Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/14/13 01:18 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote: So you're trying to argue that we don't need gun control because some people live in remote areas where the trees are like really really tall? 11,000+ gun related murders a year justified by the fact that you don't want to use a ladder? You think that's a good argument do you?

No, I am telling you that using a gun for this purpose as a tool is the best and most efficient way to do this job. Not only that, it's safer. There is no damn ladder that's going to allow me to reach that mistletoe. I'm sorry, but there just isn't. You don't know anything about the laws of where I live, and why this is perfectly safe and legal for me to do. Me doing this has no bearing on gun related murders just because I am using a gun. Also, should people really get uppity over 11,000 murders? Especially when it's only because a gun was used? This is so tripe.

Then everything in the world is a weapon. Everything... including baby toys. Clearly we can't treat every single object in the world the same because they could all be used as weapons. Clearly some items require special care. Clearly Guns and Baby Toys, although both technically weapons, require two different sets of rules.

I am saying that anything /can/ be considered a weapon if it is used /as/ a weapon, but just because one's better at being a weapon doesn't give it any more urgency, or focus over anything else. Safety is a different argument completely, you don't keep knives around the house. Even if those knives are used only to cut steak. Same thing, a gun is just a mechanism to launch a projectile. What that projectile hits is the entire argument here.

You have to make a conscious decision for that target to be a human. You have to make a conscious decision for that baby rattle to go into a persons throat 6 times. You have to make a conscious decision to drive your car on the sidewalk to hit pedestrians. What's the problem here again?

We've been through this... nobody agrees that this logic makes any sense. Guns are not Baby Toys. Guns are not hammers. Water is not Cyanide, etc... drop it.

Just because you keep repeating the same line of dialogue over and over again doesn't make you correct. It's actually humorous seeing you make this same argument again, even though it does nothing to obstruct what I'm telling you. Doesn't even have to do with what I am saying. It's a poor mans argument of just rehashing the idea that guns are in some way different and have to have laws because of it. You can do better.

I'm sorry if I insulted you... not my intent. I didn't mean to insult you personally (I assume this is about being called lazy?)... more, I was saying that I feel that it's lazy for a person to shoot something out of a tree rather then climb it and cut it down himself. Sorry if you took it personally.

I am telling you that if you want to make an argument you can't just throw assumptions everywhere. All it does is make you look like an ass and doesn't help your case at all.

At 8/13/13 05:38 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote: You don't need a .22 for that. A BB gun or a sling shot would work just fine. Or, you could just not be so lazy and get some trimmers and a ladder.

The fact that you shoot deadly projectiles into your back yard because your lazy and want a novelty item to use for Christmas isn't exactly proving to the world that Gun Advocates are "responsible" with their weapons. You're treating your gun like a toy... and this is why we need gun control.

Sorry, but you don't have an argument here. You assume too much and attack me personally. You know nothing about where I live, how tall the trees are, rather or not I have other options to reach said mistletoe (which by the way is zero outside from cutting the tree down(which is far more dangerous)), or anything. The simple fact is, what I'm doing is perfectly safe and convenient. Yes, my time is important to me and instead of attempting to shoot 200 bb's into the air hoping they'll hit anywhere near the top of that tree let alone cutting the mistletoe, I can fire just once and get on with my life.

We have all already agreed that this logic is massively flawed. I could kill you with a baby toy but that in no way makes a gun comparable to a baby toy. Guns are guns, hammers are hammers, baby toys are baby toys. This is a desperate argument made by a bunch of people in complete denial.

Quit assuming things. Yes, that argument is terribly flawed but that is not the argument I am making. At no point did I say a baby toy and a gun are comparable. I am arguing the definition of what is a weapon and it is entirely based on intent. Rather a gun can do it more efficiently than a baby toy is irrelevant.

How hard is it to admit the truth?

I don't know, you're so quick to jump the gun (ha) and put people down on their thoughts/opinions/experiences that it's disturbing to assume you would know anything about truth yourself.

