Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/27/07 11:32 AM, germansoldier555 wrote:

German is actually one of Our biggest Economic and Militarly Allies....so is Japan...You FUcking Moron....Jesus...After The Americans Rebuilt bothe Countires into the the 2 other Biggest Economies in the World....they owe us alot...and Fuck you..The french suck, I bet your french....heres how you say french....I SURRENDER I SURRENDER!!!!

Man you have issues. Ive not seen you post on this topic before so I'll let you in on a little knowledge. Randomly slandering other posters doesnt do much for the validity of your argument.

At 3/25/07 04:57 PM, Memorize wrote: This is old, but whatever, I didn't see it.

At 3/10/07 07:47 AM, Boltrig wrote:

Get your facts right.

I never disputed that... whoo!

Yes you did. You blamed us for all of the bad Iraq intel, when GW was goin in anyway.

Great controversy emerged when no stockpiles of such weapons were found, leading to : accusations that the United States, and in particular its President George W. Bush had deliberately inflated intelligence or lied about Iraq's weapons in order to justify an invasion of the country. (same source)

Hahaha, my god, I didn't think your intelligence could sink any lower. It's funny, by that logic, all the other 40+ nations did the exact same thing. Also, as your link stated, it was to prevent Saddam from building or obtaining more, which we did, as those UN inspectors did say that altho he Saddam was turned down, he was trying to obtain them.

So youve now gone from blaming the UK for bad intel, to trying to say Americas intel was right. You already said you recieved your bad intel from us so youre chasing your tail on this one. Such a downward spiral of bullshit.

Haha, I love you idiots. You had the exact same look at the exact same information which all said the exact same thing. And what did you people do? You voted to go to war, but now that things have changed and fearing that you were "wrong", you're going to blame the one man known as George Bush and use him as a scapegoat.

Too many uses of the word exact. It clouds your point. Which is full of shit anyway. Tony Blair has been forced out of office because the public is unhappy with his leadership. The UK public is blaming the UK government for leading us into Iraq. That article, pertains to the US contribution. By no means should the UK escape its role in intel gathering, but if the US is the largest contributor to the coallition why shouldnt it bear the most scrutiny.

Case and point, mother fucker.

Yeah, your mother.

I dont see why you need to resort to name calling. It really doesnt put forward an image of intellegence. Mind you neither does your rhetoric.

At 3/25/07 05:40 PM, Imperator wrote:

"your hatred is evidence of our power".

God, I love these 2000 year old lines, sure do come in handy.....

Thanks Theukydicles!! My man!

I dont hate Americans, just mildly dislike the ones on this topic that think spewing insults and rhetoric is acceptable as a cohesive argument. I mean the original point was that the topic starter considers Americans to be the most arrogant people on the Earth, and rather than say something along the lines of "well some ruin it for the rest", they just slander and dredge up WW2. Real enlightened behaviour.

Here you go. Now dont clutter up the BBS.

At 3/27/07 12:13 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: At the age of thirteen all children should have to take mescalin/peyote 2-3 times a week, until they are atleast 25. Also, no one has ever died from smoking pot.

Hmm, I thought from your postings on the IRan topic that you might be sane, but this is a bit moronic. There are clear links to mental issues like schizophrenia when smoking pot.

Also, would you care to give logical reasons for children being forced to ingest hallucenogens?

At 3/26/07 10:24 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Do Americans support their government's labelling of Iran as part of some "axis of evil?" Also, do they think it's right to try to shut down Iran's Nuclear Energy Program? If so, why? It seems to me that Iran gets really bad press in the media, almost as bad as Saddam did when he was in power. Is america gearing up for another war, and do americans support possible military action inside Iran?

Well Im Scottish, and Id support any millitary action agains Iran unless they return our marines and sailors now. I also think that there is no reason for Iran to continue nuclear weapons development. Nuclear power yes, but thats a short step to convert it to military use. Until they can prove they are a stable state, they shouldnt be allowed to continue development.

At 3/27/07 02:14 AM, Benovere wrote: I dont think politics works that way. Just look at Italy. That country has 30+ political parties, including fascism. That leads to political instabality.
BTW, the republicans and Democrats are not the only political parties in the usa. You have the pink triangles, the blue squares, the green party, etc. Most of the time those people don't win, though.

