Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/16/13 05:15 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 1/14/13 12:35 PM, BlueGomamon wrote: California would certainly be interesting.

Yes, because California is certainly a setting we've never seen before in a Fallout game.

Better then DC...

At 1/18/13 09:00 AM, Saen wrote:

At 1/18/13 02:45 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
Yet numerous studies and actual real life examples show the exact opposite. You can cherry pick data you want.
For example if I exclude Black Males from crime stats, HOLY CRAP where did most of our murders go?

Every black man on Earth has a dick bigger than yours.

Because you can't deny the point made. God you are shameless.
and Lul, you don't even know

At 1/18/13 01:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/18/13 02:19 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Umm Camarohusky please stop talking until you find weapons that hold that capacity. Then compare them to weapons now being banned. by the way it is pretty absurd people keep bringing up high capacity here. This has nothing to do with high capacity.

So those three bullets actually make a difference in any reasonable lawful situation? Really? Please do explain a REASONABLE and lawful scenario where a 7 round clip = failure, but a 10 round = success.

Reasonable? Do the fucking research and see how many guns are no longer LEGAL. It isn't about rounds its about how many guns are no longer acceptable because of the small amount. Just about every handgun, 95% of handguns are now illegal, Most of them being the kind that people use for self defense. Why is that acceptable tell me why that is reasonable?

How about a 5 round max. Why do you need 7 if you have 5? Because you don't have anything then. They specifically made it 7 because they knew it made 95% of handguns illegal. That is effectively banning guns for most people.

At 1/18/13 02:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/18/13 02:24 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Support what? Racism? I'm being sincere, why argue for something that is racist regardless of your feelings. If people can't legitimately support it why does it need to be defended by anyone?

Because it has a noble goal to a problem that far too many, especially those against AA, ignore.

Also, even if something is wrong, there still is a great deal of right that can come from it. This includes the possibility of stumbling upon the right solution, and in the very least it brings attention to the root problem. You can't solve a problem that's tucked under the rug. AA at least does white America the service of sticking that problem in our side so we at least have to acknowledge it.

Otherwise we'd have a huge percentage of white folks, a large chunk of my friends, going on innocently and ignorantly believing racism is a thing of the past while they get massive preferential treatment.

No nothing positive will be discovered as better solution then AA while using AA. Because plenty of people either hate it or think it's fine. You can't solve a problem when you act like your dirty fix is good enough. Like I said before I'm not white, it is offensive to even consider race as a factor in enrollment or hiring someone. THAT is offensive and racist.

What good comes from AA the possibility of less qualified people filling positions because of their race? The perceived injustice of many who have never suffered actual discrimination? You know the ones who shamelessly race card when they are called out?

In the end you are arguing in favor of racism, let someone who defends racism argue in favor of racism. Let someone who thinks discrimination is a good thing defend AA. If you don't personally feel racism and discrimination are acceptable you shouldn't favor it, nor should you argue in favor for it.

At 1/18/13 01:15 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/18/13 12:54 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Supporting AA is Pro racism

Ignorng a comment made numerous times is a reading comprehesion disbility.

I have said, numerous times that I am generally ambivalent. I don't support AA, but I don't care enough to stop it either. I see the logic in it and I will argue that logic to ensure the side gets heard, but that doesn't mean I support it.

Support what? Racism? I'm being sincere, why argue for something that is racist regardless of your feelings. If people can't legitimately support it why does it need to be defended by anyone?

Supporting AA is Pro racism

At 1/18/13 12:41 AM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 1/17/13 11:59 PM, Xenomit wrote: Are you being dead serious?

Not really, but the fact that you guys are getting so defensive about it makes me rethink that a little.

I just find it a little disingenuous to claim that they're for "self-defense" when:

A. More guns tend to equal more homicide, and

B. Gun-related deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control laws (and while we're at it, notice how they found no statistical association between gun deaths and mental illness).

