Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Do you count zombies? And Aliens? Or JUST people?

At 2/21/11 08:43 PM, ironraven24 wrote:

:Not to mention both communities are filled with terrible elitist asswhipes who have nothing better to do than blame everyone but themselves on their loss.

Do I get to blame everyone for my loss if i'm amumu and the score is 3-15 and I am the person with the 3 kills for my team? And only 2 of those 15 deaths? I mean damn, amumu is a tank, he shouldn't be the team's killer. This happened to me earlier btw.

At 2/21/11 07:20 PM, ArtDanVal wrote: The only players that tend to bother me are cheaters - people who use glitches, hacks, and exploits to give themselves an advantage over others. Same goes for griefers, but I am smart enough to avoid their traps, sometimes actively working against their treachery if I am able to.

If you're going to play with others, you may as well play within the rules or not at all - it's a dick move thinking anyone can beat your godmode setup with unlimited ammo aimbot rocket launcher and wallhack/noclip.

I can tolerate other types and expect them to work together in teamplay - I am quite strange myself, but at least I am not annoying or intentionally disruptive.

Oh yeah and ragequitters also annoy me - take your lumps like a man!

Meh, I only uses glitches when I run into elitists on L4D, which is damn near the only game I play. On No Mercy.

180 degree insta-spin smack to the face then chase me 5 miles just to kill me? Say hello to my friend the immovable dumpster at the top of the sewer exit you flaming homosexual.

Oh, I can already tell you all this is completely true. Why? I'm a friggin' high school student that's why. Of course, i'm a bit different than most, I don't want to be a doctor or lawyer or anything, I honestly just want a regular job and to not move more often than once in maybe 7 years. But oh yeah, no one in any of the schools i've attended is motivated at all, and those that WERE motivated were dumb as a pile of rocks anyway. To give you an idea of how diverse my schooling environments have been, last year I started off in NC, spent most of it in CO, and ended it in CA. Yayyyyyy.

As far as I can tell, all of this leads to the conclusion that circumcision is a choice made by the parents in an attempt to safeguard their child's health. It should neither be forced nor outlawed as it is clear there are medical benefits to the procedure but it is also clear that some people may want nothing to do with it. I advocate choice and freedom above all else. I don't have much interest in arguing hypothetical scenarios about this subject which you keep presenting me with. I am basing my opinion on the medical facts available to me and I typically think that's what doctors should do.

All right, so tell me flat-out if you think infants should or should not be circumcised. I can't tell if when you say "I advocate choice and freedom above all else." You mean it should be the parent's choice or the child's?

I agree with you there but I also don't think many boys have had their penises cut off. It is statistically one of the safest surgeries there is and I haven't found much data to indicate losing your penis is much of a risk. Source

Sure it's a SAFE surgery, but wouldn't even LESS than those numbers listed have complications from circumcision if men were only circumcised if it were medically necessary?

Some men are quite unclean and you don't even have to be promiscuous to obtain HPV. Sleep with one wrong person and it could happen. Besides, the fact that women should or shouldn't sleep with certain men is a red herring. We are discussing benefits of circumcision not whether or not women should be more careful with who they sleep with. If 20% of cervical cancer could help be prevented because of male circumcision then I consider that a benefit no matter how lose a person may be. Also, washing does not get rid of HPV. You can have it for years and not realize it. Source

This is still a red herring. Whether or not you think people should be careful about who they sleep with is not the point of this argument. The point is that this is yet another benefit of circumcision. Also, you don't always know if somebody has AIDS or not. Not until it's too late.

It doesn't matter if they are sleeping around. It still doesn't change the fact that circumcision can make things safer. It's like arguing that airbags shouldn't be in cars because if people didn't drive idiotically then there wouldn't be as big of a need for them. It still makes things safer for all whether or not you agree with their sexual relationships. You cannot use this as an argument against circumcision.

This might be a stretch to ask about, but if no one was circumcised, would the increase in diseases force people to practice safer sex, thus reducing the numbers over time anyway?

I could not find the source for this particular program but studies in 2006 showed that they found "new HIV infections among circumcised heterosexual men in Uganda and Kenya had dropped by approximately 50%." BBC News

How do we know that what the government fears won't happen eventually? In that the decrease of infection rates doesn't embolden people and INCREASE the rate over time?

Would others want to deal with it though? You speak for nobody but yourself so your argument isn't valid as it is a fallacy to assume that what is true for you applies to others.

Others may not want to deal with it, true, but it's a bit of a stretch to have your junk in pain for a couple of days, then say "Fuck it" and get a part of it cut off in my opinion.

