Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

When I read through this topic, I had something of an epiphany.

When a sane and logical government makes a law, it is largely for the protection of society as a whole. For example, theft is illegal, because if they legalised it, everyone would get their stuff stolen, and nobody would be happy. The economy would go into meltdown, and anarchy would quickly arise as people try desperately to protect their belongings. Vandilism is illegal, because if it was legal, everyone's houses would be at risk from being damaged by hooligans, and nobody would be happy.

The point that I'm trying to make is that the legalisation of theft or vandilism WOULD effect people. Let's face it, if you're walking down the street, and someone decides to mug you, you're going to be pissed off.

Now, the flipside of the coin - morally wrong actions which do not effect you. (Unless you choose to be nosy and get involved... Like me.) Self-harm, suicide, perpetual masturbation... All of these are legal, because in spite of their immorality, they don't actually harm society at large. The economy won't go into meltdown because people decide to cut themselves. We won't fall into anarchy because we're all in the middle of tugging the snake... (Unless the internet fails and there's only one copy of playboy to go around....)

Now, my main point is that abortion doesn't really effect society in a large way. If I sat here, from my room, and performed an internet-bank-robbery (usually through the falsification of credit card details, but let's not get into semantics), then it would have some effect on someone. (Whoever I stole the money from). If a whole bunch of us did it, it would maybe even make some sort of a dent in the economy.
However, if I sat here and performed a billion abortions, would we see any difference in the country as a whole? Would we really see any difference?

Why do pro-lifers actually care? The termination of a fetus doesn't effect them in any way. It's not like a doctor's going to sneak up on them and abort them. (Abortion of a fetus when it's 40yrs old is gonna be tricky.)

If it really bothers them, and they don't want this sort of thing to happen, do what sensible people do and just choose not to do it. It's not like someone is going to come up to you in the street and abort YOU, so what have you got to worry about? If you're worried about the little babies, then let the heathens kill them, and they'll burn in hell for it. It doesn't effect your immortal soul, so what are you griping about? I personally disagree with smoking, (giving someone tobbacco to poison themselves with, or others through passive smoking is another form of legalised murder) but you won't see me, or anyone else protesting about that. As sensible human beings, we simply choose not to partake in the smelly cancer-sticks of doom.

However, in spite of the fact that more people are "legally murdered" by smoking (passive or not), people still make more of a fuss about abortion....

Another one is switching off a life-support machine. A comatose person has a soul, do they not? They might wake up someday, but ooh, the medical bill is getting expensive, and you just can't be arsed paying it anymore. I think we'll just unplug granny, shall we?
Why is that any different to terminating a life because you can't afford to keep it?
Why is death-by-passive smoking and different to any other way of terminating an innocent life?
It's simply because this is easy. People campaign against abortion because it is easy. It would be very difficult to campaign against smoking, because there are millions of people nationwide who are addicted, and there are very wealthy companies who make a good living from selling shredded-murder-leaves to people. People, even activists, will always go for the easy target, and the poor, ashamed, embarrassed women hobbling out of the abortion clinic is about the easiest target you can get.

I saw a TV show the other night about drug abuser's children. Personally, I would force drug addicts to have abortions, as I would rather die than be born into that sort of situation, and I'm quite sure that if those children were allowed to come to term, they would agree with me. The children are born addicted, and have to go through withdrawl as soon as they come out of the womb. They scream and claw their faces until they give themselves permanent scars. When the children are older, they will often find themselves being whored out to paedophiles in order to fund their parent's next fix. The children have mental problems (due to the drugs given to them prenatally, in addition to the trauma of their short lives so far), and they will never be happy. Even if you stop taking drugs when the baby is in your womb, your body still contains rather a lot of the drug. (Enough to cause prenatal addiction and mental defects in your child.) It soaks into you over time. For every year that you've been an addict, it takes a full month to wash out of you. Drug addicts should not be allowed to have children. I would move that they should all be castrated, but that's probably not going to be allowed, so enforced abortions is probably the only path that we could legally take.

An interesting point that I think I would like to share with you all is that I was, myself, nearly aborted. According to an amniocentesis test, I was supposed to be born with spina bifida, and the decision was made that I was to be aborted (better to die than to live in split-spine-suffering). However, my mother chickened out when she saw the equipment. Nine months later, I was born with a perfectly formed spine, and a particular doctor's name was dragged through the mud for it.

Kid was 15
Game's age certification is 16.

Parent's fault for letting him play it, or the shop's fault for selling it to an underager. Either way, people need to pay more attention to these age certifications. You wouldn't let your kid watch "the Godfather," would you?

