Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So Pox, how many musical symphonies have you written?

I mean honestly, it can't be that hard now can it. You don't have to be a genius to do it.

And I'm still waiting to see your self portrait, whenever you want to hop on that.

At 2/8/09 09:44 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/8/09 11:33 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

And yet, we still bitch about the weather. Wonder why that is?

Cough pussies cough

Or, because you live in an area that turns into frozen tundra for several months out of the year and you have biologically adapted to it. If I was to take someone like Seven -- a full figured girl from the DEEP South -- up north to where you live, she would freeze at temperatures that you wouldn't bat an eye over.

Ahh, you people over exaggerate the cold. If you want to see cold go up to Maine or Northern Vermont, there it's a tundra.

I live by the ocean, we get less then a hundred feet of snow a year. It's not that bad.

At 2/7/09 11:53 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/7/09 12:28 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

Yeah, because being from up north, you have an extra layer of fat built up and can tolerate such extremes.

I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, but that's just the truth. I'm a big dude and I can tolerate cold a lot better than most folks around here, but it's wind chill that bugs the shit out fo me, especially after it gets down past freezing.

Isn't this coming from the man that lives in the fattest region of th US.
I mean, were talking about the South here. It's not like there known to be skinny, Hell they actually wiegh more then people that live in New England.

I think the real secret, the secret to dealing with the cold...

Were not pussies.
Yeah, or because we don't eat biscuits and gravy.

At 2/4/09 02:06 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/4/09 01:55 PM, Al6200 wrote:

If you bring magic into the debate, then all bets are off. :/

My friend, you are arguing on the idea that man has the ability to choose rationally and willingly, something that cannot be measured in any scientific way or judged in any secular or balanced perspective.

You are arguing on the central idea that man can willingly choose his futurein any subject, in any way with no physical proof being available.

According to your general stance, you are arguing magic.

You are a determinist or maybe even a fatalist with your usage of terms like "biological robot."

When one argues theology and philosophy, one has to be ready to entertain philosphocial and theological proofs and justifications.

Like I said, the replies that you will get will generally fall upong these lines. Ones brough up with the Judeo/Christian concept of free will or those brought up with the ideas of Aristotle.

Maybe you'll get a couple of predetermined Calvinists but thats about it

At 2/4/09 01:38 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/4/09 01:32 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Because, by the text definition you are giving here, a machine definitely, heck, any computer, can have free will. All you need to give the machine is some sort of problem solving logic and some problems, and it's up and about making choices of it's own free will.

A machine is not a rational actor, as it is still controlled by the code and software for which it was designed for, thus negating it's ability to have free will. That machine cannot choose to not do the problem, or to delay doing the problem or any other free choice.
What you are doing is giving a way machine a variety of ways to solve a problem, not giving it it's own free will.

Do you think a machine has free will or not? And if not, what is it with humans that gives it free will?

Well, I could argue from Aristotelian ethics which state that the nature of man, the ability to gain or live by logos, is what gives us the ability of free will.

Or I could argue from a religious and metaphysical perspective that free will is a direct connection with the soul, thus only giving the human species that ability to control it's own fate.

Free will is the ability for a rational character to exercise control over his actions and decesions, be they physical, moral or religious.

The act or consequence of that decesion, that ability to logical reason, think or judge future decesions is the basis of all that today we hold dear and judge as fair. The ability to punish criminals is based upon this decesion of intent and that they had control over thier actions

I swear to God if I hear any more of you southener's bitch about how a little winter snow and ice has instantly changed this winter into the Blizzard of 78, I will come down to whatever Molly Hatchet concert your at and kill you with car parts stolen from the broken down car on your lawn.

At 2/2/09 07:20 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

At 2/2/09 01:00 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 2/2/09 01:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Hey wait, Seven whats wrong with Miller Light.

It's not Heineken.

Well excuse me for not shelling out 25 bucks for a 24 pack.

Why not just come down to my level and drink PBR

Money buys power, the CEO who commited fraud has more money thus he can buy a better defense lawyer.

That lawyer can then spend more time and effort, since he's being paid well, to either work out a deal, influence the jury/judge and try to get the lightest sentence possible.

The homeless man got a public defendant who probally just didn't care about the welfare of the homeless man. The judge was probally sick of seeing those type of people and decided to simply get rid of him, ala 15 years.

The system is geared towards the rich, it always has been. It's just something you have to accept.