Same with all two party systems. Despite the fact that anyone can have a party and run for government, you always get the two main ones receiving all the media attention and generally most of the votes.

Just in the area I live in, we had about 5 candidates from different parties at the last election, and I dont live in the biggest of political catchment areas.

In the UK youve got Labour and Conservative as the two main, but theres tons of others. Just that they never get a media look - in.

Hey just a quick question.

I need to get user input inside a while loop. The format is kinda as follows:

while (enemyShips > 0)
{
//get the user to select a weapon
}

The user selects their weapon to fire via buttons. What Im not sure of is general syntax and how to put an onRelease statement in there. Will this affect the loop or just halt it until the user clicks something?

Thanks in advance guys.

At 3/17/07 08:53 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

IF the experiments conducted on the animals, is as an end result trying to determine if a product/surgical technique is ok for people. Using a person already will remove any doubt that say a rat can be cured but for some reason a human rejects the cure.

And using a human first places a human life in danger. The procedure is untested, testing on say a rat first, allows the possibility of preventable death due to a common cause to be removed. IE if the rat dies from some affliction that humans will also die from then you dont go ahead.

We no longer have to torure innocent creatures.
I mean I have no problem killing them & eating the tasty little bastards, but I don't believe torturing them is right.

Its only torture in the eyes of the extremeist groups and their lazy, innactive supporters. You know the ones, all the people that will say animal testing is torture if it comes up in debate but dont actually do anything about it.
Anyway, people with half a brain see it as medical research. I think that all these animal rights hippies should be denied medication that was tested on animals. Lets see how torturous they find it when they are dying of cancer and cant get treated.

Criminals who are proven beyond any doubt & are on death row could be used to serve a greater good.
There was a great deal of scientific research done on humans by the Nazi's.
Much of what we know about how a human submerged in cold water & how hypothermia affects a body (different weights, gender etc.) was carried out by the Nazi researchers usually killing the subject.
This info was later used (by us) to make better life rafts & immersion suits .
Medical experimentation on wounds, reattaching limbs etc. was conducted using a human gave better more exact results.

After all, if all your going to do to someone is inject them with a lethal cocktail of drugs to stop their heart, why not use them for a better end result.
I'm not saying to torture them & leave them screaming in pain (not that they don't actually deserve that) treat them just like any terminally ill patient is treated.
Pain management, & conduct the experimentation that could better serve your fellow man down the road.
They (murderers) have a debt to society they can never repay. You cannot as of yet bring back a dead person. But maybe by having experimented on these murders who are only going to be killled anyway, they can be apart of breakthru's that can serve mankind in the future.

Wait for the cries of 8th ammendment to come in now. Why should criminals be given rights, when they dont respect others right to life?
Dont put in "cause the 8th ammendment says so". I want a reason.

At 3/14/07 06:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

People on death row are also dead men walking, why not stick them in cages in the zoo and have some practice shots on them.
Because anything outside due process of that law is cruel and unusual.

Because taking potshots at them serves no purpose. There is no benefit to the population at large. Medical testing does serve a purpose.

At 3/14/07 06:40 PM, fli wrote:

At 3/14/07 03:17 PM, Boltrig wrote: Take this situation:
Your four year old asks you, "whats a relationship?" You tell them that theyll find out when theyre older. So why then does the PC crown feel the need for them to know about homosexual relationships at that age?

Is that how you plan to treat your 4 year olds? "Wait till you're older?"
You tell the truth... but not all of it.

Umm... Yes. Why would my four year old need to know, not even the mechanics, but the concepts of relationships. They will not be able to comprehend the full depths of it

"Relationship is a love."
How simple and truthful that quetion is...

Perhaps my parents were modern... I remember my sister asked, "What's rape?" When she was 7 years old. After they asked where she heard that word, my dad gave a really simple but truthful answer. "Rape is bad touching by a bad guy in your private places." Nothing happend my dad...

I remember when I was 6, and I asked what a virgin was... because we were Roman Catholic and I didn't know what "Virgin Mary." Meant. They didn't go into sex and all that... "It's like your sister who hasn't had a baby by another man."

