Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/2/12 02:34 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/1/12 04:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

There was one way you could have gone after the seed point, but instead you chose to insult and be generally rude.

Well when people are as stupid as you are, Cam... I find it to be rather fitting.

For instance...

At 6/1/12 07:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

In the case of murder or assault the one person who constitutes the two lives is not consenting. In the case of abortion, the one person consents.

If you're going to claim that a fetus isn't a "person/human/life" due to its biological development stage... then how the fuck does it automatically become those things just because the mother "WANTS" it to be?

Magic?

If a pro-lifer came in here and said that a fetus should be considered a Person because "it will eventually become one", you would obviously say "just because it will become one, it does not mean that it currently is."

So if a fetus is scientifically NOT a person, then why would it magically become one just because the "expecting" mother wants to "eventually" have the child?

I might own a table, but just because I call it a tv, it doesn't make it one.

I love how "scientific" you people claim to be, only to chuck the label out of the window for the sake of sympathy.

I have to agree with him here. No one's going to convince me that there's any difference in saying "human life" and "person". The moment the sperm and the egg start interacting, something's happening, and it isn't death, so it must be life.

At 5/31/12 06:15 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: You guys are 'tards.

It doesn't have the potential to turn into a human being if you stop if from turning into one.

Unless you define a human being as only needing the two sets of DNA and the potential for growth.

Oh yeah! Fidyfi!

At 5/30/12 05:08 PM, Zullzee wrote:

At 5/30/12 01:19 PM, SineRider wrote:

Reaching a $5,000 goal, even for something corny like that, isn't that big of a deal.

Now THIS is scary.

Ha! I remember John De Lancie from Breaking Bad.

At 5/29/12 10:23 PM, MOSFET wrote:

At 5/29/12 09:44 PM, EKublai wrote: See, I can't accept that at all. A cluster of cells develops into a very real human. The pain argument is a utilitarian one, but even then, an absolute morality can suggest that since life is developing, it is wrong entirely.

So you are against IVF(invitro fertilization) as well?
The basic procedure is as follows.
1.) egg cells removed from the woman
2.) multiple eggs are fertilized by the father's sperm
3.) the woman decided how many of the eggs are to be implanted back into her. 1-3 typically
4.) The rest of the fertilized eggs are thrown out.

Again, the problem I am facing is one of reconciling that my political views (pro-choice) do not match my moral views (pro-life). If I get political I can reason the hell out invitro fertilization. Actually, even morally I can sort of accept IVF because to me the development of a baby is really about the "shared life" of the mother and embryo. The mother is allowed to reject anything that is not human (unfertilized egg) and allowed to accept human (fertilized egg). But because the egg has already been rejected from the body once, there is nothing in my morality that says the mother must allow all that which was fertilized outside of her body to be placed back inside.

Some women probably wouldn't have been able to get pregnant naturally, so this option is the only one available to some couples. I can understand how you feel about dehumanizing a potential human, but a potential human is still not a human being.

At 5/27/12 07:05 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: If a fetus is less than 20 weeks old it is definately not sapient.

If a fetus is older than 24 weeks it has an active human neo-cortex and can survive outside the womb in an incubator, it is only a shade away from being as sapient as a newborn baby.

Abortion before 20 weeks should be legal.

Abortion after 24 weeks should be illegal.

Between 20 and 24 weeks is the grey area, cancer patients who need chemotherapy and so forth can abort but otherwise no.

Pro choicers who want the right to throw newborn babies into medical waste bins are evil.
Pro lifers who want to ban after morning pills because they think a cluster of cells is a person are stupid.

See, I can't accept that at all. A cluster of cells develops into a very real human. The pain argument is a utilitarian one, but even then, an absolute morality can suggest that since life is developing, it is wrong entirely.

To me, one of the most morally complicated issues is that of abortion. Despite my pro-choice stance, I am never quite at ease with myself because in my heart I believe that it is wrong to kill another person, no matter what stage of developement. If it has the potential to stop growing or die, it must be at a previous point be growing and alive. You'd have to find some damn good evidence to convince me otherwise of this.

But my real point is that it's a no-win situation. It's Free-Choice vs. Free-Life. It's impossible to suggest one way is entirely correct. The only thing that reasonably makes sense is abortion to save the life of the mother, because in that case the organism inside has become a bad parasite, which we reject from our bodies everyday.

But then, what if abortion is really something else. When is murder excusable? If you're in the military, when you're defending yourself.

Does having an abortion render a valuable service? By having the abortion, is the mother defending herself? Not if the baby is not going to end up killing her.

Is abortion like anything else that's even close to comparable? This is my question for discussion.

