Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You know, I love these topics. How do we solve the problem? We insult him!
How do we counter his arguments? We look up shit from his past to use against him!

Here's a novel idea, how about we address his arguments and shoot them down one by one!

For example, the schmuck says something like: "Playing violent video games makes a child violent." you can respond with: Well, actually studies show that less than 1 in every 10,000 childrenwho play violent gameswill commit a violent crime. That's less than 1/100th of a percent. And almost all of the children were disturbed before gameplay, so we can't really point at the games as the problem.

or "We need to upgrade the warning levels on the games!" Say: Why? All of the games you're demanding we denounce are already labeled M for mature. They all have the reasons why, such as violence, sexual content, etc, listed on the back. Several states have enacted laws prohibiting the sales of these games to anyone under 18. Parents still buy the games. Hell, GTA is named after a felony and everyone without exception knows Grand Theft Auto is a serious crime. Still, parents buy the games for their kids. Putting more blame on the game manufacturers won't solve the problem. And we don't have the manpower to watch every set of parents.

Countering idiocy with logic works much better than vile comments or dredging up stuff about their past or present.

At 1/10/06 05:15 AM, lordkau wrote: A fetus is a parasite living off the mother.

Parasite implies that it hurts the mother and has no positive benefits. Neither is true. There are benefits. Here's the article: http://health.discov..egnancybenefits.html
(one of many actually). But for those of you too lazy to look it up, here's the short version.

There are 6 major benefits to pregnancy:
1. Sex is better.
2. Health becomes a Habit.
3. No more menstral pains.
4. Cancer risk is reduced.
5. Senses are heightened.
6. Self confidence soars.

I've read of others, but those are the ones covered here.

Honestly, this whole thing reeks of bullshit. You make one off handed comment and the whole school goes ape-shit on you? Not buying it, sorry. Also, I don't care how "Christian" the town is...they don't send the cops to arrest non-believers. So, since you and your friends had to run, that means you did something illegal, like hit someone. Every single facit of your story cries out horseshit. From the teacher trying to hit you (knowing they'd not only be fired, but also put in jail) for a single sentence you said, to the cops being called and you having to run because you're a Satanist and somehow that would've landed you in jail....it just doesn't add up. Sorry.

As for why everyone thought you were an ass (assuming any part of this story is true), it's cause you are one. You come in here acting all superior, and when someone calls you on it, you insult them. Kinda hurts your little victimized story. I've met a lot of nasty christians in my life. I think I've met a grand total of 2 who would punch ANYONE for being a dick, and it would always take more than one statement that was intensely personal and insulting towards their religion. Most would simply tell you you are going to hell if they're the extremists you say they are. Don't decry others their lack of tolerance while having none yourself.

Said it in the other Robertson post. But it deserves repeating.

Coulter is alright in my book. She may be a little farther right than I'd like, but at least she's not spewing racial epithets (every minority liberal except Obama that walks into the picture), calling for violence (Al Sharpton), spewing insane conspiracy theories about how Clinton orchestrated the FIRST WTC attacks (Moore, Dean, etc), or calling for the assassination of liberal politicians (Sheenan). Generally, I think she's right on. She cracks me up most of the time, and though she's a very angry chick, that doesn't mean she's a wacko. Her most controversial statement "Let's kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", was made after the 9/11 attacks, when she lost a very good friend. She wasn't necessarily using tact, and I don't blame her. Actually, I'll go out on a limb and say she DOES represent the conservative ideal. Anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, etc. She's just so outrageous about it, most people can't tell when she's joking or being satirical.

Robertson however, is a complete and utter jackass.

And as for people on the left I think are crazy, here's the short list: Kennedy, Sheenan, Moore, Cho, Flint, Streisand, Cloony, and Franken (such a shame, I liked his first two books, but he's becoming, angry, bitter, and more than a tad unstable).

At 1/9/06 09:25 PM, mackid wrote: God wouldn't give a righteous man a stroke. I concur, it's natural factors that gave him the stroke-old age, high cholesterol (I assume), obesity, high stress lifestyle etc.

Speaking of idiot conservatives like robertson, read this.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
(Quote from Ann Coulter)

"Cheney is my ideal man. Because he's solid. He's funny. He's very handsome. He was a football player. People don't think about him as the glamour type because he's a serious person, he wears glasses, he's lost his hair. But he's a very handsome man. And you cannot imagine him losing his temper, which I find extremely sexy. Men who get upset and lose their tempers and claim to be sensitive males: talk about girly boys. No, there's a reason hurricanes are named after women and homosexual men, it's one of our little methods of social control. We're supposed to fly off the handle."
(Again by Coulter)
Wow, a retard! She's retarded. She thinks the fat cat V.P is "handsome" and that Muslims must be "convert[ed] to Christianity" because it'll somehow make them good? Wow...

Never read the Cheney quote, it's certainly not in any of her books. She does like to be satirical though, so God only knows if she's joking or not. And if she's not, it wouldn't be the first time an attractive woman had her eyes on a fat balding man with power.

However, everybody quotes the kill their leaders and convert them to christianity as Coulter's nut job tendancies. It's obvious you didn't read the whole thing. She had just lost a good friend in the 9/11 attacks and was speaking in anger. And you know what, in a lot of cases she wasn't far off. I'd say just convert them to Democracy tho. That's just me.

While Ann Coulter is sometimes too far right for me, she tends to have some good ideas. And as for Rush Limbaugh, while I intensely dislike the man, he has never once said Kennedy was gay. Sorry, didn't happen. He's said he's a fool. Which I agree with. How about he's a murderer? Cause he is. But while we're talking about stupid things people say, let's look a little to the left: (warning, some of the following qoutes are very much offensive, or at least they were to me)

Maureen Dowd: Dick Cheney is the Lord of the Underworld. Evil and self-righteous, he has only one difference from Lucifer, Lucifer was once in the presence of the lord.

