Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think the homeless should be armed too >:/ It's dangerous out there on them streets.

I was watching some scientific studies on the news about a month ago and they'd proven with brain scanning that the neurons naturally fire off faster in people who can solve provlems, or identify things quicker. It only makes sense. Brain size is also subject so subtle changes such as the missing grove or something of the sort, but all of that could be speculation.

Never the less, there's more scientific evidence of the universe's creation. Recently two nobel prize winners proved with microwave scanning of the astros most of the universe's mass lies indeed on a plane. http://map.gsfc.nasa../uni_101bbtest3.html

Because of that the big bang theory carries more water since explosions ocurr in a wave. Upon observing the microwave image one could see there is most definitely a stronger wave of energy in the center. Furthermore the energy has been traced back by several billion years also proving the universe is just that old and not as young as some believe the bible states.

I find it kind of hard though as to why people can't seem to strike balance in both creatonist and scientific theories by saying "this was brought to be because of God, he allowed these astronomic and evolutionary processes to take place." Until we manage to prove otherwise, that argument would eliminate some controversy and polarity. Yes it seems a bit too convenient, but it works better than creationists and scientists at each other's necks.

At 10/8/06 11:53 AM, TheMason wrote: Hmmm...I thought Christianity was past all of this. Thank you for proving my point that Christianity can produce just as much radicalism and violent thought as Islam! See folks, Christians CAN be ignorant and violent...

No no! BanditByte would instantly counter and say "I guess that's why there are more Christian suicide bombers than muhammedans" and then probably try to further-discredit or attack you by calling you a name or something.

At 10/8/06 11:54 AM, BanditByte wrote:

At 10/6/06 02:32 PM, sacredshade wrote: inalienable rights are just some things that thomas jefferson came up with.

I'm pretty sure that's why he put "Endowed by our Creator" right afterwards if he thought we got them for being smart monkeys. In short: you're an idiot.

Damn you're abusive. There's also the possibility Jefferson could have put God in the picture to appeal to more people. He was a deist so it would seem he believed these rights were given to us by some force of nature (could be God) and then we were left to plot the course of our lives.

At 10/8/06 11:41 AM, BanditByte wrote: What I posted was "I guess that's why there's alot more christian suicide bombers than muhammedans." Which if you thought is an actual argument on my part, then you belong in special ed.

It is an argument, albeit not a very strong one but what that statement comes off saying is: in fact there aren't more Christian suicide bombers than muhammedans, thus the muslims are worse because they suicide bomb.

In a present-day sense that might make sense, but don't forget people have gone to war in the name of the Christianity as well. Why do you think so many people go to church on Sundays rather than Saturdays? Because they were historically forced to do so. If you don't know this I'll take a little page from your book and say you deserve to be lobotomized.

The U.S.'s finger pointing isn't helping put the nation on good terms with N. Kora but then again Kim Jong's hard-headed-ness isn't either and is probably worse.

Ouch: http://www.newground..id=581958&page=3
The bigger your argument the bigger the backlash. People make pointless "all terrorists should die" arguments all the time but they go unnoticed and passed by as insignificant. Make one large argument though, not even about someone deserving to die, but about the things people do and it's a "fuck-sephiroth-over" frenzy @.@

Don't ever try to make a heavy argument when half-asleep -.- or drunk for that matter. Unless you're Funk, he can pull it off.

At 10/8/06 06:10 AM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: Not that I don’t agree wit what your said….but when you claim someone needs a Doctorate to refute any of your points….well, people will tend to ignore the arrogant smug one in the corner at parties.

Hmm sad, I should've pointed out I wasn't talking about me but about Anthropologists :/

Oh dude I'm glad Schwarzenegger's passed environmental acts. It's a damned shame he had to jack up my tuition though :(

So byte, fab0l0us and cellardoor you all decide to provide no factual evidence for what you say because I didn't present any for you, a fine and vicous counter-point you presented then. At least I had the decency to look for something relevant on the internet, as I'm sure you all did.. n/m. But anyway; yes Fox is one of the few (if not the only) network which presents things in a conservative light, but it does it so heavily, more heavily than the other channels present things in a liberal light. I don't recall other local networks saying "three weeks until George Bush is your elected president." In fact I don't ever recall a news network telling me what to do until I tuned into Fox.