Note: I believe that this is best handled with consideration to whether the embryo can feel pain or not. Many bugs do not have the brain capacity to feel pain, and therefore I feel it's more forgivable to step on bugs without thinking much of it. At the same time, it doesn't help that much since I know that at some point the embryo would be able to feel pain.

At 5/23/12 07:05 PM, MasonicDisplay wrote:

At 5/16/12 10:32 PM, EKublai wrote: I support Gay Marriage, but believe Churches have the right to not perform gay marriages if their sect does not support. Gays get married under their own God, it's not the churches job to support multiple gods.

I agree with this. Churches don't HAVE to wed homosexuals, so it should be also that homosexuals do not HAVE to go through the church to get married.

But if a gay couple believes that there is a God that blesses gay ceremonies, and there is a church willing to perform gay marriages, then that church is saying that the God they serve ordains such marriages. And I'm fine with that.

It's a state matter whether or not that religious ceremony translates to a legal union. Religiously, they can be married.

At 5/23/12 12:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

My general philosophy on economic governance is more of a "Free market on a leash" thoery. A pragmatic attempt to harness the potential of pure capitalism whilst trying to protect against the strong harms of unfettered capitalism.

Keynesian practices are largely inapplicable in today's (post-1970s actually) economy because the country is/has been going through a period of both high unemployment and high inflation, which under Keynes' theory was impossible. This isn't his ignorance talking, its the fact that no economist of the right mind ever dreamed of a day where the macroeconomic policies of a government could be so abysmal that they would fail to balance their own budget.

At this point, something's gotta give before we can practically return to this way of thinking. People need to start saving again and become better consumers or else every up in the economy is just going to be another bubble.

This is probably your problem.

On televisions, HDMI ports are actually HDMI (IN) ports, meaning they receive data and can display it on their monitor. But with most computers, the HDMI port is actually an HDMI (out) port. This means it only sends out data, which is useful for plugging your computer into a TV, but not for playing games on it. Usually only higher-end computers support HDMI (OUT) AND HDMI (IN). Computer monitors are becoming more like TVs all the time, the price for a proper monitor should be too bad in the future if it isn't already.

Don't take my word for it though, check to see if this is the case.

Capitalism will still work. As technology takes the manufacturing industry, and the standard of living becomes higher, the new capitalism will come from the art and entertainment industry. We already see it with how the Internet has changed the way people are entertained. People won't be working as much, so they will need to occupy themselves in other ways. I imagine it could be a lot like that movie Surrogates with Bruce Willis. Then again people still play sports so maybe not.

This idea is just one in about a thousand regarding of the future of videogame distribution for consoles.

Eventually, discs will be out. And either digital distribution will be fully in or.... something else will.

One of the big financial hurdles for the Video game industry is that there's pretty much only one life for a particular game to live. Whereas a Movie first comes out in theaters and then has a second-life on DVD, a third on-demand, and a fourth on TV, videogames as they stand are only profitable to video game publishers through retail purchases. This all but destroys the chances of having a diverse supply of middle-ground developers, and those between who make small-scale games like Journey and FEZ and AAA titles are destined to fail. So I just wanted to toss around some ideas to create a better environment for both consumers and developers and publishers.

Let's say streaming games is the future. What do you guys think of the idea of creating some sort of DirectTV/OnLive Hybrid, where people pay for a subscription, and instead of game renting or game buying, it operates just like TV, where at certain times of the day, you can play Call of Duty or Uncharted for a few hours at a time, or you can buy a certain amount of hours. And publishers can buy channels, so on one channel you'll have Assassin's Creed 3 and Rayman Origins and on the other you can just have a 24-hr Call of Duty Marathon all the time.

There are alot of extraordinary details to consider, but from the consumer-side, what do you think?

At 5/15/12 06:00 PM, Bahamut wrote: I would like to inform you all how much of a piece of shit the trophy leaderboard software really is. Having to redo all the stats just because the program fucked up with reading the data onto Notepad isn't fun in the slightest. It's no wonder others gave up with these updates after only a few weeks of covering them. Now that I've finished the damn update, I'll happily get back to Just Cause 2.

You know what parts of the code are being problematic?

I can't imagine the code itself is all that complicated.

I support Gay Marriage, but believe Churches have the right to not perform gay marriages if their sect does not support. Gays get married under their own God, it's not the churches job to support multiple gods.

At 5/2/12 11:22 AM, DeftAndEvil wrote: Hey guys. Well, it's been far too long since I've posted a story on the Writing Forum. Here's one I wrote for my Intro to Fiction class. The reason I posted it is because I can't remember the last time I had this much fun writing, and it reminded me that I actually enjoy it.

