Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I have absolutely ZERO qualms with private parties making private contracts on private servers to block content they don't want to receive.

There is no free speech issue here at all.

The only issue I see is that ubiquity (if this isn't a word, it fucking should be) of the internet makes the absolute blocking of any subject matter damn near impossible, especially when the subject matter is porn. When it comes to pron you have two ends to tackle. Porn in general isn't exactly run by the most internally ethical people, so taking a few steps to bypass such a rule wouldn't pose any issues. Second, when someone wants to look at porn bad enough they will find a way around such a firewall.

This would prove pretty darn useful when it comes to protecting children from stumbling accros pronography. That little extra barrier may be enough to be the difference between a wandering child seeing cooter at the age of 6, or harmlessly bouncing around the net.

At 10/11/11 02:30 PM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote: so far no girls have asked there photos to be taken down from that section of redidit yet.

Well, for one I doubt that teenage girls are running to jailbait sites...

Also, unlike CSI leads us to believe, image recognition software isn't universal yet...

At 10/11/11 12:47 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I have the energy to explain this one more time, before we go around the merry go round of logic again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9rzJXMGQ tY

Post to the actual study. I want to see their numbers and math. This study reeks of "well alcohol causes less damage per unit, but because of more units we're going to fuzz the logic and make a newsy claim!"

People claiming that marijuana is not very physically harmful have an argument when comparing to alcohol, but comparing heroin to alcohol? Yeah, I'm going to have to call BS on that. I have seen the negative effects of alcohol, and the negative effects of heroin, and guess what, rock bottom alcoholism is about equivalent to a medium addiction to heroin.

At 10/11/11 02:35 PM, Elfer wrote: I could make roughly the same argument about the war on drugs.

Go ahead and make the cost excuse. Or even the wasted effort excuse, but I will not buy the argument that the war on drugs causes more physical and social harms than drugs themselves do. I find it extremely hard to believe that people are less likely to be harmed when we put absolutely zero legal consequences on doing drugs, when we have severe consequences now.

There are plenty of things that are legal without that being considered tacit support. The drug problem is pretty serious and it's clear that the current policy of prohibition hasn't been working. Continuing a non-functioning policy just because you're worried about the message it might send if you got rid of it is a pretty weak argument.

Not really. We as a society do not value the effects of these drugs. We abhor the harm they cause to the users, their friends and families, as well as the social harms it creates. Our government is charged with protecting us, from inner and outer forces. The harmful effects drugs have clearly fall within this perogative.

At 10/11/11 03:40 PM, Cootie wrote: A very expensive hypocrisy, might I add.

While the expense argument seems logical, it also seems shallow. I mean, when it's too expensive to do the right thing, we should just stop doing it, right? Should we nto help others because it takes too much time? Should we not donate because it takes too much money? Should we not fund the polcie because it costs too much money? Should we let uninsured die because it costs too much money?

I have some draconian views, but taking the easy road because the right road is too expensive just ain't one of them.

At 10/11/11 12:33 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: The burden of proof is upon you my dear fellow. I have implied that you do not know what the term "3rd world" means. It is up to you to prove otherwise.

It has two definitions.

It can mean the countries not alligned with the West or the Soviet Bloc.
It can also mean the whole of the underdeveloped countries.

Seeing as one definition is obsolete, and the other is in wide usage...

And you proved exactly what with this?

At 10/10/11 11:31 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: After you, wikipedia brown.

How about you actually say something. I made some points you could try to respond to. All you do by attacking something and then not explaining it is scream that you have no response. So either explain yourself, actually debate, or just keep admitting defeat.

At 10/10/11 11:54 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: No. The only thing present is hypocrisy regarding drugs.

Explain. If you can.

At 10/10/11 10:31 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Keep alcohol legalized, but continue to say fuck weed.
Camaro's logic. AMIRITE?

Please quote where I said that. Go ahead. Otherwise, I say keep your 'scathing' wit to yourself. If you want to actually engage in a conversation regarding marijuana specifically, please grow up ,and come back civilly and I will be glad to engage.

