Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/5/11 07:47 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote: Needless to say I got fucked, and literally can not afford to pay the fines. I had to sell my PS3 and I still owe $200. The purpose of this thread is to ask you for your personal opinion of marijuana laws across the nation.

I smoked pot with my RA, but never on campus. I drank with a good portion of the universities students, underage and all. It wasn't a big deal, as long as trouble didn't find us. Sometimes trouble comes in the form of law enforcement and henchman tactics.... which is all marijuana law is in America.

Thems the breaks.

Because I watch shows such as "Alaska State Troopers" and when they find marijuana they give the guy a fucking citation and like a $50 fine for half an ounce.

What is your opinion?

Kill people.

Shit hurts when it's in your mouth.

Someone say Szadek? Tossed this one together just after the -tide expansion. I still think Ravnica has some of the best cards.
---------------------
2x countersquall
2x undermine
2x lobotomy
2x soul manipulation
2x clutch of the undercity
2x glimpse the unthinkable
2x beacon of unrest
2x psychic drain
3x unearth
3x mind spring
3x circu, dimir lobotomist
3x glen elendra liege
3x royal assassin
2x sedraxis alchemist
2x doomsday spectre
2x ghastlord of fugue
2x dimir cutpurse
2x dimir doppelganger
2x dimir infiltrator
2x phyrexian slayer
1x oona, queen of the fae
1x szadek, lord of secrets
1x sygg, river cutthroat

At 3/28/11 07:10 AM, SkeletonGimp wrote: Alternativelly, you could use something like Condemn on that 11/11 Blightsteel Collossus...

Or a nice Sudden Spoiling.

Sudden Spoiling + Mannichi, the Fever Dream = only your creatues left

At 3/22/11 10:32 PM, Carmilla wrote:

At 3/22/11 10:22 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Age is irrelevant.

Oral sex skills are all that matters.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS!!!!

^ what he said

I think sarai said that once, too.

At 3/23/11 08:23 AM, Jon wrote:

At 3/23/11 08:17 AM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote: Do you usually say "nineteenth of September" or "September nineteenth"?

Nineteenth of September

lol @ using extra words.

At 3/22/11 09:19 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote: When I saw this, I thought "She probably liked it!" jokingly.

After reading parts of it...what?

I hope they get nailed for kidnapping, too.

Or lynched.

At 3/21/11 11:05 PM, JMCJoe wrote: How the fuck do you mistake an 11 year old for someone 18+?

From the article:

"It doesn't seem to occur to Ghetto Mom that the same could be said about herself and her accused-rapist son, as well as all the parents of the two dozen or so other perps. But tribal instincts have a way of blotting out obvious facts that might be harmful to the tribe."

That about sums it up, no?

At 3/18/11 04:59 PM, letiger wrote: Hey guys, guess what came in the mail today?

Good creatures to steal?

Was it thran turbine or some other 3 mana artifact that's let's you add two colorless mana whenever you sac a creature. Using the eldrazi spawn tokens, that'd be 3 per creature, plus whatever you're producing otherwise.

At 3/15/11 10:08 AM, betato wrote: not bad..any living weapon combos?

Nope, haven't acquired any new cards in awhile, only through a few trades.

At 3/15/11 10:11 AM, SkeletonGimp wrote:

At 3/15/11 09:56 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Straight black, direct damage/life gain. Cards are from all sorts of sets, so it doesn't see much play time. But it doesn't lose either.. you be the judge.

Lgeacy tournaments will allow it as its legacy legal.

I'll have to check that out again. I've got a few other decks, all for fun, of course.

A few issues with the deck:

Why so many singletons? Decks are usually much much better when they play multiples of spells. More copies of a spell, more chances of seeing it and therefore more consistant.

I'd had copies of a few more of the cards, but ended up pulling them (like three child of nights and extra lim-dul and chainer). By slimming it down from 85 cards to 60-something, I got more consistantly effective draws. The key part has always been draw card, and the life gain helps me get that deep. I had a fourth Tsabo's decree in there that should probably get reinstated. BEST CARD EVER. Especially for them sliver fucks.

The strategy, while admirable, seems like it isn't as fast as it can be. Again, singletons don't help you in this case and I'm not sure your deck can abuse Tendrils of Agony to its full advantage. Ever looked up a deck called Ad-Nausium Tendrils (ANT)?