At 2/15/11 02:41 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Comparing scoliosis to removing extra cockskin made my day.

Of the women I've talked to, the cut wins.

Sorry.

I compared a spine to a foreskin, not scoliosis, and my point was that it was a stupid reason to have a foreskin removed.

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

If this is the case, maybe this surgeon shouldn't be doing a circumcision in the first place. I certainly don't want the new guy handling my genitals, as this can even lead to men losing their penises.

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

A good benefit, but I would like more supporting evidence for this.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

If a man is uncircumcised, he should be washing his junk frequently (from what i've heard, but I wouldn't know, now would I?), which should really do away with this. Honestly though, if a woman is sleeping with a dude who just goes around having sex with anyone and not taking 2 seconds to wash himself, she's begging for a virus.

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

Use a condom and safe sex, or avoid having sex with women who have AIDS altogether....This is an easy one.

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

Source?

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

This, again. People who are sleeping around are begging to catch something.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

Maybe, but if EVERYONE was uncircumcised, wouldn't this be irrelevant? I refer to the appearance thing...If circumcision didn't exist, there would be no basis for comparison. As for better smell and feel, if you're uncircumcised, you're supposed to be washing it often anyway....so this is irrelevant.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

Quite honestly, I could deal with this, a bit of discomfort for my foreskin? Great. Well, I have scoliosis, so should I remove my spine to get rid of that?

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

Again, someone isnt washing properly....

These are the benefits from http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.htm l which was what the last guy posted, i'll wait for some rebuttals....

Also, before someone says "Yeah, but if you're circumcised, you don't have to wash up.", I will tell you in advance you're not all there. That's like shaving your hair so you don't have to wash it, except it will never, ever grow back. As in, the benefits are outweighed by the negatives.

Unless, of course, you are a lazy SOB.

Well, I posted this in one of the old threads, so I guess it doesnt count....So, Katarina from LoL.

At 2/12/11 08:45 PM, PikaRobo wrote: GUYS! This is the old thread! It is completely obsolete. I'll make a brand new one tomorrow...

Who cares if it's old, it's still relevant, and useable.

Religion thread....

I'm an Atheist, but I gotta say, my biggest question is it's effects on children/teens who still live with their parents.... Ergo, if the super-extremely religous Islam father's child decides to switch to agnosticism, how does it affect the housing environment? Just curious here.

I was circumcised before I even knew how to walk, and had no choice in the matter, AND unless stem cells can grow a foreskin, there is nothing I can do about it. YEAH, i'll say i'm all for the abolition of circumcision in infants.

Katarina ofc.

@OP

If I had to guess, it ("it" referring to Christianity) is "bashed" the most because Christianity is the predominant religion of the USA, who (from what i've heard) logs by far the most internet hours.

BTW i'm American, just stating my opinion.

Fine.

You're not entitled to my WEALTH.

In referring to the Christian diety:

Why the hell not just show your face?

If I were the ruler of a kingdom, i'd want the subjects to know who was in charge, not to guess. After all, i'd want all the tax money (worship) to go to me, not any arrogant royals lying around, who claim to be king. But hey, i'll just send any peasant unlucky enough to guess who's really in charge into the torture chambers. For all eternity.

Sound logic, no?

-_-

Don't leave yet OP, something like 17 states are filing lawsuits against the federal government to challenge the consititionality of the law/bill w/e

How about this?

The ban on marriage is in obvious violation of the 14th Amendment.

Also, The ban is an obvious violation of the 1st amendment, in that the government is not supposed to promote religions.

At 12/20/09 01:41 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I think it's funny how many atheist just ASSUME all religion comes from tradition. It doesn't.

Way to stereotype me, jackass.

The following is my post from the thread concerning hentai for under 18s:

It isn't like guys under 18 follow the "no porn" rule anyway.

If you ask me, guys wanting to see naked women is pretty much as natural as women menstrating. The only difference is that menstration is physical and us guys being horndogs is mental.

Consider this, do you think us guys LIKE to be "slaves" to women? If I had the choice, I would be non-sexual, and free from our gender's curse. Being a horndog for the average male is completely against our own will, unless you said as a 12 year old "I want to be mentally forced to chase women my whole life, and sacrifice a lot of time, money, freedom, my social life, etc. just to get laid."

Just as is the case with women. I honestly doubt women enjoy menstrating every month, and i'm almost certain they wouldn't want to menstrate unless they were planning on having a child.

