Hello gentlemen, I just have a quick question. I was...I guess sort of rejected by this girl recently. The thing is that she said she actually is very attracted to me but she's not ready for a relationship because a while ago she hooked up with someone else and the other person decided not to keep in contact. So she's kind of heartbroken, I guess? The only problem is that I am a paranoid fuck who refuses to believe that anyone could like me, so what I'm really asking is: do you think there's hope for us when she moves on or do you think that's just something she said to get me to go away? I'm obviously not going to pester her about it, but I'm not really certain how to feel right now.

At 8/26/09 09:35 PM, danicos wrote:

At 8/26/09 09:21 PM, ForNoReason wrote: Let me clear something up here if I may.

NSFW= Not Safe For Work...

But what does that MEAN you might ask?

A word definition means what one thinks it means, even if they are wrong

Umm...no? That's true on a personal level but by that logic you might as well just speak your own language. It's obvious that meanings are somewhat arbitrary and so on a philosophical level words signify nothing at all, but in practice that's obviously false. Words are defined by consensus.

AAAGH! Jesus McFucking Christ! HOW CAN YOU ALL BE SUCH DUMBASSES?! Whatever meager shred of remaining faith in humanity has been ripped off, set aflame, and shat upon by you morons. READ MORE THAN THE FIRST GOD-DAMN PAGE! I figured out things that none of you have even figured out yet, on page 4 of this thread. I came back THE NEXT FUCKING DAY expecting you idiots to have at least reached the same level of research. It wasn't even like what I did was complicated. I watched the video, followed some links on the facebook redirect oage and googled some basic keywords mentioned in the sites. THESE ARE BASIC 6TH GRADE RESEARCH SKILLS. Not only have none of you managed to catch up to me in all of my basic computer use majesty, but half of you are continually trying to earn the award for most gullible user ever. NO IT'S NOT "REAL" YOU FUCKING RETARDS. It's an ARG possibly, or just a very complex regular ad. It could be an experiment maybe. I don't know. But the fact that it apparently takes nothing more than a very simple flash effect, a little shitty english to russian translation, and a mildly attractive girl to be COMPLETELY FOOLED is insanely depressing. The worst part of it is that half of you are ridiculous pussies who piss their pants in fear of an animation trick that defaults to full-screen. OH MY GOD THEY KNOW MY IP ADDRESS. THEY KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS. WE HAVE TO CALL THE POLICE, GUIZ. You all disgust me.

My mind, she is broken. I have to admit this has piqued my curiosity, though. Also found this. It's a code clearly, and could/could not be relevant. If anyone wants to try solving it feel free.

From what I can work out of the plot of...whatever this is, the Junsui are a race of genetically-engineered women designed to be perfect, the "children of all humanity." One of them, Junko Junsui, is imprisoned by Alfa-Tsentr, who are "the enemy." The term "khozains" is also sometimes used. Something's going on here, guys. ARG, advertisement, whatever it is: this is going to be interesting.

At 8/18/09 01:21 AM, MCSMstudios wrote: Anyone remember when P-bot's posts used to get replies?

They were always just hollow congratulations, "first" posts, and the artists saying "thanks guys" though so it's not like we've lost a grand tradition.

OP seems to have forgotten our British compatriots (and the Aussies). Ignoring the fact that the distribution of users is probably fairly evenly spread throughout all the states, I would say that the state most NGers hail from would have to be insanity.

Their blog said they were bought out a while ago, but it wasn't by Warner Bros. And I'm pretty sure the intention was not to take it down. Are you guys certain it's permanent? It was working fine last night.

Cheer up, buddy. Maybe time is cyclical, eh?

I think this might actually be a lot more common than it has been in previous years. My newfound maturity, personally, has brought me not to abandon this account with all its atrocious old posts but rather simply to start lurking a lot more than posting. In doing so I've noticed that a lot of the '09 users seem to be a lot more intelligent and a lot more...careful than new users of previous years. This could be just the website growing into a more entrenched community with people respecting that more, but considering it is Newgrounds I find it more likely that we're receiving an influx of old users returning as new ones.

I love how they made an article to say that he's not dead.

Did you guys know a few BILLION people didn't die today? I know, it's amazing.

