Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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 they do not allow sex offenders into the service, that's also why there are regs against fraternization between the ranks. So it should be a concern to the military in that sense. See what I'm getting at?

But then again if your truly going into the military to protect your country or what have you, declaring your sexual preferences shouldn't be an issue for the individual who is there to defend his/her country. To be quite frank, one of the last things I would think about while in a war is declaring myself openly gay or straight. 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.

Dunno if there is a thread already about this but I think it would be pretty neat to post links to your favorite tracks.

Here are a few of my favorites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQYV8isqp6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNkCb_B5Ls0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UiKt4Wm8Sg&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGxpYwBTptc&list=PL140C03A1E3 235E79&index=1&feature=plpp_video

Several Things Actually:

1)That it is a right to openly declare your sexual orientation while actively serving in the military.

That has always seemed stupid too me cause you go into the military to protect your country, not to go on a political crusade. So minor things like one's sexual preference should be a non issue compared to your job in a combat situation.

2) Women shouldn't serve in combat roles because they can get hurt and raped and stuff if captured.

I find that funny because, even if you aren't serving in a active combat role one could get killed/raped/captured all the same. Sure front line stuff have traditionally been a male thing, but if a gal is willing and can do it effectively I say sign her up. Male or Female you have to be prepared though for what challenges and hardships come along with taking part in combat operations.

Call me a communist but I really don't celebrate the 4th

First off what are your characters personalities like? I mean in RL I always like to scare my younger sibling, but that might not fit the character's personality or situation.

Anderson Cooper fetish, man I can't get enough of that white snowy hair of his. He is like a life size My Little Pony! lol

There is a point where big is too big.

That said, I was at Great Clips today and the gal giving me a haircut for what ever reason had multiple breast piercings. And they just weren't all studs either, it was really funky. Why would you do such a thing?!?!?

I don't really like fox news anymore, sure it's a conservative bias just like MSNBC, CNN and all the others have a liberal bias. But all seem to do rehash all the talking points, occasionally they will report news I haven't already heard on the radio. I like the Five though and Red Eye

At 5/20/12 11:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Finally graduated...

Took long enough.

Now time for a $2500 month long course to earn the right to even work in the profession.

Congratumations! Best of luck

I can't really think of anything I'm offended by.

What ever happened to tolerance by the way? Why do some people have to be butt-hurt by the slightest things? Rhetorical question don't answer that.

Come on, we all know that George Bush is actually a Lizard Man from the Planet Nibiru. Bush, Princess Diana and their love child Angela Merkel are here to enslave humanity and colonize the planet. It's obvious that over the years the Lizard Men have been working through shadow occult groups like the Freemasons, Knights Templar, Illuminati, World Bank, the Nazis, Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints and the National Democratic Party to move forward their plot to invade the earth in 2012! Over the ages the Lizard Men have been in a pitched battle with the Nephilim, who are fallen angles and bread with the earth women. The Nephilim today hold positions of power across the world, orchestrating wars and conflicts around the globe. Why do you think we are in Afgan? That's right Bin Laden was a Nephilim, bush sent his Lizard Army to Afgan to wipe out his enemy.

All those organizations work for and are fronts for the Lizard Men, who have been enslaving the African's for years forcing them to mine diamonds so that the European Union can build their Hadron Collider. The Hadron Collider is actually Bush's secret weapon to artificially create blackholes that will tear a hole through the Van Allen Belt, which was but their by the Nephilim in the first place, thus allowing the Illuminati to summon Satan and his army of Lizard Men which will build a space bridge from their homeworld of Nubiru and travel through the hole in the Van Allen belt and set up his kingdom on earth which George Bush as the Anti-Christ!

It's on the internet, look it up.

What's you opinion on it? For it or against it I wanna hear your arguments.

As for me, personally I'm on the fence on this issue.

At 5/7/12 08:46 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: It seems to me like good wholesome all American rugged individualism is a better recipe for equality than wimpy support groups, endless whining and lawsuits.

Damn Straight

At 5/5/12 02:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/5/12 02:28 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Dems and Repubs are all pulled by the way strings. The two parties are more similar than they're made out to be. They campaign on radically different values but they govern the same (at least at the presidential level).

People who say this fail to see a different and more likely conclusion.

There is only so much any president can do.

