Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

"It seems almost like you don't think of children as a separate humans, but part of the parents."

That's why we can kill them, Drakim.

"I like the idea that all people should get an equal chance at life. Childhood shouldn't be a lottery were if your unlucky, well, sucks to be you, you never got to grow up and prove your worth."

Exactly, See my first sentence.

"I really care nothing for the losers in society who put themselves there. They can rot for all I care, and I agree with you that being forced to pay money to save them is a waste." - YES! if they are going to die, they better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

"However, this should not apply to a child who cannot influence his/her situation. That child might very well grow up to be a superb citizen, but it will never get a chance because it didn't win the lottery of having the right parents. It never made a mistake of any sort, it was simply unlucky."

That sounds so riddiculously much like a pro-life argument...

But yes Drakim; You'll find among animals that they tend to produce more children then actually survive, because not all of them DO survive; They die and the biologists don't really need to write any sad stories about them; [unless of course the specie is endangered]

What was your expression?

"Yes, because we don't reproduce like rabbits"

At 2/4/08 08:39 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Couldn't it be argued though, that the murderer was breaking his own commandment, so in essence the victim doesn't have to abide by the commandments towards him.

There really is no place for self defense in martyrdom.

The fact that you are willing to fight to defend your life is enough to create several more world conflicts; We are animals, Nothing Dawkins says about how people SHOULD behave can change the fact of how we were MADE to behave; the lives of ourselfs and our 'families' [And group that you associate yourself with closely; [Would you rather protect your country or another ones? [asuming you like your country] ] ] Are more important than adhearing to a code which if taken to it's fullest extent. You REALLY can't follow this without finding yourself in a loop hole regaurding 'questioning everything' Yet having a strong opinion, or wanting to do well, but not wanting it to be at the cost of others.

In all honesty the Buddhist code works much better.

Human survival instincts will keep us alive as long as we have the knowledge of how to survive through problems of the world. The longest human kind could survive is 5 billion years

However, i see the idea of surviving for 5 billion years unlikely; and even if we did, we would have evolved into a specie different from that of homo sapiens. [Evolution and all]

There are plenty of things that could destroy the human race; None of them will be close to that of a Sci-Fi scenario. Nuclear War COULD essentially destroy the human race, though you have to remember that EVERYONE knows about the effects of Nuclear weapons, and a government [unless suicidal] wouldn't blow the planet sky high [figuratively speaking] just to complete a political objective which would undoubtedly be foiled due to the destruction of the human race. [No one around to rule when your they're all dead]

Really the only ones capable of threatening the human race in that way are suicide bombers; Wanting to destroy the majority of infidels; and not worrying about the consequences due to the promise of an afterlife; Muhammed never would have guessed that Armageddon would have come about in that manner.

An asteroid could do it also.

Fact of the matter is, very little could sucessfully destroy the ENTIRE race within the next 3-4 billion years [As in no one surviving to reproduce] But the odds of something happening that could kill off a large majority of the worlds population within the same time frame as before are very high.

I tell you this, relax; The human race has only been around for 10,000 years, We've been around less than 1% of our planets expiration date [if we managed to survive to the end of the solar system]

I loved on Faux Noise when one of the Anchors did the doctor evil thing with the pinkie when he said 3.1 trillion dollars.

How about this;

1) Do you know of ANY Christians who will go around doing the following;

- Denounce Ignorance via blatantly rejecting the theory of evolution because it does not coincide with the bible
- Preaching Tollerance towards homosexuality, [This can be both in the fact that they think homosexuality is a sin, [but still tolerate it] or they do not think it is a sin]
- Protecting the abuse of women from 'cults' and the like
- Having their church serve as a center for community service projects + patronizing of charitable deeds. both abroad and in the local area [i know my church does]
- Denouncing Acts of violence committed by other christians

2) Do you know of any muslims groups that do the same thing? [Replace some of the words above with mosque and the like]

________________________________________
________________________________________
___________

I am NOT going to asume that one is true or the other... I posed a question that i feel, if answered, is the argument to end all arguments, the distinction [or lack of] between Christianity and Islam.

