Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Let me play devil's advocate here for a second.

If we let gays marry than we going start this parade of horribles chain reaction. No I'm not talk about people marrying animals, I'm talking about stuff that is natural in the animal kingdom and yet we still deny. If we going to secularize the institution of marriage. This is what we let in.

1) inter-familial marriage (animals have been breeding across familial lines for centuries)

2) Polygamy (alpha males of primate packs have many wives)

If gay marriage is allowed, then these by the same logic must be allowed as well. It wouldn't make sense otherwise since the inter-familial marriage does not pose an undue burden on the state and polygamy doesn't either.

This sucks, I had such high hopes for Chavez too. If only he realized the true power that was in his hands, he would step down right now.

At 2/18/09 06:26 PM, Patton3 wrote: Wow, this idea is being given serious thought... little bit creepy.

Do you admit that theoretically it could work?

At 2/11/09 09:11 PM, Valjylmyr wrote: I'm agnostic, and a lot of people I know find that weird. What's so strange about it? It makes perfect sense to be, but a bunch of people at school or whatever call me a heathen all the time because I say there's no proof God exists. Is it weird to be an agnotist?

That's what you get for being an agnostic in delaware, the heart of the bible belt.

Seriously tho, it really depends on what you define as weird. Weird as unusual would be alright since alot of people believe in god. but weird as in illogical, certainly not since you've done the most logical thing a person can do which is question the universe.

Also, it helps if you don't parade your views around alot. If you don't believe in god, keep it to yourself and be smug in knowing that you are way smarter than everyone who believes in god.

If there's one agency that is better than the FBI at solving crimes, it's the folks at 4chan

This could probably get abused by alcoholics and depressed people for the wrong reasons.

Has anyone else noticed that whenever someone plays the Bagpipes, it's the exact same song every time. I'm not kidding, it's like this jaunty little tune that apparently must be played whenever there are bagpipes involved. I'm thinking "it must be because America doesn't have any real bagpipers" but no! I go to scotland last summer and they're playing the same thing! and nothing else! Did someone forget to write out songs for the bagpipe or something?

doo doo da da da da da doo doo da da da da da doh doh da da da da da doo doo doo

I usually like the games I buy for one reason or another. But I have to say I didn't really like Ratchet and Clank: Quest for Booty that much. I also didn't really like Stardust HD. But other than that. I didn't buy Pain since it came with my new ps3 but that never had a chance of stealing from me anyway.

Have you ever played a game that was so confusing and mind**** inducing in its concept and design that you're left speechless...... to the point where you really want to puke just to see if in fact you hd ingested illegal substances? This is how I'm after merely watching a video of the gameplay of Noby Noby Boy off the PSN. The graphics not only (intentionally i'm sure) look like they came straight off of a pre-schooler's lunchbox, but the 'game' that ensues is nothing short of astonishing in that there doesn't seem a point for this game's existence unless this is a new federal anti-marijuana project.

I'm up for "far out-there" games off the psn (though it seems like that's the only thing that comes up on it these days). Like me being a fan of Pixeljunk Eden and The Last Guy I'm sure flower, once I get my hands on it, is going to be an awesome relaxing experience and Fat Princes will be weird but fun. But this one crosses the line I think. I feel like if I play this game when it comes out tomorrow, I felt kill someone just because "the game told me to do it."

opinions?
Vid of Gameplay for Noby Noby Boy

I felt like a douche just leaving that response there so here's a follow-up

philosophically, I believe life exists because, as you said, we are all in a state of activity. However, just because you alive doesn't mean you are in a state of activity. In fact, everything is in a state of activity be it light zooming across the cosmos or volcanoes erupting. The difference I think is while everything could be considered active, I believe being alive is being in the state of activity that potentially causes unexpected change. It goes hand in hand with science and the cause and effect law. If there was nothing alive in this world, the only thing that would guide it's course through time is pure physics. A simple cause an effect relationship. Since a cause must be generated by a logically affecting effect (a ball bounces into another ball which bounces into another ball), there is a rhyme and reason. Life, on the other hand adds another kind of activity, activity that could potentially disturb the simple cause and effect relationship of the universe

For instance say I was floating in the unverse just going by the laws of physics. Then I see an asteroid coming towards me. If I decide to brace for impact, what have I done? anticipated the course of time, which doesn't make sense with logical physics. The fact that I could see the rock was a cause and the effect was my bracing, which was the cause for the rock bouncing off me slightly differently. But perhaps it wasn't the action of bracing that caused this new chain of relationships to take place. It was the fact that I was aware of my surroundings in the first place and realized I had options. You can apply that logic to any living thing, even if it doesn't have capacity to make the decision. In short, the difference is that while a rock merely acts as a reactive force of its environment, something that is living expects that something will happen. It is the creator of its own cause and effect relationship.