This generalization has always annoyed me because it ignores cause/effect. It's not that women are attracted to jerks specifically, it's that they like hot guys and a lot of hot guys end up as total dicks, for the most part because of this attention. Guys who get everything they want, including chicks, tend to feel entitled and tend to treat other people badly. The end.

Well personally I'd read those things, but it's certainly a part of human nature to stubbornly cling to your own views. Either way it's a pointless hypothetical as the whole point of comparing your viewpoints with those of others is that there's no certainty as to which is right and so nothing is ever guaranteed to convince you of anything. That's why argument exists. Wait...did I just say there was a point to argument? Scratch that. Not like you're likely to change anyone's opinions anyway. Human nature, after all, like I said. I would think that most people would be open to the possiblities, as it were, though, as something thats guaranteed to change your views doesn't exist. Hell, some people even deny things that ARE proven (to whatever extent one can prove something). In the end it's all just more information.

Gentlemen, I've just been informed by wikipedia that today (by which I mean June 11th) isKamehameha day. So bust out your hawaiian kings and go super saiyan, because I think it's time to celebrate.

At 3/20/09 11:13 AM, Pelemus-McSoy wrote: 1. How many hours a week do you spend on Newgrounds?

About 3 or 4 per day.

2. What do you spend most of your time on Newgrounds doing? (play games, watch movies, post in forums, spam, etc)

Lurking, actually. I tab open to the BBS almost compulsively but I never post anymore.

3. How often do you submit non-spam productions to Newgrounds?

Only once, and it got blammed because it was when I was learning flash and it sucked.

At 3/16/09 04:18 AM, Haoie wrote: Regicide, no doubt.

I'm going for deicide.

I love that you made a rant thread about ranting.

At 2/22/09 06:40 PM, catman03 wrote: Because the film industry is full of predujiced douchebags?

This

I mean prejudiced.

Because the film industry is full of predujiced douchebags?

This

The word "cuss" pisses me off. It's just a bastardization of "curse."

At 2/8/09 09:12 PM, lawlmaster wrote: Well would you rather have 10 year old Timmy running around with his penis hanging out saying, "look at me mommy i'm just like that guy on the TV!"

Personally, I would. I think that the small percent of the populace that is stupid enough to imitate things on TV, or those whose parents are too stupid to actually do something about what their kids are watching, should not be allowed to inflict the evils of censorship on society as a whole.

At 2/5/09 07:51 PM, MonkeyV wrote: ED is the only site that can satisfy me right now.

The irony.

I'll give it a shot:

I saw her outside,
she walked with quiet passion,
I went to pieces.

A wondrous, sharp mind,
with beauty unparalleled,
a face to kill for.

Her grace touched the earth,
and all the men of the world,
watched her gleaming eyes.

At 1/17/09 11:50 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/17/09 11:20 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: "A 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip-searched by school officials looking for ibuprofen pain reliever will have her case heard at the Supreme Court."

.... they strip searched her.... over ibuprofen....

That's fucked up.

No fucking kidding. I would say that the only excuse for a school to strip-search a student is if they have a strong reason to believe that the student has a weapon or some other potential source of significant harm to other people. Something as drastic as a strip search is almost never acceptable, and especially over something as trivial and meaningless as ibuprofen. Is that even illegal? I'm not even sure. Student's rights (or lack thereof, because if you're not an adult you might as well be cattle as far as the law is concerned) rulings have already gone much too far and if they actually say that this is acceptable than that's ridiculous.

At 1/3/09 05:28 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i do not support Palestinian violence against civilians (the use of locals as human shields should be considered violence against civilians), nor do i disagree with Israel's will to defend its citizens. but given that Israel is the only reasonable government in the region, the burden of ensuring human rights on either side falls on them.
does asking a terrorist organization, such as Hamas, to play fair make any sense?

