Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Philosophy is hard. Not only is it hard, but it's readily misunderstood by just about all people not formally trained in its intricacies. Philosophy is regularly characterized by most as "mental masturbation" or "Just asking questions without ever answering them". This is not the case. Philosophy regularly gets mischaracterized much as science is as well, in that professional philosophers, like scientists, are expected by most to be experts in all areas in philosophy, or in the scientist's case: science. Much like how scientists who decide to study a scientific field have to choose a broad field, and then further specialize, philosophers must do the same. For instance, much like you wouldn't ask a proctologist to look through a telescope and register background radiation data points, you wouldn't ask an epistomological foundationalist to explain the strengths and weaknesses of mind body dualism.

It's become rather annoying watching as the younger generation(my generation) enters the rigors of philosophy, only to suddenly declare that they understand the truth of existence, and can give a unified philosophical theory of all things.

How many times has this happened to you? You're trying to discuss something with someone and they spout off, "Well you can't know anything. Knowledge is just subjective opinion." Usually in response to some sort of statement of prognosis or observation you've made. This is in response to the intro to philosophy statement that absolute knowledge is, for the most part, impossible. In fact, one of the popular theorems of logic is Godel's Incompleteness theorems, wherein so long as one's axioms are consistent, they are incomplete. This can be extrapolated into all philosophy, and indeed has been done so ever since Socrates, though not in Godel's model's specificity.

Socrates had a method of argumentation which was deceptively simple. He simply kept asking "Why?"

Socrates found out that, if you ask enough questions about one's philosophy, eventually they'll meet a point where they become either inconsistent, or would say something like "It just is that way." Socrates is also famous for the quote, "I became wisest when I realized that I knew nothing."

However, this is a misnomer. What he means to say is, as I mentioned, that we don't ABSOLUTELY know anything. Most philosophers have long realized this and understand that all epistemology is formed from basic assumptions, and then built on from the presumptions that the base foundations are true, not that these assumptions are necessarily true, just that in order to functionally operate within the grounds of existence, assumptions ought to be made.

So sophomoric amateur philosophers like to expound on this lack of absolute knowledge and conflate it within the realm of lack of any knowledge, and that's silly.

I can't be 100% sure that, say, I'm actually typing on a computer and posting to Newgrounds, and that it's still technically possible I'm imagining everything from the position of a brain in a vat, or even that I am only existent within somebody else's imagination; the likelihood of either possibility actually being true has been reduced to become astronomically low, due to how many questions they raise, and how little they account for existence. Wherein my presumption that I do exist in an objective reality explains existence in a far more comprehensive manner(that I'm perceiving reality as it is, because it IS as it is, and my senses are at least sometimes accurate because of this).

To operate off of the position that we should simply presume that all possible realities(including the ones where you don't really exist) are equally likely to be true is the position of an epistomological solipsistic one. Indeed, this position is often ridiculed by the philosophical community as being without utility, nor workable foundations.

So, I suppose the TL;DR version of the point I'm trying to get across is simply this: If you are someone who's just entering the field of philosophy, or are simply interested in writing about philosophy, or arguing philosophy with others...please...PLEASE do yourself a favor, and actually understand your position. Every time I hear or read amateur philosophers saying nihilistic things like, "Morals and ethics are illusions" or "Labels are an illusion", I die a little inside. :(

Psykolord forced me to post this here.

Holy hell, I was sure that this thread had gotten deleted since we'd left it inactive for so long. I actually set up an off-NG board for the club a while back in the wake of concerns about problems with a moderator, so this thread has just been sitting here, kind of abandoned. As for trolls, we had them for a long time...and I think Kidd25 was involved in some of the older flaming...or was he going by a different account name at the time? At any rate, to those who are wondering, yes, the roleplaying...ramble, I suppose one could say, that took place in this thread came to an end some time ago.

At 9/27/11 04:10 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: Godstar

Too upbeat. It's ind of a dark game. Governmnet and coroporational conspiracies and whatnot, also you start the game getting your ass kicked and having most of your limbs replaced with cybernetic parts.

I like to play music on Youtube when I play video games. Recently I got the game Deus Ex, and I was wondering if anyone had a good idea for a theme song I could play for the main character, Adam, during cutscenes.

If it helps at all, Adam's got a cold demeanor, a trenchcoat, sunglasses, works as a Security lead at his job, and kills gang members in his spare time.