Nope. I don't think I've even heard of the T. of Agony.

Mine is an attrition deck, no doubt, but smart play helps preserve the few creatures I've got. It's common for me not to cast a single creature until turn 6 or 7, and I'm usually in a comfortable spot at that point.

ANT is pretty expensive, especially when you add in original dual lands and chrome mox/mox diamond, but it is a tonne more consistant at doing what your deck is trying to achieve (drain life) and can win turns 2/3 on an alarmingly regular basis (7-8 games out of 10 I've played with various ANT games lasted no more then 3 turns)

That sounds a bit like the good old Dragonstorm/ hellkite turn 2 massacre.

I've tended away from those as an untimely counterspell completely ruins any hopes of having a satisfying game. I've got a sunbursted dragon/nephilim deck laced with rare land and haste/shroud that's my consistant turn two facebasher. Nothing like a classic Bolas to open a can of old school.

The other recommendation I would suggest is replace Crypt Ripper/child of night for Vampire Knighthawks. Creatures that pump up are all well and good till your opponant lets it pump up then kills it. It's like they got a free turn as you dumped all your mana into the Ripper rather then playing other spells.

Yeah, I had two in the deck at first, and the nighthawks are great for the cost, but the ripper does it's job well. I've had him lay back and hold off opponents attacks in fear of the pump. I just love his "out of left field" presence coming out on turn 8 or 9, hitting a tapped out, defenseless opponent. Mainly, he's there for the haste.

Those are suggestings/ideas to begin with, there are others but I think its best if you go back and analyse the deck yourself, see what's going right and wrong with it. Maybe test it against more competative decks to see if you can improve your game/card choices.

Thanks.

It's been in the current form for almost a year, playing against the newest decks (proliferate, metalcraft, etc) and winning over 95%. The only troubles it's really run into are three-player cutthroat games (which I play a good amount of) and not getting the wells when I need them. I should probably add a dimir house guard or diabolic tutor, that would fix it.

I was playing some MTGO the other day and noticed a straight black vampire deck kicking the snot out of everything that moved. Shameful, some of them cards. Vampire Nocturnus? Mephidross Vamp? The niche is there, but I don't know if I want to be the person to fill it.

Violence begets violence.

I'm surprised nobody's brought up nuclear armanents and the Iranian connection in this last little bit of positioning statements.

Would an enemy of the state of Israel use a nuclear attack on them? What would be the retaliation?

America's ideal of non-proliferation seems to have stalled in Iran, and certainly in Israel, while N. Korea could apparently care less who denies them nukes. Should America support a nuclear-capable state of Israel in the face of a large-scale attack? Or should we simple "release the reins" of Israel and let them defend themselves as they see fit, and pass judgement later on (within the UN).

At 3/14/11 11:58 PM, Strategize wrote: By the end of this week I should have 700 dollars cash.

Everyday I'm hustlin'. Hahaha.

Rick Ross is to stoners like Bieber is to baby boomers.

Straight black, direct damage/life gain. Cards are from all sorts of sets, so it doesn't see much play time. But it doesn't lose either.. you be the judge.

2x Chainer, dementia master
1x Lim-Dul, necromancer
1x Toshiro Umezawa
1x Laquatus's champion
1x hypnotic spectre
1x roiling horror
1x highway robber
1x child of night
1x crypt ripper

4x soul spike
2x soul feast
3x consume spirit
2x tendrils of corruption
1x last gasp
1x diabolic edict
3x Tsabo's decree
3x demon's horn
2x well of lost dreams
3x sign in blood
3x sudden spoiling
1x consume the meek
2x sudden death
1x underworld dreams
1x phyrexian arena

22x swamp
3x subterranean hangar
1x peat bog

Pretty much just zap your opponent's creatures with the creature spells and suck their life total dry once the swamps have built up. Winning strategy gets the Wells out and abuses the draw card ability. Very, very few decks have even come close to beating this deck, though I'm sure no tournement would allow it.

At 3/2/11 11:16 PM, JoS wrote: Rights are not absolute. If you draw out a gun and point it at police officers, you have essentially told them you wish to forfeit the right to life.

That's not the point. Apparently it's just another natural law topic.

At 3/2/11 11:32 AM, Drake wrote:

At 3/2/11 09:45 AM, Luis wrote: Im gonna just leave it until the redesign. Liljim and me have been making a mess of these custom icon things, ruining Tom's original vision. :(

Well if you're at it might as well give everyone dicks for icons until the redesign.

