I have one. In high school, we had to take a year of "computer applications". I don't think this is a bad idea, I just think you should be able to test out of it.

I could have hacked my teacher's home computer and put 10GB of gay porn on it if I had wanted to, and I had to sit there and get lectured on keyboard technique.

At 12/30/08 12:40 AM, marchohare wrote:
Atheists are generally good at science.

Actually, scientists are prone towards Atheism (or other more open-minded philosophies) because we spend our entire lives using reason to understand things.

Mainstream religion teaches you to plug your ears, close your eyes, and go "LaLaLaLaLa" and call it "Faith". It teaches that the fact that it doesn't make sense is a "test of faith". This is the opposite of reason.

It's not like I care if you want to be religious, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

At 10/4/08 11:39 AM, smeagol1 wrote: BUmp! I wanna get a Thors hammer necklac.

And I want the Bobblehead edition of the new Amon Amarth album, but we all can't get our wish.

Is anybody else wondering when Cannibal corpse will release a new album?

Interesting.

So you're killing all the people they COULD have had.

At 6/28/08 12:15 PM, Proteas wrote:

You and coherent both are taking isolated cases and using them to make out like the U.S. Military, as a policy, condones these abuses, which is Converse accident,

And here we go again. Debating the use of these logical fallacies is both tiring and pointless. Well, truthfully, debating you is pointless given how made up your mind is, but I'll assume it makes my own ability sharper.

and stating that you don't want to see them get any worse than that, which is Slippery Slope.

See, the thing about slippery slope is that it shows that something doesn't HAVE to happen because the first one happens. What it does do is increase the likelihood of the next increment occurring. And then you move from there.

Your point relies on a poorly constructed argument that is not based in reality, and you knew it.

If we have to be mean spirited, fine.

Your argument is based on a high school debate team style of argument construction which relies on intimidating your opposition with an extensive knowledge of a glossary of terms which really have no importance in the discussion.

How many times does this have to be proven before Sean Hannity will shut his fat fucking mouth about Syria!!

When you can tell us what happened to the weapons we have receipts for.

You mean the ones we gave him in his little scuffle with Iran?

I thought he shot those at Kuwait. Or did I dream that war?

Well, neither Proteas nor Mez responded, so you'll have to do.

At 6/28/08 06:00 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
Why? We wouldn't have that right in any other country. Why should they have it here?

I'm sorry, I thought we were supposed to be the GOOD guys. If you're willing to stoop down to the level of Saddam or Osama, go right ahead. I'll move to Switzerland.

Iraq had WMDS.

Bull. Shit.

How many times does this have to be proven before Sean Hannity will shut his fat fucking mouth about Syria!!

And if we hadn't invaded Iraq...we STILL wouldn't have found Bin Ladin, cause he wasn't in Afghanistan.

He was in...... where, then?

Yawn.

Cute.

That's a ridiculous argument. Holding people so they can't kill innocents MAY be misguided...never evil.

Their capacity to kill innocents hasn't been proven. That's what this argument is about (I think).

On that note, I'll ask you the same thing I ask people in Cap punishment arguments.

What is the acceptable "Fail Rate"? How many people have to be wrongly imprisoned/tortured (I'm not even sure which one this argument is about to be honest) before the system has a problem and needs to be overhauled?

I'd just like your opinion on this one.

At 6/27/08 10:46 AM, Proteas wrote:
... spare me your contrite bullshit.

I'm actually somewhat glad you posted this link. It makes for a good springboard for this point.

People such as myself and Coherent who criticize the administration's actions in places like Gitmo do not believe that these are atrocities of the worst nature. We are simply afraid of that link you just posted.

Now, before you link to that damn fallacies site to point out the slippery slope fallacy to all of NG, allow me to say that I really don't give a flying fuck what that guy on that site says. No state starts off with genital mutilation and eye gouging. They start off by waterboarding and playing music like this (this song was spcifically used) .

We are not going to put anyone into a Nuremberg situation, but we are putting our collective foot down and saying THAT NOT ONE SINGLE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE BY AN AMERICAN WILL BE TOLERATED!

At 6/24/08 05:01 PM, Memorize wrote:
How does that not fit in with "public safety"?

I'll assume that you have already sourced that info. I'm not saying that we should just let these people loose into the world. I'm saying that they should have a jury composed of normal humans who review evidence and hear two arguments and make a decision, like any one of us would expect from an opposing country.

I'll also assume you support McCain for teh prez. What did the enemy do to him? This is the US. If we want to call ourselves some great moral power, we cannot throw people in prison when they don't even know why.

And the Trials? If our clown of a leader would have left our troops out of a country with no WMDs and no desire to have a platitude forced upon them, then maybe we'd be putting Bin Laden himself on trial.

But I digress. The importance of morality and human decency is greater than any one man will ever possess.

You first use a SC decision against Lincoln on Habeas Corpus to justify the SC decision today, but then turn around and defend Lincoln because you deem it as "more serious"?

