Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/16/14 09:47 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote: anything involving obscenity that the powers that be are negatively biased enough about to deem "not artistic".

Like what?

At 7/16/14 10:03 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote: again, doesnt mean it should be. people purposefully attack others all the time without intent to kill, and are quite horrified to find that it resulted in a death.

That's murder. Either negligent homicide or murder 2 (depraved indifference).

There are many reasons, several of which have already been touched upon here.

Another reason is just how different atheists are. To a person who bases their life on religion, they can look at other religions and say they're wrong, but when they look at Atheists they see emptiness. They may hate other religions, but at least the believe in something. So the fact is that Atheists are so fundamentally different than any religious person tat it's extremely hard to even fathom their existence or mindset.

There's also the negativity of Atheism. I don't mean the kind where the select few atheists make it their mission to browbeat any religious person, rather the inherent negativity with atheism. Atheism is a negative belief. Instead of believing in something, Atheism is the belief that the belief in something is wrong. This breeds an opinion in outsiders that all Atheists are doing is disagreeing and arguing. They are seen as naysayers and negative nancies. As if they just exist to rock the boat and piss on others' parades. They aren't that wrong, cause really, that's what Atheism is boiled down.

PM a mod and ask for an official thread.

At 7/15/14 12:53 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/15/14 11:51 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I'm sure you can thank Bill Clinton for that one.

I had no idea Clinton had that much time on his hands. Usually when I speak to a backwater hick, they stare at me like a cow stares at an oncoming train, let alone me try to teach them how to actually USE something.

I just remember that he lead an initiative to expand coputer usage to nearly every American household.

I'm a southern white male and I hate brainless bigot white trash "rednecks" as much as anyone else. They're as bad as the ghetto thugs they claim to hate.

I'm a Pacific Northwesterner and I still hate the Portlandia types who are so incredibly educated yet still somehow i ncredibly ignorant at the same time.

At 7/15/14 01:57 AM, Korriken wrote: Who in the world showed the backwater hicks how to use a computer?

I'm sure you can thank Bill Clinton for that one.

At 7/12/14 04:52 PM, Korriken wrote: I feel just terrible for laughing at this... on the other hand, clever bastard.

That's low. Below the belt low.

At 7/12/14 03:44 PM, Kel-chan wrote: The Hobby Lobby situation was specifically about SOME types of BC that kill the fetus as soon as administered.

That doesn't matter. The part that matters is the grounds upon which they were able to get those things blocked.

The point people like warforger are making is not directly in response to the Hobby Lobby ruling, but to two things: The hypocrisy they see in the specific choice of what to deny and what not to; and the notion that many have put out there questioning why anybody should pay for contraception.

At 7/12/14 09:48 AM, Ericho wrote: People of any religious or political affiliation will be hated for something or another, because they all have ideals that the other side does not agree with and sometimes to an extreme measures.

I wouldn't necessarily put it this way. It's much deeper than this. When you pick a position politically or religious, you implictly state that all other positions are more or less wrong. The problem does not arise with the disagreement, but with the notion that you view that person's deep seeded and culturally rooted beliefs are wrong. Often times, mere disagreement can be emotionally tantamount to an open attack on that person's way of life.

Occsionally political images or cartoons will show up in relevant threads. They also con sometimes show up in teh lounge thread though that is supposed to be mre or less devoid of political discussion.

I think there have been a couple attempts at creating a politcal joke/cartoon thread, but for one reason ro another they did not last long.

I'm not sure if political cartoons are a problem with the rules, as they occasionally will surface. That's a question for the Mods.

At 7/11/14 11:03 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Does anybody know what would happen if suddenly something united all political affiliations? If libs and cons started working together for a common vision of the future?

Do you mean compromise or full on merger?

Would people still assume the other side "is out to get them"? How deep is the divide in America today in regards to the future of the nation?

I would venture to say that at least just a little of this fear could be a good thing. Our entire political system is built as adversarial, which means that having opposition was built into the system. This opposition itself counts as a check and a balanace. Opposition in our system is healthy, to an extent. So long as compromise remains a legitimate option, opposition is a good thing.

