Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Big news everyone! I plan on eventually buying some kind of small revolver to keep in the car after I graduate and move out of state, along with a concealed weapons permit. Possibly a shotgun for the apartment after I move into a new place. Also, I plan on going to the gun range with a buddy of mine within the next few weeks.

After hearing some personal horror stories from my friend around my age and living conditions, I've decided I eventually should learn how to fire a gun and have one in my car and apartment. What I'm afraid of is becoming a gun nut and blowing half my income on collecting weapons after I buy my first two guns.

Organized religion, especially here in the south is just awful. To associate yourself with Christianity in the south is to project yourself as ignorant and a bigot (not too different from the rest of the world). If there were nice Catholic Cathedrals here I'd go to church, but wouldn't associate with anyone else. I just think it would be a good idea to keep your own believes concerning the supernatural to yourself.

At 2/4/14 12:52 PM, OmegaweaponV5 wrote:
Icon: 0/10
Profile: 0/10

Icon: 6/10

Profile: 2/10

Well hey, at least it's safer to listen to your music out loud rather than with headphones. People using headphones are just completely oblivious to their surroundings.

Probably because from the moment you're born society wants to suppress your sexual stimulation by cutting your foreskin off.

Almost got mowed down by a Jeep that ran a red light while I was crossing the intersection on my bike a few months ago.

At 8/22/11 02:37 PM, Lorkas wrote:

:devout, arrogant, teenage

:you'll still believe in God, no matter what he says.

Rofl

At 1/31/14 02:44 AM, Memorize wrote:
Bang (pun) up job it's doing so far...

Worthless degrees, lack of jobs upon graduation, with tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands in debt.

Federal funding for education isn't limited to public college education. Secondary education isn't limited to college. Degrees in mathematics, business, science, criminology, and medicine etc. all are experiencing shortages within the workforce. It's degrees in the arts that usually have few opportunities for employment.

Actually, it's not. I live in Florida and it's sold directly over the counter.

Right, by the pharmacist either behind the pharmacy counter or locked in displays within isles. You do realize the over the counter implies no prescription required.

But here's my point: Let's say, for example, that a business didn't want to sell you plan B... who are you to tell them that they have to?

The choice of whether or not to sell Plan B (in certain states) is not within the control of the business, but to the individual pharmacist him/herself.

Right. Because obviously being able to work part time and afford a year's worth of college tuition and graduate with no debt back in the day is just so much worse than today's standard of working full time and still graduating with student loan debt.

That's quite a lucrative part time job to enable you to afford all housing, food, and education expenses without accumulating any debt.

Also, aside from college: Do I really need to show you a graph comparing educational results and achievement with increased funding?

Hahahaha actually you should. Compare where the U.S. ranks in education to the rest of countries within, oh I don't know, all of Europe's and more. Hint** those countries above the U.S. pay for their students education FULLY.

Translation: "People are stupid, therefore they can use their own personal stupidity as justification to steal from other's to cover for said stupidity."

Newsflash: Barring any extreme examples, such as rape, your problems are entirely because of your own personal, voluntary decision making.

Further proving the point on Republicans selfish and entirely self-centered mentality. You don't care about poverty and you are oblivious to how others' poverty hinders your own finances and standard of living.

So cut the crap about it being "out of reach" and "too expensive."

You must of ignored my point that Plan B is not to be used at a regular method of birth control. On top of this using Plan B regularly is VERY expensive.

You realize that doesn't help your argument, right?
You get them for free... but you're still demanding other people pay for you...

You already do pay for my condoms, the government provides funding for Planned Parenthood and many other organizations that provide free condoms. You don't see me bitching about paying for your condoms and everyone else's. Chill dude.

You're a stupid, lazy piece of shit.

You're the reason for higher unemployment, poverty and crime. It's because of dipshits like you who can't go a week without fucking someone you haven't met for 15 minutes as the reason why we have these issues.

You're like an ultra religious moron who grows up his whole life knowing that horrible shit happens all around the world to other people, who only begins questioning God's existence when horrible things happen to you.

People like you, grow up your whole lives knowing about single parent households, unwanted pregnancies, and poverty, but the moment you get stuck with an unwanted kid (through your own voluntary actions), you immediately cry foul and wonder "why am I being punished?"