Heck, when I asked, "What's sex?" They said, "It's a type of love people make together." And so when I asked, "Do you make sex with mom?" My dad said, "Yes." And after that, it was okay.

And there we have it, telling part of the truth but not all of it. You are condeming the way you were raised while trying to praise it.

Now...
Kids don't really need to know anything. We're trying raise them as adults, and such... we need to introduce the things that make them grow up.

No we're not. If i ever have kids I will raise them as such. I will not rob my offspring of the precious times of innocence. Its taken away all too quickly these days, and Im not going to accelerate it.

To wait would make the issues much more difficult to comprehend... and much more difficult to handle. They have less of a chance to handle adult issues with maturity when compared to a person who through out life was given the issues bit by bit.

So in the same vain if your child asks what America is at war for, then you should explain to them all the politics and scenarios behind it, because otherwise they arent getting the whole truth.

Despite what you have said,
homosexuality is a norm. It's certainly not an underground thing, and it's taboo is signficantly less than compared decades ago. A kid will pick up on that easily if they watch TV. There's so much homoexual reference in their lives and yet, we don't assume, "Oh, they're innocent. They don't know any better."

Homosexuality is not the norm. It is accepted but untill >50% of the population is gay it is not the norm. The reason that TV makes so many refrences to it is that it is still considered edgy, due to its taboo status.

That's only part of the truth.
Yes, they're "innocent" but... they "know" things accordingly to what they've observed. And without a mature adult, we don't know how that will lead up in their lives.

I dont think you qualify as a mature adult. Rasiing your kids as adults? Rasing them to BE adults yes, but kids should be kids for as long as possible. There is no need for them to be taught about gay relationships that early. teaching them even about the existence of them puts a slant on their view because theyre so impressionable at that age.

God bless these children books.
They open a dialogue without raising too much questions. It helps the parents to lessen the blow of harsh reality and difficult issues so that when kids start to ask when they're older, "What does it mean to be gay..."

Do you realise how retarded (and yes i know its a stron word) that statement is. God condemns homosexuality, so why the fuck would he bless it.

At 3/12/07 05:42 PM, LazyPint wrote:

At 3/12/07 05:34 PM, SirLebowski wrote: I enjoy Achilles and the Tortoise because it reminded me of a math problem from Geometry.

That one only applies if he's trying to catch the tortoise itself, surely? If it was just a straightforward race even with the tortoise's head start he would win, right?

Or does the whole problem hinge on them going at constant velocity?

I haven't done maths in ages...

This paradox pretty much explains logarithms. Say Achilles only runs in bursts. The tortoise is 5m in front when he starts running, so he runs 5m. the tortoise is now a further 1m away, so he runs 1m, now the tortoise is 20cm further away. The distance between them shrinks till its as near to zero as makes no difference, but there will always be a gap between them.

Thanks man. Ill give it a go. Is that still compatable with a site defined as html/css
ie can i define javascript as well

Im looking to implement a random function in HTML. if a user clicks a link, it will take them to one of 2 pages. Does anyone know how to implement this?

Thanks in advance all.

At 3/14/07 04:18 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/14/07 04:03 AM, Boltrig wrote:

At 3/14/07 12:09 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/13/07 10:47 PM, BigScizot wrote:

For once I agree with you. The ppeople on death row have obviously committed heinous enough crimes that warrant their execution, they could at least provide some use before they die.

Apparently the 8th Ammendment and basic human morality and barbarism no longers applies to society.

Explain how you can justify capital punishment, and not medical research?
A serial killer, convicted and awaiting execution for the murder of 15 people. Infect him with the cold to test anti cold drugs. You see a dillema here?

I guess my morality seems a bit barbaric, but if someone violates anothers right to life without due cause, then they should forfeit it as well. They technically are a dead man walking, so why not?

At 3/14/07 04:52 PM, EKublai wrote:

okay I'm done with the sarcasm. But seriously, you really don't think taking guns out of the equation would not affect murder? would people really wanna resort to slingshots? Molotov cocktails? For one, their illegal to make, and owning a gun isn't with licensing. A bottle of gasoline would for likely just kill you. Axes under the shirt would be a bit of a hassle since you might wanna concentrate on not slashing yourself down the chest while you take it out.