Our legal system is built this way, but what our legal system has, that our political system does not, is a pressure valve. In the legal system if no compromise can be found a designated finder of fact will decide the matter (whether it be a judge jury, or arbitrator). With this last person to make the decision, endless dealock is nearly impossible (I say nearly, because there is at least one case where wealthy clients mixed with legal shenannigans have delayed the outcome for over 20 years - see Exxon Valdez case.)

Our current Congress has abandoned compromise as a legitimate option and we do not have the pressure valve, so until some shakeup occurs I predict little change. We could have a pressure valve final decision maker, but that would be an easy road to tyranny. On the other hand, is not our Congressmen holding us citizens hostage in order to one up their political rivals a form of tranny itself?

At 7/10/14 05:54 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: I don't think culture should be blamed that much, these people had mental health issues they could've been raised the same as your average person but they still end up cracking for whatever reason.

Not to mention that such mental illnesses are extremely common. Very few of them have actually done anything bad.

I mean, while the proportion of them who do bad thing may be significatnly higher than the proportion of mentally healthy folks who do, the number is still extremely low. I'd venture to say 1-2% at the very highest.

It largely depends. What exact sort of corruption did he do? Not all corruption is created equal. I mean, if all he did was give juicy contracts to his buddies bypassing a bidding system then 10 years is adequate if not too much. If he used city funds for his own enefit, such as to build a house or to gamble, or to fund other personal things, then 10 years starts to seem to scant.

At 7/8/14 10:37 PM, TNT wrote: Not exactly. You don't have to own a car, thus you don't need car insurance. However, you get fined for existing (unless you have health insurance of course).

That's not an apt differentiation. You do not have the right to drive and you cannot be forced to do so. However, if you show up at an ER with a life threatening injury, you legally must be treated. You have the option if you're conscious and cpale to deny treatment, but if not treatment will be forced upon you.

Just saw an upworthy video that tried really hard to make a feminist statement, but fell flat.

It took three commercials and reversed the role of men and women in them. At the end it asked "wasn't that weird?" NO. It was not weird. The commercials were just as shitty with men in them as they were with women.

Either blatant sex mixed with food, which is well... disgusting...
Or a bad attempt at making sexual humor.

Neither are akward with men being the sex symbol, probably because none of the commercials were any good to start out with.

Instead of jumping up in anger shouting "#NOTALLMEN" and "CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE" like the video clearly wanted me to, my only real response was, "Wow, these commercials suck."

At 7/7/14 07:27 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Just now coming to light:
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/librarians-gagged-patriot-act/

Got a real source for this?

At 7/7/14 03:23 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Now, a PRIVATELY owned company with a board of like minded individuals, may have such feelings. I believe in respecting that.

I'm pretty sure the ruling was limited to such businesses. Closely held corporations and such.

At 7/4/14 12:21 PM, Memorize wrote: Because what I'm doing is pushing down health care costs by not pointlessly taking money out of the pile that would go to covering your cancer and diabetes.

No you're not. If you end having a big illness how will you pay? Out of pocket? Are you a millionaire? I don't think so. When you defult on your payment because you were "too cool for school" to buy health insurance, EVERYONE else pays higher base costs to cover your default.

You're the one leaching off me.

Nope. My money gets paid out of my insurance pool, and the providers get paid enough so that they do no have to raise costs for others to cover it, like they would when you default.

So because you and your family have a problem that I had nothing to do with, that gives you the right to push your problems on me?

Maybe next time you should read an entire post before ommenting.

How would I have paid for it?

I would hae not been able to pay thus forcing hospitals to care for me pro bono. In order to pay for this they would have to raise the prices for everyone else.

Insurance prices today are nothing more than a scam.

Yeah, and that's why most intelligent people know that the ACA is a wholly insufficient response to the problem, and that the only real fix is single payer.

Much better to save the hundreds or potentially over a thousand dollars a month up for years when I have no problems, then negotiating directly about the bill with the hospital to lower the price when problems arise.

Lower the price? From 200,000 to 150,000? Can you pay for that? Or would you default and expect the rest of us to pay. My guess is on the latter.