Now that i've established it as natural, just dependant on different areas, let me ask, If it is as natural for us, as the reverse is for females, why should we not be allowed to watch porn?

Before anyone says anything, i'm not getting a vasectomy. Ever. I consider that self-mutilation, and I would like everything to be kept in perfect working order thank you.

So anyway, yeah, I say drop the porn age to.....13 or 14. I still don't think a 12 year old should be watching porn. If you have a hard time accepting that, I would even agree with 15 or 16.

I've been noticing a lot of level 8s lately on the forums....

Something needs to be done about them :O

If this discussion keeps up in this direction i'm going to req a transfer to politics.

They kicked a little bit of ass, but they would have had there asses handed to if the French didn't come and take the British navel fleet from behind. France than declared the Treaty of Paris, liberating America from the monarch's grasp, and individualising your nation. So thank the French for that, and the British, since the policy was a choice, and if the treaty had been declined America would be even more inbred than the inbreeding communities who were the Native Americans.

It's not like we didn't return the favor in WW2. Besides, I know we didn't just up and kick ass, I know we had help from France AND Spain. So quit being a stereotyping asshole, alright? See, that's my problem with the rest of the world, it's very closed-minded (pun intended).

Hmm, i'm not exactly first post am I?:o

Anyway, sign me up, theists be damned.(Pun intended)

Before I say much more though we are allowed to discuss non-religous topics in here right?

TF2 is amazing.

I'm a 360 player looking to join your crew,

Alias: Plutori
Top 3 classes: Engineer, Spy, Pyro

IDK if i'm missing any info, I couldnt find a formal application anywhere...

At 12/13/09 12:22 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: I opened with the idea that morality doesn't enter into the equation as to why God has suffering. There has to be suffering, it's a part of human interaction.

Please, tell me otherwise.

Are you really going to say this?

Tell me, according to you, who was it that DESIGNED human interaction?

According to you, we live in a cruel universe, to "prepare us for Paradise". Oh that, and it's a de-weeding system to get rid of everyone who is not a (i'll assume you're Protestant) Christian. They can suffer in the darkest depths of Hell for all eternity, despite claims of their all-loving god.

I might even accept the whole "prepare us for Paradise" idea. However, be a Christian or burn in Hell for all eternity? WTF? Quite honestly, I will burn in hell forever before I worship a god so cruel as to stick me in hell for simply being a critic, and pointing out flaws in how he apparently made things work. Freedom of Religion, FTW.

At 12/6/09 07:54 PM, TDwizBang wrote: as far as how i feel about it, I think that with anything that is public or free to view should be kept so young children do not take bad language as a normal everyday way of conversing.

Well, it isn't like they wont take it up as means of normal conversation in 4 or 5 years. If you ask me, the only thing you're trying to do is keep them "pure" so you'll feel better about society, and yourself.

It's been a while since I posted here.

My question to add is this:

Why didn't God help us build civilization? I don't remember any parts of the Bible saying he helped build any cities, in fact, it seems he destroyed several.

I'm not saying he should have done everything for us, but a helping hand here or there would not have hurt, and if he really is the kind, loving God Christians claim he is, surely he could have given some assistance here or there, i'm sure the ancient peoples would have been very grateful.

Also, by civilization, I don't just mean cities, before anyone says anything.

It isn't like guys under 18 follow the "no porn" rule anyway.

If you ask me, guys wanting to see naked women is pretty much as natural as women menstrating. The only difference is that menstration is physical and us guys being horndogs is mental.

Consider this, do you think us guys LIKE to be "slaves" to women? If I had the choice, I would be non-sexual, and free from our gender's curse. Being a horndog for the average male is completely against our own will, unless you said as a 12 year old "I want to be mentally forced to chase women my whole life, and sacrifice a lot of time, money, freedom, my social life, etc. just to get laid."

Just as is the case with women. I honestly doubt women enjoy menstrating every month, and i'm almost certain they wouldn't want to menstrate unless they were planning on having a child.

Now that i've established it as natural, just dependant on different areas, let me ask, If it is as natural for us, as the reverse is for females, why should we not be allowed to watch porn?

Before anyone says anything, i'm not getting a vasectomy. Ever. I consider that self-mutilation, and I would like everything to be kept in perfect working order thank you.

So anyway, yeah, I say drop the porn age to.....13 or 14. I still don't think a 12 year old should be watching porn. If you have a hard time accepting that, I would even agree with 15 or 16.

Sounds like the USA compacted into 1 city.

Overbuilt, overspeculated, overlavish, unable to pay for itself.

Sounds about right.