Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/25/11 07:44 AM, Illegal-Product wrote: now if you want to get technical here...

you're still ignoring the individuals inciting violent action.

telling people to go fuck themselves and their beliefs isn't equivalent to telling people to kill.

At 4/29/11 06:58 PM, JonBro wrote: My thoughts:

I highly doubt Obama was born in the United States. If he was, there would be nothing to hide, and the birth certificate would have been released sooner. Logically, this birth certificate is fake.

i don't know if i should respond because this feels unbelievably trollish.
but if you're not being purposely dense; people still believe he wasn't born in the US, why would releasing it earlier have prevented this new doubt, considering the fact most people aren't citing the time it took to release as the basis of their doubts.

At 4/29/11 12:59 PM, morefngdbs wrote: What I find unbelievably patheic is the Conservative Parties raging against a possible coalition !

i was under the impression it was the others (can't remember if it was NDP or liberal) that were strongly against accepting a coalition during the debates. (?)
though most have presented a coalition as something to be avoided.

At 4/29/11 05:24 PM, Kwing wrote: Most studies on particular products that are referenced in the articles are not funded by the companies creating them, so I find it a marginally more reliable source than most.

meh, i wouldn't put much trust in it.
Dr. Mercola says this "As you know, health authorities around the globe fiercely maintain that vaccines are safe, regardless of what's happening in the real world. Time and again, serious side effects from vaccines are overlooked and swept under the rug as being 'coincidental.' " after the study he presents, which identifies narcolepsy as one of the few side-effects of a particular vaccine.
its pretty dishonest to support your point of view by citing things of little relevance or detrimental consequence.

At 4/29/11 05:25 AM, Sevkat wrote: But the Liberal and Conservative parties are downright retarded.

meh; conservatives seem to be planning to strike down the long gun registry (win), and they haven't raised any objections to the decriminalization of pot that's supposed to be coming if no one appeals (win [unless they're just keeping quiet until after the election]).

plus we get jets! pew, pew! (thats the sound of lasers)

this whole world police thing drives me mad; we actively set up organizations to act as "world police" (or policy keepers), fail to give them the power they need and then complain both when they do act (within whatever limited means they have) and when they don't act (due to the limited means they were given access to).

angry faic.

At 4/26/11 05:54 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: That's what I did. I'm not claiming that it should be all illegal. Hell, maybe the best solution would be to make it all legal, but to have some policies to make it safe, get some helplines, safe places to use drugs, legal selling spots.

aw dick tits; i think i confused you for someone else, sorry about that.

At 4/25/11 06:48 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Yeah well, that's why this matter is really hard. Not all people who do drugs are drug addicts or psychos :P

i guess addressing the issue i raised is really hard too :P

At 4/25/11 01:53 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: What I'm claiming is, that it's not obvious that all human beings really have control over themselves, so in some case, we should make a move to prevent them from hurting themselves.

but this seems to be what everyone else is claiming, the difference is that they're saying those with control of themselves should have the right to treat themselves as they see fit.

nothing in the law about having to be rational about everything. (don't forget rationality isn't objective either)

At 4/24/11 09:14 AM, yonokowhat wrote: people use big words which i dont understand

their not actually debating thiesm or athiesm, they just want to be the dude with the big dick who can use a lot of big words and really confusing abstract shit to confuse or argue against his rival so he may win

which is precisely why my phallus is grandiose and everyone else's is shallow and pedantic.

At 4/23/11 11:28 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 4/22/11 12:27 PM, Magic-Mushroom wrote: Irony of it all is that our own constitution was written on hemp paper.

Not only that, but until the early 1900's, every type of drug was legal for personal use, and was in a lot of tonics, medicines and even in Coca-Cola.

i don't know what the hype about hemp is among those interested in seeing marijuana legalized. hemp is not a drug.

but anyways; we've been talking about terrible things we do to ourselves, but i haven't seen too many people object to do not resuscitate orders.