You're a fucking moron who uses his own stupidity to justify stealing from others.

You're like a mugger who puts a gun to someone's head demanding his money, claiming it's in his self-interest to pay... or else.

You completely missed the dartboard on that one buddy.

Right. So how do you feel about the Government using your taxes to cut a check to the oil and coal industry?

What are you going to say when the oil companies come back and declare "We deserve that check! Without us, you wouldn't have the electricity in your home or the fuel to run your car. We uplift everyone's lives! And remember! That leads to less poverty, less crime, and higher employment! If you don't subsidize us, then does that mean you want these things to go away?"

A Red Herring, but nonetheless easily debunked. The government provides subsidies to the oil company, because the refinement process that creates gasoline is incredibly expensive, so much so it would push the price of gas to $9+/gallon. As for power companies, the type and influence of power companies varies by state and local areas. Some have various private companies, regulated monopolies, or entirely government-based.

You're so full of shit, you worthless hypocrite.

You really hate being called an inbred, uneducated, redneck I can see that. Because you are uneducated you haven't brought up any thoughtful or original ideas within this topic. Cliche', conservative, "mememememe!!!", rehashed red meat is all that you have dished out.

At 1/30/14 10:08 PM, Memorize wrote:
What does education have to do with birth control?
And who's restricting access?

Education and reducing birth rates are the two most effective things a country can do to reduce poverty. Depending on how redneck your state influences how restricted birth control access is. In Florida for example Plan B is kept by the pharmacist (rather than over the counter) and he/she is allowed to decide whether or not he/she wants to sell you it for whatever personal beliefs.

Since when did not forcing someone else to pay for another person's personal life be considered "restricting access?"

It's the same story when you drastically cut funding for education, access to education is restricted as a result. If you're viewing birth control simply as a "personal life" issue you are completely missing the point as to why it's so important in industrialized societies.

Last I checked, you could have an effectiveness rate into the upper 90's if you properly use birth control (and edge it up even further with other contraceptive/protection). Not to mention, it's cheaply available at every local Walmart and Target, in many instances for just $5.

There's no over the counter hormonal birth control what the hell are you talking about. Condoms, spermicide, and Plan B are the only methods available over the counter. Hormonal birth control requires a prescription. All hormonal birth control has at least a 93% effectiveness rate alone. News flash, lots of couples don't use condoms and they're only ~80% effective, spermicide is very irritating for most women and only ~70% effective, and Plan B is only ~80% effective, very expensive, and not to be used as a continuous method of birth control.

How incredibly sad and pathetic are you as a person, when you, as an adult and with a job, can't somehow be bothered to pay for your own personal sex life when my friends and I were able to get our hands on all this stuff before we even hit the teenage years?

I do pay for my own condoms occasionally, but I also get them for free at Planned Parenthood and at my college campus. However, hormonal birth control is very expensive and that's why lots of insurance companies provide coverage for it. The next step is coverage for every woman who chooses to use it.

Of course it is. You're forcing me, against my will to pay for it.
You're forcing people, like my own mother who has 3 kids and can't have anymore, to pay more for insurance for items she receives no benefit from.

Everyone benefits from reduced poverty. Less poverty means less crime, lower unemployment and higher wages, higher property values, cleaner cites, the list goes on and on. I'll say it again, the two proven most effective methods in reducing poverty are education and access to birth control for women.

The Government's money is the "People's money". If you accept Government funds to pay for your stuff, then you're using the People's money to fund for your stuff. And since you're using the People's money, then you're subject to any restriction set forth by the people from their elected leaders.

When it comes to restriction on birth control, it ALL stems from religious agendas.

You don't want me setting restrictions on your sex life? Stop making me pay for it.
You don't want me involved in your personal life? Stop dragging me into your personal life.

You have to pay taxes for the benefit of our entire nation get over yourself. Nationwide access to birth control is for the benefit of the nation economically and socially. You don't have the right to restrict anything within government based on religious beliefs.

At 1/29/14 08:59 PM, Korriken wrote: One of the popular topics of the times is the so called "1%" who is hoarding all of the nation's wealth while others live in poverty. People call for the end of capitalism and the redistribution of the wealth the "1%" are hoarding and to bring in a shining new era of socialism or even communism to make everyone equals.