A "martial art" is a term that literally means a military (martial) fighting artform

In which case, I vote for nuclear missile button-presser.

I don't know what software you're using, but I'll tell you what I would do if I were using Blender...

Select the object, go into edit mode, select all faces, and go to mesh - faces - set smooth.

That would fix it. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with any other CGI program, so I can't really give you any more insight than that.

I refuse to have children under the current nanny state.

If I am not allowed to discipline my child, then I'm not going to have one. (Who's got the testicle razor?)

I believe your problem is thus:

If, when you registered your steam account, you said that you were younger than 18, then content filters are automatically put in place on all steam games that you assign to that account. In other words, you're stuck with it 'till you come of age.

quote: at several points during this topic, lots of people said:
Payed.

It's PAID...

At 10/28/08 02:01 AM, SmokeX28 wrote: My question for you is this. How would you feel if your relative was killed by a cannibal tribe? Would you feel that someone should be tried for murder? If so and you are a meat eater, then you are a hypocrite because you yourself have murdered beings such as cows and pigs. You meat eaters are so blind with all your wrong doings that you can't see how evil you are.

Okay, first of all - You're not going to make any of us turn into vegetarians by guilting us into it. We're just going to laugh at you. So stop trying.

Let me put this to you:
Every day, you take helpless creatures, skin them alive and throw them into boiling water until they are dead. Once their innards have softened into an edible form, you remove them and snack upon them at your leisure.
These creatures are carrots, potatoes, cabbage and many other helpless plants. You murder them day by day.

Now, something that's always irritated the crap outta me is that "vegetarians" continue to eat birds, fish and many other forms of life. They just don't like to eat mammals. What the hell is the deal with that? Do you foolishly believe that fish and birds do not feel pain?

Another interesting point is that if humans stopped eating cows, pigs and the like, all those branches of evolution would go extinct. Through centuries of selective breeding, these animals have effectively become unable to fend for themselves. Some breeds of cow cannot actually reproduce without human assistance anymore because they've gotten to be so heavy that they can't mount a mate anymore. So you would willingly let these species go out into the wilderness and die a long, slow, painful death by starvation? And the extinction of their species? (And whatever other species might depend on them? Such as dungbeetles, turdflies etc?

Seriously, kid. You need to drop that axe you seem to feel you need to grind and realise that you must accept people with different views to yourself, not condemning everyone who is different.

And before you even open your mouth, I have nothing against vegetarians. Just you.

At 10/28/08 12:50 AM, Vousielle wrote: Just so everyone doesn't worry, the collab isn't dead. Just killing time until we reach the sign up deadline.

Cool-cool.

I've got the basic idea of what I want to do for my piece.
I should have a basic sketch soon.

Get laid whenever you want but use protection! It is widely available, so there is no excuse. If people choose not to use protection, therefore making a stupid decision, they deserve to suffer the consequences and therefore learn from there mistakes.

Yup! Because contraception is 100% effective with no chance of failure.

Is there some sort of way to solve this problem with castration and potatoes?

I have quite a few gay friends (both male and female) at university. My point of view is that they're perfectly alright people, but I still understand why a person might say "I'm not gay but..."

In much the same way that someone might say "I'm not a doctor, but I think you should go have that looked at." or "I'm not a plumber, but I think we might have a leak."

My advice to anyone who feels persecuted, including gay people is to relax and stop being so damn touchy.

I was almost aborted...

I was incorrectly diagnosed with spina bifida whilst still in the womb, and from what I've been told (by my parents) the doctor's advice was that I should be terminated.

The only reason that I'm alive today is because my mother was scared shitless of the abortion-tools and didn't want them anywhere near her.

And yet, I still believe that abortion should remain legal, albeit with slightly tighter controls.

If I remember correctly, the reason why weed was banned in the first place is because it is impossible to tax.

Tobbacco is easily taxed because it has to be imported and processed.
Alcohol is very similar (although there are those who brew moonshine in their own bathtubs etc.)

Weed, however, just requires a plant-pot and sunshine. It can be grown ANYWHERE. This makes it impossible to tax. And if you had the choice between being stoned for free, or buying overtaxed intoxicants, which would you choose?

It's the same reason why 'shrooms and hemp are illegal.

But, in saying that, I don't think that BANNING things is the way to go. Prohibition doesn't work. They'd be better off using other methods.

Mine was at one of my brother's parties.

Quickly followed by a first blow-job...
And a first few other things.

Ignore it. If they persist, alert a mod. I believe NG has rules against hateful/aggressive PMs.

I observed the last collab with silent interest, but I might actually be interested in contributing to this one. (Provided that the deadlines are a good while away. My drawing time right now is rather limited.)

