At 11/22/09 07:16 PM, Hybridization wrote:

Proof in a sense that you aren't simply taking two skulls of different animals, placing them together and saying "they must be related".

they don't do that

Evolution only proves itself based on itself so has it really proved anything?

both macro and micro evolution has been directly observed

:No. It's simply explaining itself over and over again in a cycle. "We know how old these bones are from studying the rocks, we know how old the rocks are from studying the bones."

you know nothingt of dating methods oviusly

Just because you cram that ideology into everyone's heads doesn't mean it's true. It does not prove that we came from a single celled organism which by NO means could have possibly transformed into something so complex as humans.

anything is possible

:And last time I checked, the world is getting worse, not "better" as Darwin would claim.

how is the world getting worse overall?

But by ALL means, if you can give me solid proof of evolution, then I'll shuttup. But the reality is, to believe in creation OR evolution, you need faith not facts.

now you can be quiet

I'd be an evolutionist too if I had that much faith :). It takes alot to believe we are here because of a spontaneous reaction that defies all reasoning. I'll stick with a plan that we're here for a purpose and a reason. Wouldn't you rather say, "I'm special?" than "I'm just an accident?"

I would rather belive in a dis-heartening truth then a heart-warming lie any day , although I accept that alot of people would choose the latter option .

And just for laughs: If evolution was real, why are giraffes necks long? That hinders them with drinking water, so wouldn't they have "evolved" long before that to solve that problem? Or am I missing a couple trillion years.

there necks are long so they can reach higher leaves on trees , they can aslo get water from said leaves as well. Although they have no truble drinking water on there own.

mostly I eat whatever's convienent, if dog meat was more convinient id probaly eat that as well.

I really don't think dogs or cats are above eating.

this is actualy really funny :P

At 9/21/09 07:43 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: WAnt to see some actully embarassing Americans?

I just love that guy is supporting glen beck :P

just saying.

At 9/30/09 12:43 AM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 9/28/09 12:01 PM, fatape wrote: what dose this have to do with anything?

You said they are not innocent. Prove this.

prove a negative ?

besides I, didn't say they wern't innocent, I said the word innocence isn't clearly defined.

Okay, and how would it be made so?

allowing, more uncensored tv in the middle of the day and in the morning. things like that.

It's Australia. This is nothing new for that country. They banned the original Postal which was basically stick figure violence. Hell if you want to complain, at least they have Mass Effect; Singabore has -that- game banned (among others). Why? It breaks the anti-homosexuality laws with the lesbian romance option (even though the asari aren't technically females, since that would suggest there are males in their race)

yeah I saw the supposed "sex scene " in mass effect. you can find worse stuff in most soap oprea's on in the middle of the day.

At 9/27/09 10:52 PM, Dekagaru wrote:
NO ONE is born loving farm animals, vegetables, stuffed animals, panties, etc etc. That is all environmental and not biological.

everything you do is in one way or another affected by your biology, there may not be a beastiality gene , but there is a bilogical reason why someone would be into animals.

At 8/14/09 04:02 PM, TheShrike wrote:
Incest is illegal, and it's not victimless. At the very least, there is the huge public humiliation and shame to family members.

it's victimless as long as it's not an abuse of power .

both black and white pride are as equaly stupid.

infact being proud of anything that you were just born into is stupid, no matter what it is.

I guess atheist?

I don't count atheism as a religous veiw but whatever.

At 8/7/09 11:17 PM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote:
Anyway, they're on your property without permision, theres right in that

so if a little kid runs across your lawn to take a shortcut home or something, in your in the right to shoot or kill them ?

do you really think the grovernment is competent enough to decide what is art, and what art should be suppported and what should not.

........seriously

that's bull

everyone should have the right to self defence.

At 8/7/09 04:07 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:
Again, atheism is the belief that deity does not exist. It isn't the "lack of belief" that some people purport it to be; a true "lack of belief" would indicate either complete ignorance of the proposition, or having absolutely no commitment towards the proposition's truthfulness/falsity.

define "true lack of belief"

At 8/2/09 02:23 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: If you had the opportunity to start your own country and be its leader, what would it be like?

