment to the truth of what Earfetish is saying: there's no universial overwhelming bias in the media, rather some media outlets are conservative and some are liberal.

At 9/10/08 03:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Does the theory of evolution have any value? What problems has it been used to solve, and why should we be required to learn about it?

It's value is the same as any other scientific theory: to help us understand the world around us. Now, as people have noted, evolution helps us realize how disease and other things change based on their enviorment. I'm no expert on this, so I'll let them explain that part. Why do we have to learn it? Because, it's knowledge. If we didn't learn evolution, people would just assume God did it. Which is, of course, wrong. "Ignorance is the source of all evil." If we don't teach out children about evolution, then they'll be left believing things that arn't true, and it could cause them to make life desicions that are adverse to them.

If the theory of evolution had an applicable purpose, what would it be?

Well, the whole disease thing, but does it really need an applicable purpose? Science doesn't need a purpose. Who knows, what if one day there are signs of human evolution? Obviously evolution takes along time, but scientists would be able to realize from documents from the past that humans are changing in some way. Chemistry didn't seen very useful when it first took off, but look what it's done for us now.

I don't really understand your post. Really, we don't need to know about dinosaurs. They're extinct. But it explains the fossils that we're found in the ground, so what's wrong with paleotologists studying dinosaurs. Evolution explains where we came from. I mean I think the point you're trying to make is that while evolution is true, why is it important for society? That I can't really answer. Science isn't always relevant to daily life, but knowledge is always a good thing, no matter how relevant or irrelevant it seems. I perfer to be knowlegable about science, even if that science has absolutely nothing to do with my life. My message would be that intelligence is always perfered to ignorance, whatever the pratical implications. I hope that answered your question, even if I don't really understand it.

At 9/9/08 11:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Anyway, this is getting ridiculous.

I've quite thoroughly documented how much of a clown you are AND I've already proved my points about the topic a long time ago. Unless you can actually provide the evidence for things you said you were going to provide evidence for, I'm going to ignore you. No point in just proving what I've already proved just because you keep saying the same shit over and over again, saying things that are easy to disprove, keep resorting to hypocrisy that is easy to document etc...

So basically, you're going to be ignore me because you have nothing left to say, and then you claim you won the debate. See the irony here...

At 9/9/08 09:35 PM, LeidUndElend wrote: The U.S. didn't honour their part of the deal why should North Korea. We could always just send a Swedish madman to take care of KimJong-il

Lol, Mercenaries is a badass game. As for the serious topic, I haven't really been watching it, but if removing them from the terrorist list was part of the deal, then North Korea is just doing it in turn. Seems pretty stupid reasoning though. It's just a list...

At 9/9/08 10:18 PM, Frattochino wrote: Its fact that a fetus is a human life. Just because it isn't a walking, talking adult doesn't mean squat. Thats like saying a baby isn't life because they can't do the stuff that we do or a child isn't life either. Humans are humans, fetal stage or adult stage. Thats a fact.

No, it isn't. It depends on what your defination of human life is. While a fetus is biologically a human, "life" and whenver or not it is a "person" is subjective. Babies can do stuff we do...babies have the same mental functions we adults do, but they just haven't filled there's up with knowledge yet. Fetuses however, don't feel pain, don't think, and don't live. But that is pointless when you look at the my main. The very fact that we are able to have this argument means that a law against abortion would be illegal and undemocratic, considering not everyone agrees when life begins.

At 9/9/08 09:39 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
I already proved you wrong right and left. You were the only person here to continually attempt to ignore the topic and post irrelevant nonsense. You cannot debate, because you already lost, so instead you resort to the biggest mess of shenanigans I have probably ever seen on NG.

You just proved my point. Affirming your view as the right one and claiming victory is known as a sign of bad debating.

