Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/23/07 03:01 PM, Touchwood-X wrote: my bro ran toward the sound, leapt onto its back, and plunged his knife to the hilt into the deer's neck 3 times before finally going ear-to-ear and loosing a howl I'll never forget.

It was glorious, the way he torqued the deer's thin neck up and finished it.

scuse me but 'glorious'? when does it become fun to watch things being knived to death

When you know it's been running around wounded for 4 hours because you've been tracking it?

I need to find new forums, I think.

At 4/23/07 02:47 PM, Schmut wrote: However, we grow animals with the purpose of becoming food. Us humans don't know our goal in life but we give those animal's live's a meaning. Yes, that is a very twisted way of thinking, I know. Sometimes I just argue for the sake of arguing.

It's a decent point, if a vague one.

But humans aren't the only ones raising animals for their exclusive use.

I'd much rather have the hunter attack me with a knife and get right up close to me before making the kill.

My brother had to track an ass-shot deer through the swamps three seasons ago. It took 4 hours to finally catch up to the small doe, tracing the blood through the dark . . . when we finally heard it about 30 yards up ahead, rustling through the brush, my bro ran toward the sound, leapt onto its back, and plunged his knife to the hilt into the deer's neck 3 times before finally going ear-to-ear and loosing a howl I'll never forget.

It was glorious, the way he torqued the deer's thin neck up and finished it.

Sitting in the bushes with a gun seems like cheating, to me. I'm not fond of guns. It barely gives me a chance to escape.

Exactly, when they're escaping the shot becomes less accurate. Most hunters won't even attempt a moving shot, because the odds of just wounding the animal are higher. Not as important, but hunters generally give eachother shit if they fire their weapon without a kill.

At 4/23/07 02:41 PM, Touchwood-X wrote: ok but that aurgument only holds up where there is population trouble, what about all these people that go abroad and hunt elephants?

It's the sovereign nations choice to open hunting up to foreigners. We don't the same, on a limited basis.

or breeding animals specifically to be hunted? for that matter why cant people be content to simply stalk the animals, why does it always have to end in a kill?

It doesn't always end in a kill, or it shouldn't.

Many hunters will only take a certain type of animal, a big buck for the trophy hunters or a mother doe with fawns if the deer population is too high in the area.

Of the many, many deer I've seen while hunting, over 3/4 I've let go. Sometimes it was because I couldn't feel confident enough that the shot would kill it (one shot, one kill), sometimes it was getting too late in the evening, sometimes I wanted to wait for the big guck following the doe. It really is different every time, but each sighting is rare enough in itself to be appreciated.

I've even brought a camera out for the wildlife I'm not hunting.

As a side note, having a gun with in the wild doubles as a safety device, too. In Northern Cali trekking through the mountains, bear and cougar are common. Both have been known to attack and kill men, women and children alike.

At 4/23/07 02:17 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 4/23/07 02:11 PM, Schmut wrote:

At 4/23/07 02:03 PM, Brick-top wrote: Do you feel better about slaughtering them in a warehouse and having them sliced up and packaged nicely and brought into supermarkets?

Were slaughter-houses not abolished in favour of killing animals humanely?

Oh wait a minute. So shooting them is less humane than killing them on an assemly line?

It can be, if the circumstances are right.

At least the hunted animal has a proper life instead of being born, growing up and on the special day it is either used to breed or gets sliced and goes to Mcdonalds.

What is proper life? Ants keep certain beetles around so they can suck their sweet excrete. These bugs herd another species as livestock.

Once you dominate an entire species, they are yours. You wouldn't see any free range cows if the wolf population wasn't "inhumanely" hunted to near-exinction.

Nature is wild. Because we tamed a few doesn't mean they weren't wild at one point, too.

At 4/23/07 01:57 PM, Touchwood-X wrote: i was actually refering more to the reasons people hunt, i honestly dont get how people can have the capacity to willingly kill other living breathing creatures - wheres the fun in it?

It's not the act of killing that is fun. To some it most definitely is, but nobody in my camp hunts for the kill.

I enjoy stalking, tracking deer and leaving as little human imprint as possible. I've seen fishers, wolves, bear, badger, lynx and beaver in the same weekend while we hunt. Observing nature unhindered by our concrete jungle is beauty incarnate, in my humble opinion . . . psychoevaluate that however you may, but that's my main appeal to hunting.

The second isn't as important, but I find value in it; butchering your own food. I view the harvesting of an animal akin to the careful care of raising a garden.

and i was also interested to see the religious aspect- i was talking to someone earlier today who claimed to be a christian, but who inadvertantly mentioned that he hunted- surely that goes against some of the teachings of christianity?

Not that I'm aware of. I've never heard that before now,

I hunt, more for big game and pests than birds though. I hated chipmunks and squirrels, they're always burrowing where they shouldn't and eating the damn bird's food.

Brick-top, you're a tool.

At 4/21/07 10:02 PM, Brick-top wrote: Look at what happens in threads created by you:
“Oh wait a minute what about…”

Every thread you post in becomes that. It's not him, it's you.

Should DNA samples be taken at birth to help track missing children?

This was the question posed by AEtv between Cold Case commercials.

Some claim is will help identity bodies found that are unidentifiable.

Others claim an Orwellian invasion of privacy.

Your thoughts?

Epic.

Thanks for the read.

Can I be your bitch BeFell?

I'll call you Corbin Dallas Multipass.

