Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Dot.

Guns have won more wars and provided more sustainance, and are thus more important, than cars.

One sought to replace sticks and rocks and sharp edges, the other to reduce horse poop emissions.

I think guns win on the historic, and future, "Which is More Important" scale.

Also, preferring firearms over cars can be a telling personality trait, dependent versus independent, infantile versus adult. While a car may indeed make it more efficient for you to drive to the grocer and petro stations, its essenceis identicle to firearms in one respect; owning a car makes obtaining food more energy efficient.

Add on the added bonus that firearms can also preserve your food stocks as well as assist in obtaining them, and you've got yourself a clearly superior tool.

The only superior tool I've seen so far is you, pox.

At 5/17/09 09:14 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 5/16/09 08:17 AM, Tomsan wrote: So I was thinking about the heaven and hell concept

;;;
If you throw the whole "Christian/Jew/Muslim" Heaven/Hell concept into the rubbish bin where it belongs & go with a Ying-Yang or Positive-Negative mentality ,Heaven & Hell then can IMO be more easily grasped.

An oft overlooked angle, IMO.

Not that I believe in a place of fire & brimstone.

Ever been to Somalia or the Sahel? Those places suck at least as bad, if not worse. They don't even speak English.

For me, Hell would be a place of extreme cold, everything frozen solid. Anything else would be heaven in comparrison to that , but I'm Canadian & I have an aversion to cold . Seeing how so much of my year is uncomfortably cold.

To me, heaven and hell are the adjectives describing the reality created around, and by, us as beings capable of [ir]rational thought. A curse and a blessing, free will provides the foundations for both heaven and hell, which have the potential to fruit inside us as balanced or as lopsided as we each decide. As a state of mind, our presence in our own personal heavens and hells helps forge the perceptions of others', leaving us with either a hopeful, jaded, or (most likely) a delightful combination of both.

The goal of life could be any number of things, and who's to sure with any certainty what works for one will satisfy another? Knowledge and understanding of the two extreme states of being helps ease the rigors and stresses of life, where even miserable folk partake in minor comfort when that misery is shared.

Is it wise to wish ill upon others? If yes, then it is wise for others to wish ill upon you..

As far as burning in hell for eternity goes, only the most hardheaded and callous could possibly want to burn forever. It's like wanting to lie in a tanning bed for an hour because you want it ALL, NOW.

Yeah, you can, but it doesn't make the owner of the place null and void because you fucked up and hurt yourself.

The cool thing about M-16's is that the small, fast ammo loads provide the additional advantage of simply maiming combatants, causing moral dilemmas amongst the enemy, and if desired, later interrogation of aforementioned pile of casualties.

The more ya know.

Atheism isn't immune to criticisms when the wielders of said [dis]belief justify their [non]belief with criticisms of the foundations of religious institutions. These institutions are now the rejected system of belief rather than the concept of a God.

Congrats.

Any other criticisms from the godless, organized religion-haters?

Did (do) the native Americans subscribe to a basic canon as well, or is an atheistic viewpoint advantagous in that no canon may possibly exist to supplicate the (non-) belief that it supposedly is?

I always thought a disbelief in something qualified at least as part of a canon, if not the entire defining characteristic when it comes to atheism.

How would an atheist view drug-induced spirit journeys? Is soul searching such an abhorrence and offense to atheists to merit the spite and foolishness running rampant around here?

When it gets down to the get down, how we all go around finding our souls is what makes us unique. We all build differing approaches to problems, and as long as our pooling of knowledge and resources remains beneficial, who gives a fuck whether or not you think God-fearing men and women are idiots; it only exposes your own smelly, yellow underbelly.

Underbelly.

At 5/3/09 03:30 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 5/3/09 03:28 PM, afuckingname wrote: enjoy the damage, espically if you're predisposed to schizophrenia

that should read "enjoy the damage if you're predisposed to schizophrenia".

lol

-----------------

With that said, I'd like to throw this out there for any of the hemp-hating weed-o-phobes reading this: How do you enforce a policy that restricts a freedom of choice regarding substance use (note: not abuse) when the prevailing arguments are not against the drug in question, but the stigmatisms artificially instituted through fear and propaganda?

