Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Hm... my brain's ideas? Though... they tend to get out... sortof.

At 10/6/08 03:32 PM, rome-lherison wrote: Well, me and my Gf broke up a month ago.

Who did the breaking up?

At 10/6/08 03:58 PM, Lyrian wrote: Nice text, but did you write this yourself?

Yes I did. Google it if you must. I came up with it on the bus coming back from campus. It's been bouncing around in my head since last week over my girlfriend's project: she has to prepare a discussion about some painfully self-indulgent memoir having to do with the loss of innocence.

Innocence
Innocence is always taken or implied to be something we're born with, but we're not born believing in Santa. We're not born believing that the world is good, or that everyone loves us. We're born believing that a flask taller than another but slimmer, despite actually containing the same volume as the shorter fatter flask, actually holds more.

The crime isn't that innocence is taken, but that it's given. No - not that it's given, but the way it's given. Innocence is an unattainable ideal to the jaded aged, unless it's attained vicariously. We the future, are the surrogate through which the past comforts itself.

Creativity
Childhood creativity is no freer than adult creativity. It's just a matter of one being aware of limits, and the other not. Wait. This point isn't quite what you think it is.

A child sees a duck, and imagines flying... or that he has wings, and entertains the thought with cardboard wings or drawings.

An adult sees a duck, and imagines flying, but does not entertain the thought. The adult tried to fly once, and ended up rolling down a hill. So, imagining now a wheel, the adult entertains the thought with drawings or models.

The child has rolled down a hill, but is 'free' to explore flight to an extent the adult is not. The child, not knowing more than the duck, does not perceive the lack of the concept of rolling.

The adult has rolled down a hill, and is 'free' to explore the alternative that this presents. The adult however, must acknowledge the boundaries of the duck.

Neither is free, but limited in different ways, the latter being dependent on acknowledging those limits.

I like magic.
I like stars.
I like ponies... though I'd prefer unicorns...

At 10/6/08 01:10 PM, Jezuz wrote: but somehow giving money to people that already have billions of dollars just doesn't fucking sit well with me.

Corporations don't work the same as a sole proprietorship or out-of-the-garage venture. The owners of the company are legally and financially separated from the business entity... well... ideally. We all know it's not quite like that in application.

At 10/6/08 03:19 AM, ismellarat wrote:

At 10/6/08 02:37 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: It will never replace the original.

Holt shit, is that Homeward Bound with a different title?
That's one of my all time favourite movies for as long as I can rememeber.

Homeward Bound was actually the remake (and a decent one I might add) of The Incredible Journey. I love both.

At 10/5/08 03:37 PM, Gagsy wrote: I dislike people who can't just be as they are in real life or vice versa.

Yeah just be yourself! No matter how abrasive or evil... cause being evil is beautiful... as long as it's honest.

...really? No medium or venue tempers expression? Come on.

It will never replace the original.

At 10/5/08 11:27 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: If you agree, then your above argument is flawed. If you apply the same logic to say physical contact, for example, bumping into someone should be held to the same standards as punching someone in the throat. The thing is, even if they're both in the same genre of actions, you have to realize that they're different and should therefore bare different consequences.

I'm saying, if cheating was not seen as disrespectful. I was trying to explain that "It's just sex" is used interchangeably with "I don't find you attractive any more" because cheating is seen as a gross offense, not the other way around. Cheating is not inherently a statement of "I don't find you attractive any more". It becomes the issue because cheating is so avoided that it only ends up happening out of some level desperation.

IF cheating was not seen as so bad, "it's just sex" would apply in the same way as "I'm just looking".

By this I intended to show that the concept of preference is the same between cheating and ogling, not that they are equally as bad.

Maybe judged wasn't the right word.

If one had empathy for the man who spilled his food once, one would find that the man is no different the one's self.

Oh. Well. Yeah. That's empathy. Someone who feel better than another for a flaw they both share is kind of hypocritical.