Yet numerous studies and actual real life examples show the exact opposite. You can cherry pick data you want.
For example if I exclude Black Males from crime stats, HOLY CRAP where did most of our murders go?

At 1/17/13 07:56 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/17/13 07:27 PM, Ceratisa wrote: All of thes Freud

Founder of psychoanalysis.
Theory of Psychosexual Development
The Id, Ego, and Superego
Dream interpretation
Free association.

are you suggesting none of this is valuable?

It's not that they aren't valuable, it's just that his theories are usually incorrect, according to modern shrinks.

His modern theories don't all have to add up to change what he did to the field of psychology.

At 1/17/13 11:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The reason I am generally amibvalent is quite key to my previous point.

I think AA is most definitely needed, as I see racism all the time. However, I don't think AA is the best way to fix the problem. So the need and the con kinda outweight each other leaving nothing but apathy.

Really you don't think racism is the best way to fix racism? But you are pro racism.

Umm Camarohusky please stop talking until you find weapons that hold that capacity. Then compare them to weapons now being banned. by the way it is pretty absurd people keep bringing up high capacity here. This has nothing to do with high capacity.

At 1/17/13 07:25 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 1/17/13 07:08 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Yep. I'm a white male. And I'm poor. I've had hard times finding work. In fact, in the places I have worked, most of the employees consists of hispanic or asian immigrants. You're kind of proving my point.

It's a lot easier to exploit immigrants. They're also paid less and generally have less comps. But what about blacks? How about poverty levels? Why focus on income alone? How about prison demographics?

Hey Feoric I love links I honestly do, but the first chart is from 1999 can we have that updated?
And for poverty and prison isn't much of that a sociological issue? Not income. Yet opportunities still happen we have a Black president, don't we?

Being a minority myself I have never felt discriminated against. victimized or mistreated.
89.3% White, 0.7% African American, 0.4% Native American, 5.6% Asian, 0.2% Pacific Islander, 0.8% from other races, and 3.0% from two or more races, Hispanic or Latino 3.7%

Lots of whites, never mistreated because I'm different. No one I've seen ever is.

And for sociological issues why don't we have more out reach programs rather then AA for less then the most qualified people possible for a job.

At 1/17/13 06:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/17/13 02:48 PM, Kellz5460 wrote: ~Sigmund Freud

Ever wonder why the name Freud sounds so much like 'fraud'? Not likely a mere coincidence.

All of thes Freud

Founder of psychoanalysis.
Theory of Psychosexual Development
The Id, Ego, and Superego
Dream interpretation
Free association.

are you suggesting none of this is valuable?

At 1/15/13 03:41 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Oh, I thought you said "game". Not boring shit fest.

..Ya, I wouldn't buy any of these

Okay some people need to understand the difference between

"Right" and "Need"

Stop using the word need. When something is an established right you don't need to justify need. The founding fathers went ahead and told us why anyway though.

Pro gun people don't need to argue need when it is a right. And in NY with how many guns have been effectivley made invalid with the ban. That right is certainly being infringed. Because even the low end of handguns start at 8 rounds.

At 1/17/13 07:06 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 1/17/13 06:19 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/17/13 06:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: That white males already get preferential treatment because of their being white males?

They don't.

...says the white male.

Being a non white male do I get to say they don't? Ever in my experience.

Actually burning freedom of speech is a terrible example. Because guns are guns, purposefully harmful speech considerably different then stating differing views.

Guns on the other hand are still guns.

At 1/17/13 01:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/17/13 01:15 AM, Ceratisa wrote: You need to look at the intent.

Did they intend for the people to have cannons? Mortars? Grenades?

They clearly intended a limit to what the people would have. Assault weapons is very much pushing that limit.

A semi automatic rifle that is only banned based on looks is what the founding fathers of america sought to control? Who is reaching here?

Do you really believe the founders of this country so short sighted that they wouldn't be precise when they need to be?
Cause at various points in the document they are very precise.