At 10/10/11 10:36 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i can't say it won't have that effect, but behaviours and activities don't necessarily become acceptable simply because they have been legalized

I don't agree with this. We as a society still strongly believe drug use is wrong. Drug use is harmful, and not just to the person that uses it. If we were to abandon criminal penalties for usage of drugs, we essentially are abandoning the only part of our legal system that represents this concern and societal dislike of drugs, and our wish to be rid of them.

hopefully a knowledge of potential effects will allow for sound judgements as opposed to equating legality with a recommendation of use.

We already have an extreme wealth of knowledge about the harmful effects of drugs, AND the added deterrent of criminal liability, but people still use drugs. If these together aren't enough to stop these people, I seriously doubt education alone will be.

At 10/10/11 10:30 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Pretty sure you don't know what the 3rd world and 3rd world countries refers to.

OK, school me then. Tell me exactly what you claim I don't know, but actually do know.

At 10/10/11 07:18 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, it isn't, unless you can identify the mechanism behind it.

Very true. Shortness of breath and a pain in the arm mean nothing, unless they are indicitive of a heart attack...

A lot of the "inequality" and decline of the "middle class" has to do with outsourcing manufacturing jobs.

Again, 100% agreed. Sure, there has definitely been some corporate greed involved in the process, but at most it amounts to maybe 1/4 of the reason.

Decades ago, someone could earn a middle class income with only a high school education, thanks to union wages and a lack of foreign competition.

I would actually add in a consumer habit section here. Consumers before the 1990s valued quality. They were willnig to shell out 25-50% more money in order to get a quality product. These quality products came from American factories. (As all outsourcers have learned, 3rd world labor makes 3rd rate products.) There used to be a sizeable mid-level consumer market. People either had the money to buy expensive luxury, to buy quality goods for a higher, but reasonable price, or buy cheap goods for cheap. Now that middle market has disappeared due to the consumer ace to the bottom (what I like to call the WalMart effect). You either have the money to buy luxury, or you buy super cheap, thus forcing manufacturing into cheaper locales.

Now, you either need a secondary education or have to be really, really good at a trade to be middle class.

Even then, the value of a bachelor's is dropping like crazy. Everybody and their dog has jumped on the college bandwagon, thus saturatin gthe market. Today's Bachelor's is equivalent to yesterday's Associate's, and today's Master's is equivalent to yesterday's bachelor's.

Sure, they're trying hard now. But they weren't trying hard when they had kids out of wedlock with no reliable income to support them, or when they went to prison for a few years on a drug charge and are on probation, or when they didn't study in school.
I know. I've worked with poor people for years. 95% of the time it's their own fault that they are working-poor. It's all due to poor decisions they made at various points in life.

That fact, while true, is also quite misleading. How many of the white collar class ahven't had similar mistakes? Not that many. The difference is that when you have a stronger wealthier suport system, you have the luxury of a few mulligans. Someone from a lower class family has only 1 mistake and they're done. Someone from a middle class family has 1-2 mistakes before they're done. Someone from a wealthy family has a HUGE number of fuck ups before they are done.

They do. The labor market takes care of that. Any other definition of "fair wages" is divorced from reality. People with little to no job skills are replaceable, and shouldn't be paid very much.

I am not convinced that a 100% free market is even close to 100% fair. In a true free market nepotism is more important than skill, and profit is more important than nepotism. It sound like a pretty idea that the free market would do what is best for itself, but remember, the market is run by people, prone to high levels of greed, favoritism, and bias. If you don't believe that, just say so, and I'll drop some truth upon thee.

You can throw all of your logic and solutions and benefits of legalization at regular Americans, but you're going to have a hard time getting people to follow you.

There may be some face value benefits of legalization, but there's a major sticking point to many, myself included. Legalization of drugs, to us, amounts to us ratifying their usage. Now, I am very much in support of live an let live, but drugs harm the users, their contacts, and society as a whole. I just cannot support anything that ratifies such a harmful practice.

It's a tough pill to swallow, and no amount of logical solutions will solve this moral dillema.

At 10/10/11 01:20 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:: http://walmartwatch.org/blog/archives/12 -an-hour-would-be-easy-lift-for-walmart/

You think that disproves me good, don't you? Well, let's play with that, now. So WalMart has a bunch of retail workers. And let's say they bump them up the $12/hr. Only $12/yr more per customer. That number is entirely misleading. That's $12/yr just to put one small group of workers to what we would consider on the very low end of "livable wages" $12/hr equates to approximately $24K/yr pre-tax, pre-med, and pre-COL. So $12 to bump up on sector from an F to a D-. How much more do they have to pay to get the manufacturing jobs from nonexistant to even just that dismal D-? What about for ALL retailers? For the transporters? For the remaining overhead? That $12 equates to a drop in the bucket of what it would take to raise our wages to a Shining D-.