You're right, it's not up to me. I am merely discussing my opinion.

You're looking for empathy in a social environment that isn't going to hold much sway compared to a significant other... unless she's really submissive.

The girl in your op was out of line though.

At 10/5/08 11:03 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: However, "It's just sex" sound a hell of a lot better than "I don't find you attractive any more."

They're not the same thing. In application though, they're generally used interchangeably, because the act of cheating is considered to hold so much gravity that the deciding factor is some level fo desperation. If it was not seen as disrespectful, "It's just sex" would be on the same level as, "It's just looking".

Besides, having sex is a far off crying from checking someone out.

Well I agree with that.

Only if it's done obsessively.

Lets put it this way: A man who spills his food every time he eats is considered a slob. A man who spills is food every once and a while is not.

Even the guy who spills his food just once is judged, just not nearly to the extent that the slob is. if it helps... we could say, until the person shows some consistency in their action, we judge the action/instance, not the person?

And then we come back to the fact that I don't believe it is wrong, as long as it's not overdone.

I don't think it's really so simply up to you.

Hm... when I did I felt... free-er.. somehow.

Watch out for those ingrown hairs though! :P

At 10/5/08 10:24 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: Well, yeah, you shouldn't ogle on your first date, but once you're sure your partner knows that you love them, it shouldn't be this strict.

That's a disrespectfully mechanistic and manipulative way of looking at a relationship. Just because you can get away with being disrespectful doesn't make it acceptable.

Either way, separating sexual attraction from love is sort of a flawed logic. The same logic is the same reason some guys end up cheating and saying, "but she means nothing to me. It was just sex," like that makes it ok.

But usually, that's just used as an excuse.

I think it's pretty honest in most cases. It may be an excuse in the sense that the guy knows what he's doing is wrong. But then we should also accept that 'checking out' is wrong... not as wrong, but still wrong.

I'm not saying that you should go out and ogle every girl the walks by, I'm just saying that if you happen to do it every once and a while, it's not the end of the world and you shouldn't be judged for it.

It's not the end of the world, but you should still be judged -accordingly.

Yes, this is sometimes true.

However, by this logic - and I don't necessarily mean this is your fallacy, many people follow this logic - you can't call two people people beautiful without them both getting offended.

Well, in cases when the girlfriend is present, preference is read into it, sometimes incorrectly.

The bigger flaw in a socially based logic is that some people would reason that as long as no one sees it, it's ok. Though that's verging of sociopathic, and more or less 'conveniently' disregards the mechanics of morality.

I agree that it's silly to only be allowed to find one person attractive.

At 10/5/08 10:01 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: But what I'm saying is that how much you love someone shouldn't be based on the number of people you check out on the street.

I wouldn't say based on either. I would say indicated, but not solely indicated.

In any case, if the guy's been married for a while, the sexuality in the relationship is likely stale, and separated from the concept of 'love' at this point. So it's not the biggest offense. Now, for a girl who's at an age where love and sexuality are inextricable, it would make sense that it would be a huge offense. She's projecting to some extent.

Either way, separating sexual attraction from love is sort of a flawed logic. The same logic is the same reason some guys end up cheating and saying, "but she means nothing to me. It was just sex," like that makes it ok.

Social exchange is measured by reciprocation, and reciprocation is determined by expectation. And eventually.. all expectation is artifice. It's great to be a deconstructionist, but realize that love is also about commitment. And if you're expected to act on that commitment by not checking other girls out, then you probably shouldn't do it. If it's never come up, yet you sneak it anyway, chances are you shouldn't do it.

It's also offensive to the girlfriend and generally (unless you're a super hottie) to the girls you ogle.

At 10/5/08 09:16 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: I wouldn't call it "acting."

I call it "looking."

Checking out and looking are different things.

Looking is perceptional, navigational. It's natural place finding.

