Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/20/05 08:35 PM, Elfer wrote: Dude, I can walk into plenty of actual retail stores and buy bongs if I wanted to do so.

Then maybe it's just the laws or potheads around here, but selling bongs is illegal, possession of said bongs is illegal.

And the adult products ARE seperated from the rest of the site, so what's the problem?

Yeah, just like books are separated from toilet paper at wal-mart. But that's not nearly enough. In accordance with federal law, they have to have age restrictions on specific areas of the site like the Sex and Sensuality section. I understand that if a 17 y/o wants to buy one, she could very well use her parent's account / credit card to do it, and if the parents are willing then so be it, but it shouldn't just be left there for the entire fucking world's viewing pleasure.

At 8/20/05 04:15 PM, Elfer wrote: Full enforcement of the law?

Paraphernalia does not count as the act or depiction thereof itself.

For example, it's perfectly legal to buy say, a bong or a pipe or something, but not marijuana. There's a difference.

Part of the law surrounding adult content states explicitly that adult content -- dildos, vibrators, etc... -- must be segregated from general merchandise to prevent exposure to innocents. Thus part of the reason Wal-Mart doesn't stock The Magic Vibrator in the Toy Aisle.

And for clarification, bongs are generally made, not bought. Pipes are usually bought at flea markets and other places where sales controls are virtually non-existent. I do remember, however, that Caeser's Creek flea market was raided by cops once while I was there, and they hauled away a man and his merchandise. Among his merchandise? Marijuana pipes. He was later charged for the possession of said pipes, as well as intent to distribute.

At 8/19/05 05:43 PM, -Fudge- wrote:

At 8/19/05 05:25 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: damm and were wondering where all our morals in this world have gone

What's so immoral about amazon selling dildos?

I have nothing wrong with them selling dildos and varying books on cunnilingus and vaginal fisting and female masturbation and Lord knows what else, I just think that those sections of their site, just like all the porn sites and adult search engines and all that stuff, should be restricted to 18+. Is full enforcement of the law so much to ask for?

At 8/20/05 07:14 AM, Electromancer wrote: You really seem to know your sex toys, Loony2000.

Not really. I actually don't know what gives you that impression.

At 8/18/05 09:08 PM, NarcolepticAlarmClok wrote: Longest arse beggining post... ever.

Meh. I've seen longer.

But the proposal's supporters say it could help save some species from extinction in Africa, where protection is spotty and habitats are vanishing.

And what the hell... Since when does North America have better solvency for the continuation of the species? Me, I'd prefer the open hills of Africa to the urban centers that encompass North America.

At 8/19/05 04:25 PM, CartesianDiver38 wrote: what the fuck do u guys care if people want to buy a dildo if they arent 18 i wouldnt care. and im not talking about like 10 year olds if some 15-17 year old girl wants to buy a vibrator then let her buy it jesus christ its not like sex is some horrible thing that you only do i fyour married unless ur a dumbass catholic

Because that rant was a) informative, b) necessary or c) educational... Yeah, no, it wasn't.

Also, your flagrant disregard for the proper rules of grammar only proves your own stupidity. It also only serves to prove that your high school english classes were a complete waste, and your public education was a complete waste of taxpayer money. Unless, of course, you were educated privately, in which case your education was a complete waste of a tutor's time and your parent's money. Either way, you still fail at life.

At 8/19/05 02:27 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/19/05 01:54 PM, specimen56 wrote: And I would like to add- 100 condoms for $20? How can you fault that kind of prices... (whats that in uk pounds?)

11.13 pounds, to be exact. Sure beats the snot out of wal-mart.

Eh, I was close.

At 8/19/05 01:54 PM, specimen56 wrote: And I would like to add- 100 condoms for $20? How can you fault that kind of prices... (whats that in uk pounds?)

Like, 13 pounds.

Yes, I was able to view the entire collection without signing into my amazon account, seeing as I don't have one.