If you and everyone else would've tried my plan, your bill wouldn't be over $500,000. The only reason it's that high is because people rely too much on insurance and have it cover things they don't need while they over-utilize it. It also doesn't help when hospitals get screwed over on partial payments from insurance companies and medicare which further drive prices.

Hopsitals get pad more than enough from both insurance and medicare. What hospitals don't get paid for are the uninsured.

But regardless, I still like how you've convinced yourself that just because you have problems, that it mean you can shift that burden on to innocent people who had nothing to do with it.

That's exactly what you're setting yourself up to do. By not paying into the insurance pool you're either setting yourself up to not py AT ALL, or to enter an insurance pool last minute and leech off of the pool instead of paying in your whole life.

Had I been blessed enough to have a 10 year delay on my problems, I would have paid in probably close to 6 figures of healthy time insurance premiums to help offset my future unhealthy costs.

So we get to what this is all really about: That it's not about fairness or equality, but about you wanting other people to pay for your problems.

Likewise to you. You are trying so hard to buck the idea that others will pay for you that you're going to end up costing everyone a hell of a lot more.

It came from your genes regardless.

The origin of my illness is actually unknown.

Ah yes, in this strange world where my inaction and not harming you or doing anything to you in any way is somehow construed through a series of loosely linked events that results your harm.

EVERYONE will use th medical system. Over 90% will use it for a very expensive stay. It is just short of inevitable that you will have an expensive hospital stay. Have you saved up enough to cover it? If not, then you will be a leech because you will be unable to pay.

It'd be like if Walmart said that my refusal to shop at their store resulted in their having less profit, therefore they could consider my not shopping there to be "commerce" and could thereby have Government force me to shop there because they regulate interstate commerce.

Not really. Not everyone uses Walmart. The ability to recieve what WalMart sells is also not a social need.

Health insurances exists because medical costs can get pathetically expensive extremey quick. Very few people have the sitting around money needed to be able to cover such costs. Insurance first existed as a way to smooth out those costs by paying over time. Once the for profit side of insurance came in, it hurt the system as insurance companies no longer served the purpose of facilitating medical coverage. Health insurance is a perfect examplke of why for profit vehicles should not exist for social needs.

Although, you've still not addressed my smoker analogy.

What smoker analogy?

At 7/5/14 02:01 AM, Korriken wrote: Well that's just it, Japan only has a self defense force right now to repel invasions. China will most likely be less gung ho about messing with Japan if they know that Japan might pay them a visit.

If I remember right, and feel free to correct me on this, Japan's military restriction did not consider a retalitatory strike as an offensive military action on foregin shores.

At 7/5/14 08:22 AM, Kel-chan wrote: Why do people always think that words on pieces of paper can some how protect them from hot lead at 1300fps?

Why do people think that having more tools of violence will lower violence?

At 7/4/14 03:44 PM, Korriken wrote: Good on Japan, given that it relies on the USA to defend them and those the USA are in debt to (like China) can hold that over the USA's head as they do as they please to Japan.

Every country should have the right to defend itself and I have no doubt that Japan's military, though small, would be interestingly formidable.

I'm not sure you understand what the revelation is here. Japan has had one of the best funded militaries in the world for decades, at time (not sure if this is current) being the second best funded after the United States. Japan's military has always been tasked with defense of the islands.

What the Japanese military has been barred from doing until now is engaging in offensive combat on foreign soil.

At 7/4/14 04:01 AM, Memorize wrote: Because that's all a bunch of bullshit.

Not, it's because the notion of letting for profit enterprises control a social program only results in benefits for the few at the expense of the many.

Allow me to explain.
I know my own families medical history. I know what is likely and very unlikely to happen and at what age of my life it will happen.

And my family is the EXACT reason why your gamble makes you a leech. No better than a welfare queen.

My family has a history of cancer and diabetes. But guess what happened when I turned 20 and what happened when I turned 26? I got a kidney problem. Those first 5 years I put 2 weeks of hospital stay, 50 doctor visits, 6 doses of chemo, and tons of prescriptions on the insurance. Had I tried your leechy plan, YOU would have paid for it. When I was 26, my kidneys fully failed. since that time I have racked up a base bill of over $500,000 in medical care. Had I tried your plan, you would have paid for all of it, not just about 15% of it.

