Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/25/07 09:15 PM, labor wrote:

At 3/25/07 09:09 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: For there to be love, first we must know what it is....

What is love!?

Baby don't hurt me.

No more. *bass line comes in*

For there to be love, first we must know what it is....

What is love!?

At 3/25/07 08:45 PM, CryogenChaos wrote: I began hating Pokemon after they introduced the brand new Pokemon to catch.

There were only supposed to be 151 (152 if you count MISSINGNO, the best damn thing ever), not 350-something.

MISSINGNO will haxor your mad dataz. :(

I never looked for the glitch pokemon though.

There'd probably be a huge controversy when the Hot Water mod comes out which lets you remove your wife's hijab (head covering)!!!! SCANDALOUS!!!

At 3/25/07 08:33 PM, OsAmARaMa wrote: Pokemon has never been of any interest to me and it never will. Not to mention how rediculously expensive all the pokemon paraphanalia is.

That's just because you don't have the ultimate special limited edition Charizard POKEMON CAAAAAAARDDD!!!!!!!

What do you like to play?

At 3/25/07 08:14 PM, offday wrote: I need some help too.

Solve for x.

4 - x = 4.

Subtract 4 from both sides, leaving you with
-x=4

Then divide each side by negative one, giving you

x=-4

That wasn't a serious question but I feel smart :D

"abuse" pot. "Abuse" pot. Why do you all keep going about "abusing" inanimate objects? It's their own bodies, let them do with them as they wish. So what if some patients suffering terrible pain get high when they need to? It's better for them to be high all the time then to be in excruciating pain 75% of the time. Does somebody have some sort of quarrel with happiness or something? What's the point of sticking your nose in other people's health business and taking their drugs away?; it doesn't do anything to you.

At 3/24/07 07:32 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 3/24/07 05:55 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Are you sure? I've been told I'm going to hell by religious people plenty before, being agnostic. And what about Westboro Baptist Church? They seem to hate everybody who isn't them. You're judging all atheists based on some of those that you have met, which is illogical.

Umm, I've alot more arrogant atheists. Unless atheists somehow become less proportionally prick, then I won't hate them in general.

They're just more of a prick to you because you're not an atheist, which makes them bigots. Since you're not an atheist it's unlikely that the religious people are going to bother you as much, so you don't see as much of their prickitude come out. And since I'm agnostic I get to be criticized from both the religious bigots and atheist bigots. XD

To tell the truth, Vietnam is a clear example of why Bush's theory on the outcome of the war in Iraq is so entirely wrong. We fought and fought to no end there, yet we still couldn't stop the spread of communism (radical American hating islam) in the region.

Vietnam is not a good example for the following reasons:

1. We were fighting against a much more clear-cut enemy (we knew where they were headquartered and such), though we were fighting against a people with many hostile civilians.

2. We entered into a country that was already in civil war to aid the anti-communist side, so there was at least civilian support in South Vietnam.

3. It's a whole lot more likely that the enemy would have surrendered if the U.S. had stayed a bit longer. In the Iraq War, there is no official unified enemy force to surrender.

I think I'd feel a lot more confident if this was Vietnam and not Iraq! the U.S. Plus, Iraq had little to nothing to do with radical Islam, just a country ruled by some terrible dictator who managed to keep the country from going into civil war as it is now.

At 3/25/07 02:20 AM, Korriken wrote: of course most cases aren't so... easy. if the evidence is solid enough, execute. if not, life in prison.

If the evidence isn't solid enough there shouldn't be a conviction in the first place!

At 3/24/07 11:10 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/24/07 10:54 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

it's not our job to hurt people for hurting others, it's to prevent them from hurting others.

And what more definite way of them not being able to hurt others than to have them killed?

Because it's not always necessary? I don't think prisoners should have to live in a tomb for the rest of their lives though.

Fair or not; it is revenge.

Fair or not. I love it.

Executing people by burning or drawing and quartering them is just getting back at them, not just preventing further crime.

Actually, because executing someone is costly, i'm more for using death row inmates who are proven without reasonable doubt, as experimental test subjects for diseases.

They are still humans, regardless of the mistakes they have made in life.

2. The purpose of the death penalty/imprisonment is to remove a threat from society, not to hurt him for what he/she did to others.

That's like saying a = b.

Not really.

Death equals death. Torture and death does not equal death. Just as death does not equal life imprisonment.

a = a. a + b =/= b. a =/= b

Okay, but what's your point?

