Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/6/09 09:21 PM, Ranger2 wrote: First off the US has good political relations with countries that aren't nutjobs.

Hmm, Iran likes America? Then why do they shout "Death to America" in the streets?

Takbir! Takbir! Alaah alahhh akhbahr!! alaahh akhbar! mahrk bahr Amrica, Mahrk bahr israeli!

At 3/7/09 06:03 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 3/7/09 05:56 PM, Contipec wrote: I don't like Israel at all. But I think Jewish people need a country somewhere in the World, so that they can actually all move there and stop being an annoyance in all other countries.

You should move first, I hope the citizens of Pluto won't mind...

I am guessing he was doing the same as the topic starter.

At 3/7/09 12:21 PM, mikailus wrote: I don't think Israel should exist either. But it's complicated.

and yet you have an outspoken opinion on the topic.

At 3/5/09 08:06 AM, gf2tw wrote:

At 3/4/09 03:29 PM, WhoknowsmeaUdiO wrote: I hate him and now his political party is the biggest of the Netherlands, because the retards in my country think he's right!

...no, it's not

in the polls he is, but no he's not

At 3/3/09 11:56 PM, SynicalSatire wrote:

At 3/3/09 11:49 PM, thedo12 wrote: I have to say your both wrong,

if the killing a potential human life is murder , then I commit mass mass genocide at least once a day .

TMI

also, it is infact human life anyways, sperm, is just that, sperm.

how do you define human life? sperm has potential to become human life, eggs have the potential of becoming human life, fertilized eggs have somewhat more potential to become human life.

the only differences between a fetus and a fulgrown human are

1. Size
2. maturity
3. the ability to support themselves
4. the ability to think
5. location

argument one is self defeating... is a midget less human than you or I?
argument two is self defeating... is a prepubecent less human than you or I?
argument three is self defeating... is a senior on life suport less human than you or I?
argument four is self defeating... is a veg less human than you or I? and Brainwaves appear still within the legal age of abortion
argument five is self defeating... does a human's location make it any less human than you or I?

now I would hate to think that I would only differ from a fetus by just those 5 silly points (one is not so silly #4, one is absurd #¿¿)

I have some extra differences

Feelings; you wouldnt expect a fetus to have any emotions or feelings do you? would be pretty cruel too

Thoughts; I definitely have some.. a fetus doesnt, I think you agree. Your example of a veg is poorly chosen since indeed very often they are euthanized. about brainwaves; you probably dont even know what they are and its besides the point.

Awareness; I have it, I am self aware quite narcissistic, I have an identity. A fetus does not have any of this

Relationships; I have some friends and many more other types of relationship that make me a part of a society, a fetus doesnt have any friends or relationships in any way. I have some worms growing in my intestines but I dont know them good enough to call that a relationship, would you?

so pretty significant differences in my opinion

At 3/3/09 11:56 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: That didn't look like anything but advanced touch screens.

I am not impressed. Also, I did not see one thing in that video that was made better by the touch screens significantly.

breaking the language barrier?
extremely simplified handling of information?
real time, time efficiency data processing?
international education?

nah nothing too interesting..

Thats the argument that is made by most people right? the only reason not to bann such insanity is with the argument that the people need to be able to protect themselves against a tiran or dictator. Only then an assualt rifle can come in handy.

I just want to ask, is it allowed to carry your weapons everywhere you go? If its allowed to own an assault rifle is then also allowed to carry it down town new york? is it allowed to carry small arms in public area's?

At 2/16/09 08:00 AM, poxpower wrote:
Gee whiz, please tell me what to think so I can regurgitate what you tell me at a later point in life without having to really do any thinking on my own!

make sure that separation between church and state is properly maintained. try to push a bill (I have no idea how you would call it) that ensures an atheist president.

and be sure to know that you are so much better then any religious nut

At 2/15/09 04:29 PM, Deradius wrote:

At 2/14/09 10:20 AM, poxpower wrote:

lots of stuff

pff i tried to keep up with the debate and it was entertaining, but now its just repeating arguments.

the one with the last word is the VICTOR!!!!!!!! yeajah

At 2/14/09 03:12 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 2/13/09 07:05 PM, aninjaman wrote: Why not?
I don't believe in God. That is the definition of an atheist. That makes me 100% atheist.

If there is or ever should be any doubt in your mind I wouldn't call that 100%.

Now you're going to say that you are just to win the argument.

well actually I agree with anin on this. If you consider yourself an atheist (a gnostic or agnostic one) you are 100% atheist, no doubt about that. wtf is a 64% atheist or a 32% atheist?