Does it make sense? No. But what is the alternative? In an idiotic move demonstrating their holding the values of freedom and democracy higher than the actual prevention of violence, America demanded elections be held. And SURPRISE! Hamas won. Well it wasn't much of a surprise considering essentially every expert suggested that outcome. So we're in it now. Hamas is in charge and Israel's pissed off and neither side can hold a ceasefire for more than a fucking week, it seems (forgive my slight hyperbole). So there's obviously armed conflict. And honestly we don't expect Hamas to be anything but the hardcore jackasses they've shown themselves to be, and Israel's actions are FAR from condonable, but yet we have to hold both sides up to reasonable standards. Israel is responsible for this recent action, certainly, and I doubt there will be many people who will dispute that is an irresponsible overreaction that will likely cause significant collateral damage. But then, to hold them responsible for the actions of both sides, does that make any more sense?

this doesn't mean that counter-attacks should be banned, but rather that Israel cannot be allowed to become apathetic about civilian safety.

NOBODY should be allowed to become apathetic about civilian safety.

if any country would have the benefit of the doubt and the possibility to disregard the well being of civilians in a conflict zone it is Israel. it is simply a matter of assuring that Israel at no point forgets this.

I don't really think anyone has the (justified) possibility to disregard the well being of civilians in a conflict zone. Israel (I had to type that five times to get it right, I shouldn't post at 4 AM) is certainly justified in an armed response to the attacks from Gaza, but it can't disregard civilian safety concerns. Honestly I think this is simply a case of overkill, is the problem. This isn't going to solve the problem permanently, by any means, so it really just amounts to a case of Israel making an unnecessary level of response.

At 1/4/09 05:15 AM, Earfetish wrote: We've been sending rockets to various places in the Middle East for far longer than 8 years. Should they level our countries too?

Hardly, but they certainly have a right to take action to prevent a repetition of those attacks. "Level[ing] our countries" would be a huge overreaction (not to mention one those nations aren't capable of currently, but I digress) which is, quite frankly, exactly what I believe IS happening. Israel has a right to protect themselves and take action to prevent future violence, however the assault against Gaza that is currently their response to the attacks that have been made against them is a ridiculous show of unnecessary power. It's equivalent to someone punching you, and you shooting them in the spleen as a response. You have the right to defend yourself, but overkill is overkill. It seems to me that the situation between Gaza and Israel is a very delicate one with frightening potential for escalation. I do wish people could learn to use to diplomacy or, at the very least, learn to keep a ceasefire for like five fucking minutes. I swear every time they sign something over there the agreement is broken five days later. To Israels credit, they're almost never the ones to shoot first (so to speak) but still, the violent reactions they've been having are hardly productive and are quite honestly despicable.

Y'know what fuck the state of Israel it shouldn't even fucking exist;

That's a ridiculous assertion. The state of Israel was established when a mandate was set to separate the country of Palestine into two smaller states: Israel (a home for the Jewish refugees of world war two (who have throughout history longed to return to what is now Israel), and the new Palestine. Where would YOU have put all of the Jewish world war two refugees? I would understand if you say the Palestinians deserved a larger share of the place or something, but why would you say Israel shouldn't exist?

funny we condemn Iran or wherever for human rights abuses and support Israel leveling a city

If you've been paying attention at all you should have the cynical realism to know it's all politics over there anyway.

if the rest of the world stopped giving either side aid then they'd soon figure out that they have to get along or kill each other; we're funnelling money into both sides so they can kill each other and it's disgusting

Yes but we can't exactly cut off aid from both sides. For one thing just because this would cause destruction and casualties to skyrocket doesn't mean either side would stop. And for another thing the only reason why you're suggesting this is because they'd hopefully realize how much more damage would get done, but this is also the main problem. As moral people we can't just cut off aid and let all of the destruction that's all but inevitable over there go untended.

yes Hamas shouldn't be firing rockets

Which brings me to another point: Hamas must be pretty stupid. I mean, honestly, they've been firing missiles at Israel for a while now. They've seen what Israel is willing to do back. Why the hell do they keep doing stuff like this? I mean this may be the worst attack (debatable) but it's certainly not the first.

yes Hamas knew Israel would respond disproportionately, that doesn't make the disproportionate response acceptable;

No it doesn't. I don't think very many people are suggesting that what Israel's done is "acceptable," but the question is are they justified in taking military action in response to the attacks they've received. I say yes.

y'know if religion didn't suck then Israelis could relocate to the Nevada Desert

Actually they were almost given Alaska. But (and I'll admit I'm not even close to objective on this) you have to understand this from the Jewish-Israeli perspective too. It's a major part of their belief, and something they've been yearning for throughout their history. And now if Palestine had been a friendlier place in the first place this wouldn't really have been much of a problem. Given the situation, however, I don't think it's unreasonable to give a piece of Palestine away. Now the size and location of the land however, I'm not so sure about, but that's all unimportant now.

