Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Fucking chinks.

Crap crap.

At 5/28/09 01:38 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Freedom of speech is not the right to force your beliefs on a captive audience.

When have we ever possessed "freedom of speech"? Try walking down Detroit and shouting the n-word as loud as you can and see how far you get. As for "freedom of religion", which religions? All of them? Even the old pagan religions that practice animal sacrifice?

At 5/28/09 04:41 AM, TheMason wrote: Bravo Xemras.

That's my style. I tell it like it is.

At 5/27/09 12:37 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: His point was that the cognitive mind did not descend from institutional power.

Your point?

Unless you're a strict creationist, you'd be forced to agree... or in your case, forced to blither and blather and wallow in your own shit opinion.

I'm not the one ranting over some romanticized and otherwise naive ideology.

Enjoy, #34826.

Insult is the final refuge of the out-argued.

You believe that rights are privileges.

I don't have beLIEfs, I have knowledge. A right is something we possess indefinitely regardless of who and/or what says otherwise; it is not subjective in any way. A privilege is something granted to us by As far as we know, empircal evidence tends more towards the existence of the latter.

Not through some complex theory, but a simple assertion in the face of 200+ years of opposing evidence. Good job, #34826.

This nation was founded just like any other nation: through tenacity and bloodshed. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys", only winners and losers.

You had a right, but chose to sacrifice it by depriving another of theirs.

The only true "right" (for lack of better words) is might: what we are able to create, maintain, and keep for ourselves. One person says he has the "right to smoke" while another says he has the "right to breathe clean(er) air". Of these two, which one is "right"? Where does one draw the line?

Got it now, #34826?

Insult is the final refuge of the out-argued.

Slavery is all in your head.

Sure, and those whips and shackles that the African men, women, and children during the pre-Civil War South were forced under were all illusory as well. You are as inconsiderate as you are self-righteous.

At 5/26/09 01:53 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

So you cannot refute the point, only dismiss it?

There was no point to refute in the first place.

Prove to me that we don't have unalienable rights. Prove to me, in text, that power is granted to an institution by free men, and not the other way around.

Burden of proof lies on the believer. You believe we have inalienable rights while I do not. Therefore, it is up to you to prove to me beyond any and all doubt that we do have rights that are not subject to laws and regulations.

Or just drop it, slave.

"No one is more a slave that the one who thinks he is free without being free." - Goethe

At 5/23/09 06:11 PM, darkangelrayne wrote: dude... forget all that about bifurcation fallacy.

Its a simple question,

Maybe to a simpleton such as yourself.

if the goverment detained you for a reason that either doesnt really exist, or you dont agree with,
What would you do?

What could I do? Fight back and get killed or not fight and eventually be killed anyway? Catch-22, motherfucker. You might as well ask me what I would do in a situation whereas I was trapped in a room with absolutely no way out, with nothing to defend myself, and a hungry tiger were in the room with me.

I live in a bad area, ive dealth with this, ive been robbed, shot at, broken into, and all of the sorts. I really didnt do anything to start those situations other than move in. there are neighborhoods like this everywhere, and i feel much more at east knowing that when they stick there heads at my back door peeking in, i can take my bolt shotgun, and part the blinds with it.

We're only as "free" as we make ourselves to be, and the only true "right" is might. Law of the jungle; survival of the fittest; lex talionis.

At 5/24/09 05:33 PM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote: One reasons the founding fathers actually made the second amendment is because they figured that if the government is indeed to powerful and oppressive, the civilians should have a chance at an armed rebellion, like the patriots did against the British when they did not want to be oppressed.

Times have changed, and so has the technology. I wonder how adamant ol' Ben Frankin would be in his "trading freedom for security" bullshit were he to witness the devastation and aftermath of a nuclear explosion.

Another reason is for self defence. If a criminal wants to commit a crime, and guns are illegal, what is going to stop him from illegally getting one? It will only stop the citizen to protect himself and his family from the criminal with the gun.

At least this reason is legitimate.

At 5/24/09 06:28 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: So I can't prove you wrong. I can't weigh and insane notion of chosen-slavery and anti-constitutional thinking against logic without giggling, my friend. Our founding fathers wrote a document that said, in plain english, that our rights as a people were enumerated and unlistable. In the same document, they listed the far and few powers of the federal government had - and called the list absolutely complete.

