Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/9/12 11:42 AM, II2none wrote:

At 1/8/12 10:10 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/8/12 10:03 PM, II2none wrote:

2. Ok. Let's recap. What do YOU personally think human nature is?

I should've just said nature period, nothing but conflict and struggle, you just have to make the most out of life that you can. What you need to understand is not everyone wants to be "saved" therefore you can't solve the worlds problems because some people deny having problems, or just don't care. .

3. I'm only 19, I'm sojourning in the shadows until I am ready.

Which is why you shouldn't have made this thread before taking some succesful action to change the world.

4. You won't believe me if I told you, but a head injury during age 16 1/2 allowed me to compose music; write philosophy, and think critically. I'm not even sure why. I even have 3 months of nothingness because of that head injury. I just have a memory of me lying down in bed and it's like.. I woke up from a deep sleep, like my body was on auto-pilot for 3 months.

You're right that sounds farfetched. so a head injury gave you the ability to write music, philosophy and think critically. Or was it the fact that maybe you were near deaths door and have a new appreciation for life which you now feel the need to shove down others throats.

2. Yes, but it seems as though you think you know what nature is about. It sounds to me you are just saying what the mass says, which is again.. Not proving any viable point. I understand not everybody wants to do what I think is best for them to do, and that is why it's an act of weakness. This world could be alot more reasonable if people stopped putting on safety gear while climbing 2 feet hills while I climb the death mountain [not a LoZ reference]. This race can be brilliant, and full of endless potential.. Yet, we waste away with our selfish indulgences.. worshipping materials.. Paying more attention to our fabricated reality than ourselves.

3. What are you talking about? Everything I do is progress towards my philosophy.

4. I don't know what it did, to be honest. It all just hit me over night. When I woke up, I could feel the world.. I don't even know how else to explain it. I just could feel the weight of reality. It used to been such a blur, and time went by incredibly fast [slow at school]. Now, I can see everything as if it was puzzle pieces. I don't know, I swear I felt my mind expanding everyday. I'm still seeing more and more every day. I digress though. This is not about me. This is about our world and it's inhabitants.. their lifestyles they choose to live under.. when they can be so much more than what they present.

At 1/9/12 04:29 AM, Haggard wrote:

At 1/8/12 08:47 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I don't pursue for happiness. It comes to me as I live to be the best I can be.

I guess that his a matter of the point of view. Nobody I know would say "I pursue for happiness", but yet everyone does things to be happy, or does things "out of fun" (which just is the same thing).

In my mind, when we sought for specific variable; it is an act of weakness.

As if people have turned happiness into the foundation of life, that is flawed in every way possible mind you.

It's 12P.M here*

At 1/9/12 05:27 AM, BizzarroPMP wrote:

At 1/9/12 03:38 AM, Insanctuary wrote: Just one day. Be serious and try to solve the riddle. Just one single fucking day is all I ask for.

Alright, alright. Since that made me laugh, I'll take a crack at it.

I think you forgot to put the real question, "What am I?" like the end of most riddles. In which case, I believe the answer is either knowledge or belief.

If, however, the real question is "Am I or am I not?" and the answer to THAT question is in the paragraph, I'm at a loss.

That's more like it.

Essentially, what you are trying to do is figure out what the riddle itself means. What is the key? What is the lock? How are they the same? What does ''To foresee the history of a possibility'' mean? How can this man see and not see at the same time? Then whence you believe you've solved that, you'll be able to solve the riddle if you pay close attention. I made sure that this riddle has two parts, and a very interesting answer to top it all off.

First part: What does the whole riddle even symbolise?

Second part: When you figure out what the riddle represents, then you can finally apply a little bit more effort into answering the sole question ''Am I or am I not?''.

I will give out the answer tonight at a random time to keep you guessing. It will be no later than 11P.M my time. (It's 12A.M here)

Goodluck!

Just one day. Be serious and try to solve the riddle. Just one single fucking day is all I ask for.

Then, tomorrow night. I will reveal the answer so all of you can jump me for my pseudo intellectual drivel, alright?

Deal? Come on.. It's a fairly decent deal. Just 1 single day. Then, you can you go crazy if you hate the answer.

Ghosts don't exist.

Never will.

It's all hoaxes, paranoia.. Etc. Stop pretending to be special because of your fabricated experiences is all you have left to feel as if though your life has more meaning to it.

Derp.

At 1/9/12 02:50 AM, MiloBased wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:43 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

That's why other people can solve it? Where is your logic, mate? I'm telling you what I told those who solved it.