At 1/17/13 01:03 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/16/13 11:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I don't give a flying fuck about liberal interpretation of the law.

Reading into the plain text of the Second Amendment the right to own assault weapons IS a liberal interpretation of the law.

A strict interpretation would not read that in.

assault weapons is a recently invented term. But other then that, the law was purposefully worded loosely because the founding fathers knew that weapons of the time changed. If they had wanted to be restrictive in what kind of arms they could have. Instead they went out of their way to point out that the government shall not infringe. You need to look at the intent.

At 1/16/13 11:56 PM, 919CDS wrote:

At 1/16/13 11:53 PM, Ceratisa wrote: IF the founding fathers only intended for us to use the weapons of the time. They never wanted us to ever be able to stop the government. That doesn't quite add up..

founding fathers actually wanted us to have whatever weapons the millitary has

I well understand that. But right now people are pulling crap and I'm trying approach it from another angle.
My angle, as I said, why would the founding fathers include that, if they wanted us to only have weapons that were sure to become out dated and useless?

IF the founding fathers only intended for us to use the weapons of the time. They never wanted us to ever be able to stop the government. That doesn't quite add up..

Want a link? Because I've never heard of the studies you state. I hope it is an actual study. Even when looking for positive effects of AA I couldn't find one you mention. (even from some very liberal sources)

So long as Jamaal Brown and Jaime Moreno get treated worse than James Brownstone because of their names...

It still happens fairly common. Just because Obama became President (amidst a huge heap of vocal racism, I might add) doesn't mean that all discriination has magically disappeared. Those opposed to affirmative action make many strong claims but the claim that racism no longer exists just isn't one of them.

Are you serious? I honestly wonder how you expect racism to end when it is encouraged in through AA. Because when you treat a race differently then another it is called racism. It doesn't matter if some people treat others differently based on race. We have laws for that already. What AA is, is preferential treatment, not equal rights.

Being a minority myself I don't feel AA was ever appropriate if people want to be equal. Enforcing laws against acts of discrimination is fine, preferential treatment is not.

Is the newest generation the ones who are largely mistreating Jamaal Brown? We won't have equality until we as a people really stop seeing race. Having laws and rules that highlight race being a factor in hiring or enrolling a person is not an acceptable step forward.

At 1/16/13 04:59 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/16/13 04:57 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Hand Out/Unfair advantage =/= Help

Everyone needs help from time to time but affirmative action should be extended to all that need help cause we all need help.

Or ended? Just for example, Asians are over represented in colleges, is that their fault?

You mentioned people taking care of their own needs. Changing their life if they need to. In that same respect shouldn't people be able to help themselves get help? If someone can move with nothing in their pocket, install security doors and be proactive about security. Why can't you expect the same in regards to education and employment?

Should anyone be more likely to be hired or enrolled just because they are different in a fashion that does not in any way affect their ability to do the job. I do not believe so. Should other people miss out on opportunities for discrimination executed on others in the past that they had no part of? I do not feel that is fair.

Is it acceptable to let the pendulum swing the other way when preaching fairness and equality? I don't think so.

So in the end what do people who are PRO AA want? Fairness and equality or preferential treatment?

It becomes so when that hobby changes the world I live in.

World didn't age people are always violent.

Hand Out/Unfair advantage =/= Help

At 1/16/13 04:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/16/13 03:35 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/16/13 02:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Everything Mason said

Plus fucking 1

Someone got the but hurt again LOL ?

Your comment doesn't really make sense..

So the poor and uneducated tend to execute the most acts of violence on each other. But you know, just change your door or move. So many of them want to live where they are though, clearly.

If we completely stripped black males of firearms we'd have some of the lowest firearm homicide rates.

Are you suggesting that locked doors keep criminals out? What about buildings that don't allow you to change doors because you live in an apartment?

This is just about how most recycling costs more energy and resources to recycle, in comparison to making a brand new one, right?