At 10/9/09 09:07 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I'm not. I'm attracted to men who are intelligent and funny. I hate men who are stuck on appearance. I hate men who are "bad boys". That's retarded and has never done anything for me. Normal guyz plz k thnx.

Now, *I'* may be considered a psychopath. Were there any studies about men liking crazy ass chicks?

I can cook.

You can cook? Then get the fuck back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich.

Wait, incest is illegal?

Since when?

Even though he is a complete jackass, he is the only one with the balls to take on the Islam because those terrorist fucks tend to kill anyone who disagrees with their fascist views.

Arnold's seed.

Did she die?

At 9/1/09 03:08 AM, BlammerReviewer wrote: So Ng how would you kill me?

I doubt anyone can think of anything more painful than being raped by a dildo with razorblades attached to it.

At 8/31/09 07:41 PM, Chocomilk wrote: I think I speak for everyone when I say I didn't read half of that.

You actually read a portion of that massive wall of text?

I'm sorry OP, but I'm not reading such a large amount of text on newgrounds. How about a summary?

Why is this relevant?

At 8/31/09 07:09 PM, Frank-The-Hedgehog wrote: ... who rape their victims.

Whenever I read about them I scream at the computer "Come on! You're better than that!"

That's it. You're going down. Would you like to be raped before or after I killed you?

WHY, do you give a shit?

At 8/29/09 04:32 PM, Holonboy wrote: Did you ever want to get rid of someone before?

Why yes, I have just nailed some delusional hippy on a cross. Guy kept on screaming he was the son of god. What an idiot.

BRB, gonna stab the fucker with my spear to see if he's really dead.

Karma is a fucking myth. In other words, it doesn't exist. That's all there is to it.

You're all dicks. I hate you all. Fuck, even failchan visitors are less retarded than you guys.

At 8/22/09 01:16 PM, GOTHCLAWZ wrote: Is Humanity Gods?

Our eyes alone are like Gods, they focus, aim, perceive, create images
and they seem to think, are our eyes a consciousness?

Is it our eyes that create our thinking process?

From the eyes to the brain, to thought.

Are we Gods?

Each and everyone of those questions is retarded. I'm not even going to try to explain that to you.

PETER, GET MA SHOTGUN BOY

WE AV ANOTHER GOD BELIEVAH

FAKKING DUMSACKS

OP, for the very act of asking angsty teens on newgrounds how to get a girl I hereby grant you the title of VIRGIN FOR LIFE.

You made your parents proud. Shame they won't have grandchildren.

War is not good or bad. War is just war. Good and bad are subjective.

That being said, a pre-emptive strike is strategic. Killing x amount of people to save an amount greater than x can be seen both as moral and immoral, but logically it's the best thing to do.

Also,

At 7/24/09 06:23 PM, Sh0T-D0wN wrote:

At 7/24/09 06:21 PM, Masterzakk wrote: I wish to be an evil bastard because its so FUCKING COOL.

"It's better to be loved and to surround oneself in the ship of friends than to live alone and be hated."

It's better to be an asshole and make people fear you than the nice guy who gets stepped over constantly.

When will you little kids finally realize that 'good' and 'evil' are subjective?

FUNKbrs, I want you to make love to me. Right now.

Women are whores. Live with it.

Lol, dumping some emotional luggage there I see, OP?

It's awwwwright.

I'm too lazy to read all the replies, but did you notice that the OP said he had a 'girlfriend of 12 months'? Twelve months old?

Holy fuckeroni?

Guys, please don't be retarted. The plane in said scenario can't take off. If the treadmill is constantly adapting to the speed of the plane then it is if the plane were nailed to the ground, in other words, permanently stationary. Now tell me, a plane attached to our planet isn't going to take off now is it?

At 8/11/09 09:25 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 8/11/09 08:54 PM, Aughiris wrote: That is true: even though atoms behave in predictable ways, when we go even smaller and look at subatomic particles it looks like if though they are completely random. I believe however that even the random events in the world of quantum psychics follow a predictable pattern we have not yet discovered. Maybe it involves other dimensions, who knows. There are many theories about that.

Speaking of dimensions, I just found this video again. I haven't watched it in a while and now that I have, I'm remembering how interesting - and mindfucking - it is.

