Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

If you live in a country where millions of people all want different things, your vote is still no better than the next guy's. Vote for what you want, and maybe if millions of other people, together being far more important than you, agree, you might get it.

If you can't deal with being small and unimportant, you can refuse to exercise a most basic right of your government. It's one less jagoff to contend with to get what I want.

At 1/29/09 11:11 PM, Contipec wrote: LOL. You torture people in Guantanamo, kick them, hunger them, humiliate them, and you expect them to be nice folks to the USA when they get out?

Apparently Obama and the Democrats thought just that... Seeing as how most of the ex-prisoners were there for having ill will towards America in the first place. Did you think that Guantanamo just grabbed up random, America-loving folks?

Although I could care less who listens to my phone or reads my emails (I have nothing to hide in them), I will say that it shows a serious government detachment from constituents that they are willing to tap phones on shady Constitutional premises.

Is it the government's place to view every citizen as a potential criminal?

This kind of thing must be nipped in the bud before it gets out of hand. It is the duty of the voter to make sure that the government does not infringe upon Constitutional rights, regardless of how large or small the issue may seem.

At 1/26/09 06:48 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/25/09 11:18 PM, Christopherr wrote: Assuming the failure rate of the machine is only the slightest percentage, we can safely say that if you try to rationally decide, you lose because the machine can predict human behavior.

Nothing in the problem states that the machines tries to trick you so you have no money. If you pick B, you get your million. That's it.

If I cared about money.

I just want this machine to tell me I've bested it, so that I can laugh at it and take the money anyways.

A better question: if a machine does not place value on money and is not out to trick you, what would a behavior-predicting machine do if it were given a situation in which it was presented with a random choice?

Assuming the failure rate of the machine is only the slightest percentage, we can safely say that if you try to rationally decide, you lose because the machine can predict human behavior.

So the only way to beat the machine is to randomly pick a box. Bust out a quarter and go 50-50 without thinking about it.

Hey guys, it's optional, and infections are much easier to catch when you don't wash parts of your dick as much.

I mean, you call this mutilation? What is the accepted definition of mutilation? Someone against circumcision would say that it's changing the body, I suppose. Plastic surgery, is it mutilation? If you want to see real body mutilation, look at any person with ears gauged bigger than his fist or twelve pounds of piercings on his face.

If it's mutilation, it's mutilation with a reasonable purpose. In other words, medicine.

At 1/5/09 01:24 PM, TheMason wrote: Pretty much all of the gun owners or people who know guns on this site can see the ginormous flaws in this legislation.

Why do you think this would be successful? Where is your argument?

I own guns, I just like the idea that bullets (or their shells) used for illegal activity could be traced back to a specific weapon in the future.

I didn't say it was practical, but I will admit that it is a good idea... It's utterly useless right now, seeing as how a murder weapon can be just be tested by investigators to determine if a bullet came from it. On top of that, HOW are we going to do it? Tiny microprint on every casing? Forget that, I like my no-hassle, cheap bullets and shells.

I'd support it only if costs could remain low and hassles minimized.

It's a great idea.

If it's done right, gun owners shouldn't be too hassled with ammunition registration and suspects would be worlds easier to catch and convict.

At 1/3/09 07:02 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I had a wrist rocket sling shot, I used marbles & they would knock a cat off a fence from 50 ft away.
But the best was putting shot gun pellets into plastic wrap & when you put a packet of those in the pocket of your sling shot, you gave it a little twisting squeeze & when you fired it it was like firing a shotgun blast at what ever your terget was...often a damn cat digging/shitting in the garden !

I didn't have much money, so mine was made of whittled wood and a thick rubber band. Worked fine for me, but I had to practice a lot with it.

At 1/3/09 05:07 PM, SevenSeize wrote: What happened to the good old days, where kids beat each other with sticks and rocks?
None of this fancy rubber band shit.
You little bastards are spoiled.
In my day, we fought with whatever we could find after we farmed all day long.

I had a slingshot. Which I armed with rocks.

I also had a fort in the woods near the air force base, where my buddies and I would play shootouts. That was cool, until this bastard cop went in there and SHAT ON IT. HE POOPED ON MY FORT.

At 1/3/09 02:34 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Seriously Christopherr , how the hell could you get consent ? l o l

Good question. Whenever we find out how, I'll support people fucking animals.

At 1/3/09 05:12 PM, SevenSeize wrote: We need to pour more money into researching like cryonics.

I want to be frozen for a thousand years or so, come back when they've got time travel and immortality all figured out.

And faster, better cheese sandwiches.

Maybe even a country started by NG regs.

It'd be called New Ground, and there would be a state for each BBS section. The General section would be like the slums. The Poli section would be a strange place, and it would have a city called Loungedale, where the regs (we'd all be cryofrozen to the future) would all drink and grill fish.

Poxpower? Altruistic? Nahhh, I don't buy it.

What's your game?

At 1/3/09 08:31 AM, KemCab wrote: that's like pedophilia. you're engaging in sexual intercourse with someone who might not know what's going on and be violated by the act.

Why not legalize that too?

