Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/11/05 07:30 PM, trigo wrote: People a lot of the time are actually secretly agnostic, but the way I see it, is that people need a parent figure, so anyone to believe is secretly dead inside and act on their own

I meant to say CANT act on their own accord. I'm going now, bye

People a lot of the time are actually secretly agnostic, but the way I see it, is that people need a parent figure, so anyone to believe is secretly dead inside and act on their own

At 12/11/05 10:44 AM, Bancer wrote: What if it were a 14 year old girl and a male teacher, would you think props to him for makign her a woman?

Then it would be gross, because certain physical changes occur when a woman loses her virginity. Why you interested?

I'm suprised no one has stated the obvious(actually someone probably did ,I don't read what I don't want to), this guy is a fucking idiot.

My opinions:

-Patriotism is nowhere near as good as globalism
-Iraq will never be free

The facts:

-the majority of America doesn't agree with this hick
-America was one of several countries responsible for Hitler's downfall. And there's a nazi club (as well as communist club) in my redneck town.
-Fascism (in definition) exists in America, primarily.

At 12/10/05 09:55 AM, InsaneStewy wrote: Only people with nothing better to do talk about when worlds going to end. IF THE WORLD IS GOING TO END IT'S GOING TO END,

I'll be laughing when you look like an idiot 2012

At 12/11/05 06:47 PM, Dranigus wrote: And your proof of such is?

Don't ask for proof when you criticize the other of challenging you to proof. You look like an ass.

biological and psychological perspective? bull

Why do both of you think there is only the two? Psychology doesn't answer anything and in facts asks more questions, which is good, but psychology is not the only factor in homosexuality.

Psychology in its self is biological. It's about the circuitry of the human mind, which is after all biological.

in reasoning that, everything is biological, but I don't think psychology is very relevent, because biology is fact, and psychology is interpretation.

Therefore... is why psychologists theses take into acounts not only psychological and biological terms so simply, yet rather behavioral and biological perspectives. taking into account that certain diseases and the natural manner in which someone reacts both take into account. I was going on by this too, just that I excluded the general biological terms, because that can take a part within someone and generally doesn't on its own conclude to homosexuality.

are you equating homosexuality to a disease?

Psychology is biological and behavior, right? Then there is no need to say psychology and biology. Because psychology already has it in it's self.

No, psychology is much different, things aren't so black and white, biology is what it is and psychology is completely what you make it.

You are aware that our biology is affected by the environment?

completely irrelevant

It isn't our genes. There is nothing natural about being homosexual. But their's also nothing personally artificial about it either.

It's not? not natural? personally artificial? then what's your arguement?

By the way, you don't have any evidence either and your little example doesn't explain all cases.

Nothing will ever cover all cases, descirmination is inevitable.

I am loving the fact how simply ask for me to show proof without showing some that is actually reliable.

Now your both smug, smugness is a disgusting trait

At 12/11/05 06:37 PM, Wadger wrote: you cant just say "its not genes" with out evidence i dont know the study that mentions it but i will have alook until then we will have to leave that alone.

lovign this debate

Since something unprovable exists we can't discuss it, when in any event nothing is "provable".

At 12/11/05 06:17 PM, Dranigus wrote:

So your saying that people are homosexual because of they way they grew up?

Where does it say in my post that all people are homo sexual?

Where does it say that I said that?

What I said is that we are who we are today because of events that take place during our childhood and for some of us those events can cause us to be quite different from one another, like transexualism and homosexuality.

That's exactly what I'm criticizing you about. You are saying that people become gay as a result of their childhood?

At 11/26/05 07:33 PM, Dulnar wrote: Andrew Jackson. I still don't know why he's on the twenty dollar bill. He's a despicable president.

Jackson was a war hero in the war of 1812, that's why. Not that I agree with it

At 12/11/05 06:05 PM, Dranigus wrote: Actually there is much in common between the two. And I was only using it as an example, on how someone would be so fix on being different from what would be considered normal. It's because of people not understanding one another or doing crazy shit to one another. That's what makes us the way we are as we grow up.

So your saying that people are homosexual because of they way they grew up?

At 12/11/05 05:11 PM, Dranigus wrote: If for instance a boy is constantly attacked by male peers, he might want to become a woman as a result. Thinking his a guy in a girl's body.

Don't compare sex changing to homosexuality, because in my mind (if we are to look at these things as natural) homosexuality is not a physical state.