Six-packs of dicks for everyone!

At 3/2/11 07:41 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: This should be a fun one. I'm talking about it somewhere else with someone else. This is how the argument goes:

It is impossible to inherently have the right to life, simply because it is possible to die.

The right to life is inherent to those who live, not to those who are now dead. It is impossible to preserve life where none exists. Violating the preservation of life is not a victimless crime, nor is it acceptable to argue that since we all die, hastening the process is all-natural and A-okay.

Simply stating the obvious, you do not earn the right to live, but the right to defend that life, to preserve it.

The privilege to stay alive and basically the invisible aura that says "you should not kill me" is a moral juxtaposition based on you're society's views.

You could say that. Or you could say that actions have consequences, and the more dire the action, the more critical the consequences will be. The actual judgement of those actions falls upon society, and then upon the knowledge itself of those actions.

An example could be "innocent until proven guilty"; two people could commit the same crime, but one covers their tracks better and escapes penalty. Is there an invisible aura or moral juxtaposition that protected him, or something else?

This [privilege] is not natural and so the Right To Life is not inherent. This means there is no such thing as a natural right concerning life or natural privilege granting you life that should not be infringed. The Declaration of Independence got it wrong.

What? Natural right, or natural law? I'm not getting your segue into asserting nothing is punishable, therefore everything is without value. It's really a disconnected view with reality, but I don't see how you connect the dots in a manner that is in any way convincing, at all. Sorry.

I'd like to hear your arguments on this one. :D

Plus, we can save KemCab's topic from certain doom.

Using moral judgements doesn't negate the value of the subject at hand.

And yes, the same analogy can be applied to pregnancies that threaten the woman's life as well. She has a right to abort found in Roe v Wade when her life's in danger.

The morality is the same in this case alone. The problem is that nothing is ever so simple as that, and extenuating circumstances may drive an unthreatened woman to consider abortion, even for so simple a fact as the father is a piece of shit.

Is it ethical to fuck a guy and abort his baby on the basis he's a dirtbag? I dunno. Whenever a debate starts about abortion limitations, finding a solution without passing a moral judgement becomes harder and harder.

Proof.

At 3/1/11 11:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/1/11 10:19 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: The death penalty is a penalty for betraying the laws of the land, whatever they happen to be. What are the "and such" that you mention? Self-defense killing? Wartime? Each circumstance has it's own set of limiting rules and codes, the same as abortion. If anyone truly has a "right to life", wouldn't the most defenseless be foremost?

If you're comfortable with the taking of lives on certain circumstances, perhaps you shouldn't be referring to life as a right. You should call it a privilege.

I'll call it whatever I like, thank you very much. While I am comfortable with the notion of taking lives under certain sets of circumstances, the fact of the matter remains that the right to life is guaranteed until those rights are forfeit under the aforementioned circumstances. Taking lives outside lawful jurisdiction is going to get you into TONS of trouble... for robbing someone of their right to life. Liberty and freedom aren't privileges either, though both may be sacrificed through certain actions.

A fetus takes none of those actions.

For example, when an intruder enters a persons home and threatens great bodily harm, the intruder has forfeited his immediate right to life if the homeowner exercises HIS right to protect his own. This is called a right to self-defense (read: life), and in this particular scenario, trumps the intruders (forfeited) right to life.

What has a fetus done to forfeit their life? Or are you arguing that since a fetus is dependent on the mother for the majority of pregnancy, she holds sole jurisdiction over the potential (even viable?) life of her child?

I don't understand what you are trying to say to me, I guess.

Pro-choice v. "privilege of life"

What?

At 2/28/11 06:50 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: A couple of these individuals wanted to talk about the point at which a life form can be considered a person and given rights; all under the umbrella of trying to prove fetuses had the right to life (but by the way we weren't allowed to talk about abortion, because it would be a "distraction").

Abortion is a life choice. It's funny because attempted suicide is considered illegal, which is also a life choice.

Abortion has at least been made halfways sanitary and halfways accepted, yet the stigmas surrounding the taking of self remain. Why?

