Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

It's not about whether or not YOU liked it, frankly who cares what you think? It's the FACTS that I am pointing out. If every single one of the series has coasted at least for 4 weeks in the top ten slot, then he must have done something right that you are just unable to relate to.

Chuck's New Tux is nice, I liked it, it was funny. There She Is! series, however, has been on the site for YEARS. Now what I don't get is how the FINAL submission of There She Is! DIDN'T win the Tank Award. There She Is! has gone on the top 10-30 for many many months, and not just some of the series, ALL of the series. It set the trend for flash artists to follow with the first submission for the time, and then developed continually into a catchy and fun series, never losing its momentum.

Doesn't Newgrounds owe SOMETHING to the guy? I mean CMON.

At 1/28/09 08:58 AM, EKublai wrote:

:Right now i feel like a lot of people here are liberal, but so much so socially that they could almost be :called libertarian.

Being liberal, or left wing, has little to do with being a libertarian.

I think irregardless of times of toil, the existence of any kind of camp such as Guantanamo or even the Japanese interment camps of WWII are a shameful undermining of the values of this country that I greatly respect.

I will pull a Categorical Imperative here and say that no matter how many good things have occurred due to the existence of Guantanamo, the mere existence of such a place and the unethical holding of peoples is not just in it of itself.

It really boils down to the trolley question. I myself find utilitarian values dehumanizing and revolting, but others may disagree.

Two word:

Electoral College.

That's why it's worthless.

I'm an omnivore. This thread is making me reconsider hounding people about the choice to eat only veggies even if I find it odd. I guess it is oppressive on my part to assume my belief about food choices better than some others. My sincerest apologies. This thread's introduction gave me a good chuckle.

I'm just wondering how this thread got in the politics section. Not that I find the reaction of laughing at tragedies itself unusual, I just don't get how it is political.

Assault weapons ban is dumb because it only bans some weapons. Just get rid of all guns and USA won't have such a bloated homicide rate. Jeez, look at the rest of the world. Fact of the matter is killing will happen. With a gun, it becomes that much easier.

This is a touchy topic because there are two clear moral sides to it: does teenage stupidity warrant a domestic prison sentence and having their youth flushed down the toilet? At the same time, does abortion make stupid sex "ok?" It is a tad scary hearing some girls talk about it on my dorm floor. "If I get pregs, I can just go to a doctor and get it vacuumed out, so who cares?" I am a tad conservative in my values in regards to not being a total slut, but at the same time, who am I to tell you or whomever when and when not to get laid?

Touchy topic, I can't make up my mind on this.

At 9/3/08 08:19 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/3/08 08:10 PM, Mr-Money wrote: 5. (most importantly) People are M_O_R_O_N_S and R_A_C_I_S_T

AHAHAHAHA

Man you people are pathetic. PEOPLE LIKE MCCAIN BECAUSE THEY ARE RACIST, there is absolutely no way that they like him because unlike Obama, he has actual experience, doesn't want to violate the 2nd amendment, doesn't want to raise taxes, doesn't want to sabotage our military, doesn't want to retreat from a war we're currently winning, and actually has substance instead of mindless Che Guevara-like appeal based on appearance and emotion rather than logic.

I am leaning towards McCain because he doesn't spout pretty words that don't mean anything. I'm Korean by birth, wtf do I care what race my president is?

At 9/3/08 11:19 AM, AapoJoki wrote: Professor Mark Bauerlein argues that people who are currently under 30 years old constitute the Dumbest Generation of all times. Apparently, we've all been dumbed down by the era of digital media and internet.

I first heard about this book, when TheAmazingAtheist brought it up, asking his viewers whether they think that our generation really is the dumbest one ever. Here is his own response to the question.

You'll find plenty of videos discussing the subject on YouTube, but what I liked was CapnOAwesome's response. The crucial point he makes is that we've all been raised into the idea that everyone's opinion matters, resulting in false confidence in stupid people to voice their opinions, for which the internet provides an abundance of tools and outlets. Anyone can start their own website, blog, YouTube channel etc., and they can even decide who they let comment on their opinions, preventing themselves from being educated just that much if they don't want to be. As Capn Awesome put it, "We're not stupider than any other generation -- but our stupidity is more on display than ever before."