----

You have displayed one of the most hilarious examples of hypocrisy that can possibly be done. You contradict the premise behind your own criticisms AS you make those criticisms. You started insulting people long before anyone insulted you, then when I said something that was actually pretty benign compared to the shit you said previously, you say "ad hominem". The majority of your argument this whole time has had nothing to do with any debate, it's been based nothing but wacky bullshit.

Let's define ad hominem: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

Okay, so beside when I talked about delusions, the other insults I used weren't ad hominem because they were replies to ad hominems of your own. And about the delusions, you misquoted me and accusing me of saying or implying things I did not. Delusion: A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief. You falsely believed I had said things I didn't. Thus, it's is a delusion.

I basically destroyed a major part of your argument, and you're just trying to be casual about it? And now you divert attention away form the topic again by saying:

Lol, I actually admit to you that I was wrong, and you just can't help but attack me and use the same bad debating tactic (affirming your victory) that you often do.

Ahahaha! Not only were you the first person to use ad hominem attacks, but the majority of your entire argument has been either using ad hominem yourself, or accusing people of using ad hominem, then using ad hominem again, back and forth, over and over again. Contradicting yourself over and over and over.

Lol, that's sounds like something a child would say. "He started it!"

You're the one constantly pretending that you're debating. You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever.

I'll show how foolish you saying "annexed and enslaved is when I reply later"

Lol, do it. It would be refreshing to see you actually provide evidence to support your asinine nonsense for once.

Look at the end of the post...I ran out of space.

Yes, I'll reply to that now. You are correct in saying Iraq is made up mostly of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites, but the difference is the population of each.

Is that your reply? Do you not even remember what we were arguing about? Are you that crazy?

Again, I got cut off. Your orginal post said that if Iraq decended into civil war it would spill over into the rest of the Middle East. Iraq is very different demographically than the rest of the middle east. First, Iraq is one of the few Muslim countries (only one besides Iran I think, not sure) to have a Shi'ite majority. Second, Iraq has a substially larger population of Kurds then other Middle Eastern nations, due to the Iraq being the only region where Kurdistan is recognized. Similar wars would not spill over into other countries, because those countries are made of mostly Sunnis, with not nearly as much of the conflict that comes from the different sects living together.

You said were pretending that Iraq's sectarian divisions couldn't spread to the rest of the middle east, your support for that was that their demographics differ from the rest of the middle east. Nevermind the fact that as I proved, they have a major showing of sectarian groups that belong to other countries in the Middle East. They have a major division in Sunni and Shi'a which are the two biggest groups in the Middle East.

All you did was parade your blatant ignorance of the topic. Then when you reply you barely even address what was actually being discussed.

Your the one who changed the topic to Europe, the Cold War, and Iraq.

Lol, I've forgiven you for typos numerous times.

You've made PLENTY of typos. You keep pouncing on them and now you pretend like you're in a position to "forgive" them, yet you've made several?

Lol, I said I couldn't tell if it was a typo or not. That's not "pouncing" that's asking you whenever it was a typo or not.

- First you pretend that only people like you have free speech, that arguing against liberal fews is a violation of free speech.

Funny, you talk about how many typos I've made, then make one of your own immediatly after. Whatever... This is where my delusional thing comes. When have I ever said arguing against liberal views is a violation of free speech. I clearly stated "you can critize all you want" in one of my other posts.

- You also keep harping on typos even though you've made several of them.

When have I harped on a typo? By asking you whenever something was a typo or not?

Lol, do you want me to misquote you too.

I didn't misquote you. So now you're resorting to just plain lies now aren't you?

As I said above, you deliberatly put my words otu of context.

None of those are ad hominem when you look at them in context.

AHAHAHAHA

Yup, now it's official. You're either crazy or you're just completely incapable of simple honesty.

And your just a shining example of honesty..

- I said you were incapable of simple logic. You accused me of ad hominem.
- I said you were a hypocrite. You accused me of ad hominem.

Because both are ad hominem.

