Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Didn't have much use for syntax in the past, did they.

At 6/25/08 01:25 PM, Jossos wrote: I bet he played a quirky China-man who seems like a really horrible lay, but in the end it turns out that he has amazing crotch rocking skills. Also he makes stupid jokes.

And he'd have to be apologizing the whole time... while doing crazy acrobatic moves with whatever happens to be around him.

I'd watch that.

At 6/25/08 01:29 PM, GoreyCrust wrote: Eh, fuck you. Primarily bullshit really. When you're dying you lose all of conscious. You don't even know that you're dying, so to say. Specificly, when you're being stabbed to death or got shot multiple times is where you notice you don't even have a conscious to now that you're dying. Therefore, I'm going to Finland when I die, bitch.

Generally, when you call someone on bullshit, you're not supposed to spout off more bullshit of your own.

At 6/25/08 01:13 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I don't them, either. I am, however, subscribed to the German-of-the-month mailing list.

Get them. I don't get them.

Fail :(

At 6/25/08 01:12 PM, killerjeff wrote: No, she has a vagina, goddamnit americans.

That's tantamount to saying that someone doesn't have a` cock bulge in their pants because they have a penis.

You're not 20 and saying your job is "killing" makes you look like a complete moron.

I don't them, either. I am, however, subscribed to the German-of-the-month mailing list.

Does that Goomba have... cameltoe?

Goddamnit, Japanese people, goddamnit.

I'm not the vindictive type. Saying that something horrible should happen to someone just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Usually.

When you damage a child so completely, you fail to exist as a human being in my eyes. To willingly brutalize a child goes completely against possibly the most basic and powerful human characteristics. Raping a child sickens me to the very core of my being.

My solace is that I'm sure he's going to catch, maybe not his fair share, but certainly a good amount of iron in the yard.

Andy Samberg really makes the song come alive.

At 6/25/08 11:42 AM, lolomfgisuck wrote: If heaven and hell exist, they exist.... period.
Belief, at that point, won't change a thing. Athiests will go to hell.

Which is really the crux of the breakdown in logic.

Beliefs aside and in an over-simplified world, if the Christian belief is right, then yes, atheists go to hell.

Now, where this gets messy is in people who have never even heard of Christianity. The Bible is somewhat clear on that, but still a little fuzzy. On the one hand, it says that everyone is held accountable to the degree of what they've seen and that even creation should testify to God's existence, but it also talks about how the people who did not hear about God would be preserved as the nations.

Of course, I personally think the whole thing's petty. That idea of God just makes Him seem petty. He rewards you handsomely for being His friend and punishes you severely for not wanting to hang out. I mean, in human terms, that's the sort of thing that classifies a guy as a douchebag.

And, if I'm going to talk about pettiness, I feel I should also mention sin. Basically, the point here is that God is always watching and people are supposed to be encouraged to abstain from sin because God will reward them and, if not, he will, again punish them. I don't see how that's a strong basis of morality. Morality is doing the right thing because you should not because there's something in it for you or because you'll get punished if you do the wrong thing. How is offering a reward and punishment for your actions a basis of morality? That seems more like the definition of conditioning. Monkeys can be trained to do things that way; hell, so can dogs. Fucking goldfish can be trained to follow a path with the right incentive. Does that make the goldfish moral? I hope, for the value of my human soul, that it doesn't.

I was listening to the radio the other day and the radio show host had the local Chief of Police on the air for a little segment and one of the things they talked about was how a police officer shot and killed a dog recently.

Basically, what happened was a couple pits got loose and were barking at some other dogs on the other side of an iron fence. The police officer shot and killed one of the dogs. The dogs weren't attacking anything, they weren't charging him, they were barking at other dogs. Sure, they were pit bulls, however, the protocol is that the officer should call animal control and attempt to contain the dogs, not shoot them in the back when they aren't going anywhere.

A lot of times when I hear about wrongful shootings (and I don't think the previously mentioned incident is even classified as such), it's almost always that a police officer just spooked too easily and just shot first, then filled out the paperwork later.