At 4/22/11 05:43 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: -Artificially reducing the supply of drugs, with the considerably inelastic demand from addicts, means drugs are very expensive and so said addicts often resort to crime to pay for these artificially expensive drugs

this is one of the issues i can't see us working out well anytime in the near future. while i agree the price should be within the reach of the individuals using it without having to resort to crime, i can't help but think most people will still be way too stupid to realise that a substantial drop in price doesn't make it a good idea to try heroine. but i've got no alternative so i'll just cringe at the thought of our severely stunted ability to make rational decisions as consumers.

At 4/22/11 02:17 PM, poxpower wrote: My prediction: as soon as the technology becomes available, you'll have sudden outcroppings of a new "disease" where people want to have wings and blowholes. WOW, SHOCKING.

if you want something even less shocking, there are psychological disorders completely unique to certain societies.

wouldn't furries count as an example your hypothetical disease?

At 4/22/11 09:01 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I don't care who is running, I'd vote for ron paul

i guess it goes to show how interesting Canadian politics are. this may be as close as we get to having a libertarian party, yargh.

At 4/21/11 07:40 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Use them like that in ANY University work, and you are fucking screwed !!!

so i should probably go tell my teachers all the statistics they ask me to familiarize myself with are bunk.

that just saved me a whole bunch of schooling.

At 4/20/11 07:43 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: A lot of suicides are not planned... they are linked to emotionnal breakdowns. By them time you walk to the bridge or make yourself a slipknot... you will have calmed down...

by the way, i'm not bothering with more sources until you start doing the same. anecdotes ain't fact.

At 4/20/11 07:43 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: They do, of course they do. But the easiest way out is to pull the trigger.

not really, guns miss. now falling from height, that my friend, doesn't miss.

and its one of Japan's favorites, blowing gun use out of the water.

At 4/20/11 07:09 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: This quotation just prooves how statistics cannot understand the human factor. Of course, there is a correlation between the numbers. But are these proofs? No they aren't. Because collecting these numbers, they failed to understand that the social situation in Sweden, may favor suicide in Sweden, more than it does in the United States, REGARDLESS of what are the policies for gun ownership in both countries.

ah, so you've already addressed how statistics prove nothing, well i say its time for more statistics!
have yourself a look at other countries ranked higher the US, i.e. Japan, and you can see a delightful example of how guns do not magically influence or encourage suicide; no guns means people find other ways.
the replacement of guns by other methods is well documented (i had seen another one about Canadian suicide methods and how we more than made up for our lack of guns but i don't remember where i found it).
you mentioned yourself the complexity of establishing causal relations between events yet you still seem to think that banning guns is the best way to prevent suicide. kudos.

At 4/20/11 07:09 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Yes. Less people would commit suicide if they didn't have a gun.

i guess thats why the Canadian suicide rate is higher than the US.

At 4/20/11 05:28 AM, WolvenBear wrote: The ONLY example you provided of an external dispute was Russia/Chechnya...and that was in 1905. Was the UN supposed to stop that before it was even conceived?

to be fair, just because something is a national doesn't mean the UN hasn't tried to weigh in.

@ Camarohusky as well; gonna tack my clarifications with this response.

At 4/19/11 10:50 PM, Elfer wrote: Even if transgenderism was a disorder in the technical sense, there currently exists no treatment or therapy that could really be said to improve the quality of life of a transgendered person, over simply living life with their own gender identity.

in claiming disorder i think my statements are more reflective of a social disorder than a psychological one as the inability to accept one-self as others have sought to define you does not cause issue unless there is conflict between self-image and imposed image (between the individual and society); though feelings of inappropriate organs and functions would still seem to fall under the term disorder as there is clear conflict within and with regards to the self, though i don't think most transgendered individuals feel physical reshaping is in their best interests (socially, physically or mentally).

but then again that was just an assumption, not sure what the sciences say on what the transgendered want.

Furthermore, the existence of transgenderism does no harm to society at large. "Treating it as a disease" would do no good at best, and at worst, would probably ruin a lot of people's lives.

