Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Thanks, liljim. I appreciate it.

Hopefully, people will realize on this forum that the idea of an edit button leading to chaos in discussions is as inane as it sounds, especially since the edit function is available on many other forums and hasn't exactly led to cyber-armageddon. Thanks again.

At 9/25/14 03:29 AM, MykeiXWolfe wrote:

At 9/25/14 02:55 AM, Light wrote:
Joshua Bednowski, AKA Josh Bend or Josh Bedn. He's a funny and prominent part of Newgrounds history.

This article has more information about this man if you want to learn more.

At 7/17/04 11:46 PM Wade Fulp posted a thread called Photoshop Bend! It grew rapidly, reaching 100 pages at 1/1/06 04:30 AM.

Man, you guys were right, things were REALLY kicking back then.

If you look through the Internet Archive, you'll find that the NG BBS would have about 10,000 new posts made every day back in 2006 and before.

Nowadays, we're lucky to have 1,300 posts made.

At 9/24/14 06:50 PM, beakerboy wrote:

At 9/24/14 06:33 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote: There's only one person that can get a 10 year ban.

who the hell is that?

Joshua Bednowski, AKA Josh Bend or Josh Bedn. He's a funny and prominent part of Newgrounds history.

This article has more information about this man if you want to learn more.

I don't care if mods have that power. I don't really break the BBS rules anymore, so I have nothing to worry about.

And I'm fairly certain that as of now, the longest amount of time that any mod can ban you for is 30 days. Administrators can obviously ban you permanently.

liljim, in fact, has shown that he can ban someone for years, decades, and even centuries and millennia. I kid you not.

Of course, there's really no practical difference between a century/millenium ban and a permaban, so I'm pretty sure that he created those options as a joke for himself to enjoy, lol

To everyone here who seems to think that an edit button would enable a massive amount of abuse and foolishness, I'm just going to quote @Feoric who talked about this in another thread about the implementation of an edit button:

All this talk about abuse is very silly because every forum that has the option to edit posts (virtually all of them) shows the fact that the post was edited, and when. I dare anyone to give me just one example of a forum that disabled their edit feature because of the trolling it provided. Also I'm pretty sure there are boards where mods/admins can see a post's edit history/revisions as a function of their mod powers.

There really is no good reason not to have an edit button in this day and age.

At 9/23/14 11:38 PM, Phobotech wrote:

At 9/23/14 11:35 PM, BrokenDeck wrote: 2Pac

YOUR WISH CAN NOT BE GRANTED.

THE ONE YOU CALL 2PAC IS NOT DEAD.

That actually made me laugh quite a bit. Thanks for that, man.

At 9/21/14 03:22 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

All I see on the Internet though, is a bunch of angry teenagers and young male adults getting pissed at stuff they don't know, due in part to a buttload of teenage and young adult amateur feminists who should seriously reread their literature every once in a while.

This, so fucking much.

At 9/20/14 10:22 PM, Light wrote: Let's hope it does something.

There's still a terrifyingly large number of people in America who don't think climate change isn't happening.

*who don't think climate change is happening.

Goddamnit Newgrounds when will there be an edit function on these forums?

Let's hope it does something.

There's still a terrifyingly large number of people in America who don't think climate change isn't happening.

Joe hasn't posted on these forums in more than three years, and yet he's still a mod.

Any explanation for that, @SCTE3?

At 9/18/14 08:17 AM, Light wrote:
Sorry. It's hard to tell jokes on the Internet sometimes.

*Hard to tell what a joke on the Internet is sometimes.

At 9/18/14 04:02 AM, lapis wrote:

At 9/17/14 05:33 PM, Light wrote:

At 9/17/14 08:19 AM, lapis wrote: You should care. If the Scottish government and civil society collapse in the event of a Yes vote you could have a failed state on the Atlantic coast within a few years. In all likelihood, al-Qaeda in Islamic Albion (AQIA) will seize power after a lightning campaign sees the young Scottish army routed, and the US military will have to intervene by means of a drone campaign. As a US Democrat (?), you will need to be ready for the moment the Republicans start blaming Obama for the situation.

But this doesn't sound plausible.

Just to be clear: it was intended as a joke, I was hoping the later bit about the mounted axeman raids would give it away.

Sorry. It's hard to tell jokes on the Internet sometimes.

And then there's the fact that the British PM said that Scotland leaving would be like a painful divorce, which seems absolutely ridiculous. As such, I've come to expect other people in the UK(I'm assuming you are a resident of the UK? I could be wrong) to make absurd and desperate appeals to Scottish voters to vote against independence and warning of the "dire consequences" of Scottish independence.

At 9/17/14 08:19 AM, lapis wrote:

At 9/17/14 07:15 AM, Light wrote: Am I the only one who doesn't care too much about this? As an American, this news story seems interesting, but I can't see how Scottish independence would affect me.