Howard Dean: It's possible Bush knew the attacks (9/11) were coming, and just let them happen.

Al Franken: This is my strategy for Republicans, walk up to them and say "Hey Fuck You".

Cindy Sheenan: Bush could be like Hitler, if he was smarter and gave a damn.

Also Cindy: This country isn't worth dying for. I would tell my son that. This country is evil and corrupt.

Michael Moore: Someone should've told Osama, hey, these people you're going to kill, they didn't vote for Bush (who the hell makes jokes about 9/11, let alone right after it happened).

Margaret Cho: (several) If you're not a feminist, kill yourself...You do not deserve to live.
Words should always take the work of bombs. War is never acceptable under any circumstances....Someone has to walk away. It may be the cowards way out, but who cares?
Michelle Malkin is a traitor to her kind. She is a stupid gook, a filthy yellow whore to the Republicans.
Ann Coulter is Cunta Kinte.
Powell and Rice are little more than porch monkeys, too stupid to know they are slaves again, picking cotton for their white masters.
(Every word this woman says is hateful).

Larry Flint: Powell and Rice are Uncle Toms, selling out their race to the white man. (Guess no one informed Mr. Flint he was very much white).
A study was done showing that conservatism stems from a fear of change, a deep seated bigotry, a hatred of women, homosexuals, and the black man. (Gee, I guess that's why they use racial epithets so much LESS than the democrats).

Woo, didn't mean to go on so long with that list. My bad. So come on here. We wanna sling around bad quotes people say from each party? The democrats have us beat in terms of pure bile. Do we need to shun Roberts like the plague? Damn straight. Do I hate Rush Limbaugh? Oh yea, he's boring as hell. Both sides have people they need to ditch, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Kanye West, Maureen Down, etc. Roberts, Falwell, Limaugh (he's just so fugging boring). But let's stop associating quotes that they didn't really say (i.e. Rush: Kennedy is gay.) Both sides say stupid shit. But when it's a liberal, people usually just say "Oh well, he misspoke, drop it." I.E. the guy on CNN "Look at these people, they are so poor, and so black." Roberts may be an idiot, but at least he raises a shitton of money for needy causes, and in my book, that outweighs a FEW of the negative statements he's made. Though I still believe the duck tape solution could solve things.

At 1/9/06 10:18 PM, 31SlipKnoTonKpilS13 wrote:
If you had a mole on your face, isn't it your right to have it removed? It's still a living thing that's connected to your body, isn't it?

No, it's in fact not. A mole will in three years, still be a mole. It will still (usually, unless you're gorbachov) still be the same size. It will never gain intelligent thought. Nor can your mole leave your face UNLESS you have it removed. This is a poor comparison.

By the way, science has found that life begins before birth. The baby is completely viable at about 7 months. Brain works, organs can keep the baby alive outside of the womb, etc. So, should it be allowed after then? Life doesn't begin at birth, that's an absolutely idiotic idea. But since we all have a relative who doesn't "have all their parts working", we know that you don't have to be 100% operational to be considered a person or alive.

And as for the gay gene, whether or not it exists or not is irrelevant, the scientists still haven't found it. Nor have they found all the other genes they've promised us. It's kinda like the magical cure for cancer. Every couple of years someone pops up and says "hey I got it" (or AIDS or any other disease), there's this big hooplela about it, then we never hear anymore about it. WHY? Because it turned out he found a way to grow carrots faster, and one rabbit who had a tumor lived a couple of months longer than it should've after eating the carrot (or some such nonsense). The cure he found doesn't actually work. We still don't understand genes. Why two siblings drink together exactly the same and ones an alcoholic while the other never seems fazed. Etc.

As for being gay being a choice, of course it is, at least for some people. I do believe some people are born more prone to it (and some are born gay), but even most liberals (and a hell of a lot of gays I've talked to) believe sexuality is a choice. Go read a lot. Read about the teachers who talk about the heterosexual assumption. Et al. There's tons of examples. And several studies have been found that sexual abuse can warp a person's sexuality. And lots of guys believe their girl is one small suggestion away from a lesbian experience (that they can watch of course). And a smaller number of girls share that fantasy about their boyfriends. I wish people would stop saying that it's some nonsense the conservatives made up when so damn many liberals are spouting it too.

Here's both the legal and realistic take on this one.

Legal:
I've heard a lot here about how the principal had no right to censor the article. This is out and out right BS. The school newspaper is run by...the school. And just like in a real newspaper where the owner has the right to put any article they don't like on the chopping block, so has the principal. And the whole "they can't do it without the school board" argument is bunk too. The school board decides much of what goes on true, but the principal has a lot of power as well, and is left completely with the day to day running of the school, as long as he doesn't violate the school boards decisions. Kinda like our govt, the principal (executive) can do pretty much anything that the rules haven't said that he can't. Schools censor free speech 90% of the time. Cest la ve. Move on. And since the principal allowed the next issue (as you said) to basically slam the crap out of her, you can't say she's censoring all dissenting opinion. The school newspaper is a school forum, and like a classroom, the school has the exclusive right to decide what stays and what goes.