At 3/24/07 07:06 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/24/07 05:40 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" Jesus said some pretty nifty stuff, huh? Who are we to judge the punishment for people's crimes?

With that logic, we wouldn't have judges or juries. Murderers could very well be back on thestreet without trial!

You're missing the point of what I said. Or rather, I worded it poorly. The point I was trying to make was it's not our job to hurt people for hurting others, it's to prevent them from hurting others. Of course we still need trials.

It should be our job to protect others, not to hurt the people who have hurt just for the sake of revenge.

I like how you pull "revenge" out of nowhere when it's really just fairness.

Fair or not; it is revenge. Executing people by burning or drawing and quartering them is just getting back at them, not just preventing further crime.

Also, if you're not a "christian", then you don't really have to right to quote him and tell others what to do.

I /was/ a "christian" by common definition but that's beside the point. The quote was misplaced, what I was trying to say was that Jesus advocated mercy, not vengeance. And why can't I? I wasn't aware that I had to be a communist to quote Karl Marx, or a Democrat to quote FDR.

""Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed." Gen. 9:6"

It's my understanding that Jesus's teaching overrode some of the old laws, according to common Christian ideology, but if you really wanna get into the Old Testament you can find all sorts of stuff like that.

Bottom line is

1. Unnecessary pain is illogical and is mere vengeance when carried out in the justice system.

2. The purpose of the death penalty/imprisonment is to remove a threat from society, not to hurt him for what he/she did to others.

At 3/24/07 12:57 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 3/24/07 12:30 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote:

At 3/24/07 12:28 PM, Kev-o wrote: The video stops like, 1/4 through for me. It's a tad messed up that the soldiers were cheering about killing those people, even if they weren't civillians.

No, it is not. They just defeated people who were trying to kill them. They knew they would not die. I would be pretty happy too,

I wouldn't really be happy killing ANYONE. Sure, the soldiers are not dead, but you've taken another's life, whoopy-dee-do, now you're going to live with it.

There are different way to react to a stressful situation. Sometimes people get really pumped in that kind of situation. It's a way to deal with the stress. Don't complain because some soldiers are really gung-ho. :\

At 3/23/07 06:49 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 3/23/07 06:46 PM, Drakim wrote: But anyway, surely, you aren't saying that you arrogant atheist kiddies set the standard for you? I mean, arrogant kiddies are EVERYWHERE, not limited by religion nor anything else.

Arrogant kiddies are everywhere. The atheist ones just tend to be the most vicious of the bunch. At least the Catholic fifteen year olds don't tell me I'm an idiot and my religion is a plague on the world. So I tend to hate atheists as a result.

Are you sure? I've been told I'm going to hell by religious people plenty before, being agnostic. And what about Westboro Baptist Church? They seem to hate everybody who isn't them. You're judging all atheists based on some of those that you have met, which is illogical.

Actually, Begoner, what you said was pretty informative (past some of the rhetoric).

"conservatism assumes that if an individual cannot, through his own work, obtain those necessities, he is unworthy of life and the government should let him die."

That's a pretty far stretch. What is necessary is a mix between business's rights and consumer rights. Either ideology by itself is too restrictive. Nationalizing all businesses is going way too far, since people lose their right to sell their own property. Allowing businesses to do whatever they want is also going too far, since consumers will get ripped off/stolen from/misled and such.

Therefore, government should create programs to help people come out of poverty while simultaneously allowing businesses their rights to provide goods to consumers in a free market while preventing them from stealing.

Government has to get money to fund programs from taxation. Too much taxation causes people to plummet too far into poverty, too little and the government cannot function.

Wow, I'm not even the practicing Christian here and I'm the one advocating mercy...

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" Jesus said some pretty nifty stuff, huh? Who are we to judge the punishment for people's crimes? It should be our job to protect others, not to hurt the people who have hurt just for the sake of revenge. This isn't 1700s England, we shouldn't be trying to draw and quarter people anymore. We should be trying to prevent further crime while avoiding hurting those who commit it, because that accomplishes nothing. There are better ways to improve society.

It's their programming time, if they wanna waste it...

It might be staged, yeah. But if it isn't, why don't you try to get on the show? Really, act as dumb as you can, and then when you get on the show, answer all the questions right.

That'll probably violate the contract they make you sign though. ha.