At any rate, while Elfer may have a point that the kids don't know what it is, I'd still rather avoid giving them the opportunity to see it. There are always kids who, upon seeing something they don't understand, proceed to research it until they understand it. I don't want to see the results of seeing my 9 year old nephew typing "vibrator" into a google search.

I've no idea with sex becoming accepted, per se, but it is still better to at least try and keep such sordid materials out of the viewing range of minors. My opinion.

http://www.amazon.co..amp;me=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Nossiree. Amazon has not held back. Amazon has gone deep, penetrated the market fully, committed completely to the lubricious cause. Their store is all about high-end bondage gear and oral strap-ons and $150 sex swings and $300 leather harnesses. There is the Swell Guy Expanding Vibrating Butt Plug and Julie Ashton's Anal Beginner Kit and any number of massive flesh-like dildos the size and girth and detail of which would make your mother blush and your sister swoon and Rocco Siffredi proud.

There is the Lube Pillow Pack and Impulse Orgasm Balls (Textured). There is the Large Black Licorice Little Flirt Pleaser Plug and Pocket Rocket and Crystal Clear Lady Finger Vibrator and Vibrating Egg Bullet Combo, all for only $14.99 (which, let me just say right here, appears to be one hell of a bargain). There are bottles of Hot Hooters Edible Warming Booby Oil in either Cinnamon Schnapps or Electric Lemonade or Creamy Vanilla Screaming Orgasm. Yes. Say it like you mean it.

This is Amazon now. This is America's favorite online bookstore, all grown up and happily kinky and winking in your general direction. There are erection enhancers and orgasm exploders and nipple pumps and ejaculation delay creams, lubes and novelties and rings and plugs and ticklers and whoopers and zammers and gigglers, beads and poppers and pills and pumps, clips and clamps and one gorgeously titled item called the SeaKap Universal Gates of Hell Prolong Penis Ring. Alert your pastor.

And while I would normally recommend against buying such fabulous goods from Amazon and instead urge you to purchase from the indie shops that started it all, places like Good Vibrations and Blowfish and Babeland, all of which carry many better-quality toys than some of Amazon's brands and which have been fearlessly illuminating the path to sexual satisfaction for years and decades, often against a staggeringly high wall of sexual ignorance from the government and the Christian Right, it appears that Amazon has partnered with at least one of these fabulous stores (Seattle's Babeland), so you really can't go too wrong.

Of course, Amazon doesn't actually carry most of these items in their own warehouses. They are the mere reseller, the great middleman offering their massive distribution channel to specialty sex-toy companies like ForePlay and Frolics Superstore and Boston Pump (go ahead, guess what they make), Swedish Erotica and the venerable Doc Johnson and Hidden Flower and Sensua Organics and well over 300 others.

This makes them, interestingly, the great bringer of sex-toy awareness, the unwitting spreader of lubricious good news, the well-oiled and highly pleasurable anti-Wal-Mart. It also makes them, I imagine, the biggest sex-toy store in the world. And for much of America, for those too timid or too uncertain to shop for such delightful goods in the specialty sex stores, this is a divine development indeed.

There are no cheesy porny product shots. There is no explicit nudity or raunchy descriptions, save for the wonderful and silly product titles. There is no age-verification system and no insulting adult warning and no purchase restrictions. Amazon has done the perfectly natural thing of merely folding the toys into their massive array of general offerings like nothing's unusual, no pornographic shock value, nothing to worry about. It's as if these items were perfectly commonplace and acceptable and everyone should have them. Imagine.

Now, if you don't mind, I am going to bed. It is 4:15 am here, and my intention was to be in bed an HOUR AGO!

Not that all of that is NG's fault, but, the last 15 minutes certainly have been.

Good NIGHT.

I did.

I just have ZERO interest at this point (especially at 4:12 in the morning a full 2 and a half years before primary campaigns really start) who the Democrats choose for their next presidential candidate.