Tetrahydracannibol is an addictive substance. Sparking a joint will get you "high", releasing chemicals that feel "good". Alcohol seeks the same end, through seemingly different means. Should smoked marijuana be outlawed, while teas and snacks be allowed?

For people with addictive personalities, smoking weed responsibly isn't a matter of the drug conquering their higher reasoning powers, but a collapse of their already-weakened state of mind. If you just "gotta have" something you like, no matter what the cost, weed ain't really for you. If you can manage your life while puffing a doobie, more power to ya. If you wreck someone's life DIRECTLY because of your personal choices, you'll face the punishments as well.

An ounce of prevention (lol) here is NOT WORTH A POUND OF CURE. The cure for drug use and abuse is not prohibition, it's education and responsibility.

"You're forgiven your earthly sins a la Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Information inside."
"You're part of an organization that does bad things in adverse ways. Deal."

Sounds like a bunch of winners.

At 4/9/09 07:31 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/9/09 07:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Yes well... that's how words work. You define them, so that other people understand what you're talking about when you use the word.

Gah. When you use THEM.

*stabs self in face*

My point is that it's easy to lose sight of the "overarching" goals each of these NG threads presents. Posters get caught up in their own image and demeanor, worrying after the fact they've posted as to what they've written.

For instance, you don't proof-read your posts here. It's not a big deal. I give my posts a once-through, so technically I'm the better poster in that respect. I need to qualify what I say with what I do. I really did laugh when you noted "the generalizers are here now, too"... because it tacitly acknowledged the generic point with something of a zinger had it gone over my head.

A lot of stuff goes over heads on NG.

At 4/9/09 10:58 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/9/09 10:13 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Yep.

And then come the people who argue that you can't make generalizations. :P

Say, didn't you say a bunch of stupid stuff in this thread already? I could make a generalization based on the limited responses you've given insofar, but that wouldn't be entirely true, so I wouldn't tread that far without qualifying the assertion :)

I think it's funny as fuck you generalized my opinion, some others may not see it that way though. Ya know?

There's gotta be a joke in here somwhere..

"Atheism/Theism arguments are..."

... funny because once the definitions are meted, conceptualized scenarios are simply dismissed as slippery slope, speculation and/or some other form of inane justification as to why one belief is inherently better (if not simply and merely comparable) to the other.

It's like comparing two breeds of banana, and dismissing the individual qualities/flaws presented in the two sets of bananas in front of you. It's all about YOU, people.

Chiquita may be the better overall brand, but rot and spiders will always find their way into a percentage of the population. Life, and theistical study, requires the broader spectrum of analysis (breeds as well as specimens), and as such prevents a conclusive answer derived from isolated variables. Complexity and individualism prevent the critical mind from forming a concrete conclusion without sacrificing some other aspect of critical thought concerning a person's choice to adhere to a set of beliefs.

Yep.

Did they say how they were able to determine who fired first, as well as how experts concluded the car was moving, or are experts opinions to be taken at face value without any processes of determination?

Seems to me that if video was available and destroyed before the legal process ran it's course, then the video in some way held potential value for the defense.

If it held value for the cops, it would've been preserved as the keystone peice of evidence certifying the cops story, and not a ballistics expert with sketchy modus operendi

I heard subways, cities, restaurants, churches, grocery stores and peace rallies also feature many people compacted together.

Didn't the Columbine killers utilize explosives as well?

At 2/18/09 09:11 PM, aninjaman wrote: Wait so we can steroetype people now?
Or only Muslims?

I stereotype every NG poster.

You're closer to the bottom.

At 2/18/09 09:52 PM, heroicspatula wrote: I knew coming to Newgrounds was a smart thing to do.

I thank all of you who responded to my poll, because you've helped me reach my quota!! (hurray! Whoopee!)

