Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/17/12 07:02 PM, ZJ wrote:

At 11/17/12 02:09 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: What I don't understand is if free contraception is a right, then why isn't free weed?

There's a difference between birth control and recreational drugs. That'd be like asking why beer isn't free.

I don't mean to come off as a jerk, but please enlighten me. What is the main difference?

At 11/17/12 04:29 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: STFU with you ass pump all American Rhetoric/Propaganda as it's getting fucking old and nobody finds it funny anymore...

Do you ever stop to listen to yourself? Please reread my original post again, hopefully you will find what I'm getting at.

manatees, manatees as far as the eye can see

What I don't understand is if free contraception is a right, then why isn't free weed?

It is quite simple really. All we have to do is make violent videos games that cater to a Muslim audience. Like in Battlefield and Call of Duty you always play the heroic saintly white Americans who arrive to save the day from the Russians/Iranians. Instead of having radicals shoot up people in real life we can get them addicted to video games, where they take out their frustrations out on and can shoot up NPCs. And we don't have to worry about them trying it in real life cause they will be too addicted trying to rank up, or get some prestige or the next unlock.

Now the title is a broad and general statement, I would like to point out that there are a few cases in the past when economic sanctions (combined with other factors) have indeed had some degree of success.

With that said, in recent years we have very little to go on in terms that economic sanctions are slowing down Iran w/ it's nuclear enrichment process. Sanctions didn't stop North Korea from obtaining WMDs. Nor did it prevent Iraq from messing around with chemical weapons in the 90s. Sanctions really only hurt the poor and impoverished lower and middle classes living within those countries. It prevents them from obtaining needed equipment, medical care and other various supplies.

While the rich (which are often the doushbags running the country in the first place) are able to afford to still live in comfort because they have built themselves on top of the poor. They have the money and resources where they can get buy, and if they are really hellbent on building WMDs and nukes then it is likely they will obtain the means to do so even with the economic sanctions in place. Sanctions are suppose to make it difficult to create WMDs, but they don't work to well when you have other nations and groups actively disregarding said sanctions in the first place.

It just kinda pisses me off cause I hear both candidates talking about tougher sanctions are the answer, all sanctions do is hurt the middle and lower classes living with in the affected countries.

Well that's my rant. What say you?

At 10/27/12 07:13 AM, Halberd wrote: he is eating its soul to sustain himself you know how those republicans are.

It is true, back when I was a political activist I and the local republicans would open our monthly meetings by sacrificing a soul to our god Ronaldus Magnus, in a pagan/cultist ritual

The term is sentience, for sentience is the moment the baby can feel the pain.

By week five it already has developed a brain, from that we know that active brain waves are common at that stage, does the ability to think (granted not critically think) not fit the definition of sapience as well?

You are an example; your attitude is grease that is draining out of a monkey's arse, your intellect is equivalent to a squirrel that forgets where it buries its nuts -- the only difference here, is that you have no nuts to bury; you insist on acting like you have the upperhand here and point out my grammatical mistakes here, when I sincerely could give less of a fuck for my grammar and more of a fuck for the idea I am here to waste my time representing to a ill-willed jack off such as yourself. I do not accuse people of stupidity; I observe the prominent stupidity seeping out of their bountiful holes of ignorance. As I do this, I intuitively analyze your great works of stupidity that involves taking things out of context to compensate for your downstairs mix-up; your prepubescent smorgasbord of infantile crisises; your misinformation you've taken out of the ass crack of our failing society and your cracked ego that was broken as a child because you were a sissy fuck and now are on here acting like you know for shit about abortion and using generic pretenses to earn your way to a one-way trip to eternal tomfoolery. I hope you get raped, get pregnant and find out how much of a god forsaken hypocrite you are. You are the scum of our world, and deserve to be severely excoriated for the sad fuck you are.

lol If you say so.

At 10/31/12 02:12 AM, Insanctuary wrote: ITT: People are stupid and know nothing about abortion.

1. The baby is not sentient until approx 7 weeks in, which allows you to abort the baby. This is no different than going out on your front yard (grass is alive, but not sentient) and hearing no screams.

Actually I think the term you're looking for is sapient, at least to some degree.

2. The people who cry anti-abortion are moral retards, anti-woman or misinformed people. There are no positive in the practice of anti-abortion. It is leads to negative and worse results.