At 2/14/09 10:20 AM, poxpower wrote:
"The earth is a cube"
- Smartest man to ever live, recipient of 40 Coolest Guy in the Universe prizes

lol :) easy on the newfag its his 8th post

At 2/13/09 07:08 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 2/12/09 06:26 PM, Tomsan wrote: haha.. ok that kinda closes the argument.

You: "its factor X"
I: "why is factor X? I dont see the logic in factor X"
You: "prove to me its not factor X"
.... uhhhhh lol

but my reason would be; no necessity.

There is a necesity for an evoloutionary trait that causes people to have a desire to have children. To pass on thier genes. I have given a reason why what I say is logical. You have done nothing but say its not and you haven't backed up what you say.

Am I talking to a wall here? Do you suppose the NECESSITY is also of influence in the animal kingdom? also I am doubting you understand the word necessity. is there a necessity for beer if you already have whiskey to get drunk?

plz give your "logic' again; the only argument you came up with was: "The human that developed that trait would reproduce more so that trait would get passed along through evoloution."

I debunked that argument by saying Fertility and sexual urge is of much more influence. The statement that it could have evolved simultaneously was not argumented by you, and not refuted by me. I do know however that evolution doesnt work like that. it will not create a double 'urge' for the same effect, especially not when one far outweighs the other (I thought I explained this all quite clearly already) also there are no signs it would have.

furthermore the statement that the innate desire to have children would have a positive evolutinairy effect does not reflect on reality since the number of single children is on the rise in the western world for a long time. it is now considered a bit weird if you have more then 2 kids.

At 2/13/09 03:45 PM, Ericho wrote: In terms of belief, I think you could use a scale.

You think? how? that would mean that if you would grade it a 5 you would calculate the chances of a god or no god as 50/50 thats just ridiculous concerning you have no basis to ground this on.

Also, "agnostic" is spelled wrong.

could be, how is it spelled then? YOU used the same word

you cannot scale something you cannot prove and is just a hunch. You can think there is a god and not be certain about it though.. and yes that would make you an agnostic theist.

At 2/12/09 05:14 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Now belief can be defined in many ways. When do you believe in God? If you pray everyday? If you accept the possibility he is out there somewhere? If you think he created earth and such?

it can also be defined in a very easy way. The way everyone is talking about in this topic. creator -- no creator. Simple as that.

I consider myself agnostic, since I think that in the end we can never find out how everything is created in the core. So this will always be an open question. Because the surrealism of everyday existence believing in a God would make perfect sense. But if someone asked me if I believe in God, I would probably be inclined to say know. Maybe you can call me an atheist then.

correct! You are an agnostic atheist, there is no such thing as an agnostic (in relation to creator-no creator) without being coupled to theism or atheism.

But lately, as frightening as religious zealots trying to convert everyone to their religion, more and more atheist call out that religion should be banned forever because it's useless and only brings bad things. I wouldn't call them agnostic a bit. Ironically they try to force their believes upon the masses, while blaming religion to do the same.

TOTALLY different topic, and yes ALL atheists are agnostic. at least all with an IQ above 80

At 2/12/09 04:39 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 2/11/09 09:33 PM, Tomsan wrote:

At 2/11/09 07:21 PM, aninjaman wrote:

so they developed it in the last century? Its a very bold statement with no argumentation whatsoever. birth control is not around long enough to have an evolutionary effect. When did desire overcome sexual urges?

Whe couldn't have both the desire to have sex and the desire to have children both developed through evoloution?

Yes it could have, absolutely, but I am more interested if we can show it has. The desire to have sex is obvious, but there is no apparent reason to assume that somehow the desire to have children came to evolve since we can only control our conception a short period. Hence my reference to 'bold statement'. before; everyone that found a mate got kids. If there is no reason for the behavior to evolve (and I dont clearly see a reason around long enough) it will not suddenly evolve.

btw the answer to my argument is not something that is 'commonly known' like you supposedly state. I proposed several other possibilities. evolution and natural selection (which I am quite educated in. ( ATA)) do not necessarily provide an answer to my question.

You have given no reason why it can't be evoloutionary.

haha.. ok that kinda closes the argument.

You: "its factor X"
I: "why is factor X? I dont see the logic in factor X"
You: "prove to me its not factor X"
.... uhhhhh lol

but my reason would be; no necessity.

If I think about it its probably a combination of factors which I described earlier. social pressure etc etc... but what doesnt relate to that, is the high percentage of couples having kids (even in western world). Social pressure cant be that much of an influence especially since its such a dramatic decision. If I dont want a child I would definitely not let myself be talked into it.

At 2/11/09 10:53 PM, Valjylmyr wrote:

At 2/11/09 09:46 PM, thedo12 wrote: not really, most atheists are agnostics as well.