So, other than providing a piece of original, kickass art, is anything else expected of the contributors?

And assuming that the IP of the artist remains the IP of the artist, I think I would be rather interested in contributing!

My favourite isn't quite an insult, but it's a good comeback!
If anyone says "your mum" or "I fucked yo momma" or anything similar, I have the following comeback:

Yeah, my mum says that you've got a tiny dick, and she told me to tell you that in spite of what she said the other night... The way you cry for two hours after sex isn't normal. It's pathetic.

Or the old favourite:
My mum's 65.

At 10/15/08 08:28 PM, Somepurson wrote: See, the problem here is that no one on Newgrounds possesses these traits you're speaking of.

Well, I can't cook a steak using only my body heat, but other than that, I think I qualify quite well.
Just because the internet is mostly populated by basement goblins doesn't mean that they're the only people who use it. :P

yEAH, YEH. This is like a big deal!

The first thing that the government did was put a heap of sattelites in orbit to control us, but in order to have complete control, they need to install these chips under your skin.

Once the chip is under your skin, there is no hope for you. It burrows through your flesh and into your brain. The only reason that they don't implant the chip directly into the brain is because if you know it's about to happen, then the chip will get all aroused and start jacking off instead of actually doing what it's supposed to.
If everything goes to plan, the chip grows a great, big penis and jams it into your frontal lobe, literally turning you into a dickhead.

Then they control you.

If you haven't guessed already, I was being sarcastic. This topic is the dumbest thing I've seen all week.

:Cock joke.

At 10/8/08 06:09 PM, Drakim wrote: The same argument could have been used against interracial marriages. What happens when a black and white person has a child together? Will the resulting children be messed up?

Well, I would see that as a different situation entirely, mainly because a child with two mothers or two fathers could develop gender confusion at a young age, whilst a child with a male and female parent will be less likely to develop these sorts of problems.

But you do make a valid point. Back when "interracial crossbreeding" was still a taboo subject, people actually believed that the children would automatically be warped. Many of these children were indeed warped, but that was more to do with the way that society treated them than their actual upbringing or genetics.

I see your point in that there is no harm in "being safe". But even if such research did show that children raised under gay couples are 5% more "wrong" in some aspect, it's still not the goverments job to say no to such couples. I mean, the goverment doesn't say that "this and that" method of raising should be used. At the very worst, they prevent direct abuse, but even there there are some gray areas (it's okay to spank the child/threaten him with hellfire).

Ah, now this is where our opinions begin to diverge. I would say that even a 5% margin is unacceptable, but that isn't to say that I would ban homosexual adoption on those grounds. I would probably like to see more careful control measures in place to help alleviate that 5% number, though. Exactly what these control measures would be, I have no idea. I won't pretend that I know how to run a welfare service.

Hmh, the trick behind this is that any homosexual problaby has the same problems you have switching their sexuality.

I agree whole-heartedly. The gay-brain theory suggests that it is in fact impossible for them to change their sexuality without simply lying to themselves.

Thus, I have a hard time saying that homosexuality is anything remotely to a choice.

I'm not really saying that homosexuality is a choice, more that it can, under certain very unusual circumstances, become a choice. I'm not for one second suggesting that that gives them any less rights, simply that they have decided their sexuality by choice, rather than having it chosen for them by their genetic makeup.

There is an easy way to test this, you know. CAT-Scan a large number of homosexuals, and check their brain patterns for the "gay traits". (Identical hemisphere sizes and increased cross-hemisphere links in males has been conclusively connected to homosexuality, and an enlarged right hemisphere, with fewer crosslinks has been connected to lesbianism.) If all of their brains show the expected traits, then we can safely assume that homosexuality is not, in fact, a matter of choice. However, if we find that there are homosexuals who have the "straight" brain patterns, we can assume that they have chosen to become homosexual.

Sure, there might be some few individuals who can somehow affect their affections, but still, I don't think that's diffrent from some people who can swich on their lust to murder people

Soldiers are actively trained by the military to be able to activate a "murder-lust". And so, to use my earlier example, if someone keeps getting betrayed by their partners, they are effectively being 'trained' to detest those of the opposite gender. It doesn't become a case of "loving" those of the same gender, but more a case of hating them less.

At 10/8/08 06:46 AM, GeneralGeneric wrote: WHEN I WAS

a young boy, my father took me into the city to see a marching band. He said: Son, when you grow up, will you be the saviour of the broken, the beaten and the damned?
I said: No, dad. I want to sing in an emo band!
He said: WHAT? YOU NO SON OF MINE IS GONNA BE A LITTLE HALF-GHEY WRISTSLITTING EMO CUNT! I HAVE NO SON!
I said nothing, but started slitting my wrists for kicks.

