Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/13/13 07:52 PM, Wegra wrote: By nuts do you mean like peanuts or nutsacks?

Needs more of this:

W, but more curvy.

You can work on your signature then.

At 6/13/13 06:32 PM, Psycho666 wrote: If you look at my post history, it was actually this comment, made by Sekhem, in this thread , that caused me to be a better poster. I was actually joking about using sexual lubricant, silicone lube, but the misunderstanding caused me to change my forum ways.

Well, what I'm seeing right now is admirable. I rarely see anybody posting quality content around here. I do hope that you sustain that quality; go ahead and goof off still, you don't want to be only critical in a world where conflictions surely exist. Conflictions will be everywhere, and always being critical will only tire you.

At 6/13/13 06:22 PM, Psycho666 wrote: Help, I think he has a hard-on for me!

Hard-on, apply directly to the forehead.

At 6/13/13 06:08 PM, Psycho666 wrote: Hey, don't give me too much credit here. I can think of plenty of normal reasons to cover up a breast too!

Have you ever had a sun-burnt dick? I imagine a sun-burnt breast is just as uncomfortable, if not more.

It's not just this subject, mate. You have came into different topics and blew it all away with incredible assessments. I have admiration for you. Keep it up!

At 6/13/13 05:45 PM, Psycho666 wrote: So to summarize my opinion, breasts are covered because people who feel insecure about their sexual feelings, caused by viewing breasts, feel pain, which is attributed to the naked breast, instead of their own repressed thoughts anf feelings.

You are my new favorite poster on these boards. You're fucking intelligent.

At 6/13/13 05:30 PM, Elixur wrote: All I'm saying is perhaps when you decide to compare yourself to someone of history, make a better selection.

It wasn't about me, heh. I was using a historical example to explain that saying someone has no value in say doesn't make it so, as the church demonized Martin, which is implying that Martin no longer was a value to them, but he pushed until he succeeded with or without the acceptance of the church and order.

There's no milk, like there's no proof.

At 6/13/13 01:02 PM, Fim wrote: It was this. Requesting mod lock this now.

It does exist.

At 6/13/13 12:49 PM, Fim wrote: nah, from what I remember it looked vuagely liek this,,

It doesn't exist.

At 6/13/13 11:58 AM, kakalxlax wrote: the best way to wake up is knowing there is delicious food waiting for you

The best way to wake up is when a tornado swept up your house whilst you were napping and threw you onto a mountain's cliff somewhere in Cucumberland Falls, Kentucky, where you can then see a moonbow behind the glistening artful sky, while you see shooting stars, meteorites burning up in the atmosphere, and Haley's Comet, and finally you are also in bed with your loved one, stripped of your clothes, both being at maxed prime through a rare occurence where the hormones reach their paramount in chemical activity.

1. No.

2. No.

3. I will have to vicariously live through others inorder to make a statement, but that would be cheating.

At 6/13/13 11:18 AM, infamoss wrote: Your attempts to sound deep fail miserably.

Your perception does not govern the depth of my colloquial expressions. If this were true, the church that had demonized Martin Luther King Jr., after they discovered his extra-marital affairs, would've rendered Martin's ambitions null, and Martin would not have broken the segregation between whites and blacks, however Martin made history, because the opinion of one person, or group, or government does not govern the actual values of people's intentions.

This?

At 6/13/13 11:03 AM, infamoss wrote: One day, when you're like 30, you can join the former.

"My dad was just like yours, a real prick, there's nothing you can really do except ignore it. That stuff will fuck you up in the head a little and lower your self esteem, but I didn't turn out a bad person or anything."

We would like to run away from that which hurt us, but in due time, we learn that we soon become that very thing.

that occurs the most; people getting laid, and people getting laid off.

At 6/13/13 09:52 AM, MrAngel wrote: Many words used to say absolutely nothing of any intellectual value.

I'm sorry for being ignorant, I will have to evaluate myself further inorder to improve on my colloquial depths.

At 6/12/13 09:20 PM, Hydex3 wrote: Thats very nice :]

You're very nice. ;3

At 6/13/13 04:41 AM, gridcrawler wrote: Could you die in peace?

Rev and I have shut down this retarded discussion time after time again, while others can only resort to red herrings, vague opinions that don't matter, that only proves how ignorant they are on this subject, pseudo arguments where they argue based off of illegitimate viewpoints that they insist are legitimate viewpoints, because they said so underneath all of the blanket statements, hyperbole and tautologies that fucking idiots have vomited out on this absolutely needless topic that can be explained by me and Rev in a few fucking sentences because me and Rev, on this subject, are intellectual enough to make the distinctions between gender bias, and actual universal considerations that are much more sensible and demonstrable when you actually use your god damned fucking brain. Everyone else that is pro-Anita can't even fucking contribute with one single FULL-ON assessment, without saying "no, because no," *OPINIONS, BIAS, FUCK ALL MINDSET*.

At 6/12/13 11:51 PM, Revo357912 wrote: REASON

I admire you, Revo. On this subject.

At 6/12/13 11:29 PM, Hydex3 wrote: its not that scary...

WUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT

At 6/12/13 08:35 PM, naronic wrote:

It may be harder for women but it's certainly not impossible or improbable.

Well then, when you find yourself in a situation between life and death, and you have a female and a male available, but you are going "NYUYYYYYYYUUUUUU, WOMEN CAN DO WHAT MAN CAN, LET THE WOMAN DO IT", have fun with that bruh. Are you hanging onto a cliff? NYUYYYYYUUUUUUU LET THE WOMAN DO IT. I DONT NEED STINKIN MAN HELP. BECAUSE I BE A SEXIST PIG. WHO CARE ABOUT MY LYFE, LET THE WOMAN HANDLE THIS GAIZ.

