Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

If you're in a room with a woman and a man, and only two of you are leaving there alive, which two people are leaving that room alive? ..

.. That question will actually tell me something about you. There, easy, right?

"Hrrroughraarawro?! Why the fuck are they sparkling?!"

I wash my back using the same facecloth I used for the rest of my body. By completely unfurling the cloth and holding two corners at opposite ends in my thumb and index fingers, I can thoroughly scrub my entire back with the same motions I would use to dry it with a larger towel.

There are countless paths to suicide. Most involve the loss of something. An animal's will to live is extremely powerful, much more so than any other state of subconscious or even conscious thought, and thus the balance must be severely tipped before suicide even becomes an option.

Life is a constant battle in both directions. Without pain, there is no happiness. Without happiness, we cannot overcome our pain. When the scale rocks back and forth too violently and coping mechanisms begin to fall apart, people go mad. As people resist madness, they're capable of achieving great things, not the least of which would be staying alive. Those who become maniacal generally become dangerous to those around them, whereas seemingly those who become demented become dangerous to themselves.

Dementia, that serves as the core of depression, is a vacuum that stops at nothing to destroy a person. Lies that could not possibly be further from the truth suddenly become an everyday reality for those whose dementia begins to overpower them. In time, as their dementia grows alongside their loneliness, it becomes a greater and greater task to convince these people they are deluding themselves. As their condition worsens and their options to seek help eventually diminish, they will either go mad or commit suicide, before that happens.

Oftentimes, suicidal folks make the mistake of reaching out to their loved ones. They share their innermost feelings with the only people they feel they can trust as a last resort and, more often than not, those people will retaliate against the depressed person in anger. Dementia then uses that anger they show as justification they no longer love them, and the scale only continues to dive from there. Tough love does not exist to these people. The only way you can save them is to pull them out of the dark pool their drowning in through your own volition, not shove them even deeper down the murky depths under the pretenses that you're "helping" them.

Simply telling them "it's okay" a single time will not suffice. The only real hope to save these people is actually to smother them in positivity. Show them the reality they're so convinced does not exist, not the one they acknowledged years prior, by becoming enraged by their depression.

I'm mainly addressing the "cowards" you spoke of. I understand, in general, which group of people you're referring to. In my humble opinion, people should be given the freedom of whether or not they're going to end their lives or not without fear of judgment from others. I see no reason as to why that freedom and birthright should be taken away from anyone.
If you feel so strongly about losing people to suicide, you may wish to intervene instead of getting upset. With the exception of those who are considering suicide on an impulse, you may be shocked just how far gone some of these "cowards" can be. Convincing some of them that they're a human being at all may take you the better part of half a year if you work really hard at it.

The symbol used to be used as the symbol for eternal life in Egypt, if I recall. That was thousands of years ago, however. It is now associated with white supremacists, not eternal life. It's distasteful in the sense that it's a clear ploy to attract attention, not prove a point. Of thousands of different inspirational symbols he could have chosen, why this?

Tell her to make you a sandwich! That always works wonders. And don a pair of rapist glasses, while your at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVcyNANK5cY

Don't really need to have a girlfriend to know dumping her is the only real solution. The fact she could have potentially given you aids is just downright scary, in and of itself.

Laugh your ass off at her and give her a pat on the head.

Once every 3 to 4 years! Keeps it meaningful. On the other hand, I tell my sisters I love them quite frequently. Sibling bonds! Yeeeeah!

Fishing fetish. I hope your good at having very silent sex, otherwise it's not fishing.

I gave my phone to my parents.

.. And never looked back.

"If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't." - George E. Pugh

Three types come to mind ..

1 - People who are "different", for lack of a better way of describing it.
2 - Shy ones.
3 - What about the tank chick to the right? Does she count?

Afro Samurai would be an amazing start for a non-fan, as you termed it. It's even on Netflix.

Throw that shit in the compost and make a salad with some dressing, croûtons, and tuna in it.

You're welcome!

Lots of drugs, videogames, and gasoline for burning down houses ought'a raise them right!

Or .. maybe gardening.

Dear god I hope those numbers were fake .. that was classic.

"You might say I have Dead Space in my head .. I'm not the brightest when it comes to flirting.

