Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/30/12 01:12 PM, MonthlyVolatile wrote: This is one of those statements that is impossible to make sound any more dumber than it already it is. I have no idea how you accomplished this and I sure as all hell don't want to know.

You didn't even understand it, that is why you care so much about it right now.

At 10/30/12 12:58 PM, FattyWhale wrote: Glad you are more concerned with grammar rather than the OP just claiming that he rapes a ten year old on a regular basis.

'Just' is not a grammatical mistake. It's a typographical mistake.

At 10/30/12 01:05 PM, Suprememessage wrote: ITT: Insanctuary's life is fucking pathetic because no one relates to his depressing bullshit.

You do relate to my depressing meaning, for your life is built entirely on the elusive nature of my depressing meaning.

At 10/30/12 12:55 PM, 4761 wrote: Looking good while burning in a fire doesn't change the fact that you are still burning in a fire.

Who's said I was burning in flames? Usually when people conjure up accusations, they are the ones burning under pressure.

At 10/30/12 01:04 PM, orangebomb wrote: Too bad that you waste everyone else's time with your delusions, but I should've known that when dealing with a troll.

You speak ill of me, but pay no attention to the delusions of your own. Your delusions are more real than the delusions you accuse me for having, while providing no argument in exchange for vilifying my character. I'm not a troll. You can be considered one if you persist vilifying my character with baseless claims, though. Be careful, I'm sure you do not want to be blame for being what you accuse me for being.

At 10/30/12 12:51 PM, 4761 wrote: This is pretty much every one of your posts, brah.

Provide an argument for your subjective statement. Don't say it. Explain it.

At 10/30/12 12:53 PM, Entice wrote: The key word is "try". He felt as if you were trying to confuse, but wasn't fooled himself.

A key word that was used before the verb 'mask', while the confusion was a neutral noun that was not represented by any other adjective or verb. Therefore the confusion was there, and it did not 'fool' him. Confusion can't fool you, if it fools itself.

ITT: The reason why you've added the 'just', is because the OP never took place and you did not catch the incorrect tense.

You should take out the 'just', hence it was a few weeks ago. Primarily regarding the topic, I'd say your guess is as good as ours.

At 10/30/12 09:24 AM, Gramiscus wrote: I present this raw data on Insanctuary's post-responses over the past

I'm not sure, really. When I waste time, I waste time diligently. You actually recorded each of my post's time stamps, then pieced together this thread solely upon me. The latter sounds more time wasting than the former.

At 10/30/12 12:43 PM, Baby-Bottle-Bob wrote: So what they think there's a heaven? Fuck off and let them believe what they want.

As I believe that what they believe should be challenged; and should not be encouraged in a world where truth and understanding of life can be easily misconstrued.

At 10/30/12 10:19 AM, SomeTurtle wrote: It's non-sense that uses confusion to try and mask what it really is, which is nothing. It tries to sound and act deep when in reality it's literally just a jumbled mess I formulated as I was typing it.

Strange. Usually when people are confused by something, they can't determine what it is. But here, you swear up and down that whatever it is past the confusion, its nothing. I do recall that everything you've just said about my OP is in the Bible a thousand times over. Nobody complains because whatever is making you say these things about me and my OP, it isn't healthy and it is down right biblical.

At 10/30/12 07:09 AM, Trillionaire wrote: A well-spoken wise man knows how to lead his audience to one conclusion.

A wise man does not need to be well-spoken in a world where life has no conclusions.

At 10/30/12 06:53 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: That might have something to do with you constantly calling them insecure, insane, idiots and "retarded monkeys."

No, I would not have done this, unless I was brought down whilst I was in a non-aggressive mindset. I toyed with people after they've degraded my passive side. I am not an instigator. You have to look at me more than what I am each day, but each day combined as one single time frame that developed me for what I am now. You can not base me off of several instances, where you fear my fearlessness for crossing into other people's comfort zones.

At 10/30/12 06:44 AM, Scarface wrote: And in addition, everyone else has the same right, even if it means hearing people disagree with everything you say.

What about people who say X to convince millions of people of X, regardless of its opaque nature?