Realistic:
This is not denying someone the freedom of speech at all. It's just saying he can't use the school paper to talk about it. Perfectly acceptable. The idea that this principal should resign because it was a "religiously motivated" move is just idiotic. You complain that the student's voice was censored, but you want to censor a person who's expressing a view of their own. That's out and out bullshit and you know it. We live in an age where some free speech is accepted, but not others. It's ok for a black man to scream racial epithets at the top of his lungs, but not for anyone to suggest he may be a racist, or that racism is nowhere near as big a problem as we make it out to be. It's ok to teach our kids homosexuality is a choice that we should all at least experiment with, but heaven forbid we hire a motivational speaker who uses the word God in his or her speech. It's ok to be "out and proud", but a student wearing a straight pride t-shirt is spewing hate speech. When you allow other speech to be censored, sooner or later your own will be as well. Grow up.

Honestly, there's nothing ironic about this at all. We can disagree without there being anything wrong. Just because you accept something, doesn't mean I have to. Just because I don't believe gays should be stoned to death doesn't mean I have to endorce homosexual marriage. I find it ironic that in a forum complaining about censorship of opinion, the proposed solution is...the censorship of opinion, and a firing based upon that censorship. And honestly, without the article, I have no way of judging whether the article was good clean fun or not. It could've been vile, nasty, and offensive, in which case the school could've been sued or parent's could've thrown a bitch fit, hampering the efficiency of the school, in which case, the principal's decision would've been right on. I find it hard to believe you were told you couldn't post the article here, cause people do so all the time, or at least link to it. That leads me to believe that it was indeed not just an innocent article, and that you know by posting it (or linking to it), that people will see i wasn't as good natured as you're trying to lead us to believe, and you lose support.

The funny part is in the debate over ID vs evolution a few weeks back, I brought up this point. ID can be applied to any "higher form" one sees fit to believe in. No scientists believe that this(FSM) is a valid theory and are doing this simply to mock the religious "yoohoos".

Let's call it like it is. ID may be right, but even if it is right...it is not science. It should not be taught in a scientific classroom. But then again, neither should Darwinism/evolution, neither theory being even remotely scientific and being based on an almost religious faith in both cases.

Before the Darwin people respond, here's the logical and responsible way of going about scientific discovery/research. You go in with a theory and look for ways to prove it wrong. If it is proven correct time and time again it is proven. Not only can neither ID or evolution be tested under these criteria, no one has TRIED. Listen to almost anyone who makes the debate for either one. The only difference is we've found some evidence that puts evolution in a questionable light, we CAN'T find any to put ID in such a light. (Unless we find some kind of super advanced technology from millions of years ago when the Cambrige explosion happened. ) Neither of these are even theories, they are simply untested and unprovable hypothesis, and since we don't teach the never ending litany of unproven hypothesis in school, we shouldn't teach these either.

On a side note, I found it funny on the Colbert Report (since somebody brought it up), they had the scientist who thought up string theory. Colbert (even pretendng to be like O'Reilly), gave the guy a chance to explain his theory and he couldn't. He rambled for a couple of minutes and finished with...um the math ads up. Colbert sat there and said something to the ends of "If you can't understand your own theory, why should we try?" Cracked me up.

At 1/1/06 08:59 PM, Ultinhanavaris wrote: This all boils down to the fact that it's freedom of specch. It didn't cause violence, so it's constitutional. No matter how much the church complains, the producers can say or do whatever if it's constitutional. I don't think it's a stunt to divert attention, merely a few people having too much pride and thinking that they can't be ragged on every so often.Being a Catholic, a roman Catholic at that, I do debate it with my Presbiterean (I spelled it wrong, I garuntee) dad. I must say that I do see some issues with the Catholic Church. I don't think it has anything to do with hiding the sickening truths, though. - Jim.

I'm not sure how much that helped, but it's a new take on the scenario, right?

This does NOT boil down to the fact that it's free speech. I don't know why people keep saying that. There is no gov't intrusion here. No censorship by the state. And since all the first Amendment guarantees is no gov't censoring of freedom of speech, there is no freedom of speech issue.

A company can make any rules it wants limiting free speech and you have no recourse. The news shows what it wants, how it wants. They don't hire people who won't report the news the way they like, be it FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, ETC. Stations can kill shows because they cause a backlash. Good example:

WWE programming had a character called Mohammid Hussain, damn good wrestler who played an Arab American angry at the prejudice against his race in our country (hee was actually Italian, but who cares). They finally put him in an angle (same day as the train bombings in England) that showed him as a terrorist. There were some angry letters and they took him off TV, fired the guy. Even though people started a petition to bring him back, they refused and he's still gone. Shame too, he was the second most talented guy the had on the show post draft. On the petition a lot of people cited Hussain's first amendment rights (he had none, and even if he had, they don't go over to a character he played on TV). The company censored itself because they were afraid of a backlash that would cause them to lose money. I think it was a bad decision (more people wanted him back than had asked for him gone), but they stuck with it because of the bottom dollar. A show, a network, a company has a right to show what they want to show, and there are no first amendment rights in play.

I hope this clears everything up. There are no Constitutional violations here, sorry. So everybody who's used that line can stop saying it, cause it's simply not true.

The argument "if you're not doing anything wrong, what's there to be afraid of?" is not only flawed, it's needlessly apathetic. Apathy is the death of liberty.

That said, the Patriot Act isn't wittling away at our freedoms as bad as has been made to believe. The goverment could always tap phones, and monitor electronic activities. I see no purpose to obtaining library records, however. All in all, I look at it this way, the Patriot Act was written very quickly to help fight in the war on terror. It was passed because we needed to protect ourselves, and it was Congress's responsibility to review the provisions and edit it over the past four years to protect our liberties. They didn't do this, and now we have the "outrage" about how the Republicans are saying that this debate shouldn't be happening now (it shouldn't, it should have already happened but was willfully ignored). Some of the provisions of the Patriot Act are necessary, i.e. expiditing communication between the FBI, CIA and police organizations, speeding up the process of searches (they do still have to get a warrant, btw), etc.