Emos suck.

Due to the anonymity promised by our most hallowed internet, I think I can quite safely divulge my own crappy little story...

I was an unfortunate kid, in some ways. I started puberty at a very young age (about 8 or 9), and most unfortunately for me, this meant that I was singled out quite a lot at school. In particular, when we went to our school-mandated swimming lessons. (Part of gym class cirriculum. Our school had a pool, and they were determined to use it for something other than collecting flies.) Due to the fact that all the other kids had baby-dick, I got teased a lot.
I don't mean to brag, but the old fashioned "shake-shake" technique after taking a piss didn't really work for me. Maybe it was because my hands were so little, or because I was just a dumb kid and didn't have the knowledge to realise that because my hoo-hoo-dilly had grown somewhat, I would have to shake a bit harder.
Every time I went for a tinkle, I would end up with about half a piss stuck in my schlong, and when I put it back into my pants, gravity would take hold, and I would end up with a damp patch in my undies.
Eventually, I developed a new technique, inspired by the way that wringing a towel works.
Basically, I'd grab onto the base, and run my hand up to the top, to squeeze out every last drop. It would take a couple of strokes to get it all out, but it worked much better than all that dripping/shaking bollocks.

After that, it was only a matter of time before squeezing/stroking started to yeild different dividends, and after spending over ten minutes in the bathroom one day, I was changed forever. After eleven years of practice, I now have one arm like Arnold Schwartzenegger, and the rest of me more like Mister-Muscle.

That's my story.
Fuck you, I'm eating.

At 10/8/08 07:41 AM, Drakim wrote: The problem here is that society perfectly accepts a child being raised by ONE mother, or ONE father, but the moment we are talking about two mothers or two fathers, the child is being mentally broken down or something.

I personally think that it's mostly to do with fear of the unknown. There are many lesbian couples who have a near psychotic hatred of men. What would happen if they end up getting the right to adopt a male child, or vice versa? I'm not saying that homosexual couples SHOULDN'T be given the right to adopt, merely that it worries me how the government is willing to legalise this without actually taking the time to research it properly.

I don't really have any problem with homosexual acceptance. It's just that I worry about the poor "guinea pig" children that will be the first children since ancient Greece to live in homosexual households. The worst part about it is that I can't really see an alternative method to test this other than to simply legalise it.

It's hard to say really, not only because of the reasons you mention, but becauase people put diffrent meaning into the word "choice". Let me demonstrate. Choose to be gay, just for a minute. Can you do that? Just for the sake of the argument, be attracted to men sexually. It's okay, you can change back in just a minute.

Obviously, I failed to achieve temporary homosexuality in this experiment, mainly because I have no reason to turn away from my current sexual habits (no horrendous experiences with women that would instantly make them into a turn-off), and I lack the brain-defect that the cited research suggests could be a cause for homosexual behaviour. However, that isn't to say that some people, under different, less pleasant circumstances, might suddenly decide to become gay.

But at the same time, you can't really choose your favorite color either (just try choosing another for a minute), but that's something we define as a choice.

Indeed, "choice" is poorly defined for these sorts of things.

I can't really see any direct reason for why gay should be wrong, sort of God(s) saying that it's wrong. Really. Two consistential adults doing something in private. That sure sounds harmful, in a society where people will die over their rights to keep firearms.

Touché

The code in the bottom left didn't work.
I put it into my sega-megadrive, and it didn't end the world.

Anyway, crappy sega jokes aside...
Your work does have a certain character and style, but it's a bit too "Faddy" for my liking. Whilst most people seem to enjoy this particular art style, it's just not my kinda thing. I mean no offence by that. You've pulled off the style and atmosphere very well, and there is obvious skill involved in this piece, it's just that I can't say I'm a fan.

Keep at it, though. Milk the current trends for all they're worth. :)

Jeeze, would you listen to all these whiners and machomen?

You know what? All of you need to go out and get your arses kicked by women. Become martyrs. Make women look bad. That's what you really want, isn't it?

Unfortunately, no matter what sort of valid case you put up for hitting women, there are a million and one woman-hating-violence-mongers who will latch onto your cause and use it for their own ends. Just look at the likes of the UKIP. UKIP has every nazi bastard in the UK following them around like horny dogs would follow a nice, supple knee. Look at that Fathers-Rights campaign a while back, with all the idiots dressing up as Batman and climbing on top of the houses of parliament and whatnot... A later Panorama report showed that a hell of a lot of their supporters were in fact child-abusers trying to get rights to get close to their children again (probably to abuse them more), and men who just wanted to hurt their ex-wives by taking the children away.