If this is the basis of your argument you are beyond delusional dude. No 99% wants to end capitalism and redistribute wealth through a socialist/communist regime.

An idea of what the 99% want is more legislation to prevent the 1% from fucking over our entire economy once again and higher taxes and harsher punishments for the ultra rich evading taxes.

Republicans want to tackle the national debt (which is incredibly ironic considering they didn't give a shit about the national debt for over a decade), but at the same time none of them want to pay taxes. Of course our country is going to be in debt when nearly half the population has a deep resentment towards paying taxes and the government itself.

At 1/29/14 09:59 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Apparently getting your tubes tied is now free under Obamacare (I've been considering having it done around age 35, so I looked it up). Considering the amount of work and how expensive the procedure actually is, it's a bit ridiculous not to be paying SOMETHING, IMO.

If that's true then that is fantastic. Considering the fact that unplanned pregnancy are the root of the circle of poverty, the cost of one tubal ligation is a mere fraction of the amount that the government spends on a person living in poverty throughout his/her entire life.

Some of the conspiracy theorists are going on about how that's a population control move. Wouldn't it make more sense to give free vasectomies, if that were the case? Think about it. A woman can only carry one baby at a time (unless it's multiples, but that's usually not the case). Pregnancy lasts nine months. After she has the baby, she's down for the count and can't conceive again for awhile. Also, women have a limited number of eggs. But men continually produce sperm and can impregnante several women in one day if he's up to it. There's really no biological downtime needed between a man impregnanting women.

Yes population control is needed, there's no conspiracy. There's not an unlimited amount of space on this planet. It would make much much more sense to fund male birth control I completely agree with you. Some feminist groups need to be made aware of this, they are often the forefront of reproductive right's movements. Having worked at Planned Parenthood, I know they've been waiting on hormonal male birth control for decades now, even though there are highly successful methods in other countries.

At 1/29/14 05:42 PM, Memorize wrote:
Not wanting to fund someone else's birth control has nothing to do with being against birth control.

Uh huh sure keep trying to tell yourself that. Education (academic) and granting reproductive rights and control to women has reduced poverty and growth rates in entire countries. It is a grossly well known fact that cutting funding for education and restricting birth control access are the spearheads of the Republican platform.

My question is: How do liberals claim to not want other people or the Government involved in their personal/sex lives while simultaneously demanding the Government be involved in their personal/sex lives to the point of paying for it?

Providing coverage for birth control is not "being involved" in someone's sex life. Would you say the same of private insurance companies that offer coverage for birth control? No of course not.

I guarantee if the Government treats federal funding on contraceptives like they do with education (ie. You accepted federal dollars, therefore you're subject to the people's/Government's restrictions), the very proponents of paying for a non-medically necessary item will, in turn, begin complaining.

The only possible restrictions that will be set on National Health Care coverage for birth control will be made by Republicans that want to restrict its use purely because of personal beliefs. You're damn right people will start complaining when Republicans set out to make restrictions on birth control coverage (they are already attempting to do this btw).

You haven't even been in the military and that's not a real army suit. GG gay boy.

Ratchet and Clank series back when I played games.

I have yet to try Hardees, probably because there's never been one close to where I live.

I enjoy Chick-fil-a and Zaxby's for chicken and Krystal and Whataburger for burgers.

The worst fast food I've had by far is Checkers holy fuck that's nasty shit.

I've noticed while playing online games kids keep calling me a "pug" for not knowing shit.

In a sentence: "Pug."

At 1/28/14 12:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
So you're saying it's A-OK for a professor to give a girl an F because she rebuffed his sexual advances? Or it's A-OK for a professor to give all the best TA assignments to women because she thinks men are inferior workers?

A "physical advance" is defined as an action, if you stuck to your own arguments you have been aware that I already made a comments exactly pertaining to this. The second scenario is deliberate discrimination, which is not actually harassment, but I'm sure is currently categorized under harassment.

No. Sexual harassment is open to abuse because of the loose nature of the evidence required to make a prima facie sexual harassment case, not because the boundaries are too fuzzy.

Because the boundaries of this policy "are too fuzzy" this policy can generate a documented sexual harassment incident from anything involving gender or sex itself that someone may find "unnecessary".