The thing about humans is that we care about alot of things. And we care about a lot of different things. The result of people interested in doing one thing interacting with people interested in doing another causes something to happen, for good or for evil.

This thread has no point and here's why.

Scientifically there is a definition for "Life"
There is also a functional definition for 'life' that is extremely similar, if a little more simplistic, to the scientific one.

Your argument does not apply the scientific definition of life (even though you seem to be arguing against it) and so you must be thinking of some other definition related to another strand of thinking. I think these are religion and philosophy and you seem to be implying that this definition applies to both. First, the argument makes the definition for the agnostic argument, and second you use it to create the old philosophical question of "what is life" and perhaps answer it.

So really you either need to be more concise as to what you are arguing against (who said that life was a real thing?) or why it applies to the scientific definition.

Ooo I have a grand idea. It's a fun thing for kids to do to get them off the couch and into the fresh air.

THREAT OF MASS CHILD SUICIDE

Now think about. What unearthly power could the world's children wield if they merely threatened world leaders with mass suicide across the globe. They could demand anything. ANYTHING. They represent not only the ultimate judge of innocence and righteousness but they also stand as the world's only real treasure. The Future. In this scenario, the future is truly in the hands of children. Besides the fact that behind this child's threat would be the threats from every single parent of the world, but it would also force world leaders to realize that without children, all the wars being fought, all the crisises being endured are in vain.

Just say for instance, that children around the world agreed that war is something this world could do without. reasonable scenario. This threat would stop virtually all major wars. It's a strategy that transcends national boundaries, imperialist power, even selfish ambition. Children have the power to hold the world for ransom in order to bring peace and morality to the world. They just need to agree to do it together.

This said, they can't actually kill themselves if the adults refuse. At least it will be a huge symbolic gesture.

At 2/17/09 03:56 PM, super6nacho wrote:

So any other ideas?
Also do you think WWlll will be a nuclear war?

In my opinion, your vision of a third world war is dated. Now it may be the case that there will be a silent agreement between warring nations not to release all the nukes just for the sake of humanit, but if it were a true war, humanity would end for the most part. At least in the most affected places, which would have severe repercussions around the world.

The problem with your view is that you seem to think that war will still be fought via the old foot-soldier way, pushing boundaries and the like. But in nuclea war, there are no boundaries since rockets can be fired over nations.

Now this is truly my opinion, but I do not believe that North Korea represents a grave threat to world peace. I think of them more as the tiny dog with a really big scary shadow. Russia's tendencies are hard to predict because they haven't been a united nation in centuries because of its sheer size. But I have a pretty good feeling that if they were ever going to try for world domination (again Ii don't think they will) that China won't have anything to do with them simply because Russia's enemies are nations that buy from China, and so China would be killing off its own customer. Bad business indeed.

I would oppose gay marriage except the institution itself has veered to far off it's original meaning that everything save its legal implications have become irrelevant.

I can do pretty much anything you ask me too. I'm also good at creating sound effects *not with my voice* so if you need either of those hit me up. Also here's somethin' good. I DON'T BACK OUT!

Frankly, even if your talking about the .fla I'd still say that you should recheck whether you read the filesize right. I've never made a .fla bigger than 100mb and I've packed it in pretty good too. Are you sure it isn't 500kb cuz that actually sounds logical fo r15 seconds worth. But still, if it actually is half a gig than maybe you imported a movie on accident cuz that's the only thing I can think of that would make the size jump like that.

All I can say is..... shirt and tie tom? com'on!

What would you do?

It's an interesting question. One that that asks you to examine your own philosophy, ethical standing, and asks you how you would possibly react to an unexpected twist in a relationship.

At 1/21/09 06:08 PM, the-amazing-joe wrote: MGS4, MGO, and the Skate 2 demo.

I only have MGS4 for my PS3 right no though. Can't really decide where to go from there.