At 12/9/05 10:34 PM, hungapoe wrote: Gay marriage should be stopped.

2. This is unnatural. Short and simple,

Marriage is unnatural, secondly marriage isn't about sex, it's about the legal opportunities given to those in wedlock. asshole

At 3/13/05 08:18 PM, jmaster306 wrote: Read some of my other posts in this forum, I refuse to regurgitate my feelings on Bush mearly to appease one as completely oblivious as you.

Okay then leave, you're done.

LMAO, you have no clue who I am. I'm in college,

LMAO, then act like it.

have taken courses in psychology, sociology and political science.

HHAHAHAHAA, so have I. (truthfully)

Now I quickly read through some of your prior posts, you rarely make a point and always resort to insulting your opposition.

Point taken, but no one has made a point to make a notable topic of discussion.

Ok, you attacked me for flamming King_Hammurabi because he was an asshole. And since then you have repeated[ly] badgered me because I am not saying anything useful.

aaahhh, now you see what im talking about.

Well I've got news for you kid, you are doing exactly what I did to King_Hammurabi. So you calling me a hypocrite is absolutely hillarious.

there is a difference between sarcasm and hypocracy, you are oblivious to that apparently

Quoted for great justice

Sorry, but i don't get it.

My thoughts? Well as much as I strongly believe invading Iraq was a huge mistake, I don't believe that Iraq is by any means strong enough to stand by itself.

I agree

It's neighboring states don't really have the power nec[e]ssary to maintain order while a new government is being formed.

On that I disagree, but it wont matter because the US transfers sovereignty to Iraq on June 30. Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt all govern themselves and depend little on Iraqi exports, and on top of that Iran and Iraq hate each other.

I suppose you would also say that after the afgani-soviet war that it was a good thing for the US to pull out immediately because we don't want to be fucking with other peoples business.

How is this not our business? you're not giving me enough credit either.

Well I've got to tell you, when you start something you have to finish it. We started this huge mess in Iraq, it is only right that we must then pay with the lives of our servicemen to see it through. Given there be one condition to all of this, the Iraqi government should be the ones with control over our troops, not our generals.

On that I completely agree.

I expect this from fox, firstly because they represent opinion as news and tell you that they do. It's pretty naive to think otherwise. Secondly go to oriellysucks.com (Im not sure on spelling).

At 3/13/05 05:32 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

Aren't GWB and Paris Hilton proof enough that the rich are capable of entering areas of stupid into which even the poorest people fear to tread?

At 3/13/05 07:49 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

like the fact that he [GWB] has the right to be judged fairly.

At 3/12/05 02:28 PM, airraid81 wrote: If you don't have the time to parent your children, then don't have children.

then you support abortions?! great, so do I

The European Union is much closer to being a superpower than china!

At 3/13/05 07:21 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: If there's one thing I can't stand more than a n00b, it's a n00b that pushes other n00bs around.

thats because your stupid

king hammurabi or whatever your name is use this:

At 3/13/05 07:37 PM, jmaster306 wrote: Oh no, I quiver in my boots at being "shot down" by a person that hasn't ever once made an intelligent point on this forum.

are you talking about this thread? because the same could be said of yourself, wow what a hypocrit, make a topic already!

Better yet, who the hell do you think I am?

a stupid punk kid, who think he knows what he's talking about.

You attempted to flame FUNKbrs for creating this topic and now you are whinning about how I need to bring up a topic for you to debate.

because apparently I don't make the rules, and in an attempt to start a debate, I can only do it, in the only thread that is allowed to exist. And I was trying to flame him?!?!?! are you serious? because if it were a flame I could have said something better than I did, I only wanted to say how I felt about this rediculous forum/thread.

I am not your mommy, I will not bring up a topic for you to debate.

then why have this fucking thread? your're defeating the purpose, if you want I'll start a topic. IS that what you want?

Since you have SOOOO much to say in your teenage, everyone-is-stupid-except-for-me, angst... please go right ahead.

Since when am I a teenager, and its more than angst, it's rage for people who are

- stupid
- naive
- or have nothing to say

Since you wont start a topic I WILL:

James Dobbins argues that "insurgencies are defeated not by killing insurgents, but by winning the support of the population." By failing to do so, "the Bush administration has already lost the war." Only moderate Iraqis, working independently of the US and with the help of neighboring states, can salvage Iraq. For this to happen, says Dobbins, the US must disengage and withdraw as soon as possible. - Global policy forum

your thoughts

At 3/13/05 04:48 PM, airraid81 wrote: There are more than two parties in America, but they have very little support.