Both before and after this, you said things like:

- Do you actually believe the hypocrtical shit that comes out of your mouth?
- More delusions. You should go see a doctor or something. I don't know what wrong with you, but something isn't quite working up there in the noggin.
- Don't forget to take your meds before you post, or else the delusions can be rather unpleasant.

All responses to your own ad hominems, as I said before looking up the definition of ad hominem would be a good thing.

-----

And then you pretend that you weren't using ad hominem? The funny thing is that you were using the whole "take your meds" insult, even though apparently that's what you need to do because based on the wacky, wacky things you say, it's not unreasonable to assume that you have actual literal mental problems. You're unaware of yourself to the point that you resemble a schizophrenic.

Okay, let's we here. You have changed the topic multiple times. It was you who started talking about the Cold War, you who brought up Iraq. I admit, I started the whole Europe thing, but you took it out of control by starting to rapidly talk about how much Germans hate Americans...

And you still have yet to explain how liberals critizing the Bush administration is anti-American. Let's get back on topic shall we...

At 9/9/08 09:50 PM, The-Mage wrote:

most people are smart enough realize he picked her for us. not women.

Which is why McCain has dropped in the polls since her pick allowing Barack Obama to reach new heights in polling, including the first time either candiate has reached 51%, which is a definate win in a real election, right?

At 9/9/08 09:01 PM, Frattochino wrote:
No I'm not saying they are all sluts. I was saying If my mom is a slut and she gets pregnant, is it my fault? Why do I have to die? People have different reasons. If its Rape, that still doesn't mean shit because sure they got raped but if i was conceived of rape, I wouldn't commit suicide at the knowledge of that, so why kill me because of that?

Uh you kinda did suggest that. "Just because my creator was a slut or a bitch, doesn't mean I should die because of it." And your not dieing. You haven't even had a chance to live, your not crying about it. Fetuses don't even feel pain till the third trimester, and have no form of true thought. The fetus doesn't give a fuck. And I don't care what it could become. The fact is, it hasn't experienced anything, it's arguably not even alive, no one is gonna miss it, it's is biologically little more complex than a fly, and has no form of thought or perception of pain. "Oh but Saruman, it could become a human!" Well that's just fantastic, but it's not a human yet, so stay out of the mom's uterus. Her body, her choice. You argue that you wouldn't commit suicide. Well that's just great, but others would. Not to mention, how do you know that you wouldn't. You have no idea what it's like to be a child of rape, so don't assume that you wouldn't commit suicide. I still don't understand whenever or not you would commit suicide matters in this argument either, but whatever.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have abortion because of my beliefs, I'm saying we shouldn't have abortion because they are killing people who don't have a choice. A egg won't turn into a human, its a chicken. We eat animals daily so that has nothing to do with the conversation, human life is precious, and just because they don't think at early stages doesn't discount them. Actually its not like a living, breathing baby is any different, they can barely talk or keep their memory for long. its not like they could say no, or survive on their own and its not like they'd even feel the pain. They can't even comprehend the idea of death! So lets raise the bar up and start abortions limits at around 2 years!

The first 2 sentances contradict. You say your not trying to say we shouldn't have a abortion, but in the next point you demonstrate an arguable opinion. "killing people who don't have a choice". Well, I don't think fetuses are people, so there you go, your forcing your opinion that aborting a fetus is killing a person on me. Next you argue through another personal opinion: that human life is more precious than that on animals. But vegetarians make up a greater percent of the population than those who believe abortion should be illegal even in cases or rape or incest, such as you. Thus, a law making it illegal to eat eggs is as logical as a law to ban abortion. Next, you state that babies arn't different than fetuses. But babies can think. They can communicate. "Ooo goo gaga" that communication. They can think and learn, hence why babies learn how to speak and walk. And babies feel pain...they cry when they get hurt, fetuses do not even feel pain, because their nervous system isn't functional yet.

Its not about what qualifies as a thoughtful human being, and stopping the life before it, its about the fact that the being will become a human and taking away a human life is murder.