When I tried to tell them that their entire debate was based on a moral judgement, and hence irrelevant. After 60 back and forth posts about why I didn't think it was necessarily true that a fetus deserved to be protected, it came down to me trying to get them to identify which definitions they were using and realizing that they were assuming all "persons" had a "right to life." Bringing up the death penalty and such couldn't get them past that the fact that this was a moral judgement that assumed all people deserved to be alive that were alive.

The death penalty is a penalty for betraying the laws of the land, whatever they happen to be. What are the "and such" that you mention? Self-defense killing? Wartime? Each circumstance has it's own set of limiting rules and codes, the same as abortion. If anyone truly has a "right to life", wouldn't the most defenseless be foremost?

I'm just trying to rationalize the opponents who aren't here to defend themselves. Nothing personal.

This is like claiming that jaywalking is a capital crime. Of course it's not. It never has been, and it never will be. But this undermines your ENTIRE credibility when you claim something insane.

You're the one telling us Pascal's Wager is worth the risk for the reward. If you think sacrificing your entire life for an ideal that isn't your own is a good bet, why would you argue others' credibility is undermined for claiming something insane?

I think the Supreme Court needs more mexican vaginas.

Schadenfreude only works when applied to others. Otherwise maiming oneself is rather masochistic.

Should we aggressively eliminate the weak, up to and including abortions and other types of mercy killings?

In a society where attempted suicide is illegal, I doubt it.

At 7/17/09 07:44 AM, Elfer wrote: Sorry bro, you don't get to bank up good behaviour then trade it in for a free murder.

Yeah, no matter how many PSA's railing against violence you champion beforehand.

Given the choice, would I rather live with fake humanitarians who murder or solitary self-serving singles who merely pay taxes, I'd have to choose the latter.

Does this have something to do with Brarack's proposed "mandatory volunteerism" requirement?

At 7/16/09 10:02 PM, poxpower wrote: Often, in defense of certain people or organizations, you hear all the good they've done. All the great policies they have passed while in power, the great charities they have started or the deeds they have done to help others.

All these things reflect upon character, what makes us each individuals and provides a background from which our incriminating action or actions arise. Whether or not that would help justify the "evil" deed is an entirely different matter, legally or morally.

But what's REALLY the measure of a person? It seems to me that we care MUCH MORE about the evil a person DIDN'T DO than about the good someone did.

If you kill someone, you will get life in prison, no matter what else you did. So in that respect, can't it be said that a person who does no good in his life is better than a saint for killed one man when he was 50, after serving his community for decades?

I don't think I completely understand the correlation. Orenthal James didn't do evil by becoming a football standout and thus acquiring adoration by certain wide and diverse blocs, but that beloved status (and money) helped him cheat a prison sentence. But then, when does the law differentiate between saints and sinners when determining the legality of any act?

It's a rabbit hole that starts with seatbelt laws and ends with soylents of varying color.

What is the measure of a person, really?

What they do with their time to who for what reasons.

Is it really the good vs the evil? Or simply the avoidance of evil, without the need to do extra legwork to be good?

It's only as simple as you make it. You need the right tool, namely perspective, for whatever situation reality throws at you. "Am I online?" is a good one, just behind "Am I dreaming?" and "Is he serious?"

Each and every encounter you have is subject to interpretation, the more authoritative, historically, the truer it becomes.

It's all relative, and also dependent :)

At 6/8/09 05:13 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/7/09 10:50 AM, Ericho wrote: but with atheism you have nothing really positive to gain.

When did an emotional crutch become a positive thing?

When was it ever a positive or a negative without individual inspection? If you had a broken mental leg, I'm sure a crutch would feel great.

But yeah, assuming everyone's emotional needs are identical to your own, right here, right now.... what's not to be proud of?

If you need Religion to make you feel better then the benefit is Atheists don't need to delve into fantasies and fairy tales just to feel good about living.

Better*, not good.

If you were so inferior to the being you attribute as "god", would rebellion against his percieved tacit approval of evil be playing into his divine plan?

Were humanity to come to one definitive conclusion, then His judgement would hence be made, no?

At 5/28/09 12:48 AM, Xemras wrote:

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?

He's right.

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.

No, you're trying to orate on the tendency of life to die, ergo life is rented, ergo unowned, a privilege to be taken away without recourse. That's a wrongheaded opinion, just so ya know.

Enjoy, #34826.

Insult is the final refuge of the out-argued.

Acknowledgement of your own self-proclaimed slavery is no insult, it's a fact of life. Don't you have a social security number? Man, you're dense (that's an insult).