And as for our rights being wittled away, that's been happening since long before Bush got into office. Between the Supreme Court, the ACLU and ridiculous laws, we've been having our rights wittled away for decades.

Dr_Irony_Fist : I kinda took the line "You and your parent company will fold" as a threat to the company that it would go bankrupt, yea. Regardless, either way this isn't a huge moral issue. And we don't know if there's more to the story than "Catholics complained, they pulled the episode." We just don't. But even if that's all it is, so?
Companies don't exist to "show backbone", they exist to make money. As I said, the episode will play again, just not right now. It's easy to say fuck everybody until you're faced with a huge lawsuit, or a boycott. You choose your battles, and pick the ones that are worth fighting. Plain and simple.
And as for freedom of speech, again, technically once they hand the episode over, it becomes part property of Comedy Central. So they're censoring themselves as well. They also have to censor out cuss words when they play Chris Rock, is that a huge deal? Of course not.

In my opinion, this is just someone making mountains out of molehills.

At 1/1/06 02:59 AM, darklad wrote: come on, muslim countries don't disrespect jesus, it's not fair for the christian countries to make fun of mohammed, there's boundries and limits for making fun. I would have found this less offensive if this came from a muslim, still offended but less, it's like a white person using the "n" word

I love that...I would've found it less offensive coming from a Muslim. Why? Is it a different message somehow? I call a line from Coach Carter to attention:

"Did you just say Nigga? Nigga comes from Nigg-r. That is a term of disrespect. You disrespect me when you call me that. You disrespect yourself for saying it. And you allow others to disrespect you when you accept them calling you that."

Bottom line, he says it's the same message coming from a black man or white man. In fact he goes on to how it's worse for a black man to use it. Regardless. Just because it's offensive, doesn't mean you have the right to be shielded from it. Free speech is free speech whether you like it or not. Life sucks. We all have to deal with things we don't like to hear. Tough.
And as for the Muslim nations don't make fun of Christian nations. No, but some of them call Jihads on us. Iran called for the extermination of the Jews, of Israel. We have entire nations calling us the great Satan, and teaching their children how evil we are. Not that all Muslims do this, but come on, stop trying to act like no Muslims have ever done us wrong. And which is worse? A joke (which he may not have understood the infraction (to give the artist the benefit of the doubt), or calling for murder?

At 12/30/05 05:40 PM, mcchap wrote: Well... I did give you the chance to explain yourself (not that I had a clue about what point you were trying to make from the first few lines) However... I did burst into flames the moment I read the sex for 12 year olds part. Well in fact I started brewing up when you said about removing police guidance.
I do feel I need to explain why I became 'enflamed' as it were.
The police matter: You seem to think that just because the world isn't perfect. The world is perfect. It's the killers, the rapists, and the other bad people upon it who make it imperfect. Now I am in no way suggesting I believe the world should have no people. I just believe that the people on this planet should realise that there are imperfections in every human and animal. There are many good things about each animal but there are imperfections. My point is that there will always be these imperfections in every human and that removing police forces and so forth that are in many cases honest would cause a total global uproar. I don't think I have fully explained my point but don't really feel the need to explain it further. Only that you may have not thought about the global politics when writing this.
As for this stupid, under-considered, inconsiderate idea you have come up with that all 12 year olds are fully responsible and are mentally capable enough to handle the hindrance of a relationship of this level? Well I don't wantlto explain myself at all. However, I will
The idea was stupid and had OBVIOUS flaws:
Sex for twelve year olds.. and prostitution would mix well with any given paedophile... ahh.. damn.. there are NO POLICE.
Sex for twelve year olds with mental difficulties or physical disablities? WHAT?
Sex for twelve year olds. WHAT?
II think you should have SERIOUSLY thought out what you wrote prior to writing it, and I also think, from what you have written, that you are a fool. I am not going to say I respect your opinion when your opinion is... so nonsensical.

LOL, I'd like to defend the dude who wrote this. It's a hypothetical. For all the people too lazy to read it or too slow to comprehend it, he's not arguing for 12 year olds to have sex or for us to get rid of the police. He continues to say "in a perfect world" over and over and over. In the end, he's saying Democratic ideals only work in a perfect world. Since we don't live in a perfect world, they don't work. That simple. Stop hating the guy for stuff he didn't even say. He's not an idealist or a fool. He's simply saying that in a perfect world none of this would matter, and you know what...he's right.

At 1/1/06 04:13 AM, -BAWLS- wrote: Whether someone deserves punishment is irrelevent. What matters is if the punishment is effective at reducing crime. More police and longer prison terms are. The death penalty is not.

Actually it is VERY effective. So many people point at China as a bastion of what works at reducing crime. They then cite the "gun control" without pointing out the fact that murder is a capital crime and you die for it. You are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and you have two choices: admit to it and spend the rest of your life in jail, or deny it and take a bullet to the back of your head (which is then billed to your family).

The death penalty is effective here in America too, to a lesser extent. It's used as leverage to get people to give up info. It would work more if the average stint on death row wasn't around 20-30 years and mostly gets commuted. Certain penalties are more effective than overly harsh ones.

Gotta say Red skunk, the news here reports on civilian and soldier casualities DAILY. When civilians die in Iraq, it makes front page news, EVERY TIME, usually for weeks on end, even if it's one civilian. Whereas, when is the last time you heard about Afghanistan, where things aren't all peachy, but there's no where near the bad news that we hear from Iraq. Be honest, what news is getting buried here?