At 3 minutes ago, BubblyMac wrote:

At 1 minute ago, Riltin wrote: I find rape to be one the the most starkly offensive actions I human being can take, but compared to torture? The idea of a human being pulling out another human beings toe and finger nails, pouring salt in freshly opened wounds, or intentionally striking painful nerves makes me sick .. there is truly nothing more hideous or offensive than torture.

Thus, even rape, murder, "N", swear words .. they just aren't nearly as bad. There's no argument there. Torture has an enormity that surpasses all other things. Anything that makes death seem like a wonderful option is bad .. but torture is the worst.

Combining rape, torture, and eventual murder together amplifies the negativity of all of those things, but only when used in conjunction with each other. I'd argue torture is actually worse than murder-rape.

On a side note, kittens are still cuddly.

Torture isn't an evil word, it's an evil action. N-- has no definition and no meaning other than to put someone down because of their race. So in that respect, yes - they're incomparable.

It may be as others have already pointed out .. beyond connotation, words have no real positivity or negativity. The "N" word, in that respect, isn't by its very nature "negative". Neither is torture. Neither is rape. Or any other word, for that matter.

However, it is the action derived from the meaning of that word, I'd say, that determines how people will react to it. Who is using that word can also have a positive or negative impact on its reception. For example .. I've never been tortured before, so hearing the word torture doesn't set me off. I simply understand it's a terribly offensive word.

The "N" word is interpreted as being not just a racist slur, but a summation of the suffering of an entire culture of people. I'll venture to suggest the vast majority of North Americans of African descent have never been slaves, and have received minimal (if any) abuse from white folks. That includes all age demographics.

They understand the meaning of the word. They understand it's offensive. They react negatively to it. But most simply don't understand truly how hurtful that word is, or its context, more importantly.

True Story:

My friend wanted to ask a question during High School biology class down in the States one fateful school day. He didn't know what all three derivations of humanity were called, so he posed the question as .. "I know there are Caucasians, Negroids, and then .. (Mongoloids)" .. A black girl next to him proceeded to throw a fit when she heard the term "negroid" and made a scene. Got him in to trouble for using a scientific term. She was in the wrong .. this told me that not all African Americans understand the nature of the "N" word.

People do decide arbitrarily when the "N" word is offensive or not, regardless of their race. It's utter nonesense .. but makes for good satire, as I mentioned.

At 10 minutes ago, BubblyMac wrote:

At 2 minutes ago, Riltin wrote: Torture is the most offensive word in the English language. No other word is even nearly this offensive. if you consider the "N-Waurd" offensive, then you are hereby prohibited from ever saying the word "torture" (or typing it!) in public ever again. That's how the rule works, right? Or is it all arbitrary ...

Rape and murder is okay.

I find rape to be one the the most starkly offensive actions I human being can take, but compared to torture? The idea of a human being pulling out another human beings toe and finger nails, pouring salt in freshly opened wounds, or intentionally striking painful nerves makes me sick .. there is truly nothing more hideous or offensive than torture.

Thus, even rape, murder, "N", swear words .. they just aren't nearly as bad. There's no argument there. Torture has an enormity that surpasses all other things. Anything that makes death seem like a wonderful option is bad .. but torture is the worst.

Combining rape, torture, and eventual murder together amplifies the negativity of all of those things, but only when used in conjunction with each other. I'd argue torture is actually worse than murder-rape.

On a side note, kittens are still cuddly.

Allow me to make some points:

- The Boondocks. I love satire ..

- I don't believe in swear words. I'm a philosophical atheist. You better believe it.

- I don't like when people try to brainwash me into thinking certain words are taboo and that I can't use them under any circumstances without it being interpreted in a derogatory fashion.

- I especially don't like when people succeed in brainwashing me in such ways, only to find out that they succeeded at just that at a later date ...

- You're kids probably know more swear words than I do. Their young ears do not need protection in about 94% of cases. So stop hating on me.

- People who censor my and/or other peoples freedom of speech, for ANY fucking reason, are assholes, if it isn't rightfully classifiable under the category "inciting hatred".

- Torture is the most offensive word in the English language. No other word is even nearly this offensive. if you consider the "N-Waurd" offensive, then you are hereby prohibited from ever saying the word "torture" (or typing it!) in public ever again. That's how the rule works, right? Or is it all arbitrary ...