Then I must be really tired because I don't see what you're getting at.

Tell me why I care.

Because I really don't.

At 7/23/05 02:26 AM, Time_And_Death wrote: I bet if an ugly girl was missing they wont even give a rats ass.

I dunno... Brennan Hawkins wasn't all that good looking...

I can kinda see the resemblance. The quality differential makes it hard for a layman to see it, but you can definitely see resemblances if you look at facial structure (the cheekbones, the beard, other aspects).

At 7/22/05 07:32 PM, madzakk wrote:

At 7/22/05 07:25 PM, SaintLouie wrote: You're both wrong. It's snorting COCAINE! Lol.

What is crack? Cocaine in a smokable form.

Thus you don't snort crack, you smoke, and you just issued a de facto declaration that I was at least partly right, negating the value of your original post trying to show me wrong.

At 7/21/05 05:14 PM, darkmage8 wrote:

At 7/21/05 05:11 PM, airraid81 wrote: "Gee, now it was probably 19 years ago - in 1975," Mrs. Clinton recalled. "I decided that I was very interested in having some experience in serving in some capacity in the military."

Complete story here: http://www.newsmax.c..05/7/19/124048.shtml

-where she won three purple hearts as a fighter pilot, found God, and took the initiative in inventing the internet.

Versus smoking crack for 20 years, getting arrested driving under the influence, having a sudden insight into the Almighty's plans for the Universe, reforming, becoming an evangelistic christian who has sold his political soul to the devil known as special interest groups and getting appointed the presidency.

.... I'll take the internet.

At 7/16/05 03:46 PM, nuhvok01 wrote: Sure us americans are stupid. We have too many freedoms and take EVERYTHING for granted. We can make america a better place if for one year we have a communist or dictator leader running the show. The leaders would force people to do thinks and change americans outlooks on life.

Yes, because it is a good thing to have someone say that you will think like we want you to, act like we want you to, and do what we want you to.

Yes, because that is a good thing.

... not.

At 7/6/05 06:51 PM, capn_g wrote: That's a tad optimistic don't you think? This IS africa we're talking about. Over there it's more like "Teach a man to fish and at the end of each day some warlord and his gang of thugs will come along and steal his fish". Their problems are inherent and it will take more than good intentions or external revenues to solve them.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hey now.

The problems you mentioned aren't "inherent" to their society. If they were inherent to their society, we wouldn't be trying to change them because inherency can't be changed. With a change in attitude, capn_g, we can turn this:

"Teach a man to fish and at the end of each day some warlord and his gang of thugs will come along and steal his fish".

into this:

Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

It all hinges on a change in attitude. That is part of what Live 8 was about -- raising worldwide awareness to pressure African Governments to act to solve problems in their society. And believe me, warlords are problems that can be solved. If the government cracks down like it should have long ago, the problem will be solved.

Second, you yourself imply that there is something that can change the situation in Africa. Inherency only applies when there is an unalterable fact. Therefore, to admit that there is a way to solve a problem but still call it inherent is non-sensical.

First, I am a member of the One Campaign (see sig) which was one of the sponsors of Live 8. The aim of Live 8 was to raise awareness about the issue. Along with the concerts, there were also several short speeches urging people to get involved. Throughout the staging area there were donation booths for people to donate money to poverty projects worldwide, administered by groups that sponsored Live 8 (like the One Campaign) and not by African Governments.

Second, because the principal aim of Live 8 was to raise awareness right before the G8 summit, we didn't charge admission because we feared that charging admission would discourage people from attending. We encouraged people to donate to Live 8, but there was no cost for admission because we didn't want people to think that they had to pay to stop poverty to enjoy a few hours of music.

And I especially like this from the story:

it's all undocumented folktale at this point and is as likely just someone's imaginative backstory to the inexplicable as it is anything else.