Here's an Excerpt from Chuppa's Thing;

"And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'? History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life."
In a nut shell, This man does not believe that there are no any peace loving muslims [Or, to say the least, not nearly ENOUGH] who are speaking out against the atrocities commited; and as such, Muslims fall to the same trap as have many others who didn't

Has ANYONE ever been to a corny school assembly about the holocaust? "Nobody Spoke up" "People were too afraid." "It was too late." "The Nazi extremism pushed everyone around." "Never again." They say it again and again, this man makes the same point.
Therefore, it is my firm belief that to prove this man correct or incorrect about Islam, you must first disprove his pretense, that there is no 'Active peace loving majority'. Because they are all silent; it means nothing. I don't think there is a soul on this forum who could POSSIBLY hope to argue that without a peace loving majority that speaks out to denounce the crimes against humanity that are committed world wide, there could possibly be a peace loving majority of Muslims MEAN anything.
If he is true in his pretense, he has a virtually infallible wall of historical evidence regarding the massacres of man kind and how they relate to islam.
In the words of Cellardoor;
"And.... Go."

From a Secular perspective, these might work on a local level.

But if someone wants to kill you, they want to kill you.

So... Here it is;

Commandment 11;

If you are prepared to apply the above philosophies in every aspect of your living;

Be prepared to suffer dearly for it.

At 2/4/08 06:20 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Lower-income families, such as myself, paid less in taxes so they get less money back. I think that the upper income families could afford to take the lower rebate and let the poorer people get additional help.

No, really they can't.

Being in the top 10% of income wages is not even RELATIVELY close to being in the top 1%, maybe if you make 100 million dollars a year, you might not be as pissed in having to pay 75% of your income,

But when you make 100,000 Dollars, and have a family of four, and the government thinks that you can AFFORD to pay 60%....

It's their money, not yours.

I was reffering more in first world countries, but that is fine also.

"Actions over beleifs"

Do you know how destroyed some of the politicians would be if people only judged them based on their voting record?

Tehehehe...

Alright, Here's the goal.

Background;

History has shown time and time again that the fall of empires as well as the creation of revolutions were often times related to the fact that there were powerful differences in the concentration of wealth and, more importantly, economic opportunity.

In other words, the age of the peasant, or... More specifically, the age of the peasants plight. A history where one could clearly associate differences in wealth where a wealthy minority took strong steps to consolidate their hold.

Do you as a person feel this age has come to an end? Or Are the wealthy elites still responsible for the plight of the lower classes?

How much Economic opportunity exists now as opposed to in previous decades and centuries?

How much more economic opportunity Is needed?

Is there NEVER truly enough economic opportunity in the world?

Who's post on this page was the largest?

*Slits Wrists moar*

Four posts Cuppa, not one of them responded to me.

*Slits Wrists*

At 2/2/08 11:06 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: This entire letter is a logical fallacy.

Why do you think this man wrote an opening paragraph about Nazi Germany?

When the majority becomes silent, or choses not to speak out against violences commited by their fellow man; they're role in the moderation of they're nation, religion, or otherwise is irrelevant.

At 2/3/08 02:39 AM, Draconias wrote:

At 2/1/08 08:50 PM, Christopherr wrote: Hey, guys... The doc. says that the best stem cells come from blastocytes (4-5 days after fertilization), not babies.

By the way, if you haven't heard yet, the argument is over. You all missed it.

Stem Cells can be acquired from adult skin cells now.

The moral problem is gone. Fully capable stem cells can be created from skin cells now, and no one can object to using skin cells for research. This also offers the opportunity to make stem cells from a person's own body, so that replacement organs will never be rejected.

But that's not NEARLY as fun as getting it from embyro's!

**pouty**

Anyway, my point was...

If you should know why a person wouldn't want to pay tax dollars to support something that was immoral; if you asked a person would they vie out of paying tax dollars for the US military.

However, i think states should be allowed to fund stem cell research if a politician supports the idea in his own state, get's elected, and has a petition to do so; in which case the 'paying for sin' argument is nullified.

I just wish we could do research on humans.

At 2/2/08 06:14 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 2/2/08 04:29 PM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 2/2/08 01:30 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Not entirely unlike what this man does from time to time.

Yeah, because US soldiers are strapping bombs to retarded women and blowing up civilians in the name of the GREAT EAGLE!

No, but they don't seem to have anything against indefinitely detaining and torturing "enemy combatants".

