Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/11/06 02:03 PM, IndianaJamie wrote: Isnt a definition of a planet a sphericle shape of rock.

So the stone I found in my garden today is a planet, while Jupiter and Saturn aren't?

At 9/12/06 11:24 AM, war3-GMC wrote: not very interesting --- Just look in a Dictonary (correct if im wrong) im not full english

Three cheers for the man who can't tell the difference between a definition and an analysis!

OPEC have currently decided to overproduce to lower prices a bit. That seems nice of them, but I'm sure they must have an alterior motive.

At 9/10/06 05:53 PM, Costa-K wrote: Second i will not point out what section of the bible it is in because you too have the internet and can look it up if you are not to lazy to read the good book. (thats the bible in case you don't know)

This took you two hundred words to write. To say "Hebrews 4:15" or "Jeremiah 7:8" takes just three. Why make so much extra work for yourself? Is it because you have no idea where that quote can be found?

I would like to see the quote, and I don't want to waste all night trawling through the Old Testament for it.

At 9/4/06 04:41 PM, drum42 wrote: in due time, theres no doubt that every goal imaginable will be reached

I'm not sure... although you may be true in saying all Everest-style challenges will be conquered (I dunno, we may be able to go to the bottom of the Mariana trench, or visit Jupiter) and may be correct in saying all of science will be known (although I doubt this quite highly) I believe there will always be individual striving.

I have a few wants. I want a reasonable job. I want a pretty wife. I want my children to be a source of pride to me. I want people to remember me fondly after I die.

To do all this, I will need to work. I imagine I am not too different to the 6 billion other humans on the planet, who I can reasonably assume are also attempting to reach their own individual goals.

At 9/4/06 04:42 PM, Leon_cleric wrote: The point to life is death and the point of death is life

Can I point out to anyone interested in this kind of thing that the above statement is nonsensical bullshit.

If the point of life is death, there would be some purpose to dying. Given a limited knowledge of the afterlife (i.e. none), it is reasoned to assume there is no point in dying, in a straightforward empirical argument. Thus the point to life is not self-evidently to die. Consequently, you made a huge assumption with no evidence, probably in the hope that no-one would call BS on your crappy psuedo-philosophy.

Simply because all living things die is a poor inductive fallacy of the worst kind. "The purpose of life is to breathe a lot" or "The purpose of human existance is to be self-aware" would be equally valid arguments. I would hence conclude that - unless I have misinterprited your argument - it is unsound.

Next, there is a huge assumption in "The purpose of death is life" - namely that death has a purpose (I guess it's sound to accept that life has a purpose when arguing about the purpose of life). The only reason you did this, that I can see, was to juxtapose the two ideas in an attempt to make yourself sound deeper. More specifically however, how can the purpose of death be life, when death is defined as "the boundry of life". Since death HAS to occur when life has ceased, it makes no sense to assume its purpose is anything to do with life.

You could of course take a Hindu\Buddhist view that you need to die in order to complete your duty to advance to the next level of karma. If so, you could have just said that rather than your rather crass statement that anyone with half a brain could unpick.

Yeah... long reply to not a very long statement. I'd be happy for you to point out where I am mistaken.

At 9/5/06 07:04 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 9/5/06 07:03 PM, -fasdit- wrote: saying that we attacked ourselfs is just bullshit.

Why?

I'd agree with JMHX, that's a totally unsubstansiated opinion. You have even less grounding for your belief than the conspiracists.

At 9/8/06 01:33 PM, fli wrote: 3 months after Schiavo died, autopsy revealed that her brain had shrunken 3 times its normal size.

Wouldn't the brain shrink naturally over time? If the water in it isn't being replenished I mean.

Regardless, this isn't really about Schiavo, I just put that in the title to make the topic more relevant. Its more about our treatment of coma victims - does this information (if it is correct, I suppose) change your opinion about euthanasia in the same way it did mine?

Research at a Belgian hospital has suggested that patients in a PVS (Persistant Vegiative State) coma are able to think. What's more, the activity in their brain was no different to a group of 'normal' voulenteers who were used as a baseline.

The researchers spoke to a 39 year old coma victim, telling her to imagine she was at a tennis match, and having trouble reaching the shots. Amazingly, the part of her brain responsible for hand-eye co-ordination lit up on a CAT scan, suggesting she could think about what was happening to her. They did the same with the 'mapping' part of the brain.

This research suggests that killing comatose PVS patients is unethical, and I have consequently changed my view about euthanasia, in light of this new evidence. Can anyone comment further?

Source

At 9/7/06 10:05 PM, Durin413 wrote: And there we see some of the problem. We need to remove the ability for endless appeals. Especially the ones on technicalities. Maybe a 2 or 3 appeal limit?

Yeah, the more innocent guys we can kill the better in my opinion. As long as our insatiable desire for 'justice' is placated.