Of course, anyone can guess something until they get to the answer you have.

Just open your eyes, and stop seeing me for what I'm not. This is not pseudo in any way. I already said that all of you are free to bash me hardcore for being pseudo intellectual when I give you the answer tomorrow night.

I don't know how to stop seeing you for what you am not, I don't even know if you am or am not remember? Are you not, is that the answer?

Put some effort into it for now.. or untuil somebody actually is mature enough to take it seriously and solves it.

I'm putting effort into it, but when ever someone gives you an answer you keep giving mental detours.

Oh. My. God. Your response actually just made me see what you guys are seeing.

NO. This poem has nothing to do with ME. It's a question in itself! Just a question of a random person that doesn't exist.. Who asks themselves ''Am I or am I not?''
--

1. I only gave them once chance to give me an answer.

2. Alright, I will try not to give any more mental detours. Sorry about that.

3. I will give the answer tomorrow night. I will only say the answer if somebody solved it.

So.. put some EFFORT into it. >8D

At 1/9/12 02:50 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:45 AM, Insanctuary wrote:
Lol. I'm not good or bad. I'm neutral. Like.. a tamed shadow.

What are you talking about?

Seems ive struck a nerve in my filler and it seems due to your posts in this thread your leaning toward the dark side of the force while im leaning nowhere

Dark side? What if I don't want cookies?

Alright, how about this.

I will get back to you when I've managed to figure out what that element is, alright? [I'm not going to completely forget about this like some asshole. I'm going to stick to my word.]

If you do wish to discuss things I can refute, I would be more than happy to oblige.

For now, I will just have to stick with.. I see things, and I cannot apply form to it yet.

It's like.. When I was younger, I was thinking of all of these ideas and such. It wasn't until my mom brought her psychology book from her college, that I realised I knew all of this stuff on my own.

I just didn't know the labels.

I just see things in my mind, and I don't know how to refer to it. I don't have the blueprints to my mind, and it upsets me.

I'll spare you for now, are you open to a PM when I come up with a proper refutation? [May take awhile.]

Thankyou for trying to understand me, I do appreciate it.

At 1/9/12 02:46 AM, beardkiller wrote: hmmm its either the brain,the mind or some pseudo-science crap that i cant get

What? Are? You? Talking? About?

Ask yourself ''Am I Or Am I Not''? Then see if you can go from there.

Too good to die.

Sarcasm is like lying without lying.

At 1/9/12 02:43 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:39 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:37 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:34 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:26 AM, beardkiller wrote:

Lol. I'm not good or bad. I'm neutral. Like.. a tamed shadow.

What are you talking about?

At 1/9/12 02:41 AM, MiloBased wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:37 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

The mind is a paradox itself. Where light and shadow coexist.

If the man can see without consciously seeing.. He is indeed not contradicting himself.

Try decoding the riddle piece by piece. Under the simple words and their complex I established.

It looks simple, but it's a very twisted riddle that relies on you to see without seeing.

Come on guys.. Put some EFFORT.

You know when you add up all this pseudo-intellectual crap you keep spouting about, it comes to a conclusion that with all the paradoxes and perspectives this riddle in only true by his/her own definition.

That's why other people can solve it? Where is your logic, mate? I'm telling you what I told those who solved it.

Just open your eyes, and stop seeing me for what I'm not. This is not pseudo in any way. I already said that all of you are free to bash me hardcore for being pseudo intellectual when I give you the answer tomorrow night.

Put some effort into it for now.. or untuil somebody actually is mature enough to take it seriously and solves it.

At 1/9/12 02:37 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:34 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:26 AM, beardkiller wrote: Dude light your logic powers killing him keep going

I said something too. :c

dude im a cannibal troll and you attempted to troll me by aiming at my neutrality towards deitys now then enjoy your emotional pain =D

Since when was I trolling you? I don't troll. I burn the bridges of any troll that messes with me. I've earned respect from a few trolls here on NG.

So again, who are you going to listen to? Me? Or some deluded pansy who bashs atheists without a viable argument?

At 1/9/12 02:33 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:31 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:06 AM, beardkiller wrote: dude the answer is your a existing paradox

How did you come up with this conclusion? Mhmm..?

because a self contridicting object cannot logicly exist thus its a paradox that defys logic and exists

The mind is a paradox itself. Where light and shadow coexist.

If the man can see without consciously seeing.. He is indeed not contradicting himself.