Imagine how much more money it woudl take to get the manufacturing jobs back to $25/hr, or the WalMart and all other retailers to even $16/hr?

You say it only takes a little bit of money, I respond with the word "aggregation".

At 10/10/11 01:00 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Its pretty easy to chase the people against legalization of drugs in circles with these arguments, if you catch my drift.

Sometimes in life, there are certain things that no amount of logic can overcome. These include, intuition, morals, and faith. Logic often cannot overcome these, and in many cases, it shouldn't. We are humans, not robots.

At 10/10/11 12:59 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: The Book of Mormon purports to be yet another revelation from God.

You say Mormonism should not be treated as a separate religion and then seem to analogize it with Christianity to Judiasm, two things we consider wholly separate. If, like Christianity, Mormonism adopted a newer testament, how does it stay Christianity when Christianity is distinguished from Judaism in the same manner?

Under the logic you put forth the follow should be the case:
Old Testament = Judaism
Judaism + New Testament = Chrstianity
Chrsitianity + Book of Mormon = Mormonism (as entirely separate religion)

If this doesn't fit what you meant, please distinguish.

At 10/9/11 09:33 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: I'm sorry, how much fox news and republican drivel are you listening to? This logic is purely stupid.

Actually, it's not FOX News are anything like that, it's pure logic. Our discount mania, cheaper MUST be better philosophy of the past decade or two has driven down gross income for manufacturers and producers of consumer goods. There used to be a middle ground for the smart, but not too wealthy consumer. That doesn't exist anymore. No longer are we shopping at Woolworths, Sears, or JC Penny for our more regular items. We shop at Target, WalMart, and Kmart. This philosophy of shopping has bled over into big ticket items where people are overly willing to buy a gutted TV from a no-name brand because it's similar to a quality TV that would otherwise cost twice as much. It also bled into borrowing and home loans. Why get the stable 8% loan when we could get a 7% ARM. Why buy a house we could afford, when we could buy a better one on credit?

In our race to the bottom as consumers we have driven manufacturing and consumer goods creation overseas. No longer can such a company make a profit with American workers, because we Americans are too damn cheap to pay the extra money needed to ensure those who make our shampoos, TVs, and appliances are paid what we would consider livable wages.

Face it. The consumer had just as much to do with this collapse because of their reckless race to the bottom, something for nothing attitude, as Wall Street did with their reckless investing.

At 10/9/11 01:01 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Nice strawman.

How so?

The fact that factory workers have been laid off because they're too expensive? The need for cheaper workers because the demand would drop off dramatically if Americans had to pay the prices that domestic products would require?

If you seriously don't believe that average American's spending habits didn't have a large effect on the collapse, and the lack of jobs, you have a LOT to learn.

At 10/8/11 11:54 PM, Hybridization wrote: Um, yes. All believe that repentance is the only way to eternity. Again, the differences arise in minor, lifestyle issues.

Really? The requirement of a monastic life versus a free ticket with redemption is a minor lfestyle issue? WTF?

And, Catholicism is not a denomination of Protestantism - so, this argument is void.

What? Are you trying to burn every bridge here just to make your zealot point of calling the Mormons a cult?

To be classified as a Christian denomination or otherwise, the text must clearly assert that:
Mormons agree with A only.

You've got to source me up on BOTH of these assertions.

*sigh* There's that horrendous "A = C" logic again. Christianity did not alter Judaism's Old Testament. If Mormonism simply added to the New Testament, this thread wouldn't exist.

Actually no. You're claiming that Mormons are a cult because they're significantly different from Christianity while still claiming to have the same roots. That sounds EXACTLY like Christianity was. The A=C arguyment is exactly spot on. The fact you avoid it like the plague shows your true colors. You have no real basis for Mormonism to be a cult, save the fact that you, with all of your being, WANT it to be a cult.

At 10/9/11 04:14 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: People need to blame themselves? What? How is it their fault if they were laid off without warning?

You kidding? Really? Are you trying to tell me, our WalMart, race for the cheapest, buy more for lewss, get something for nothing, consumer attitude had zero or even less than 1/3rd of of the cause of this mess? Really?