At 9/7/06 04:36 PM, D2KVirus wrote: By the way, can anyone think of a prominent German far-right leader of the 1930s-40s that also though eugenics was a good idea?

Hooray for Mr. Godwin!!!

But your point is a serious one - this type of ASBO is just insane.

He'll stay longer than Thacher if he possibly can

At 9/7/06 12:31 AM, sdhonda wrote:

61%. LOL

It is a logical fallacy. There is no proof that the law passed caused the reduced murder rates.

It is indeed a logical fallacy, but be fair, 61% is pretty damn good empirical evidence. Since all evidence we use is subjective, it is reasonable to claim a 61% drop in murder rates constitutes grounds for believing capital punishment works as a deterrant in Houstan.

Can I see a source please, I was under the impression capital punishment did nothing to murder rates

At 9/5/06 05:49 PM, Rockthebestmusic wrote:

At 9/5/06 06:59 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I don't really understand where the deterrant is in a death penalty. If you murder someone you are one of a few things:

Who said anything about the death penalty only being a deterent it does serve as a method of permanantly preventing a threat to human life.

As does permanent inprisonment. So it falls to you to suggest why you need to kill someone to prevent them re-offending, when there is another, cheaper, less controversial, less likely to permenantly damage an innocent man, solution

Ball's in your court.

At 9/7/06 04:04 PM, Chav-Slayer wrote: You wait until Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister. He's an even bigger sellout...

How do you mean sellout? I agree he doesn't subscribe to Old Labour ideals, but I don't think he's ever really sold out to anyone.

The Times reckons Autumn.

At 9/7/06 12:24 AM, simsam114 wrote: Communists/Soviets/Russians saved the whole WORLD 3 times.

Did they save the world? Did they actually stop the world from exploding? If not, they didn't save the world, they just stopped some guys invading some other guys.

When Napoleon attacks the Soviets, they get pwn'd. Why? Because they just had frozen to death and the ones that didn't, got surrounded by the Soviets and died.

Death of Napoleon - 1821
Birth of Carl Marx - 1818. Apparently Marx managed to turn the whole of Russia Communist before his third birthday. These damn clever Communists

Also, the Russians really didn't invent snow and cold.

Another time they save the world when Hitler sends his SS troops to Russia. The smartass Russians hide in the snow, the Nazi's didn't, and they're dead meat. This leaded to the surrounding at Berlin, Germany.

That's right. That's the only reason the Nazi's lost the war. Ignore the $400 billion war loans the Americans gave the Allies. Ignore the war in the East. Ignore the fact the Russians actually started the war on Hitler's side.

And when America is about to being bombed by nuclear weapons, a brave man named Petrov sacrificed himself to stop the nuclear attacks, and saved America.

So, Communists were threatening world security, and you are claiming the Russians SAVED the world by stopping nuclear proliferation? Poor argument.

I just want you to realize that if the Communists weren't here, you wouldn't even exist.

Yeah... in some cases that would be no bad thing...

Can I suggest that, regardless of your feelings about integration of sports teams, there is no reason not to, say, pay women the same for doing the same job just as well as a man. There is no reason to treat them as second class citizens, since there is no objective argument for this position.

Can I also point out that female professional athletes earn less than their male counterparts, since they are, as a general rule, less interesting to watch, since they are less physically able. The only exception to this is mud wrestling.

At 9/5/06 12:37 PM, GrammerClock wrote:

No, I don't think he does. He tells people the truth. Do you think it's a coincidence we haven't had an attack on America since 9/11? It's not just good luck.

Can't tell if this is irony, but America had not been attacked for sixty years before 9/11 (Pearl Harbour was the last time, as far as I can tell). It would be perfectly reasonable to assume you had a good forty to fifty years of security pretty much whatever you do.

At 9/5/06 10:14 AM, InterstellarNinja wrote: Life sentences like that mean less jail room. Do you really want to pay higher taxes so you can house and feed murderers?

Me personally? I'm happy to - I don't think I have a right to take anyone's life, no matter the offence, when there is a possibility of a non-violent solution. Especially when you consider there is a chance of genuine repentance. And -Fudge- is right, it costs more to kill someone than to keep them in jail. Although I thought it was only 40% more, his source cites 70%. Its probably somewhere in the middle.

At 9/5/06 10:18 AM, -Haze- wrote: 1. insanity is not a disease, if you are a nut job so you kill 10 people with a wire hanger, i don't care if you say "but he didn't mean to" i don't give a fuck, he still needs to die

Well, that's your opinion. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you aren't a criminal psycologist. Am I right? Then maybe you could try learning a little about serious diseases before you class them as 'nut jobs'.

we need crusifictions, beheadings, boiling in oil, shoving a mini-nuke up a guys ass, shooting people out of catapults into walls and such.