At 9/8/11 03:41 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: To find out where we're going, we must first determine what we evolved from.

Goddamn Yurgen, never wanna get on YOUR bad side xD

I think another note should be made about this. See, belief in things for which there is no good reason ot believe them generally goes away after it's not being re inforced.

Once you stop going to church weekly, where everyone re confirms your ideas about God, where people constantly re affirm your beliefs, you don't HAVE this re affirmment.

In the United States, unlike most countries, you will still find many people outside of church that are believers and wil be glad to re affirm your beliefs, however, I would like to encourage that you spend your time around doubters, around atheists and the like.

Why would you spend your time around people who don't believe as you do? Well, quite simple. IF what you believe is true, then there will be no problem, then you will be able to stand your ground, and even convince the doubters of your ideas. If it's not true...well...then you might be unconvinced, you might stop believing, you might re evaluate your ideas and find them to be unsubstantiated. Either way, wouldn't you be making progress?

calves and thighs, yes. I was a lineman in high school football, those were my focus when weight lifting...and I like staying in shape, so...>.>

At 9/7/11 10:24 PM, dlxrevolution wrote: No but it's good to go to church. We all need to develop a good relationship with the LORD.

Assumming some sort of "LORD" exists, there's no necessity of going to church whatsoever to build a relationship with them.

At 9/7/11 10:23 PM, Autokrator wrote:

At 9/7/11 10:21 PM, dlxrevolution wrote: Lying is a sin. It's in the ten commandments.

wrong

No, he's right. It's number 9.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

At 9/7/11 10:00 PM, sweet21 wrote: I absolutely hate church but believe in god just in case. I follow all the morals led by the bible however, still I don't sloth (being lazy) or pride is a sin so I disagree on those.

No, you most certainly don't follow the moral laws of the bible. At least, I sure HOPE you don't, as that would be just awful.

At 9/7/11 08:34 AM, Legnus wrote: Whoa, that was long.
And...despite the 9850 posts, I've never heard of you.

Haven't been posting around here in quite awhile.

Why do you wanna smoke weed and have sex all day?

At 9/6/11 11:56 PM, unowned wrote: so good you'll die a slow painful death, like a cancer and it will be so slow you'll even have enough time to repent and accept the lord jesus christ. and that is frequent behavior

Tell that to Hitchens ;)

"It is even less likely, now that I am dieing, that I will ever believe in God. And you can quote me on that, make sure that everyone knows there will be no deathbed conversion from me."

At 9/6/11 11:44 PM, the-it3 wrote: "No sir there is not an objective reality of what's healthy, you may be allergic to grapes but they may be healthier than all holy hell for me."

^That's what I said^

You're confusing empirical evidence with objective reality, actually read those and you'll see.

No sir. You're the confused one here. ;)

See, I just need to ask the question, by WHAT standard do you know that allergenic people ought stay away from what they're allergic too? How do you know that if they do that, they become unhealthy? Because there's an objective standard of what is unhealthy to what is healthy.

Anything that decreases the efficiency of our biological systems is objectively unhealthy.

Is it unhealthy to drink battery acid?

At 9/6/11 11:36 PM, the-it3 wrote:

At 9/6/11 11:25 PM, Dubbi wrote: You do understand that your contention that your system of morality is objective relies solely on your subjective definition of what morality it is? Yours is just one interpretation of an infinite amount of interpretations of the universe, to say that it is universal and objective is arrogant and foolish.

Thank you, that's what I was trying to get across.

SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE =/= OBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE

EVER

they're opposites and saying you can experience objective reality is like saying you can see when blind.

You're outright denying objectivity, especially since you already acknowledge that what is healthy and unhealthy is an objective thing, since you know there is a standard of health that tels us what we ought not do if wee want to continue to be healthy, like allergenic people staying away from what they're allergic to. The objectivity is there. Actions have objective effects. People dieing is an objective thing we ought to avoid, because of what is objective about the universe and reality.

At 9/6/11 11:25 PM, Dubbi wrote: You do understand that your contention that your system of morality is objective relies solely on your subjective definition of what morality it is? Yours is just one interpretation of an infinite amount of interpretations of the universe, to say that it is universal and objective is arrogant and foolish.

Yes, I actually addressed your first point in the post.

I've defined morality, subjectively of my own decision, as the measurement between continuing and promoiting the well being of others, compared to diminishing the unnecessary suffering of others.