Care to explain that?

3. Everytime you argue with someone that is anti-abortion, all you get is a selfish fuck that says ''ME ME ME'', ''I WANT I WANT I WANT''. They are like a child that get mad when a bug is crushed, because it makes them feel weird. So they rebel like a monkey in its premature cage. They really think that they have the audacity to make a woman carry through a responsibility she is not ready for. The IRS would be all over that woman like ants and sugar. Her life would be stressful and lead to an unhealthy environment for the child who may grow up and go on a killing spree because some selfish assholes wanted to prevent her from aborting a NON-SENTIENT baby to avoid needless responsibilities because of ''It makes me feel sick to my stomache, because I'm a fucktard.''

I like how you accuse people of stupidity and yet your grammar is all over the place. That said, you mentioned having a woman carry through when she is not ready. But maybe if they aren't ready then perhaps they shouldn't be having free sex in the first place. IDK, just a thought.

At 10/30/12 11:06 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 10/30/12 10:53 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Among other things, I have always personally thought that abortion is a way for men to get away with sleeping around and not having to worry about the consequences.

What do men have to do with this? Men can leave if there's a baby or not.

Very true, but even if they leave I would imagine they might have to pay some sort of child support or what have you based on the circumstances. All I'm saying is that there are guys out there that will use and manipulate others for their sexual pleasure. And abortions help them to continue with their lifestyle.

Among other things, I have always personally thought that abortion is a way for men to get away with sleeping around and not having to worry about the consequences.

Can we call it what it is? A tropical storm. Yes it is dangerous, yes it has caused fatalities but with that said comparatively to other storms and natural disasters Sandy really is over-hyped.

That said, I don't think either candidate stopping their campaign will sway much if any voters, by this time I think people are entrenched with their candidate.

bump?

Lets see if I got this whole quote and reply thing down, btw thanks I really appreciate the harshness.

At 9/11/12 11:49 PM, starwarsjunkie wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by purposefully ambiguous. World building is one of the essential parts of any sci-fi/fantasy story. If you don't give your readers an idea of the universe you've created, it could hurt the rest of your story. Characters' reactions or politics will have no reference. You won't be able to tell if that's how people act in this world or not. It'll also be hard to come up with a compelling plot without some explanation of the world and its politics/societies/technology and such.

Yeah, the world building elements, politics/societies/tech/etc I all plan to have. But what I meant by purposefully ambiguous is we don't know how far in the future the story is set in relation to our the now. Part of this is because I haven't decided on everything yet, and I want to avoid what in my opinion is a tiring cliche of a fictional history of significant human events leading to the colonization of space. For instance like, with Halo or Mass Effect they all have their dragged back story. But as you said how much of that should i remove, what is important to the story and what isn't. Like with the Hunger Games there is no context that I am aware of leading up to the North American state of Pamem or what ever it is called, in my opinion that kinda impacts the story negatively. But then again in 1984, we aren't told exactly how the Party came to ruling Oceania or how the other super nations formed exactly.

The sparsely populated galaxy is a relatively cool idea too. Keeps some mystery and always leaves room for future developments.

Thanks.

I fail to see how this is a proxy war. Proxy wars are things where the two opposing sides don't actually fight, instead finding others to fight for them. For example, the cold war was full of proxy wars, with America funding rebels to take down communist governments and the Soviets funding those governments and vice versa. For more info look at the wars in Nicaragua, Afgahnistan, and Vietnam. All of those are good examples of proxy wars.

Thanks, I'm just getting mixed up on my terminology. What I was meaning is early on in the beginnings of the conflict the human government wasn't fully fighting the local hygori clans. In retrospect, your right. I suppose my scenario is something more similar to Korea. Where the local human terrorists represent the South Koreans, humans being US, local hygori clans North Koreans and the backing of the other hygori clans (I haven't explained that aspect yet) effectively being China/USSR.

This sounds like a decent plot. Maybe a little similar to Apocalypse Now, but that's forgivable. One question, if they're so skilled, why are they expendable?