The methods are different, but the religiously fueled sense of justification is the same.

What EXACTLY is your definition of a combatant?

Combatant > Civilian ???
Combatant = Civilian ???
Combatant < Civlian ???\

At 2/3/08 03:04 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 2/2/08 10:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Completely LAUGHABLE.

Kids being able to drive is more important [even if the suck at it] Than being able to drink; it's a matter of priority. [Public transportation i supose; but think of all those annoying teenagers on a bus]

If the government told teenagers they could drink, but we're taking your cars away.

Number one, there would be a public outrage that the government picks drugs over driving.

Number two, it would be like a parent telling their child; "As punishment, i am taking you out of cross country, but you can keep your Xbox"

You know, there are REASONS for why the drinking age was changed.

The government didn't just decide 'hey lets piss people off' when they crossed the T's and dotted the I's; It was a descision backed by the mounting pwnage of innocent civilians at the hands of drunken drivers, MANY of whom bottlenecked into the 18-20 category.

How about this?

You can Drink at age 18... But

If you get into an accident while you were driving intoxicated, it is illegal for doctors to assist you medically.

This way, we'll kill off not only the victims of the the crashes [Who are less likely to survive for scientific reasons] But also the bastards who did the deed.

The imminent threat of death sounds like a good incentive to keep yourself off of the road with alcohol in your blood.

You can argue that it is immoral; and it probably is.

But i don't care.

Maintaining anarchy would be more difficult than maintaining a government;

It's like trying to keep Lithium and Chlorine from reacting... The first societies, and societies created don't have leadership FORCED on them, they select individuals by their own will to lead them based on their merit; sometimes the leaders betray the intentions of the people by controling military forces to subject the people to the rulers will in ways that they do not like.

you can't say "We'll let private enterprise take place of the government."

private enterprise STILL has a hierarchy, if a completely private based establishment, CEO'S become presidents; it's just that simple.

Anarchy has never existed anywhere where they're existed individuals who were mature enough and developed enough to want to better their lot in the world. It only works for pop stars and teenagers who don't have to work for money, and thus can do whatever they wan't, whenever they want.

I'm sorry, but I will not argue that Anarchy is a bad idea; because it doesn't exist.

If when you mean anarchy, the act of overthrowing the government and starting from scratch, then we can talk about that.

That depends; Does Franken mean;

1) I would have stopped the war

In which case, it's completely idealistic, it's like me saying; "I would have ended slavery" EVERYONE would have ended slavery... Except for me of course, i know the benefits that slavery brought; Even if by some twist of fate it was Blacks enslaving whites; you still get the benefits; and i would not only live in a technological society but i would have political correctness protection.

2) I would have avoided US involvement in the war no matter what;

Well If Franken did, Hitler would have killed his ancestors and stopped him from ever ending US involvement in the first place; it's kind of a weird cycle.

"So freaking what if you think that? Show me your evidence, THEN we can talk!".

1) I've already shown some historical examples of how atrocities allowed for the advancement of man kind. [And it is hardly worth mentioning the fact that advances of man kind lead to more atrocities, but if you request I shall contribute]

"Then all opinions must be equal."

2) Which is why I stated that Atrocities are equal to altruisms;

"You are making the theist/atheist mistake again. You assume, since God created us, then he decides what is best. So, atheist believe that evolution created us, therefore atheist must think that the ways of evolution must be best."

3) It's kept life alive for almost 1 billion years [Earliest life began there I think]

"But that might fail in the future, when it becomes too easy to dominate due to weapons, such as portable nukes. We shouldn't draw our way of living from a single source, because nothing is perfect."

4) Where is YOUR 1 billion years of organic success? Humans might have nukes, but using them doesn't benefit them if they know consciously; [Yes, we are thinking creatures]

1) Ends up protecting their interests in the long run
2) Possibly brings even more advances to society
3) Doesn't endanger the entire human race, particularly not your own group

Humans can do damage to themselves, ANIMALS can do damage to themselves, if they overeat; they fight, kill each other, and starve, then they repopulate. Evolution is as versatile as morality; you can't POSSIBLY call it unchanging.