However, it doesn't really matter if you cal lthat morality, or not,, the fact remains that actions that promote the well being of others or diminish the unnecessary suffering ofothers are objective. They are measureable, quantifiable.

Also, from what I've found, most people tend to subscribe to this morality ANYWAY, knowingly or not.

Health is in the same position as morality. If you want to define health as something other than...promoting the continuous biological contingencies as long as possible and as efficient as possible, then you can, and that's your subjective opinion. But the act of promoting continuous biological efficiency is still...something, now isn't it? And it's still objective what does do that, and what goes against that, isn't it?

At 9/6/11 10:53 PM, the-it3 wrote: Morality is entirely subjective, you say stealing is wrong and I say NO, it's not. Things don't become objective simply because you say they are; according to wikipedia's page on objectivity

And you'd be wrong btw, when it comes to stealing, because of how I have defined morality, and how most people define morality.

"a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"-that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject."

Which is the condition my morality meets.

Using rape as an example is flawed because the entire experience is subjective for both people involved. Morality and moral standards are based off of culture, religion and individual perception.

It doesn't matter if the experience is subjective, the action isn't. The rape occurred, one person inflicting a forced action on an unwilling participant occurred. Under my definition of morality, that is, and alway s will be,m objectively wrong.

"You can't define atheism to be a lack of belief in god, because then rocks would apply". Did I say this, or did you?

Your objection to my idea of morality is identical to the objection that person who makes that argument has.

You're perfectly willing to apply human characteristics to something that you don't even believe exists, but you're not willing to do the same with something we can both agree exists, namely rocks? Rocks are objective, hence the name "object"; they're as objective as you can get but according to your logic they don't apply to "objective morality".

...What human characteristic did I apply to something I don't believe exists? Are you honestly asking me why I don't apply human characteristics to rocks?

Rocks aren't objective, their existence is objective. You're making like...a Class 3 category error. You're saying that the objectivity of a thing should automaticaly also apply to the objectivity of a moral action. That's so wrong, it's indescribable.

Again, using your logic and words

"If You honestly think that morality, as I defined it, can be applied to acts of nature, then you need to gather your thoughts a bit better"

What's a human being but an act of nature? Surely we're complex examples, but a real OBJECTIVE difference between you and a rock can't be made.

Yes there can be. I'm living. The rock is not. I have conscious thought. The rock does not. I am capable of independently affecting other things, the rock cannot. There are a LOT of objective differences between me and a rock.

Maybe there is such thing as objectivity, but since we're "subjects" we're entirely unable to make the call on what is objective.

But we can still identify what IS objective. And Morality is one of those things, so long as we observe morality as something that is objective.

No sir there is not an objective reality of what's healthy, you may be allergic to grapes but they may be healthier than all holy hell for me.

Then it's objectively true that those who are allergic to grapes wouldn't be healthy eating those grapes. You already presume an understanding of an objective nature of health to know that someone who is allergic to grapes would be unhealthy if they ingested grapes. You acknowledge the objectivity of health while denying it.

We, being subjects can't have objective experience therefore are in no position to claim that such a thing exists

Yes we can have an objective experience in the objective effects of conscious decisions and actions. If I punch you in the face, it's objectively true that I've harmed you.

At 9/6/11 10:03 PM, cerealguy1992 wrote: If you are going to be Atheist though, understand the different sects before you bug them about things. If you are so sure that you are Atheist, what I was saying was what is the point of reading the Bible if you will do so only to express your disbelief?

You are aware there are thousands of sects of christianity right? As an atheist, I'm just going to study the bible, and if a christian says, "I believe the bible is true." I have doen enough study to engage them in conversation about it. I don't know about most atheists, but I usually listen to what the theist believes before I criticize it.

You guys complain about the Christians that really do think they are high and mighty, and complain about the annoying ones, but then attack the ones that really keep to themselves for the most part. I am not a creationist, nor do I believe that science is the devil, nor do I want America to be a theocracy that kills gay people, yet Atheists have accused me of having these beliefs, and say that the Bible says I should.

Because the Bible and many religious leaders do say you should. If you want to be a christian that doesn't believe in the bible, then simply say that's what you are.

I work at Target. Oh, and at a newspaper press plant. Wonderful place to get sniped that Target...

At 9/6/11 09:50 PM, cerealguy1992 wrote: I just have a few things to say about religion.