At 12/21/05 08:59 PM, H-Dawg wrote: I'll tell ya: Bush's war is against "terrorism" in general, and "terrorists" in particular. How exactly do we define "terror" or "terrorists?" Nobody can: those terms are too emotionally loaded, and don't really mean anything in the end. An old adage: one person's terrorist is another person's freedom-fighter, or even another person's legitimate state-backed soldier. Take for example the U.S. This is the only nation in the world--and this is well documented and nothing new--that has been convicted by the World Court for terrorism against another nation. That was when the U.S. went against international law and invaded Nicaragua. The war in Iraq is also against International law, by the way. Noam Chomsky has made the point in several articles and books, most recently in _Power and Terror_, that the best way for the U.S. to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it. That may seem shocking, but think about all the innocent civilians that were bombed and killed in the U.S. led wars on Afghanistan, not to mention the unfolding disaster, both for Iraqi citizens and American soldiers, in Iraq. (Forget, for a moment, that Osama Bin Laden was for years funded and armed by the U.S., as was Saddam Houssein. Those two were created by the U.S.--kinda ironic, eh?) "Al Qaeda" as a group really means very little--anyone could throw a malotov cocktail and no one would even notice, but if they call themselves a member of Al Qaeda, every God-fearing U.S. citizen freaks out, and calls for an "orange alert." Come on, lets get over it! The war on terror is just a freak show which helped George Bush, a collosal disaster as a president and an evangelical nut, get elected for a second term by scarring the U.S. public into submission. The fact that the U.S. made the collosal mistake of going to "war" over it (whatever the hell IT is) just shows that the terrorists really won--we're all so terrified we can't see that the emperor (Bush--who really is the leader of a global Empire) doesn't have any clothes on, or any brains, or heart... /H-D out.

Actually, "terror" and "terrorism" are pretty well defined terms. Terrorism is the purposeful targeting of innocent civilians or non-combatants to cause fear, and panic, destruction, and death to advance one's agenda. Sorry bud but one person's freedom fighter is NOT anothers terrorist. You're dead wrong here. Freedom fighters don't intentionally target non-combatants, innocent women and children. They don't take innocent hostages and execute them when their demands aren't met. As for Chomsky, he's another pathetic "blame America" type. You know what...We don't participate in terrorism. Gee what a surprise. "Moral equivalency" is a bullshit made up term by cowards and traitors and fools.

You toss out this idiocy such as "this is proof we have already lost", and "we made a collosial mistake", and I'm sure if I called you to state your evidence it would be something on the line of "Bush is a nazi". That's much of your post, blah blah blah. Al Qaeda took two planes into the World Trade Center, killing 3000 people. Means very little? They are the major group responsible for the deaths of our soldiers. Means very little? They bomb cities all over the world and kill untold amounts of people. Means very little? You are just parroting random talking points from hither thither and yon, without actually knowing what you're talking about. Go do five seconds of research. Type in terrorism in wikipidia. And stop spouting shit from both ends.

At 1/1/06 02:43 AM, lefteh wrote: I am for the death penalty, but I think that it is used far too much.
People are executed for one rape, or one murder.
That is wrong.

However, the death penalty needs to be used in extremely serious cases.
For example, I think most people agree that Saddam Hussein deserves to die.

It is a hard line to draw.

Cite one case where someone has been sentenced to death for ONE rape. Sorry, it doesn't happen. Period. If no one dies, the death penalty isn't even put on the table. In most cases, the death penalty isn't on the table for people who have committed one murder unless it's excessively heinous, i.e Scott Peterson. Honestly, even as the law is, you have to do some extremely sick shit to even be considered for the death penalty, let alone get it. In so many cases, someone sentenced to death dies in prison of old age, fights, sickness, etc. Sentences get knocked down to life because of technicalities, or because you get a "feel bad" judge or governor who feels he's gotta do the right thing and commute them. Pardons, new evidence. People who talk about the massive amount of victims of the death penalty seem oblivious to the fact that such a small fraction of the people who are even sentenced to death are actually executed. There were more cases of death by choking on food last year than nation wide executions.

What's so damned costly isn't the executions, but the never ending litany of appeals. And let's not kid ourselves, while life sentences get less appeals, they're costly as sin too. People still get the manditory number of appeals, even if they plead guilty to escape the needle, and their cost of living isn't cheap. Plus most states have a manditory "parole board" hearing for lifers every couple of years, which no one ever factors into the price. And since they're seriously starting to consider paroling the manson chicks, we can see that release is always a possibility.

Sure we need to draw a line. Let the line be drawn by the jury. That's the way the system is supposed to work. And it's done a pretty damned good job so far.

At 12/31/05 01:44 AM, Elfer wrote: As Something Awful has mentioned, South Park always shows two opposing view points and picks the exact middle ground.

http://www.something../articles.php?a=3312

Let me give you a couple examples of why this sort of indecisiveness is so moronic.

Opinion 1: The World Trade Center was blown up by terrorists.
Opinion 2: The government blew up the World Trade Center with a bunch of cops and firefighters inside.
Middle Ground: The government planted a bunch of bombs in the World Trade Center and then convinced some terrorists to crash planes into them.

Opinion 1: The holocaust happened.
Opinion 2: The holocaust didn't happen.
Middle Ground: The holocaust happened, but not very many people were killed and it was sort of an accident.

As Something Awful also mentioned....he didn't watch the episode. He can only guess as to what it was saying. South Park takes shots at everyone, that much is true, but his analysis of the show is blatantly wrong, and based on snipets of the show. He admits this. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Reading the article he goes into long diatribes about nothing, and compares Kanye West's outbursts to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

Personally, I never make commentary on something I've never seen (Tv Show/Movie) or a topic I know nothing about. That's exactly what this guy did. South Park in fact comes out and states a position a lot, especially on religion. I.E. Scientology is a joke. Mormons may have a religion based on the stupidest book in the history of religion, but somehow they're still some of the nicest people in the world and come probably closest to Jesus's will in that their religion is based on love. The Catholic church has strayed from the message of God and is too focused on anything but the bible. Child molestation by priests needs to stop. When people take religion out of culture they hurt the culture and "spew crap out of their mouths". On and on.