I'll have the results of the poll sometime this weekend, and you guys/girls can see how it turned out.

Dammit! Knew I shoulda scrolled through the various replys before posting...

At 2/16/09 09:44 PM, heroicspatula wrote: Allright, I have to do this stupid poll for my AP gov. class, and figured you guys may be able to help me reach my 50 person quota.

Haha, nice. I did that once.

Once. I'll answer my best.

I need four things from you guys. Your name(or a believable fake, I don't care), your age, your state (or country if non-American), and your answers to the poll(duh)

Li Lu MiNai, 24, Honshu

The possible answers, with abbreviations; strongly support(SS), support(S), neutral(N), Oppose(O), strongly oppose(SO), and no opinion(NO).

I hope that is simple enough to understand. So, lets begin.

What are(or were) your feeling towards the following:
1. The Iraq War when it began

Support(S), because I thought the satellite imagery of Iraqi chem-trucks was legitimate, and Hans Blix was a true investigator.

2. The Iraq War currently

No Opinion(NO), because the rebuilding effort needs to be internally fabricated, yet protecting the rebuilders is not possible without foreign aide.

3. The proposed 900 billion dollar bailout plan

Oppose(O), because redistribution =/= growth, and inflation with stagnation is a bad, bad thing.

4. Gay and lesbian rights

Oppose(O), merely because the rights discussed are actually privileges. Homosexuals are, as far as I'm aware, afforded the same Constitutional guarantees as everyone else. Entitlement is blurring what is a right.

5. Allowing Marijuana to become a legal substance

Support(S), because decriminalizing a drug which resulted in more arrests than all violent crime in America would lift a major burden on the CJ system, re-open dialogue for it's medical and recreational uses, and create a healthy tax base for the vice-tariff savvy politicians pushing happier, healthier lifestyles on the population at large.

6. The closing of Guantanamo Bay prison

Strongly Support(SS), because promises should be kept by heads of state.

7. Abortion Rights

Neutral(N), because I shouldn't be allowed to dictate major life decisions for other couples. Doctors who wish to perform the techniques proscribed by law should be allowed to aid a mother in the event of unwanted pregnancy.

8. Religious Study(as in study of how Religion influenced art, literature, world leaders, etc) in school

Support(S), because our respective histories shape us both as individuals and as culturally aware citizens. The inherent truth claimed by religion is a thing of discussion, expressed through art, literature and world leaders.

9. Universal health care programs

Strongly Oppose (SO), because a plan that tries to do everything for everybody will do nothing for nobody. Healthcare is an individuals decision to make, not one made for them.

10. Government taking a larger role in environmental protection

Oppose(O), because larger is not better, and international consensus is so unlikely given external factors, larger roles will result only in more violations and unjustifiable penalties for conduct violating a sovereign nation's rights to do with their land as they see fit.

Hope the clutter isn't too much for your data collection. Good luck!

By my logic, pox has better critical analysis skills than the rest of the moderation team posting here.

How do you excise extremists without creating more, gumonshoe?

Why create excuses when the problem is staring you directly in the face?

no one is gonna murdur you in the streets randomly unless you are involved with crime

In mother Russia, you deserve to die.

Can I get a list of all the assulat weapons that need to be banned?

At 2/15/09 10:56 PM, life wrote: Thanks moderator!

Your sig makes me want to kill you violently, but my respect for JoS and the mod team just went up 50x.

Ban the fuck out of everything.

GO NUTS.

At 2/15/09 09:20 PM, dySWN wrote: I think, therefore I am.

And what do you think about the existance you've percieved until now? Is breathing and thinking and feeling bringing you a value? Why?

Next.

Dot.

At 2/7/09 04:53 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 2/6/09 02:15 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Emmanual was a Clintonian shoe-polishing bitch back when they were turning the oval office into a brothel. Look how great THAT particular president left the POTUS position. What a joke.

If you can back this up with anything besides Monica Lewinsky, be my guest.

One jizzstained dress plus Nixonian swervings ain't enough? Clinton was alledged to have used submissives as sex objects; see: Paula Jones.