You should care. If the Scottish government and civil society collapse in the event of a Yes vote you could have a failed state on the Atlantic coast within a few years. In all likelihood, al-Qaeda in Islamic Albion (AQIA) will seize power after a lightning campaign sees the young Scottish army routed, and the US military will have to intervene by means of a drone campaign. As a US Democrat (?), you will need to be ready for the moment the Republicans start blaming Obama for the situation.

I am a registered democrat, you are correct.

But this doesn't sound plausible. Is Scotland really vulnerable to destabilization if they obtain independence? If so, why?

I ask this because I'm genuinely curious and haven't heard of the possible prospect of Scotland becoming a failed state in Western Europe.

Do you oppose Scottish independence?

Am I the only one who doesn't care too much about this? As an American, this news story seems interesting, but I can't see how Scottish independence would affect me.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with caring about this issue if you're American, but you guys know what I'm saying.

At 9/16/14 11:09 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 9/16/14 09:35 PM, ZakCarter wrote: I meant to post this!:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuX9y0hiqWE

Links do not forum posts make. Links are fine, but summarize it, give us an angle for what it is you're hoping to discuss here. In short, needs more effort.

Well, I'll try to contribute substantively, but concisely, to this thread.

Marijuana has proven medical benefits, so the FDA should reclassify the drug. It is currently "schedule 1," which means that the drug in question is considered to have no medical benefits whatsoever.

Why the FDA hasn't already done this is beyond me. Well, actually it's not, but whatever. They need to reclassify it already.

At 9/12/14 02:39 AM, VJF wrote:

Why do u want to know?

What's wrong with being curious?

I experienced these problems with AT & T too, but they're a shitty Internet service provide and I experience this nearly every day.

At 9/10/14 09:01 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 9/10/14 06:31 AM, Light wrote: "Both tax evasion and avoidance can be viewed as forms of tax noncompliance, as they describe a range of activities that intend to subvert a state's tax system, although such classification of tax avoidance is not indisputable, given that avoidance is lawful, within self-creating systems."

So, nothing that disagrees with what I said? Got it.

Both tax evasion and avoidance can be viewed as forms of tax noncompliance, as they describe a range of activities that intend to subvert a state's tax system.

If you can't understand that, you should probably study up on your reading comprehension skills until you do, OK?

At 9/10/14 05:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 9/5/14 08:42 AM, SCTE3 wrote: Evasion and avoidance are similar in meaning so.... no they are not different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance

From the tax evasion article:

"Both tax evasion and avoidance can be viewed as forms of tax noncompliance, as they describe a range of activities that intend to subvert a state's tax system, although such classification of tax avoidance is not indisputable, given that avoidance is lawful, within self-creating systems."

At 9/9/14 05:29 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 9/9/14 04:08 AM, Light wrote: It can't answer questions such as whether or not God exists(I know you think science can, but it never can. Seriously, you can't prove a negative if God doesn't exist, and frankly, I don't know how you'd come to the conclusion that you've discovered "God" if he/she/it exists, no matter how advanced your science may be)

Humans made up religion. It's all in our heads, if you're gonna propose that it's possible there's an eternal being somewhere beyond our range of observation then you might as well propose that leprechauns are real but you can only see them if they want you to or something.

I don't believe in God, and religion is pretty obviously a human invention, but you didn't show me how science proved that God or some other kind of deity doesn't exist.

whether or not numbers are real(a Significant question in the philosophy of mathematics)

We created a system of counting that evolved into a complex systematic approach to almost anything you can imagine.

This doesn't prove that this system doesn't correspond with metaphysical entities that may exist, such as numbers.

One of the reasons a lot of mathematicians think numbers are real, regardless of of the fact that the discipline of mathematics was devised by humans hundreds of thousands of years ago, is that math is peculiarly good at describing and predicting particular concepts in reality.

This concept is called "mathematical realism" or mathematical platonism. I suggest that you look it up on Wikipedia, or, at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's very informative and includes arguments made by philosophers of mathematics and mathematicians as to why they think numbers are metaphysically real. Paul Erdős and Kurt Gödel were two such mathematicians who believed this. Of course, there's also the school of thought in mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics, aptly named mathematical anti-realism, that rejects this.

Now, regardless of what you believe, I asked you how science can show that numbers can or cannot exist.

You just stated that they didn't, without showing me how science can verify that, since you said science can answer just about any question.

or what to do when confronted by a moral dilemma.

Morals are, yet again, a human creation, they're in our heads.

Obviously.

But, you're not answering any of my questions. In fact, you said that science can answer any question.

Now, I'm going to repeat this question just once, and if you can't answer it, I'm just going to assume that you don't what the hell you're talking about, as usual.

How can I use science to resolve a moral dilemma that I'm facing?