I have trouble conveying my thoughts into interweb-ese. I was trying to say that if the Confederate army didn't cut it, these guys really don't.

For one, they could argue that Lincoln over-stepped his bounds because they were fighting his very own country-men while he was attempting to maintain control of the Union.

Well, that would be speculation, and speculation upon historical events can absorb hours upon hours. (see also: Dan Carlin) There are many things I could say they could have argued, too.

Also, the foreign enemy combatants today are not being held on US soil and are also not granted the same "rights" as you would typically find because they do not fight a sovereign nation, but rather as a terrorist organization who directly violates all of the laws of warfare concerning UN regulation.

So you're saying that to fight their evil, we must become evil ourselves? Granted, less evil, but still, dude!

And you've apparently failed US Constitution and History/Government classes.

Go back under your hole.

Alright Mez, I have to be straight with you. saying things like this (which is by the way, one of the least offensive snide remarks you've thrown my way) does not make you more intelligent, it doesn't make you a better debater, and it doesn't faze me one bit.

Feel the Love

At 6/20/08 07:00 PM, Memorize wrote:

The Constitution doesn't favor you.

Damn fucking straight it does. The constitution at the very least entitles everyone the USA deals with to habeas corpus.

Here's what you're going to say (You've said it before). "Bush suspended that one, and it is in his rights to do so. Plus, Lincoln suspended it"

Just because Lincoln did it does not make it good. The supreme court declared that Abe was abusing his powers by suspending it.

And quite frankly, the Confederate army was a greater threat to America than a bunch of retarded suicidal Arabs will ever be.

Until you do that, you're argument is meaningless. You're a failure. You are historically and constitutionally incompetent.

And you're the biggest troll in the history of teh fucking interwebz.

At 4/17/08 01:17 PM, Major-n0ob wrote: Ok here is the deal. My mom is an English teacher at the local High School where we live.

SUX 4 U!!!!!!!!

The summary of my response:

I suffered through the learning of the most fucked up language on the planet. YOU HAVE TO TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course I would, given that I am a deist.

Do I think that a Christian has a higher chance of being elected? Fuck yes.

There is a belief held by enough Christians to make a difference that if a non-Christian candidate is elected, then they will be persecuted in some way. In reality, they just wouldn't be pandered to.

1 problem:

Every earphone is different.

I put some earphones in, and have to turn it up all the way (and it's still quiet), and then I put another in, and the Slipknot almost blows my head off.

At 3/16/08 07:45 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/16/08 05:56 PM, kahncccp wrote: An essay by Albert Einstein

Why Socialism?

I know where you're going with this, so I'm just going to cut you off at the pass.

Affirming the Consequent
Einstein was smart, I agree with Socialism's viewpoints
Einstein espoused socialist viewpoints
Therefore, socialism is smart.

Appeal to Authority.
Einstein is a brilliant man! Who are you question his authority on the matter?

Believe it or not, the P-man is spot on.

This question is coming from someone who is both a socialist and a physics man who worships Einstein.

Who gives a shit what his economic theories are?

Though it does make me feel all warm inside knowing that both Einstein and myself independently came to the same conclusion :)

At 3/2/08 05:42 PM, DooDooMeaT wrote: I need some help for a school assignment, a 15 page research paper to be exact. Please answer the following questions about outsourcing US jobs overseas. A simple Yes or No will be fine. But you are able to say whatever you like...

Anything to help a fellow nerd.

1. Do you know what outsourcing is?

Ja

If you answered yes to the first question continue...

2. Do you feel that outsourcing overseas is hurting America?

Absolutely

3. Do you think that outsourcing US jobs makes prices cheaper?

This is a fact rather than an opinion.

4.When you call custom service or technical support would you rather speak with somebody from your own country?

Of course. I have an old phone, and I sometimes can't even understand my friends sometimes, no less some dude from Bombay, India.

5. Do you know anybody who has lost a job do to outsourcing?

Nope.

6. Do you think that a company should be punished financially for outsourcing jobs...like a outsourcing tax?

Heavily.

7. Do you think that if companies stopped outsourcing US would not be in a depression?

They would have to go slowly.

Please answer truthfully. I need some names and email addresses so if you want to after you do the survey to PM me your real name and email address...You don't have to but you will not be contacted it is just the show the professor that I didn't pull these numbers out of a hat.

Kay.

And thank you for your time.

Np, brother.

At 2/15/08 04:54 PM, LordJaric wrote:
I hope you are not saying that all christians are like that, because they are not.

Not the place, not the time.

At 2/14/08 10:30 PM, LemonJelly wrote: The game industry is not a babysitter, point blank.

We have the censorship crew down at the ESRB for that.

At 2/14/08 08:22 AM, poxpower wrote:
It's ridiculous, you hear this from republicans and democrats, lefties, righties and funniest of all: atheists.

This is because the Constitution is (Generally) right. The political parties are usually half wrong, so each cites the half that applies to them.

