Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Classical is usually better in a cinematic way.

Jazz is usually better in a lounging/commonplace way.

I enjoy both.

At 10/27/11 02:57 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: WW1 MIGHT work, but that's as far back as anyone should go.

You mean a game where two teams sit in trenches for 20 minutes hurling mortars at each other? No thanks.

At 10/27/11 12:52 PM, VGmasters wrote: Revolutionary War, Napoleonic Wars,

Because the next best thing to a few campers with sniper rifles is everyone standing in one spot with worse-than-bolt-action guns, running around with commando-ridden bayonets, and halo-esque splatters with cavalry. Not to mention the abnormally slow paced action, inevitably atrocious storyline, and lack of realism.

We should just make every dialect of English a different language.

At 10/27/11 02:23 PM, Cordyceps wrote: Pff. Women don't know what they want.

Actually we do, but it changes every few minutes.

Be genuinely interested and don't use pick-up lines you read off 4chan. We hate fakery.

And it is painfully obvious when you are trying too hard.

At 10/27/11 02:15 PM, 420SWED wrote: i would eat half the marshmallow so what does this mean.

Most testers would designate this as a "forfeit", but if I conducted the experiment myself, I would remove half of the second marshmallow.

At 10/27/11 02:12 PM, TheSnakeSkull wrote: North Korean: First day being a number?

Me: Yeah.

North Korean: Welcome to Hell.

Cue "Pink Panther" play-out.

At 10/27/11 02:08 PM, DarkShadowblade wrote: Wouldn't it be smarter just to eat half of the first marshmallow? Technically you didn't eat the full marshmallow, meaning you should get the second one as well.

I believe eating half (or a portion) of the first marshmallow results in no reward. It's funny, because many of the subjects tried this.

Most definitely the Marlfox in Marlfox by Brian Jacques.

It means you lived the week thinking "I wish I had..."

There have been some studies in psychology that indicate you are born with (or very quickly develop) either an impatient/satisfaction-seeking brain or a patient/disciplined brain. One of the supporting experiments called the "Marshmallow Test" is probably the simplest example of this. Basically:

1. A child is given a marshmallow by the researcher.

2. The researcher explains that she will leave, and the child can either eat the marshmallow, or wait until she returns with another marshmallow.

3. The child is told that by eating the first marshmallow before the researcher's return, he will not receive the second marshmallow.

4. The expected length of time is not revealed to the subject.

Children that choose to eat the marshmallow tend to lean towards satisfaction; children that wait lean towards discipline (consequentialists).

So, my question to you is, would you "eat the marshmallow"? Are you more prone to making decisions to satisfy immediately, or are you more patient and tend to look towards the end result? There is no "better" option.

Feel free to take the question literally or metaphorically.

At 10/27/11 09:37 AM, dark-fox wrote: How can this be accurate if you're not giving them the exact time of your birth?

Because a day is accurate enough.

Use your hands.

Discuss.

At 10/27/11 11:19 AM, tonypar16 wrote: To a man sitting on a wheelchair on the way to the opposite pavement:
"I bet I will get there first"

tonypar16 - 1
Thread - 0

Satan =/= The Antichrist

It's possible for life to be "out there", but if there are aliens, they are certainly not within our solar system and have never visited Earth - nor do we have reason to believe they are more advanced than us and have the means or motivation to travel several million lightyears to "observe" us.

At 10/26/11 11:44 PM, KingWonka wrote: yeah man I'd fuck a dude

Damnit why did you bump this thread???

At 10/27/11 12:34 AM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 10/27/11 12:17 AM, Hybridization wrote: Right, but there were many cases where the officers would press the issue (such as reading emails). It was followed correctly for the most part, though.

Amending the policy wouldn't have been enough. The policy needed to be abolished.

Why, though? You haven't given me a good reason why the policy itself doesn't work.

And these gay/lesbian service members would always receive a discharge that wasn't exactly honorable...

This isn't a policy problem.

The policy mandated that homosexuals in the military must be discharged if they were discovered to be gay.

Okay, so an honorable discharge is...not honorable?

That's a problem. Good thing we got rid of it, eh?

Hardly a problem at all. I don't care if someone gets their "feelings hurt". According to you, that makes you a pussy, and you shouldn't have been in the military to begin with.

Zing!

Not at all. I would assume that if the military requested something, it was for a good reason - and the reasons they gave were pretty logical.

The U.S. military also forbade Blacks(Then called "negroes") from being in the same units, brigades, etc. as Whites until 1948 when President Harry Truman issued an executive order to desegregate and unify the races of the military.

And? The argument still stands.

I guessed the military's reasoning for keeping its forces segregated was flawless and logical....

No, it wasn't. But, I'm not talking about the 1950's (obviously?). What does this have to do with anything?

"Homophobia" is the politically correct term for being uncomfortable sharing quarters/showers with gays.

Please don't invent new definitions of homophobia. It's not a politically correct term and never was.

You say tomato...

This is probably the most subjective, farfetched and absolute statement you could make attempting to account for such a diverse range of people whom have voiced their wide-spectrum of opinions.