Put some thought into this:

-What is the name of your state?

ForScienceTM

-Where is it, and why? (Note: It has to be on Earth, in a fixed location, on dry land.)

extremly far northern canada.

it'd be very secreatve , and it'd hard for other country's to invade you , due to the extreme cold.

-What form of government would you use? What is your title as head of state?

scienceocracy:

a form of government were scientific reasearch and deveolpment take presidence over everything else.

-What economic structure would you implement?

mixed

capitalism/scocialism

-What would be the culture of the people, and how would you develop it?

everything would be based around science and technology, religion would become obsolete and evetualy forgotten.At first we would use robots to aid comfort in peoples lives and to further scientific development . after a while however we would turn into cyborgs with the eventual goal of turning compelty machine.

-Name some political issues. How would you resolve them?

due to the cold weather, and low population there would probaly be little jobs . And little else to eat other then seals.

we'd solve this by geting everyone jobs in sciencetific reseacrh and artificaly developing food.

-What is your foreign policy, and how do you enact it?

since war just wastes resources we could use to further scientic truth were essentialy a pasafisct state . We would however use our superior echnology to develop and sell weapons to military world leaders.

And the all important questions....

-Would anyone else want to live in your country? Why?

we would have the best technology in the world,
and would offer immortality in the form of transfering your mind onto a robot.'

-Why is the country you live in now inadequate in comparison to your new state?

it's not, it' would just be useful to have an entire counry devoleped to scientific reasearch to move the rest of the world along.

One final note: If you feel compelled to respond to another person's answer, begin your post with "Response to: Name of country." This will make it easier to keep track of what's being discussed without longwinded quotations.

Have fun with this one, Newgrounders. I'm eager to see the results.

spengbab

-In canada we do have the option privatized healthcare, we do have private clinics . so anyone claiming that privatized healthcare is better, should come to canada becuase unlike the u.s. system which infact cost's the tax payers MORE per capita then canadas universal system . We have the choice of both.

At 7/23/09 05:29 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:
Even if he isn't innocent, him being attacked *on the ground when he could easily be subdued from that position* is illegal and grounds for criminal prosecution under assault laws.

I jesus there was 4 guys on him

article

beating cuaght on camera

As he was leaving the club, he said a police officer asked to speak with him. Begin said he tried to explain that he was not the person they were looking for, saying he was not in Fredericton when the previous incident happened. He said he was thrown to the ground and police officers started to hit him and knee him.

In my opinion these offcers, specicly the one who started to knee him when he was on the ground should be fired and charged with assualt , the rcmp had no reason to arrest him in the first place, let alone any provacation to start assulting him while he was lying on the ground. (as you can clearly see in the vid)

Now I have nothing against good police officers who actualy protect innocent people instead of attacking them, and they should be commended for it. But officers who abuse there power , like this man should be fired on the spot.

"I think therefore I am"

At 7/22/09 08:37 AM, Memorize wrote:
But whatever we do, don't let that swine flu anywhere!

only reason we have swine flu is becuas of thoose damn mexicans,
if everyone followed my advice and shot illegal immigrants on sight then we wouldn't have this problem.

should we throw people out the country if they get hiv too?

how about killing them, sounds like a good idea.

At 7/18/09 03:21 PM, Korriken wrote: Murderers don't exactly show up at your doorstep at dawn and tell you to come out with your own weapon for a fight to the death. Murderers usually catch their victims by surprise, leaving little if any chance to defend yourself.

and how do you know this?

from my experince most murders are a spur of the moment type of thing , where someone gets emotional and has no intention of killing the person in the first place.

a petty thief? probably. a killer? no. a rapist? probably not.

why not?

do you think killers or rapists are born that way?

like theres some killer or rapist gene, becuase if not the behavior had to be learned , meaning you can prevent it from being learned in thefirst place, and probaly change the behavior later.