Hey wait, Seven whats wrong with Miller Light.

And, as much as I loved seeing Springsteen on the superbowl, that much publicity fucked up my chances for buying tickets.

Tickets went on sale at 10 am this morning. I had class to 10 45.

Every ticket sold out, for two events. He was doing two shows, April 21 and April 22 in the Garden.

Every ticket is sold out, I can't even find the overpriced front seat ones nor nosebleeds.

I swear that I'm never going to get how a Parlimentary system works, nor all of the complicated procedures behind.

Regardless, what seems to be evident is that Iceland's financial system has no life left in it. The financial institution has collapsed and they need immediate assistance from the world bank, with loans.

At 1/31/09 02:53 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 1/30/09 03:27 PM, Imperator wrote:

Come to think of it, I hated all the school clubs with the exception of chess, because it's the greatest game man ever made. Don't get me wrong, I was (and still am) fairly athletic. I'm pretty introverted, so I stuck to chess, singles tennis, and a little bit of wrestling.

Most school clubs, in high school and college suck in general, not just for you.

Especially now a days where it's turned into litte Mary Parker padding onto her college resumee by going to the Guitar Club with absolutely no skills nor any real want to learn.

So I just gave up on the club and activity scene in highschool and college.

Unless they open up a competitive keg league, I can't see myself being an "active student" in my community.

At 1/31/09 02:41 AM, fli wrote:

At 1/30/09 08:49 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

If you cut any more, you cut from schools.
I mean, they've already eliminated after school sports like football-- heck, they're thinking about cutting sports altogether. The art classes are gone altogether.

What do you people do with the money. You have one of the largest populations in the nation, great swarths of tourism and industry and pretty high taxes (relatively).

Where does all this money go? What are your representitives doing with the cash?

At 1/30/09 05:55 PM, fli wrote:

At 1/30/09 05:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

But-- hey-- It's at least an IOU.
I will eventually see my money, one day.

I don't get how your that accepting of it.

This is your lawfull money that there witholding from you.
There's always more programs that can be cut, there's always more little initiatives that can be slashed and burned.

At 1/30/09 04:54 PM, fli wrote:

At 1/30/09 01:03 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

It's temporary-- and I'm not an Oakie.
Something like this is bound to happen. Everyone needs to cut back in one way or other, even if they don't like it.

See in my state, we just cut back on spending and raise taxes.

We don't stiff the the State residents on return of some of thier money.

I see it now, The Grapes of Wrath 2: The Return Home.

Cause seriously, you people are getting paid with promises no better then the Joads got for heading to California.

At 1/29/09 07:57 PM, reviewer-general wrote: What the fuck.

I have to memorize the fucking PROLOGUE to THE CANTERBURY TALES in MIDDLE FUCKING ENGLISH.

What possible purpose can this serve at all? I mean, seriously.

Fuck this shit.

;

What major are you?

At 1/29/09 06:00 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: The ice storm here knocked out my power and my heat last night until 2:30 this afternoon. It got REAL cold in here.

Welcome to Winter.

You should come up to New England, it's not like were getting blasted by snow, freezing rain, below zero tempetures, and your ice storms.

Funny fact, we already have more then double the average amount of snow that we usually have in January.

There are two ways to view this:

Legally, there's nothing wrong with it. No child is being exploited and no one is being harmed, thus a okay.

In real life, your pretty fucked up and have some issues.

At 1/29/09 02:15 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 1/29/09 12:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/29/09 12:51 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

Experience has shown me that, when the president of a nation has also the majority in Congress, the Constitution is not respected much.

Agreed, but this is our representative government in action. Usually, such power as this never lasts past 1 term.

We have certain laws that require a special majority, like proposals for constitutional reform (2/3), impeachments (2/3), the law that says how the tax pie is going to be distributed among provinces and federal govt (absolute majority of the total number of the members of each chamber).

I forgot to add those, but those are a given. A constitutional Ammendment can be only formed by a 2/3 majority in House and Senate or a 2/3 majority of the state's conventions for such an ammendment.

Impeachment is also the same, in respect to the two houses of Congress. The House of Representatives needs a 2/3 to bring an Impeachment trial forward, and the Senate needs a 2/3 majority to convict him.

And taxes, well thats simply majority. Which means tax and spend, insteand of debt and spend

At 7/20/08 05:22 PM, fli wrote:

At 7/9/08 12:27 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

-4.00 -5.49

More like Dahli Lama for me...
My position slightly changed since 2004.

