Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/11/07 02:26 AM, SeeInTheDark wrote: Hydrochloric acid.
Faces melting off and people screaming while writhing in the street.
Yup.

Sulfiric is better. And put it over china, wipe out that savage country and the world is a much better place.

You just need to realise that women either come or they don't, and if you need sex badly enough, there's always hookers. Once you see things that way, you'll be fine.

Sulfiric acid, preferably over china.

At 8/10/07 07:24 AM, Elfer wrote:
What, because you think that they don't exist?

The first one certainly doesn't, or at least the politicians think so.

At 8/11/07 01:37 AM, TheThing wrote: For all those who say "Tell me", it's no fun to tell where an easter egg is. But I will tell you it's not on this site, but a very popular one that is closely related to this one.

Well actually it is, it's a lot of fun. What isn't fun is watching some dumbass attention whore waving around an easter egg and going "look at what I found".

At 8/11/07 01:20 AM, TheThing wrote:
But can you figure out how to get it at that place?

No and we're not wasting our time either, tell us or don't.

At 8/11/07 12:57 AM, TheBeagle wrote: Anything that happens ina short amount of like 20 seconds.

Anything. List some and I shall animate them, completely FBF. I cannot get to them all but I'l get to the to good ones.

A guy gets his head smashed open and his brains fly everywhere?

At 8/11/07 12:33 AM, CapnCrunchDaPimp wrote:
Fucking a crab isn't demented

Yeah, actually it is.

At 8/11/07 12:34 AM, Zack wrote:

At 8/11/07 12:11 AM, kitty-and-meander wrote: World of Warcraft is for fucking nerds, get a girlfriend instead.

You know, I fucking hate people like you.

You hate people who tell the truth about wow players?

At 8/11/07 12:04 AM, sylasmira wrote: does any1 else agree. that blizzard have gone to far?. i am a wow player myself but i think that the system req. is way to big. i can handle it. but i think some people will be agrovated by the massive system reqs. i love wow but i think they have gone to far. what do you think? give me your thoughts on the subject.

Umm, I'm not a 500 pound 40-year old virgin living in his parent's basement like you are, so I dunno. It's good that you basement virgins at least have yourselves a culture of some sort.

At 8/11/07 12:11 AM, CapnCrunchDaPimp wrote:
Hey now, everyone has their preferences you know.

And yours is rather sick and demented, and should net you a strait jacket.

At 8/10/07 11:34 PM, fivepoint wrote: hey woah woah you are crossing so many lines right now

when i saw this thread, i barfed a little in my mouth

Well it's not like it isn't true, I mean a crab is an animal, and he's exually attracted to a crab.

At 8/10/07 10:18 PM, CapnCrunchDaPimp wrote: Stuff

So I take it that you genuinely find animals sexually attractive.

At 8/10/07 04:13 AM, Coop83 wrote:

he'll be doing one last update when he reaches 10,000 Posts and gets himself on the 4x10k list.

Geuss I'm not too late then, I'm surprized no one noticed I don't have 5000 blams yet, despite having over 10000 saves.

At 8/9/07 09:28 PM, kojama wrote: We are almost unique as a country because he have complete freedom of speech as long it is decent in public.

Freedom of speech, "as long as it is decent" is not freedom of speech.

I don't like biased tilts in the news and such, but I'll be damned if I don't stick up for their right to be biased. The fairness doctorine probably won't make it, but it's still a scary idea.

At 8/9/07 11:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
"HA! now that i created you there is no doubt i exist!...why the fuck am i disappearing?!?" - YHWH

Except it's probably more like he just doesn't want 6 billion people bugging him with stupid questions, I know I wouldn't.

At 8/9/07 08:33 PM, IOUPAIN wrote:
god is an excuse for the weak minded who believe in it

You do realise it's a logical fallacy to assume that belief in something requires a weak mind right?

At 8/8/07 01:17 PM, Brick-top wrote: Tha's impossible, no one can win pacman

You win pac man by getting max score.

Pox- That's an interesting perspective on things, although, there's nothing wrong with being lazy, who wants to work after all? I'd also say it's more likely god's smell differs depending on the individual, whatever you find to smell the best, that's what he smells like to you.

10000 saves, looks like it's time for Gfox to track me on his penta list, if he's even still around.

Indeed, it's how we're able to use china for their cheap products but at the same time prevent them from taking over our economy.

At 8/8/07 06:53 AM, fli wrote:
Be pratical. We have at least protected people's races, relgions, nationalities, and gender for 40 years... and the world hasn't ended. (At least, not because of that.)

40 years ago, White people were like, "If we give the Blacks legal protection, then latter on they will be enslaving us! And then anarchy will follow. We can't allow this to happen... it's going to open a Pandora's Box." And guess what? No such thing happened. The world continued, and the law protected people as a Race, Religion, Nationality and Gender. And while hate crimes continued... Justice became much more swifter because of these laws. And at the same time, it made the message loud and clear to people: We won't tolerate violence stemmed by hate of a person's skin, or belief, or orgin, or sex status.

But at the same time it was much less realistic than the possibility of a general hate crime bill.

And your example sucked balls majorily. It's logically flawed. It's like comparing the accident of car accident to the accident of Chernobyl's nuclear meltdown. While anyone can see that both things are accidents... it's obvious you can't compare neither things because each situation is totally different.