How's that, Toby?

Your faith in a 200+ year document is as laughable as a Christian's faith in the Bible or a Muslim's faith in the Quran. You know what else is funny? The fact that this country - which was supposedly a beacon of freedom, democracy, and "inalienable rights" in the world - was founded by a bunch of unelected, slave-owning, white males.

Also in the future, might I suggest you (or anybody else for that matter) refrain from using the concept of "inalienable rights" with me? You would have a better chance of convincing an atheist of the existence of god.

At 5/23/09 02:16 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/23/09 02:03 AM, Xemras wrote:

Whatever I did or didn't do would be irrelevant. How is this so hard for you to understand?

Because that's not a real answer. At best, it's a cop-out.

Allow me to ask again: If the government detained you without reason or cause, would you fight it under your logic of privilege?

Yes or No?

There is no real way to answer your question for the question you have presented me is what is known as a bifurcation fallacy.

At 5/23/09 01:14 AM, Mammorize wrote: I asked if you would fight your detainment.

And I answered.

By your logic, you shouldn't as the government can do whatever it wishes.

Whatever I did or didn't do would be irrelevant. How is this so hard for you to understand?

Rather than give a yes or no answer, you went on about how you "could" (not that you would or would not)

Well excuse me for your inability to understand and comprehend anything beyond a fourth grade level.

and how money will dictate everything (as if I even asked about money at all).

You brought up lawyers.

That's a politician's dodge. That's equal to asking a politician when he/she was born and their answer is "In a log cabin".

The example you gave was nothing like what I said. Do you even bother to read half the things you write?

At 5/23/09 01:18 AM, SolInvictus wrote: actually you're right; you faulted lawyers for upholding our rights.

No I didn't.

We're getting off topic with this. The issue at hand here is whether owning a gun is a "right" or a "privilege" (or if we have any real rights whatsoever). A privilege is something that is granted to you by someone in authority; a "right" is something you have regardless and cannot be taken away. Between these two words, there seems to be no evidence to suggest the existence of the latter.

At 5/23/09 01:01 AM, SolInvictus wrote: why are lawyers being blamed for failures within the judicial system?

When did I suggest that?

At 5/23/09 12:55 AM, Memorize wrote: Dodging is a wonderful political trick.

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question as it was.

At 5/23/09 12:57 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: What a moron.

I know.

At 5/23/09 12:42 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/23/09 12:36 AM, Xemras wrote:

Prove me wrong then.

If the government detains you without reason or cause, are you just going to let them do it?

After all, your rights are only privileges granted by the government; so by your logic, can't they do whatever they wish?

I could fight against them, but it would be ultimately futile since they have more firepower and the use of propaganda to make me look like some kind of terrorist/seditionist/whatever.

Or are you going to hire a lawyer claiming that your "rights" have been violated?

For better or worse, a lawyer is no more than a mercenary in the judicial system. For the most part, the defendants are either guilty or innocent because of the argument and rhetoric provided by the lawyer (not to mention how much money the lawyer receives), not because they did or didn't do the crime. Money talks.

At 5/22/09 09:00 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 5/22/09 03:39 AM, Xemras wrote:

The Right to bear arms is one of the people's most important rights.

There are no "rights", only priviledges - these can be taken away just as easily as they were given.

Think like a slave, live like a slave.

Idiot.

Prove me wrong then.

At 5/20/09 08:24 PM, MetalSlimeHunt wrote:

At 5/18/09 05:55 PM, Feldrawn wrote: Serriously though, this would be awesome in the US. Let religions deal with shit as it pleases, keep it out of politics.

What!? No! Have you ever read a religious text?

Have you? Or did you just take as fact what you found on all those atheistic websites?

Theists are lunitics when it comes to law.

And atheists aren't? Besides, the "law" (whatever form it may take) is lunacy in itself.

Ever hear of the Salem Witch Trials? What you are proposeing is that shit like that becomes fully leagal. You may say that dosen't affect you, but many religious laws also have a "convert, slave, or dead" cause. How long untill one group starts that up? People need to be protected from their crazed religions. Especaly Women and Children, who are 2nd Class under most religious law.

Wow! This statement is totally not the least bit fallacious.