At 7/13/05 08:36 AM, fenrus1989 wrote:

At 7/13/05 02:19 AM, seventy-one wrote:

At 7/13/05 12:08 AM, demmale wrote:

Also they are probably two of the greatest presidents to grace this nation.

overall he's good, but not great.

There was also, you know, the whole thing with re-uniting the nation... And starting reconstruction... And freeing the slaves....

To be honest, lincoln is on my top 5 list. No president is ever perfect, so of course there will be bad things, but look at the circumstances -- fucking Civil War. So come on. He suspended habeas corpus (not something I would support) so that he could jail suspected spies from the Confederacy and generally to protect the people against Confederate armies.

When you weigh that against the Emancipation Proclamation, reuniting the country, winning the Civil War, starting Reconstruction, along with all the minor stuff that he did for the North as president (tariff laws, economic restrictions lifted, etc...), you get a top 5 president.

For clarification, my top 5 (in no specific order) is Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt and Washington.

At 7/13/05 06:52 PM, fenrus1989 wrote:

At 7/13/05 06:50 PM, Jimsween wrote: It's a group of people who want less government across the board.

so slightly anarchist type.

The extremists in the party want something that falls just short of anarchy, yeah.

A liberatarian, for example, would probably be for gay marraige, but against social security.

wait a minute there against social security, the thought of a backup plan for you golden years.

Meh. I'd rather be forced to make my own way. You don't achieve anything by having things handed to you.

I consider myself a Liberatarian, but like most I don't follow it strictly, there are many government programs I wouldn't want to get rid of, but I do think we need more civil rights across the board.

don't you guys already have cival rights. wow who leads your rallies hippies.

We do, but we don't. We're farther than we were 50 years ago, but still not at an egalitarian society.

Think of America in the 1920's.... that would be Liberatarian.

what being illegally drunk, flappers everwhere and then the economy going down.

Not quite. Think 1925 - few government regulations, small government.

The best way to describe the LP Platform is really this: Imagine an entire society based around a government that completely followed laissez-faire policy, both socially and economically.

lol.

Newsflash to all us un-attached American males: If she's ugly, she's a democrat, and you should therefore stay away from her. If she's really, really hot, then she's a republican and, well, you should stay away from them too.

No problemo, and the thread just dies by itself if no one posts in it. ^.^

At 7/10/05 09:14 PM, WolfDemonKame wrote: thanks for all the help loony, im not actually 24, i lied about my age cuz i dont want to reveal it, but i am truly a novice. i also am not allowed to give anyone my email address so sorry about that, .

So why not create a new one and I'll e-mail that address...? I hear Yahoo gives 'em out for free.

here is how to get that stuff on emily rix.
google her name then type on the one that says "Intellectual property rights"and so on, open it up and then read away.

I'll check it out, but I'd still have to see which part of the site your are quoting.

also, on the thing were the neg could say "why the does the us have to worry about the aids crisis in foreign countries"(sorry i didnt write word for word) my argument would have to be, what is the point of selling pharmecuetical drugs there if not for the health of its victims?

They are US based companies... Thus, their "victims" are US Citizens, not Sudanese citizens or whatever.

if its not their health we care about than it is profit incentive. now i just need some stuff on profit incentive bad.

If we violate IPR's then profit incentive goes away because a violation is IPR's means that the person or group who discovered the idea isn't getting rewarded properly for the use of their idea.

also yeah this topic is seriously under consideration,

No it's not. Check the other debate topics thread -- those are the topics being considered for the 05-06 season.

that is why we are debating it at camp.

No it's not. They are debating it at camp to give you experience debating and researching cases, not so you can have an advantage if the topic comes up. Some camps do that (VBI), but yours doesn't.

anyway i hope it becomes a topic cuz then i would hae a slight advantage.

It won't.