Furthermore, I didn't bring up other specific networks at any time during my argument. I don't watch MSNBC or CNN so there wouldn't be any way for me to draw a clear comparisson between them or Fox. All I know is what I've seen on Fox comes off as very slanted, you'll probably say I'm desensitized to the liberal media or something, but really I could care less. One thing which does bug me about ALL news networks though is the focus on other things (such as celebrity) when there are more important issues to worry about, but that's a whole other can of worms.

This isn't a comeback, I can't counter-point your argument because:
1. I don't feel like it
2. I'm sleepy at around 3:30am (see 1)
3. I've classes to worry about
4. I despise digging into databases for articles, then reading the damned things, then extracting the information from them to quote it to you (if scholarly journals even waste their time on these sort of issues).

So it was foolish for me to bring up Outfoxed, I knew "someone's going to take a shit on me for putting this in" but whatever, I hope you all got to blow off some steam and can move on. Thank you for that humbling-yet-brutal critique.

At 10/6/06 09:53 AM, Nylo wrote: If anything the country is less "orthodox" than it used to be. Personally I think people who view religion on the march against our civil liberties in modern times are really out of touch with reality.

You provide a good counter-point. Indeed the nation is in the state in which you describe it, at least Urbanly it is, I don't know about ruraly. I must apologize, i was just shaken up by some Ann Coulter book I saw claiming liberals are ruining religion and the religious movement needs to strike back at the heart of liberalism and rid us of this "Godless nation." It really pissed me off to hear her blaming everything on liberals as usual, but then again that's nothing out of the ordinary.

I'm glad to see what I said isn't being touched with a 50ft pole. I'm too lazy to argue and can't be bothered anyway.

At 10/7/06 10:03 PM, neoptolemus wrote: Of course Muslims havn't tried to convert you. They aren't as bad as christians as the Quran actually tells them to respect others regardless of faith.

I don't agree with any of what BanditByte says because his arguments hold less water than a lettuce strainer but the christian religion also tells you to respect the choices others make. This is specially when a person wants to force someone to attend church. It is best of the person to go of their own will rather than be forced. If they are to be forced it's equivalent to them not going at all.

What sets Christianity apart from Islam in your argument is that Christianity has the gospel which is to reach every ear in the world whereas (correct me if I'm wrong) Islam does not ask its followers to tell everyone about their religion and try to "save" them. So yes, in that respect Christianity is different, especially when you get idiots misreading the details and trying to force people to convert, that's a sin and far outweighs any conversion.

These are universaly-held desires intrinsic of every living creature. In essence they are hedonistic: pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain and in that sense they are irrevokable.

To revoke those rights would be to revoke the nerve-endings from your body and the design of superior intellect from the human mind. Living animals exhibit tendencies to want to pursue life through procreation, liberty through resistance of being held captive, and the pursuit of happiness partially through the resistance of control, procreation and survival.

The government which allows you to have these rights then is not a government formed by people or political ideology but rather by the governing physical dynamics of the universe and unless you're going to out-do all proven science and try to debunk it all by saying it is established by man and does not exist without man I suggest you bring at least a Ph.D.

Move back in temporarily bro :P you can crash at my place for a couple days... maybe a couple hours... >.> lol.

Let me put it in simple terms. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam: more alike thank you think. If you read each of their holy teachings, not focus on stupid details but look at the big picture, you will see they all preach the same thing.

What they preach is, there is a creating force (a God, don't worry about the name), you must respect that force, you must respect your fellow human, you mustn't sin by stealing, lying or killing, and there will be an end of days when an anti-savior arises and he shall be slain by the true savior. All 3 religions have that same concept.

For a direct cross-analysis let me present the example of Christianity and Islam.
1. Jehova - Allah
2. Jesus - Isa
3. Anti-Christ with 666 on his forehead - Dejjial with "kaa faa raa" (kafir: disbeliever) on his forehead.
4. Apocalypse - End of Days

and so on... I'm getting sleepy so I'll leave you with that to mull around the old noggin' but you can always wikipedia the info. But I hope you're starting to grasp the concept that the 3 largest religions of the world are actually one and the same on the general principle. It's over the details that people start to kill each other :(

At 10/2/06 08:35 PM, stafffighter wrote: You can;t fight an ideal with force. That fundimental error has cost lives. However human porponents of the ideal can be taken down as they become icons to followers. But we didn't do that either.