These are all messages from South Park. Never have they suggested that the holocaust happened, or maybe it didn't.( Both of the options above have no middle ground by the way, and he tends to go for nutting conspiracy theories.) They hit hard and hit precisely, and I have yet to see a social commentary episode where they went middle of the road. I've seen some that have no value (where Streisand turns into Godzilla, where Cartman's Trapper Keeper turns into Skynet, etc), but every other one is pretty clear where they stand. Rewatch the show and you'll see what I mean.

At 12/31/05 01:54 PM, Dr_Irony_Fist wrote: I'm sending Comedy Central a letter that won't be read, but I'll let you people read it:

There comes a time when you have to question what the issue is. Were Matt and Trey making fun of the Catholic Church for the sake of making fun of the Catholic Church, or were they making fun because the Catholic Church is still in a position of power and dominance?

Power will be contested, and you and your parent company folded.

You shouldn't take things at face value. This episode of South Park was taking shots at Alcoholics Anonymous and its "Godliness". Matt and Trey are atheists from what I've read. So in some respects, you're denying them their freedom of speech and expression. Why are you doing this? Looks like you're afraid of upsetting the Catholic Church... because it still has power and you're afraid to let someone take a shot at it.

What about the episode making fun of Scientology? Shouldn't that episode have been stopped? It wasn't, and I wonder why that is...

I think you know why.

Good job, team.

Just a few comments:
One, Trey And Matt aren't athiests. One is mormon and the other is catholic. I forget which is which. It's irrelevant. Good satirists (like they are) make fun of everything, including themselves. Regardless.
Next, they have no first amendment rights regarding the company. Their first amendment rights are such that the gov't cannot censor them. Inasmuch as Comedy Central is a company, not part of the government, they, like every other station, have the right to decide what is played on their air waves. You seem to have little understanding of the first amendment, so let this one go. They allowed the episode to air once. That's allowing their message to get heard. Honestly, as they are paying them money to make the show, they owe them...nothing, that's right. Sorry if you don't like that. But that's the way it works. That's the way it SHOULD work.
Finally, some things just aren't worth fighting for. Bad publicity can hurt a station. Christians (if they feel offended) are a large part of the populus and as Hollywood as seen, can hurt sales BADLY. And if they get sued (which in ACLU America is very easy), even if they win, court costs can go in the millions. Easily. Let the b.s. die down. Lay low. Let them feel they won. Then put the episode on Season (whatever this is) disk and release it. I can almost guarantee it'll be on the air again. Probably in a month or two. Their decision was good, not only entertainment wize, but business wise too. And for all you know, Trey Parker and Matt Stone could've asked them to remove it for whatever reason. Bottom line, you don't know the whole story.

Get off your high horse. Comedy Central won't go bankrupt because you will it. It's too popular. I love Comedy Central. It cracks me up. Even as a Christian it's a great network with great shows. You're in a tizzy on things you know nothing about, like the First Amendment. Entertainment's a business. And they do what's good for the bottom line. And if that means cutting one episode from repeats so the station can stay out of fire, and the show doesn't get sued, that's what they do. Grow up and stop complaining about little stuff.

At 12/30/05 06:26 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: One mans terrorist is an other mans freedom fighter, its all relative. depends whos point of view you are looking at it from.

I am so sick of hearing this bullshit. It is NOT all relative. Only fools and cowards and traitors compare Freedom Fighters like our Founding Fathers to terrorists like those in Iraq. Moral equivalency is a ridiculous argument. Terrorists attack and kill innocent people on purpose. Anyone who intentionally targets civilians is a monster, and we are right to kill them and save the good people of Iraq.

Generally the connotation with liberal is that they actively circumvent the will of the majority. Not that they work for equal rights but more rights for minorities than whites, undermining marriage, supporting abortion even though it often seems unpopular, etc. Oftentimes, they are EXCESSIVELY two faced (even for politicians), contribute little original ideas, and just seem to tax like crazy and spend on worthless cause amongst other things. There's a whole list of reasons. But the short answer: they're in the minority, but either fillibuster legislation that they can't strike down or use the courts to pass new laws that they would NEVER get the people to vote for.

Really not a big deal. Scissors and screwdrivers aren't very dangerous. They have a length limit. It really is being made out to sound like "OH GOD, Rocket Launchers!" The cockpit door makes all the questions moot.

I still love the sign in St. Louis airports post 9/11:

If you have any of the following items:
Box cutters
guns
EXPLOSIVES
katana
etc

Please report this to the flight attendant and we'll put it in check on luggage for you.

I said she's a bitch I believe. And again, whether she thinks she's superior or not is irrelevant, she makes some damn good points. And she believes in what shes saying. She says it because she believes it to be right. This is the same with most people. Most people don't argue passionately in something they don't believe..so...your point sir?

Bottom line, I think she's right on this one. Whether she's rude or a bitch is irrelevant. Everyone wants Tom DeLay crucified, but during Clinton, everybody demanded we excuse his perjury, obstruction of justice, suborning perjury, witness tampering, et. al. because it was "just about sex". Hannity's bias is unexcusable, but Dan Rather's was an honest mistake, even though he continued to pretend it was right. Etc. Etc. Etc.

This whole post (in my mind) shows how much Coulter pisses Democrats off. And there's a reason she's one of the top 5 most known names in political analysis, and that's not cause she's a nobody.