Try decoding the riddle piece by piece. Under the simple words and their complex I established.

It looks simple, but it's a very twisted riddle that relies on you to see without seeing.

Come on guys.. Put some EFFORT.

At 1/9/12 02:26 AM, beardkiller wrote: Dude light your logic powers killing him keep going

I said something too. :c

At 1/9/12 02:06 AM, beardkiller wrote: dude the answer is your a existing paradox

How did you come up with this conclusion? Mhmm..?

At 1/9/12 02:16 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 1/9/12 02:03 AM, Insanctuary wrote: 1. No, no no. I'm saying that 'tests' are inaccurate in many ways. It's best to look at things with your own eyes; your own judgment; your own power of observation.

I do use my own judgement, but I still need facts to determine the truth, and I can obtain those through tests.

2. No, what I see it fact to me, and opinion to you. I see what I see. You do not see what I see.

So all you're saying is that reality is subjective? Well of course it is. That alone, however, does not validate your opinions to other people. Dur. That's still not an argument.

4. Actually, I caught myself after I already sent that. I meant to say that I was generally speaking there of. Not all rebel. I know that.

Even then, you don't have any *proof* that most of them are rebellious. It's just a stereotype, or a generalization that you pulled out of your ass.

5. That's because inorder to convince you what I see, you have to see what I see. If I tell you what I see, you will only call that as false as my argument. Don't you see how frustrating this is?

So, to believe what you believe, I have to believe what you believe?
...

I call them false, because you cannot prove that they are true. I'm asking you to prove that it is true. If you cannot do that, logically, then it is not true.

I'm telling you. You can see things in people in just the way they move, talk, express themselves, etc. It draws a map that I can understand. I don't know why. I don't know how else to explain it.

Well yes, you can determine some things about a person from the way that they act. Saying that you can tell that an entire population is not sincere just by observing some of them, however, is both shallow and arrogant beyond belief. You still haven't given a clear reason or example how they're like that.

If you can put it into some sort of report that's readable by humans, then maybe I'll be convinced.

Also, can you PLEASE take my riddle seriously for ONE day. Jesus christ.

That's not to discuss here, but I am genuinely curious to see what kind of answer you came up with... and I did give it some thought, still contradictory, intentionally confusing gibberish though.

1. I'm sure you do. You must understand that you can't see everything with just your eyes. There are some things you can 'feel'. That gut feeling you get when you are about to do something bad, and shouldn't.. This gut feeling of mine is 10x stronger than that. A hunch, I guess?

2. No. I'm saying that I see things you don't. That's not being subjective. That's seeing something you've yet to become aware of. [That others have, so it's definately there.]

3. Most of them are rebellious. You got to be a fool to deny that, lol. Are we talking about teens overall? Or gay teens? I'm referring to the former.

4. I can prove it, you've just yet to see it. Whatever I see takes time to develop. It's just this heightened awareness, I don't know. I'm just a critical thinker.. and this is one of those X marks for me. I've yet to truly understand why I feel off about homosexuals, but something is definately off..

As I said.. I suspect what I've aforementioned.. Everyone is different, but everyone has atleast one of the elements that makes me question them.

5. You shot down my reason. Remember? You cannot see what I see. That is why this is can get infuriating. It takes time for you to start seeing what I see. Only one person saw what I saw in 1 day. The rest.. Took awhile.

We would have to argue generally about things so I can draw a general map of your general ideas so.. I can see how you see this world, and perhaps explain stuff that I CAN explain.

At 1/9/12 02:09 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Ignorance, Hate, Pretentiousness...yep, smells like a religious thread to me. It's not that the threads themselves are bad, but then you get these fucking atheists who always try to argue from the ignorant and tell everyone they're wrong and they are right because Science. I'm just tired of it, and it never gets any better. It's like, I'm here to discuss Theology, you think I give two shits if you believe or not? Who the fuck are you to tell everyone else what to believe? Just get out.

Also, to the guy having a disscussion with Insanctuary, don't bother. He's just trolling, Satan was banished due to his pride and sins against God and humanity. He's just egging you on and honestly knows shit all about what he's saying.

Like you know any more? You are just an angry neutral guy who is being inadvertently aggressive.

Hypocrite. Deluded. Egoistical. Act like he knows that he knows enough to come in here and bash everyone when they are in their own right to have their opinions that they actually try to refute unlike you becoming this inebriated troll who comes in and clubs random people ''erg. ge awa frum ther''. Derp.