[Like I said, I view true atheism as a society that accepts atrocities as a natural occurrence between a period of growth and a period of regrowth]

Now... if you want to argue why aiming for a global peace is fruitless / a better route then accepting evolutionary urges, ask yourself why it is so difficult for a adolescent male to stop masturbating for more than 1 week.

1) Humans are naturally distrusting; we're not built for peace because we are not built of a collective consciousness
2) Humans are naturally desirous of domination, if they opportunity presents itself, a human cannot be relied on to resist the urge because they are more concerned about the 'suffering they could inflict on mankind' The only time this doesn't happen is if the rewards are less than the cost or punishment if it fails. [Friendship and 'love' count as reasons to not kill or betray someone due to the same principal; but loyalty does not keep a person from doing things that they believe are worth it [lying behind their back for instance] There is no sacred principal, it is all mental calculation;

Outside Factors + Internal analysis = Always Yeilds = Best possible 'self oriented' results

I think it might be easier for you to give me an example of your 'ideal mentality / organization' of society.

Now, obviously there is a step between what one has 'now' and what one has 'then'

So take into consideration what needs to be done to get to that ideal society. Then I'll try and draw a connection between it and evolution.

If you had the option would you vie out of paying taxes that went deliberately to the military and the cia because of moral objection?

If you say yes, it should make sense to you why.

Thanks

s a fucking joke. I mean, obviously EVERY form of media nowadays is a pathetic, unfunny, disgusting joke, be it conservative, moderate, or liberal, but in my oppinion the right wing media takes the cake.

1) A good way to start of an argument is with a forgone conclusion.

"Here's my rational....full with blatant falsities." - Nogg

2) Because no one looks at a conservative book by... say... Ann Coulter, Instead, take the conclusions she has made from the evidence and plotted it against her; because it would make so much more sense to attack her information sources than attack her opinions since opinions are opinions, but false facts are REALLY bad. I don't have alot of Conservative literature in my house, i have Bills culture warrior [Which was very boring] But i do have a sean hannity book. If you would like, i could give you an excerpt and let you interpret the fallicies.

"But see, this is my issue.... are true."

Because it's already proven that

1) Conservatives Attack people
2) Liberals attack Evil

Since you want a conservative attacking a quote like michael moore, here it is;

Sean Hannity; Let Freedom Ring; Page 29-30;

"Mother Jones also attacked the CIA for having 'Too Few spies', or was that too many spies? "Human intelligence-the network of spies on the ground- was allowed to degrade steadily," an article argued in it's January/february 2002 issue. "To the fore came satellite imagerty and the national security agency's capacity to intercept communications. High-Tech spying had proved effective against freogin states duing the cold war. Against terrorism, it's value was dubious at it's best."

[I am going to stop here, but keep going later. I made the excerpts short for your convenience; This Article Attacks the president for lacking of intelligence in preventing the 9/11 attacks. Now going on.. This article states that ground spies are degrading in favor of satellite imagery which was a poor way to go about doing it. ]

"But in a previous issue of mother jones, in january/february 1995, writer robert drefuss seemed to be saying that conservatives were unwise in wanting to build up the cia's human intelligence capabilities; "though the CAI is being downsized there are calls to abolish it, there are also calls from CAI insiders, some congresisonal republicans and a few outside conservatives to expand the CIAS use of spies, known as to the trade as human intelligence., at the expense of techint, or intelligence gathered by satellites, listening devices, or other technical means.," Wrote Dreyfuss. "Robert Stelle, a former CIA officer who has put forward a number of otherwise thoughtful ideas about reforming the CIA recently called or a doubling of eh agencies clandestine espionage and for placing all of the new spies under nonofficial cover...."

Sorry for the spelling issues, it's hard to copy off writing and type it up without looking at the screen.

"Or when... the "average conservative" - nogg

Does that even surprise you? I recall on the forums that an article about the funding of death toll rates on the iraq war was sponsored by a heavy group of anti-war advocates who tallied numbers based on the most violent parts of the country and multipled it based on those numbers by population ratio respectively.

"And then, of course, the pundits. Dear god, the pundits. Well, let's see... Bill O'Reily lies. He lies a lot. Who doesn't, right? Only, Bill O'Reilly doesn't do it WELL. He just does it bluntly, and avoids paying for it by yelling at guests and cutting their Mics off if they point out something wrong he said."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzzVNjduQ 9U

2 non conservatives cutting each other off.