The assignment was basically a character losing something and basically reacting to it (such that the reaction was disproportional to the loss). This is a letter about a guy losing his pen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mother,

Words cannot describe how unfathomably inconsolable I am because of my insolent brother's discourteous act. He stole my pen! Alas, I am forced to type-write upon a typewriter, like some inane accountant.

"type-write upon a typewriter" I like that.

I had just begun writing a great short story, a story filled with drama and mystery, and I was developing a wonderfully insane character when I could not find my pen (which you know I always leave on my desk, next to my lamp). Undoubtedly, my brother is the primary and sole culprit.

The day was bright, despite the early hour, and the grisly fog from last night had cleared. The birds sang in a sprightly tune

"in a sprightly tune" too camp.

and I marched with pep

here too

from my bed to my desk. I decided to skip breakfast, as I was full of confidence and creativity. But, I instantly noticed my pen, my instrument, was missing. I searched and searched, and I rifled through the drawers and utterly ransacked the apartment, to no avail. The repetitive tintinnabulations of the unknown tweeting canary hurt my ears.

My brother walked in, smiling in his usual, boorish way.

Alan

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I actually tried to incorporate metafiction, and the piece itself was an exercise in metafiction. I tried hard to develop Alan's "astuteness" to give a strong sense of irony and call to attention his ability to write. However, the language ends up feeling forced and prosaic (which was not the intention). Also I tried to draw parallel between his life and creating fiction.

However, my main concern is the metafiction. Did I do a good job on it? Does it feel forced (is it noticeable without being egregious)?

I got a slightly Poe vibe from this, at least early on, from the romantic vocabulary. Comparing the language of the second half of the story to the first, i thought the story sort of sputtered out. Personally, I find the premise a little silly and rather than being concerned for this character because of irony, I was disturbed at some of the irrational behavior he exhibits. I'm left wondering about the importance of the pen to his writing, since I assume procuring another one wouldn't be much of a hassle. If that's the case, then it's about his paranoia over his brother, which isn't conveyed with enough force i think. Maybe your character starts ranting not just about this event, but all the unconnected threads of sibling rivalry that lead up to this point.

Any criticism is appreciated. Also, I have no idea why this guy wrote to his mother; please go with it.

At 5/5/12 03:49 PM, Korriken wrote:

This seems made to go in the direction of Megamind. However, I once had this idea for a sprite movie about how Mario eventually exiled Bowser after defeating him, and basically became the monster he had always been fighting. I feel like this take could be interesting in a Crime and Punishment sort of way, where the first part is the act of the supervillain destroying his rival, but then the rest of the book is his downfall. I can see that being either darkly comic or very depressing. Think of ways to really get inside that characters head. Nightmares, insanity.

My other idea started as an idea of a Priest and demon being forced to live in the same apartment and eventually ends up with an emo living with them too.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1510938/

The Next ThatGameCompany!?

Now that ThatGameCompany is going multiplatform in all probability, Sony needs an artsy studio to take ThatGameCompany's place. Well, BOOM! There it is. Giant Sparrow. The Unfinished Swan looks really interesting. Apparently, you start off in front of a completely white screen and you paint to reveal your environment.

Ethan Mars please.

Long Range attack: Jason!
Short Range attack: Shaun!
Super meter move: I'm a father too!

The Choking Cloth in Journey

The Choking Cloth in Journey

Behold! I am the Ancient Aztec God of BITCH-SMACKING!

• 
  BadGuys2:AppeasingTheGods by ChrisNosal

  The sequel to BadGuys. Fun in the jungle.

  Score

  4.25 / 5.00

  Type

  Movie

  Popularity

  596,318 Views

  Rated

  Ages 17+

It might not be a real sport, but it's still very dangerous for the performers. Owen Hart died after a fall from the rafters, Stone-cold Steve Austin got his neck broke after a piledriver mistake.

"Aha, was that an answer? Did you just fail me for the last time?"

• 
  Mastermind 4 by The-Swain

  The Mastermind calls a meeting.

  Score

  4.43 / 5.00

  Type

  Movie

  Popularity

  608,254 Views

  Rated

  Ages 13+

I play the first seven seconds of this music video and I can't stop laughing...

I like to think that it's how he speaks in real life.

At 6 minutes ago, unconsidered wrote: I say Farcry 2 comes really close, from pulling bullets from you arms and legs, to burning the wounds, to popping joints.

I totally agree with this. Farcry 2 is proof positive that this can work. But I still wish it would go further.

The main reason why I don't play first person shooters at all is that I feel like I'm moving a bullet-spitting camera around, not a character.