Secular
Law
Is
Sanity

Tell that do Marquis de Sade.

At 5/22/09 09:16 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 5/21/09 04:13 AM, Xemras wrote:

And since when have those in power ever been subject to their own laws?

You do realize that this does not really answer my question. It is another bumper-sticker diversion. :)

I think it answers your question just fine. Maybe it's you who doesn't understand. After all it does require you to think in depth.

Also, this topic is about the soldier who broke and murdered five fellow soldiers and we're deviating off topic.

Agreed.

At 5/21/09 05:36 PM, TheFarseer wrote: "If people are afraid of the government it is a dictatorship. If the government is afraid of the people it is democracy"

As if any choice were more preferable to the other.

When has America (or any country for that matter) ever been a "democracy"? If anything we are a plutocracy.

The Right to bear arms is one of the people's most important rights.

There are no "rights", only priviledges - these can be taken away just as easily as they were given.

For one, it allows us to protect ourselves from criminals. But most of all, It gives us the chance to overthrow the government if we become oppressed .

If the government wished to oppress and subjugate us, there wouldn't be a goddamn thing we could do about it. They have the big guns (i.e. tanks).

So if America ever became a dictatorship we had the power to overthrow the government.

What power we may have had is dead and gone now; it's been this way since around the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Capcom's 1942

At 5/21/09 06:05 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: A lot of anger and steam...

A wise man once said: "Why so serious?"

You need to relax. I was just having a little fun with you. That's all.

At 5/21/09 02:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Do you have any idea of how fucking ridiculous creationism is?

The idea and possibility that an all power entity might have had a hand in the making and shaping of the universe and everything in it? Yeah, it is pretty silly. Just like before the turn of the 20th century the concept of "ordinary human beings able to traverse the sky" was considered silly.

3. What's also ridiculous is that he people who discover and write about evolution are some of the smartest and most educated people in the world, whilst those who preach about creationism are uneducated fundamentalist idiots who know nothing about science, so your comparison is bullshit.

Appeal to authority. Yawn.

At 5/21/09 02:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 5/20/09 11:03 PM, Korriken wrote: The funniest part of all this, to me, is the one question no one ever asks.

"Does this change anything in our daily lives, other than giving people something to talk about?"

This direct find does not have any huge implications itself, no, but our understanding of evolution is vital for the fields of medical research, physiology, ecosystem conservation.

World population / average life expectancy:

1900- 1.6 billion+ / less than 50
2000- 6 billion+ / greater than 70

And you don't have to be an expert to realize the accelerating decrease of natural resources and the increase of pollution contributed by the entire human race. I think we could afford to lose a few billion humans. How about you?

but, in the end, it won't matter. Eventually the world will cease to be, in some manner or another, and everything you strived for, everything you worked for, will be for naught.

Oh, so the atheists are the nihilists though are they?

Atheists are nihilists without balls.

If you're not having fun in life, then you're wasting your life.

1. Your lack of curiosity and wonder for this amazing world of ours is really very sad.

"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." -Steven Weinberg

Besides, this planet isn't all that interesting really. Now Jupiter on the other hand...

2. If you "not having fun you're wasting your life", but wait a second, just a minute ago you were complaining that evolutionary understanding doesn't help people, yet all you seem to care about is personal enjoyment.

Evolutionary understanding is infinitely more beneficial to society than you "having fun".

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

At 5/21/09 03:21 AM, TheMason wrote: If, if, if. The truth is US soldiers are not ordered to do the same. We do not have rape, murder and pillaging as part of our military ethos. In fact those things are expressly forbidden and when caught we prosecute because these are violations of not just orders but US criminal and military law. Here is one example.

And since when have those in power ever been subject to their own laws?

Also, comparing the Youtube video of that Marine and making the leap to children is erroneous.

Is it really? I think it's only a matter of time. Besides, those children who do end up being orphaned as a result of the conflict, it would arguably be more logical to kill them than take care of them; and one of the soldiers might decide to get a little "creative" in killing one of them. Oh well. The little turds are going to die anyway.

Over in Iraq dogs are not the cute little Benjis and Lassies that they are in the US. Instead they are a public health and safety problem. They have gone ferrel and actually present a threat to Iraqi children. (Linky)

Something we can agree on.