There are several parties with great support!!!! including the green party, they just don't have equal representation! God you people are stupid.

At 3/13/05 07:16 PM, jmaster306 wrote: Wow, he was asking because it looked like you were arguing with yourself. Here, a little present for you...

You really lack any origionality, plus PLEASE bring up a topic (the OFFICIAL BUSH TOPIC is much too vague), so I can embarass you.

At 3/10/05 08:55 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 3/10/05 08:18 PM, implodable wrote: Funny

Best. Thread. Evar.

thanks, it took me a while to write, but it seems like your avoiding the topic (which YOU started). hypocracy?

At 3/13/05 06:44 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: I was referring to this definition of religion:

So was I

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

and what about that make atheism a religion? maybe your thinking of scientology?

At 3/13/05 03:49 PM, LOLWTFBBQ wrote: Lemme finish this once and for all heres a diagram with letters and stuff..

If I get your diagram correctly, you are an incestual prick, getting a bj from your sister? you sick fuck!

At 2/19/05 05:24 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Atheism, itself, is a religion, and to believe whole-heartedly that God couldn't possibly exist is FOOLISH.

Religion: A structure of belief and spirituality

Atheism: A life with NO beliefs in spirituality.

not the same.

At 3/13/05 12:54 AM, pierrot-le-fou wrote: Trigo is just being Trigo. There was another guy earlier who said the USA had no elements of socialism whatsoever. It's best just to ignore those dudes and let them come to a realization gradually.

did you even read what I wrote? sure makes you look like an asshole.

At 3/12/05 11:36 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: No, Democracy can take on many forms,

Including socialism?

so I referred to one that has socialist leanings, so yes, I do know what I'm talking about. If I just said "Democracy", then that could cover a whole hell of a lot of bases, including Capitalism.

That's not at all what I meant, but excluding capitalism (like was your intentions), makes your comment OFF topic. And irrelevent.

I'm sorry, who is the stupid one? =)

Apparently it's still you, but what's this apologizing then calling me stupid?

P.S. I was not referring to the American form of government, more of my current one (Canadian) or ones similar to those in some parts of the UK or even Australia as a stretch.

P.S. Your point was universal, and now moot.

At 3/12/05 01:36 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote: 2) Socialist Democracy

Do you know what you're talking about? Democracy practically means a socialist economy (in essence). So it is stupid of you.

Also you probably meant a Captialistic socialism. Which we (the US) have.

At 3/10/05 07:46 PM, Angel_of_Death_lokie wrote: Ok, I’ve been watching this post since it started, and all I have to say is that it is total bullshit!

I agree you suck!

I can't believe some of you people are so close-minded! Most of you sit at home a bitch about how the government sucks, (true) but the minute some speaks up about a solution (although it seems out of the ordinary) they get their head bitten off by a bunch of people unwilling to look at it from a different perspective.

Sounds like you know everybody here, it's a pretty close minded thing to pin this on a majority. But it sounds like you talk out of your ass so much it's a fluent exchange.

Now don't think I’m bitching at everyone, if your getting pissed reading this your probably the one's I’m speaking of, some of you have put up a intelligent and articulate argument and i applaud you.

sounds like bitching to me. But articulate? have you been reading the same thread I have? These people have no idea what they're talking about. Especially the shrike. what a dumbass. hahahaha

And by the way, those people who have judged the author’s thoughts do to his age, you disgust me! I know some teenagers who posses more wisdom than MANY adults and don't dare blow me off do to my age either!

What do you know, you're just a punk kid. And no they don't. I have been looking a long time, all they know is the pathetic comments their parents make and the articles on the net they look for so as to "outsmart" the competitor. It's no competition stupid. And that's exactly what you made it out to be.

. I’m sure I’ll get some people reply to me with hateful comments but as long as i reach some one i can live with the others.

That's pretty naive of you, even the most opened minded person here is too smart to be swayed by a kid who has nothing other to say than "Be nice to children".

And also, THE BOYSCOUTS FREAKING ROCK!!!!!

The Boyscout are horrible, and the only thing worse than them is the corrupt institution or crime syndicate known as the Girl scouts. hahahah, witty comment! I'm halarious.