You believe that rights are privileges.

I don't have beLIEfs, I have knowledge.

Which is subjective, hence, a belief. Next.

A right is something we possess indefinitely regardless of who and/or what says otherwise; it is not subjective in any way.

For instance?

A privilege is something granted to us by As far as we know, empircal evidence tends more towards the existence of the latter.

Are you saying you can't have one and the other simultaneously? That rights are immutable and unsacrificable? That if a privilege exists, no rights to that privilege can be gleaned?

Sounds like you've just been confused over a few simple definitions.

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.

And your claim is that everyone loses because a right is really just a privilege in your unflawed eyes?

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.

Like a system of beliefs, laws and customs?

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?

A right to breathe clean(er) air? This so-called right is a misnomer. I already told you where the line was drawn, but if you didn't understand, I'll sit here and discuss the merits of either side. The smoker, whose inhalation of toxic matter is perfectly okay as long as it takes place on his own property. (Property is also a right, recognized as the tangible "pursuit of happiness" described in the Preamble.)

To smoke elsewhere invites the risk of destroying others' rights to not be subjected to your toxic breath. To force one to be subjected unwillingly to smoke is not a right you possess, though smoking may be.

Is this too complicated for you?

Got it now, #34826?

Insult is the final refuge of the out-argued.

Ignorance is bliss, ain't it #34826?

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.

I'm sorry, you're a 197 year old shackled African forced into the pre-civil war South? Kinda old for your tag ID, no?

You are as inconsiderate as you are self-righteous.

It's my right, fuckhead :P

At 5/27/09 12:55 AM, Xemras wrote:

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.

His point was that the cognitive mind did not descend from institutional power.

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. Enjoy, #34826.

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

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.

Okay, we found the problem! You believe that since there are a plethora of seperate countries and rules of law there does not exist inalienable rights. This is flawed thinking. While you may be able to stone your wife for looking at another man in Iran, her right to life and liberty is denied by your (institutionally authorized) rock throwing.

YOU took her rights away, in violation of the Constitution, under the guise of an institutionalized allowance. The corrective measures taken to preserve your wife's rights will be to penalize YOURS. Incarceration, fines and even death may be RIGHTFULLY and lawfully administered. If you think the administration of these punishments violates your own rights to life and liberty, you sacrificed them when you cast the first stone.

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

Got it now, #34826?

Or just drop it, slave.

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

Slavery is all in your head.

At 5/27/09 10:58 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/27/09 09:12 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

Maybe facts on themselves are true, but whther a fact is evidence or not is entirely personal.

Everyone plays by the same rules of what reality is. No one is walking into traffic thinking they'll turn into superman at the last minute.

We may all play by the same rules, yet the perceptions of the game are not the same. Under some circumstances, neither are the rules. If Clark Kent walked into traffic, got hit, and didn't flinch.... well, you'd have a problem then.

From wiki:
"The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic."

If it's probable that the fellow getting reamed by traffic will not be superman, great. Can we run every person through the same test?

Who's going to drive the vehicles for the last living people to be tested this way?

What a lot of kooks do is try and say that evidence is personnal so they can justify both living in the real world on a day-to-day basis ( using cars, obeying laws, reaping the fruits of science ) and their escapist fantasy of whatever ( crystals, prayer, bigfoot, aliens etc. ).

When you go to work, you're expected certain things: showing up on time, performing your tasks, adhering to local laws and probably customs as well. When you leave, your mindset is most likely NOT the same, for a few reasons, chief among them being that you aren't being paid to function outside the work environment in the manner you were contracted for. If you're salaried, you still recognize what part of your day is dedicated to the work function and what is considered personal time.

Escapist fantasies provide a balance to the rigors and rigidity of the real world. If you can't recognize this without hurling insults and spewing stupid, then I suppose you got what you wanted.. a negative purview of the world around you.

It's makes you less of a person, I think.

It's entirely hypocritical. One second, evidence is just personal, but the next it's not. The translation is: evidence is not personal unless it contradicts my beliefs.

...and if your beliefs are beneficial to what you suppose life should be..? Then you're doing yourself right, using your own selfish means to achieve your goal of happiness/satisfaction. Is this NOT the rule of nature atheism tacitly acknowledges?

Having it both ways only works if you want it both ways, duh.