From what I understand, Catholicism is heavily based around paying you and your dead relatives' way into heaven in combination with making sure your a Christianat all in order to avoid instant damnation. You are clearly not a Catholic by any stretch of the imagination, and thus not a "true" Christian.

On the other hand, that makes you a protestant. Protestants are awesome compared to catholics through the eyes of an intellectual. Being that I'm an atheist, you may not take my reply seriously, however.

People are having a field day misinterpreting what your saying, but I think I know exactly where you're coming from. In essence, ignorance of god or religion is not immediate grounds for damnation, and that is the bottom line you've proposed. You've further suggested that "good deeds", or morally positive intentions are a surefire way to wake up in heaven one day .. and in the case of an atheist such as myself, starkly shocked.

The debate about psychopaths or sociopaths being an exception does not stand true. In my opinion, fulfilling ones proper function is the most morally endowing action any human being could ever take. To us, a psychopath is a dangerous villain that needs to be taken out of commission. But that mentally ill fellow, be he born in that condition or simply insane, is only fulfilling what he believes in his own mind to be "right".

.. be that to fulfill his/her desire to kill, rape, plunder, steal, or burn houses to the ground. Conversely, it could be argued these people are one of humanities' "crowd control" mechanisms born within our species to regulate population growth in a self-contained manner. In that sense, they are only attempting to fulfill their "purpose", or proper function.

Then you have morality, which is something else entirely. To any "sane" person, we have a moral compass of sorts, thusly termed the conscience. We recognize their deviant behavior, and thus we will seek to correct it by incarcerating them so that they are no longer a threat to innocent lives. People who are sane and sin as it were, however, are douche bags. I personally believe "sin" to be a universal term even outside of religion.

Sane people will kill, they will steal, and they will lie. The context in which they do these things affects whether these functions are truly "evil", or "immoral". Is a soldier that fights to protect his family a monster, or is a man who slits the throats of women at night for kicks a monster? Is it wrong to steal a new iPod Touch for yourself on a whim, or is it wrong to steal a bag of cheetos to eat when you haven't eaten in 2 days and can't afford regular meals?

Conclusion:

Red - Wronging another human being for your own profit is generally sinful. A Christian would term this grounds for eventual damnation if you didn't fuck off and stop being a sinful prick. Wishful thinking, I say ..

Yellow - Neutral fellows who often blame themselves for things they aren't responsible for or feel terrible at the idea they've somehow done something to harm others are being debated over. They lack the audacity to claim the right to enter Heaven, yet lack the capacity to get themselves a ticket into Hell through effective sinning, as well. In short, I'd argue they're the only ones guaranteed to get into heaven.

Green - Be they Christian, Atheist, or something in between, some will actively seek to do good deeds and/or better themselves through proper function. Proper function could mean fresh air and exercise, study, or any number of things. The two concepts sort of blend in seamlessly at many points. (We both agree, however, that audacious pricks who believe they're guaranteed to get into heaven because they're Christians, regardless of their actions in life, are "immoral". You genuinely seem to feel concerned that they're running around telling everyone who isn't Christian that they're going to Hell.)

Mix these colors together and you get the makeup of every human being on Earth. Wherever the balance is most tipped, in your eyes, will be the factor which determines whether a person goes to Heaven or Hell.

If this is what you think, then I agree.

PS: Sorry for the wordy response, everyone. Sometimes things aren't worth saying if they're brief.

Several people, including myself and you, have already come across such an idea, I believe! Once you realize the human body is mechanical, in its entirety, it dawns on you that it might be possible to create just such a "virtual paradise". In your own words, you point out that the brain is basically just an organic wad of electrical impulses (more or less!). But just as the old quote goes, of course .. "If the human brain was so simple it could be understood, we would be too simple to understand it."

Or in other words, the tool we use to understand the human brain (the human brain) would have tremendous difficulty determining precisely how it functions, making it extremely difficult .. or maybe even impossible .. to recreate individual human brains in a synthetic matter. What that means, basically, is that we'll never be able to create any kind of artificial brain to host our "spirit", or memories, in order for it to stand the true test of time. I reckon an organic brain would, eventually, be prone to decay even in a protective congealed state. I think I may know a solution to this problem, however.