This is somewhat unrelated to the points made by TheAmazingAtheist and CapnOAwesome, but I think that one problem with the internet is the sheer volume of information. It's both a challenge and an opportunity. Anything you're taught at school, you can look up on the internet, so what's the point of traditional education anymore? Why should schools tell children about the quadratic formula, Newton's laws or evolution? I've learned more about evolution on the internet than I did in school. Schools are becoming obsolete and redundant if they simply repeat the task the internet already performs.

What is more important in the internet era, is the ability to discern the good information from the bad. Because this is what makes the amount of information on the internet problematic: in addition to providing tons of useful, brilliant material, the internet is also a cesspool of misinformation, hoaxes, scams and other types of deceit. However distorted your world view is when you log on for the first time, you're guaranteed to find at least an entire website, most likely a whole community of likeminded websites and forums, that supports your delusions. Like a sanctuary of stupidity where you never have to learn a single thing and which could demolish everything you've ever learned at school. And even if you aren't that deluded at the beginning of your exploration of the internet, just a few hours of browsing on the wrong websites can take you down a path you can't return from.

The role of education in the future should therefore be to put the children on their guard and teach them to analyze critically every new piece of information they learn about. Schools cannot compete with the internet in the sheer amount of information. Almost every fact that is taught at school will sooner or later be "refuted" somewhere on the internet. Then the refutation gets refuted and so on, so the child can just choose to believe in whatever is most convenient for him or her and pretend no further information exists. That's why the education system will eventually have to abandon (or at least put much less emphasis on) teaching the facts from a book and instead focus on teaching the new generations about what is the right way to acquire new information, how to question your own beliefs and how to put them to the test, how to demand evidence and how to determine what constitutes as good evidence. Less learning from the book, more experimentation. Critical thinking, in short. That's what I think will be a powerful weapon for future generations, as they fight against the stupidity that ours is plagued with.

This is a very interesting topic that you raised and I agree with many of the points here. What concerns me the most is the potential reformatting of schools to determine what information is "good information" and what information is "bad information." Now, scarily enough, totalitarian regimes already utilize this tool to their fullest extent. Take North Korea, for example. A school system there is doing exactly what you outlined: making a clear division between what information is acceptable and what isn't. Herein lies the problem: in our society, who will be the ones that determine what type of information found on the internet is "acceptable?" With the already clear and ever present online communities of fascists, racists, or just flat out idiots, it is hard to say who is right. Is a person right because they can manipulate statistics or interpret the results of a study differently and other people agree? Of course, the first response to my concern would be the "common sense" idea that there are some things that we, as humans, simply cannot accept as fact, ei light is black, 2+2 =5. My question is, in this ever growing pool of information or misinformation, for the matter, just how far can we stretch the notion that common sense is a collective ideal? Perhaps people's common sense differ; maybe there are a larger consensus on one type of common sense than another, but so long as there exist people who believe themselves to be right, there will never be a completely hive minded notion among humans that determines what common sense is exactly. This is really a perspectives issue.

Last semester, Obama visited my college campus. This fellow seems like a nice guy and all, but is he who we need, as Americans, to lead our nation in this time of dire crisis? With the Republican party making bumbling errors, it only makes sense that every would lean towards Obama. However, I've passed one too many coffee shops with conversations about how great Obama is and how he will be a great leader. This is were I heartily disagree: he has about the same foreign policy experience as Palin and never says anything concrete in any of his speeches. Sure he addresses things that need to be changed in the USA, but never does he present a MEANS to achieve this end.

The way I figure, he is a fantastic speaker and the lesser of two evils at this point. This does not default him to being a "good leader."

In the words of Jay Leno:

"Sarah Palin? Sarah Silberman probably has more foreign policy experience."

GG </thread>

It doesn't work; read your 6th grade history textbook. </ thread>

I interpret the creation of the world metaphorically. 6 days to god could be 1000 years to mankind.

Realize they aren't the only innocents being held there. Apparently, the US Constitution does not mean anything if you build a camp in Syria or Cuba...

Remember the utilitarians.

Oh and for the record, i do remember what I did in the womb. I played chess. Good times. Don't mess with any fetus's chess abilities please, even fetuses need chess.

