• 7

    posted a message on Did God commit adultery?[christian]
    Quote from vilageidiotx

    It's not pre-marital sex. Deities do not procreate in the traditional sense. There was no seed.

    It's sort of like if you made a game surrounding the slapping of buttocks. When you write the code for buttock slapping, you are not actually doing the act. You are simply commanding it to exist.


    Out of all the examples, you chose to compare it to programming a game about slapping asses. I love it.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 3

    posted a message on Right Wingers on PPNS Forum Section
    Quote from MrDenco

    I can recognize that one cannot judge the validity of any one side AND still believe the otherside is wrong.

    Sure you can. But you can't just come back and say almost the same thing as him without being hypocritical.

    Person 1: "Right wingers are always wrong! Liberals are always correct!"

    Person 2: "Wow, you're completely biased in favor of liberals, so your statement holds no truth to it... By the way, Conservatives are always right and Liberals are brainwashed monkeys. Just sayin."

    See how that sounds?
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 2

    posted a message on Do You Think Teenagers Should Be More 'Down To Earth'
    Quote from SkylordCentral

    Face it. Everywhere on the internet you see Crazy-UnNormal teenager related things. They don't use grammar, they hate school and they act like they should be at a part every night. They need to act more mature and be better people for the community. I SAY MORE HOUSEWORK, HOMEWORK AND COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR THESE RUFFIANS!

    1.) Generalizations. Not all teenagers are like that.
    2.) "They need to act more mature"? What kind of argument is that? They're teenagers, they don't act mature because they're not adults. Being a teenager is pretty much characterized by being the transitional time from kid to adult. You can't just expect people to go from being a playful kid to being a mature adult in a matter of minutes.
    Quote from SkylordCentral

    Don't Eat Gum

    Out of all of those, this one made me laugh the hardest.
    Breaking news: Chewing gum makes you abnormal!
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 2

    posted a message on The word "Easter" being banned?
    Well if this is about Spring Break vs. Easter Break, we may as well call it spring break. Easter is a Christian holiday, and not everybody is Christian. I'm sure most people aren't really offended, but we may as well go with the secular name, for the sake of nobody getting offended at all.

    My favorite thing about this argument is Christians saying "why does everyone have to be butthurt about this? Nobody should be offended because it's called Easter Break!".... but then they are getting butthurt that it's going to be changed to "Spring Break" instead of "Easter Break."

    Why do you have to be butthurt about the change? Is anybody really going to be offended by it being called Spring Break? It may not be a huge issue, but it's better to have the secular name than the one that applies only to Christians.

    P.S.: Changing the name of Easter Break to Spring break isn't a god damn attack on Christianity. Good job Bill. Always trying to sensationalize anything secular as discrimination against Christians. Some of us actually like our religion separate from our government, thank you very much.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on The Unconstitutional Gun Tax
    Quote from OmegaLambda

    The word "infringed" as it is written in the Constitution has a deeper meaning than you're reading. Taken in context, any government restrictions or taxes on arms are unconstitutional.

    Well sure, because the second amendment was written for the purpose of defending ourselves from the federal government, essentially. But let's face it, we're in a different time. The chance of the government doing something so drastic as to needing citizens to call to arms against it is just about as likely as another civil war. That's just not something that happens in the developed world, really. Nowadays, the only reason people find guns to be important is literally because that amendment exists. If there was no guaranteed right to bear arms, I guarantee there wouldn't be so many people avidly in support of keeping guns around. Sure, some would say there are other benefits to having guns around... but if we lived in a society with little to no weapons, we wouldn't be complaining to have them anytime soon.


    Guns are not supposed to only be accessible to hardcore gun enthusiasts. They are supposed to be for the average person. They are the great equalizer. A 5'2", 100 lb woman can stand up to a 6'4", 250 lb rapist if she is armed with a gun.

    Well if it were up to me, guns would not be accessible to very many people, if any at all. But I digress... if they're supposed to be accessible for the average person, then I'd say they're not doing a very good job at it with the price of weapons and all.


    The Constitution should be the holy scripture as far as the Federal government is concerned. The Constitution is the law, written by the People, putting restrictions and regulations on government. If the government acts in defiance of the People's law, there is tyranny. They no longer derive their power from the consent of the governed.

    What I meant is that it shouldn't be taken word-for-word as the perfect law of the land. It's not. It's very vague and left open for interpretation so it can be changed over time. Constructionists would argue that you need to take the Constitution absolutely literally word for word. But I for one think that's the wrong approach, and think the Constitution needs to be modified to fit with the times. Without judicial activism, we'd still have ridiculously outdated and outright wrong practices going on. Sometimes the Constitution needs to be interpreted differently than it may have been originally intended for.


