Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/14/11 11:12 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: But in all seriousness, no I meant exactly what I meant. People live with other people, we call this "society". People have different set of values and "beliefs". These are part of them. People live with other people. People's beliefs and values influence their actions. People influence other people trough their actions or beliefs in various ways.

Is that enough for you?

Sure thing - actually this is on topic. Strictly coming from a constitutional point of view, though, it's not unconstitutional for a person to influence another person's beliefs. Christians try all the time, atheists counter-argue to try to convince their points, it's all the same in the larger scope of things. People want to convince others that they're right, that's just the way things are. It's unconstitutional for a state run facility to coerce someone using religion, or someone using the power of the state to coerce a student into a religion.

In the school Christian gathering, the teacher has every right to say what he/she believes on that podium, according to the Constitution - as long as they're not using their position as a state teacher to influence a student, they're in the right to preach however they like. Granted, if the teacher was outside of school and using his/her position over a student to force a religion down their throat then they're still breaking the law, and even in the case that they're just talking about it to a student it's still a bit coercive, but in an event where everyone attending already knows what they're going in for it's silly to argue that the teacher's position has any meaning anymore. You're not able to force something down someone's throat when they already agree with you, so if a student is at this event it's because they already share the teacher's religion.

The impression about the school 'hosting' the event, this is not an event organized by the school; the school is merely a venue. IF the school gave the people the venue because they were Christian then I would call bullshit on that (that is definitely the state exercising power in favor of a religion), but it's more likely than not that in this capitalist society the group of people payed for it. As long as it was open to everyone then there's nothing wrong with the state making money off of Christians who think they need a space to stay for a night. That's capitalism.

In the school coach prayer, it would be a violation if the coaches lead in a group prayer with the students. Their position as their teacher makes them a figure with power vested by the state, so leading a group in anything religious is an abuse of that power (or militantly atheistic, as the case may be). Only a religiously neutral position can be taken when they're telling the students to do something. Bowing one's head in prayer in response to an already public prayer, however, is an entirely private action. There is no exercise of power over the students. They are not using their affluence as a state representative. They are simply responding to a religious stimulus that's already there. If a religious person is restricted the right to religiously respond appropriately to something due to a state mandate, that's an abuse of religious power by the state, and thus is unconstitutional.

At 11/14/11 05:26 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: wow i don't even no what to say. you are an INTOLERANT person if you hate people for their beliefs way to be a rude person to people. if you are trying to troll it's not funny. way to go. also you are unoriginal and pull the same stuff so yeah way to be a hypocrite.

If he's trying to troll then he's just achieved his query. No need to feed him anymore.

I think Elfer holds a good point on the subject. I'd like to see that thought developed a bit further.

At 11/14/11 12:08 AM, kakalxlax wrote: clear enought?

Absolutely, I knew what your picture was for the first time around. It simply has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic, showing that you don't know what you're talking about. I thought there was a thread to catch all the random Atheism vs Theism posts? Post it there - at least it'll be on topic.

At 11/13/11 03:43 PM, kakalxlax wrote: i hope this explains why they shouldnt

No, that helps establish you don't know what this topic is about.

It's just as unconstitutional for a school to dictate how people practice their religion outside of the public school's authority as it is for people to dictate how others practice their religion within the public school's authority. In the first case, the event was already taking place (that's arguably a questionable circumstance, but a discussion for another time), but a certain group was explicitly told not to participate in one form or another. That's unconstitutional - the state has no right to tell any individual how to practice their own faith. If the party was to use it's position as public teacher to coerce students outside of school into a religion the situation would be different, but people otherwise have the right to do what they want in their own time.

The second case is an issue with private prayer. It's private. If they were leading prayer in a public school, it would be a violation of separation of church and state, but it was private. Stopping people from private prayer is a violation of their right to practice freely.

The organ donor issue is a little more convoluted than you think, djack, because in order for an organ to be viable for use it needs to be taken from the body very quickly - generally between what is deemed 'heart death' and 'brain death', if the subject's heart stops. Otherwise the organs are dead and useless.

The issue, then, is that if someone is a donor then their life will be over once their heart stops, even if there was a chance that they could preserve it via defibrillators or something, and after brain death it may already be too late to preserve the organs. It's not like people are being selfish for no reason on the subject.

I had a couple of reviews deleted about an hour ago. While I don't mind if they were deleted for being a little heated (they were very old, and one of them encouraged blamming the submission - t'was written before I read the rules, it won't happen again), I would like to know if pointing out stolen work is discouraged for one reason or another in the audio portal.