But aborting a fetus isn't getting rid of human life. A fetus has no life. It's not a person. And I don't care what it could become, that's irrelevant. If a fetus is aborted, it'll never have lived. Never felt pain.

At 9/9/08 08:24 PM, Frattochino wrote:
But they WILL be able to think. But a person decides "Hey! I don't want them to live, so no life for them!" and then ends it right there. What you guys are saying makes no sense. Thats like saying killing a person in their sleep is not wrong because they can't "think" while they are sleeping. Human life is human life and if that fetus is going to be a human, for you to stop it is straight up murder.

Lol, sleeping and being incabable of thought is very different. How is killing something that isn't even alive murder. No one cries when they eat eggs, guess what, the egg could of been a baby chick! You heartless fiend!

Its a selfish choice where someone other than that person decides whether that life is worthy of living. That makes no sense. If anything I should have the say in what happens in my own life. Just because my creator was a slut or was just a bitch, doesn't mean I should die because of it. Its no one elses choice of what to do with your life.

Don't judge someone you don't even know. How you decided that the people that get abortions are sluts or bitches is beyond me. Your the one being selfish, by saying "Oh, I believe an abortion is murder. But it's not okay for me to believe that and encourage people around me to not get an abortion, oh no, I have to force my beliefs on others who don't nessicarily agree that a fetus is even alive, and thus getting rid of it is not murder, but I don't give a fuck what they think, they shouldn't be able to do it because it's my personal opinion, and I'm better then them. After all, they're all sluts."

At 9/9/08 07:52 PM, Frattochino wrote: I'm tired of republicans or idiotic McCain supporters saying that so and so believe this because of the propaganda. Have you watched the news that past 2-3 weeks? Its been ALL ABOUT PALIN AND MCCAIN; and last I checked, fox news is the head quarters of republican propaganda.

I agree that the media doesn't have a left wing bias, but let's not try and blame it on "idiotic" McCain supporters. I myself was almost a McCain supporter, and many intelligent people are McCain supporters.

But now on to the point. The media as a whole isn't biased. Certain news sources are biased, one way or another. Fox News: Right-wing bias. CBS: Left-wing bias. The Wastington Times: Right-wing. The Washington Post: Left-wing. There are plenty of biased media outlets, but there is no universial bias in one direction or the other.

At 9/9/08 07:34 PM, TheKlown wrote:

At 9/9/08 07:32 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

Wow, generalizing "woman" as a single demographic.

Shut up, you just completely re-worded what I said. Go away asshole.

Lol, care to say how I re-worded it? I swear, what you just did, that's the definition of ad hominem

At 9/9/08 07:21 PM, Rockthebestmusic wrote:

At 9/9/08 07:09 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/8/08 08:58 PM, Rockthebestmusic wrote:

At 9/8/08 07:07 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

First off, the fetus stage is between the 11th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. A lot happens over that time, so could you first specify how long before childbirth you mean. The fetus is only fully ready for life oustide the uterus at about the 35th week. Birth usually happens around the 38th-40th week. During the 11th, at the beginning of fetal development, lungs are not fully developed, but breathing motion is present (for the purpose of lung development). Brain, heart, hands, feet, and other organs arn't developed either, though they are there. The fetus can't feel any pain at this point. I won't be able to feel pain until the third trimester. Toenails, hair, etc., develop during the fetal stage.
This is an excellent page that shows everything that happens in each week. The thing is, what do we consider "humanity". I would think that humanity is when a creature has conscience, self-awareness, communicative skills, and critical thinking. None of this appears until the third trimester, hence why personally, I only believe in abortions during the second and first trimesters. However, I object to any kind of abortion law due to the dispute. Some people don't hold the same views on when a fetus is "human" as I do, so I don't believe there should be any law against aboriton, even in the third trimester. That's pretty much just forcing my viewpoint on others, and I don't agree with that, hence why I'm "pro-choice".