At 9/10/08 04:55 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 9/10/08 04:35 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Then why stay alive?

Why stay alive when you go to heaven when you die if you're a Christian?

Whoah whoah whoah. Christianity holds that you're supposed to live your life according to God's plan. According to belief, killing yourself would be infringing upon God's domain, so that's why Christianity isn't about mass suicide.

Please don't be a dick.

I'll go with all of the above.

I mean, when he finds out that the Democrats are going to slap down any nominee of his, he nominates a black dude just so that the Democrats will look bad rejecting a minority.

Slang words not being legitimate words just because they are slang? You kook, that's absolutely nutty!

nut%u22C5ty
1. abounding in or producing nuts.
2. nutlike, esp. in flavor.
3. full of flavor or zest; lively; stimulating; meaty: He offered several rich, nutty ideas on the subject.

OH WAIT.

Search "retarded" and you can see that the word is not branded as slang... But search "retard" and it is. The truth is that whether it is slang or totally acceptable is the issue in question, and you're using circular logic if you say that it is either one because the dictionary definition in question says so. I would find a better argument.

As long as you can prove that the animal consented.

And in addendum to my earlier post, whether people are good or evil is not determinable. An altruist says that people do good things because people are inherently good, while the world corrupts them to do evil. A cynic explains the same phenomenon by saying that a person does good things for self gain, even if it seems as if they aren't.

Personally, I'm altruistic. The people I trust the most are children, because they're generally more pure than adults. They don't rape each other, they lie less than adults, they feel worse when they do what they think is wrong.

Tabula rasa theory is mostlybullshit. Sure, babies can be raised to act differently based on environment, but they're all wired differently. Humans are so complex, we're vastly different in every area. We have different blood, different facial features, different body builds, different teeth, different immune systems, different genetics. It only makes sense that we have differently structured minds as well.

For instance, my grandmother had three children. The first, my father, she said was a very calm child, even in the womb. When he was a blank slate newborn, he was still quiet. The second was not so calm, he kicked in the womb and cried often as a newborn.

Studies of twins separated at birth and later reunited showed that they had astonishing psychological similarities. The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (I can't find a free link to the full paper, I saw it a while back in school) is a damning piece of evidence against tabula rasa theory. Now why would so many twins reared separately constantly show similar psychological qualities such as character traits and interests if we're all blank slates?

Here's the abstract:
"Since 1979, a continuing study of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, separated in infancy and reared apart, has subjected more than 100 sets of reared-apart twins or triplets to a week of intensive psychological and physiological assessment. Like the prior, smaller studies of monozygotic twins reared apart, about 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation. On multiple measures of personality and temperament, occupational and leisure-time interests, and social attitudes, monozygotic twins reared apart are about as similar as are monozygotic twins reared together. These findings extend and support those from numerous other twin, family, and adoption studies. It is a plausible hypothesis that genetic differences affect psychological differences largely indirectly, by influencing the effective environment of the developing child. This evidence for the strong heritability of most psychological traits, sensibly construed, does not detract from the value or importance of parenting, education, and other propaedeutic interventions."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab stract/250/4978/223

I've been busy as hell with work, now I finally have a vacation (I got off New Years and took off a day today).

Turns out I'm still poor.

Well, how're all of you?

He's good with politics, but I don't like his writing.

He wrote a foreword to Huxley's Brave New World, which was the most pompous shit I have ever read. There's a point when excess amounts of complicated vocabulary become irritating to read.

At 8/10/08 02:59 AM, Snayke wrote: Oh, when you said surrounded I was thinking of the Russian border. I didn't realise that any country, no matter how far away from Russia they are, constitutes Russia being surrounded. By that merit I will make you another map.

That's surrounded, you fucking moron.

It's not as if Russia can get a significant number of people through the Arctic, and even if they could, they would end up at the northern border of an enemy country.

At 8/9/08 02:06 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/9/08 02:04 AM, drDAK wrote: I believe athletics in general are a way of asserting human superiority over another.

So yes, gold medals roughly correlate to the power of a country.

Actually, it's more an indication of population rather than power.

Why hasn't China crushed every Olympic game since 1984?

Last I checked, they got beaten in medals every time by countries of lesser population.

At 8/7/08 11:15 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Well written, or do you mean the message was good, or what?

It was pretty cute.

Don't quit your day job.

And no, the society described could never happen. It would be impossible to turn a world of billions of adults (who are not previously conditioned, mind you) into a bunch of brainwashed people while simultaneously eliminating sex.

You would have to kill off every single adult who is not conditioned, as it is too late to condition them, and condition an entire generation of babies.

Huxley was not predicting the future of our country. He was describing a technologically advanced form of communism in response to the changes Stalin brought to Russia.

Why would an English dude predict the future of a country that wasn't even a major world power at the time? Nobody really cared much about the US until WWII, and if they did, there was a far heavier focus on other countries.

Lol, good fucking luck convincing the majority of Congress and a President to agree to this.

Seriously, it's not going to happen.

All politicians play the political game. Notice that nearly every person complaining about these ads is too young to have seen previous candidates do the exact same thing.