Checking out is looking in the interest of sexual satisfaction. Now you say, "How could you call that satisfying". And I say, quit the semantic games. It's satisfying a want to look at something sexually appealing.

Unless you blind yourself, looking is not avoidable. Checking out however, is very controllable.

Whether the girl in the op is looking too hard into the husband is impossible for us to know, but that's not what I'm arguing.

And the idea that it's ok because it's natural is crock. You want it to be ok because it's pleasurable, and you use nature to justify it. There are tons of 'bad' things we don't do that are "natural" and tons of 'good' things we do that aren't "natural".

This argument is about as meaningful as me pointing to a duck, calling it an airplane, and ordering you to disprove it.

At 10/5/08 09:24 PM, Yamor wrote: Have I been disproven yet.

No you haven't. You can't be.

You can't prove or disprove anything if you're going to take to some ridiculous level of subjectivity... which I'm almost certain you intend... especially since you're starting with an existential argument.

Humans seek affirmation, and affirmation is possible largely through consistency.

It isn't a matter of what's truly real or imaginary. It's a matter of what is effectively real or imaginary. The existence we conventionally deem real (reality), is far more consistent than the existence we deem imaginary (dreams). It serves our needs to live by 'reality'... and generally serves our needs to consider it real.

At 10/5/08 09:03 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: If you're in a relationship, how bad do you think it is to be sexually attracted to someone who isn't your partner?

It's not bad in itself.

However, checking someone out isn't just finding someone sexually attractive, it's acting on it. Of course, it's not as unacceptable as flirting, or cheating, but you're still not suppose to do it.

At 10/5/08 08:35 PM, Maverick-Alex wrote: That's the most creppy thing of all. Not beeps at all.

I am baffled, since I took a class about computers handling/networking, that was the first thing they told us to be in the look out for hardware failure.

I don't know if my idea is bad at all, do tell.

Reduce your computer down to motherboard, psu, cpu, ram, video card, and monitor.

Try reseating ram.

If that doesn't work. Move your computer out of the case onto a static guarded sheet/bags.

At 10/5/08 08:19 PM, Maverick-Alex wrote: I'll wait till Black Friday and get a new spanking new one plus the older trinkets

Stupid idea.

Are you getting any BIOS warnings/beeps?

At 10/5/08 08:05 PM, darkfiretime1 wrote: A: whine like a sissy bitch and cry
B: just whine like a sissy bitch
C: Beat the shit out of the person who did it like a hardcore bitch
D: Walk away... like a sissy bitch
E: Laugh at your own expense and admit that it was a humorous joke and/or insult like a sissy bitch

I think I fixed it... just maybe.

Disconnect the battery?

I had to sit on the stairs a few times when I was about 4...

How awesome would it be if that thread linked back to this one...

At 10/5/08 05:06 PM, M0ng0li4nb100d wrote: K heres my fridge.

Oooo.. sexy old fashioned batter mixer to the right!

(intrinsik2 speaking...)

Ok. I'm 90% certain its the dual monitor issue.

Either you're set to view the secondary monitor, while adjusting the primary.

Or

You're set to view the primary, while adjusting the secondary.

The first one is far more likely.

Well, you are correct. I did post this on the General board, but I just checked it (cause I'm bound to make stupid mistakes) and I didn't see your reply. Did you start a new topic with the answer? Well either way I'm still without the solution. Would you be so kind as to help this lost soul find his way... again?

Arright. I've been trying to upload my music to the NG audio portal for a while now. For some reason it refuses my mp3's, saying that they aren't infact mp3's. I downloaded CDex and NG still wont recognize it. So I moved on, uploaded some wav. It uploaded but for some reason its openning on the windows media bar.

Is it a file association problem or what? And how the hell do I fix it?

I've been trying to get my music on NG all day. I'm new to this place so maybe I'm not doin something right, but for some reason it doesnt accept my mp3 files. Yet, it accepts my wav. Someone help!