If you decide to get a free yahoo e-mail address, e-mail me at loony2000@gmail.com

At 7/10/05 02:06 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/10/05 01:26 AM, Jimsween wrote: I've been to Canada many times, it sucks. The cities are great, really, very clean and tidy. But the Rural/Sub-Suburban areas are just crap, it's like someone forgot these people existed. A Bolivian exchange student we had once said that it looked exactly like Bolivia.

As opposed to american suburbs? I take it you've never been to Buffalo.

I happen to live in the suburbs, and it's actually quite nice here. Very peaceful.

At 7/8/05 10:37 AM, WolfDemonKame wrote: yeah but priority wise, the aids crisis is more urgent then profit incentive or whatever.oh! and i have my aff case plotted out!!
Cont one: public health is the first priority
A. Right to life is guaranteed, IPR”s are not.
-Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- Emily Rix

I'd have to see the Rix card, but my first thought would be that you are going to have trouble convincing a judge that people aren't entitled to reap the rewards of what they sow, since that is essentially the task you set for yourself when you say that IPR's are not ensured.

B. Human life, when in danger, is a more time critical problem than protecting IPR’s.

This is more of a lesson of fact, and has no real competitive value, nor is it offensive in a round. I know what you are talking about as far as aan argument, but you may want to revise the tag line. Maybe, "Public Health dangers outweigh the value of protecting IPR's" ?

Cont two: IPR’s conflict with public health.
A. IPRs are being treated as rights when they are not.
-why they are not rights.
-examples of when they are used as rights.

Yeah. You are going to have a very tough time proving to a judge that people are not entitled to the rewards of what they sow. Basically, if you extend the logic of this argument, the US Patent Office is immoral, because it seeks to uphold the "rights" of inventors and developers. But as I said, I find it hard to believe a judge will buy the argument that people shouldn't be rewarded for what they sow.

B. When this happens it endangers public health.
-Aids crisis
-Discrimination against the poor.

What what happens? (Just a grammar thing...)

I'm assuming your argument is that IPR's interfere with solving the AIDS crisis, and keep the poor from getting medicine that they need? First, I could run social darwinism and say who ever can't succeed by their own merit doesn't deserve to live anyway, or I could argue each point individually and tell you that it is not the responsibility of US companies and the US government to solve other countries problems (John Locke), and then I could tell you that for domestic health concerns, companies like Merck and Glaxo-Smith Kline offer programs available to people of limited means to get their medications for free or drastically reduced prices, which eliminates public health concerns and IPR concerns.

Cont three: when public health is the first priority.

First, change your tagline here to "when in conflict, P.H. outweighs IPR's"

Second, the argumentation could be that IPR's are negated by poor public health. If a fatal epidemic is seizing the planet and the drug companies have the ability to stop it with medications they have, and companies refuse to say screw IPR's, we're here for public health factors, then all their consumers will die and they will have no one to sell to, thus it will be in the best corporate interests of pharmaceutical companies to violate their own IPR's.

i have evidence and reasoning to support my first two contentions, but im thinking about just dropping the third contention if i get too lazy. i can still use utilitariansm in this case i think, if i use it as a weighing mechamism. The "greatest good" will be my value, so if i can prove my value of right to life is the greatest goood, thats what my case will try to prove, then my criterion states it should come first. im thinking though to switch to modern consqeuncialm(didnt spell that right).

No. I'd use to Societal Welfare as a value, and then weigh it through utilitarianism. The argument being that it better protects society as a whole to value the greatest good, which, when Public health conflicts with IPR's, means valuing public health over IPR's.

on my neg though, i need to prove their is no conflict(that IPRs dont hinder public health but can actually help it.)u know by making new drugs and stuff.and i might want to limit my neg case to only the u.s so i dont have to go against the universal declaration of human rights and stick to the constitution witch better protects IPR's.

I'm not really well versed on the neg side of this topic. Give me a few days and then I'll get back to you, but as for first impressions, you already have my idea for neg arguments.

anymore help wud be greatly appreciated.

I'll see what I can do. Do you have AIM or an e-mail address?