First off, did you guys know that the majority of Satanists dont even worship the devil? I found thin out a while back, then forgot it, then was reminded by a video. They are self worshipers that dont believe in any supernatural or holy being.

There are two types. Traditional satanists, that are called 'devil worshippers' and LaVeyan Satanists, which are the non theistic satanists you refer to.

Second off, God is the ruler of all things that are on this Earth. If you all understand the class system of the middle ages, lords were under kings, and had less power. If God is the true ruler, why should we call him "The Lord"?

Well I don't agree with your first premise there, so...I don't know.

Last off, I notice some atheists read the bible for the only purpose of finding things to "get" us Christians. This is kind of like going into a restaurant that you hate and ordering something that will make you gag and throw up, just to annoy all the other customers. Sounds pretty stupid right? You guys are the ones who say WE are the ones attacking YOU. Ironic.

Well...3 things.
1. Many atheists you'll find, in america at least, are former christians, or at least have the interest in researching things before making a decision, so yes, we do tend to know a lot about the bible, but not so we can 'getcha'. That's conspiracy theory nonsense.
2. It sounds stupid because I don't find it to be true, and I believe that idea is actualy a myth.
3. You are attacking us. Regularly. I've been approached by Jehovah's Witnesses several times, atheists are the least trusted minority in the united states, and George Bush Sr. put forth the idea that atheists shouldnt' be considered U.S. citizens because we don't believe in God.

Anyways, I just wanted to state those things I noticed. I dont want to start a flame war I just want some feed back.

Feed back provided.

At 9/6/11 07:55 PM, the-it3 wrote: Yeah, since human reality is purely subjective it's impossible to have an objective view of anything.

BTW, you totally copy pasted everything from this http://www.strongatheism.net/library/phi losophy/case_for_objective_morality/

unless you're Francois Tremblay, you're just a copy-machine and this thread has been a waste of everyone's time.

Yes indeed Garage did copy/paste from that website, I would have preferred he simply give the link instead of plagiarizing. :(

But there is objectivity, regardless of human subjectivity. For instance, is there an objective definition of what is healthy, and what is unhealthy? Well of course there is. Can we subjectively define what health is? Yes. There's a combination there, as in every philosophy.

I'm going to quickly clear up a couple things, firstly, I'm not an Objectivist. For those that don't know, Objectivism is a philosophy created by Ayn Rand, and if anyone wants, I'll describe my problems with her philosophy in a seperate post.

Some said they want a TL;DR version of my post, well, here it is. Ahem.

As an atheist, you are pressured to accept a subjective morality. Don't do that. A subjective morality merely means that nobody can be wrong, because there's no way to discern who is 'more wrong' than another, and things we intrinsically find wrong, like rape and thievery, simply become arbitrary ideas of what is wrong.

Second, objective moral values are easy to find, you just need to define morality in a way that helps you figure out what it is you intrinsically find despicable, or not, and help you with furthur decisions to decide what you ought to do and what you ought not do.

And thirdly, the idea that God is the source of objective morality, which is atheistic position commonly held by christians, is easily destroyed by the Euthyphro Dilemma, and can easily be shown to be self refuting.

At 9/6/11 07:20 PM, the-it3 wrote: "if intentionally terminating the life of a human being without their consent is morally wrong, and clearly it is, then...why...is it morally wrong, if it's not morally wrong for GOD to do so?"

Imagine this, a huge rock comes tumbling out of the sky and murders a few billion people. Now is that morally wrong?

The answer is no, and in a way that answer disproves the theory of objective morality until you can prove that the big-ass rock had ulterior motives. Again, morality is subjective to human experience and circumstance; therefore it can't by any stretch of the imagination be called objective.

"then...why...is it morally wrong, if it's not morally wrong for GOD to do so?"

I'm perfectly aware that atheism isn't a religion, but it's an expression of the innate religious nature of man, the need to believe in something. You can pick and choose what to believe BUT every theory is called so for a reason

Before I clarify a couple things in a seperate post, I'm going to address you, cause you said some things I have a few problems with. I already explained that there is a subjective part in determining morality, and that's what exactly I'm placing value on so as to define morality.

However, as I already made clear, once that value is placed, and my definition given, the morality that I'm addressing becomes objectively. Is it objectively true that rape causes unnecessary suffering? Yes. Subjective opinions don't matter towards this. It doesn't matter that the rapist might not consider it to be true, it is objectively true that this is a fact.