At 8/12/13 05:32 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote: They are. That doesn't make them bad. But they are most definitely made for one reason, and one reason only -- and that's to shoot things. You don't shoot things you don't want dead.

I use a .22 to shoot mistletoe off of this tree in my yard. I wanted it for Christmas.

Once again, guns aren't bad -- but they do kill.

As said a billion times, it's all about intent and many objects have potential to kill.
You shouldn't base an argument on potential, especially on an inanimate object.

Pox, weren't you the one who created a thread a while back comparing dick size to iq?
Because I'm having flashbacks..

At 2/22/13 03:14 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: mine or his? anyways somewhere around the 30K range is the actual conservative death rate yearly via firearms, the links have been posted Mason can do it again.

His NYtimes link is what I was referring too. Did you mean to post a link in that reply?

At 2/22/13 03:13 PM, Saen wrote:

At 2/22/13 03:00 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep /27/gun-crime-map-statistics

This is pretty cool. Isn't it ironic how every state in the bible belt has a murder rate higher than the U.S. average? I guess Baptists scratched out the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

You need to quit looking at rates, they're misleading. Start looking at actual numbers and social interactions/causations.
This graph is particularly for firearm murders.
SC firearm related murders was 223.
NY firearm related murders was 445.
CA firearm related murders was 1220.

Compare to populations of 4.7 mil, 8.2 mil, and 38 mil respectively. Between these three, there seems to be a consistent trend when it comes to firearm murders and population sizes. Roughly, 200 murders for every 4 million people. (Yes, Cali is still off, but flat numbers are easier to work with.)

Still though, firearm murders... ehh not very big numbers.

At 2/22/13 03:06 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its far lower than that its only tens of thousands of gun deaths. Most within Gun control states

That last link is from 1990...

I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep /27/gun-crime-map-statistics

At 2/22/13 12:19 PM, Saen wrote: Oh and Mason, no culture of people on this planet has ever used swords or knifes as weapons for hunting.

"Dude...this is just silly. It reminds me of those guys who come on here talking about using swords and martial arts instead of guns for self-defense."

I don't think I need to help Mason in defending himself, but seriously, do you even bother reading what people say to you? Everything else in your post is just mindless drivel.

"It's our culture, not yours."
"That's our word."

I don't see any difference here, really.

Dark Souls pc is a direct Xbox360 port. This game is pretty much only playable with a controller. The framerate is fine except in a few areas, but there the same as the console versions which has to do with effects and render distance. There are more things in this game then the console versions though, but it takes a while to reach. There is a resolution fix too.

Guess it's time to scramble a brash young team together.

At 8/20/12 10:28 PM, naronic wrote: 2 pages on a gaming magazine,
That's how far I couldn't go without getting a 3 pound equivalent of paper devoted to text about this game.

So basically, I wan't to play, if only to see what all the hubba is about, and my question is will it work with the Arma 2 free edition or am I missing something?

You have to have Arma2 and Arma2 Operation Arrowhead, but they're just used as bases for the mod to run on.

At 8/18/12 05:21 PM, Demonbrunch wrote:

At 8/17/12 02:37 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: If you want an example on how to kill a series, here it is. Yes, trading Ironside for MOCAP and giving him a narration job is dumb and sad, but that's not the true problem I see here.

It's sad though because this is stretching over to other games, even if it's not this exact same case. This is a different issue, but I think it mainly has to do with trying to accommodate and please everyone. It's just not fun anymore. It's been hard for me to get into a lot of games for about 5 or so years now. There's no edge or difficulty to any of them. Remember when Deus Ex came out? It didn't hold your hand at all and it was great for it. Now everything's just the same and boring.

At 8/17/12 05:22 PM, JonnyScatman wrote:

At 8/17/12 05:03 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Though I don't get how it's comparable to Star Wars.

I guess because people REALLY hate the prequel trilogy. Enough to say that it ruined the original trilogy or something.

To be fair, a better example of a VG version of Star Wars would be Diablo 3. Wanted, high expectations, and... ooops!

