Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/13/13 10:33 AM, Sekhem wrote: The white race has never stopped raiding or pillaging other countries. You also must realize that racism is particularly strong in the nordic countries, meaning that they can never function "normally."

What can I say yo?

No, just hanging on to racism and other outdated concepts to justify past crimes.

I can't wait until all of Europe collapses.

You do know that modern Britain's way less racist than modern America right? More opportunity for black dudes, more integration, more intermarriage? Hell, a load of black and mixed race people over here are the descendants of the 1940s black american GIs who didn't wanna go back to Amerikkka.

Unless you're being satirical. You're probably being satirical.

At 11/13/13 10:16 AM, supergandhi64 wrote:

At 11/13/13 10:12 AM, AxTekk wrote: Lol you do realise that many of these Nordic countries have less than 50% Christian populations now right? And that after christening they continued to raid and pillage other countries?

you do realize that you're wrong lol

--supergandhi64

In Sweden, Norway and Denmark, regular church attendees make up less than 10% of the total population. The most common worldview in all these populations is deist, agnostic or atheist.

I can tell you for a fact that Vikings carried on pillaging way after Christianity was introduced. There are several key battles Britain's Anglo Saxons fought with Christian Viking raiders that even primary school children in my country know about.

So what exactly am I wrong about?

At 11/13/13 10:07 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: no? i acknowledge that a society without christians could retain a functional minimum since plenty of societies have been able to survive before having christian missionaries teach them how to live according to god's laws . . . albeit barely. take for instance the nordic countries in europe. before getting christened the people who lived there could barely scrape by & had resorted to raiding pillaging & other undignified ways to survive. after their christening the nations which exist there today have become some of the richest & most bountiful nations on earth with one of the highest standards of living lol

--supergandhi64

Lol you do realise that many of these Nordic countries have less than 50% Christian populations now right? And that after christening they continued to raid and pillage other countries?

At 11/13/13 10:03 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 11/13/13 10:00 AM, AxTekk wrote:

At 11/13/13 09:56 AM, Earfetish wrote: also my gf is dynamite good looking

Out of curiosity, if it's not too personal an shit, is she same gf who made the papers for the whole anti-goth hate crime thing?

she didn't look too hot in the papers tho admittedly, it's like they went to a special effort to take bad photos of her

It's the Daily Mail talking about the youth of today lol that shit's a given

At 11/13/13 10:02 AM, Earfetish wrote: yeh

Ok, then I cosign Earfetish's gf as certified fresh

At 11/13/13 09:56 AM, Earfetish wrote: also my gf is dynamite good looking

Out of curiosity, if it's not too personal an shit, is she same gf who made the papers for the whole anti-goth hate crime thing?

At 11/13/13 02:01 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: i'm wasn't talking about people who are part of "organized theistic religion" but people who are atheist lol

--supergandhi64

Oh, ok, so you acknowledge that a society with no Christians would have no problem functioning as normal?

At 11/13/13 09:49 AM, Sekhem wrote: if you're suggesting that bottle feeding infants is somehow inferior to 'getting wasted' with your (no doubt) ugly girlfriend then just lol

I'm pretty sure the suggestion was that you're being unnecessarily self-righteous, although damn you do practice what you preach I guess.

At 11/12/13 04:43 PM, Elitistinen wrote: Alright, OP won. Buttfuck! Finland is 4th, and US... 7th. Enjoy your place while it last.

...Wait, Britain THIRD?! We are NOT superior to Finland, Germany OR France. That right there is some 100% homegrown bullshit.

At 11/12/13 11:43 PM, Entice wrote: I don't understand why millions of law-abiding should be stripped of their livelihoods and hobbies based on the fear of a potential crime.

Well, being British, I think that fear's at least worth a few extra bells and whistles with gun laws. However, I understand that there are a million contemporary and historical factors why both guns and federal interference are a bigger deal to Americans.

Going outside of guns: I can't carry a switchblade or a balisong but I can carry a thumb stud knife, many of which can open faster than a switchblade. This is even more hilarious in Texas because I can legally carry a fixed blade up to 5 and a half inches, which obviously "opens" faster than any folding knife.

Does sound like a great deal of unnecessary bureaucracy in this... There must be a way to efficiently streamline the system while keeping all the necessary checks in place. I mean, I would agree that handguns might not require as heavy regulation as assault weapons, but the way the system sounds now is really pointlessly complicated. Like, for example

At 11/13/13 08:40 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: not illegal just HEAVILY REGULATED you have to jump through alot of hoops to get em.

heavily regulated and having to jump though a lot of hoops shouldn't be synonymous. That's how you know you have a shitty way of regulating them lol but I guess guns are an emotive subject, so as long as the subject is being dealt with by politicians....

At 11/12/13 11:07 PM, Entice wrote: As much as I'd like recreational drugs to be legal, I consider gun rights to be more important simply because they give people the ability to defend themselves.

Yeah, I guess there's some truth to that actually and if I moved to America, I would sure as hell get a gun. If there was no danger that having a gun would offer protection from though, would the right to bear arms still be as important to you? Or if you knew that adding qualifications to that right would result in more people being able to successfully defend themselves?