For intense games:

Killzone 2
Resistance 2
Dead Space
Fallout 3

For more casual games

Pixeljunk Monsters or Pixeljunk Eden (more peaceful and pschedelic)
Fat Princess (when it comes out)

Race

WipeOut HD
Gran Turismo Prologue

Currently playing a mix of MGS 4 (second time), LittleBigPlanet (new favorite game), Super Stardust HD, Rachet and Clank: Quest for Booty, and WipeOut HD.

Resistance 3: It Was a Salmonella Outbreak All Along

Killzone 3: No Smoking

GTV IV: Yeah it's really that easy

Super Stardust: Not a porno

I'd probably have to say overall it wasn't epic enough. It didn't really do anything to stick out as the earth-shattering game that it probably turns out to be. I chuckled a bit at the sudden death reference but overall I'd say it was too generic in terms of the gameplay it showed and generic as a commercial. Still, it might sell some consoles.

hmmm that is a very interesting test. I think it got me very much on the money.

Perhaps this has been asked before but I just wanted to get your take on this.

What are the politics of your average (politics) forum goer on this site? I've actually found that it has gone through its shift every so often. Right now i feel like a lot of people here are liberal, but so much so socially that they could almost be called libertarian. I've always found that interesting. But then again I also see a lot of support for socialism or at least social democracy. I'd say religiously atheists/agnostics make up a pretty large proportion, at least 50%. I will say that one issue people don't seem to be liberal on is the environment. Ideas?

At 1/26/09 01:15 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/26/09 12:08 PM, Al6200 wrote: Ignoring all of the discussions about the ethics and morality of abortion, let's talk strictly about the legal dimensions of the abortion issue.

k.

Did the supreme court have the authority to rule the way they did in the Roe v. Wade decision? Does the legislature have the authority to ban abortion anyway?

The supreme court was correct in deferring the determination of "when life begins" to the sciences and faiths. Since no consensus can be found, a vested interest in the welfare (and viability) of the 'potential life' should be the courts measuring stick on abortion. Hence, the trimester system.. where women can get abortions willy-nilly 1st tri, 2nd tri a few state-led restrictions, and 3rd tri nixings unless the mother's health is at risk.

I tend to agree with O Connor's position on this one in that if we were to use viability, we leave it up to the chance that as our scientific abilities regarding keeping fetuses alive outside the womb improve, the trimester system becomes restrictive on Roe v. Wade.

I swear to God, I will claim that trophy one day.

SWEAR TO ME!!!

What I have found most mind-boggling about this entire conversation is that people are convinced that intelligence must somehow lead directly to atheism, that there is some evidence to back this theory up. But that "evidence" isn't worth a single grain of rice in China when people act like intelligence can somehow be measured using the tools we have. First of all, intelligence as an individual within a population is a trait that is ultimately judged by someone that is not yourself, thus it is an entirely subjective trait. As a result, we must rely on the (again subjective) assumption that the critic is intelligent. Do you see where this is leading? Intelligence isn't some scale that you can place a number on.
This is a basic fact of the animal kingdom. Sure we can say that we are more intelligent than all the rest of the animals in the world, but that's only because we control the world. Oppressors always think they are better suited to lead than the oppressed. So when everyone flips about how octopi can escape easily from man-made aquariums and say "oh how smart" that's not smart, it's instinct. We are born with this tool called the brain, and granted our tool might have been designed better in doing certain things like controlling, conniving, out-thinking our problems. But it's this arrogance that some people believe they are more deserving than others because of their brain that our problems are caused in the first place.
Do animals believe in god? can't answer that. But do they believe in oppressors and oppressed. Some do, some don't. Do they believe the purpose of their life is to continuing living? Virtually always. The thing is, is that in a world of oppressor and oppressed beings, some may believe that they owe their lives, situation, and happiness to something or someone. Some don't.
If some alien race, who surpassed us in all areas of which some of us consider to be important to intelligence (science, math, writing, verbal, etc) are they more or less likely to be atheist? You have no idea. Disregarding the fact that such an encounter would have us all questioning our beliefs.

..... he's paid to be biased........ I always thought he was just an actor.

By that I mean since Newgrounds allows us to upload our flashes for free on the website thereby using up their space by hosting it, isn't every flash technically a sponsored toon when its on newgrounds?