In the FAQ it notes that posting that a work is stolen is discouraged and a whistle should instead be blown or Wade (or another administrator who handles the audio portal, I assume) should be contacted. In the case of the audio portal, however, there is no whistle function, and stolen audio often is overlooked and ignored when contacting the proper people about it (in my experience, attempts to contact administrators about stolen music is met without a response). If I recognize a work as not being someone's work I feel it's an injustice to the real artist to let it go without pointing others in the right direction.

Is it acceptable to point people in the right direction to the real artists of a particular track if you find stolen audio music? If not, what are my viable alternatives?

Why are you blurring the discussion with these semantics? It is a theory, and it is open to being disproven with reputable evidence, as you're saying. It hasn't yet been disproven yet, so most everyone accepts it nowadays (save for a few that think it conflicts with their beliefs, for some reason). It's widely accepted enough to be used in neurology, economics, biology and artificial intelligence to great effect, and has been mathematically replicated many times. There is virtually no reason (save for a couple of weak arguments presented by ID supporters) to deny it. It's a theory, but it's one that no one should have any reason to treat differently from fact, much like the theory of gravity (back in it's day), the theory of numbers, the theory of relativity (which actually trumped the theory of gravity), etc..

Oh yeah, and the FSM strainer on the guy's head for the driver's licence photo was flippin' hilarious... gettin' back on topic.

At 7/15/11 01:08 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: BTW, condoms, when used properly, are 100% safe only if they don't break. Abstinence is 100% safe only if you're not raped or otherwise sexually assaulted.

So the conclusion is... for rapists to wear condoms?

Actually I'm all for that.

Welcome to the dark side of politics.

There's already a warning label on them telling people to limit consumption to however much a day (on regular ol' Monsters I think the limit is 3 cans a day). If people feel like consuming more then they do so at their own risk.

As for children drinking it, it's really up to the parents, but common sense would dictate limiting too much sugar and caffeine for children.

Overall, I see absolutely no reason to ban energy drinks. They're not addictive (no more than anything else containing caffeine, anyway), the harm they can cause is pretty common knowledge, and there for those that don't know for some reason there are even appropriate warning labels on them. I think there more important things to worry about than energy drinks.

I like the music, actually - it's very soothing.

I think the idea is to integrate popular culture into their media so it can connect better with the youths of the planet. I also think that their idea is failing miserably.

At 7/8/11 11:20 PM, highschooldude wrote: lol I'm not sexually active because i can't afford condoms...

They're like 75 cents at most gas stations. That's... no, no one wants to be with a guy that can't spend 75 cents for them. I could find that much in the seat of my car - if that was the only thing that was preventing me from sex then I'd fork out the 75 cents.

Seriously, that's possibly the worst excuse on the planet to not have sex.

If you want to avoid a situation where something is being taught that you don't want then hire someone who is willing to teach it.

Er... I mean if you want to avoid a situation where you want something taught then hire someone who is willing to teach it. Hopefully the day will come where there is an edit function on these forums :/

At 7/6/11 01:18 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 7/4/11 04:23 PM, Gario wrote: So in conclusion - have non-Christians teach the subject and the Christian can teach what they want in their own homes. No one's toes are stepped on, and the education you want to have is accepted. Everyone wins.

By Christian, you mean conservative Christian, I hope.

Obviously, yes. Some Christians have no problem with it, and others do.

Teachers just have to teach what's in the curriculum and if they refuse, then they are not good teachers.

I could tell you how wrong that type of thinking is in the world of education, but let's keep it relevant to the topic at hand. As you're an atheist I understand you have no context to understand the problem, but asking a Christian (or any religious, really) to teach something that is directly against their beliefs is disastrous for them - there's some serious spiritual consequence to it. Whether or not you believe in an invisible punishment in the afterlife (or whatever) for breaking some belief doesn't factor in, here - if you ignore how someone will respond to that situation then you (or whoever the administrator is) is entirely at fault, since the situation is very easy to avoid. If you want to avoid a situation where something is being taught that you don't want then hire someone who is willing to teach it. It's the easiest road that avoids the problem, so why would you do anything otherwise?

You can't exclude teachers just because they are Christian, as there are many Christian teachers that don't have problem with condoms.

