Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So, I didn't point this out in my last post but I thought for the record you all should know I'm actually an infantry soldier in the U.S. Army.

And I say have your good time.

If you didn't I would think I was doing my job wrong.

I hope you're trolling, why should people stop having fun because other people are dying? No one would ever do anything.

I refuse to party again until we cure death by old age!

At 1/1/10 10:10 AM, Proteas wrote: You need to go away. You and every last person on this board who would wish death or ill health on any individual solely based on partisan politics. Would society really benefit from losing that individual and keeping petty souls like you? How much better are you than the bigoted Rush Limbaugh or any of the other people you so despise and wish to disappear?

I wished Saddam Hussein was gone, and it came true. Did society benefit? Am I worse than him for wishing that? Sometimes, and this seems relative in most cases, it IS better for society to lose an individual to save others or prevent the multitudes suffering.

Wussy.

This sounds like a romance novel.

At 11/2/09 11:12 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Proteas, observing a phenomenon occurring and then penning it in latin does not make it a credible point of refute. "Argumentum Ad Inculco" isn't a logical fallacy. The logical flaw, in this case is the assumption that a person's belief is through indoctrination.

Yeah, this really isn't anything more than a specific Argumentum Ad Hominem.

At 10/27/09 01:20 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Not a god per se, but a Creator. I can't explain why, and I know that not being able to explain pretty much nulls my entire belief and labels me crazy. However, whether I appear as sane or insane, rational or deluded, or whatever dichotomous labels we feel like throwing around, is not important to me. I am still someone whose belief does not make this life any more or less worth living than someone with no belief; I enjoy this life like it was my last, and it probably is.

hmm.

I didn't decide one day to believe in a god, but I did decide one day that the god I was believing in was not the "real" one, so to speak. I used to be a Christian, and if the god of religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam was the "true" one, they wouldn't be killing each other off. To think that a Creator would want ANYONE to kill anyone else over a belief or what have you is absurd.

When a parent has a child, does the parent demand that the child worship it and offer sacrifices and to kill in the parent's name? Of course not.

Tl;Dr version: Psuedo-Pantheist? I don't even know. If there was a "Just a belief in a Creator -ist" then sure, there we go.

This really doesn't give your belief much credence. I don't see how you can just make something up and pretend it must be true. Even if you acknowledge that it might not be true it seems rather silly to just believe in something without even illogical, stupid, fake, evidence (e.g. bible).

No offense. I just don't seem to get it.

At 10/26/09 11:58 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:
Of course they would. For instance, from which religion did Pantheists develop their idea of a god? Religion is not needed to find a god, but it's certainly needed to prevent people from finding it. I'm an anti-religion Theist.

I meant they wouldn't know of the God that has been developed over the course of the evolution of religion (pardon the pun) to modern times. So, what God do you believe in and why? Did you just decide one day to believe in a God? Or did you take the christian God and change it to what you thought best?

At 10/26/09 10:13 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Things.

All I got out of that was far-fetched and stretched points, and that you can't explain it because you can't fathom the mind of God.

Sounds convenient.

While we're on the subject, how do you not adhere to a traditional view of God? I never understood how people just 'make up' their own idea of what God is, when all they have to go on is what other religions say. This isn't an attack on you, merely myself trying to understand what you mean by what you said.

I almost feel that people who say that just have a 'feeling' about it and that's how they define what their God is. But then, literally, they would have NO idea of what God was if it weren't for these religions.

At 10/26/09 12:17 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Not necessarily.

... Are you going to provide evidence to the contrary?

Caring is an emotion.

This premise is true only for human beings, and even then, the definitions and meanings of words change overtime.

Coincidentally we're talking about the definition and meaning at THIS point in time... Making the argument completely valid. The crazy thing about this is that no, caring (BY DEFINITION!!) is an emotion!

From princeton:

Noun

* S: (n) lovingness, caring (a loving feeling)

Verb

* S: (v) care (feel concern or interest) "I really care about my work"; "I don't care"
* S: (v) care, give care (provide care for) "The nurse was caring for the wounded"
* S: (v) wish, care, like (prefer or wish to do something) "Do you care to try this dish?"; "Would you like to come along to the movies?"
* S: (v) manage, deal, care, handle (be in charge of, act on, or dispose of) "I can deal with this crew of workers"; "This blender can't handle nuts"; "She managed her parents' affairs after they got too old"
* S: (v) worry, care (be concerned with) "I worry about my grades"

You show me which one doesn't apply to non-human creatures. Which, by the way, would be weird for God, us being fashioned in his image and all.

Emotions require needs/wants.

Not necessarily.

DAMN! You are good!. I can't beat that argument. Wait, you still didn't provide evidence to the contrary.

God has needs/wants -> God is not omnipotent.

How does this negate omnipotence?

How can an omnipotent being have needs and wants?

God is not omnipotent -> God did not create the world/humanity.

Humans aren't omnipotent, yet we've created life in the laboratory. I'm not saying God isn't omnipotent, this is just an example.