Now, there are a couple things that are granted: it's a tough job and it doesn't happen often. The problem is that job stress is no excuse for grievous negligence and the sheer fact that it happens in your city at all makes it that much harder to trust that the traffic cop who pulled you over for going 5 over isn't going to spook from you or anyone in the car reaching the scratch an itch on your nose.

When there's a part of your mind, albeit very small, that can't trust a policeman not to pull a gun on you at the slightest perceived provocation (especially so when they walk up to your car with a hand on their hip), then it's really hard to trust them in the more menial, less gun-in-your-face related activities.

At 6/25/08 11:37 AM, lolomfgisuck wrote: oh hahahahahahaha whew.... lolololololololol.... omfg.... lolol wow hahahahahahaha..... hahahahaha...lolol

Coming from a guy with an overused and utterly depleted picture in his signature that was only marginally funny to begin with. And no, it's not even funny ironically, it's just completely played out.

Basically, you're making an even more retarded and entirely unoriginal joke every time you post.

Oh, and I can't help but mention that you're one of those self-important circle-jerking assholes with a link to another thread in your signature. Linking to inside jokes that only your e-friends care about and bitching about a thread without adding a contribution isn't funny. It never was.

At 6/25/08 11:21 AM, nightbane350master wrote: wow for showing us that pic..........no im not kidding he really is im just not telling everyone they are amazing silly newgrounds.

You're a worthless human being.

Whatever it is, just remember one thing: you're an accessory to it.

Flywheels are also an amazing technology that's being developed. I worked at an R&D facility through my university as an undergraduate research assistant. They were doing some amazing things with flywheels, from application to the International Space Station, to locomotives, to railguns. The premise is that the flywheel stores power as kinetic energy that is available on tap.

At 6/21/08 06:31 PM, SirTommygun wrote: I like the 'tashe.

Goddamn, it looks like a mean drunk.

I'm really proud of my Griffin. The coolest part about it is that it also roars like a beast. Took a little compromising. Worth it. Totally worth it.

At 6/21/08 05:39 PM, ArthurGhostly wrote: I've gone on a recreating-things-from-other-games-and-t hings binge.

Here's a meep from the Oddworld games.

Haha, awesome.

I have another one, as well. It's a Sarmrus. :D

Decided to make something from mythology: the Lernaean Hydra.

And another: this one is called the Infenris.

I fucking love the creature creator.

I call this the Silverhawk.

If elected prom king, I promise to have soda in the drinking fountains and lunch will be 30 minutes longer every day. Let's make 1983 the greatest year ever and remember, the G stands for Guy I'd Like To Vote For.

At 5/25/08 04:18 PM, SapphireLight wrote: I'm pretty sure she's a Republican secret weapon so they can have the presidency for another four years.

Enough Republicans have certainly voted for her in open primaries.

At 5/23/08 02:10 PM, poxpower wrote: Ok so now matter is infinite, but you still add God into the equation for no reason WHILE STILL USING "something can't come out of nothing" as an argument for it.

HOLY SHIT.

To be fair, God isn't perceived as a physical being. There's no requirement to explain away any creation discrepancies on that point; He's immaterial, so He doesn't really fall under the "something coming out of nothing" scope of thought.

At 5/23/08 09:01 AM, Drakim wrote: I don't belive in God, because I find it unlikely, just like how I find goblins and orcs unlikely. It doesn't mean that I'm a 100% sure or that I'm 50/50 for their existence. Seriously, nobody can think that those two are the only positions.

As a side note, I like that comment. I wouldn't say I'm agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster; I simply don't believe it exists. Now, if it touched me with its noodly appendage, I would certainly give my belief some thought. If the criteria for not believing in something was a 100% definite certainty, then there would be no room for anyone to say "I don't believe in _____," which, of course, is a silly notion.

Now, that's not to say I'm atheist, I just detest when people force everything into absolute value judgments.

At 5/23/08 08:41 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: This is not a school assignment, i COULD answer the questions i put here much quicker than it would take me to make a thread and find a really good response. [None of these responses are essay quality, no offense]

I wasn't trying to say you were getting us to do your assignment for you. I make it a point to not even respond to threads where I think that's the intent. Rather, I was making a comment about how it really looks like those are prefab essay questions, given the wording. The irony comment was just a little facetious. :P

1a) Do you beleive all people are equal in the sense that they are entitled to a certain number of inalienable rights, and should be treated equal under the law? Please prpvide a non ethical or ethics based reason for why this is so.