Innapropriate is an objective, not a subjective standard. The mere statement of one being gay not only is ot objectively innapropriate, it's not even an assertive act. The mere statement of one's status is not harassment in any sense of the word. Acting or reacting upon that stuts can be considered harassment.

It depends on where you live. In the south people don't want to be aware of whether or not a person is gay. With this policy there's no requirement of action, merely labels deemed "inapropriate".

At 1/27/14 03:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
The EEOC says otherwise. Per their website:

Well this is a huge problem, filing actual sexual harassment and then gender slurs under the same policy. What's next, racial slurs (racial harassment) are going to be illegal as well? Wouldn't a mere "harassment policy" suffice for actual incidences of harassment? This is beyond me.

"Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general."

If you say gender slurs are a violation of the First Amendment, why is a proposition for sex not?

I never said gender slurs violate the first amendment what are you talking about? Gender slurs and asking for sex are (or should be) protected under the first amendment.

At 1/27/14 02:42 PM, Entice wrote:
That's just a classic example of the right to free speech not protecting the consequences of your free speech, which in this case can go as far as being expelled from school.

The consequences of free speech? Unless if any threats pertaining to rape are made there absolutely shouldn't be any consequences under a sexual harassment policy.

Sexual harassment can include mere statements or comments though, which is why they're explicitly included in the policy.

All of the wording in this policy is open to abuse simply because it is way to vague and broad.

That's the kind of response I predicted exactly. You still haven't demonstrated that this happens though, all things equal.

It doesn't have to happen, it never does, what matters is the policy itself can be abused in this fashion.

Not unless their sexual behavior is inappropriate. You're really stretching what this policy could possibly apply to.

Someone simply stating that he is gay in public will make a lot of people uncomfortable, and if those people were educated on this policy some might abuse it and find someone who says he's gay highly "inappropriate". This is not a stretch when concerning gay rights and women contraceptive rights, it may be an explanation for why there are anti-abortion posters and preachers protesting frequently while I have yet to see even a gay or women rights info booth.

At 1/27/14 01:57 PM, Entice wrote:
Last time I checked it's not in violation of Federal law for a university to have its own sexual harassment policy.

The presence of a policy itself is not the violation here, but rather the free speech violations within the policy.

I'll try to explain it to other way.

FSU's definition of sexual harassment: "conduct of a sexual nature that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. This includes unwanted, unwelcome, inappropriate, or irrelevant sexual behaviors, or gender based behaviors, actions or comments."

The policy includes "unwanted, unwelcome, inappropriate, or irrelevant comments", but only if they create "an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment". This clearly does not mean that all gender based behaviors qualify as sexual harassment. They are simply included as examples of behaviors that could create the sort of environment that the university doesn't desire.

All of those things are purely objective to the "victim". It would be fine if this policy was only limited to actions, but it isn't.

How is this part of your original argument anyways? The wording is clearly gender and orientation neutral. You're probably going to say something like "you know no one will take the policy seriously unless the victim is a woman and the straight man is the bad guy" but you have yet to demonstrate that.

How many sexual harassment accusations do you think I'd get if I marched around campus with a sign that said "women are pigs, blah blah blah"? How about women picketing "men are pigs, blah"? You would expect the men to get kicked off of campus and the women either tolerated or encouraged. Male discrimination in the majority of gender-related or women's rights legislation appears gender neutral on the surface of it.

Hell, this being a university in the south, this sexual harassment policy could just as easily be used to persecute gays.

At 1/27/14 01:44 PM, Entice wrote:

At 1/27/14 01:38 PM, Saen wrote: If a woman doesn't want you to associate her gender with an adjective she might find "unwanted" laughably even "irrelevant", she can claim sexual harassment against you.

What I took from it is that it's not okay to say something about someone's gender (aiming comments at a specific person) when it's not relevant to a classroom discussion, which makes perfect sense.

Maybe it would be helpful for everyone if the diction was much more specific.

People advocating gay rights on campus may also be filed under sexual harassment if any passer-by finds talking about gay rights "inappropriate".
The diction in this policy is incredible broad and may be easily abused by anyone aware of it.

Advocating gay rights is very defensibly appropriate. I agree with you somewhat about the diction but I think it's open to interpretation and that there's a low chance of it being interpreted in the way that you see it.

It's not a low chance, FSU is in the fucking deep south. Low chance or not it was interpreted and used in this fashion by any individual and that's what is wrong.