It's not really farfetched to think that it's strange to be bothered by the presence of at least one gay service member so much that one's ability to fight in combat will somehow decline noticeably.

But it is farfetched to assume everyone thinks like you: "ANYONE who is uncomfortable is unfit to serve their country."

and thus "ruined the lives". The policy isn't the problem.

If it weren't for the policy, these people wouldn't have been discharged in the first place.

Um, okay. If it weren't for them being gay, there wouldn't have to be a policy. I can play the broad cause-effect game too.

....You say it as if these people chose to be gay.

I don't even want to go down this road. But, that wasn't the point I was making, at all.

That kind of reasoning is absolutely flawed, you know.

Okay, maybe I should rephrase so you can better understand my point:
"If there weren't for laws, people wouldn't have to go to jail for disobeying them."
That's your logic.

And by the way, most military members didn't even oppose the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

You mean officially, or on the field? Bolo is a perfect example of the clear difference.

And, the abortion issue should most definitely be a state issue.

No, because abortion is not a state issue but a right.

Not for long.

Can you clarify what you meant by that, please?

There's a press for Roe vs. Wade to be repealed.

You can't repeal rulings from the Supreme Court.
Only a constitutional amendment can actually overturn a ruling from the Supreme Court, and 2/3rds of both houses of Congress need to approve the amendment before it can go to the states for ratification.

Right, that's what I meant. I'm not familiar with all the stages in American courts. They are pressing to overturn it by amending the constitution.

And I don't believe someone has the right to kill as a means.

But fetuses aren't people. Still, you are entitled to your opinion.

Define people. You can't derive a moral attribute directly from a biological.

Why would you make a new topic telling people to come to this one? Are you trying to get banned?

At 10/27/11 12:02 AM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 10/26/11 11:51 PM, Hybridization wrote: No, the "Don't Ask" part was abused/overlooked

It was actually followed correctly in most instances. If someone in the military found out that a fellow service member was gay/lesbian, they had to report this person to their commanding officer.

Right, but there were many cases where the officers would press the issue (such as reading emails). It was followed correctly for the most part, though.

And these gay/lesbian service members would always receive a discharge that wasn't exactly honorable...

This isn't a policy problem.

And the military's reasoning for barring openly gay people from serving was completely unfounded and inherently homophobic.

Not at all. I would assume that if the military requested something, it was for a good reason - and the reasons they gave were pretty logical. "Homophobia" is the politically correct term for being uncomfortable sharing quarters/showers with gays. The policy didn't just come out of nowhere.

In essence, any person who somehow thinks that a gay service member in the squad, platoon, etc. would affect his/her ability to serve his country, then he/she is too much of a pussy to serve and should be doing something else with his/her life.

This is probably the most subjective, farfetched and absolute statement you could make attempting to account for such a diverse range of people whom have voiced their wide-spectrum of opinions.

and thus "ruined the lives". The policy isn't the problem.

If it weren't for the policy, these people wouldn't have been discharged in the first place.

Um, okay. If it weren't for them being gay, there wouldn't have to be a policy. I can play the broad cause-effect game too.

And besides, many other countries allow openly gay people to serve and they haven't reported any weakening in performance or morale among their service members.

But most of these countries are generally more comfortable with gays.

And, the abortion issue should most definitely be a state issue.

No, because abortion is not a state issue but a right.

Not for long.

Can you clarify what you meant by that, please?

There's a press for Roe vs. Wade to be repealed. And I don't believe someone has the right to kill as a means.

At 8/5/08 02:41 AM, Jenou wrote: If you're a woman:
10,000 dollars to eat pussy?
100,000 to have sex with a woman?

Depends. How long for each?

At 10/26/11 11:53 PM, IzzyDude wrote: The entire Republican field of candidates right now is a joke.

I completely agree. But, Paul and Gingrich seem to have a head on their shoulders.

At 10/26/11 11:48 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 10/26/11 11:44 PM, Hybridization wrote: I firmly support "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and I have no idea what the purpose of repealing it was.

Because it was highly discriminatory and ruined the lives of man gay/lesbian soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen.

No, the "Don't Ask" part was abused/overlooked and thus "ruined the lives". The policy isn't the problem.

And, the abortion issue should most definitely be a state issue.

No, because abortion is not a state issue but a right.

Not for long.

At 10/26/11 11:38 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 10/26/11 11:20 PM, Hybridization wrote:

At 10/26/11 11:18 PM, KingWonka wrote: He wants to get rid of the minimum wage, repeal don't ask don't tell, and make abortions a state's right again.

And this is why I like him.

Why would you want "Don't ask Don't Tell" reinstated and the right to get an abortion to be left up to the discretion of the states?

I firmly support "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and I have no idea what the purpose of repealing it was. And, the abortion issue should most definitely be a state issue.

Wtf was that?

At 10/26/11 07:28 PM, cast wrote: Or maybe add Reply to post at the top and bottom of each thread page, and just keep reply & quote to user posts.

This, please.

Probably has something to do with sleeping in class.

At 10/26/11 11:24 PM, KingWonka wrote:

And this is why I like him.

red necks galore

Italian curiosity actually. But hey, you were close.