I can definitely see how is can be similar, I guess that can be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it and how it is eventually written. It is kinda complicated, don't want to give that much away, but let me try to explain this. They are skilled (that doesn't mean top of field expert), but let's just say that is a combination of incompetence, back room politics, and past behavior. Like is Cankerous' case, he is skilled with hacking (not the best by any means) but with that said part of his back story is while on active duty his commanding officer asked him to hack a government server in order to find out where in the chain of command his CO's orders were coming down from. Despite his criminal behavior, hacking said server was a notable feet and he was reassigned to a company with a high loss rate. From there his name was drawn to be part of this mission. In Elissa's case it is a little more political (I don't really want to go into that over the interwebs)

Character development is definitely a good thing, just make sure your characters actually influence these events as well, otherwise its just a string of events that happen to a group of soldiers, rather then a group of soldiers doing something.

That is one thing I am trying to work on. I'm not the best writer in the world and I don't want it too seem like said string. I think one way to present that is to have multiple path options presented to solve a certain event and go through with the option fitting the characters personality. I dunno that might be a bad way to do it. I would love some tips on this as it is one of my goals.

I thought they were already trying to kill him? Why does conversion to a new religion make him more dangerous?

Poorly worded on my part, and also part of it is plot twist related. But let's just say, although his is already dangerous his conversion makes him much more of a potential threat. For this character's back story there are certain events and poor choices that lead him to believing in the tenants that are part of hygori religion. And that religious elements changes him in such a profound way. This isn't an exact example but think of it like this. You have someone who has access to explosives and has the knowledge one how to properly use them etc. Sure he is a threat but how likely is he to act on something without a serious motive. Lets say our explosive expert now is someone who religiously hates abortions, now how likely is it we might see an abortion clinic being bombed from this guy? Despite weather or not he will act on it is irrelevant for this analogy, the fact his religious views provide a motive or what have you makes him more dangerous. If that makes some sense.

Yay, character driven plot!

Yeah that's my goal for the latter half of the book, but IDK how successful it will be.

Ha

Like I said, or at least think I said, I want this story to be serious but humorous in parts. And in some situations part of the humor regarding Bo is the silly tropes previously mentioned that I want to play off of.

Sounds like Otacon from MGS2.

I have actually never played MGS or any MG game, shame on me I know.

I guess that's a start for the characters, doesn't really tell us much about the actual personalities of each character, but that'll come through in the story hopefully.

No those descriptions don't really tell much, don't wanna publish too much on interwebs. That said, the basic and bland discretion are the basic trope for a military squad they would fall into, but I wanna make them much more with their own distinct personalilites with those descriptions as more of attributes.

Overall, I think your story has potential. Just beware the whole "ancient race that was way super cool and mysteriously vanished" plot. It's been done a lot so you're gonna have to work extra hard to stand out.

Thankyou, I appreciate it. Yeah with that plot/trope I mean I like it cause it has potential and sorta plays off having an unexplored galaxy, but is has been done so many times before. I just hope my idea is a little more unique and mysterious then a simple plague, or galactic extinction event or apocalyptic war or galactic conspiracy. Thing is I really don't want to entirely solve what happened to the Krell, but their race and the tie ins to the hygori religion is meant to be that push that will get the characters to use their personalities to drive the story forward after using the McGuffin of terminating to rouge agent.

So I have had this concept for a story floating around in my head for awhile, and I'm looking for some harsh, unfiltered feedback and constructive criticism in regards to what I have come up with thus far. Some of the details I have spent more time on then others, so not everything has been entirely thought out thus far. With that said I thought I would share a basic premise of my story/concept, please tell me what you think. :) Don't hold anything back.

So the story I plan on writing is set in a purposefully ambiguous futuristic setting where the non-human civilizations that inhabit the galaxy are few and far between. I want to avoid creating numerous alien species and populating my fictional galaxy with them, because at least to me it seems kinda cliche to have a galactic community buzzing and bustling with life. I want to create a sense of wonder at a vastly unexplored galaxy; having it already being teaming with alien life sorta seems to ruin that aspect, I think it is important to strike a right balance.

All that said, the story starts off with the human government becoming formally involved in a proxy war against a species of hyper-religious capitalists called hygori (it has a nice ring to it). Essentially a large group of human terrorists have been harassing and encroaching on hygori territory for sometime now and after a change in hygori clan leadership, the hygori have resorted to military force to kick these humans on their planet, thus starting the war. From there you can see how the situation quickly escalates.