You are a fool. Just like those who believe in a God. Oh, sorry. I spoke my mind there. Does that bother you, dad?

It's called 'faith in anithetical values' and it's a bunch of rubbish. If they are so full of themselves, I'm going to preach it.

Do not come in here like a hypocrite. And actually propose a viable rebuttal.. Not what you just did there..

At 1/9/12 02:06 AM, FIGMENTUM wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:57 AM, Insanctuary wrote: Please, do not let this divert you from the REASON I MADE THIS THREAD.

I am not diverted, I am fully aware the reason you made this thread was to create a pseudo-intellectual cover for your racism. I understand the true meaning behind your alias now. No sanctuary for their dirty kind, right?

Pfhahahaha. I'm not racist. I don't even know how people are racist when it's just the pigment of the god damned skin. They still have everything we have in physical form. They have a brain; a realm of ideas. I honestly feel sorry for MLK having to deal with our race's lunacy.

It was a typo. Nothing more.

At 1/9/12 01:59 AM, EKublai wrote: Unfortunately, this is same thing that happens with less broad issues. People don't start thinking from within the same sphere, so how can we hope to understand why we each believe we are so right. To some, life is complicated and that's the way it should be. To many, including myself, everything is so clear that it's hard to see life when one reaches so far back.

That is why I've developed a way of poking holes in people's defenses, by attacking their flaws.

Why does a man try to stand, if he is built with straws? Just tell me this.

At 1/9/12 01:52 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:42 AM, Insanctuary wrote: 3. Indeed, but that doesn't stop me from speaking my mind in general. I doubt anyone could say it's viable with the wrong judgement. Just because people do tests, does not deem anything viable anymore or any less. The key is to look at it, and see if everything adds up. Something doesn't add up to me, therefore I deem it awry. Something is off, and it feels essentially fake IMHFO.

So, the way to see if something is viable is not to test it logically, but simply to look at it generally and see if it feels right? How is that supposed to make sense?

4. When did I state anything as fact? I'm telling you what I see myself. It's true unto me, so I state it as something you should see.

What you see yourself, what is true unto you, is your OPINION. You state it as something I should see? You're essentially just telling me that I should just believe your opinion. Or perhaps look at it from your point of view; that wouldn't help much though since you're not saying anything other than that their relationships are "off" in some inexplicable way.

In my sincere eyes, I cannot see any plausible concordance in these relationships.

Sincere opinion != the truth.

It seems more like convoluted confusion, ignorant, rebelling, etc. It's not all that hard to see how many teens rebel against reality.. What would be so different with gays?

Not all teens rebel against reality, either.

Also.. I have trouble building a bridge between my mind's language and the language you can understand. Don't get so upset, you don't know how much it bothers me aswell. I put alot of endeavor to pass my word in a tangible manner. I really do.

Then explain it to me, at least try to explain it to me. If you can't even manage one word, one shred of evidence then you obviously don't have any facts backing it, period. I can understand how thoughts are sometimes hard to put into words, but you simply haven't said ANYTHING. Anything at all to legitimately support your grandiose fucking opinion.

1. No, no no. I'm saying that 'tests' are inaccurate in many ways. It's best to look at things with your own eyes; your own judgment; your own power of observation.

2. No, what I see it fact to me, and opinion to you. I see what I see. You do not see what I see.

3. ^

4. Actually, I caught myself after I already sent that. I meant to say that I was generally speaking there of. Not all rebel. I know that.

5. That's because inorder to convince you what I see, you have to see what I see. If I tell you what I see, you will only call that as false as my argument. Don't you see how frustrating this is?

I'm telling you. You can see things in people in just the way they move, talk, express themselves, etc. It draws a map that I can understand. I don't know why. I don't know how else to explain it.

Also, can you PLEASE take my riddle seriously for ONE day. Jesus christ.

At 1/9/12 01:55 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:49 AM, Insanctuary wrote: Wow. I meant cunt. God damn it. I really do apologise for that slip.

All black people in the room are now standing near the door, shuffling their feet nervously and wondering whether they should leave or not. Great job, alienating them like that.

If it makes ANYONE feel better. I wrote a [1500 words] Martin Luther King Jr. essay. So SHUT IT.

I did not mean to make such a horrible typo. That was just one of those GOD DAMN IT moments.

Please, do not let this divert you from the REASON I MADE THIS THREAD.

Thankyou in advance.