While we're at it, we could torture people to get a confession! The best part is, people would be so afraid of their own government they would spend all their time trying to emigrate and not murdering people!

Seriously, the deterrent aspect is there, but you get one single wrong conviction and you have a riot on your hands. I'm not joking, if a high profile case was proved to be wrong after the gristly execution of one of the participants, the government would lose the next election for sure, even if the head of homeland security made it through the term without being killed by an extremist human rights watchdog.

At 9/4/06 06:31 PM, flashmonster666 wrote: what's a pikey?

It's a British word for a gypsy, or travellers generally. It is always used in a derogatory sense, and there is a feeling that pikeys will always try to steal from you.

At 9/4/06 07:00 PM, emmytee wrote: I was thinking... Didn't loose change and some other sites claim that a relative of bushes was in charge of sercurity or insurance or somethinng to do with the towers?

Yeah, far as I can remember off the top of my head, it was his cousin. Although to be fair, not many people can stop two hijacked passenger aircraft from crashing into the side of the building they are supposed to be protecting, I'm not sure you can really assign blame to him.

Occam's Razor isn't "The simplest explaination is usually right" (that's how its described in The Simpsons); the actual phrasing is "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", which means "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". In other words, the simplest explaination that fits all the facts should be assumed to be correct. Hence Begoner is right, at least about the application of Occam's Razor, and KingCharles is either mistaken or trying to bullshit his way out of trouble.

Finally, if any one of the pro-conspiracy theorists are confident enough, I would be happy to give you a serious debate about this.

I've been on holiday for the past month, did I miss anything important?

I don't really understand where the deterrant is in a death penalty. If you murder someone you are one of a few things:

1) Insane - hence you kill someone with no control of their actions, which I would consider unjust. Insanity is a disease, and should not be treated like a crime.

2) Riled up in some way - if you catch your wife in bed with another man, and kill him, you are most certainly not thinking about the consequences at the time. The death penalty would not be a deterrant. I am also not sure I believe it is just to kill someone with such primal extenuating circumstances; they are very very unlikely to kill again.

3) Nothing to lose - The death penalty is no deterrant for terrorists who think they'll go to paradise on their death anyway. I would question the intelligence of creating martyrs when the alternative is just to have them languishing, well cared for, in prison.

4) Don't believe you'll be caught - No punishment will act as a deterrant. Probably just to use the death penalty in this circumstance, but since it doesn't act as a deterrant, it is just murder for the sake of murder.

5) Innocent men, wrongly convicted - Hardly even worth writing that the death penalty is wrong in this case.

I may have missed some, but I'm fairly certain 99% of people who you would consider deserving of the death penalty fit into one of these catagories

I would also question whether the death penalty is really the best way of forcing a criminal to reflect upon what he or she has done. With the death penalty, life ends, and that's it. With a lengthy prison sentance, the convict can, maybe repent.

As to murderers re-offending, if you are confident enough they are guilty to kill them, you should be confident enough to give them life with no parole.

At 7/28/06 01:37 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

Is that how you like to feel. That we can't stand up for we believe in cause were scared of the gov't.

No, what I said was that you were a moron for believing what you do. I further pointed out that IF you were correct, and in any danger of actually finding some proof, why would the government have any compunction in killing you? Either way, no-one apart from you and a select group of tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist nuts will ever agree with your story.

And why wouldn't they just kill me too? come on thats a dumb enough question you can answer yourself.

No, I really can't. If you were likely to uncover any evidence, the government should kill you, and hush up your death. After all, they can make people think 9/11 was perfectly legit, why not just do a hit and run on you? Two possible answers suggest themselves:
a) There is no conspiracy
b) The government cannot find you, despite the fact that they can track down pretty much anyone else in the world via interpol. The government cannot kill you, despite the fact they could 2,500 people five years ago.
Which is more likely?

like i said their is footage of dead jews in german concentration camps that we knew of. there is no such evidence in 9/11. all we have is a american airlines plane flying into the WTC ,and a sketchy video of what doesnt even look like osama connecting it to terrorism.

And yet people deny the holocaust... why is this? Maybe because they have an anti-Jewish agenda, despite all the evidence to the contrary. They don't care they are being disrespectful to the families of the dead, they just want to push this agenda.
So you, too, deny 9/11 because you hate the government and apparently can't find a constructive outlet for your 'fuck the system' teenage angst without blaming the tragic deaths of nearly three thousand people on some vauge government conspiracy.

also like i said earlier if for private oil companies. if you raise tax it just goes to the gov't itself and the higherarchay can just skim a little off the top.

So now the administration is recieving kickbacks from oil lobbyists? Got any proof or am I being far, far too optimistic again?

And what motive remotely does Al Queada have, damn near nothing.