At 10/30/12 06:43 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: He's serious, you guys. Trust me, you don't want to fuck with Level 4 Insanctuary, he's got like three life bars and he's immune to normal attacks.

But, are you serious?

At 10/30/12 06:37 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Uh huh, and what about the whole openly insulting everyone who disagrees with you thing? Because really I find that even more noxious than the constant self-aggrandizement, though it's a close call.

Procedures to test different reactions so I know how to react to each different reaction.

Well you'll have to forgive me, it's a little bit difficult to construe the author's intentions when the author intentionally writes in the most abstract, esoteric, pretentious, obnoxious way possible to make himself seem smarter than he is and distract from what appears to be at the core of it a total lack of substance.

The Bible is exactly that, but nobody is complaining because of social conditioning. For some reason people have spite towards me, which leads to hypocrisy, for this spite towards me is not healthy -- it is coming from a deeply rooted conflict between someone who speaks openly about the world and people's personal problems and those who remain reclusive to their own inner conflicts can do the same thing, but they don't get in trouble for it because they encourage the conflicts and put us on the comfort train. This world's people have been conditioned to let others do what they want, without understanding the art of perception and the great responsibilities we have, to assure critically thought out actions. This is the reason why they say this, they want to be left alone along with everybody else.

At 10/30/12 06:22 AM, Trillionaire wrote: A smart man speaks volumes by using few words.

A wise man knows few words lead to a thousand interpretations.

At 10/30/12 06:17 AM, Ragnarokia wrote: Trying to argue things which are factually debunked on the internet.

There is the universe, there is our reality and there is our false reality.

We are living in a false reality.

We are afraid of reality.

We care too much about what is beyond our finite minds, all the while we neglect the smaller things in life.

At 10/30/12 06:13 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: There's a pretty significant difference between stating a dissenting opinion and stating a dissenting opinion using only your own self-proclaimed intellectual superiority over everyone else as evidence and then explicitly calling everyone who disagrees with you either an idiot or mentally ill.

I'm not evidence. Neither of us are self-evident, for our own existence remains a mystery.

But that's almost beside the point. Homophobia is simply not a valid opinion morally, socially, politically, or scientifically, and homophobic arguments do not need or deserve to be seriously engaged with.

Homophobia is an argument for people who were raised to be disgusted by them. I'm not homophobic. What I am, though, is a simple person who sees you have no evidence for homosexuality. I've also explained that loving the same gender is not proof of homosexuality. I've also explained that love is an abused chemical system that we misinterpret and misconstrue for our own personal affairs. Before you accuse me of being self-proclaimed and using myself as evidence, you should pay attention to what the homosexual argument is founded upon.

I thought so at first, too, but he's way too prolific and seems to actually use his account for normal shit/not be an alt or anything. I really want to believe you because the alternative is fucking terrifying, but I guess there are just actually people like this in the world.

Your fear of me can blind you from being rational. Be cautious with how you perceive things in life; nothing is what it appears to be. You only want to hear and see what you want to hear and see. You expect me to provide you something outside of my supposed self-acclamations, while you are doing the same thing. You judge me by the way you perceive things and not for how they actually are. Judging the book by the cover is one thing, but judging the book without understanding the author's intentions is another.

A moment in your life where you tell yourself you are getting things done, while what is around you demonstrates otherwise. What was once a small problem, is now a problem bigger than yourself. Now, you stand before a wall of responsibilities that was once able to be held in your hands. Erected as a monolith before you. Before you accuse others for crushing your dreams, be sure to blame yourself for building a monolith, that won't only crush your dreams, but crush you aswell.

At 10/30/12 05:49 AM, xxxcreep wrote: Your the worst person at making threads. Everytime someone answers your question or goes along with the thread theme, you bash them and get on your high horse.

I don't have a high horse. I've chosen to crawl to stay close to the lies we've buried in secrecy.

At 10/30/12 05:34 AM, Earfetish wrote: I'm not sure exactly what the point of responding here is but I'm working from home this week.