If you can offer any sort of sentiment other than confounded disbelief, be my guest. If not, feel free to STFU.

Change? More like, "Change Back to the 90's"

What was wrong with the nineties, exactly? I rather enjoyed that decade in comparison.

Riding the republican reagonomic wave was fun. Good thing credit went where credit's due. Being aloof must feel nice :)

Did I mention Clinton waged war for seemingly less-than-genuine reasons while being investigated for conduct violations?

At 1/30/09 05:38 PM, poxpower wrote: Breaking news: You guys are still worthless

Flawless Victory

fatality

You could always take the WIlliam Wallace FRRRREEEEDOMMMM shout anglee as a good follow up, too.

At 2/5/09 11:20 PM, Brick-top wrote: But it's not as black and white as that.

But what if it is?

Emmanual was a Clintonian shoe-polishing bitch back when they were turning the oval office into a brothel. Look how great THAT particular president left the POTUS position. What a joke.

Change? More like, "Change Back to the 90's"

Pshaw.

So I was wondering, how does a lamb become Jesus?

I've checked all the dictionaries, even the religious ones, and there is no explanation why or how Jesus turned into a sheep. We all know religious people are really sheeple in disguise, but that doesn't prove Jesus was a sheep, otherwise we'd all be worshipping cattle and birds.

At 2/5/09 01:00 AM, Bolo wrote: It has been empirically proven that words with at least two vowels and less than five letters are the most memorable words in Romantic languages. This, coupled with the double-o construction and context as the sole aerial battle fought during the Vietnam War (a resounding American Victory in which no American lives were lost, and the ENTIRE Viet Cong airforce was destroyed in half an hour), paint rather an undercurrent of glory atop the surface of the word.

A bolo is also a type of machete, and a bloody one judging by your aura and level icon. Triple whammy.

I just wish my full name would fit...

At 1/30/09 02:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/30/09 04:32 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: I figured if you were insinuating I was a fuck-up, you knew me about as well as I could possibly know you.

A little, but also pointing out how useless I think that kind of debating is. If you have to resort to starting an insult contest in a debate, it says to me you either aren't confident in your points, you aren't horribly intelligent, or you just aren't very mature. But that's me.

I'm fairly certain our forces don't "torture" on the same level as our enemies. I'm not exceptionally intelligent, nor am I one to suffer fools.. ON THE INTERNET. But that's just me. If you were trying to prove or disprove something with your first post to me, I didn't pick up what you put down.

I won't use your name, but at least be aware if you play in the sandbox you might get dirty.

I'm fine with that, I just don't think we should be getting so "personal" on an internet forum about a political debate that really means fuck all.

You're right, and I apologize for the slight incursion on your privacy. The difference, and my point, should've been obvious.. especially following my original post here. Having friends and family disappear in Iraq and Afghanistan only to show up in the desert with remarkable signs of torture on their corpses tends to lead to very little tolerance for indifference of treatment of prisoners.

And human right's workers, too, for heaven's sake.. do you really think we're on par with that, and that's why you gave the reply you did?

You want to pick apart my ideas and whatever, that's fine, by speaking out in public I open myself up to that, but I'm just saying using my first name to me implies someone knws me, which you don't, unless you're somebody's alt.

What ideas? Up to that point, your only idea was to respond in an equally dismissive manner, equating ball-zapping to the whole nine yards. Yeah, you were joking, great. I wasn't as far out of line as you may think.

And I am an alt.

At 1/30/09 05:22 AM, Lost-Chances wrote:

At 1/30/09 04:43 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: You should sit down, have a drink or four with him, talk about life and what it means to you so far, bond a little and show him you're mature enough to imbibe the good stuff.

The only problems with the suggestions is he hates whiskey and he's very narrow-minded. Once he's got a point, he never wants to change his mind.

Fuck 'im then. When he figures out that getting old and dying slow sucks balls, maybe he'll change his tune a bit. What do I know though, I'm just a movie character.