What the story will be focusing on is a squad of skilled, yet expendable soldiers sent on somewhat of a suicide mission to track down and terminate a rouge human agent who has become a huge risk and liability to combat operations. I plan on covering the squad's adventures as they traverse this one planet in order to kill this fellow. I plan on exposing them to different war related situations that will reveal the grittiness of the conflict and that are designed to make the readers think about the fictional politics of the universe (possibly hinting at a few real life political comparisons). These events are also to allow character development to happen and get the reader to become familiar with people's personalities, so by when the plot twists happens one can see how these plot twists might impact the character. But as the story picks up the squad learn that this rouge agent is a recent convert to hygori religion and has become absurdly obsessed with the krell, an ancient/extinct race of super beings. Because of his stupid obsession, it come to the point where killing this guy is a must as he has become quite dangerous. This plot twist opens the door for a few minor twists and one large one down the road. These twists shed light on the beginning of the current conflict, familiarizing the readers with certain previously unexplored aspects of the "universe" this is set in and more importantly begging the question of why the krell are extinct, which will significantly change the direction of the story to a McGuffin driven plot to a character driven plot based of how the squad handles these twists.

The squad is comprised of four individuals with an addition of a 5th later down the road.

Johnson is the squadleader, he is three days away from retirement and is black. He totally won't die.

Elissa is very shy and has cybernetic implants, in human society cybernetics are treated poorly so she harbors some ill feelings towards humans.

Cankerous is the nerdy tech expert, he drools over anything even remotely related to technology/archaeology. He currently is in love with his sister.

Simmons is a duke nukem sorta of character, he his a badass and offers some dark humor. He is quiet about his past, leading some to speculate that he was a clown that escaped from the circus.

I seem to recall that Puerto Rico declined statehood quite a while back, but I could be talking out of my ass.

At 8/2/12 10:19 PM, PMMurphy wrote:

At 8/2/12 10:08 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Look if he didn't buy ammo online he would have gotten it else where.

Thats a subjective statement, that isn't exactly 100% true. If he tries to buy ammo elsewhere there is a probabilty of the following cases being possible to happen. 1) he takes so long he causes a public disturbance due to irrational behavior and cops intervene (no ammo). 2) all the stores he go to screen him and do not allow him to have ammo because they notice signs of irrational behavior. 3) his family notices signs of irrational behavior and get the cops to make sure he is put in a mental ward and examined (no ammo) and 4) he tries to get ammo from other people but they are skeptical on his rationality and don't want to be apart of any mass killing.

That is atleast 4 possibly and probable cases that might happen. By giving him the option to buying ammo online it voids all those possibilities and strengthens the probability of attaining ammo.

Or 5) he gets killed in a car accident enroute to the gun store because he forgot to wear a seatbelt. We can go on all day about "probable cases". My point was that if someone is intent on harming another person it is likely that they will find a way to do it no matter what laws or restrictions on weapons we have. There are other ways to kill groups of people that don't involve bullets.

At 8/2/12 02:34 PM, PMMurphy wrote: In the aurora case, the criminal bought ammunition online. They are passsing a bill to stop that.

Thats an improvement.

Maybe we can make guns capable of being bought, but make ammunition very difficult.

but you make good points i wont argue any of it.

Look if he didn't buy ammo online he would have gotten it else where.

What makes you think Romney will ban Gay Marriage?

At 7/23/12 05:37 AM, Sensationalism wrote: OP did you get to see it in person?

Yeah, first time I've been to one of those things.

And by "explosion" I mean implosion and by "caught on video" I mean staged demolition. Anywho I doubt most will be interested, but it's sorta a big deal where I live (not alot happens) and I kinda felt like sharing. Skip till about 1min into the video too see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoTgvLu8WI4&feature=plcp

Maybe purchase speakers that have headphone jacks built in, or maybe it could be the headphones?

At 7/9/12 10:15 PM, dlxrevolution wrote: Skinny jean sagging is far worse.

Exactly, I could rant on about this for hours. Few things pissed me off more in highschool then seeing white skateboarder trash stroll around with their skinny jeans hanging down to their knees with their board in hand thinking they owned the place. Seriously get a damn belt. That said my community is mostly white/hispanic with few black, and the blacks I do see rarely sport the saggy pants. Even then it is far more tolerable compared to what I just mentioned.

At 7/8/12 02:07 PM, The-universe wrote: Not really an argument, but people who repeatedly watch a tv show/movie just so they can go online and call it offensive to their race/gender/religion etc.

Never, ever go on IMDB boards.

