Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/10/12 08:25 AM, science-is-fun wrote: The only thing wrong with "anthropocentrism" is that it does not include other creatures that may be sapient or have some lesser measure of sapience, chimps and dolphins are more intelligent than some undeveloped or mentally disabled humans, all mammals have a neo-cortex and birds have a convergent evolutionary equivalent.

Apart from this, there is about as much wrong with being sapience centric as there is being logic centric.

For instance it doesn't matter whether the fetus can feel pain or not, if you think it's ok to kill a sapient being as long as it's painless then by that reasoning it is justified to kill you in your sleep. It's a pointless argument.

This is actually wrong. If an ethical argument is to do with pain, then killing an adult in their sleep would be wrong because of the massive emotional impact it would have on those close to that person. As well as this, the abortion debate is to do with laws and which ones we should have: having a public law which states when it's ok to abort a fetus isn't going to cause any pain for fetuses, because they're not sapient. A law which states it's ok to kill a human in his/her sleep would create a massive amount of suffering in the form of anxiety and lack of comfort.

Aside from all of this, the point of the piece isn't to say that ethics should be only concerned with pain; it's to argue that when pain is brought into the debate it shows the irrationality of an anthropocentric prejudice. For what it's worth, I think what's important about sapient humans is the ability to view life biographically; as such, if you cut that life short you're doing something worse than cutting the life short of an animal (or human) who has no sense of future.

At 7/7/12 11:53 AM, ParadiseCosts wrote: Let me raise a first point. Even though I'm not opposed to your view, I feel compelled to point out that humans lack ethics as a species, which seems to be the base of your debate that they do use ethics "just in the wrong way".

If you want an example of that, see how a lawyer is expected to defend an accused because it's "his job" even if he knows or believes the accused to be guilty of the crime.

I think it's wrong to say that humans lack ethics. Humans are deeply concerned with what is right and what is wrong. If we weren't, there would be no differing political views or opinions on things such as abortion or euthanasia. Normally ethics is hidden in the things that people say and believe, but public rhetoric can almost always be traced back to a fundamental belief in what people think is morally wrong and what people think is morally right.

I think religion is wrongly human-centred in its ethics and that this had a damaging impact on moral discourse.

Here is a piece I wrote about it :'The Anthropocentrism of Religion'

Enjoy/Discuss

There's a contextual difference between 'Anarchy' and 'Anarchism'. 'Anarchy' can mean a number of things and is usually used derogatorily as a synonym for chaos etc. 'Anarchism' is the specific political ideology of believing any form of political authority is both unnecessary and evil.

So...er... yeah... there's a contextual difference. Not that it matters. I was just fucking bored.

Is it a distinctly American thing to label your view either pro-life or pro-choice? Surely this is an oversimplification.

E.g I do think that both for its psychologically damaging effect on a woman, the amount of couples out there that want to adopt, and a certain value of respecting the life of one's child, it is (probably) an immoral or, at the least, an impractical thing to do. HOWEVER, any fool can recognise that ultimately who am I to tell people what's right and what's wrong in this debate? Early into the pregnancy, the developing fetus has a lower level of consciousness than an adult cow... do people still support the death of millions of cows every day? YES. By that moral standard, it seems insane to tell women what they can and can't do with early developed fetus's inside of them. As well as that, if the process wasn't legal then women would likely use back-alley methods that would be dangerous and detrimental to society.

The point - Don't oversimplify an incredibly complicated topic.

Socialism and communism aren't two seperate entities in the way alot of people on this thread seem to think they are.

'Socialism' was the philosophy advocated by Marx. Since its origin, there have been many sub-categories of it, the main ones being:
- Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism (all different but bound by fundamentalist socialist principles)
- Democratic Socialists (agree with communists in ends but not means)
- Social Democrats (a tamed and humanised form of capitalism with an accomodation with individualism)
- Neo-revisionists (what most 'left wing' parties are these days... who acknowledge a limited welfare system and taxation but really embrace capitalism).

Hope that clears things up slightly... of course there is the chance that you Americans are taught differently.... at the end of the day it's all just terminology and doesn't really matter.