Atheism is believing there is no God, Agnotism is believing there is no way to prove or disprove God. They are different.

(sorry if this has already been said in this topic)

Atheism and Theism refer to a belief. Atheism = lack of belief Theism = belief

agnosticism and gnosticism refer to knowledge
agnos..= lack of knowlegde (or I dont know); gnostic = knowledge (or I know)

now some people here suggest that there are 3 realms you can find yourself in. You either are an theist an atheist or an agnostic. Its not possible; the first two refer to a belief system the latter to knowledge.

You can combine the realms. That is why you can have gnostic and agnostic theists and gnostic and agnostic atheists.

gnostic atheists cannot exist without being totally hypocritical. there are no examples of gnostic atheists I know of. Gnostic theists, however, are plentiful. fortunately agnostic theist are also present.

So I hope its clear now. You cannot be an agnostic alone, you either BELIEVE that there is a god but you do not KNOW for sure, or you do not BELIEVE that their is a god, but you do not KNOW for sure.

At 2/11/09 07:21 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 2/11/09 07:04 PM, Tomsan wrote:

Amybe you won't but most people would.

lol, I very much doubt that. dont think YOUR opinion is the opinion of the 'most people' in this case kinda arrogant and stupid.

Ill try it once more;

But its perfectly reasonable that humans developed the desire to have children regardless of having sex. I know its been said before but that is the answer to your arguement so I will say it again.

so they developed it in the last century? Its a very bold statement with no argumentation whatsoever. birth control is not around long enough to have an evolutionary effect. When did desire overcome sexual urges?

btw the answer to my argument is not something that is 'commonly known' like you supposedly state. I proposed several other possibilities. evolution and natural selection (which I am quite educated in. ( ATA)) do not necessarily provide an answer to my question.

At 2/11/09 06:53 PM, aninjaman wrote: It's beleivable humans have an innate desire to reperdouce. The human that developed that trait would reproduce more so that trait would get passed along through evoloution.

indeed that has been said in all the previous posts

It could also be a cultural thing. If you see a 40 year old unmarried woman without kids do you think she is a normal person that decided not to have kids or a crazy cat lady?

If she is a crazy cat lady, I'll think she is a crazy cat lady, if not then not. I wont judge someone if they have kids or not.. common you wanna say that its not normal or even 'crazy' to grow old without having children? I know adults who consciously chose not to have children and they are fine smart good people.

Ill try it once more;

humans are the only living beings who can see the relation between sex and pregnancy. This indicates that the evolutionary pressure would concentrate on sexual urges. which is kinda visible in everyday life.. dogs humping your leg et etc Sex feels so good because it leads to offspring. It seems to me that nature's way of ensuring reproduction is making the method of doing so extremely tempting. Humans however can have sex without having children so then that effect is nullified.

At 2/11/09 10:23 AM, Octust wrote:
Reproduction is the core of your being.
For the simple reasons that the impulse not to reproduce is weeded out by default. So basically it will go on forever, wheter through you or someone else.

Non reproducing behaviour can never be passed on to the next generation basically.

I am not sure if reproducing is in 'our core' or is 'written in our body' sex is. animals may have the urge to have sex, but they cant lay a line with offspring. Humans also want to have sex, but we can make sure we wont reproduce because of it. having a child seems to be a very concious decision with humans most of the time in the western world, I wonder why.

So I had a dream last night and in that dream I had a boy. I am to young to have children of my own, but I always say I dont want them, very well knowing this opinion can change within years. In the dream I fel enormous love for the child and I woke up wondering if that is the reason for people to have children.. to love, whatever that may be.

So why do people want to reproduce? obviously in the animal kingdom their is a large need for offspring. its in their genes (also in ours) and its caused by sexual urge. But man has found a way to cheat reproduction. Still most couples want children sooner or later. Why do you suppose that is? is it selfish? wanting to be able to continue the family name? or is it an investment for your old days? Is it because your life has come to a phase where nothing new happens and you want some new experiences?

All of the above are quite selfish reasons. Is it maybe the evaporation of romance and love between the couple, and they want to engage in a 'ritual' which ensures their being together? I dont know the answer, I do know that having children comes with a lot of negative points.

I suspect that it is a primal instinct to have children. The effect on your life can(will) be so dramatical it is not something to take lightly and yet the decision often is taken that way. human children need so much care for such a long time it becomes questionable if having kids is a choice at all. You as a parent sacrifice a very large portion of your life!

is the urge to have children just a rudimentary instinct which can never die out considering that will end our species...? Or is it a conscious (and not only conscious in the way that you DECIDE to have children) decision with reasons I cannot think of?

discuss

ill state the quotes again:

At 2/5/09 09:39 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/3/09 06:09 PM, Tomsan wrote:

At 2/3/09 10:29 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/1/09 05:47 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Its evident that if a man or woman has a sex change, a full one, they'll never be able to have kids.