Sure, everyone should be treated equally under the law. That's the only way you can avoid abuses in such an extensive system. The law of the land after the "separate but equal" debacle is that anytime you assign different groups different sets of rights, it will be abused by the majority. The reason we have the bill of rights isn't to protect the rights of the majority, but to make sure the majority doesn't disenfranchise the minority. Time and time again, we've seen that if there is something that can be abused, it will.

1b) If, hypothetically, all people are entitled to certain inalienable rights under the law, if this principal is all yielding and universal, why is it subject to change. How can it be a universal truth that all people are entitled to certain schizophrenics rights.

There are certain rights that aren't subject to change. Morality is a sliding scale with certain things being more important for the ethical fabric of society. The right to free speech, for instance is an inalienable right. I would say that any right that is subject to change couldn't really be considered inalienable, by definition.

At 5/23/08 02:57 AM, poxpower wrote: Haha Gunter.

Knocking on religious people is like shooting fish in a barrel. Dead exploded fish.

Meh, being religious is fine. I know plenty of religious people who have the good sense to know that it isn't science.

I believe that half the people in the world are actually alien zombies with psychic powers strong enough to completely conceal their true identity to the other half. Through telekinesis, they can determine whether or not you believe that they exist.

If you believe they exist, they'll give you a luxury condominium and a set of golf clubs, but only after you die (they can resurrect you and transport you to Neptune with their minds). If you don't believe they exist, they will resurrect you, send you to New Jersey and stimulate all of your pain receptors continually for all of eternity.

They created the world in 1957 out of a tin can and dental floss, but they're making us think otherwise as part of their grand master plan.

If you telepathically communicate with them to tell them you want something, they will give it to you, but only if they were going to anyway. If not, you're out of luck.

If you disagree with it, you're close-minded and unwilling to accept the fact that alien zombies love you and just want you to be happy. But if you open your heart to them, they will forgive you and they will reward you with a condominium and a new set of golf clubs. Oh, they also give you bliss whenever you relax and concentrate on them making you feel better. You might think that it gives you a transcendental experience due to the meditative quality of the exercise and pretty much anything you substitute for alien zombies would work just as well, but it's actually alien zombies transmitting happy to your brain.

This is the truth and should be taught in science class. You cannot disprove it, therefore it is as valid a theory as anything scientists have come up with.

I have to finish this off with a serious comment because this is such an evil fucking principle we're dealing with.

YOUR BELIEFS ARE NOT SCIENCE. YOU COULD BELIEVE THAT AN APPLE WAS AN ORANGE AND IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT IS AN APPLE.

Creationism has no evidence to support it. There is no biological, astronomical, geological, physical, or mathematical basis for it. No science that man has can substantiate any part of it. Simply because a large part of the population has faith that things happened a certain way, the fact of the matter is that nobody can prove that's the way it actually happened. If there is no evidence to support your claim, then it should not be taught in any scientific discipline. Not ever.

To push the idea that if you believe in something hard enough and get enough people to believe it as well, then it constitutes valid science is a fucking detrimental thing to teach kids at a formative time in their life. Implanting such a destructive idea into a child's head is wrong, I don't care how you slice it. For my money, there is nothing more evil than willfully fucking up the development of a young mind. Just because you have an agenda to push, don't ruin the education of kids who actually want to learn what science is really about: taking the evidence you have, piecing them together, and developing rationales and theories based on that, not presupposing a claim and then trying to manipulate the evidence to fit your claim. It's just sick.

I'm pretty sure you're just lifting this off of a school assignment because the formatting smacks of the educational system. Talk about irony. At any rate.

At 5/22/08 11:16 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1) Do you agree with the statement that all humans are created equal and why? [Yes or no and why]

Of course not. What we have in America is equality of opportunity. Everyone should get a relatively equal shot at success, but the simple fact that we have had people like Nikolai Tesla and Albert Einstein on the same planet as people with Down's Syndrome is a testament to the fact that people are simply not born equal.