...maybe we're on our way to realizing that sometimes society has the disease and not its members.

yay for minorities freaking us out to the point where we realize there's no reason to be freaking out!

At 4/19/11 04:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It is no different than disliking a part of your body.

didn't someone post a link about that and how it was a disorder a little earlier on?
now to keep this clear, i'm not arguing that they need therapy or some other means of forcing an identity they don't want on them, rather that they be given the ability to take on the roles and characteristics they feel are natural to them.

i.e. homosexuality isn't a problem if an individual is able to act and feel appropriate in the manner they feel they should be.

At 4/19/11 11:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/19/11 04:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So the question is...why should we treat this as anything other than a mental disease?

Because it's not a disease.

are we considering those who attempt to actively take on the role of the opposite gender? they are in effect attempting to remedy what they see as a disorder, a mismatch between mind and body.

unless we're differentiating disease and disorder.

At 4/17/11 11:41 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 4/17/11 02:04 AM, SolInvictus wrote: maybe i suck at finding articles, but there seems to be only one and none from the US.

I found one in Al-Jazeera as well, maybe your media isn't that interested after all.

i still find it odd the only mentions of it are in newspapers with readers who have particular interests in the story, but i suppose it could be that the news here thinks we aren't interested.

At 4/17/11 04:21 PM, JordanD wrote: Well, our spirit is connected through all of them, but right now were only conscious of the first. The 2nd realm is where thoughts are created. I explain this in Spirit Science 1 by talking about the "thought realm", but that's essentially where it is. In the 3rd realm it becomes mostly formless from what i know (haven't been here so i can't say for sure).

...so what is its substance, its subject, etc.; you've had no trouble describing 1, 2 and 4.

True emotions like love are felt in the 4th.

reminds me how my friend described sex as being better when you love someone. i disagreed and was told i had never experienced true love.
define true emotions.

(ps. Bacchanalian, sacred geometry IS a science. Just not a kind that you're used to)

oh no you diin't! *snap* *snap*

At 4/17/11 02:42 PM, adrshepard wrote: You said that being "normal" wasn't the goal of those people. Switching your gender so your inherent characteristics match up to social standards sounds like an effort to be more normal, which makes it a choice rather than a psychological or medical condition. I'm more interested in those who say they are are actually a different sex and how they define it if not by social norms or sex organs.

but the issue does seem to be the fact that they would feel more normalised if they were of another gender and fulfilling that role by either taking on the other gender's social characteristics and sometimes organs. generally, feeling unable to be comfortable with what roles and self image you were originally raised to identify with is a serious psychiatric condition.

or inability of the social to adequately integrate its members with regards to sex and gender identity and roles! screw you psychology; we takin over.

At 4/17/11 12:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: That's a large part of the wrong I see in his act. The view that it is the religion that is causing this. He is making the inflammatory claim it is not crazy people that are killing, but Islam as a whole that is.

...yet the only deaths happened because their leader decided to tell his people that the foreigners in his country are all represented by this pastor...

At 4/17/11 01:22 AM, satanbrain wrote: Then the US senate is lying as well?

maybe i suck at finding articles, but there seems to be only one and none from the US.

American media uninterested in the senate?

At 4/16/11 08:42 AM, JordanD wrote: This is exactly how the universe is too. Everything we can see in this dense, physical reality is in 1 of 7 realms within this octave of universe.

so an average of 7.23 is impossible. good to know.

At 4/14/11 05:12 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: also, dividing broad ethnic/genetic backgrounds into black, yellow, brown, red, and white isn't a very "technical" approach to racial identity anyway

"technical" approaches depend on subject; censuses and other research tools take on varied definitions and subdivisions of race and ethnicity due to context, often resulting in the use of simplified (and often broader) classifications.

ex; statistics Canada has a list of ethnic minorities which range from the very broad for those of European descent and a greater specification and categorization for Asian ethnicities (Indian, South-Asian, etc...)