At 3/24/07 01:12 AM, AMFYOYO wrote: I still can't see people defending a war where attrocities like this happen:

I can't see there being a war where atrocities don't happen. This video is taken completely out of context. But let's say, like you seem to be implying (which you have no proof of), they were just massacring civilians. We all know this is wrong, and we all know that this kind of thing happens in war. As much as it hurts, without the anti-war rhetoric, cellardoor is pretty much right on this one.
"I'm sure whoever posted that intentionally took out a part where the US troops were being fired upon and that this is what started the fire fight."

But like I said, even if they weren't, this kind of thing is expected in war. It's not right, it's not pretty, but it's gonna happen and action will be taken to discipline the soldiers when and if they are caught. Armchair politicians shouldn't sit back and complain and pretend it is just American soldiers in just this war who have committed war crimes. War crimes always happen when any kind of combatant is put in a situation that it is too much for him/her to handle, or if they're just psychopaths. But the fact that some guys went on a killing spree shouldn't be used to say that the entire US is killing innocent people in a country, because that's not the policy, that's against Army code and those soldiers will be disciplined if they are found out to have killed innocents on purpose.

Point is, don't take some random video out of context to say that because a few guys went crazy, all of our soldiers are crazy, because that's like saying that because of George Bush all Americans are retarded.

Hm, maybe I'd be more sympathetic if the PLO and other Palestinian organizations didn't massacre civilians (purposefully) by suicide bombing public places. Regardless of whether the occupied territories are Israeli territories or not, it's important to consider what would happen if they did come independent- what if a section of land had been stolen from a certain area, but the people that would take power were Nazis? Would you support independence then?

Also, how about we stop with this hypocritical whining about there being a Jewish State. Maybe you all have forgotten how many officially Muslim states there are too. And those countries actually do enforce their religious laws extensively, unlike Israel, who's unoccupied territory is basically the freest part of the area. Whether or not you agree with the occupation, Israel's main territory should not be removed.

I think some of you are missing the point of legal punishment. It should not be government-mandated revenge. The point of punishment is not to make people suffer, or even to suffer the same kind of things that they did to other people. It should be to protect the rest of society. Killing people in the same way they kill others accomplishes nothing other than to make that person feel what they inflicted on others. That's revenge and it is unnecessary when someone is about to die. The purpose of the death penalty is to remove someone from our world who has been deemed too much of a danger from society. The logical (and humane) way to do this is to do it in a way that is as painless as possible. We shouldn't complain about the cost if you were going to keep them in prison otherwise, which is much more expensive.

I think prisoners who truly wish to die should not be forced to live in a tomb for years. For the guy who suggested lifelong solitary confinement, that kind of agony should not be suffered by anyone. It's inhumane, illogical, and totally unnecessary. If we can instead reform our prisons maybe people can be rehabilitated instead of just punished and sent to the University of Higher Criminal Learning that is prison.

It would also help to stop jailing people who do nothing to others and just take drugs. That sure is a waste of money.

At 3/21/07 09:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 3/21/07 09:32 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: You know, you don't have to just blindly follow one ideology. Political ideologies are better when you combine their strong points instead of taking the good with the bad.

So who do you cast your lot to represent you?

If you're talking about elections, usually I prefer the candidate I think is right for the job. I lean more Democrat in the U.S. elections, but I'd prefer McCain over Hillary. One of main concerns is keeping the Republicans from legislating their morality and crushing the poor, but banning handguns is a severe civil rights abuse as well. But since the Dems aren't focusing on gun control right now that's less of a concern. I'm still not completely grounded in my position on Iraq (which is bad)...

You know, you don't have to just blindly follow one ideology. Political ideologies are better when you combine their strong points instead of taking the good with the bad.

How about we just legalize it all and let people make their own decision on what they do to their own body, instead of forcing our "morals" on everyone else? Let the government protect the peoples' freedoms, not decide their bedtime and how much candy they can eat.

At 3/20/07 05:04 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 3/20/07 03:02 AM, troubles1 wrote: HOW IN THE HELL Do you think we are the destabilizing influence in the country?

Given that a majority of Iraqis feel that attacking American soldiers is justified and that a majority of them think that we are exacerbating the bloodshed, it is patently obvious that we are a destabilizing influence in the country. When you put idiotic men with big guns in a country they don't understand, that's not going to help the situation. Also, try supporting your point rather than spouting ad hominen attacks or using right-wing talking points. Why do you think that we're doing a positive job in the country? In particular, what actions taken by US forces are helping the country?