    Guns have a mercantile cost. So do printing presses, computers, internet access, etc. But there is not an additional Federal tax on either free speech or bearing arms because these are Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

    Well, you also can't really tax a concept like free speech... In fact, I don't think there's any other "precedent" for taxing our rights, because most rights are simply concepts, and taxing them wouldn't even make sense. But guns are different, and should be treated differently than other rights are.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 4

    posted a message on The Unconstitutional Gun Tax
    Quote from MrDenco

    -snip-

    Honestly, I hate when people try to bring in the second amendment just because something involves guns. Like "Oh, we can only have 7 bullets in a magazine? WTF MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY!"... well, no. Your second amendment right to bear arms is still fully intact. It just reduces the amount of bullets you can have in your gun. You're not being limited on your ownership of arms, but your usage of them. There's a key difference. The second amendment doesn't say "we all need to have low-cost weapons with at least 10 bullets in them available at all times to any citizen".... it just says that we have the right to own a weapon. So yeah, unless the government was going around taking guns away and/or banning all weapons, your second amendment right isn't being violated.

    Same applies to this situation, your right to own a gun isn't being impeded by anything other than your economic issues. We may as well hand out guns free of charge! I'd imagine having any cost at all, by your standards, would be infringing on our 2nd amendment right, eh? Seeing as there would be people living in poverty who can't afford a gun are being "denied" their second amendment right because the price is too high. Your rights are not being impeded by this. If you're going to call for no/low tax on guns (which, also implies that you don't want prices to change. I mean, if gun prices went up that'd be infringing on your 2nd amendment right, eh?) then you may as well say that we should all get a free firearm, seeing as a cost at all on weapons will render some poor people incapable of buying a gun, denying them their second amendment right, according to you.

    You can't just pretend that you're being denied your right because the price is too high. They can make the price whatever they want.. but the key thing is, you're still legally allowed to own a weapon. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee that everyone will be able to buy a weapon at a reasonable price. It, as I said earlier, only guarantees that you can legally own one. I don't understand how any limit on gun use is somehow considered a violation of the 2nd amendment to some people. It's not.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 1

    posted a message on Deus's Psychology Test #1.
    Not sure if I did this right, but here ya go.


    It may also be cheating cause I have a drawing tablet, haha.
    But the left side definitely looks neater, probably because I'm a lefty.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 3

    posted a message on Obama extends "Violence against Women" act
    Oh I'm sorry. I'll just send that single mother and her two toddler sons back into the gang infested cities of Mexico. That'll show those goddamn dirty immigrants not to step foot into the holy motherland of freedom and democracy

    Quote from To_Make

    Except that most of the illegal immigrants are poor non-professionals (unlike many legal immigrants, who are able to emigrate legally due to programs like the H-1B visa). In addition, said immigrants usually send money back to their families.

    Do you really think people just hop the border and bring their families across illegally for no apparent good reason? You guys make it seem as if they just came on over because they were bored of Mexico or something. There is a ridiculous amount of gang and drug related crime going on over there. People don't just uproot their lives and illegally immigrate to another country just because they wanted to. Usually the consequence of staying is greater than the consequence of moving.

    Plus, legal immigration isn't quite as easy as you might think it is. It can take upwards of years to get out of the country legally. Some people don't have that kind of time.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 2

    posted a message on Why Atheism is Good/Bad (And Why)
    Quote from Dr_Axe

    Humans aren't scared of death, they're scared of the idea of death. I doubt you wouldn't take a bullet for someone you sincerely love. I wouldn't worry about death, however it's an idea to try and make your life worthwhile.

    As an atheist, death is terrifying. Death itself, to me, is worse than anything hell has to offer. It just sends chills down my spine to think that... in no more than 100 years time, I won't even exist anymore. Well, maybe my physical person, but not the consciousness that goes with it.There is no comfort of an afterlife to me, only the concept of not existing anymore. This is bone-chillingly horrific. Never existing again. Ever. For as long as time exists. I honestly don't even know if I'd take a bullet for someone. That's how much I value my life and value my existence. And not in an egotistical way- just a terrified way. Too terrified to never exist again so someone else can live another day. Some say I'd be living like a coward. But hey, at least I'm living. Truth be told, I'd take living 10,000 years in slavery over death any day, because the worst life is still better than death, in my eyes.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • 2

    posted a message on Sex Ed in Kindergarten
    Quote from lolpierandom

    Follow the European model, perhaps?

    Or if we're really going out on a limb, the Chinese model?

    I have a Norwegian friend, and the way he describes school sounds thoroughly more enjoyable than school here in the U.S. He actually enjoys going to school, and I don't blame him. He's only got one day per week where he goes class-to-class like we do every single day in the U.S. Now, I don't know if it's more efficient "learning-wise" but I'm assuming it's pretty effective seeing as he can speak fluent English and Norwegian at 16, as well as having other computer related (mainly video editing) abilities.

    American education would probably be the equivalent of working an average white collar office job. While European (or at least Norwegian) education would probably be the equivalent of working at Google or some other company with a Greenfield approach.
    Posted in: Politics, Philosophy, News and Science
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.