At 10/29/12 10:43 AM, Insanctuary wrote:

Love is an illusion, but loving is an art. Do you have short-term memory? Homosexuals inlove is no more to the point pedophiles like little kids (sexually) and 70+ year old white males love those benjamins (relations to love).

Spoken like someone who has no idea of what love means. Homosexuals can be 'in love' with each other because they can both experience the emotion of love and it can me a mutual experience. Children and money cannot reciprocate the emotion of romantic love. Whether the emotion felt by a pedophile is comparable to the emotion I feel towards my girlfriend is beside the point, because the object of their desire cannot consent to the relationship, hence why society views consenting love between homosexuals in a different light to romantic relationships between adults and children.

To claim that love is always a normal function is not a normal function. You have to remember that we are falsely accusing of life's objects, and we misinterpret that everything around us are mere objects. Just because we have holes and can experience a feeling does not mean we should let it blindly lead us because of the comfort. People cut themselves. People kill. People lie and abuse people all for the feeling of love and comfort. Love is a feeling that is not associated to what we accuse of it for being.

If you think 'love is an illusion' then what do you call the relationship between your mother and father (or your friends' mothers and fathers)? And then you follow it up with 'loving is an art' like you're pretending to be profound, again.

They are individual minds that have a biologically shared trait. Nothing more. I don't love them because they are my parents. I love them as the individuals they are. There is no reason to force yourself to love that of which you do not love, and only for the sake of loving what we were conditioned to love.

It's childish perversion, just as much as religion, conspiracies, politics are all part of one giant misconceived orgy of childish delusions.

Your opinions are childish delusions borne from the immature mind of someone who thinks he can't be wrong.

Provide an argument. Don't say it. Explain it.

Actually, you are putting words in my mouth. My intellect is not why I have power over you; it's your blooming ignorance.

It is surprising that you think I'm ignorant when I could probably tell you more about a wide range of topics and world events than you could. It's tempting to ask you what you're doing with your life, whether you have a job, your relationship status and how old you are, because I have a strong hunch that I am beating you in all of these areas. But you'll think I'm more ignorant than you because you're the expert at feigning intelligence while you discriminate against sexual minorities on messageboards.

I'm not surprised. You are using a generic lifestyle to defend your position. You assume a job, a relationship and having a generic life defines you who you are as a person in world where jobs are of corrupt persons, relationships that are sincere and genuine are rare and a generic life that knows nothing of life. A mannequin that watches the real world through a window, as people dress you and undress you for their own generic purposes.

No, it's not retarded at all. This is retarded living, which is why our human race is so retarded. People are doing everything wrong like monkeys on LSD.

Where do you see yourself in five years time?

Lost, for this is the way it is. No manual. No truths. Endless complications and excuses.

Alright, I made a mistake here. I got him mixed up with another guy who did die; woe is me. Oh well, Richard Dawkins can still defend himself.

Yes, you meant Christopher Hitchens probably, who said nothing about the gay gene - that's Richard Dawkins. And you still haven't provided evidence for Dawkins' opinions about genetics being misrepresented by gay people, nor have you linked to evidence of gay people calling 0.5 per cent of the animal world gay. Why haven't you done this yet? I've asked you for it like three times. Is it because you don't know what you're talking about, or were you just bullshitting?

I don't stop to record the obvious. The obvious is that 0.5% of the animal kingdom are accused of acting in homosexual traits. The argument is there. Go ask gay people, then come back to me. The evidence you want is not on this side, it is on their side. They are the ones making the claim. I'm only redistributing in point of ingress to the complications they bear.

Furthermore, don't drag Dawkins down with you - he would detest your viewpoints about homosexuality.

Dawkins has only argued the moral side of homosexuality. There is no evidence of homosexuality in an objective sense.

No, homosexuality is a delusion that has no evidence to back it up except childish monkeys that have no idea how psychology, biology or even how the world works. They are all sick puppies.

And what do you know about "psychology, biology or even how the world works"? You don't even have a job, you've never experienced love, and you previously said itt that my Sociology studies into gender "came from systematical vomit", so it's looking pretty likely that you have no basis for your claims of expertise in these areas and no academic or workplace training in any related area.