Some Christians don't. Some do. Point taken, though - I admittedly was taking the safe road on this and simply removing anyone who might teach differently from the equation. Perhaps just asking the person if they have problems with condoms/birth control/any prevention measure is enough. If they have a problem with it then don't ask them to teach it. That'll fix the 'abstinence only' problem in sex ed.

You so silly - I see absolutely no problem with abstinence, but I can see the frustration with abstinence only, if you're not a Christian. If you want to have programs that are inclusive of everything then you really must screen to see if the person is Christian or not, and refuse Christian educators the right to teach it. If something is a part of their religion then it's unreasonable to force them to teach it otherwise, so just cut the middle man out entirely and it'll make everyone happy. It's a Christian's responsibility to teach their own children about their beliefs and how they are to treat sex, so if they're going to trust the schools to teach their children about it then they shouldn't complain when they teach them contrary to their beliefs.

So in conclusion - have non-Christians teach the subject and the Christian can teach what they want in their own homes. No one's toes are stepped on, and the education you want to have is accepted. Everyone wins.

Actually I caught one counterpoint comment (a cross relation is a contrapuntal technique :P)... but that's not a problem (I'm obsessed with counterpoint, myself). I agree that comments on that should be made only in particular cases (like if there's a counter melody that obviously should be a separate voice, or something).

You'd probably notice that I'm more of a 7-8 reviewer myself (I rarely give a 10 unless it really is perfect), so I don't mind the lower scores. However, things such as instrumentation are pretty subjective opinions that you have, and unless there is some detailed reason as towhy you want woodwinds or something then it ends up sounding a little trite. For example...

If a composer wants to make something really epic, and only wants to use strings and a horn for it, then we would say "You could also use the woodwinds, the other brass-instruments and some sophisticated percussion to get a more epic sound." He/she is going to say "But that is my own style and I do not want to change it." "Then you won't achieve the maximum of what you were planning."

Understandably, this is a vague statement since there isn't actually an example, but I'll go with it since it's perfect for what I'm thinking of. An 'epic sound' is... vague, and the suggestion isn't too helpful since it is merely telling the composer to throw more instruments at the problem. Even if the composer follows, it might not actually help unless they know what to throw the instruments at.

If the track sounds open with just strings and a horn (which it probably would) then the comment should note that the soundscape isn't filling well enough (an objective statement), and that the use of [trumpets/trombones/specific woodwinds] would fill the space better, especially at [some time stamp that really exemplifies the problem]. Then the review has no way of being interpreted as being subjective - it's a real problem that you're giving possible solutions to, and it gives the composer some real room to move around (they might surprise you and solve the underlying issue in an unexpected way, which the reviewer might learn from).

Or perhaps there isn't enough variety with the textures and instruments and the listener gets easily tired of the song (again, an objective problem) - then suggesting to use different instruments to space the track appropriately would be helpful (again, the use of time stamps is great - even ifthey don't break them up at the suggested places they'll have a good idea to what you're hearing). Alternatively they could use the same instruments in different ways (horn covers a counterpoint while high strings take theme, or something like that). Again, the composer notices the objective problem with their track and they can act on it as they see fit, and again they might surprise you.

Your reviews have a lot of good things going for them (their organization is very nice, the mixing aspect is often spot on and some of the suggestions are interesting), but they seem less helpful than they should because they seem to focus on subjective factors rather than objective ones. I'm hoping that my... um, reviews of your reviews are helpful.

At 6/14/11 07:14 PM, TheMason wrote: The Slutwalkers are parading sexual expression as a protest against someone's suggestion that provacative clothing can lead to unintended consequences.

Hmm... I don't think any other comment is needed. It's silly.

Aww, thanks a lot, Rucklo.

...

Wait, am I regular enough to count in this mass thank you note?

I don't post any of my classical music on here (for music thats taken me over a month to really write/proofread, then a couple of months more to get performances, I'd rather not whore it out to the internet... dunno, that's just how I feel about it), so unfortunately I can't have anything posted. Though from what I see in the reviews, while there are good points to them (some of the ideas they point out are neat, and the mixing suggestions are often spot on), unfortunately it seems that they are a bit too obtrusive in their opinions. They're looking for a style that's well varied, uses correct counterpoint, has less cliche instrumentation, etc., and when a track doesn't fill those requirements they fault the composer for it.