At 12/17/05 10:40 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 12/17/05 10:27 PM, 1WingedDragon wrote: Point of the matter is Coulter is just a commentator, Dean is a representative, whose wrong words will hurt their side more?

That doesn't matter, it's not the issue. Notice in the topic, the word "Coulter". In other words, this is a discussion about, get this, Ann Coulter, namely the fact that she believes she poses a great enough danger to the Democratic Party that they should try to take her out with an indictment.

Unless Howard Dean is out there claiming he's dangerous to the Republican Party so much that they should indict him, any discussion of him is irrelevant. This isn't a discussion about who has the most potential to damage their own party, it's a discussion about Coulter, and others as applicable, who claim they present such a danger to the opposite party that they wonder why they haven't been indicted already.

Ok, she's being satirical. She doesn't really WANT to be indicted. I can't believe such an obvious joke has been lost on you. And no this is NOT a discussion about Coulter. Hence why most of the article deals with OTHER PEOPLE. Rush Limbaugh is not Ann Coulter. So, if we're only talking about Ann Coulter then why is Rush Limbaugh a part of her article, or Tom DeLay? Her whole article is based off of the fact that Conservatives are gone after all the time with no evidence and villified only to have done nothing wrong. So since she spends the majority of the article NOT talking about her, she's not the only fair game nor is she the only topic we can mention. As for her article about killing the Muslims. If you had actually read it, you'd understand the context. Her good friend had been killed in the 9/11 attacks and she was understandably angry. While I don't know about the converting them to Christianity, the whole invading their countries and killing their leaders has been a good idea so far. And has gained us allies among the Arab nations. And as for her being a "threat to the DNC" she HAS been called that by the likes of Al Franken and James Carville.

She's not a nut. And though she may be a bitch, often times she makes good points. And as for you can't stoop to rudeness in political analysis...what are you smoking? Every political book left or right has some rudeness in them. Why does she have to admit they have some good points? She doesn't think they do. For that matter, when a leftist analyst slams Republicans, they don't start by saying "this is what they have right". Ann Coulter has actually written several articles on this. And until she mentioned it, I'd never thought about it, but she's right. Politics isn't about converting new people, they're too entrenched in their own beliefs to change for the most part, it's about preaching to the choir, or changing the right(left) to far right(left).

At 12/21/05 11:17 PM, cheesemold wrote: Gender Roles are entirely based on culture traits. Across the world there are no actual Gender Roles which are universal among all groups of people. The only concrete, universal facts of the roles of the two genders has to do with sexual reproduction.

Actually incorrect. Women by nature tend to move more towards nuturing whereas the man is naturally inclined to gather.

:No gender is inherently better, stronger, or smarter than the other in any way. Yes there have been many studies done on this topic, but you must keep in mind that under different cultures, people are often raised differently with different expectations placed on them by society.

Men are stronger than women with a few rare exceptions. This isn't chavenism, it's genetics. And our brains work completely differently too.

:These expectations can shape a person either through opressing them into falling into that niche, or by fueling a rebellious desire to challenge the society they live in. This is why studies done on the differences between the sexes cannot be depended upon entirely, there are simply too many factors that go into the development of a person to determine if gender plays a definate role in their performance as a person.

Actually, these studies CAN be relied on. The differences between testosterone and estrogen on the brain have pretty predictible results. It's more chemical reactions than societal pressure. For example when a man has an overload of estrogen, he tends to act more consistantly with what a woman would do.

At 12/20/05 04:32 PM, marshmallow979 wrote: That's true, person before me. Actually, the NSA isn't supposed to do anything domestically, only abroad. In fact, it's illegal for the president to order domestic monitoring without a search warrant. Source: NPR. So maybe it's democratic, they don't blatantly lie like some people claim they do.

You don't honestly believe that Democrats don't lie, do you? I mean, Jesus, look at Clitnon. Lied about Sex. Lied about LYING about Sex. Lied about Campaign finaces. Lied about obstruction of justice. Lied about a fraudulent land deal he did. (If Bush lied about it, then also)He liedabout Iraq having WMDs. Lied about...the list goes on.
Ted Kennedy. Robert Byrd, etc. Please, politics is corrupting. And there's a hell of a lot of it on both sides of the aisle. Don't pretend your side doesn't have it's corrupt members too.

Blah, it seems like almost no one read the article. The treatment is to stop smoking, yea that's exactly what the article says. Second, yes the doctors have the right to refuse treatment to someone who is constantly contributing to their condition. Part of the oath is that "I will cause no harm". Putting someone through a medical or surgical procedure when it can be avoided and a non-evasive procedure used instead, thats what the doctors SHOULD do.

And as for the Catholic Hospitals refusing to provide the morning after pill, if you get raped, don't go to a Catholic hospital. Jesus. They have the right to refuse treatment to people. They're a business. PLUS, they tend to feel that aborting the baby causes further harm (which most studies support), and therefore don't provide. And they also feel that if conception has occured, it is a life and they don't have the right to interfere.

At 12/20/05 09:56 PM, Missileninja wrote: Yeah, but I'm a mere 14, I was talking about kids even younger then me, that's thought patterns haven't fully developed. You know the 10 year old who tries flying like Superman and breaks his leg falling from a tree. But you are right, it's the insane kids who shouldn't be playing those games... at any age. That makes it more the parents fault casue they should know if their kids are stable or not.