Sry for my bigheadedness. The point is, is that there's a reason why gun-violence is so popular.

But the main point is that you cant take guns out of the equation. In a gun amnesty a few years back in Scotland, a man in Fife handed a homemade cannon to police. Guns will always be available, if not through official channels then through criminal deals.

At 3/14/07 04:32 PM, Bolo wrote:

Gays have a LOT to be afraid of, in coming out to the world; How are they going to be accepted when the biases against them are so heavy? If they're in the military, will they lose their job, their livelihood? Only recently have they gained enough respect to be recognized and protected under the laws. Don't pull out that card about them not coming out because society will "accept them with open arms". That's often NOT the case, at all.

Exactly my point. If being gay is still a bit taboo in certain areas of life, why should children be taught about it. I know you make the point that you dont think it should be taught to young kids, and i commend you for that. Acceptance - yes. Teach children who are a bit older that gys should not be hated as different, but do not teach them that it is normal.

I guess that comes across as bigoted, but thats not how I intend it.

At 3/14/07 03:26 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 3/14/07 03:03 PM, Memorize wrote: It's only fair after all since biologically it isn't the norm.

Biologically, it's been found to be exhibited in monkeys, and even the ancient Greeks engaged in sodomy.

It does occur naturally in many species, and although they are in the minority (mainly because it isn't possible for them to produce children, biologically.) To say that it isn't "normal" is a bit of a mischaracterization.

Up to 5% of some species of animals engage in homosexual relationships at some point, I've read in NewScientist.

But the point being made is that 5% is not the norm. In some places among the human population, the percentage of the population admitting to being gay rises to 10%. Even this is not the norm considering the other 90% are straight.

Let me put this to you, if being gay is so normal, and should be taught to kids, then why are a larege number of gays still hung up on 'coming out'. If its so normal they have nothing but acceptance to look forward to.

At 3/14/07 02:33 PM, Durin413 wrote:

.... LETS TEST ON THE ACTIVISTS!!!

Seconded

At 3/14/07 02:30 PM, fli wrote: So instead, we should introduce them very slowly and progressively adjust them. For the sake of clarifying them what's already the norm but not discussed. They don't need to know the mechanics of homosexuality. It's like a pregnant mother trying to explain where baby's come from... children don't need to know about the mechanics of a pregnancy such as sex, and those issues yet. All they need to know that babies come "from mommy's belly." (That's how my little cousin once told me innocently.)

Homosexuality is NOT the norm though. A lot less than 50% of children have background involving same sex relationships. Telling them that homosexuality at the very impressionable age of 4 is misleading them on the subject of what is a normal background.

Teach acceptance yes, but leave it untill they are old enough to understand it without the use of fairy tales in which prince charming kisses the frog, spurns the resulting princess and buggers off with the stable boy.

Like wise,
all they need to know about homosexuality is, as "Daddy's Roommate" once put, "is a different kind of love."

Please tell me why four year olds, fresh into the education system having watched nothing more political than sesame street since age 2, need to know about homosexuality. Normal relationships are complex to understand at best.

Take this situation:
Your four year old asks you, "whats a relationship?" You tell them that theyll find out when theyre older. So why then does the PC crown feel the need for them to know about homosexual relationships at that age?

At 3/14/07 11:23 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 3/13/07 05:40 AM, Boltrig wrote: Not content with forcing religious adoption agencies to allow gays to adopt from them, despite it being against the reigion of the agency,

Gee golly gosh, you're right, the kids are that adoption agency's private property, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with them.

So your against religious freedom then? Your all for stripping religious organisations of the right to practice their faith, in favour of making same sex couples more able to pretend they are a regular family.

*Insert cries along lines of "GAY HATER" here*

The religious agencies should be able to turn away gay couples because it clashes with their religious ideology, and always has done. If you are SO in favour of gay adoption, pull funding away from other areas of childcare, and finance bigger capacity state run adoption agencies.
See how much youre still in favour of it when your child comes home from school having learned nothing. There is already a topic about this here.