You're onto something there staff... perhaps not with force, but with education... ah I only wish the world were more concerned with education than with Iraq and celebrity news :'( oh woe is me.

At 10/6/06 06:06 AM, Botmeister wrote: Because newgrounds doesn't suck cock :P

You're right, it swallows. But anyway, that still doesn't change the fact the internet is for porn.

</song>

At 10/6/06 05:02 AM, PicPWNjo wrote: I tolerate but not approve.

Oh man Tiesto rawks, and so does Corsten. But anyway, I'm amazed people as closed-minded as you are still a living species. No but seriously man let some education in to your brain and some air out every now and then.

It PAINS me horribly to actually read people who honestly believe it was an accident. Clearly no one here ever saw "Out-Foxed." Perhaps they don't know the damned network is run by Rupert Murdoch: a conservative fanatic who is absolutely obsessed in pressing his political propaganda through his media outlets no matter how silly it might seem.

Yes for those of you who saw Out'foxed you might thin the movie is too biased and hateful against Fox, but considering how biased and slanted Fox is, isn't it really more a counter-point then? Seriously let's be civilized, educated individuals and think for a minute: "hmm if my boss loves republicans would I want to label a bad person a s a republican... naah better label him a democrat, after all they'll think it was a lip of a keystroke since the D is right under the R." I mean if you're willing to believe something like that, I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, seriously.

Earlier someone posted Fox allows members of the left to come onto the show and comment. Oh yes I clearly remember when they let Jeremy Glick on (the son of a man who died in one of the twin-towers on 9/11) and Glick went about-face and told O'Reily his two cents and O'Reily had Glick's mic shut off, they dimmed the light and went to break (a tactic used frequently on Fox when arguments start to slant in democratic favor). After the break Glick had to be excorted off the premises because O'Reily was infuriated after being put on the defense on live television. If you think I'm making this shite up here. Anyway there are also several circumstances where Fox reporters tell people to "shut up" in one way or another; this is not true journalistic or academic discourse, the whole network is full of opinionated people who try to pass off as reporters but couldn't be further from a genuine journalist.

What's most-painful is a lot of people in the nation watch FOX for news, which would suggest this kind of unacceptable and un-journalistic behavior is becoming commonplace. There is desperate need for an ethical cleanup of the whole network before Murdoch took it over and when it was a genuine journalistic corporation.

Fli I knew I could count on you to reply :D

At 10/6/06 05:45 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: Silli rabbit, the internet is for porn.

You know what sucks about this forum is I can't edit my posts in case I made a retarded typo like in the one above... :( why can't you be more like last.fm's forums?!! >.<

Silli rabbit, the internet is for porn.

Now this might sound pretty irrelevant to those of you living outside of California (especially outside of the U.S.) but still listen up anyway there might be something you can pick up from this if something similar happens in your neck of the woods.

There's a proposition called Proposition 87 in California's fall ballot which will be included with the voting for Governor. Both sides present compelling arguments.

The Yes side.

The No side.

Now here's the funny part... if you skimmed through the article you might have picked up the No side is funded by Oil companies, whereas the Yes side is funded by... just about everyone else. So, the No side claims costs will be lawfully passed on to the consumers according to some ex-expert on the matter who has a Ph.D (sound like one of FOX's "peuso experts" anyone?) whereas the Yes side has the current California Attorney General, Bill Clinton, and even Schwarzenegger on their side.

There's an air of patheticness when the No side says the Attorney General has confirmed it is a tax. Ooooh big deal so we're taxing your $100billion/year gross profit asses, BIG DEAL! It was about damned time too. I do somewhat agree with the No side though on the fact there should be more accountability for the money to be used to fund new energy but hey if it bites the companies in the ass for screwing us for the past 3 years and they can't legally bite us back, then why the hell not?

At 10/6/06 04:51 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Are you suggesting there is some sort of moral equivelance between a few wackos in a SMALL and zealous church group and the mainstream Muslim beliefs?