The poster of this thread has such a pathetically small and simplistic understand of history that his hands should be removed so that he can't type. Seriously, dude. Read a fucking book.

NO western country that i am aware of, and i live in Great Britain, has any real form of Sharia law in place. Therefore i can't really understand your post. Sharia law is essentially law taken straight for the Koran and means essentially capital punishment for a great deal of crimes including adultery and i don't know of any civilised state in the world that has this as its law.

But why make billions when you can make... millions?

Simply click this link and enter a world of hilarity, shaven ravens and free money.

You know where it's at. Do I? Ok then

You will never hear the word Beethoven in the same way again.

i hadn't posted it in this thread in the right format before. Didn't want it to completely ruin my chances.

• 
  -Your Phone is Ringing- by Nitr0gen

  Click to listen.

  Score

  4.15 / 5.00

  Type

  Song

  Genre

  Drum N Bass

  Popularity

  89 Views

• Loading...

Here is my entry :)

Your Phone is Ringing

--------------------------------
William Davies is strapped firmly to a chair in a strangers cellar. A sock has inhabited his mouth for the past week, only being taken out briefly so he can be given water to keep him alive. He is a fourteen year old boy with a dirty conscience and is soon to meet the old man responsible for the state he is currently in, an overtly eccentric and well spoken character with only one aim... to save William from the fiery depths of Hell which he is surely headed for.

However, as the days go by and by, and the conversations the two hold become increasingly more uncomfortable, events take a sinister turn. William is not the only of the two with a dark secret.

'A Confession', with its unique and ambitious style, is an innovative novella of self discovery and an indepth insight into two very disturbing characters, a story like you have never read before.
-----------------------------
CHAPTER ONE
-----------------------------
There is a smell in the air, would you not agree William? Yes, there is a smell. It is rather like the odour one can smell off of a Negro. Yes, I believe that is right. It is not often one can so readily find the match between sense and memory but I rather think I have placed this particular smell quite well, do you not? But you, William, you are laughing at the way I speak or what I speak or maybe the way I speak what I speak. My mother, William, she always told me it was rude to laugh at people and even ruder to laugh with others at other people. It seems your mother did not convey this message to you as a child? However, if my life in this world has taught me anything then it is that everything is relative and should be judged by perspective. Perhaps my mother was wrong. It pains me to say that - to even think it - but maybe what she viewed to be rude was wrong or outdated in this world and not fitting with common perception? Maybe it is perfectly normal to laugh at the way people speak or at what people speak or the way people speak what they speak. Would you care to me fill me in as to what it is about this conversation we are holding that you find so funny, William? I am intrigued.

Mother always told me I could never be a performer but I seem to be entertaining you, do I not William? Yes. Yes, I think I am entertaining you. A philosopher once said that art does not belong to the artist. I cannot remember the philosopher's name. In fact, I am beginning to doubt whether he was a philosopher at all or whether even he was a male but I am over one hundred percent certain that this was said, William. If this is the case then surely it does not matter whether you are laughing at me or with me. It only matters for me and, against me, I might add, for I am able to take no enjoyment from this, William. I am able to take no enjoyment from this. I must even confess that I am beginning to grow frustrated with the way you are acting. Yes, I am beginning to grow rather... agitated.

You are still laughing. Your laugh is now so hysterical that it reminds me of how the older and the fatter and the uglier children used to laugh at me when I was at school. But that, that was because my hair was unwashed and my teeth not brushed and my clothes worn and cheap and my overbearing speech impediment but these are all now gone and we are older, well, I am very much so older. You are, yes, you are fourteen years old. I was not in school when I was fourteen years old but I imagine that you very much so still are. Ah! And the laughing has finally ceased. Perhaps it was all this talk of school that has dampened your mood. Perhaps as you thought of your friends at school or maybe even your teachers, it became too much to bear that you will most probably never see them again?