They can.

"born a girl" & "He was able to conceive because he kept his female organs when he switched genders. "

And sex changes get anymore extensive than this? Where else do you put your internal organs?

------------

At 2/8/09 06:11 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/6/09 06:53 PM, Tomsan wrote: Whats your point anyways? he obviously did not have a full operation. he she it has a cunt

Lol what?

It's more than one operation, it takes years of drug treatment and bodily changes. It's not just a snap where you can walk into a clinic and when you come out you're a completely different gender.

how does this relate to the discussion WE were having? I am not talking about the number of ops. YOU said "And sex changes get anymore extensive than this? " well YES is my answer

My point is, what makes it a 'full' change? One op and some pills? Two? Three? More? When you're satasfied with the results?

well in my opinion keeping ALL your female reproductive organs INCLUDING the vagina is NOT a full change, you dont agree??? its more common for people who have a sex change to be unable to bear children afterwards (incase of f>>m). furtghermore a FULL change can be considered as having everything done which is medically possible and applicable, which defines the meaning of full.

At 2/6/09 07:14 PM, 14hourlunchbreak wrote: Here is what I never get about girls:

Young Woman try to look older and more sophisticated
Older Woman try to look young and hip

there are so many mysteries about the female mind that have yet to be solved...

so maybe middle age women are content with themselves? middle age being around 25 I guess.

case closed

At 2/5/09 09:39 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/3/09 06:09 PM, Tomsan wrote:

At 2/3/09 10:29 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/1/09 05:47 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Its evident that if a man or woman has a sex change, a full one, they'll never be able to have kids.

They can.

"born a girl" & "He was able to conceive because he kept his female organs when he switched genders. "

And sex changes get anymore extensive than this? Where else do you put your internal organs?

well take them out and throw them away or keep them in a jar? its quite common that they remove the ovaries because of the female hormones they produce. The also stitch up the vagina-opening and part of the duct itself. I also wouldnt be surprised if they remove the whole uterus and cervix in respect to cancers.

Whats your point anyways? he obviously did not have a full operation. he she it has a cunt

At 2/4/09 03:18 PM, poxpower wrote: Is anyone else here tired of hearing people who think they know dick say how brilliant Mozart or Chopin must have been? Or how Da Vinci must have been some kind of super-genius with a 400 IQ or how we would have never gotten anywhere without Einstein?

never heard that

So I just want to say: let's stop with this shit already. The reason these men seemed to brilliant is because everything around them was SHIT and history has exaggerated their feats and reputation. I bet you everything I own that there's 50 people alive today who are smarter and more talented than Einstein and you'll NEVER hear about them.

probably, but its about being ahead of your time and/or inventing/writing/proposing things that mark a transition in history.

If the 50 people that are smarter and more talented are allowed to use this talent you might hear from them... hawking is a living legend.

At 2/4/09 02:21 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 2/4/09 01:22 PM, Drakim wrote:

Doesn't this apply for vaccines today? You weakling, you aren't even immune to various illnesses like me!

No, genetic engineering increases the gap between those who are modified the most and those who are modified the least. And it won't just be because some people can afford modifications and some can't. It will also be because some people will simply not want to go to the fullest lengths to make their children as docile and intelligent as they can. Those sorts of ethical alms will help to contribute to a disparity.

The money argument is false because there already is a large division between people in world (just for the record). what do you mean by docile? eradicating criminal aggressive genes will not lead to docile people at least not in the way I define docile. You are highly extrapolating the possible effects of eugenics, but that is way to little reason not to do it.

Wat.

Because the genetic differences between modern humans are fairly small, a lot of life outcomes have significant environmental factors (consider that the correlation between IQ and grades is something like 0.50). But if you increase the size of the genetic differences than the ability of one to control their future outcomes through their own efforts or actions decreases.

valid point, but is this a good enough reason NOT to do it? if there is the possibility can you denie people to make the decision if technology allows it. anyways this discussion is besides the point, the main reason to do it is saving lives. The difference in e.g. IQ would be large in the beginning or the transition phase, but eventually everyone would be genetically engineered. the whole argument is flawed in my opinion anyways since I am a hard determinist, so your 'destiny' will be set already.