I think everyone's always will.
Mine, since I took it in Highschool has just gone towards the right at an increasing rate but has always stayed near the middle in social issues.

It seems Massachusetts has done the opposite for me.

Economic Left/Right: 8.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33

And Lapis my friend, this is the one that should be put up

At 1/29/09 12:51 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

The dictatorship of the majority. Under this circumstances, the only institution that stands in defense of the Republic is the Supreme Court. Luckily for you, you have a cool Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, as much as a hate the tryanny of the major, this is one of the benefits of a reprsentitive government.
The only problem is that people get to vote for thier senators.

There's no special majority for this kind of law, right? Because if there isn't, it should pass with ease, given the majority the Democrats have in the Senate as well.

It's majority for any bill unless the president veto's the bill. Then you need 2/3 majority.
The only real hope to stopping it, is that while the Democrats do hold a large majority in the Senate, it isn't as bas as the House of Representatives. So the only real hope would be that you could get enough moderate Democrats on the Republican side, which will probally not happen.

In reality, from what I'm seeing is that the true argumen is if the 14th Amendment does indeed form the basis for the right to privacy, as indicated by Griswold vs. Conneticut, Doe vs Bolton and Roe vs Wade.

That is if one wishes to argue on the legal ramifications instead of the moral ramifications.

This is actually a very nice quote for why the Supreme Court has ruled that that the Due Process clause indeed guarentees the right of privacy as stated by the 14th ammendment.

the full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints

John Marshall Harlan II

I have embraced a new level of nerd that I never wanted to embrace at all.

I though I broke free of the nerd, going out on weekends staying out all night drinking, meeting girls.

But then, this brought me back down.

A Dungeons and Dragons tabletop game.

I got dragged in for Clerical backup.

God help me.

At 1/26/09 10:58 PM, Sabado-Karate wrote:

Its hard to imagine Obama imitating either,t hough.

There are many forms of Socialism that one can imitate, though most assuredly, Obama is the most socialist president that we've had since FDR.

So far, not in action, but in his speeches and past choices.

Whether or not he becomes increasingly socialist, or just a protectionist democrat remains to be seen

I would have been fucked, I spent most of higschool sleeping. Especially Senior year.

May explain why I'm at a state University.

At 1/24/09 02:52 PM, HandsomePete wrote:

At 1/24/09 01:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/24/09 12:34 AM, HandsomePete wrote:

At 1/24/09 12:16 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Extremely large big government. I'm not going to insult the terminology of that, but the hyperbole. Increased taxes? We can fit this into the budget with minimal increase, and then you need to remember that you won't need to pay premiums, you won't have to joint pay with your employer, and ultimately, it can be done for about the same price on the average citizen. EXTENSIVE amount of power in the Executive branch? Really? Come on, dude, you're not talking to a kid here. Loss of personal liberty? Which liberty? The right to choose which HMO fucks you in the ass every month? The whole, "I can't choose my own doctor" argument is absolute bullshit, because that can be factored into any system. Market economics. Doctors, drug companies, and everyone associated with the medical profession still make a lot of money under nationalized health care. Assuming this is your complaint. Otherwise, you'll need to clarify, unless I covered this point under "increased taxes."

Uhh, I hate when they group all thier replies in one giant paragraph.

#1 Increased taxation. You keep talking about fitting it easily into the budget, something I'm failing to see or realize as even feasible. When were pushing a nine trillion dollar debt, you'll have to excuse for not trusting in "can be easily fit into the budget."

#2 and #3 My own personal fears about big government. I despise the size of government now, do you think I would willingly and gleefully give them even more power over my healthcare and medical choices.

#4 Personal liberty. Yes, simply put choosing my own medical insurance, or finding a business that can do that is what I consider my own personal and economic liberty. As we have seen from other countries and with any of our current federally run programs, they seem to have an inability to be efficient or to worry about any sort of competition.

And with the market economics, while salaries that the doctors/insurance agencies etc are indeed some part of it, the other side is simply supply.

If you have X number of doctors in the country, state, county and you have Y number of pat

Again, you're throwing out imaginary insults here. I don't know what the hell it is that you're taking so personally here.

Trust me, I don't take anything personally on the internet, I mearly reply to what somebody has stated, and this would be in reply to your statement that I was told that a job providing healthcare makes more sense then a government providing it and that I've never questioned it.