Modify a human being at birth to carry the strain of DNA which commands one's RNA to construct and/or restore longer telomeres along the strands of our cell's DNA so that mitosis no longer results in aging. It may also be possible to accomplish this in living human beings through some form of Stem Cell research. Once that's done, preserve said fully organic human brain in the congealed state while hooked up to the computer matrix.

The brain would never age .. never become infected .. never decay .. and, in theory, "last forever" .. or for as long as said computer matrix did.

As for what our predetermined heaven, or "paradise", as I like calling it, would look like .. well, maybe there would be more than one! Maybe you'd read a pamphlet or something in some grungy space waiting room to figure out what afterlife was "right for you!" ..

Dead Island definitely sounds like your cup of tea. It's a game which emphasizes survival, that's for damn sure. Even the weakest zombies in that game are dangerous if you underestimate them.

Although zombies can be found in groups, they won't necessarily attack you in swarms, even in the city. The "special infected" zombies are more than a little bit dangerous, as well.

Philosophy. "Sanity" would be my honest answer, though.

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing. "

I definitely enjoyed New Vegas more. That being said, I don't care which was better. Having played both of them was awesome. I have about 100-150 hours on each game.

Veteran Ranger Armor was just so sexy.

Runescape was the most addicting game I ever played. I'll never know just how many 100's of hours I spent on that. World of Warcraft follows at second, although World of Warcraft was 100 times more fun than Runescape was.

The only game I ever played in recent'ish times that I thought was amazing for its time was Spyro the Dragon. The original one, released back in 1998. I mean seriously .. how did they make the game look that good back then? Or to be fair, it would be my opinion that it looked good.

This game has the potential. Not just for a 10/10 .. but just being the best game. Ever.

They're taking what was already amazing and they're ironing out the bugs .. fixing the problems .. and above all else, adding new content while removing crap that felt artificial.

I don't know what race I'll play as, but I know I'll be dual-wielding two axes. I'll bring a whole new world of pain to everything that so much as stares at me sideways!

How much time will we all end up spending on this game? Morrowind, with mods, was incredible. I heard they only became more incredible in time after I had stopped playing Morrowind. The Oblivion mods eventually became as robust as I'd hoped they would. Will Skyrim arm modders with the tools to create some truly amazing pieces of custom content? Just how much extra life will that breath back into the game for PC users, I wonder.

The other obvious thing I can think of to point out would be the fact the game just looks so much better than even Fallout: New Vegas did, let alone Oblivion. The actual mechanics of the game - just on the xbox 360 - looks amazing. What will it look like on the PS3? Or perhaps even the Wii U, if the time came? What will this looks like on a gaming rig, better yet, and will it run well on all these platforms while looking splendid?

You gotta admit .. when a game goes through this much trouble to look scenic, the graphics matter just a little bit more than usual. If all this potential actually boils down into the work of art most of us have forseen, dare I say .. it'll be very fun?

At least the Elder Scrolls has never pulled a Peter Molyneux on us in the past. That's good enough for me! :P

Dead Space 1 and 2 struck me as being the goriest. Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas don't even come to mind, in comparison. Left for Dead 2 was also surprisingly gory, though in a different way than Dead Space II.

My reasoning would be a combination of things. Outright goriness where people have seemingly had their skin flayed off while they're still alive. The mutations of the necromorphs themselves can be very twisted and discomforting looking. The corruption and the "Guardians" that grow out of it use their intestines to lop off your head, and more immature versions of the same guardians scream for help, despite being disembodies and glued to a wall (although mature ones do that too to a lesser extent).

There would also be the matter of the only surviving crew members mutilating themselves and each other to death. Or random crew members sobbing or beating their head against the wall. And that guy who got sucked up into the vents and was spat back out in chunks. It was a game that, at least I found, did a very good job of being very, very gory without the overuse of blood.

The death scenes also, of course, come to mind. The disembodied head that takes over your body was always my favorite! Hope they have it in the third game too!

I suppose a person needs to keep in mind that "gore" essentially equates to how well you can see the exposed bones and organs of characters in a given game, not how much blood there is. Or that's how I always figured it worked. "Blood and gore". Then you have people who are so conservative and sensitive that they see violence, blood, and gore as a combined blur of disgust that unsettles them.

It felt really good to cut out that centaurs guts in God of War III, I gotta say, though. But God of War III still doesn't surpass Fallout or L4D II in a lot of ways.