Now, that aside, my personal view is that violence against a woman is only valid in the direst of circumstances.

Now there's an interesting point. Why is it that a man who punches a woman and leaves a bruise is forever branded as a woman-hating-shitbag, whilst a man who shoots a woman and kills her is just labelled as a murderer?

Requiem for a Tower.
Ever since the Champion's League got their hands on it, it bores seven different hues of shit out of me. Also, the way that reality TV shows use "epic music" for their adverts is equally sickening. It's like:
"It's bigger than epic. It's huger than the entire galaxy. It'll kill everyone you know and eat your babies... It's.... IT'S..... IT'S...... yet another fucking reality TV show. And it's got Simon Cowell in it, because he's god, and we've all got our noses so far up his arse, we can smell his breath. We're going to have lots of people crying, and bawling their eyes out, and lots of people failing to sing. Because THAT is entertainment."

Wow. Some people have really strong views on this subject. I guess that homosexuality is a far more frantic debate on the other side of the Atlantic.

Over here, we seem to be a bit more open minded in this respect. Or at least, the press and government seem to take a far more tolerant stance on the matter.

However, that said, I do have serious worries about homosexual people being given the right to adopt children. As a man who was raised by a male father and female mother, I can't understand what it would be like to be raised by two male fathers. Ergo, I worry that such a child might encounter psychological problems as a result of his unusual upbringing, and that such a child would be a source of ridicule on the grounds that his adopted parents are homosexual.

But that's by-the-by. The main discussion topic here is supposed to be about whether or not homosexuality is a choice. So, with that said, I'll drag my arse back on topic.

I can remember hearing something somewhere that homosexuality might be caused by a particular brain defect...
(relevant link) http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive s/gay-brain-science-homosexuality-a-birt h-defect/

So, if this research proves to be correct, then I think that we can quite safely say that homosexuality is caused by a brain defect. This would imply that choice doesn't enter into it. However, I do believe that there are some men/women out there who have become homosexual BY CHOICE.

Hell, we've all heard the stories about women who went out with cheating guys (they sure have a talent for picking them, don't they?) suddenly meeting up with a lesbian woman and living happily ever after as a dyke. Similarly, there are tales of men being screwed around by women and then switching to the other side of the fence. Now, I'm sure that some of these people had the brain-defect, and that's why they never fit in to a "heterosexual" role in society, but regardless, I believe that some of these people will have made the choice to be homosexual.

Hell, the entirety of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were homosexual. Women were simply kept around for child-bearing. The ancient greeks literally wrote the book on morality, ethics and all that, so if they didn't see a problem with being gay.....

At 10/8/08 02:05 AM, Katzenjammer wrote: ballpoint doodly doodle...

Ah, the joys of doodling.
Was this picture modelled on anyone in particular (such as a workmate, classmate, teacher or friend) or was it just drawn to express the way that you were feeling at that particular moment? (Tired, I'm guessing.)

Whilst I think that your work here is pretty good, I would strongly advise you to rethink the design a little, as the current one does look dangerously close to the covanent elites from Halo. If you're looking for an easy way to stop him from looking like he just fell out of Halo, here are a few suggestions:

The posture is far too "covenent-y" Maybe instead of giving him that long neck out towards the front like a vulture, why not have it going straight up, like a giraffe?

Take off the helmet, and give him some sort of iconic haircut/webbed frills in its place. This will stop his head from looking so "covanent". I think that a series of droopy, hedgehog-like quills or a mane of wild hair would help to make him look more original. Maybe giving him a couple of fangs/tusks would give his face a little bit more character, and stop him from looking quite so halo-y.

And that skin colour is very halo-y.

Maybe give him a bit more of a belly? The covanent were all skinny buggers, so a bit of flab would instantly make him look less recognisable.

When designing weapons for this guy (assuming he has any), try to avoid anything that has already been done in the likes of Halo. Perhaps a glove-like weapon or a wrist-mounted weapon would help to detract from the obvious similarities to the halo trilogy.

Other than that, this shows promise. Keep at it, and you'll soon have an alien creature that is totally original, and totally your own.

Just a couple of little questions:
If I were to draw a picture of one of my existing characters for this competition, would I retain the intellectual property of that character, or would it become the property of Newgrounds?

Secondly, is it "allowed" to submit a re-working of a previous piece? I've got an old line-drawing that I'd really like to colour and submit here. I think that it would look really cool on a calendar, since it's such an intricate piece.

If it's the former rather than the latter, I'll definitely give this a go! I've been dying for a good excuse to get drawing again!