At 8/18/12 03:10 AM, TrantaLocked wrote:

At 8/17/12 06:12 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 8/17/12 05:03 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Splinter Cell is a dead series, and it has been dead for a long, long time. Blacklist is just another nail in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned.

If the game were an animal, it was shot with Double Agent. It finally bled out and died with Conviction. Blacklist is stuffing the carcass for display so morons can ogle at it.

I sincerely hope that the game gets above 80 scores so I can laugh at how wrong you were.

You realize:
1. Those scores mean nothing
2. I'm stating an opinion on the series and giving legitimate reasons why I feel that way
3. I never said Blacklist was a bad game per say. I said it wasn't a Splinter Cell game and in that since, yeah it's a bad Splinter Cell game.

At 8/17/12 06:17 PM, Klobb17 wrote: While I see what you mean about his age (and personally find it funny how Fisher gets more nimble as he ages), I'm fairly positive the developers at this point said "Fuck it" and somehow made him younger because they can. Comparing his look in Blacklist to the previous Conviction anyway, it certainly looks like he found some sort of Fountain of Youth at some point. The loss of Ironside's veteran, gravelly voice only adds to it.

It's a good point to make and I don't think Ubisoft gives a flying blueberry fuck about this games story and continuity. I haven't for a long time.

As for his day-time stealth abilities, I'm referring to the gameplay videos we've (well, I've) seen for Blacklist so far. Hopefully I won't eat my words if they force me to call in airstrikes all the time, though, and the devs were just trying to demonstrate all the new things you can do.

But it's mainly similar things from Conviction and outlining that this is still an action based game. I know that Ubi has stated that this game is supposed to be stealthy like the originals, but I just don't see it when you're breaking reality to do things.

All that aside, I'm still looking forward to Blacklist simply because it looks like a fun game, whether they're truly milking the series or not. Sure, it has changed a lot since the first Splinter Cell games, but hey, other games have done the same, so it happens.

Hey man, go ahead. You can tell me how that goes, I just don't agree with their new direction at all. I think we've been long overdue for a good stealth game. I'd rather fail a mission by alerting guards 3 times than calling in airstrikes.

At 8/17/12 05:03 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Splinter Cell is a dead series, and it has been dead for a long, long time. Blacklist is just another nail in the coffin, as far as I'm concerned.

If the game were an animal, it was shot with Double Agent. It finally bled out and died with Conviction. Blacklist is stuffing the carcass for display so morons can ogle at it.

At 8/17/12 05:10 PM, mrpwnzer wrote: "Kid's always been a fan of the shadows, not relying on his guns but wits. But that all changed when the Calamity struck. The aftermath led to the result of Double Agent being released, giving false hopes and dreams for the kid's idol Sam Fisher. Fisher's only a shadow of his former self. Least he can hide in it from the kid."

lol

At 8/17/12 05:44 PM, Jester wrote: I still very much enjoy the Splinter Cell series and the only issue I have with this one is that gameplay wise it looks almost the same as Conviction. Unless the general reviews for it are lower than a 7.5, I think i'll be picking it up, especially if it has co-op.

Fuck me, right?

Nope, but you see I played Splinter Cell because it was in contrast to MGS a more seriously toned use the shadows stealth game that had a very competitive multiplayer. What they're doing is watering down what it was and turning it into a MW3-esque thing. Simple, low curve, any common gamer can play it. I know they're doing this to expand the Splinter Cell audience, but ya know.. this is just Assassins Creed meshed with MW3. I mean, if you're going to do that then drop the Splinter Cell moniker.

I'm trying to play Thief, not GTA. If that makes sense.

At 8/17/12 05:55 PM, Klobb17 wrote: In regard to the OP, no Michael Ironside is a bummer, but oh well. Shit happens. And why shouldn't Sam Fisher have razor sharp reflexes? As you said, he's a man with a lot of experience under his belt, so he would naturally be one of the best, if not the best agents in all fields. He can still be just as stealthy in broad daylight as he is in the shadows, as we've seen, so there should be no concerns about that.