How is it the people's fault if employers are discriminating and telling the unemployed to not even bother applying because they won't hire the unemployed?

The people created their own mess buy shopping at Target, and Kmart, and WalMart, and so on. Ever wonder why manufacturing workers don't have jobs? Really? Are the companies driving the costs down so much as to put an entire sector of the population out of work? Give me a break.

I'm sorry, have any of you actually lived out in the real world where the majority of the US lives? Probably not.

Yes, I have. I have been part of the problem. I have bought a lot of things from other countries because they were cheaper. I made the active choice to buy things that are too cheap to have jobs min America. I am in debt. Sure, by myself this may no be much, but multiply that by 200,000,000 and you have a HUGE downward force upon our economy that is killing the middle class just as much if not moreso than pure profit drives for corporations.

At 10/8/11 11:25 PM, Hybridization wrote: You are incorrect. NO denomination of Christianity has something that ANY other believes misrepresents them fundamentally. The structure of the denominations are adequate enough and the differences are in minor issues such as alcohol and drug-use.

Um, no? Really. Some Christian sect believe that the only way to truly be with God is to join a monastery. Others claim to allow people into heaven based merely off of a sincere repentance before death. In other words, some sect allow people to sin like nodoby's business so long as they repent. I would have to say that's really fundamental.

Also, some sects say that the way to contact is is through the Church and only through the church. others say contact with God is completely personal, and the Church is nothing other than a guide. That's pretty darn fundamental.

Re-read above.

So are you telling me that belief int he Bible and Jesus is all that is needed to be Christian? I fail to see how the Mormons would not fit within your larger definition of Christianity?

At 10/8/11 11:16 PM, Hybridization wrote: There is no discussion about whether or not [Christianity] was a cult - it wasn't.

You can't have it both ways there.

Either Mormonism is a cult, because it so deviates from Christianity, and Christianity was a cult because it so deviated from Judaism, or netiher is a cult.

At 10/8/11 09:39 PM, Psil0 wrote: I think I'm going to put my final overall analysis up.

All great points. I agree wholly.

At 10/8/11 09:34 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: They aren't shipping our jobs over seas and telling us that they can do that any time just to see us cry, they are doing it so they can get away with cutting their pay while making them do more work for nothing more in return.

Blah blah blah. You can try to get existential and tear up my argument that way, but when it comes down to the very core, all the protestors are saying is "Corporations are bad!" They need to have a specific solution, or specific problem with the corporations. The more they load on, the more it changes from a call for change to nothing other than a bitter dump-fest.

I would have to add that the addition of the ultra-hippy digs in the messgae don't help either. "Torturing farm animals" "hurting the earth" Come on. It's like the posters I see on campus that say "Vegan food offered!" In real world translation it says "the less touch you have with reality, the better!"

These perotestors need to get a better core than just how bad corporations are. They also need to drop the hippie additions. The Tea Party lost major points because they adopted ultra-reactionary tags, and these protestors are doing the smae with their "Whale Wars" additions.

At 10/8/11 11:44 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Nah. You just don't pay attention.

Alright. I finally had a chance to listen.

Guess what? My opinion hasn't changed, well at least not for the better. I lasted about three minutes before I was like, "seriously?" and turned it off. This is just the hippy bong-watercooler talking points. In other words "We are mad that corporations have power!!!!"

This is just a ton of whining without any base except "Corporations bad! Corporations bad! Fire- I mean, Corporations Bad!" I respond to the protestors with the slogan of one of their corporate oppressors who has tortured them and sent their farmed animals overseas while buring forests just for the pleasure of it:

Where's the beef?

At 10/8/11 08:01 PM, Yokushin wrote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Let's play with this. In law school, we're told that no word is lacking of meaning, so I am gonig to do a word by word break down of this.

"Congress" - Easy enough. Congress is the subject here. Does this perhaps open the door to executive orders promoting religion?

"Shall" - OK, nothing strange here.

"make" - seeing as we had essentially a clean slate when this was created, nothing strange here

"no" - easy enough

"Law" - if it's an Act or in the Code it applies.

"respecting" - Here we get some vagueness. This could split into two definiteions here. It could mean "concerning" as is a law concerning religion, or it could be a form of the word "respect" as in no law giving respect to a religion.