Dennis Leary addressed this on "Merry Fucking Christmas". We banned BB guns because kids got their eye shot out. So he shoots a BB gun at a kid. The kid ducks. We banned electronic football because kids swallowed the pieces. He asks a kid to swallow the piece, she tells him no. We banned EZ Bake ovens because the kids burned themselves. He asks a kid to stick his hand in one and the kid does. So he calls him a moron and asks what the hell is wrong with him.
Either the 10 year olds an idiot, or his parents did a shit job of raising him if he doesn't realize he can't fly. Sorry, but there's a failing somewhere here.
As for GTA, I personally think every parent who brought this complaint up should be hit with a 50 grand stupid fee. The game is named after a felony. You don't need to be told it's violent. And quite frankly, which is worse... your kids pretending to be drug smuggling criminals in the mob, killing cops and other factions, and pulling off professional hits with precision....OR....pixelated nudity? If you said number two: you sir or madam are just too damn dumb to have kids.

At 12/21/05 07:07 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 12/20/05 10:27 PM, XmasTime wrote:

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Bolded for your comfort.

If a state-sponsored institution like a public school teaches ID, they are "respecting" a religion. By disallowing it's teaching, they do not prohibit you from freely exorcising your belief of it. And as long as it's not on the gummn't's dollar, you can teach it to as many people as you can get to listen and not a one of us "evolutionists" will care one whit.

How to start. Um, the first amendment in the Bill of Rights is the right to free speech, free press, the right to assemble, et al. Just tossing that out there.
But regardless, your argument does not hold water. First off, this decision was made by a school board, not congress. And the respect clause is exceptionally clear, both in the constitution and in the founding fathers subsequent writings. A state sponsored religion is a bad thing. And this is what they were trying to avoid. By "not passing a law to respect an establishment of religion" they sought to make sure that no religion was given preference over another. For ID to break this clause it would: first, have to be passed by congress. It wasn't. Second, it would have to "respect an establishment of religion". It doesn't. Not only is it non-demoninational, it's not even inherently Christian (Jewish), it could easily be Hindu or Muslim in nature. And for that matter, one doesn't even have to take it as religious in nature period. "We hold that life is too complex to have randomly formed. It must have been created by some higher form." Could easily be an alien. One of the pushers of ID has REPEATEDLY said: "You wanna believe that aliens came down and sowed us here, that's great. You wanna believe that God exists and made us, that's wonderful too. Believe in any sort of intervention you want, because the bottom line is, we were not made by pure chance. Something intelligent, whether it be a diety or another more advanced life form had a hand in our existance." Religious? Could be. Doesn't have to be.

And as for us silly creationists who don't believe in Evolution, I find it important to say Evolution and Darwinism are two different things. One is real and has evidence to support it, and the latter was made by an athiest who came up with a theory that has no proof to deny the existance of God.
As for your list of things that "prove" evolution from a Darwinian standpoint.
Mitochondrial DNA: links all human beings back to one woman in Africa who we have affectionately termed Mitochondrial Eve. Not only does this not prove Darwinism, it supports the Bible, that we all came from Adam and Eve.
Fossil remnants: they stop at a certain level, and then explode to life. Also kind of supports the idea that life was created at a fixed time. Also, there have yet to be found any of the evolutionary stages that would assert Darwinism of transition from one to many celled creatures or from monkey to human. When the term missing link is used, it is often mistakenly used as if there is only one, instead of hundreds of missing links between each supposed evolutionary jump between animal types.
Viruses: Due to our immune system we get resistant to viruses. And due to the enviroment viruses change. While this supports that things evolve and adapt to their environment, it doesn't support that we came from one celled organisms or even monkeys.
Extra organs like the appendix. In all reality, we don't know what it does. It might have a use we haven't figured out. And even if it doesn't, this is actually argument AGAINST evolution. If we don't need it, why do we still have it? It's more de-evolution. If all of a sudden we developed a new organ that helped us live longer or fight disease better, that would be prove. But simply that we have a "useless" organ that we don't know if it has a point or ever HAD a point doesn't support evolution, either kind.

Even as a scientific POV, evolution breaks most accepted scientific premises: that things tend to break down over time and become less complex (evolution would have us believe the opposite), that life cannot come from lifelessness, etc. Your argument that some people believe that the Earth is 6,500 years old is irrelevant. Not only does it not hurt my "unenlightened" cause, it's not even in the Bible, and is an artificial time table assuming that all the stories happened one after the other, or relatively close to each other. I did my research here....so what now?

At 12/21/05 10:39 AM, H-Dawg wrote:

At 12/21/05 09:11 AM, Jinzoa wrote: ...paragraphs please>.<

"War is never right in most cases but come on, [...]":

Whoa! Get some grammar lessons QUICK!!

" you could sit back and retain your morals while your little sister is being raped three ways infront of you and to others in the world by this force, or you can fucking take to arms and join other countries to prevent it from happening to more and your families"

Sounds like someone was having a bit of a fantasy moment about their sister, which stirred them into a bit of a sexual frenzy of desire for war against the oppressors. Calm down!! Wars are never fought by the people who started them, so retaliation in the form of war, no matter how "justified" it might seem, always has an unjustifiable human cost. I think its much "stronger" to not retaliate, for example against terrorists in the form of wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but instead do the much less sexy thing (but perhaps more JUST thing) and track down the people who actually perpetuated the crimes, by legal means, and prosecute them, with the full cooperation of the International community. I personally think George W. Bush is far less interested in strengthening the World community's commitment to "justice" than using tanks and weapons as his own personal masturbation devises, which is sort of like a rape, since he's ejaculating on countries and people who have no interest in consenting to his advances. Just to put the whole debate in metaphorical terms. Best, h-d

Well, that was enlightened. So, tell me. We're killing and capturing al Quida members (and al Quida was the one that did 9/11), so tell me how we're not doing exactly what you said. Al Quida is heavy in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but whatever. You have no logical argument so you make childish little sexual remarks. Contribute something worthwhile or don't waste our time.