And here's my argument. The character shouldn't react the same way. He should react depending on where he's been hit and how many times he's been hit. For instance, after you've been hit once, depending on your situation you might not look at the second wound because you've gone into a "survival mode", Idk. I am not convinced that psychology cannot seamlessly be interwoven with gameplay.

In most shooter (3rd-person or 1st person), a variety of methods have been developed to display health and injury. let's look at some of the ways.

Blood on screen (killzone or call of duty)
blood flecks (battlefield 3)
Black and white screen (Infamous 2)
Blurring (Splinter Cell)

What I've noticed is that they never try to actually present damage on the player. The character you're playing in nothing more than a "bullet sponge" who never shows the effects of the bullets. I for one think this could be worth looking into.

1st person shooters:
When people get shot, they don't keep shooting, they look at where they've been shot, and they keep glancing at the blood lost. Something like that should be implemented

3rd person shooters:
With mo-cap technology these days, there should be multiple animation sets for when people are at varying degrees of injury. Like nathan Drake should cluth his leg when he's been shot in the shin.

I feel like we're at the point where it is technologically viable to do these sorts of things to make the experience more immersive. I'm tired of looking at healthbars and unrealistic depictions of injury. I want to see the pain on my character's face?

At 1 day ago, creepyboy wrote:

At 1 minute ago, MatrixGravity wrote:

At 9 minutes ago, Slint wrote: Breaking Bad is one of the best series ever, don't watch it if you can't handle it.

I prefer Breaking Dawn.

Quoting Walter White: "Is this just a genetic thing with you?, Is it congenital? Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby?"

My favorite is:

What are we building?

You said it yourself.

A robot?

A battery.

At 3 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: I knew enough to know that California has historically been more conservative than it currently is, particularly in presidential politics.

Here's a nifty link with the entire electoral college history of every state and some pretty easy to read graphs.

Actually, bumming around this site, I noticed a trend happening between 1970 and 1980. The State we consider a blue strongholds now were pretty strongly red before this period, and were not strongly blue until after. Red strongholds, like Texas, were strongly blue before this period and were red after.

California fits with this perfectly, with the exception the 1980s. That's because Reagan was Califnornian. Other than that, their trend pretty much matched New York and Maffachufetts, and is almost completely opposite from Texas.

I believe that trend was Nixon's South Strategy. By fighting against civil rights and appealing to the religious, he courted the Southern vote and transformed the GOP into the party most associated with good family values and good racism.

DIRTY!

I can't believe how filthy I feel after watching every episode! And I'm still in season 2!!!!

This series should (and could) replace DARE in high schools in a heartbeat. I'd be scared out of any drug watching this show.

Does anyone else get this.... wait.... what? What!? NO!!!! NOT HEROIN !!!!! NOT AGAIN!! JUST PUT IT AWAY... PUT IT AWAY!! Put it---- NO, no, no, they did it again. Why? WHhhhhhhhhhhhyy?

I love this show.

At 22 minutes ago, djack wrote: I'm pretty sure the reason this never gets mentioned is because of the time period its in. From '09-'63 you've got WWI, Prohibition, The Great Depression, WWII, The beginning of the space race, and Vietnam. I think I remember once hearing about Nazi Germany basing it's eugenics program after California's but it was brief and didn't go into a lot of details. Countries also have a habit of whittling down their history to just the gems (most people don't remember that Lincoln wasn't against slavery because it was morally wrong but because he found it unnecessary and wanted to ship all black people back to Africa whether they were already free or not).

I respect your point, but I don't buy that our collective memory for our own country's history is limited to that extent.

Countries have a habit of reacting to shameful passages in their national history by ignoring them. This isn't something limited to the U.S. Try the Holocaust. Germany could not be more embarrassed for having those relatively few years tarnishing a history that spans centuries. They distance themselves from that past however possible. Or take the Nanking Massacre. Japan periodically tries to shy away from these atrocities against China by ripping those pages out of their national textbooks.

But for example closer to home, take the internment camps of thousands of Japanese-Americans (62% of them citizens of the U.S.A) during WWII. First, we didn't even apologize until 1988, alot of good that did to those who were dead. Second, we encourage our state legislatures to make changes to textbooks (like the recent Tea Party movement's attempt to downplay race as a factor in the Civil War) to gloss over the truth just so we can call things like WWII an unequivocal "victory".

The problem is, is that an entire country might decide to try to forget what happened, but thanks to the honesty and hard work of people like Howard Zinn and other historians, these countries will always remain accountable. No matter how hard Japan or Germany or America or China or whereever tries to forgive their sins by pretending they didn't exist, they will never disappear. Countries need to wake up to this fact.