1) Hatred of Western ideals
2) Spotlighting their jihad
3) Proving America isn't invincible
4) Proving their faith to Allah
5) As a beacon to other would-be terrorists
Enough reasons? Bare in mind these are not the most sane individuals to begin with.

If they hated America for opressing countries then any one in their right mind would know that an attack such as 9/11 would bring and invasion. DUR answer that smart boy.

The invasion of Afganistan alienated pretty much the entire Muslim world to Western values. The Taliban is still in control of Afganistan. The PATRIOT act stripped ordinary Americans of their civil liberties. Bin Laden is still alive and releasing tapes to Al Jazeera. The number one export of Afganistan is still opium. Iran stepped up its nuclear weapon program. Idiots like yourself seem to have a vendetta bringing Bush down. Bombings by terrorists in India, Madrid and London claimed many more lives.

Mission accomplished as far as Bin Laden is concerned, wouldn't you agree?

11 of which have been confirmed alive by multiple soursces.

Prove it. Give me ONE reputable source. I think Reuters or the BBC World Service ought to have covered such an important event as the entire Bush administration being exposed as the frauds they are... right? No? Then maybe you shouldn't make wild claims you can't back up.

if your such an anti loose change at least watch the movie so you can know what to make up to disprove it.

Not really anti-loose change. More anti-conspiracy theorists. I've seen the film. Then I read two debunkings of it. I tend to forget the details, on account of them mostly being fabrications.

jesus man come on heard of thing called free speach.

I don't have to admire, or agree with you. If you don't like me trashing your arguments, stop posting. Otherwise stop whining about your fucking 'freedom of speech' and grow up.

What do you think i've been doing. i've offered counters to everything you've said(except the ann coulter thing) and the facts i've givein you are just as hard as the facts you've givin me. other wise it would just be a nut uh, uh huh. debate goin on.

Can you quote me a single fact you've given me in the last three posts you've made, apart from the one about oil companies making record profits, which has nothing to do with 9/11 in any meaningful sense.

Maybe richer countries but none the easier. Afganistan was a country so flimsy all we needed to do was drop a few happy meals on it and the entire population is on our side so then we just need to take their oil.

This is what a 'source' looks like. You see, you just made a claim. I am disputing that claim with factual evidence. That means I pwn your argument ftw. You should try using one of these 'sources' sometime. Apparently they are quite popular.

We've never had free speech. Walk into the middle of Detroit, shout "I hate black people" and see how long your freedom of speech is respected.

When you have the freedom of speech to mail a death threat to the president, then come back and complain about television shows being cancelled.

At 7/28/06 01:13 PM, Krow wrote: sorry forgot the link you fuckin arse wipes

What does that prove? That SOME Scottish people dislike the English football team. And yet I can easily prove that SOME English people hate the whole of Scotland (Hint: Look in a mirror, Krow).

You've proved nothing, but have managed to highlight your own pettiness

At 7/28/06 12:40 PM, Lettuceclock wrote: Because it's a theory that is no more disproven then Evolution. Evolution, ID, Creationism, and Advanced Astronaut are all theories, nothing more.

I disagree - ID and Creationism have virtually no experimental backing whatsoever, whereas evolution is accepted by most reputable biologists as incorrigable fact. Teaching ID in a "This is what some people believe, you should be aware of it" is fine. Teaching it as equally reliable as evolution is a lie.

At 7/28/06 12:29 PM, KingCharles wrote:

At 7/28/06 07:50 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

Greece-Bulgaria in 1928

could you elaborate? I dont know much about either country back then.

Not as well as I would like. As far as I remember, Greece invaded Bulgaria over a petty border dispute. Bulgaria did not resist, and appealed to the League of Nations* for help. The League sanctioned Greece, and Greece withdrew. Its also called the 'War of the Stray Dog', as a reference to the mundanity of the event that set it off.

I can't really think of any other occasion where sanctions were useful. But they are certainly worth trying before going to war - the only reason they don't usually work is because the USA ignores them.

* The mid-twentieth century vesion of the UN

At 7/28/06 09:05 AM, Tetoragoram wrote: after all, how the fuck did a plane ever come close to pentagon?

Do you mean the Pentagon in Washington DC? The same Washington DC that has hundreds of planes flying over it every day going to Washington Dulles airport, or indeed the Regan National airport? Those two airports are roughly ten miles away from the pentagon.

A Boeing aircraft usually travels at about 160mph, but was probably travelling faster on the day. Say 200mph. That means it can fly over the airport and hit the Pentagon in less than three minutes.

There doesn't need to be a turncoat, as far as I see.

At 7/28/06 10:47 AM, metalhead0001 wrote: Reliand shouldn't be tought in schools!!!!! This is because your religiond is just a beliefe and other people will believe different than you.

You can teach something in a neutral way. You confuse religious education with religious indoctrination.

why should we teach creationism in schools?

When did anyone in this thread say we should?