What I was replying on was that you were basically presuming a lot in a debate for what I saw as an attempt to demonize me as little more then a sheep.

I'm paying for quality of life and personal safety. Under the extreme lassez-faire, Libertarian view, why not have everyone hire their own security guards, pump their own water to fight their own fires, walk to work or drive over the grass, and leave all education up to selectively choosing what you'll study, doing it on your own, home schooling everyone, etc. etc., blah blah. Fight all our wars personally, see how long it takes for a few of your neighbors to gang up on you.

My friend, find a libertarian supporter like that and I will find you somehow thats been in a nuthouse for all of his life.
Libertarians, and lassez faire supporters wish to harken back to the ideas of Locke and Smith, back to what our country used to be.
What your talking about is Anarcho-capitalism, not Libertarianism.

There's a reason that society has collectively decided that these things are essential to any modern state. Many other countries are finding it more effective to have a health care system that serves everyone. And these are people healthier than we are.

And who are the unhealthy ones beyond the people that can't afford thier own insurance. While I'm not going to point out all the differences between the more socialized nations and our current one, would it not be presumptious to assume that since something worked over there it has to work over here?

My own conviction is that you can't trust a government with this much power and responsibility. When your government fails to get water to the Superdome for three days, or fails to properly audit your taxes, or simply ignore the continued decay of American public schools, how can you, in all honesty, assume that they can do this?

When your government can't even take care of military veterans (see Walter Reed), how much trust and faith can you put into it?

I'm not going to argue that our system is perfect, hell unlike what you might presume I'm not even a huge fan of job based insurance(I just like it a lot more then government based) But, in my view, to help the system isn't to tie it down to the government, it's to open it up to the market. If the individual can pick and choose, make the independent choice for himself, think of what that could do for the insurance business. Competition and a realistic market cost for healthcare would be achieved.

To achieve that, one would need to add incentives of course along with education and welfare reform. But in my view, a better alternative to the one your prescribing.

At 1/24/09 12:24 AM, Proteas wrote:

.... I love you.

Nuff Said

At 1/24/09 12:34 AM, HandsomePete wrote:

At 1/24/09 12:16 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

I've said this like 80 times today in different thread, but people have no idea how "Communist" we already are. We give more subsidies to companies, farms, etc. than China.

And have I stated that I support farm subsidies and the massive power that farming unions and organisations have over politicians in Washington.
No, I have not. I do not support subsidies, nor do I support an organisation that attempts to install an unatural price for any product.

Going with what I just said, I think that health care should be a right, just as a military or police force would be. Give me any reason why the country wouldn't benefit from everyone having health care?

Extremely large big government, increased taxation, an extensive amount of power concentrated in the exectutive government, loss of personal liberty, and simple market economics.

Why should your job pay for your healthcare? How does that make more sense than having your government provide it? I seriously think the reason you say that is because that's what you've been told to think and you've never questioned it. The healthier one person is, the less risk to those around them.

Your job shouldn't be forced to provide you healthcare, as in no business should. But if a business, with the wonders of supply and demand, wishes to attract better workers and more deseriable workers to thier business they will.
And likewise, you can presume whatever you wish about how I came to my opinions or why I defend them, I care not nor does it add wieght to the argument. If it makes you feel better by demonizing me as a sheep, so be it.

And I pay for a criminals poor decisions in life in paying for the police and the jail he stays in. I pay to feed him. I pay for his health care in there. If someone is careless and drops a match in a paper factory, and it burns down, I'm paying for the fire department to put it out.

Your paying for justice to be enforced, and your paying for rights that your side of the political spectrum usually screams about that they have.
If it makes you feel better, I have no qualms about restricting the rights of prisoners any more then the next person. They lost most of thier rights in due process.

At 1/24/09 12:30 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 1/24/09 12:16 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 1/23/09 11:56 PM, HandsomePete wrote:

So let me see if I understand you correctly: because I was born with a chronic, genetically inherited disease, which is lethal if left untreated, I am incompetent and in no position to ask for help?

No please ask for help. Personally, if a charity or organisation was started up, I would love to donate money to it and willingly help you. I would also like to point out that church services, community aid organisations and private enterprises also perform these services as well.

You are one of the few who are already fucked by genetics and thus have no errors on your side from lack of effort or incentive. Private aid, charities and organisations are what you want, not government forced socialism.