Seriously, what the fuck is it with humans and assuming that the things they made up are real?

I'm not assuming anything. The questions I'm asking to you are philosophical and generally can't be answered by science, no matter how advanced it can become.

At 9/9/14 04:08 AM, Light wrote:
I strongly support scientific endeavors and believe that science can do great things, but it's pretty fucking foolish to think it can answer every possible question, especially philosophical/religious ones.

I should also add that science cannot be used to answer mathematical/logical questions.

How can I go about using science to show that 3+3 is equal to 6? Please, tell me, Xenomit.

At 9/8/14 11:22 PM, Xenomit wrote:
Science is the process of observing and learning from said observations, so by pure definition, science can indeed answer all questions, because that's what it was made to do.

lol, what

Science can only answer questions about the physical world. This includes all of nature and the known universe.

It can't answer questions such as whether or not God exists(I know you think science can, but it never can. Seriously, you can't prove a negative if God doesn't exist, and frankly, I don't know how you'd come to the conclusion that you've discovered "God" if he/she/it exists, no matter how advanced your science may be), whether or not numbers are real(a Significant question in the philosophy of mathematics), or what to do when confronted by a moral dilemma.

I strongly support scientific endeavors and believe that science can do great things, but it's pretty fucking foolish to think it can answer every possible question, especially philosophical/religious ones.

At 9/7/14 05:33 AM, Xenomit wrote:
*Cops who murder people for no reason

Only racists make things about race

I don't want to derail the thread with discussion of Michael Brown, but I do want to ask how you can come to this conclusion.

Considering that the United States still grapples with a long history of racism, a history that extends to a time before its birth, when many of its inhabitants were subjects of British Crown, is it really reasonable to dismiss as mere racists those who think this country could still stand to improve in regards to how it treats minorities?

By that logic, I could call Martin Luther King Jr. a racist for daring to question the racial status quo of his time, for claiming that race is a problem in the U.S. He did "make things about race", so I guess he was a racist by your definition of the word. Do you really think that racism stopped being a problem in the United States after the 1960s or something?

At 9/5/14 10:03 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

If you think he's demonized solely because of starting WWII, well... you're dumb.

What else is new with SadisticMonkey? Really?

At 9/4/14 06:36 PM, Feoric wrote: My favorite part about this is his defense -- he claimed that his marriage was so shitty there was no possible way he could have colluded with his wife since they hated talking to each other. You can't make this stuff up.

Its creatively bullshit explanations like this that make me want to become a defense attorney.

I'd just love to see the shit that I could get away with.

At 9/4/14 05:15 PM, Korriken wrote: What's wrong with ad Hitlerum?

It's pretty lazy, and to copy paste from the Wikipedia article on the subject:

According to Strauss, Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem or ad misericordiam, a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. Its name is a variation on the term reductio ad absurdum.

Reductio ad Hitlerum is sometimes called "playing the Nazi card." According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.

Moreover, even if the comparison of something, an idea, or someone to Hitler or to one of his qualities can be made, it doesn't mean that's necessarily wrong. Hitler, as you may know, was a staunch vegetarian and opponent of tobacco consumption in the form of cigarettes. Does that mean that modern smoking cessation campaigns and today's vegetarians should be compared to Hitler? It'd be factually correct, but the comparison or argument would be weak as shit.

The whole 'comparing people/things to Hitler' habit that too many people have developed should be stopped. The habit is kind of like smoking and it's bad for you.

nah but hitler opposed tobacco smoking so it's obviously good for you lolololo11!11

At 9/4/14 05:19 PM, Korriken wrote: One thing that bothers me is that I didn't see all that much coverage on it. Then again I don't watch television, so I might have missed out.

Well, if he were still in office, this would probably have blown up everywhere on the news. I didn't hear about this conviction on corruption charges until today, either.

At 9/3/14 10:12 PM, KatMaestro wrote: Don't complain. Many people have been here for years, did you see them complain?

As someone who's been here for years, as indicated by my sign-up date, yes, I have.

At 9/2/14 08:15 PM, TheMason wrote:
I mean when our corporate tax rate is among the highest...and we tax profits made in other countries (not many, if any other countries do this)...I would worry about the sanity and competency of any corporation to stay in the US.

You know, I keep hearing this talking point from conservatives and there doesn't seem to be any truth to it. Most corporations have no trouble evading corporate taxes and are more profitable than ever. Even if they didn't do so, it's not as if they wouldn't try to find ways to maximize their profits at the expenses of their workers and/or the American taxpayer.

At 8/30/14 01:50 AM, Feoric wrote: Nor does this mean that you're automatically going to jail for having sex if you're in college in the state of California (go wild, Light).

Oh, I intend to, as long as my partner isn't drunk off their ass and has consent.

Because I'm suuuuuuuuch a good guy.