If only the overwhelming majority of the population wasn't incredibly stupid I would agree. The problem is you assume people would be logical enough to know the proper place to draw the line at. But they aren't. You give a guy morphine for his broken leg and the guy next to him with a minor laceration cries foul that he didn't get it too, because hey, he was also injured and feeling pain. You give someone a raise for doing his job efficiently, and his slower co-worker demands one too because hey, he also got the job done,. And yes, people do this. It'll be the same with hate crimes. Sure it'll be a bit more gradual than that, but it'll probably come to pass that they pass a bill that punishes any crime involving hate, which by definition, would have to punish those against absolute scum bags.

But you're stuck on this notion that this is giving certain "extra" privilages to a certain people! When really...

It's just finally equalizing everyone under the law... at least, under that law.

But would getting rid of hate crime legislation altogether not do the same?

At 8/8/07 05:33 AM, fli wrote:

wait, wait, wait...
You get the silly notion that if we make this law... it would lead and eventual compound to worser things that may include... sympathy of rapists.

Which, any non-dumb fuck would know is not the same as comparing being gay to being a rapist like you assumed it did. And the notion isn't really that silly, who are you to say where people will draw the line with this? If you protect people from being targeted for a particular lifestyle, surely it won't be the last "lifestyle" people choose to want protected from "hate crimes". And that's the problem. Although your primitive mind can not comprehend this, "rapists" were just an example. If they put together a law that says any crime involving hate gets punished(which is not all that unlikely), that would do just that. Punish any hate crime, including those against people like homuicidal maniacs and rapists. If you target specific groups like gay people, then you create a social ladder. The point, which you can't for the life of you comprehend is that any hate crime legislation is bad, and causes more problems than it will ever solve.

At 8/7/07 03:16 PM, fli wrote:
you were comparing being a rapist to being homosexual.

And you hence prove my point that you are, in fact, a dumb fuck. If you were smart you would realise I was not. But I did manage to find your typecast:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrior shtm/ferouscranus.htm

At 8/7/07 06:59 AM, fli wrote:
Wait, wait, wait...
Are you comparing rape with homosexuality?

No you dumb fuck, I'm not. What I am saying, which you completely missed, is that defining anti-hemosexual crimes as hate crimes could lead other things being defined as such that we wouldn't want to be.It is true that this isn't neccessarily the case, but it isn't neccessarily not the case either. Rape is just an example, not the entirety of what I fear may happen. Hence why I said it's a bad pandora's box. Doing away with hate crime legislation however, would not be. The crimes themselves are what need to be punished.

That's where you're wrong. This isn't a matter of "not doing anything"-- It's more like, "Not doing enough." Like I said, in the Brandon Teena situation... the cop did something. There's records that he did "something." He went to there and said, "you gotta go to court." Or something similar to that effect. A law like the Matthew Shepard Act could have at least forced the sherrif to detain the Teena's would-be murderers. But instead, things were delayed. Put off.

Not doing enough is still neglect, but the point is it doesn't matter, neglect is neglect, discrimination motivated or not.

At 8/7/07 05:38 AM, fli wrote:

Mmmm... so, if everyone else is being protected, why can't we protect gays? You say "it's not like transgender people and gays are the only ones who can be discriminated against."

Far as I know, straight white males aren't protected by hate crime laws. But to be honest, definining hate crimes reaches a blurred line when it comes to personality things like someone's gayness. What if people like rapists start to try and say they should be protected from their victim's families commiting crimes against them. By strict definition, killing a rapist for being a rapist is a hate crime, not one which I would condemn, but still a hate crime.

Put simply, I worry more about what kind of pandara's box this migght be opening. It's a lot better to just do away with hate crimes all together and just prosecute the crimes themselves.

This is where you're wrong. While neglegence can be punished (not legally... just, whatever protocals police have in place for themselves...) By law, police are forced to act accordingly. So even if they don't agree with certain aspects of people, at least there's something in place to force that person to do his or her job.

There are measures in place, but how enforced are they? If you're a cop, decide not to do your job on a rape, the victim has too little money and legal knowledge to sue you, and your captain is too lazy to put together the paper work to prosecute you for failing to enforce the law(and similar such scenerios are quite common), then geuss what? You can just do nothing and you get off scott free.

At 8/7/07 04:34 AM, fli wrote:
However,
There is negligence. Law enforcement turning a blind eye to things (especially in the Red states). When tranvestite Brandon Teena was beaten up, sherrifs didn't do anything. They went over to the guys who rapped him and basically just gave a slap on the hand. There was no penalty for that hate motivated crime.

It isn't neccesarily hecause there was a transvestite involved. Very often, though you will NEVER hear this on the news, the cops just decide they don't care about crimes that involve actual victims. If this were not the case, victim's rights organizations wouldn't exist. Even assumming it was discrimination based on the transgenderness of the person, it's not like transgender people and gays are the only ones who can be discriminated against. ANY group can be, and focusing on the discrimination, rather than the neglected of the cops in and of itself is just creating legal inequalities. It just means if a straight white males gets assaulted they're going to say, "sorry, can't do nothing for you".

Police neglect exists, wether it's done in the form of discrimination or not shouldn't matter, it should be punished all the same.

We need to protect all citizens against crime, not specifically gay people. They deserve equal rights to protection, not more.

The answer is simple, because the media brainwashes us not to be afraid. They're not exactly pro-terrorist so much as they're afraid of offending anyone and so they routinely downplay these threats and we don't get the full story.

This is what? The 10000th time a fucked up incident in newark ended up on national news? That place has more problems than the bronx.