Je garde un homme dans la boite.

At 12/29/08 09:08 PM, poxpower wrote: The reason we don't allow crimes is so we're not the victim.

Actually many people support the prohibition of various crimes based on some result of their own moral beliefs, in addition to not wanting to be a victim, and in such a case the same thing applies with abortion. For instance I'm not particularly worried about being raped, but that doesn't necessarily mean I support the decriminalization of rape. You seem to want people to question why they hold these moral values even when they're not at risk. This is likely because people empathize with the potential victims of such crimes. Thus people aren't actually worried about being aborted, but rather they understand that were they in the place of the fetus they would not like to be aborted. Of course this is still rather shaky and overly simplistic moral reasoning, and I agree with your presumed position on abortion, but your reasoning is faulty. And yes I realize this thread was mostly intended to be humorous rather than serious, but I have nothing better to do than type this out.

At 12/28/08 09:44 PM, Lorkas wrote: And even though I am completely sure there's no one hiding in the deep dark beyond, I still fear venturing to darker places

Actually fear of the dark is one of the most basic human instincts, it's only by overcoming this that people aren't scared. It's very reasonable, as darkness represents a complete shut off of all visual input regarding an area. It's human nature to fear the unknown. Stranger than that is a fear of silence, which is actually much rarer though it is essentially the same thing except regarding another type of sensory input. I suppose it's because nothing can "hide in the silence." Sounds like a horror movie.

At 12/25/08 11:42 PM, JoS wrote: Most developed countries have rather low growth rates, even with immigration factored in because they have very low birth rates.

When you look at developing countries like India you see a much higher birthrate for a number of reasons. First is because child mortality is higher, so you pump out more kids to make sure some make it to be teenagers.

Secondly, many people live in rural areas where substance farming is the norm, the more kids you have the more hands you have to help on the farm and house, the more you can ultimately produce and sell to make money. Even in the US and other developed countries, rural areas tend to have higher birth rates than urban. Also its less expensive to have a kid in India, especially in rural areas.

Hey if you have widely available contraceptives then with a few exceptions (I.E. condom breaking, dumbass teenagers, etc.) it becomes more of a question of deciding to have a child. In undeveloped countries this is less available, plus education in most places around the world isn't exactly adequate in that regard. Not to mention the fact that quite frankly, in poverty having a child might not be as costly as in more stable areas. That is to say, if the cost of living isn't as high because the quality of living isn't as high, and you know that a kid could help support you with a job or just a helping hand, and possibly even grow up to get a better job (or take you to a better country), then the decision of whether to have a kid or not is changed drastically.

India has implemented some policies aimed at curbing population growth, they have a two child policy and various incentives to discourage having alot of children.

I don't think it's working.

At 12/25/08 11:50 PM, JoS wrote: Somalia has a higher net migration rate then you do. How sad is that?

Who the hell wants to go to Somalia? I mean, culturally I'm sure they have some awesome stuff, but in terms of living conditions it's terrible. I mean...I know people from Somalia; it's a hellhole.

In all seriousness, population is a big problem though: humans are fast outgrowing the Earth's ability to support them. And the vast majority of this expansion is in those places with the highest population density already, which of course is only making things worse.

Almost every school everywhere has stupid policies. Every school I've been to, or talked to someone who's been to, has to some extent endorsed censorship, a pointless and immoral stance. I'm yet to happen upon a school that doesn't filter web access, blocking countless informative and useful websites simply because they're not politically correct or involve actual people being themselves. Additionally, all of the schools I've had the misfortune of attending have completely overreacted to minute incidents involving things vaguely related to violence. I swear, ever since Columbine every jackass in the educational profession thinks it's reasonable to sound the fucking big alarms any time someone pulls out a goddamn G.I. Joe. In middle school I narrowly avoided being put on a terrorist watch list after I made a joke about school shootings. I don't even remember what I said, seriously. I know someone who now has to wear an ankle bracelet for the next two months because he said something about guns. It's fucking ridiculous. And I mean, I understand that they have to take things seriously. Respond to threats and all that. But people talking and messing around is not an excuse to go batshit crazy. When someone threatens to kill somebody and they nab their ass THEN I'll be thankful. But not this, this is retarded.