"an" - KEY. This word effects the meaning of the following word. I'll address it there.

"Establishment" - Now this could mean two things. This could mean simple as respecting a regligious establishment, i.e. an existing church. It could also mean, respecting an establishment of government religion. Now this is was "an" comes into play. The fact that is says "an" as opposed to "the" signals that the establishment is plural therfore more likely meaning that this is directed at religious establishments as indepenent bodies, not the astablishment of a state religion.

"of" - nothing strange here.

"Religion" - nothing strange here.

So based on a detailed readin g of the sentence, the clause favors the argument that the clause is meant to stop Congress from supporting religion at all, not just from supporting a State religion as some have said earlier.

At 10/8/11 08:28 PM, Warforger wrote: having different beliefs than what other people have is really worthy of calling it a "cult".

Seems like this, and having someone not like you, are the two threshold requirements for being a cult nowadays...

No one here is saying regular Christians have to like Mormons, but calling them a cult does nothing but point the cult scrutiny back at yourselves.

At 10/8/11 05:38 PM, Yokushin wrote: Well, I concede. I should have read the clause just a bit more thoroughly; it says that no law to be created

31 USC 5112 is the law the dictates "In God we Trust" must be written on our coinage. If it's in the USCs it's a law.

At 10/8/11 04:07 PM, Hybridization wrote: wouldn't it make logical sense that the orthodoxy of Christianity would be offended my the Mormons who disown many of the foundational teachings of it?

That's a crock of shit. EVERY sect of Christianity has something that another sect believes misrepresents them in a fundamental way (otherwise they wouldn't have split), so is every other sect that isn't yours a cult? I mean has the rank and file of Christianity fallen so low as to take a step down from "you're worshipping the wrong God" to "you're worhsipping the right God, but because your way of worshipping said God is wrong, you are a cult."

The "sort of people" who are most offended by the LDS are those whose beliefs have been twisted and labeled as their own.

Would you claim the Adventists as cultish with their twisted belief that it was Saturday not Sunday that's a Holy Day? Or the Catholics that you cannot speak to God directly?

It is a huge insult to reject an opinion and speak on behalf of it. Moreover, it undermines the credibility of the belief (in this case, Christianity) because people who are on neither side will simply clump everybody together and point out an inconsistency - thereby "disproving" Christianity when, in reality, they are "disproving" the LDS.

I have never seen anybody do this. Where do people say "Christianity is at fault, because Mormons are"?

It's similar to me saying, "On behalf of Camarohusky, I'd like to say: I have no idea what I am talking about and should probably stop posting ignorant comments so that I might, instead, engage in an intelligent conversation." Since this, apparently, isn't what you want to say, you become offended.

Are you trying to assert no true Scotsman here?

At 10/8/11 04:42 PM, Hybridization wrote: The girls post the photos on Facebook/myspace. Then those photos are re-posted onto JB sites and receive identical attention. The difference is audience not motivation.

If the girls aren't posting it directly to the jailbait sites, then we can't really say this what the girls wanted. We can fault the girls for posting racy pictures in public without thinking that this is what public means.

I seriously doubt the jailbait sites who search out these pictures, compile and repost them, care what others think, because the mere act of what their doing is morally ambiguous at best.

At 10/8/11 01:49 PM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote: If the teenage girls didn't get attention for there slutty pictures than they wouldn't post those pictures in the first place.

Before I respond to this, do you know if the jailbait pictures are posted by the girls themselves, or compiled from their personal/facebook pages and reposted by someone else onto Reddit? I see a distinction in the two.

At 10/8/11 02:57 PM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Right with soap huh, I know. You people like being conned. While arguing "this is what society is!" like in that other topic. Yeah paramount to existence

Your schizophrenic writings are making me think you are much too invested in the subject matter to be useful here.

Anyone ever notice that the sort of people that call Mormons freaks are the Christians who speak in tongues, slap demons with bibles, and do the stuff with the venomous snakes.

It's like a schizophrenic guy calling an autistic guy crazy...

At 10/8/11 11:45 AM, Loiarlyritpyat wrote: Not just drugs... What do you expect from being raised in a culture where you love "profit over your wellbeing". Would rather just buy video games and parrot slogans from disgusting internet pop culture.

What the hell are you even talking about?