At 1/27/14 01:24 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/26/14 10:22 PM, Saen wrote: Evolution is science

You need to learn grammar and word usage.

Your consistancy can be likened to chunky peanut butter.

You spelled "consistency" wrong if you want to play that game. There's nothing grammatically or factually incorrect when stating that "evolution is science."

At 1/27/14 01:35 PM, Entice wrote:

At 1/27/14 01:32 PM, Saen wrote: Because those statements aren't sexual harassment just gender slurs? I wouldn't want to enforce legal punishment on anyone simply making a gender slur, regardless of how distasteful, likewise with racial slurs. This sexual harassment policy is a gross violation of first amendment rights plain as day.

Florida State University policy isn't the law.

It's campus policy that may ultimately be punishable with expulsion. Excluding this fact, this policy clearly violates federal law itself do I have to repeat myself?

At 1/27/14 12:10 PM, Entice wrote:

At 1/27/14 11:42 AM, Saen wrote: Sexual harassment in this policy even includes gender based comments, this is just completely out of control.

"Unwanted, unwelcome, inappropriate, or irrelevant" comments. Sounds a bit less out of control if you leave those qualifiers in, doesn't it?

If a woman doesn't want you to associate her gender with an adjective she might find "unwanted" laughably even "irrelevant", she can claim sexual harassment against you. People advocating gay rights on campus may also be filed under sexual harassment if any passer-by finds talking about gay rights "inappropriate".

The diction in this policy is incredible broad and may be easily abused by anyone aware of it.

At 1/27/14 11:46 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/27/14 11:42 AM, Saen wrote: Sexual harassment in this policy even includes gender based comments, this is just completely out of control.

How is that over the top? Why shouldn't a comment by a male professor to a female TA stating "you don't belong here. Women should be at home cooking for their families" or a comment by a female teacher to a male student "you men are always screwing things up with your aggressiveness" be considered sexual harassment?

Because those statements aren't sexual harassment just gender slurs? I wouldn't want to enforce legal punishment on anyone simply making a gender slur, regardless of how distasteful, likewise with racial slurs. This sexual harassment policy is a gross violation of first amendment rights plain as day.

Here's an example of sexual harassment law going way over the top:

FSU's definition of sexual harassment: "conduct of a sexual nature that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. This includes unwanted, unwelcome, inappropriate, or irrelevant sexual behaviors, or gender based behaviors, actions or comments."

Sexual harassment in this policy even includes gender based comments, this is just completely out of control.

At 1/27/14 09:22 AM, NightmareWitch wrote:

At 1/27/14 12:04 AM, Saen wrote:

At 1/26/14 11:50 PM, NightmareWitch wrote:

At 1/9/14 01:48 PM, Saen wrote: Evolution isn't a deity and it's not something that involves faith in the slightest sense.

It does if you believe one cell can turn into a fish since no one has actually seen that happen.

If a cell did turn into a fish or anything else for that matter the entire theory of evolution would be incorrect. I really can't help you dude if you're at this level of ignorance, you need to educate yourself on what evolution actually is. Go to the library and check out an evolution textbook.

Didn't say I reject evolution. You're just acting high and mighty because you put people down for having faith yet you believe in something you haven't seen or felt.

And I'm sure you've seen and felt your god as well. Regardless, keep religion and faith out of all science including evolution. Quit taking personal offense towards your religion and instead educate yourself.

Oh yes, a gay club as at that. Went with a straight buddy of mine and two lady friends. Very eventful night, placed second in a stripping contest, had money put in my underwear, and went to my lady friends' apartment for my first threesome and another one of my future ex girlfriends.

At 1/26/14 11:50 PM, NightmareWitch wrote:

At 1/9/14 01:48 PM, Saen wrote: Evolution isn't a deity and it's not something that involves faith in the slightest sense.

It does if you believe one cell can turn into a fish since no one has actually seen that happen.

If a cell did turn into a fish or anything else for that matter the entire theory of evolution would be incorrect. I really can't help you dude if you're at this level of ignorance, you need to educate yourself on what evolution actually is. Go to the library and check out an evolution textbook.

The research on caffeine goes back and forth on whether or not it's good for you. I drink a shit ton of coffee and espresso, but never energy drinks.