Half the U.S. is radical christian. Hello I have people in my family here in Los Angeles democracy-haven-California whom are radical christians whom voted for bush solely on the premise that he was anti-gay! Now, perhaps the tactics radical Islam uses are a bit more blunt and brutal and not as discrete with a hint of long-term agency and democracy decay as radical Christianity is.

I honestly believe (and call me gullible) that most of us here (in this forum) know better than to be at extremes. I might come off as radical-left-ist but believe me I'm as conservative as you can get when it comes to morals and ethics regardless of who's in charge of the country.

Holy shite brother you said it. Damnit I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices something morally wrong in America's morals. Yes family is good. There's nothing wrong, in fact there's a very wholesome feeling behind a blue-collared hard-worker who supports his/her family and lives an honest and humble life and stays true to their country. However, there's something wrong when that same worker has a blind allegiance to their country even if we're wrongfully at war. Matters only get worse if that person believes their way of life or of thinking is infallible or incorruptible and that they have the one and only indisputable truth.As touchstone said it in Shakespeare's As You Like It: "the fool doth think himself to be wise, but the wiseman doth know himself to be a fool." No truer words could have ever come from a Jester's (or a poet's) mouth.

I applaud you for bringin up Bill O'Reily because he and FOX represent a good deal of the blind-eye, back-turning idiocy which is going on in the U.S. Earlier this week I saw a huge online poll which stated more than half the people (almost 500,000 votes) got their news from FOX! Now this might ot seem odd to a regular person but FOX happens to be heavily-run by political interest in the Republican and especially neo-conservative sector. Later today I heard FOX had actually labeled Republican pedophile Foley's name on the bottom of the screen with a (D) for DEMOCRAT! Is it just me or does FOX think the American public is so stupid they won't notice they purposedly labeled a flawed republican as a democrat?

To put the icing on the cake I went to a website asking what I think about Ann Couter. I voted on about 5 questions about her saying she's way too agressive, extreme, mean-spirited and biased. After the voting I was redirected to some stupid neo-con magazine website to have their propaganda crammed down my throat telling me science is flawed, all your teachers and Ph.D carrying professors are liberal extremist nuts, Scientology is the new way, creationism pwns and that the U.S. is going to hell in a handbasket. Really at one point I was expecting to read somewhere in the site "1+1 just simply is not 2." Disgusted and sick to my stomach I wrote an email to the editor, I hope he bothered to at least read the first of two paragraphs (I got downright brutal int he 2nd).

In a way I do agree with the website though, science is flawed (although it carries much more tried-and-tested weight and evidence in its statements than anything Ann Coulter or that website could throw at you), all our professors and true, genuine professionals are nuts (you would be too if you possessed and overwhelming amount of facts yet half the nation did not believe you), scientology is indeed the way foward (if you believe we're all pre-programmed living computers coded by aliens), creationism pwns (about as much as the floating spaghetti monster does [which pwns more than the theory it criticizes]), and the U.S. is going to hell in a handbasket after all (because of the overwhelming amount of ignorance and stupidity prevalent in the general populous).

Thus you wyzzerd, thread-starter; have proven my long-standing theory correct once again: "People, in general, are stupid." I bow to you in respect.

Genetically, it is nearly impossible to create any type of hybrid. The only two I can name off the top of my head is the Liger and Mule.

Hm I see being a rebel to the stereotype and showing people you're different to be a very admirable and respectable thing to do. Who says black men can't be in power? Some of the top executives of some of the firms I've met with (Fidelity, Merryl Lynch, American Financial Group, Elektra records) are african-americans, some of them even women so, the whole "black people can't have authority or respect" thing is totally discredited especially because they've endured discrimination to get to where they are it makes them all the more respectable.

I'm beginning to think ViolentAJ isn't exactly... normal... :/ can I even say that? I have reason to believe it at least. It could be something as mild as A.D.D. or dyslexia, but you have some sort of challenge which prevents you from undersanding what people are trying to tell you.

Oh and to answer the question, porn is not a crime because it is a form of freedom of expression which can't be proven to have any direct consequences on a person unlike tobacco giving someone cancer.

You also forgot to mention hentai does not have any real-world-physics as constraints therefore the only limits are the mind, the markers and pencils and the wrists of the ctreator.