Was it stupid and cruel of the Marines? Yes. But in the situation they were in, it was more akin to them tossing a rat than the loyal family pet that saved Timmy when Timmy fell in the well.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of "whitewashing"?

At 5/21/09 12:55 AM, Registar wrote: I mean, as far as torture goes, there's no permenant damage, and if the dudes are professional they will never let you actually drown, so if you just chill out and go into like a zen mode it doesn't seem like it would be all that bad

Christopher Hitchens would disagree with you.

At 5/20/09 03:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 5/20/09 11:32 AM, Ericho wrote:
Well from that logic, nothing would be murder. Why can't I kill someone as their matter won't be destroyed? Because it's morally wrong.

But it's not wrong, killing is natural.

So I assume that you would be perfectly fine with someone killing you in the most brutal fashion for any or no reason at all?

At 5/20/09 05:47 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 5/19/09 12:50 PM, Xemras wrote: Very well Mason. I was mistaken about you and for that I am truly sorry. It still doesn't change that the U.S. soldiers are no real different (or better) than the ones they are fighting.

So they also suicide bomb people, record the beheading videos, and attacking funerals as well?

So you're saying that because the U.S. military might not be doing those things it automatically makes them better than the one's they are fighting?

At 5/20/09 05:56 PM, skyraider wrote: Use your head.

Good advice. Maybe you and the-Idiot should apply yourselves to it.

U.S. soldiers hand out candy and medical supplies to children

Big whoop! Even crime lords, corrupt politicians and industrialists, etc. can act in a seemingly charitable and altruistic manner. "Just following orders."

while the Taliban rape their mothers and execute people in soccer stadiums.

If the U.S. soldiers were ordered to do the same, I would wager that most (not all but most) of them willingly (and enthusiastically) comply. Remember those soldiers who threw those puppies off the cliff? How long until they decide to do that to children? "Just following orders."

And we have probably the lowest prisoner abuse ratio in the entire world among military forces.

But the abuse record is still there and not all abuses are reported; and their record is much higher compared to military forces of let's say Canada and Britain combined.

At 5/12/09 06:47 PM, jAk88 wrote: If they don't contribute to society, wouldn't it be best to kill them off and feed them to Africans?

Or vice versa. If we feed the starving Africans, they will only end up spawning MORE starving Africans.

Final Fantasy 4 for the DS

All of you bitches have been getting it easy before.

At 5/19/09 02:20 PM, Al6200 wrote: If one holds the position that fetuses and embryos hold no legal or moral value, than there is little reason for one with a liberal philosophy not to fund abortions and encourage their use.

It's funny that those who make decisions regarding abortion are those who have been born. It's even funnier that who ultimately decides who is entitled to what are those who hold power. Then again, it's not really that funny.

Of course homosexuals should be able to join the military. Uncle Sam needs all the cannon fodder available.

Very well Mason. I was mistaken about you and for that I am truly sorry. It still doesn't change that the U.S. soldiers are no real different (or better) than the ones they are fighting.

At 5/18/09 10:52 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 5/17/09 09:38 PM, poxpower wrote: Why would the supreme creator of the universe give a shit if I beat my kids or I'm mean to my dog?

Um, because that's wrong. Are you saying it's okay to beat your kids? And I thought atheists were so moral.

So it's not okay for pox to abuse his kids and dog but it's perfectly acceptable to you for a god to torture over 99% of his creation for all eternity?

And don't bother giving me that "free-will" crap either.

At 5/17/09 03:10 AM, TheMason wrote: See my friend? They're kinda like zombies...the more you poke at one more come and join them!

And this is coming from one who sides with those who spout such euphemisms as:
"He was just following orders."
"Such is the cost of war."
"Those towelheads had it coming to them anyway."
etc.

Pot, meet kettle; kettle, meet pot.

At 5/2/09 01:01 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 5/2/09 04:14 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Seriously, how is this not a terrible, dreaful thing?

Because it doesn't apply to you unless you convert to Islam

That's real reassuring. It's not like the Islamists would take over the country (through whatever means) and then force the citizens to convert on die.

At 5/4/09 09:23 AM, zoolrule wrote: Ding dong.
You're not a Democracy anymore.

And since when has Britain (or any country for that matter) been a "democracy"?