Actually big bizznizz donates more to Dems then Reps. http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/php/CEOPAY11.html?mod=e2tw

At 5/3/12 08:43 PM, djack wrote: To be fair, "the gender gap" was a misnomer for this thread. Until Captain showed up and pulled arguments out of his cornhole without reading anything other than the thread title it was about the "War on Women".

Your right I didn't read the original post, nor did I intend too. lol

At 5/2/12 11:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Equality doesn't mean flat equality. What equality means is that those with equal relevant factors are paid equally (or at least similarly).

Fair enough, I was under the impression you were advocating for a flat rate. That said, I would say equality is more then an equal or similar rate. I would say equality is that people are treated fairly inside and outside the workforce. And that individuals from different aspects of life have the same opportunity to better their fortunes in life. Also equality concerns civil rights, such as voting or what have you.

Very rarely is sex/gender a relevant quality toward the ability to perform a job. Acting and the sex industry are the only places I can think of.

Yeah, I'm not saying gender has anything to do with performance at a job.

So, tying back to your example, if there was a man and a woman who both had equivalent experience (say 10 years and 9.5 years) both are superb workers, both has similar seniority, and both are abl;e to bring in similar cashflow/benefits to the company then they should be paid the same or a very similar wage/salary.

Agreed.

Because they'd be punsihed even fuirther and have to pay a good deal of lost wages even while the female employee is not working there. Employment lawsuits can seriously harm a company. Like I said they can lead to massive back pay, and future lost wages for periods where the employee no longer works at the company. It is an extremely rare situation where simply getting rid of the employee and taking the lawsuit will break even for the company, let alone be an efficient decision.

Alright fair enough, again my concern with that is the potential for corruption. I could easily see an employee claiming sex discrimination, feeling that they should get payed more for their work, where it might not be the case. Then a government investigator with a personal dog in the fight could unfairly punish the company.

No, because women are an extremely large consumer force and can have a boycott that severely hruts, even if only 10% of all women participate in it.

Based off your premise that society is still insanely discriminatory towards woman would this not be the case?

Is there a better way to create equality within the workforce?

Yeah pay people fairly based of their performance and job situation.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to protect innocent businesses from being targeted or you want to stamp out all discrimination. The middle ground sounds nice in theory, but cannot be achieved in reality.

I guess you always have to strive for the middle ground otherwise you get either two extremes. That said, I guess my solution would be to stamp out bigotry and sexism generation by generation. Like with racism, people were educated to be more tolerant over time. As older generations died off, more tolerant or progressive ones took their places. Not to say the older generations are completely racist or intolerant, but you get my point. I guess that is how I would try to tackle it. That said there will unfortunately be bigotry or what have you as long as people are around. I don't think it is entirely possible to stomp out that sort of thing.

Well by tropes and cliches I meant try to avoid the overused ones. Sure, I can understand that some tropes and cliches are necessary. But like try to avoid the obvious ones. Like for instance having your wizard character fall from a cliff to his demise. Stuff like that.

And after reading your character descriptions I'm liking your concept more, remember character interaction can make or break a story. :) I really like the idea of demon possession in the one instance you mentioned, I think that is well done. Best of luck with your work.

At 5/1/12 11:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The theory is that the punishment will cost more than it would to pay the woman fully. Also, sex discrimination is a major PR hit.

On top of that there's the remedial aspect for the female employee. A successful suit can get her back pay to the market rate (i.e. the male pay for equivalent experience and longevity) for the period that she was discriminated against (or at least up to the Statute of Limitations).

I can see how it could act as a deterrent, but the company could just fire her and hire a male employee to avoid the punishment all together. And if society today is still that patriarchal and bigoted then a PR hit wouldn't matter, as society probably wouldn't care. Like you said, I can see some sort of suit working to help get the female employee's market rate back (granted that the company was being discriminatory), that's if we want to define equality based of income.

One thing that concerns me is that when government comes in to fix things they are often ineffective or make the situation worse. Now while we need something to make sure sex discrimination doesn't happen, I'm afraid that the government will just be ineffective and go after innocent businesses. I mean look at the National Housing Discrimination Act or what ever it's called. It penalizes apartment owners or whomever for being racist/homophobic/bigoted. Yet housing discrimination still exists.