At 11/12/13 11:00 PM, Entice wrote: He's a year older than you and he's only been married for a few years.

Lol ffs dude let me have my fun

This sounds like an awwweeesome idea. Would OP be ok to PM me stems?

At 11/12/13 10:55 PM, Entice wrote:

At 11/12/13 10:53 PM, Entice wrote: I can't think of another country with looser firearm laws.

...that isn't an anarchistic wasteland

Lol fair enough. Can't say I get why loose firearm laws mean so much to you guys, but in terms of gun control I guess America is the freest country.

Do not understand how your politicians think allowing their people to possess recreational drugs is reckless and damaging to society's morality while freely purchasing instruments of death is a basic freedom. My country isn't much better though, idk.

At 11/12/13 10:42 PM, Seatbeltnazi wrote: This is just one occurrence. I could meet potentially thousands of women a day, which I cheat with doesn't matter. The fact that I can't bring myself to do it really bothers a part of me.

Meeting women =/= being able to sleep with women.

There's a greek proverb I really like, translates something like "everyone off of the dance floor is a great dancer". I don't believe for a second that you could actually cheat. If you got married to her and had yourself a kid without loving her enough to want to give her devotion, then you're either really stupid or realise it's the best shot you have in terms of any pussy game.

At 11/12/13 07:08 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: a society where atheists were in the majority would fall apart really quick lol

--supergandhi64

Yano, less than 50% of Brits or Japanese are parts of organised, theistic religion? Just saying, we should all be teetering on lawlessness and collapse.

At 11/12/13 10:36 PM, Seatbeltnazi wrote: I know I can have her.

No you can't have her, you been out of the game too long sunshine. She's just being polite.

At 11/12/13 05:46 PM, Light wrote: This has been quite illuminating. Thanks for the information.

Glad you found the comment worth reading!

At 11/12/13 09:23 PM, Entice wrote: American citizens enjoy more freedom then almost any other country in history (personally I'd remove the 'almost').

Just out of curiosity, in what respects do you believe that Americans enjoy more personal liberty than the Dutch or the Swiss?

At 11/12/13 07:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't really care what Europe's motivations are. The facts are still the same. There are numerous times where European countries will have a foreign policy problem and it's always up to America to fix it for them, yet after the fact, the people of these countries act as if America was the driving force and evil for acting on its own interest above the opinions of everyone else.

Only point I'm trying to make is that the British/ French press and public that criticises American foreign policy is separate from the British/ French government in it's support/ opposition for various engagements. The French and British people generally want money spent at home and as few soldiers killed as possible while the French and British political classes seek to maintain order in ex-colonies. The only reason for this inconsistency in French/ British domestic foreign policy and opinion is that you're grouping together people who shouldn't be grouped together.

At 11/12/13 11:16 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So, in short, the countries that tend to be loudest saying the US overreaches have a foreign policy of wanting to do something they know is unpopular, and then asking the US to do it for them.

There's a fundamental misconception about this in America. France was strongly against going into Iraq, and the same for Britain against going into Syria, and the French/ British public has always been strongly anti-war in middle eastern countries we don't feel we have a stake in.

However, when ex-colony of ours enters dire straits, our political establishments will favour America as a strong partner in foreign intervention. This is pretty much only the case if this country is an ex-colony. This is why America was supported by the British government in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the usually anti-American French government supported war in Vietnam, Libya and Syria. Europe doesn't speak as a monolithic block on foreign intervention, and our motivations usually have deeper roots than Americans seem to understand.

At 11/10/13 08:51 PM, Korriken wrote: Scumbags like that always find their way into groups. Worst part is, political opponent will even send people in to make a group look bad, then point to the ones messing it up and cast the entire group in their light.

Works though, when a group who aren't getting a lot of press have a couple bigots in their ranks come to light, the majority of people will only have heard of the bigots. The worst thing, and perhaps the weirdest thing, is when extremist groups choose another party to partially co-opt, like the BNP over here (a far-right nationalist party) got a bunch of their guys into the conservatives back in 2004, and like they've tried to do with UKIP (a more moderate right wing party) recently. Credit where it's due though, UKIP kicked out anyone with any past links to the BNP, only British party to do that.

It's much like a racist shitbags that got into the Tea Party movement in its earliest stages. Camera crews even scoured the groups to find the one or two idiots per thousand, 'interview' them and say, "There you go, they're all racists.

And that's the other side. I swear, the media are universally sensationalist like that. Funny cause the end result is that small politicians who want press coverage know they just have to air slightly controversial views. If they just starved racist elements of attention I think we'd all be much better off.

At 11/10/13 08:06 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I was gonna ask if there was a correlation between wireless internet and death of infants LOL.

Lmaooo probably is some conspiracy nut somewhere who believes that shit tho

At 11/10/13 08:43 PM, Korriken wrote: no. only healthcare reform handled with ample amounts of wisdom would suffice. 'Intelligent' people got us into this mess. we need people with wisdom (sit down Sotomayor, you don't know what wisdom is.) and insight to handle the situation.