You want to know what my family does NOT have a history of? Kidney problems.

I am living proof that you cannot predict your medical future, and to try and do so is playing loose with everyone else's money.

I still have yet to hear you address how 10 years of daily condoms is cheaper than one year of baby on medicaid.

I'm pretty sure they are banning the use of low flying private droes over the parks.

In that sense, you already CAN ban drones on your property. If the drone at a alititude lower than that of the free air travel height (approx 1,000-2,000 ft), then it travelling over your land is considered trespassing. If the government does it it is a Constitutional violation of your 4th Amendment rights.

At 7/3/14 11:00 PM, WrightOnTarget wrote: Funny thing, there's still a "redskins" brand trademarked. It's peanuts or some shit. No one's up in arms about that. Shit, there's still a TON of offensive trademarks still trademarked.

So yeah, this is bullshit bending to popular opinion rather than actual progression.

Your example isn't a very good one. Redskin peanuts, first off, are NOT trademarked. Second, they are merely describing the product, which is a peanut that has a red skin rather than a brown skin.

It would really help if people took more than an ounce of brain power to actually look into the issue here. It seems that most of the people who dislike the tm removal are throing out the first terrible argument their mind can think of without even trying to see if it holds up to the slightest scrutiny.

At 7/3/14 10:48 AM, Memorize wrote: Unless you want them to start legislating from the bench... again.

They just did.

It wouldn't be any different from someone bitching about Viagra not being listed as an option.

But the use f viagra doesn't prevent any mor expensive conditions. All forms of contraception do. It's a cost benefit.

The reason why I call people like him a hypocrite is because it's obvious that he doesn't like the Government or any industry covering for Viagra or vasectomies, so he demands more be taken from innocent individuals who want/have nothing to do with it to subsidize yet another group.

You're not understanding the objection. The objection isn't to Viagra. The objecton is that select sexual medicine for women is not covered, yet ALL sexul medicine for men, even such items like viagra that are really useless and have little appeal other than recreational drug use. It's a conditional objection: If you're going to block a type of item, do it right or don't do it at all.

At 7/3/14 07:48 PM, Memorize wrote: So, according to you, my father should have to be covered for maternity leave and pay a higher premium for it... despite it being impossible for him to use?

That's exatly what the ACA meant to do accross to the board. The more payers you have for insurance the less it costs out of pocket for a procedure and for preventative medicine. The increased access to preventative medicine drives down the cost of ALL healthcare as it lowers the rate of catasrophic costs and results in a lower occurrence of chronic illnesses.

A codom a day for 10 years is still cheaper than a destitute child for one year or an AIDS patient for one month.

Here's a quetion: why should Target allow guns in their stores?

At 7/3/14 06:50 AM, Memorize wrote: 1) Why would you assume I'd be in favor of Viagra being covered?

You're defending the decision, which leaves viagra and its similar drugs covered, but fails to cover simple sexual medice for women.

Because of this, it can be presumed your opinion matches that of SCOTUS.

2) You're obviously against that, so why would you then be in favor of the Government covering it for the female side?
It just makes you look like either a hypocrite, or a cry baby shouting out: "But but... you do it for THEM!"

It's an all or nothing thing. When you give men all of their sexual playthings on the dime, but force women to pay for their own, that's when you have a problem. This is especially strong when the things covered for men are actually just sexual playthings and the items NOT covered for women have some real health benefits. Those who criticize the inclusion of viagra, only do so because women's sexual health is being attacked. If women's sexual health was 100% covered, no one would care about viagra being covered.

I know the decision sounds really bad right now. However, I am taking a patient view of this. Let's see how it looks in 3-4 years when it has had a chance to both be further solidified or narrowed courts and to see if a legislative fix (HA!) will come.

I am conviced that there was no legal justification for this as had the company been Islam and attempted to force Sharia Law on its employees, you can very much bet the result would have been different.

At 7/2/14 06:11 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Our local representative sent a survey. It appears only one person can fill it out. My husband and I are not politically aligned and have very divergent views on some of the questions asked. This can only end badly.

Cue the Mortal Kombat song.