Thanks that was quite informative but your definition of humanity is somewhat flawed. What about people who are born with or develop diseases which impair their communicative skills and the like? Are they no longer human? And by the way i appreciate that you didn't fly off into an emotional rant like people commonly do on these subjects.

Hmm, having impaired communicative skills and not having communicative skills are different. Even mutes have communicative skills. Communicative skills arn't nessicarily being able to talk. As long as they are able to try, even if unsuccesfuly demonstrate what they want or need, they ahve communicative skills. I personally (this isn't definition, this is personal view) would consider people who are able in their mind to want to ask for something or talk, even there is absolutely no way they can communicate physically. The fact is though, the fetuses (non-third trimester) are incabable of even "thinking". Also, I support euthenazia for those who are so impaired, genetic or otherwhise, that they are unable to use basic functions of mind and body. This is very rare however. Even those with Alzheimer's have some basic functions. Those that don't, the "vegetables", I support euthenazia for.

At 9/9/08 06:50 PM, TheKlown wrote: Why did he have to pick a woman vice president? Women keep talking now saying that he only picked a female vice president to get there votes... Now the women will vote for obama because they think like this... McCain blew fucking election

Wow, generalizing "woman" as a single demographic. Women are as diverse as men, there are black women, white women, poor women, rich women, urban women, rural women, suburban women, conservative women, liberal women, femnists, stay-at-home moms, working women, single women, married women. I find it extremely sexist that people discuss political demographics like the working poor, whites, minorities, etc... but then lump women all together in one. They make a greater percent of the overall population then men, and an even greater percent of those who vote.

But whatever, we all know McCain made a dumbass desicion with Palin. She added some evangelicals who always vote Republican anyway and some hardcore femnists who make up .000000000001% of the population who will vote for them just because Palin's a women. The ploy to win Hillary supporters over was a foolish gamble: Palin may be a woman, but she stands for nothing Hillary stood for, and Hillary's supporters weren't all women, they where older Democrats and working class whites, both male and female. If anything all this had one is pushed those voters dissatisfied with Obama after Hillary lost who may have been looking at the moderate McCain (I was a Hillary supporter like that) towards Obama.

But this didn't cost McCain the election either. McCain has been destined to lose since the beginning. Now, the media can talk about how small Obama's lead is and why he should be farther ahead, but the fact is a lead is a lead, and Obama has held on to it till now, and he still we hold on to it to end, leaving the small chance of some untimely disaster for the Obama campaign. Obama was always going to win. I've known that since the beginning. Sarah Palin only made it all but inevitable. Even many Republicans have begun to admit that McCain is going to lose, hence why they are no longer rallying for McCain, rather rallying against Obama in a last ditch attempt to boost McCain. The election is in two and a half months. Obama, the skilled orator he is, will probably do better than McCain at the debates too. Joe Biden will have to do it right during the VP debate, bashing Palin but not appearing "sexist" but enough people dislike Sarah Palin enough already that even if Biden overdoes it won't effect too much. Whatever your political views are, you can't deny the reality, bad for your side or not.

At 9/9/08 06:59 PM, Rockthebestmusic wrote:

At 9/9/08 02:29 AM, CaiWengi wrote:

At 9/8/08 08:58 PM, Rockthebestmusic wrote:

And maybe you think as soon as the sperm and egg touches, then technically its still a human just a very early one, but then is it so wrong to kill 2 cells? Whether they are technically human or not they cant feel or think.

Its not that you are killing the two cells, you can kill far more by simply scratching yourself, what's important is that those two cells are an individual organism that has the human genetic structure therefore you are killing a human, albeit an early one. Assuming of course that you consider an organism with a human genetic structure to be human.

Well, I would consider some form of thought to be "human". I mean, a fetus/embreyo/zygote during the first and second trimesters has hardly any sentinence whatsoever, and is biologically little more complex than a fly. I don't consider it "killing" if it isn't even sentinent. We might as well make stepping on the grass a crime then, or swatting a fly...