Okay, time out. Did you just call the entire US military idiotic? I'll treat that comment with some type of seriousness after you've interviewed each and every single man (note that it's not just men ) out of the the 1,426,713 active personnel in the U.S. military. If you think a man is stupid because he's in the military, you clearly know nothing about the service. Also, you used Al Jazeera as a legitimate source. Good job. Now cellardoor6 can start sourcing Fox News.

I'm too tired to come up with that coherent of a response, so I'll just pose a few questions.
1. If we withdraw all of our forces and the civil war goes into full swing, terrible massacres and all, how do you think it will look for the U.S.? It'll look like the U.S. started a big mess and didn't even bother to clean it up. While I think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, that doesn't mean I don't think the U.S. shouldn't take responsibility for it's mistakes.

Unfortunately it seems the U.S. is between a rock and a hard place, stay and it risks being called imperialists, rising hatred by the people and all sorts of nasty things. If it leaves, and a massive war starts, then it would seem that it's doomed a country to a long war by abandoning it.

Guess that was more than a question.

2. Why should Iraqi Kurdistan stay part of Iraq? Why can't it be its own sovereign nation? I haven't looked into that matter that much, so I'll leave this one open-ended. It seems to me though, that I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed their own land to stay safe from the chaos down south and their own seat in the U.N.

At 3/18/07 04:32 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 3/18/07 03:26 AM, DarthChimp wrote: cellardoor6, You are a comendable man.

On rare occasions, yes.

He's pretty much the polar political opposite of Begoner, which is good and bad at the same time, because extremism on either side is bad.

I agree that joining the US military is a great thing to do but you should know what to expect before you do it. Consider what could happen to you if you were sent into a war zone. Will you be able to withstand the physical/mental beatdown of training (especially in the USMC), and not go crazy like Gomer Pyle in Full Metal Jacket? From what I've heard you gotta be pretty tough to make it in the Marines. :)

If I were about to join the military one of my biggest concerns would be what would happen while I was there. You're under the complete control of whatever the higher-ups decide to do, and that could include going to a war you don't believe in.

But since I'm not in the military, you've gotta take what I say with a grain of salt- talking to people who have actually served is probably the best thing to do.

I highly suspect hell is just a fairy tale to make us all be good and follow their religion...

And wasn't Dante's inferno a work of fiction?

At 3/14/07 09:11 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 3/14/07 07:32 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: "Beacause the US has done everything in its power to indirectly prevent and even eliminate socialist movements in Latin America, leading to concentration camps in which those who didn't believe in Washington's point of view were tortured to death, and then thrown into rivers . Thousands were killed."

All that was was trading the Soviet Union's dictators for dictators that were more friendly to the U.S. There's only so much that the U.S. could do back then and the government probably viewed it as necessary to try to win the Cold War. It's not like their dictators would be much better than anything the CIA put in place.

That's not true. Sure, there's Castro, but the people that the US "took care of" were democratically elected leaders.

Bush has made bad decisions, but he's not Hitler. I think people forget that people die in war and should stop acting so shocked that people, you know... died.

The shock is with the "I don't care" attitude, and clearly ignore what the UN said, that was quite a shocker to us.

Just because a leader is democratically elected doesn't mean he can't be a tyrant. Hitler was democratically elected, then proceeded to take away all democratic rights in Germany.

I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say with the second statement, but we all do care about the people who died; it's just that in war civilian casualties are unavoidable. We have a sophisticated military but none is THAT sophisticated. Keep in mind that Saddam killed plenty of people on his own in his own country. Either way the Iraq War was a poor decision, but not without its advantages. But because of the way it's been handled, it's not turning out very well, eh? The sectarian violence sure doesn't help.

At 3/14/07 05:31 PM, Boarean wrote: Christmas and Easter are both christian holidays and days meant to be for pious Christians only yet the Corporations have toned everything down and made up shit like Santa and the Easter Bunny so they can still make a quick buck of the Atheists and i think its about damn time they gave us Christians back our Holidays!

They don't have to participate in your religion if you want to. Go ahead and put a nativity scene in your front yard, it's your business, but it's not the business's jobs to practice your religion with you.

At 3/14/07 07:30 PM, Joodah wrote: 42.

biologically? to reproduce, and spread the species.
other than that, i got no idea.

Aw man, I was going to say 42... :(