At 12/26/08 03:13 AM, A-147 wrote: The main difference between Atheism and Religious people seems to be that Atheists can admit thier wrong.

Most atheists can. Most. I've met some very stubborn atheists. And for that matter I'm sure there are some open-minded religious people. Not the majority to be sure, but I have no doubt there are a significant number.

If someone showed up with proof of a God tomorrow Atheists would admit they're wrong and convert. But even though we have no evidence of God's existence

While I agree with the first bit, I should say that this is not a good argument: as a lack of evidence for something is not to be equated with evidence against it. Now of course it's rather silly to believe in something just because it COULD BE, but nonetheless a lot of debate has arisen out of the fact that there really can be no evidence AGAINST the existence of a deity/deities, but instead there's a lack of evidence FOR said existence.

and we have much better theories to explain our existence (i.e. the big bang theory, evolution, etc.) Religious people continue to cling to their misguided beliefs.

I'll skip the waiting for you to reply and hold this conversation with myself, as I've had it a million times before:
Me: what makes a theory better?

You: scientific evidence!

Me: Given, but then who's to say that science and belief in a deity are mutually exclusive? Evolution and the Big Bang theory are largely irrelevant, as the question is further down the line. If we say the Big Bang started the universe, than what started the Big Bang? Of course there's the same question regarding god (Who made god?) but then at some point we have to go "this conversation is going nowhere," and the priest and the rabbi and the atheist all go have a beer.

And for those of you that religion provides hope so whats the harm, Religion is one the most violent corrupting forces in the world.

Religion awakens both the greatest and worst qualities of mankind, as does any other lifestyle choice based around taking an ideal to an extreme. There is nothing innately wrong with religion itself, and many people believe and are perfectly content in the fact that there's no real reason for them to believe. They have hope, they have ceremony that brings their family together, and that's all. Nothing is a "violent corrupting force." Not a single thing. It's only when we choose to act in needlessly violent ways in order to perpetuate our own extremist ideals that such negative consequences arise. Ideas cannot hurt anyone.

It can convince evil people that they are doing right (i.e. Hitler and NO he WASN'T Atheist)

Common misconception: you don't actually need religion to justify atrocity, you just need to be insidious, sadistic, and very pointlessly philosophical.

and cause horrible disasters like the holocaust and the crusades. The only religion that TRULY believes in non-violence is Buddhism, but here's the funny thing about Buddhism; you can be Buddhist and still not believe in a higher power.

Actually most religions preach nonviolence, it's just that most religious folk take certain messages to heart and discard others. Jesus ranted about loving thy brother for a significant portion of the New Testament. The old testament has some very nonviolent messages, not the least of which is in the Ten Commandments. Islam I can't speak about as I don't know nearly as much about it but I'd bet there are similar concepts. Essentially my point is that beliefs don't kill people: people do. And yes that's a deliberate play on anti-gun-control propaganda.

At 12/26/08 03:23 AM, Another-User wrote: So because people take religion to the extreme, religion is bad? Is it also wrong to not torture animals to death because PETA doesn't?

This is a very good argument. Unfortunately it's one that tends to elude most people. I.E. "those psycho nutcases believed ____, so ____ must be bad!"

At 12/26/08 03:29 AM, A-147 wrote:

At 12/26/08 03:23 AM, Another-User wrote:

Fun Fact: Jesus, one of the biggest preachers of peace and love towards fellow man, has caused more bloodshed than anyone else in history. Tell me, so because a lot of people misinterpret Jesus's teachings, that makes Christianity bad?

Yes, yes it does. If one single person dies because of your "message of peace and love" then your belief is evil.

YOU HEARD IT FOLKS! EVERY BELIEF IS EVIL! YUP THAT'S RIGHT, EVERYONE WHO EVER LIVED IS A MORAL DOUCHEBAG!

And if you don't admit your wrong about something that just makes you jerk it has nothing to do with whether or not your atheist.

You were making the opposite argument earlier, saying that all atheists admit they're wrong.