Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/5/11 12:22 AM, satanbrain wrote: It is israeli property, it was never proven to be anyone else's property.

fuck you all; i call dibs on Jupiter.

At 2/27/11 08:28 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Whoa! Wait, I misrepresented scripture?

before we get into this, do you feel the "Woman caught in adultery" and "judge not lest ye be judged" indicate/preach about non-violence?

i wanna make sure i just didn't infer something that you didn't write.

so no one brought up how Wolvenbear misrepresented scripture in order to set off this new line of debate?

i would have expected a few people to be a little more entertained by that.

At 2/21/11 05:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote: That's a pretty massive distortion of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_proj ect

As the venona cables make clear, there was a massive proliferation of people in the government associated with communist regimes.

qué? why does your link say there is much uncertainty as to the accurate decryption of Venona material (and considerable quantities of undecipherable material?)

At 1/26/11 04:18 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Sollinvictus is incorrect. When one is being fired upon, one has no legal need to defend anyone other than themselves.

i haven't found a clear answer, but this still doesn't appear to be the case. i can't give a full response at the moment, must study, will be back.

relevant but graphic.
some people seem to be upset that the RSPCA put down a number of dogs using bolt guns and pithing (severing the brain stem with some manner of rod); this being the same method considered "humane" as part of the slaughter of other farmed animals.
i'm not sure where the video author gets the idea that euthanasia must be painless (i have serious doubts death is ever pleasant), and it would seem to be a fairly painless way to go (unconcious animal, a brain incapable of feeling pain...), but i think it highlights the unrealistic ideals some people seem to have about slaughter and animal control.

At 1/22/11 02:00 PM, Retsiger wrote: Shut up people. Of course we don't care about animals, otherwise we'd all be vegetarians. You're heartless, just accept it.

no, we're just stomach-ful.

zing!

following the same line of thought; many large cities have issues with strays. strays reproduce, receive no medical care and are a harm to themselves and others, but killing them is cruelty. go figure.

its all a conspiracy to create a need for SPCA personnel so that they can take over the world one neutered pet at a time.

No, I don't. If you are shooting at me from behind a target, I have no legal responsibility to the target.

apparently the fourth Geneva convention deals with the issue of human shields, but i haven't found anything beyond the illegality of using non-combatants as shields. at the same time it would seem that the party presented with the dilemma of enemies protected by human shields must still seek to do all that is in their power to protect the non-combatant; nothing seems to indicate the cessation of legal responsibility towards to civilian populous.

...and the bit about collective punishment seems to be fairly relevant and contrary to the initial statement.

At 1/9/11 11:42 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

in fact; Judas was so pleased he hung himself in traditional Jewish celebratory manner.
how much blame can be placed on the Jews when this whole betrayal, death and resurection thing was planned before time and couldn't happen any other way?

Again... proof?

JC said so, homes.

At 1/9/11 07:47 PM, kakalxlax wrote: Stupidiest message ever

sorry, just hoping to spare Avie the trouble of having to repost his many responses to Satanbrain on the exact same topic. i can't stop you from discussing it with him, but it would probbably be easier if you just read a few of the previous pages.

i'm dead serious; the exact same topic and points... unless you're trolling, in that case you may proceed

At 1/9/11 08:40 PM, Warforger wrote: Uh they turned him over and were cheering when he was nailed to a cross (i.e. Judas)

in fact; Judas was so pleased he hung himself in traditional Jewish celebratory manner.
how much blame can be placed on the Jews when this whole betrayal, death and resurection thing was planned before time and couldn't happen any other way?

anyways, the topic is escaping so i'll stop here.

At 1/9/11 12:30 PM, kakalxlax wrote: In fact israel conceded territory in exchange of peace, ofc muslims didnt honor the deal, it was matter of time still jews get a country, england offered that territory since jewish people always had a link to it

good god, its SB all over again. run Avie; fucking run!

At 12/15/10 12:53 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: It IS an argument. I think that if you believe you somehow deserve or should tell someone else if it is right or not for them to keep their possible future children you are full of yourself.

you're going to have to expand; prescribing action for others is neither unusual nor frowned upon in most cases. the laws are full of things others say you can or cannot do. as social creatures who live in organised groups depedent on one another, it is necessary we have some degree of say in each others lives.
now if you would like to make an argument as to how telling someone else what to do with their possible offspring is wrong, please do instead of stating it is wrong and one is full of themselves for doing so. (while a statement may fit the definition of argument, what i'm referring to is a statement presented with its logical components)

At 12/15/10 02:04 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Seriously I don't even know why a debate such as this even exists.

If you are that much of an asshole to tell someone else they could kill their baby because they don't want it, it's time to revisit your morals.

make an argument, not some nifty sounding one liner.

all right; two liner.

At 12/15/10 09:51 AM, Korriken wrote: Also, most westerners view nudity as something that is inherently vulgar and should be shunned.

just a thought.

it doesn't mean the government can't have a freak-out over aspects of porn.