Why do you only think about genetic modification as in terms of individuals? It's like you only see it as a tool for personal gain or something. What about things like saving the human race from a plague? D:

No, quite the opposite. I think that people will select for intelligence and non-violence, traits which llow a person to best function as a part of a modern society.

eventually eugenics, if allowed to develop, will lead to this yes, no harm in it though. more importantly we need it to let the human race prosper and not be submissive(?) to disease and hunger.

Come on, less capable of independent thought? This is starting to sound like bullshit. Give any sort of justification to these claims!

Think about it this way. If you decided that you wanted to not send your kids to school, and teach them that the Earth is flat, etc. you'd be considered a pretty poor parent, right? In fact, your actions would actually be illegal in the state of California..........

I dont follow the example. As far as I know we know to little to significantly change personality by GM. Sure we can make them less aggressive or musical, but that has nothing to do with independent thought.. nothing

to counter your example. Lets say you come from a poor family with low intelligence. your family was never able to compete with middle class. now you have the chance to change your childs faith by giving him/her an advantage, or more precisely give them equal chances (because the rest will also be modified). Why wouldnt you do it? there is nothing immoral about it, its just the next 'evolutionary' step.

sorry for the bad writing; I am tired

eugenics in the end will probably be inevitable. The human race is deteriorating and we cannot cope with the evolution of disease. Since the expiration date of penicillin is near its overdue time (dunno if thats a correct sentence) eugenics can and probably will offer the solution.

to give a few examples;

chinees youth suffer from loss in eyesight aprox 50% has a 'bad' eyesight.

diabetes is increasing in infants. diabetes is genetically caused and comes to expression by environmental factors, however diabetes is on rise due to significant increase in diabetes cases caused by obesity (to elaborate; obesity is not a necessity for diabetes) diabetes is 'crawling' in our genes.

eugenics can provide a solution to many social issues as well. minimizing the chances of any birth deficits that can affect society. Think of elimination any heritable mental disease, not allowing the birth, or actually the conception, of physically or mentally deformed fetuses.

This would greatly liberate society of negative influences. We could even take it that far as to exterminate those who carry 'agressive'or 'evil' genes, if one finds that they exist (as for aggressive they certainly do). obviously the latter is a delicate discussion.

you can vote against eugenics and then humanity will survive as well, but on another way. Eventually disease hand hunger will take his toll. Can you disallow the choice?

At 2/3/09 10:29 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/1/09 05:47 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Its evident that if a man or woman has a sex change, a full one, they'll never be able to have kids.

They can.

"born a girl" & "He was able to conceive because he kept his female organs when he switched genders. "

At 2/2/09 12:51 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Well I for one know it to be a choice, I myself went through a phase at one time but got through it quickly without doing anything I'd regret,

scientists beg to differ! being gay is definitely a proven genetic defect. a lot of genes have been recognized to cause the 'disease' (yes in my med books its called a disease)

Honestly, I think anybody here who's curious about this has to ask themself that sort of question, and be willing to change their outlook if the answer is "choice" because otherwise I think you're being ignorant and just flat out wrong and upside down on the issue.

Why? because YOU cant comprehend the issue? they choose to have an operation, they dont choose the way they feel about their body. They dont choose the fact that they are disgusted by it and feel alienated by their own body.

The only reason I think its a dumb choice is that having a sex change will NEVER make a person truly a member of the opposite sex, if they go all the way through with it, yes, they will NEVER be able to have kids the normal way and they wont be able to have one in the opposite way, thats just a fact.

That is completely beside the point; there are lots of people who cant reproduce (male and female) does that state that they arent really the gender they are? no it doesnt. They are simply a female/male brain trapped in a male/female body. They want to move heaven and earth to change that. A sex change operation is just a partly solution to the problem, which can help significantly.

So as I was saying, a sex change doesn't fully turn someone into the opposite gender, so they will overall always be a man/woman with a mutilated reproductive system, meaning again that they wont be able to have kids in a normal way let alone the opposite way.

I dont understand why you have to bring 'kids' into the discussion... not important. You feel like there is no difference between a cock and a cunt (in this case more a ovary+uterus ) if they dont work like nature intended? ill laugh when the doctor tells you your seamen isnt active enough to reproduce.

That is really the only beef I have with it, why would they do that if they couldn't change completely?
Even if a guy has boobs n a vagina, even if a woman has a deeper voice n an unfunctional penis, doesn't mean they're anything different then what they still are.

So have I cleared everything up?

you have cleared up your closed mindedness to everyone else yes. one more hypothetical/rhetorical question. if you get huge manboobs because of some hormonal defect, would you let them remove it? I mean it wouldnt make you lesser of a man if you wouldnt.. its only appearance, why bother.

forrest gump yellow shirt