Who said anything about revenge? you assume punishment and revenge are the same thing. the difference is, punishment is even handed and prescribed before the crime is committed. Revenge is done through anger at the whim of someone else.

if I assumed they were the same thing I wouldn't have stated both , and just have wrote one word ^_^ , and for the most part I agree with your definitions.

and you really didn't even awsner my question , do you think prison should be about punishment and revenge ?

But i do wonder though, if the death penalty ever did indeed end up banned on a global scale and its decided that government has no right to kill people, then the next biggest punishment would be life in prison without parole. How long would it be before people begin to think that life in prison with no chance of ever being released is too cruel of a punishment?

slippery slope fallacy

but myself I mostly care about the crime rate, if capital punishment proved to decrease the crime rate lower then id probaly be in favour of it, but right now I see no evidence of it doing so.

At 7/18/09 10:04 AM, Korriken wrote: Life isn't fair.

but we can try our best to make it fair.

unless some of the thousand guilty men kill someone else, then you're back to square one.

at least they would have the ability to defend themselves, unlike if the government killed you.

far as criminals go... no.

so you don't think criminals can be rehabilitated?

I mean do you care about the actual crime rate at all or just punishment and revenge?

At 7/18/09 02:09 AM, Korriken wrote: Thanks to advances in forensic technology, the odds of the wrong person being convicted are incredibly slim. most of these "wrongful convictions" that the libs try to throw in our faces are 10+ years ago, when forensic technology was nowhere near as good as what we have today.

incredibly slim /= none

one innocent death is worse then a letting a thousand guilty men go free

as far as the death penalty goes... there's 6 billion people on earth, I'm sure we could get rid of a few, especially the ones who want to go around and do harm to other people.

oh wow,

"theres lots of people , lets just start killing some !" , I mean don't you see any value in human life?

an individual Human life has very little value, the fact that people try to cling onto every life they can is outright absurd. "every life is precious!" pfft. right.

thankfully your not in the majority

Also, for those who want to try and use the bible to fight against capital punishment should actually consider reading it instead of slamming your hand on it screaming that "god is against it!" There is more to it than what your liberal uhh... "pastor/preacher/etc" is telling you. he's cherry picking the feel good parts out to keep you coming to his house of blasphemy so he can rake in your tithes.

one sentence I agree with

however, myself I just think the governemnt shouldnt have the right decide who gets killed and who dosent.

haha found it.

that must of really sucked.

At 6/20/09 08:29 AM, BizarroJoe wrote:
After what happened yesterday?! Check my Art submissions in my userpage and read the story.

yeah I was wondering what happend to your art submissions, I can't see any story though.

I won't be posting nothing like that which is not appropiately labeled as NSFW...

well I didnt expect you to post full blown porn or something ;) ,
I like this pic alot anyways.

THANKS!

can you draw a knight who is a chick with a dick?

if compared to his competition then 1 but if your looking at all his stance at the issues objectivly then probaly a 2.5

but for me 2.5 is lower then id give almost all politicians

At 5/31/09 04:51 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/31/09 10:18 AM, thedo12 wrote:

Those mean nothing considering the examples posted above.

I don't have enough time to go through and read every post in this topic

The dead are considered human, yet exhibit none of those qualities.

really how?

becuase the dead don't have human rights.

The coma patients are considered human, yet exhibit none of those qualities.

actualy they do exhibit all of thoose qualities, but only in there subconcous.

Depending on your definition of reason and remember: infants and those in vegitative states are considered human, yet do not exhibit those qualities.

infants do have all thoose qualties.

and thoose vegatative states belong to their closest relatives.

This is why I used people's lables as a reason for a fetus, under those labels, to be considered humana as well, or else they would be inconsistant.

maybe with todays laws yes, but who says I agree with current laws?

Prove to me that YOUR definition either is or should be the criteria for what is and isn't human.

all that would bring us into is a large and spiraling philosophical arguement that none of us have the time for.

ok memorize instead of just trolling you like before I want to give an actual arguement.

the reason I am pro-choice is becuase I don't consider a fetus a human being. So what do I define as a human being you ask?

something that can reason
something that has self awarness
something that can remember
something that can have inter-personal relationships

so if you can proof to me that a fetus has all these qualities ill hand you the arguement.