"Anne Coulter... well, she's so crazy, such a mean bitch, and such an insufferable liar, that even the right wing media shuns her. So we'll just gloss over."

But it's more important to catch her saying things that are stupid then when she says something that is untrue. Especially since she beleives people are sifting through her material looking for something that is actually fictitious

Michael Savage. What an idiot. He's one of those "violent" conservatives. He claims liberalism is a mental disease, and when Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, Michael Savage let loose a startling revalation; 90 percent of all people involved in the Nobel peace prize and pedophiles who molest young children and contribute to the child porn industry.

http://mediamatters.org/items/2007121300 09, because even I didn't believe he said that the first time.

Rush Limbaugh; I could list all the different lies and asshole tactics he used, but whats the point?

Rush is one of the unlucky ones.

Your dissidence is unappreciative, leave or be destroyed. [Sarcasm]

I don't mind killing things in the name of our advancement; we just need to coax the population into rationalization long enough for a new way of research to exist; so we can jump off the deathtrain and onto the train of morality and ethical highground.

I don't mind doing research on live humans either, as long as nobody know's about it, or we accept it.

1. Announce that the US will end the occupation, close the military bases, and withdraw.
2. Announce that existing funds will be used to bring the troops and the necessary equipment home.
3. Order a simultaneous return of all U.S. contractors to the United States and turn over the contracting work to the Iraqi government
4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq.
5. Prepare an international security peacekeeping force to move in, replacing U.S. troops, who then return home.
6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation.
7. Restart programs for reconstruction and creating jobs for the Iraqi people.
8. Provide reparations for the damage that has been done to the lives of Iraqis.
9. Assure the political sovereignty of Iraq and ensure that their oil isn't stolen.
10. Repair the Iraqi economy.
11. Guarantee economic sovereignty for Iraq.
12. Commence an international truth and reconciliation process, which establishes a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and Iraq.

That is Kucinich's plan...

He wants to withdraw all troops and put economic contractors in the country. I can understand doing one or the other, but doing both? Has he ever considered that the contractors are going to get blown up just as quickly as the US soldiers, and even more so since they have no means of protection. He also makes it sound like US troops do NOTHING in regards to infrasctructure.

Check his website; his Opinions are all centered around a single idea;

"It's always our fault."

But no one know's What Obama's religious affiliation is then?

I HOPE it makes more sense now, why An enslavement is just as positive as an abolition movement; because both reflect human interests to be more dominant, or to dominate.

It makes sense to me, that a moral code of atheism would be to accept the evolution-run instincts of the human race; including war, famine, genocide, and attempts at domination, but also peace, improved government management, improved technologies, and revolution/rebellion/abolition because it has successfully kept life on earth persistent due to it's reflecting the individual human interest to be 'the best'

The System has been shown to work, people will work together, and if they have the chance; they'll try and become more dominating, and those that don't try get thrown to the bottom, those that do the best get put on to.

It would make sense that Atheists dislike the 'bad things' War, Famine, death, only because it is they're desire to ESCAPE these things, because these things endanger their evolutionary survival. But as conscious human beings who understand evolution, we can look at those things and feel grateful that suffering exists to permit for further development and science. Infact, without suffering [as I argued before] There would probably be no atheism, since a perfect world would reflect the existence of a god, and remove the need for scientific study; Without our internal desire to be the dominators we would also never subsequently create the suffering, or respond to the suffering created by others.

But it would make more sense that Atheists would embrace these things as the agents of improvement, the source of what has created human dominance.

"Why does God let suffering occur in the world?" - A common Atheist question

Atheists should know the answer.

So we could conquer it, be conquered, and re conquer it.

Is this a Satire or what? 'Temporarily ignorant?'

Plus, most of us posters here are weak on the major issues, when we see something as easy as this to argue against [And yes, this IS easy] We'll leap at it. [To add to our post count MUHAHAHA]

I think that link about Cellardoor being pwnt is ridiculous...

I've taken political tests before where they give you surprisingly 'off with what you thought about' results. The only reason i don't have people putting my mistakes on the bottom of their signature is because i don't have enough knowledge to think that i can create an argument worth calling someone 'stupid' for by comparison.