At 1/9/12 01:53 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:47 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:39 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:29 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:22 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:17 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

Your basicly saying that satan has accepted that he was branded evil and is trying to make the most of his condemed existance by having some fun and granting wishes to sombody else who was branded an evil man

No. My point is that the Devil is not evil. It is man that is evil, and has always been.

ok...but what about legitimatly good people who help others?i know my species is greedy/mean/hateful/pride filled but thats because we were designed and conditioned with a survival/self advancement mindset its human nature

Well if you want to put it that way. Man is not 'evil' per se, they have a light side and a dark side. Two sides of the coin. There are a very rare few who actually are good people inside and outside. Very, few.

Alot of people do good things for moral reasons. Because they are moral whores. Alot of people will do anything to feel 'special'.

As I said, the rare few I mentioned is a dying breed.

At 1/9/12 01:49 AM, MiloBased wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:44 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

You are absolutely wrong. This riddle has more than one layer of awareness established you coon.

RACIST! i KNEWED IT. DON'T DENY IT!

Wow. I meant cunt. God damn it. I really do apologise for that slip.

At 1/9/12 01:39 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:29 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:22 AM, beardkiller wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:17 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

::

Your basicly saying that satan has accepted that he was branded evil and is trying to make the most of his condemed existance by having some fun and granting wishes to sombody else who was branded an evil man

No. My point is that the Devil is not evil. It is man that is evil, and has always been.

At 1/9/12 01:38 AM, Gobblemeister wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:33 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:30 AM, Jay wrote:

Actually, many people understand this riddle. It's proof that my philosophy is hard to understand because you simply haven't opened your eyes enough.

lmao

It truly is a cunning riddle.

No it isn't it's idiotic, there's nothing clever about it at all it's just you throwing out a bunch of contradictions and then saying 'It's people don't you get it guys hueff hueff i'm so smart'

Riddles are supposed to be fun and clever and whatever 'that' is it's neither fun or clever.

You are absolutely wrong. This riddle has more than one layer of awareness established you coon.

Stop assuming things about my riddle, and take it seriously.. Just for one fucking day. Then, when I give the answer tomorrow night. You are welcomed to laugh at me if it doesn't meet up to your 'standards'. Got it?

At 1/9/12 01:33 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 1/9/12 01:25 AM, Insanctuary wrote: 1. The point that you don't need firsthand experience to produce a viable opposition?

Ah, I understand now.

3. Of course not, but they each hold their own attributes that draws a map for me in what they do indvidually.

Yes, but for you to draw a valid conclusion about homosexuals in general you would have to perform an in-depth analysis of a huge number of them. You have not done this.

4. You just aren't understanding what I'm trying to explain. Humans have tunnel vision. You will be amazed how much of an effect it has on us each day. Sometimes you see things you never even thought was there. Awareness is a very powerful element, and I have spent alot of time to raise my own. Others have to, and that is why they can see what I see, while you still don't see what I see.. It's hard to explain what I cannot show you yet.

I understand that. I've read and carefully considered everything that you've said.

The fact remains that, you cannot say something as fact, and then have nothing visible to back it up with. Sure, you can claim that you're right all day but no one's going to believe you. An argument without any evidence is not a valid argument, period.

You keep saying that homosexual relationships are missing something. You can't tell me what it is. You keep saying that there's something that I'm missing in this argument. You can't tell me what it is.
That is not in any way convincing. Just fucking tell me what it is, provide one shred of evidence and boom, your opinion is validated. But you won't do it, because you don't have a reason and you're basing your entire argument on your personal feelings.

3. Indeed, but that doesn't stop me from speaking my mind in general. I doubt anyone could say it's viable with the wrong judgement. Just because people do tests, does not deem anything viable anymore or any less. The key is to look at it, and see if everything adds up. Something doesn't add up to me, therefore I deem it awry. Something is off, and it feels essentially fake IMHFO.

4. When did I state anything as fact? I'm telling you what I see myself. It's true unto me, so I state it as something you should see. In my sincere eyes, I cannot see any plausible concordance in these relationships. It seems more like convoluted confusion, ignorant, rebelling, etc. It's not all that hard to see how many teens rebel against reality.. What would be so different with gays?

Also.. I have trouble building a bridge between my mind's language and the language you can understand. Don't get so upset, you don't know how much it bothers me aswell. I put alot of endeavor to pass my word in a tangible manner. I really do.

At 12/28/11 09:22 PM, DevourerJay wrote: Serious reply:

They don't exist...

Agreed. These people and their imaginative realms that are on crack.

Stop being children.