As far as your flying boulder example, I think your lack of perspective is disturbing. You're like one of the people that says "You can't define atheism to be a lack of belief in god, because then rocks would apply". If You honestly think that morality, as I defined it, can be applied to acts of nature, then you need to gather your thoughts a bit better.

And lastly, no, you can't pick and choose what you want to believe. You're either convinced of something, or you're not. You can be convinced for bad reasons, but I do not believe anyone chooses their beliefs. Also, theories are called theories because we don't know these things to absolute certainty, but they're preferred because of the amount of evidence, and how convincing they are in the view of the whole of reality.

At 9/6/11 03:11 PM, joeyjoah wrote: How interesting

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Thnaks...for the compliment?

Hey guys. BigLundi here with a special announcement on objective morality.

Before I begin, for the purposes of this post, the God being referred to is Yahweh. The Christian idea of god.

As an atheist, when I was younger, I was tempted to, and in fact did for a short time, reject the idea of objective morality. Why is this? Well because for the entire time that I've been around religious people, religion likes to claim some sort of monopoly on objective morality, and indeed the argument is made that if objective morality exists, there must be a source of said morality, and that source could only be God.

In this post, I'm going to explain why this idea is wrong, and why I, as an atheist, can have an objective morality, acknowledge an objective morality, and why said objective morality actualy goes AGAINST the idea of a God being the source.

Firstly, how can an atheist have objective moral values? I've had debates with other atheists on the subject, and to be honest, it's a combination of subjectivity...and objectivity. This seems odd, I know, but please let me explain. I define something to be morally good if it depletes the unnecessary suffering of others and promotes the well being of the same people. Someone who views morality as subjective might say, "But that's just a subjective idea of morality." Well...yeah. There is no correct and incorrect definition to have for morality, there's just what we place value on. I place value on what is objectively good, or rather, what objectively promotes the well being of others and depletes the unnecessary suffering of others.

However the objective part comes from what is suffering and what is beneficial. I mean, it's objectively true that owning another person as a slave causes unnecessary harm and doesn't promote the well being of others. It's objectivey true that murder is detrimental to society and most certainly doesn't promote the well being of others, rape too. These are things that, under my definition(and I contend most people's definitions) are objectively morally wrong.

So I've gotten over the path of GETTING to an objective morality, but...WHY did I chose to define Morality in this way? Well it's simple, whenever you're asked the question "Is that moral?" You should also be asking the follow up of "Why or why not?" Most of us would look at murder and rape and stealing as being morally wrong, but my goal was to define morality in a way to explain WHY these things are morally wrong. So you see all things that we have that are against the law, all things that we instinctualy feel are wrong fall under the definition I've given.

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------------------------

Next, I'd like to address the argument that if an objective morality exists, then clearly, god must be the source for this morality. Well...that's...self defeating. There are in fact so many problems with this argument, I couldn't fit them al in the generous amount of characters Negrounds posts allow. However, I'm only going to address for now, a couple of them, as they directly correlate with my own ideas of morality.

Now, what is moral, under the theistic mindset of God being the source? Well, to address this we look to the Euthyphro Dilemma, which is as follows.
1. Is what is moraly right, morally right because god says it is?
2. Is what is morally right, morally right, and God is simply pointing it out?

Now of course, neither answer really helps the theist's problem. If we go with option 1, then what is morally right is simply an arbitrary definition of 'whatever God says is right'. therefore, if God were to say, perhaps, that murder is ok, then murder just simply becomes ok. This offers a meaningless tautology that whatever god says is morally good, even if we don't find these things to be good.

If we go with option 2, then the use of God as far as morals go, becomes completely wiped out.

However, most apologists have come up with a third answer.

Neither, what is morally right is whatever reflects God's eternal unchanging nature. God's nature, is what is morally right, and things we see as being morally wrong, are simply things that are not in his nature.

2 problems with that.