I cannot understand what you are saying, William. The sock in your mouth is muffling your words to such a degree that they are not even slightly comprehensible. That is not to say, however, that I am not able to conjure up what I think you might be saying but guess work has never been my work, William, and I do not like to swear, not even if I am just repeating what somebody else has said. I feel for you William. I really do. The feeling of hopelessness is unbearable in just about any circumstance and it is a feeling I have had to put up with for large chunks of my life but, I assure you, those ropes around your hands and around your stomach and around your feet are tied so tightly to that chair and that chair is stuck so tightly to the floor that it is frivolous and childish to even try to escape. And, unfortunately for you William, even if by some divine miracle you could leap up from that chair then I would cut your throat open so quickly you would not have time enough to celebrate. This knife here, William, this is not to peel potatoes my good friend, aha, no, this is certainly not to peel potatoes. Ah, and you have calmed down. Was this a choice of your own, William, or was it your body's choice? You must be tired. Yes, very tired. You can nod or shake your head. Ah, but you do not want to and how understandable that is! What it must feel like to be sat down for a week in this cellar without food and with only the glimpses of light you have received when I have brought you your water. If it is any consolation, the sock you can surely taste was cleaned thoroughly before I stuffed it into your mouth. I did not want you catching anything, William, no. I most certainly did not. I request a chat with you William, and you will have full freedom to choose your answer. If you respectfully, and understandably, choose to say no, then I will leave you down here indefinitely. I will cease to bring you water and you will rot away into this chair. You will die down here, William, cold and alone and of thirst and of hunger but, I do rather expect, your dignity will still be intact. If, however, you choose to have a chat with me then there will be a number of terms and conditions for you to abide by. I will remove that sock from your mouth. Aha, but how else would we hold a conversation? Years ago, William, I befriended a rather intriguing girl on a beach on an island in the Caribbean. We held an entire conversation one evening by simply writing down on napkins what we wanted to say. Anyhow, that is neither here nor there. Here are the terms and conditions, William, and I want you to listen carefully for they are the most important rules you will ever be given.

You will not speak out or interrupt. You will not swear. You will not lie and you will always respond to the best of your ability to any question that I might ask. This is all, William. If you do as I have here said then you will live. I will cut your ropes and I will drive you back into town where you will be reunited with your parents and your two brothers and your friends and you will attend school once again. You have one minute to make your decision, William. I will just be standing here but, please, take no notice of me. This decision will shape your future like no other decision ever has done or will. If I can assure you of anything then it is that. Sixty seconds and counting.

At 1/6/10 01:53 AM, SessileNomad wrote: I met a guy on the internet who told my that minor scales don't actually exist, and here's why...

1. Minor Scales are just the 6th Degree Mode of a major scale, If you take any major scale and play the Aeolian mode(6th degree), you will actually be playing the relative minor key

this is true, he is right, although what topped off why minor scales don't exist

Ahem, this is NOT true and let me explain why.
C major scale - C, D, E, F, G, A, B (and ends on C)
Aeolian mode in C major - A,B, C, D, E, F, G (and ends on A)

HOWEVER... THE RELATIVE MINOR OF C MAJOR IS NOT THE SAME AS THE AEOLIAN MODE. ALTHOUGH IT DOES GO FROM A TO A, THERE IS A G# IN IT WHEREAS IN THE AEOLIAN MODE THERE IS A G NATURAL.
HENCE - THIS PROVES THE THEORY WRONG STRAIGHT AWAY AND GOES TO SHOW THAT THERE IS INFACT MINOR KEYS AND MAJOR KEYS.

Sorry for capslock whoring but i can't be bothered to rewrite now. Brush up on your music theory.

Man... your myspace has more views than mine... A fucking rap parody of a game gets more views than i can gather. I must REALLY suck. Back to your problem though, figure it out yourself. If you actually are interested in writing rap and its not just a temporary hobby then do something about it. Get serious. You can still write even if you can't peform.

Middle class. Tragically gay sounding. Have trouble hitting notes and am completely illiterate. Am from England. Message me with requests.

A man walks down the street. I pull him aside, hit him with a rib shot and cum in his eye. Then teach him how to count to ten.