Coming from experience, this approach is a flawed way to review any track, since the inevitable outcome is that the music that follows the suggestions listed end up losing the original composer's flavor (or the composer's 'voice', as I've heard it referred to before) and become more the 'reviewer's track'. Suggesting something specific for a track is alright, if something is really amiss (for example, the soundscape isn't filled at all, or the beat doesn't match the flow of the track, or something), or if the composer is looking for suggestions, but using these ideas as the bulk of a review when there isn't anything technically wrong with the music isn't conducive to the freedom a composer has for his/her music, and to many people it's rightfully insulting.

Just saying, keep these things in mind when reviewing. The depth you go into is a nice feature, and you have a little experience in the theory, but faulting composers for what should be within their liberty to do brings the reviews down.

Depends on what you're writing. Doing a 15th century Renaissance motet you'd need to start on either the 'tonic' or 'dominant' (though they weren't called that back then). Writing in the classical period, the median was acceptable, as well (though Beethoven really rocked the world when he began on seventh of a V7 chord in his first symphony). Romantic composers have started virtually anywhere in the tonal key, and past that you can start pretty much anywhere.

So... yeah, all depends on the style you're trying to imitate, but most likely you're just trying to write something that you like, so... tl;dr you can start anywhere, even on G# in CM if you'd like, as long as you can make it work.

*whew* I've been away from the net for some time. Glad I was able to catch this - sign me up, send me the passwordz, let me know if you need anything, etc., because this shit is about to get real, yo.

This is on every audio submission page on Newgrounds. If that's not enough, then this is the technical version of that document.

In short, as long as it's non-commercial, you give the proper credit to the author and in the case you distribute an altered version of the audio track you place it under the same CC license you'll be just fine. Permission from the author is ideal, but not required, as long as you follow the steps outlined in the CC license.

At 6/7/11 11:31 PM, FatKidWitAJetPak wrote: Current Discussion:

1.) Which charity should we donate to? Heifer? Haiti? Should we give prize money to the top winners for each album?

I don't mind either charity, but giving prize money to the top winners changes the dynamic of the album completely. It makes it more of a competitive effort with people working against each other rather than a cooperative effort. I'd say leave it as a charity album.

2.) Should people be allowed to submit more than one submission?

Sure, but only one submission should be accepted onto the album. I suppose one submission per CD might be acceptable, but personally I think limiting it to one accepted track per artist will allow for a greater variety of artists to join in (and thus allow for more people to get heard on this album).

3.) Should judges be able to submit their own work as well, granted that they don't judge their own submission?

YES.

3.) ALL JUDGES AND OTHERS THAT WISH TO HELP PLEASE PM ME :)

Already done :P

Just lettin' people know, I'm going to help judge. I will also try to contribute something nice for y'all. I think doing both will be just fine.

Where does that put us at, like three or four judges? How many are we looking for?

I'd pick it up and immediately spend it at the nearest McDonalds. That way my dilemma becomes everyone else's, instead.

I would then spread the rumor that McDonalds causes AIDS, for the lulz.

... wasn't this exact thread made a few weeks ago?

You better explain exactly what you're looking for, since your question is ambiguous. Otherwise you'll get a bunch of helpful people directing you to this silly thread.

Hmm... well, I don't think he'll be able to divvy out a proper portion of the CD to you and not to anyone else (I suppose he could, but it'd be a hell of a lot of work and hassle). Most of us that are willing to participate already know that we're not getting money for it, so it hasn't been a problem yet, really.

Likely, you'll just need to accept that you won't get money for this particular track, and if you don't want to give one song away then feel free not to participate.

That being said, has there been any word on the sort of charity that we're going to donate to? Being willing to work for a charity is one thing, but you never know what some people will absolutely not want to support. It'd be kind of unfair to say you're donating to charity when you're donating to a charity that's pushing, say, a pro-choice movement, or something, when pro-lifers wouldn't normally want to support that sort of thing. I'm not assuming anything here, and feel free to donate to whomever, but you might want to let us know before we get started on writing our tracks. It'll save quite a bit of grief, in the long run.

Here, I actually had a little series going for a while where I talk specifically about music theory in VG music, but I lost interest in it some time ago. Maybe someday I'll keep going on it, but for now it's just an interesting series of articles - maybe you'll see something that helps you?

Overall though, VG music is pretty unique in that there really is no set style that it needs to conform to. The only thing you should think about is how loopable your VG track is, since they should by design loop indefinitely (you never know how long someone will stay in the same area).

Hmm... WBC vs KKK? Considering both want Catholics to burn either in Hell or on this planet I can't say who I'd be rooting for. Maybe they'll cancel each other out from all the hate they seem to generate?