I have a wonderful girlfriend who is struggling in this cold world along with I. We speak and we stand for what we have diligently sought for to be the truth. We do not give in to our personal needs and experiences, and we pay great respect to the perception of this world. We would both bleed and die for this world, while I could tell you that you would not bleed or die for this world. You would only bleed and die for what comforts you. I don't need to be comforted by what I have already embraced in life. I will continue to stand and breathe for the simple voice that I am -- even if that means I will live in alone, and be conemned for not having a job because I choose to be patient with my intentions and see if there are in opportune moments before I sell my mind and body to a trade that is just as imperfect as we are.

At 10/30/12 04:53 AM, Halberd wrote: nope and I don't think it has an answer

Does this mean that all questions need not to be answered, for our very existence remains unanswered?

At 10/30/12 04:30 AM, Halberd wrote: Why am I

A question of your own. But does it follow with an answer of your own?

At 10/30/12 04:01 AM, Trillionaire wrote: Case in point.

To succeed is to what? Your success is not their success, but their opinion is your success. What of this success is fruitful in nature, if the fruit you bare is not even yours? What if the same people also deemed someone of sinful nature as being successful as much as you are, but only deemed this person so because they were not able to see this person's sinful nature? What would you do to bare a fruit that was yours and not the fruit of those who could not bare their own fruit? What would you do if you were paired up with a sinful person because your success rest in the hands of the less successful?

At 10/30/12 03:54 AM, Trillionaire wrote: People who try to seem smart online are usually not smart at all. The people who succeed know how to communicate effectively to their audience or target.

This is false.

Value and importance is focused on public opinion. There are many people out there who are greatly skilled and versatile in being a human bing, all the while they are seen as an everyday person living their lives. As we get further down the timeline, we face a drought of discovering that will lead public opinion all dried up. People have to see evidence to apply face value unto it, but if they can not see it or understand it, then they will refrain from doing so. Many of the philosophers of our time were in an era where parts of our mind were left undiscovered, so when they've discovered these attributes, they've created a system that would demonstrate these attributes. Today, we are running out of new discovering, and because this, we will be running short on important people and running high with a turpid supply of high-expectations that will only bleed this world dry.

At 10/30/12 03:44 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: eh, you get the point.

Go ahead, as long as it is not a physical threat, let the words bleed unto our system of communication, for their words bleed out of their insecurities. If we were to sensor one of the most important patterns of human interaction, this could lead to dire consenquences. Let the people be stupid, and let the intelligent deal with the stupid. Let it all in the air, then watch the stupid evaporate and the intelligent people walk these lands beneath a psithurism like a ninjas of the universe they are, for the stupid people defeat themselves in the end.

Life is a cess pool of highly intelligent life forms that act dumber than a rock; looking for a purpose, while doing everything and saying everything without a purpose.

I'll pass.

Life is everything around us, we, on the other hand, are generally the polishable turds remained unpolished of the universe.

At 10/29/12 09:36 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: It is impractical and stupid to expect any society to be able to trade and grow without the use of some sort of common currency that is relatively cheap and easy to manufacture.

Alright, tell me how it is highly impractical and stupid to not have any sense of trade in a society in a world where all values exist inside of our heads. The fact that we have to pay people to get them to do things tells you they were all doing it wrong. People need a voice, and a system that isn't mounted on the epitome of greed. If people need incentives, then we are going the wrong way with Capitalism. Although, this is simple a clear thought in a dysfunctional world, so it could might aswell be too late to consider starting it from scratch.

At 10/29/12 08:34 PM, Gramiscus wrote: insanctuary, bruh, for reals.

I've got time to waste.

At 10/29/12 08:21 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Hey look you guys I found a pic of Insanctuary online!

He would tear out your pelvis, use it as a helmet, bash your face in with it, fuck your skull religiously, then jam it up your ass; when you squeal with all of the blood flowing out of your mouth, he would take your tongue, take a razor and a hammer and cut the tongue out in sectors, and each piece of that tongue will be cut into more pieces so that you could no longer talk shit about him and die from terrible blood lost as fucked up ugly.