Yeah? We've created reasoning beings? Capable of intelligent logical actions? Did we create something on the scale of a universe?

This time provide some evidence for your counter to that last paragraph, because it really is important for me to take you seriously.

At 2/23/08 07:02 PM, zenyara wrote: Great Movie! Everyone in the theater was laughing.

Why was this revived?

Celebrating Diversity =/= Ending Racism.

Celebrating Diversity = Propagating Racism.

Celebrating Diversity = Celebrating Bla-- I mean Colo-- I mean African-Amer-- I mean Ethnic Groups.

Ethnic Groups mentioned above = Blacks.

At 2/24/08 08:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I think the idea of signing a bill that says 'your not welcome' is just a sign of stupidity to begin with.

What does that mean? The government is a body of action, not emotion.

Anyway, i like how the military is taking the high road, because it's the only way they are going to have a chance at gaining any headway in the world where the green meme conquers the minds of the people.

Ha, they sound like the U.N. Security Council, giving out strongly worded resolutions that STRONGLY condemn actions.

At 2/23/08 02:10 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 2/23/08 09:44 AM, Humbucker740 wrote:

At 2/22/08 11:52 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/22/08 11:37 PM, Humbucker740 wrote: I'd be really surprised if the Washington Post or the New York Times sent out a cartoon like that and didn't immediately stop circulation and collapse as a company.

You know what? You're right, far be it from me to doubt how a little thing like journalistic integrity would prevent a news outlet from being racist towards black political figures.

Have you seen her? Thats no stereotype... Thats how she actually looks. Its called a caricature. The shoes being too big represent her... In a role where she can't fulfill it... Whats the problem?

IT. IS. OFFENSIVE.

Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Infact...

"because it's true." CAN and WILL work on Obama.

And look at the other pictures...

Of course its offensive, it makes her look like an idiot. There are plenty of cartoons about BUSH a WHITE MAN, which make him look equally, if not more, stupid. If you're going to make a claim about other pictures, provide them.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushc artoons/ig/Bush-Cartoons/Bush-Economic-G enius.-1Hu.htm

This thread is very eye opening.

At 2/22/08 11:52 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 2/22/08 11:37 PM, Humbucker740 wrote: I'd be really surprised if the Washington Post or the New York Times sent out a cartoon like that and didn't immediately stop circulation and collapse as a company.

You know what? You're right, far be it from me to doubt how a little thing like journalistic integrity would prevent a news outlet from being racist towards black political figures.

Have you seen her? Thats no stereotype... Thats how she actually looks. Its called a caricature. The shoes being too big represent her... In a role where she can't fulfill it... Whats the problem?

At 2/22/08 05:04 PM, icefreeze57 wrote:
i agree... and by the way I'm Jewish and if there is a black history month why isn't there a Jewish history month, no one can say that they went through worst then the Jews... how about the Koreans for many years they were occupied by different land... have you forgotten that some countries in Africa are mulism and those people have gone through terrors as well. on a list the blacks wouldn't be that high (the list being peoples who have gone through the worst) and if you want to say that it shouldn't matter cause clack history month is about America well we treated are Japanese people really bad during world war 2

its abouslty ridcioulus that they have a month (even if it is the shortest one of the year)

Well... blacks didn't kill Jesus...

Lol,jk. But I agree with you. All this damn month does is further widen the gap between the races. America is a country where people are supposed to be colorblind. Eventually people will not view races at all, and instead just see another PERSON.

Just the fact that we have this month is racist and a step in the wrong direction. Cultures need to blend, not be celebrated. I don't go around demanding people devote a month to MY heritage.

At 2/22/08 10:26 AM, MobilnaReakcija wrote: Yeah, Freedom of Speech seems to be a fading right these days. For example, you can tell a cop "I think you are an asshole" without getting arrested, but you cant say "youre an asshole" without getting arrested. wtf? all in call, FOS is something that should not be taken literally.

Amid your rampant spelling and grammatical errors I think you might have meant, "Freedom of Speech is something that SHOULD be taken literally."

Because what you said is anti-freedom of speech...

At 2/22/08 11:15 PM, Proteas wrote: .... what? To close to the truth for a few of you?

As harsh and abrasive as some of you on this board have been in dealing out abuse to President Bush for the way he has handled his presidency, I am really curious as to how you all will handle verbally abusing a black president.

I'm pretty sure that the type of political cartoon you depict will remain in small areas of this country segregated from the 'real world'. We have enough pc here to deal with that kind of stuff and have it never released. I'd be really surprised if the Washington Post or the New York Times sent out a cartoon like that and didn't immediately stop circulation and collapse as a company. Besides, you'd already have seen it.

Obama's been making mistakes, verbally, and I haven't seen something like that.

Personally I have no problem verbally abusing a black president. I have a problem verbally abusing someone doing one of the hardest jobs in the most powerful position in the world. That job alone is more than anyone on this board will most likely accomplish in their lifetime.