At 5/2/12 01:02 AM, theburningliberal wrote: We are not trying to define equality here, we are trying to achieve equality. There is no legitimate reason why a female should make less than a man for any given job, if all other factors are equal, which is why we have the concept of equal pay for equal work. Some people just apparently don't get common sense.

Why shouldn't we define equality? That is what we are trying to achieve, no? How can we meet our goal if it is not defined? I would argue that there are legitimate reasons for people who do the same job to get payed less. Suppose a guy and a gal both do roofing construction, the gal does an amazing job (high quality work/gets done quickly) while the guy might not be as skilled as her. In that scenario (when we throw all the variables out the window) I would pay the female worker more as she is a more valuable employee.

So are you saying that people should get payed equally not matter what they do? Even if a female coworker might work her butt off and then go home to take care of her kids, while her male coworker might not to jack? Should a telemarketer get payed the same as a honest cop who puts his or her life on the line everyday?

At 5/1/12 07:40 PM, Zombie-Genocide wrote:

At 5/1/12 07:28 PM, ih8dude wrote: Christan Horror movie

I think the word Christan, and The media, should be seperated. Frankly, if you put christan in front of anything:

Christan Rock
Christan Rap

Thou shall find it sub-par.

Beyond sub-par, it's the work of the DEVIL!!! Someone pass me the holly water! Nah, but seriously though I really can't stand Christian rock or rap for nervous reasons and in case your wondering I consider my self christian-ish

do you have a craving for it before dinner and breakfast?

If anyone is truly "too white" it would have to be MJ

At 5/1/12 11:07 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Who is the best judge of this? The government or employer?

If a company employs 3 men and 1 woman and the woman gets paid 20% less than the men should the government step in and penalise the company for discrimination or should we assume that the company pays her less because she doesn't perform as well and they are less afraid of losing her to a competitor?

Who is the best judge? I don't entirely know, the employer and government both have their pros and cons. That said, how would penalizing the company do anything to help our female employee to achieve equality (assuming that the company is truly are discriminating against her)?

At 5/1/12 11:13 AM, theburningliberal wrote:

The patriarchal bent in our society has been around for so long that we need these laws to ensure that if all else is equal, that women are provided the same compensation a man would be provided (aka Equal Pay for Equal Work).

And since when is equality defined by income or wealth?

At 5/1/12 09:52 AM, tox wrote:

step 3: go find her and sit her down and wait for further action by the authorities and request from her that she request that you be present through this ordeal that they will put her though, so that you and she can have someone that you both trust
step 4: make sure that his friends know to not allow the 18 year old to go near the girl, and tell her friends to not allow the male to go near her either, if they ask there are legal issues and the police are involved and that you insist that you need their help to keep him away from her

Actually I would advise not going out to find her immediately. The police might not want you to interfere as it can be an extremely long amount of time before an arrest if any is made.

Personally I haven't really been a fan of fantasy or any of that, so I'm not the best person to critique this. But a few things I would keep in mind is successfully drawing the bridge between the 20whatever-ish century and the current fantasy setting. Naturally I would think some things like weapons, clothing, architecture and what have you would carry over. Also I think it would be interesting to develop conflicts between peoples and races based on parallels between past or current political issues. Like perhaps one race's religion is taking converts from another race's religion, so the latter race is upset and tries to harm the first race in some form. Also, no offence but I always have kinda thought having an enemy that is pure evil for the sake of being evil kinda bland, I prefer some sort of "weather the ends justify the means" approach to a villain as perhaps he/she might not entirely be bad. That said that would require alot of work and has to be done correctly to avoid cliches or tropes.

But that is just my opinions, in the end it is your story and I shouldn't try to nit pick over it. Do what you think is best. :)

I wrote a Mass Effect themed fanfiction a while back and I felt like sharing it.

*warning slightly adult humor and swearing lies behind this link, just thought I would warn you.

http://captianlolz.blogspot.com/p/stories.html

As I work in the school district I am required by law to report things like this, and I can understand you not wanting to go to the police. That said most states have laws that protect individuals who report certain stuff like this.

Personally I feel that individuals should get payed by the jobs they do and how well they perform, not based off their gender or what have you.

It isn't just defense spending, our corrupt government has a whole series of programs they can cut spending for or drop entirely.