At 6/12/13 08:33 PM, BigFatKid wrote: However, I found the Boston bombings to be the most blown out of proportion.

Don't get me started. I'm stressed enough as it is.

At 6/12/13 08:27 PM, BigFatKid wrote: I am pretty sure you don't want these massacres to happen again in our country, or anywhere in the world. It's not just about the individuals that died in Sandy Hook, it's about future individuals who may become another victim of these violent acts.

I value everyone's lives accordingly. What I don't value is global hypocrisy.

At 6/12/13 08:09 PM, BigFatKid wrote: It's not just about the act itself, but people want to prevent these acts from occurring MORE often in the future. Murders happen pretty frequently in some parts of the world.

Not the point. The fucking country went on a patriotic wankfest over 28 people. While we continue to ignore everything else, like we always do.

At 6/12/13 08:08 PM, naronic wrote: What do you mean sustain? A family, their life?

What a red herring tossing fool. You know damn well what men do, so what women do is already implied. You completely ignore the facts, and jump onto vague tangents that have absolutely no relevance to anything you think you're arguing. Just because some guy beats someone while on a wheelchair, doesn't mean they will be able to repeat that probability throughout their racing career. Just because a female in history was strong enough to face the circumsances she was in at the time, doesn't mean that she could've gotten out of a situation if a pack of burly men hunted her down. There's a lot of factors more for women than men. They are not fit for those roles, and it's biologically communicated clearly, but you can go on your wild tangents and continue ignoring the fucking facts. And once more, I do not look down on women. They serve their roles, us men serve our roles, this is a mutual benefit!

I'm just going to end this with the ONE SIMPLE fucking fact that you can keep denying with your foolish tautologies some more if you wish. WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE PRIME TARGETS, AS THEY ARE VULNERABLE MORE THAN MEN

More games with portrayals like these would be good for our medium now at least.

It's not about having women at protagonists. It's about forcing women to serve the role of a male protagonist, because so many people are getting butthurt over irrelevant bullshit.

It's only 20... Out of 8,000,000,000.

It's only 20... Out of millions.

It's only 20... Out of thousands.

It's only 20... Out of hundreds...

At 6/12/13 07:41 PM, naronic wrote: Okay, women are on average weaker than men... wait... is that your point?

Women aren't supposed to be the fighters of nature. They are the mothers of nature. They aren't biologically built to sustain what men sustain on a very universal level. It can be done, but the cases are so fucking rare, they are hardly relevant to the fact that 99% of the time, women and children are targeted because they are the most vulnerable.

Because if it is it's deeply flawed, unless you're going with the thesis that no woman can ever take on a leadership role or fight in combat because of some natural law that says all those with 2 X chromosomes can never be stronger or braver than all those with a Y and an X chromosomes; in which case your point would be both flawed and wrong.

No, as I said, the point is that it's not VIABLE, under extreme conditions, it's possible, but it's not how women should work; men are better built for those roles, as nature intended for it. If human beings weren't slacking, you'd see that men will always dominate, while women fulfill their role. This doesn't mean that women should be bitches, because they are vulnerable to men's natural bruteness; women should be respected for what role they fill! That's the point!

So yes, portraying almost all women in video-games as helpless is sort of biased and not reflective of actual gendernomics in the real world.

No, it's a factual crisis that goes on every day in the fucking world. Men are rarely victims, because they are the dominant side of this species NATURALLY.

At 6/12/13 07:30 PM, alternativesolution wrote: Also, I'm not keeping up with this whole argument (meaning he entire thread), mainly because I don't give a shit about any of these video games to begin with. I hardly know who this lady is for that matter. I just hope people are thinking for themselves without jumping on either side of the bandwagon, since that seems to happen a lot ...everywhere

I'm surrounded by idiots.

"Women are naturally weaker than men."

"Derp, so! Doesn't mean they are weak!"

"Well, children can become stronger than adults, as women can be stronger than a man that isn't working out as much, but the amount of effort that it takes to achieve, in a world where effort is next to nothing, is absolutely rare."

"Well, you're a racist pig. Shove off, you fucking cunt."

"I'm surrounded by idiots."

At 6/12/13 07:20 PM, ChloBro wrote: 1. Women are naturally weaker than man; not weak.
2. Physical strength has never won a fight. Anderson Silva will beat up the world's strongest man is.
3. You're a sexist pig and I'm not responding to anything else you post.

1. That's the point. It's like women are the mage casters in a RPG, while men are the warriors. You can't expect a mage caster to tank a god damned fucking dragon like the warrior can.

2. Look at you, stretching the truth. Show me results that shows women are stronger than men. :)

3. No, you are getting shut down by actual facts.

At 6/12/13 07:02 PM, naronic wrote: I don't need everybody's side, just the side of those who are Anti Anita, a quick summary so I can jump back in without getting confused or misrepresent anyone's position.

I do not agree, because women are biologically weaker than men. I do not look down on women at all, but I do accept their vulnerabilities that are naturally implemented. That is why the female is always kidnapped, because females and children in real life are always the targets except for a few rare conditions. Men are a lot less in trouble, because of their natural strength. I know women can be stronger than men, but when you look at the best fighters in the world, it's men, men, men. Women may climb up close to the top, but they will not reach the top, because the male has a biological advantage.

Therefore, Anita was wrong the moment she took it as "gender bias", rather than "women are naturally weak, thus are targets by people with evil intentions".