At 2/21/08 10:13 PM, Lindione wrote:
Ya, I'd be okay with that but also don't forget that after a point all those little nice churches when their coffers run dry will start threatening people with the eternal fires of hell to donate their child's colledge education fund (if they aren't home schooled, of course). Also, that only if you tax a flat rate, I'd suggest doing an income tax.

When has the church NOT threatened eternal damnation? Watch any TV program, the church uses some pretty bad manipulations to steal money from people because of their fear or good nature. (Oh, and home schooled kids go to college too.... duh. AND they have to pay for it!)

The church has evolved into a business, they have an income, expenditures, they sell their services, and they should be taxed. The taxing system is set up in order to minimize payments from smaller businesses and maximize what the larger businesses will give.

And the whole, you don't HAVE to pay argument is complete crap.

Radiohead recently released their new album which is free. You can pay if you want, but otherwise its free. And they're taxed on every cent someone gives them. You don't HAVE to pay, but if you donate, its taxed.

If you don't get that analogy get the fuck out of NG.

At 2/20/08 04:21 PM, MobilnaReakcija wrote: Id like to mention something of significance in regards to when people say that Kosovo has no moral or legal right to break away from Serbia. Take a look at 1776. The United States declared independence from Britain. Did they have the right to do it? Certainly not, if you believe that Kosovo has no right. Regardless of the fact that the US is thousands of miles away from Britain and Kosovo is literally within a a few hundred miles of Belgrade, its still the property of the home country, or at least it was. Kosovo has every right to break away if they are not happy with Serbian governance. The same was with the US. They were not happy with Britain. In addition, if i recall correctly, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia broke away and were immediately recognized in the early 90s, albeit with bloodshed not seen since the holocaust. Hopefully we can have a peaceful transition this time, and Kosovo can finally become an autonomous state.

Counterpoint to the civil war which the United States crushed with no abandon. The south was not happy with the north and it escalated into a civil war, how is this any different? Sections of countries can't just up and leave whenever the hell they feel like. Citing historical precedence goes both ways...

http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/1 24624

yep.

http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/1 24972

http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/1 24972

Revamped and improved with a new flavor. Enjoy and review.

I demand this is reviewed upon.

http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/1 24624

My finest creation.

Chitarro.

http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/1 24014

Check it out, and REVIEW!

At 2/14/08 08:05 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 2/14/08 07:51 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/14/08 07:33 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: And terrorists don't decide to shoot people and blow people up? It all makes sense now.

No, no... Murderers are not terrorists.

Terrorists use fear to achieve goals... This guy just wanted to kill people.

Except for when they cut the heads off of people...or shoot them...or blow them up...or fly planes into buildings.

Terrorists are people who use fear and killings to achieve a political goal. Thus he is not a terrorist as far as we can tell.

At 2/14/08 07:07 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 2/14/08 06:47 PM, Humbucker740 wrote: I'm pretty satisfied that I can type all this and not care if I write anything offensive or unpolitically-correct. Wait till you get some corrupt official in the top spots and see what happens. Look at China.

Your own argument works for the US as well. For fea o f evoking Godwins law, Wiemar Germany had a written constituion along with many of the same sort of restrictions on modifying it and it still didn't prevent Hitler from taking over.

Assholes that can take over, will take over regardless of whether or not the consitution is codified.

And anyway, it's harder for the UK to get into the position where someone such as Hitler, or Chairman Mao or whoever can get into power than you are making out as whilst we don't have a codified constitution, the current nature of the British piolitical system would prevent him from making drastic changes such as abolishing demcoracy etc.

The House of Lords is unelected, and as such, any budding dictator would have a lot of trouble in getting stuff passed into law. Even if they were the biggets party in the HoC, the HoL's make up is different and has a alrge number of cross benchers who serve no party allegicaince, and when you throw that into consideration it gets even harder.

You're greatly over simplyfing the challenges a dictator would have to go through to get total power.

Total power vs. One law is no problem.

The Patriot Act in the US is the most obvious violation of our Constitution at this time. It is in the process of being removed in Congress, but, in England one law may never get removed from the law books because no one gets elected and no one has certain basic rights which prevent the law. In America people can use the court system to prove a law is unconstitutional, it only takes the right case.

At 2/14/08 12:18 PM, ThePretenders wrote: It is good that the UK has no written, rigid constitution. It gives us the freedom to enact laws we don't like e.g. hate speech without some fool declaring that it harms the equivalent of the 1st amendment.

Yet we get immigrants from England all the time. At least in America our government is set up not to abuse its citizens, barring weak congresses and strong executives. America is better in theory and while we might break our own rules we're a tad bit better than England in reality.

I'm pretty satisfied that I can type all this and not care if I write anything offensive or unpolitically-correct. Wait till you get some corrupt official in the top spots and see what happens. Look at China.

At 2/14/08 06:34 PM, gipper2 wrote: I expect an enormous(s?) gun control arguement on the horizon.

I doubt this is going to increase debate that much. Tech was incredibly worse yet debate barely stemmed from that much at all.

Music Something I made in my spare time for music theory.

Reviews plz.