Fuck the weights... ditch your current girlfriend and get a new fat ugly one... keep lazy. Its the only way to live.

... cos it ssounndss goood.

Piano is just as versatile when it comes to jamming as guitar is and it certain genres its much better for it. Anyway, the whole idea of jamming is that it doesn't have to fit in any particular guidelines so you can experiment. You can add a saxaphone to a metal jam and you'd probably be surprised just how sexy (or saxy) it can sound.

With my rusty spanish acoustic on my bed by the wall late at night when there is a screaming silence in the air.

akg k99s are pretty badass... don't know how much they cost in the U S and A though.

You only have to turn on popular radio stations or go to a club to realise just how talented some of the producers and musicans really are on this site. Either that, or try doing it yourself and you'll slump into a giant vagina of inferiority. The site's music has got much better in my opinion... its just cramped in between loads of facking shitt.

At 7/4/09 08:00 PM, animehater wrote:

At 7/4/09 04:49 PM, bobsmovie wrote: EG "If it wasn't for us you would be speaking German" <---- Go fuck yourself.

I love it when Brits pull stereotypes out of their asses.

Now who brought this shit back after so many years anyway?

Obviously that is a huge stereotype and educated Americans would not say it, but you only have to watch Friends or a large number of other American tv programmes, films and comedians to know that it really is what a large number of Americans think...

And with the Scary Movie 4 and Monty Python contest... i don't know what you're trying to get at? I prefer Monty Python by a friggin landslide.

Artist: Nitr0gen
Genre: General Rock
News Topic: To be decided.

Use the audio portal. If not... its quite a large site and its called the world and it has a lot of shops in it. Get off yo ass mother.

Right?

Drummer who's got a snare and bass drum is gonna get real boring real quick.

yeah unless they're playing in the 1950's lol. Agreed brother x

At 5/20/09 08:37 AM, evil-clown-12 wrote: The general consensus among musicians is that you should come up with the lyrics first, so you can write music that fits the tone. But if a tune pops into your head, by all means use it.

I'm not sure if thats entirely true. I have been around a lot of songwriters and most of them - like me - will have a particular chord sequence or riff and write words to them as they go through and write the song. If you write a set of lyrics and then try and add music to it, the words GENERALLY wont be as flowing or cohesive because when you wrote the lyrics, you couldn't have had any conception of the rhythm of them and thats when you get singers trying to last a two sylabbled word over about 9 seconds or an 8 syllable word in a second. That style of writing can work for rap and things like that, but when it comes to rock, pop and related genres, its alot harder due to the fact that you have to then not only fit a melody to the words (reffered to rather sensibly as the "vocal melody") but you also have to try and think of a rhythm which won't detract from a songs feeling and emotion.

Having said that however, its just as silly to write a whole song (musically) without any idea of lyrics or a vocal melody for obvious reasons, the main one being.
- the music in a song should reflect the words just as the words should reflect the music.

Hense, write both lyrics and music at the same time.

I realise that a number of you might disagree with me, but honestly... i wouldn't make that shit up, i write songs with lyrics all the time (check out my profile) and the easiest way that I PERSONALLY find to do it is at the same time. Thats not to say however that other people haven't written great songs in a different way though.

Yeah i've played live quite a bit. I play in a bluesy grunge band with a few friends called Binge On Celery . (The recordings on the myspace don't do credit lol).

I play guitar in it and we've had quite a few gigs (well... over 10 so we're not exactly the rolling stones) but there's always been a good number of people in the old audience.

Also, i'm working on a few songs at the moment and all the songs on this account (minus one) are demo's recorded by me and I'm looking to form a little synth rock band with a few friends this summer.

More of a rant to be honest. I'm not really an angry person, just ticks me off when i've worked really hard on something then some twat immediately gives me a 0 bomb and tells me its obviously not my own work...

Sorry to bother the old audio forum with it tho.

i realise nobody knows me... but i just submitted a song to the audio portal and recieved a review where someone said i "obviously didn't do the song"...... ????
It made me laugh at first because of how random it was but then began thinking how somebody could become so arrogantly assumptious?