AIDS

The only hicky that was worth it was when I was 16 and we put one just below eachothers point of the hip bone.

Stellar feeling, sexual, yet controlled. It's amazing how sensitive that spot is to the human tongue.

At 4/8/07 05:46 PM, Eoewe wrote: I can decide if I want to reply to this thread or not. To me that is free will.

After encountering your persona on this BBS, I'd predicted you'd post in this thread with a response capturing the essence of what you just wrote.

Does that mean you never had the free will? I don't think so.

At 4/7/07 10:14 PM, vic000 wrote: If all particles and objects in the universe obey Newtons laws, then is it possible to have free will?

Only if you are under the impression of something other than pure truth.

Which is where we all lie.

At 4/8/07 07:25 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: Cartoons telling kids that they should accept people who are born different from them.

Cartoons telling kids things are no different than theatre works portraying complex scenarios.

Do you think Garfield should've fucked Odie in the ass at least once in all his years of lasagna-munching?

Why not?

This atrocity must be prevented.

No, it should be recognized for what it is, sexualizing kids.

At 4/9/07 01:19 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/9/07 12:37 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: hai gai

I demand co-authorship immediately

:)

What do you do for a job, friend?

""That's some rough girls from Rutgers," Imus said. "Man, they got tattoos ..."

"Some hardcore hos," McGuirk said.

"That's some nappy-headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that," Imus said."

Al Sharpton shouldn't get media coverage.

At 4/9/07 02:23 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: funny what can spring out of 1...

Spread the word ;)

At 4/9/07 02:09 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 4/9/07 02:04 PM, semigod wrote: do you know yourself

Uh. I think I have a pretty good handle on it, thanks.

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you wanted, but when I looked at that (colorblind), this is what I saw.

Dealers are everywhere, and they're easy to get at if you want to. You can't stamp out consensual activity if there's money to be had.

This is true. Much like sodomy legislation to prevent consensual buttsecks, drug prohibition requires Big Brother oversight which has more potential for abuse than even hardcore drugs and their respective effects.

The fact that the government is ACTIVELY interested in my personal habits, regardless of the consequences I've personally rendered, scares me.

Until someone's fucked up with drugs (committed an actual crime, went bankrupt, etc.), it shouldn't be the government's business to punish. The drugs themselves SHOULD serve as punishment enough, most likely in an indirect fashion, enforceable via 1-on-1 discourse.

..right>?

At 4/9/07 11:33 AM, MiNdLeSsInDuLgEnCe wrote: Well the gay people i know have endured much persecution, and homosexuals argueably have to endure the most hate and defamation. So why would any one CHOOSE to live a life like that?

Ugly people face more persecution than gays, people are just more subtle about it. How can they live without getting plastic surgery?

People live because life is good, no matter how many cocks you've sucked or carpets you've munched. Sex feels good, even gay sex.

Haven't you ever stopped and thought about that, or am I really giving you info you've never heard?

At 4/9/07 03:24 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:
Brick: And where did you get your suit from? The... toilet.. store?

I love . . . lamp?

At 4/8/07 09:15 PM, MiNdLeSsInDuLgEnCe wrote: Gay people are born that way for the most part

Where did you learn that? Genetic theory school?

At 4/9/07 02:56 AM, ZekeySpaceyLizard wrote:
I could go on for days, probably.

Newgrounds is like a transvestite. Looks like great pussy from afar, moldy cheesedick up close, but unrelenting and different nonetheless.

At 4/9/07 02:26 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/9/07 02:13 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

At 4/9/07 01:55 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: timecube

..is a fallacy.

The author of TimeCube ignores the existance of Legion.

TimeCube is an unintelligible mess of random big words and absolutely no logic.

But I did get some good laughs out of it. XD

He actually raises a point, if a long-winded and opinionated one. But he ignores the collaborative power of the "I am", which he ironically utilizes on a consistant basis. He describes humans as "word animals", and in a Darwinian perspective, it's accurate. His terms are deliberate, and his math is accurate.

But..

Time is directly related to size, creating the possibility for life outside of our grasp, even the timecube grasp on earth that he describes.

At 4/9/07 01:55 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: timecube

..is a fallacy.

The author of TimeCube ignores the existance of Legion.

Check out Goatwhore

The real question is: will she bring back more intel than she gave?

No, no she won't.

At 4/9/07 12:15 AM, Grammer wrote: +50 cool points who manages to use my picture in context. +75 cool points for everyone who, after seeing one of you using it, is moderately entertained and/or agrees with said picture.

hai gai

If you fill a box with rocks and you know that box is full of rocks would you really be surprised to find that box still filled with rocks? No... but I bet you'd be pretty suprised if rocks somehow got in your box and you knew you weren't the one putting them there.

Like say, if whenever I twirled around three times and tapped a pencil twice, a rock of some infinitly variable characteristics appeared in my box, without me physically putting it there?

I like to think of thoughts more as free radicals, encoded especially for the organism driving/riding it. Can that code be cracked? Predicted? Manipulated?

I don't think so. I think to believe otherwise is a dread folly.

So anyways... are the rocks good or bad, can you trust them, and how can you be sure?

A better question is this: are you sure all those rocks you put in the basket are yours?

I think in words, rarely images. If I can't trust the lightbulb in my head, then I can't fully appreciate the language we've developed around them.

How do we know internal dialogue isn't just internal monologue?