If we're going to talk dimensions, then there's a good argument for a non-deterministic universe. As the video says, the forth dimension is like the first dimension. It's a line from point to point. This is a deterministic universe where there's only one straight path. However, then we move on to the fifth dimension. The fifth dimension is like the second dimension - a split. It suggests that there are numerous different pathways that branch off from the main timeline and which path is taken is based on choice and outside influences.

Here's the second half of the video, just for the sake of interest.

Yes, I have been watching that. It is one of the theories about other dimensions, but this video is rather... awkward if you ask me. It's talking about 'folding' dimensions. I can't imagine the third dimension to somehow be a folded two-dimensional universe.

Whether time is an actual dimension or something else is also not known: there are many theories about that, just as there are many theories about possible alternate universes and timelines.

Still, interesting video.

You can't kill that baby. It has already grown old and died 64 years ago.

At 8/11/09 08:38 PM, SuperMarioBro79 wrote: Whos global warming?

Ice Age's older brother.

At 8/11/09 08:39 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 8/11/09 08:08 PM, Aughiris wrote: Either you believe in a deterministic universe, or you believe in a non-deterministic universe. Anything inbetween is, as far as my logic goes at least, impossible.

This is true. I've been thinking about it and what I said doesn't make sense in any way.

So, I maintain the idea of a non-deterministic universe. My thinking now (and I've spent a bit thinking about this) is not one of claiming that we have free will, being that that's arguable, but more of the question of how a random instance plays out.

The movement of particles, for example, is completely random. Though almost everything is predictable in a way, there are those things that are not, which pokes a whole in the deterministic theory. And like you said, there's not an in-between between a deterministic and non-deterministic universe.

So, if it's a black and white circumstance, the universe can't work in different ways for different circumstances.

That is true: even though atoms behave in predictable ways, when we go even smaller and look at subatomic particles it looks like if though they are completely random. I believe however that even the random events in the world of quantum psychics follow a predictable pattern we have not yet discovered. Maybe it involves other dimensions, who knows. There are many theories about that.

My personal way of thinking is that everything is cause and effect.

You do realize that that is one of the arguments why a deterministic universe is correct?

Let me give a mundane example. Let's say that I have a decision to make on whether to destroy the eraser that sits on my desk here. If I do, I'll have to buy a new one. If I buy a new one, I'll be spending money, thus leaving me with less money. And the cause and effect train continues. I've now created a detour in the future different than the path that would occur if I don't destroy the eraser. Now, this isn't a life changing event, obviously, but it's just an example.

The thing is, that whatever choice you make, it has already been decided. You may THINK you have a choice, but it is already, as you said, 'set in stone'.

I believe that yes, time has already been set out and that a future has been set out with it. However, I believe that that future isn't set in stone.

Thus, I maintain that we do have free will. The future isn't locked in place. It wavers.

Either you believe in a deterministic universe, or you believe in a non-deterministic universe. Anything inbetween is, as far as my logic goes at least, impossible.

At 8/11/09 06:39 PM, XIII13 wrote:

At 8/11/09 05:37 PM, Aughiris wrote: Thing is, I believe there is no such thing as free will. However, because we can't (yet?) see in the future and therefor cannot predict with 100% accuracy what person A or person B is going to do, you could in a sense say that people have 'free will', but only virtually, because in reality we have no free will at all: everything is determined.

That's what I've been saying this whole time. Also, how do we know that seeing into the future will help us predict how someone will react? If you see that someone is going to jump of a cliff, and that will end up causing the greatest person ever not to be born in the future, and you go and stop them from jumping off, that will end up changing the future, therefore altering what people will do in other parallel timelines.

Yes, that is a nice paradox which I've been pondering about and found a rather simple solution for. Let me give you an example. There is this person, we will call him the professor. He has just finished building a device which will allow him to see his own future. He decides to see 10 minutes into the future. On the screen he sees the building he is in collapsing, resulting in his death. If the professor is both able as willing to escape his death, does this not mean that he will run away knowing the building he is in is going to collapse thus altering his future? Does this not mean that the universe is NOT deterministic?

The thing is, there's nothing wrong with the deterministic universe. What is wrong is the scenario. In a deterministic universe, with this scene, it is impossible for the professor to be both willing and able to escape his death if the machine clearly shows that the building is going to collapse. It is an impossible scene. Should the professor be both willing and able, then the machine would show him a future where he escapes the building and survives its collapse. If the machine shows a future where he dies, then the professor must either not be willing, not able, or both to escape his death.

With this explanation, a deterministic universe is 100% plausible and there is no more paradox.