Fuck, that's actually a much better way to put it. Experience and insight, not ego or ideological tunnel vision.

I was going to say, although the NHS is farrr from perfect, I thought one of the big reasons for it's successes was during WW2 both liberals and conservatives worked together founding it. Since, one of its strengths is that conservatives have played a key part in helping keep it functioning well for everyone.

Idk, liberal that I guess I am by American standards, I think a big problem with ACA (but more widely healthcare legislation in general) is that it's being handled almost entirely by liberals. Two big problems with this: firstly, the liberal outlook is perhaps unduly centrist and lacking in business acumen; secondly, key points about how to keep it running effectively get lost in what essentially becomes political point-scoring.

When both parties work together, it also becomes more about the advice non-politicians can give, who'll generally have a damn good point or two to make. I'm not sure it's actually in either side's politicians to bridge the gap though. It suits the democrats to have a monopoly on the healthcare reform vote and it suits the republicans to appear uncompromising on the issue, even when they might be able to handle the subject much better. Idk though, I haven't even spent a full week in America... I'm probably missing a lot.

At 11/10/13 07:39 PM, AxTekk wrote: if infrastructure building plans involved the deaths of 500 innocent babies I'd support said plans

*oppose said plans. Just clarifying that I do not see better wifi as justification for infanticide.

At 11/10/13 05:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: As many as 52 million Americans stand to lose health insurance under Obamacare
Californians have their doubts about healthcare law

Genuine, unloaded question from someone trying to understand another country's politics: Totally fucked consequences of Obamacare aside, do you think healthcare reform is a good idea if handled more intelligently?

I totally get that supporting one doesn't necessarily imply supporting the other. For example, I'd like better internet coverage in theory, but if infrastructure building plans involved the deaths of 500 innocent babies I'd support said plans. Having said that, seeing other infrastructure building plans that have not resulted in any brutally murdered infants, I would still support the theory.

At 11/10/13 03:26 PM, lapis wrote: Probably the same guys who don't mind killing bank workers to make a half-assed statement against austerity and/or Capitalism.

Even when I went to demos and stuff, I never understood the anarchists who just wanted to fuck shit up. I mean, the demo was like a fucking field day for them, a crowd to get lost in and become unrecognisable. Guys were mental, just gave everyday working people a shitty time and made everyone in the demo look bad.

At 11/10/13 07:19 PM, AxTekk wrote: x inherently implies y.

Sorry guys I meant to link to Indra's net. I must have accidentally deleted the last part of the url.

At 11/10/13 12:39 PM, 24901miles wrote: They are the result of the universe and are dependent on the existence of the universe. Without a frame of reference, how can they be said to exist? If there is absolutely 0 of everything (including an observer), any operation that a hypothetical observer could perform then yields 0. Nonexistence is a base-0 system.

Good points. Going back to the imaginary number example, I'd point out that even without a frame of reference mathematicians have discovered laws of mathematics that later proved valid. In mathematics every number is the result of other numbers all of which could just be said to be the result of any single number transformed. 2 is just the double of 1, purely because it is defined to be so. i is just the square root of negative 1, which is just 1 less than zero, all because they were each defined to be so. It's incredibly hard to put into words, and I'm no Wittgenstein, but the laws of mathematics simply exist because x inherently implies y.

Of course, if we did not exist, our understanding of maths, everything we think about maths and everything maths has yielded us would not exist. Going further, each person's understanding of maths (being simply a schema) ceases to exist whenever they cease to believe it. However, just as my own understanding of the Stephen King book It will cease to exist when I do, the book itself will not. Equally, when every fellow Stephen King lover dies, the book Itself (seewhutididthar) will not cease to exist although its mental representations in all of our brains will.

So it is with maths. Without a frame of reference it becomes meaningless and impossible to apply, but so long as x might be postulated, y is implied.

At 11/10/13 12:23 PM, SCTE3 wrote: No idea for a Superhero name. Although having the abilities of flight, telekinesis, and being able to freeze and burn things would be great.

That'd be a bit OP lol

As a Psych undergraduate, the little that I know about human nature and desires has convinced me that we are all at heart irrational, murderous monkeys. At least partially. So yeah, natural instinct is gonna have to be curtailed here and there if we're all going to get along.

At 11/10/13 12:26 PM, brutalexcess wrote: Unfortunately for me, I have a very high sex drive so my natural instinct is: this is what I want, and I want it now

Sucks man. You tried biofeedback or mindfulness? I found mindfulness training really helpful. Getting a partner's a big help too, someone who will appreciate your urges and all that.

Apart from that, what do you think? Natural Law or Human Law?

I like contractarianism, the idea that human law should just be the result of us all agreeing how best to mutually approach our own goals. In such a system I suppose the dichotomy of natural/ human law just becomes self serving altruism vs irrationality. Of course, the former is better.

At 11/10/13 10:32 AM, GameChild214 wrote: Burning the Golden Dawn Flag

Can I ask who's burning the flag and what it accomplishes beyond helping them (Golden Dawn) caricature their political opponents?

I did smile tho.