Trust me, I'm sad about Ironside. But I'm trying to make a good argument to why I'm disappointed at this game, and how the series has went since Double Agent. The reason Sam shouldn't be able to do those things is because he's 55 years old and isn't Gun-Jesus. Let's say he does have skills in day time stealth, we haven't seen them. (Assuming your sticking with the first 3 games.)

"Here we go again..."
http://youtu.be/6_W2t2ty-SU
If you want an example on how to kill a series, here it is. Yes, trading Ironside for MOCAP and giving him a narration job is dumb and sad, but that's not the true problem I see here.

What I see is destroyed gameplay and story elements. It's too far off from what Splinter Cell was. It really shouldn't be considered a Splinter Cell game at this point. Sam Fisher was never supposed to be a "super-spy." The man was born in 1957 and is just supposed to have a lot of experience.. in stealth.. in the dark. But now we have old 55 year old Sam jumping/climbing around in broad daylight with reflexes on the same level of what I would put Kratos on.

I do believe Double Agent was the beginning of the end of the series, but at least it still tried. Heck, they admitted the reason Conviction turned out the way it did was because Chaos Theory was considered too hardcore and it turned people away from the series.

Yeah sure, change things to make it more profitable, but did it really have to become action schlock? I'm really at ends to consider this the Star Wars equivalent in video games.

What are your opinions? Do I sound reasonable, or am I just blowing it out of my ass?

At 6/21/12 04:10 PM, Earfetish wrote: I speak as a British man and I have heard that blacks in the south of the US are 'different' to the ethnic minorities of the UK. Also they seem fucking nuts on Maury or Cheaters or whatever. This news story is ridiculous tho and the OP seems pretty intolerant to me.

Speaking as a person who lives in an average size town in South Carolina where the population is about 50/50 black/white, some people are just nuckin' futs. The problem I see here as far as trends go with youth where I live, you have two main outlets of rebelliousness. You either go the gangster hood route, or the redneck one. Black or white in either case, these people just don't try and have a strong case of sensationalism. They don't grow out of it is the thing.

There are tons of respectable people of any race here, the idiots just cloud them over.

Back on topic though, I think the majority of people around here would see it as a crappy shoe over slavery with a few sensitive people sprinkled in and out. Shit, I was linking this article to all my black friends to see their responses. Funny stuff.

Guys, remember when science didn't have any real purpose? People just did things.
Well, here we go again.

At 12/11/11 03:21 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 12/11/11 01:42 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

I'm a little appalled by this actually because if these people had the capability to do these things.. then why weren't they doing it to begin with? They're just using the Occupy movement as a title to get things done because it's topical.

last time I checked, Charity was optional. you see various corporations spending more on advertising for their little charity promotions than they actually donate to that said charity, yet its still just the greatest damn thing ever.

Irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Actually, that has nothing to do with anything in this thread at all.

At 12/11/11 01:24 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: you are supposed to call them a saint when they feed the poor, and a communist when they ask why the poor are starving, not the other way around.

Let's not be disingenuous here. It's great and all some group is now helping to feed and clothe the poor, but that is not inherently due to this so called movement. I'm a little appalled by this actually because if these people had the capability to do these things.. then why weren't they doing it to begin with? They're just using the Occupy movement as a title to get things done because it's topical.

I don't feel like arguing that this is being done without government intervention but ffffffffffffffffffffff.

ZZzzzZZzzz

pop

Oh sorry guys, I seemed to of drifted off from all this dry baseless circular reasoning and name calling.

Not fun reading the same bullshit that's gone on five pages now.

At 10/24/11 10:44 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The Occupy movement isn't going too well...

I'll be honest with you, as someone who's been just sitting out of the ring of news and politics over the past three years so I could get my own life and problems fixed up... I'm really fatigued when it comes to hearing about this so called movement which as far as I can tell isn't going anywhere.

It comes off as a talking point without any real substance.
My two cents on it.

Need I say more?

Got some feet for ya too.

Powdered graphite on Bristol board.

Texture project. Charcoal pencils on gray paper.

Posting some drawing class stuff.