2) What is your conscious reasoning for doing acts of altruism?

Because I feel obligated to do my part for humankind. As a member of society, I'm part of something larger than myself and, in order to keep it running smoothly, I have to participate. That amounts to me looking out for the benefit of the whole even though it is sometimes not to my benefit.

3) Do you beleive Altruism is or can be a subconscious act? if it is, what makes it treated as so 'venerable' in our society? Can you make a case for why it should still be venerable in our society even if you feel that it is or can be subconscious?

Absolutely. The follow-up questions are misguided. The venerability of altruism has nothing to do with whether or not it's a subconscious act, only whether or not altruism can be considered self-serving, in some roundabout fashion. That's not what the first question asks, however, and follow-up questions should always seek to expound on the first question.

Also, the fact that "venerable" is in quotations is a further point that whoever wrote your assignment is trying to act smarter than they are to bring attention to a word they think is impressive. There's no grammatical justification for it to be in quotes.

4) Would you do something beneficial to yourself and consequently harmful to somone else if you knew that you wouldn't get caught or punished for it?

This is a ridiculously vague question. Everyone has done this and will continue to do this on some level. The question could mean anything from cutting in line to murder or worse.

5) Would you kill a murderer if you felt doing so would save more lives? [Spur of the moment descision, a now or never sort of thing]

If I felt like it would save more lives? I'd have to be more sure than that. The question lacks any sort of context you would have when making such a decision. If we're talking about someone who's a known sociopath, then yes, there is very strong evidence that this person would kill again. If it's some guy who killed a guy for sleeping with his wife in a moment of passion? Of course not, I wouldn't make the decision to kill this guy in the off chance he kills more people down the line in an unrelated incident. There's no evidence to support it. It's unethical to make the decision to take a life with no more evidence than a good feeling that it will save more lives.

At 5/20/08 10:34 PM, JoS wrote: Although I have no voting power in the US, I would say that McCain is probably better than Obama. Why you may ask, because McCain actually has policies and experience, two things Obama lacks.

I really hate this misnomer. I'm not a rabid Obama fan, but I do respect him. Granted, he doesn't have as much experience as McCain, but serving 7 years in the State Senate and another 3 as a US Senator is certainly plenty of time to establish himself and his policies.

And yes, he does have policies. He has written and passed a pretty impressive amount of legislation while in the Senate. You don't write legislation if you don't have policies that you're pushing. Some of his heart-and-soul bills he fought for in the State Senate really illustrate exactly what he's passionate about. He doesn't just espouse empty rhetoric

The idea that Obama is inexperienced and only relies on hollow words is a smear campaign that is absolutely unfounded. The reason why this particular issue is so offensive to me is because it takes about 5 minutes of research to disprove. Judging by how many times I hear this crock of shit, I think it's safe to assume that a majority of people can't even be assed to verify if something so important is even true or not. And, honestly, I expected more from you.

There's a disturbing principle behind this and the fact that it's gaining momentum across the board is frightening. It is becoming more and more okay for institutions to treat normal people like criminals. These schools are automatically assuming that every student is a potential truant and are, thus, making everyone prove that they aren't cutting class. The idea is completely contrary to the founding principle of our criminal justice system, that people are innocent until proven guilty. There should be no need for students to prove they aren't cutting class by wearing a tracking device, it's asinine and it's a detrimental idea to instill in our kids. Why should our youth put their faith in a government that doesn't trust them to do something even as basic as go to class. I'm sure there are people who would make the claim that students don't have the same rights as adults, which is true. Students have limited rights at school in order to make school a more productive use of time so they can learn, but this is more than just an issue that affects children.

The idea that stores make you hand over your receipt and have people check your bags as you leave is an assumption that you're a shoplifter. I'm not a criminal and I don't like to be treated as such when I'm giving my business to a store. They're not the ones doing me any favors and I don't owe them anything. In fact, they have no legal basis to check through your personal belongings. Once you check-out and pay for your products, those products no longer belong to the store. I can understand why stores would have an interest in keeping shoplifting to a minimum, but this conditioning where people automatically do what the store tells them simply because they're the resident authority is a disturbing trend.

People should not accept being treated as potential criminals that need to prove their innocence.