Here you have people saying "the bible is bullshit, it's just a text written by man, we don't have to abide by its rules" but then they will cite the constitution as a holy-esque document that should NEVER be violated.

It's only the law, who gives a fuck?

And you find that it is just as much subject to interpretation as the bible. What does "you have the right to bear arms" really mean in today's society? It means NOTHING. It doesn't apply.

Yes and no. Certain advanced firearms today would have been unfathomable back then. But what has changed about people's right to protect themselves?

What does "the right to free speech" apply to? Television? There was no television. There was no internet.

So? The only thing that has changed is the medium.

If Thomas Paine were alive today, he would either

a) Host the Daily Show

b) Write a column on the internet.

What's up with this? I see tons of really smart people using the constitution as an argument, even though it can be amended. It's not more official than laws, except its less precise, hence can be used by just about anyone to enforce an agenda depending on their usage of words.

Be more specific. Say my argument was that books that offend people should be burned. Enforce this without getting tripped up.

I respect what it stands for, but just let it go :O damn

I don't know if this whole thing was sarcastic (if it was, I'll feel dumb), but your entire argument is scaring me.

What it "stands for" is every principle America has always "stood for", and those principles are the ones that will one day make us as close to perfection as possible.

At 2/9/08 05:24 PM, LordJaric wrote: What are the chances of an Independent becomeing president? Would you vote for one? Would they be able to be heard even though they might not have the kind of money other politicians have? What do you think?

An independent president would have no shot.

Both parties wold gang up on them. It's kind of like living in the slums. You join a gang, or..........DIE.

At 2/13/08 08:15 AM, hippl5 wrote: What's with all this arguing? Theres a simple solution. Withdraw all troops and send a couple of nukes in. Any other country whines about it, give them a nuke too.

NUCLEAR WINTER LOL!!!!!

At 2/13/08 07:08 AM, SuperDeagle wrote:
You would blame both.

Precisely!

At 2/12/08 04:28 PM, AznWarlord wrote:
If a crazy person escaped, we wouldn't blame anyone until he was stopped.

Well the real life counterpart of my hypothetical crazy guy blew himself up already.

One more point for my side.

It benefits Al-Qaeda

Every bomb we throw in combat is PR boost for the terrorists.

You're a 20ish Iraqi man living a fairly shitty life under Saddam. Then, one day, the Americans bomb your house trying to oust him, and your entire family dies. Al-Qaeda says that they want to stop the Americans. Would you join? I would, and I think most people would as well.

At 2/12/08 04:02 PM, AznWarlord wrote:

Owned.

Alright, normally I despise making more than one post in a thread in a day, but I make exceptions for smugness.

First of all, some portion of the bombs are thrown at our troops. Civilian dies in the attack. Yes, it's the fault of the terrorist. But it would not have happened if we weren't there.

Secondly, sectarian violence. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator, and persecuted people that weren't from his sect. Sometimes, that involved killings. Now, with him gone, the sects of radical Islam are fighting each other, resulting in more civilian casualties than if we weren't there.

Yes, the terrorists are possibly at fault. But, if a crazy person escapes an kills someone, who do you blame: the nut, or the guard who was asleep on the job?

So, topic starter

The Iraq war has made us:

Less safe (See Imperator)

Further in debt

Worse in the world's eyes

AND>>>>> It has cost the lives of 3,959 soldiers (29,092 wounded) plus an innumerable quantity of Iraqi civilians (60,000 to 600,000 depending on which study you do).

Need any other reasons?

At 2/10/08 03:45 PM, machacker2000 wrote:
Secondly, the main Al-Queda headquarters was stationed in Iraq. Was. In the 4 months that the liberals tried to keep us out of the country, they f----- moved it! Osama was there too-we could have ended this before it began if it weren't for the very people who oppose it now!

You find me one bit of evidence that hasn't been debunked, I'll be amazed. Osama? Where are you earing this bullshit?

At 2/2/08 06:32 PM, Proteas wrote:
That should end well.

Better than "let's stay and throw blood at the issue".

At 2/2/08 10:28 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
"It's always our fault."

It's true, that is the gist of it. Not always right.

Better than the Ann Coulter "the US can do no wrong".

Also, when you're a world power like we have been for so many years, a lot's gonna trace back to our doorstep. Still, not everything.

At 2/2/08 12:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
And the fact that you took what she said literally/seriously nullifies your opinion of her.

I don't think you can get more serious in a few sentences than in the above quote.

Coulter: Blow the shit out of them

Kucinich: don't blow the shit out of them.

Who, BBS, is more reasonable?

At 2/1/08 07:25 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/1/08 07:10 PM, Bolo wrote: Nobody gives a crap what Ann Coulter thinks anymore.

Lol, actually everyone does.

The shit she says makes the news all the time, and not just the news outlet where she said it at the time.

People like to see stupidity. Why do you think we haven't laughed you off the internet yet?