Now I'm gonna have to. lol

At 7/7/12 02:03 PM, MrFlopz wrote: @CaptainCornhole

I appreciate your open mindedness in debate... t was nice talking to you man.

Likewise.

At 7/6/12 08:43 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 7/6/12 06:55 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote:

Did you mean "they just shouldn't be allowed to serve openly"?

I'm guessing you don't live in the states, then. DADT was repealed a while ago.

I was responding to what I thought was in the context of when DADT was still around. Thus my phrasing.

At 7/6/12 04:07 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Think of it this way. If gays are openly serving without any restrictions based on sexual preference, there would be no reason to be a political activist for homosexuality in the military. That would be like women marching around campaigning for the right to vote. Sure, there might be gays who join the military to prove a point initially but that would slow down as it became acceptable and commonplace. It just seems like you want to keep it simple but you're promoting a needless restriction that does not strengthen our military in any way. All it does is give added stress to willing and able homosexuals who serve this country overseas.

Fair enough, I didn't see it that way. It just seemed like one way to make it an non-issue was to avoid creating unnecessary stress and all that would to just have people avoid bringing it up. But you make a compelling argument, now I see how it can backfire.

At 7/6/12 01:51 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Did you mean "they just shouldn't be allowed to serve openly"?

Nope.

At 7/5/12 03:21 PM, MrFlopz wrote: The point is, during downtime the topic of women and sex is going to come up. The gays aren't asking to go into war waving rainbow flags. They'd like to be able to tell their fellow soldiers that they are not interested in women. If a homosexual is serving, and someone asks him a question about women, why should this soldier have to omit information in his response and feign heterosexuality? Why force a soldier to lie and withhold personal information? You're speaking from a "it doesn't matter" perspective. So why add such a pointless restriction? Homosexuality is not a sex offense. Are gays any less able to serve? Why allow women but not homosexual men?

First of I never compared sex offenders to homosexuals, please reread what I said. And 2nd homosexuals are allowed to serve, just not openly. 3rd soldiers are required to lie and withhold information under certain citations. Thing is there are some who do go in waving the "rainbow flag" and try to make it an issue, just like there are those who file unnecessary sexual harassment complaints.

Look, I just think the regs help prevent certain things from becoming an issue while on active duty. But perhaps, i'm completely wrong and they don't work as people still try to make it an issue out of it.

At 7/5/12 12:56 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: when you are not actually in combat it is a little bit different. Guys talk about sex all the time, its just the way things are. Doesn't matter where you go, if they are off the job, they talk about sex at some point. I imagine it is a little bit more so for a bunch of sex starved jocks in the army. Being all business 100% even on their off time wouldn't be very healthy for the soldiers either, the human mind doesn't work that way. So now that it is established that their off time is their off time and they can do what they want with it, coming out of the closet becomes a free speech and personal choice issue.

Agreed, of course servicemen need some downtime, i'm not saying they should be 100% bizznizz. But again, you signed your rights over to the military when you joined up. That's part of the job, you have to do as they say. Even on their down time they still have regs.

That said, I see your point though. If I were gay, and my squad mates were talking about banging the gal across the table from us, I would imagine the whole thing would be awkward/uncomfortable from my perspective.

At 7/4/12 02:18 PM, MrFlopz wrote:

Exactly. Your sexual orientation should be of no concern to the military. So why should we refuse to accept soldiers who are openly gay? The problem isn't simply that homosexuals serving in the military are being infringed upon because they aren't allowed to come out of the closet. The main problem is that people who have already declared their sexual orientation may be denied. You say it doesn't matter... Then why not remain indifferent about a soldier's sexual orientation instead of mandating that they remain in the closet?

I would disagree with you a little bit there, because the military has to create a stable and fluid environment for it's service members. That's why there are regs against fraternization between the ranks. So it should be a concern to the military in that sense. I think a discharge is kinda on extreme side of things though.

But as I said if your truly going to serve in the military and take up the duty of protecting your country, I would think declaring your sexual preferences would be one of the last things on your mind given your roll in the service. This is probably a poor analogy, but for example a serious athlete focuses and is occupied with excelling in whatever his/her sport is, not so much their sex life (with the obvious exception being Tiger Woods).

It's just my opinion that in a type of situation/environment/setting like what you would come across while in the service it is probably best to keep certain things to yourself.