At 12/14/10 08:23 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Actually that's completely false, Abortions are more frequent now than at any point since the 1970s.

more instances of abortions or more accepting attitudes? abortion rates have been dropping in the US&Canada, and it likely isn't due to increasing barriers to abortion.

which isn't too bad

At 12/14/10 01:38 AM, poxpower wrote: Sure, it's not "fair" to make those 2% work to feed everyone else for free. But is it fair to make the other 98% get a pretend job just so the 2% don't feel cheated?

it makes it even harder to decide whats "fair" when those working don't really have to work as production itself is guaranteed.

At 12/14/10 10:02 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 12/12/10 01:26 PM, SolInvictus wrote: they stopped being Jews when they developped their new religion with the help of Muslim and Christian theologians in the middle-ages. how can you be Jewish and agree with Muslims and Christians.

A property is inherited not owned by culture.

well i was referring to what was going on in Baghdad and other Islamic cultural centres. i never said anything about land.

psh; just an example of how the Jews started being unJewish.

Or an example for disproving that all jews believe the same things.

exactly!

At 12/13/10 12:52 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Nothing wrong with organic food other than the price.

and lack of efficiency; which would mess with this 2% production to consumption ratio... or is it infinitely maintainable since its a magic number?

and meeting future demand.

At 12/13/10 11:09 AM, poxpower wrote: How would you run this society to get as much food to as many people as possible?

force all the organic and anti-GMO people to slave over our industrial and mostly automated farms and have the rest of the population working in distribution. or is the other 98% not supposed to have anything to do with food?

then again, 2% of a world population can probably give a chunk to distribution and production
120,000,000 people to plough the organic nuts into the fields?

At 12/13/10 07:38 AM, KemCab wrote: I guess, and Genghis Khan had decimated the Khwarezm empire before that. However, the actions he took were completely discriminatory against Hindu captives, and when he took the city of Delhi the Muslim quarter was untouched.

but in the absence of a nation, how do you decide who would be ideologically disposed to aid you or your enemy? i'm not saying it had nothing to do with Islam, but old-timey war reasoning and religious war reasoning aren't particularly different or specific.

at least the Christians didn't discrimnate when it came to killing mixed theology populaces.
...not to worry, i do understand was a Tamerlane was one hell of a violent conquerer.

how do you classify Muslim separatists or political groups composed of Muslims but who aren't acting "in the name of Islam"?

At 12/12/10 07:51 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 12/11/10 02:17 PM, SolInvictus wrote: we'll i'll try again and take the pox approach to religious discussions; the Jews aren't Jews because they don't follow their Jewy ways.

the jews are jews since it's their origin.

they stopped being Jews when they developped their new religion with the help of Muslim and Christian theologians in the middle-ages. how can you be Jewish and agree with Muslims and Christians.

by the same token Christians and Muslims aren't what they say they are because they haven't been what they were supposed to be in hundreds of years.

Sadducees (opposed to Pharisees)

psh; just an example of how the Jews started being unJewish.

we'll i'll try again and take the pox approach to religious discussions; the Jews aren't Jews because they don't follow their Jewy ways.

hey Pharisees, start killing bulls in your temple and then we can talk about some land.

At 12/11/10 01:09 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

:: I thought that was the basis for most people(myself included)'s argument against what satanbrain keeps saying?

crap; i thought it was the irrelevance of ancient (or ancestral) occupation as far as deciding to throw out one set of people in favour of another... or i missed a chunk.

damn.

how about a new line of rhetoric?
Judaism and the Jewish people have no rightful claim to Israel as modern Judaism and Jewish culture are not equivalent to the ancient Israelites in religious or social customs. they are not the same people and, ergo, have no historic claims.

as though this debate didn't need more controversy :D

At 12/8/10 05:37 PM, The-General-Public wrote:

At 12/8/10 12:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote: how would you create something neutral and free of social mores?

Pretty easily

... so this whole "women's have a right to their own bodies" is not social?

At 12/4/10 05:43 PM, The-General-Public wrote: bias n: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

learn what bias means

you don't know what "esp." is supposed to mean do you?
we have an inclination against elective surgery (plastic surgery and abortion aren't esp. risky but they sure as hell aren't recommended) and the preservation of "life". how would you create something neutral and free of social mores?

At 12/5/10 08:34 PM, chairmankem wrote: Placing myself in the North's shoes, I'd find this an ideal option. International laws prevent the South and the United States from reciprocating in kind...

i'm not to familiar with international law, but i'm pretty sure acts of war are a reasonable justification for war. if not; the fuck?

At 12/4/10 06:31 PM, LaForge wrote: Lol. Mental retardation is the clinical term for the mentally impaired. Calling someone a retard is accurate.

i don't know about that; i haven't seen too many clinically retarded individuals who can live up to some good ol-fashioned stupid.