This topic is about gay relationships being introduced to children as young as four, so that they will see them as normal.

At 3/14/07 04:03 AM, PoJoX wrote: Oh.

I thought you really did mean shit in a hat.

You dissapoint me.

Indeed. I thought this was perhaps a referance to spanky pig defacating in a sombrero!

Drawn together. Look it up!

At 3/14/07 12:09 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/13/07 10:47 PM, BigScizot wrote: Personally I believe that we should use humans for scientific experimentation, just because it would give slightly more accurate data.

We should use death row criminals for that. But nooooo, we have human rights groups. The bastards.

For once I agree with you. The ppeople on death row have obviously committed heinous enough crimes that warrant their execution, they could at least provide some use before they die.

At 3/13/07 04:16 PM, EKublai wrote: You know what you do. You make bullets really expensive.

Then there would be no innocent bystanders.

Yeah yeah Chris Rock reference.

Plagerism is not cool kids

It is sad that its getting to the stage where you actually have to tell your kids not to believe what they are told in school.

Kids should not be told that gay families are normal. Yes they exist and should be accepted, but telling the kids that two dads / mums is the norm will raise all kinds of problem.

It is warping impressionable minds from an early age.

At 3/13/07 03:24 AM, The-Masses wrote: @intrepidus6
Congratulations on saying the first remotely intelligent thing (that I have heard) on this site in a long time! You raise a good question. Unfortunately one with no clear answer and many, many opinions by many, many people. And is it possible not to simply yell "Fuck you" every time someone disagrees with you?

He never made any intellegent statement. He quoted someone else in his first post. And used a stupid ananlogy in his second.

@Everyone else who posted here
The depth of the retardedness and close-mindedness of some of the forum-goers on this site continues to amaze me. Every time someone with something decent to say is shouted down, I swear to god that I die a little inside.

People who cant argue without posting fuck you repeatedly deserve to be shouted down. How is regurgitation, over simplifying problems and shouting fuck you "something decent to say"?

At 3/12/07 01:48 PM, Mr-Money wrote: OK, this is short, but interesting. You know when you hear some kind of sound effect. It might be some growl or "eerie" humming or something you consider scary. My question is: why are we suddenly afraid? I can understand if you knew the sound of a tiger, for example, and you were afraid of tigers, but what about when we hear something which we cannot relate to anything frightening we've seen before, yet we're scared of it?

Some sounds have a direct effect on the brain. Your concious thoughts have no control over it. thats why the hairs on your neck rise in situations of fear. Its an automatic response.

At 3/12/07 04:08 AM, MortalWound wrote:

At 3/12/07 04:00 AM, Boltrig wrote:

Thats going from one extreme to the other. You need to find some middle ground and create a poll for your arguments to have validity

Well, my argument does have validity considering the only people truely affected by it are those in the extremes. Also problem I found with polling neutral places is that any place i tried to find in the middle, had no poll option, like this BBS for instance.

Well the majority of the BBS seems to think its wrong. Granted there werent any intellegent arguments to back it up, just general shouts of "OMGWTFBBQ Thtas wrongz! you ppl r sik!"

What im saying is that the religious groups are obviously going to be against it, and porn site users predisposed to be for it.
I cant think of some neutral ground for this. The BBS was a good choice though, despite the fact that you get the preteen crowd offering under developed opinions.

The Um what refers to the unethical syphoning of water to make the drink. I tihnk thats its the Universities perogative if they want to stop selling the drink (in campus bars, student union etc) but its blinkered of them to bad it campuswide.

surely thats a violation of some right

there seem to be so many these days

Is ... Is that article implying that the progression of the seasons constitutes proof of an afterlife?

Is the writer in an institution? With rubber walls?

Trees and vegetation do not die in the winter. Annual plants die, but they only have a lifespan of one season cycle. Trees and perrenials go dormant in winter. Dormant is not dead.

And evergreens dont even go dormant

At 3/13/07 02:34 AM, intrepidus6 wrote: Here's something to think on:

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. ~Charles R. Magel

Heres the corrected version:

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are biologically like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not sapient like us."