Firstly, Is murder wrong? Well duh, murder's wrong. For the purposes of this post, we'll define murder as "Intentionally terminating the life of another human being without consent." Consent, btw, can include having given up their right to life, say by attacking you, or having already murdered someone else. Well why is it wrong? Well as the apologist says, "It's wrong because murder does not reflect the eternal unchanging nature of...god...uh oh...see now we have a problem. Anyone who's read the bible understands that God's nature is, most certainly that of allowing murder in many many cases. He commanded it on a regular basis and even accepts human sacrifice. So clearly that...can't be the reason. What CAN be the case, if we want to be consistant with the apologist explanation of morality and god, is we can say that clearly murder, or rather, the intentional termination of human life without consent, does in fact reflect God's nature. Remember my post about how Logic works? IF you don't, look it up real quick, then come back, becasue I'm gonna do a little syllogism to illustrate my point.
1. Actions consistent with god's nature are moral, while actions inconsistant with god's nature are immoral.
2. God's actions are always consistent with God's nature.
3. (from 1 and 2) God's actions are always moral.
4. God performs the act of intentionally terminating the lives of human beings without their consent.
Conclusion: From 3 and 4, it is then moral to intentionally terminate the life of a human being without their consent.

Now, while most of us look at that and see the flaw, a christian might be tempted to make the argument, "Morality is such that intentionally terminating the life of a human being without their consent is moral when performed by god, but immoral when performed by us."...For...whatever bullshit reason.
And you know what That's fine, that's a perfectly legitimate way...to cop out. But it's not without its consequences. See, it then follows from THAT argument that neither God's actions, nor god's nature are TRULY the standard for what is objectively moral. See, if intentionally terminating the life of a human being without their consent is morally wrong, and clearly it is, then...why...is it moraly wrong, if it's not morally wrong for GOD to do so?

The SECOND problem wit hthe aplogetic response to the Euthyphro Dilemma is that saying Morality is reflected by God's nature...doesn't...answer...the question. It just puts the question in seperate terms. It just makes the dilemma more interesting. Does God's nature, for instance, include honesty? Then we simply re word the question.

1. Is honesty right?
2. Is honesty right, because god's nature is honest?

To say that God's nature is honesty just because honesty is morally better than dishonesty certainly doesn't answer the question, and any 4 year old could destroy that answer just by having the capacity to ask, "Why?"

Why is honesty morally better than dishonesty? "Well because honesty reflects God's nature whereas dishonesty doesn't." Right, but why is god's nature one of honesty and not dishonesty? "Well because honesty is morally better than dishonesty." And why is honesty morally better than dishonesty? "Because honesty reflects God's nature whereas dishonesty does not."

Circular reasoning...is circular. Get out of the merry go round, view morality not as simply a q2uestion of God, but a question of why.

Thanks for reading.

At 9/6/11 12:34 PM, MrPercie wrote::

Shut up I didnt even read the bible so i just assumed it said somewhere that no same sex couple could get married, and it does im right, if it doesnt then what the fuck are people complaining about?

It doesn't say they can't get married, because marriage isn't in the bible. Unions are. The institution of marriage isn't an intrinsically christian thing, and in fact has been around for far longer than christianity and Judaism.

All the bible says is that homosexuality is 'detestable' and punishable by death. And, by the by, I would like to inform you that there are christians who don't accept the bible to be 100% right.

So it doesn't say they can't get married. The reason that christians are up in arms about marriage is that if we allow, legalize homosexual marriage, then what are we doing? We're acknowleding that it's perfectly ok for homosexuals to be together...and that...explicitly goes against what the bible says.

As an atheist I don't accept the bible as true anyway, but I think it's pretty obvious the only reason that anyone is against homosexuality is because...they...don't like homosexuals.

It's bigotry, plain and simple.

At 9/6/11 09:30 AM, MrPercie wrote: Christian Rules

Interesting, you seem to operate under the delusion that marriage is a christian thing.

At 9/3/11 09:22 PM, Spirosgod wrote: Once a weed smoker killed my dog because he was high as fuck or something.
Kill those fuckers.

I seriously doubt anyone who's high on marijuana has any capability of killing anything.

I got called a bag of dicks once.

Any Louis CK fans here?

At 9/3/11 07:29 PM, FBIpolux wrote: Actually scratch that.

I wanna meet GreenLanturn, Grubxero, TheSlapHappy, liljim, Captain-Jack, Mary and Shrapnel.

Oi, FBI, where's MY love? :P

At 9/3/11 07:24 PM, Slint wrote: : So yeah, you're in 11th grade philosophy, big fucking woop. College, but nice try. If you realy think I'm going to give a lecture on college level philosophy...to the General forum...of Newgrounds...well...I think you have to omuch faith in the intelligence of General Forum users.