What a load of bullocks.

trendwhore is what his name means, he is a trendwhore and should not be taken seriously.

However, i do think the only true solution to the problem regarding illegal aliens is not one within the borders of the USA, but one that improves the lives of other coutries.

Currently, our dickhead in chief is spending 10billion dollars a month on daddy's little war. Why dont we spend that money on developing, oh i dont know, the places where illegals come from!? like peurto rico, mexico, chile, elsavador, all the places where people are willing to move up the border to feed their families!

At 4/26/06 06:29 PM, WolvenBear wrote: There was a televised debate between PETA and the NRA on hunting that I just found fascinating. It consisted of four parts:
1. 10 minute opening statements from both sides
2. A series of questions written by the opposing side in which the person asked responded, then the other side got to say their piece, and the first person got to close. Back and forth.
3. Audience asked questions
4. Closing statements

While both sides brought up some good points, I had to give the debate personally to the NRA guy, because he used IRS statements and statements from the founders of PETA to decimate his opponents arguments, while the PETA guy resorted mostly to emotion and refused to acknowledge half the points made against him, other than to say "that never happened" or "he made it up", kinda like someone else I've argued.
Both sides however made sweeping and ridiculous statements, such as the NRA guy claimed that over a billion could die from the Bird Flu, and the PETA guy claimed that everyone who'd ever fired a gun committed some sort of violent crime. The "pinnicle" of the debate, however, came in teh form of the audience questions, most of which were so stupid that I thought they shouldn't have been allowed. An NRA supporter asked PETA if there should be "animal courts with animal judges and animal juries." And if we needed to build "animal jails". And a PETA supporter asked why all hunters had small penises. To me it was a beautiful portrait of exactly what political debate has become.

Personally, I'm torn on PETA. On one hand, the idea of releasing all house pets into the wild is idiotic. Them euthanising the majority of the pets they "rescue" is the epitomy of hypocracy. And their support of groups like ELF and ALF, both monetarily and legally, makes them terrorist supporters in my book.
On the other hand, they point out really despicable animal practices at companies like KFC that I feel the public should know about. Their attempts to promote vegatarianism are misguided but admirable. And their attempts to promote animal welfare are definately a plus for me.
In the end, I think Peta is far too extreme. They have some good points, but the bad far outweighs the good. If they could reign themselves in, I think they'd be a much better group, but I don't see that happening. So for now, I put them in the company of such other ridiculous groups as the ACLU, Code Pink, and Fred Phelps' discusting Baptist church.

You sir, I have a great deal of respect for: you can obviously take a hard issue such as peta and look at both sides.

However, I think that it is important to bring up the hypocritcal aspect of PETA that long ago set me against them. Now first off, lets get one thing straight, there is a difference between SADISTIC NEEDLESS animal abuse, and HELPFUL RESEARCH that may or may not cause animals to feel pain. Now, I can bring up tons of examples of this, but I think this example is the best: Diabetics.
Now diabetics inject themselves with insulin daily and of course there is nothing wrong with trying to stay alive. However, this insulin that is injected daily is often the product of dogs in medical laborotories. As one can see, PETA values the lives of animals far about the lives of humans. In the senario of a dog, a boy, and a mother in a boat that is sinking, a PETA mother would not budge and everyone would die. However, I think it is important to bring up that the VICE PRESIDENT OF PETA is a diabetic that uses this lab made insulin EVERY SINGLE DAY. "Save my life to save the lives of animals" was the weak ass excuse she gave to selfishly indulge in the practices she spoke out against.

Secondly, I don't mind protests because we have laws that limit it and policemen to arrest the nude people that PETA send out. However I DO mind the fact that some of these protests are against actions that PETA THEMSELVES COMMIT ON A DAILY BASIS. I think euphemism is the prime example because while PETA members are outside a dog pound in skull masks yelling "how many did you murder today," PETA members are back at their HQ putting animals in a gigantic freezer and "putting them to sleep forever." Once again, this is a prime example of the hypocracy that PETA puts out. When they kill animals, its ok, but when a dog pound does it, its murder.

Thirdly, and most surprisingly, PETA supports ALF. There have been financial records that states some tens of thousands of dollars have gone to the leader of ALF. When some top ranking PETA officers were asked about this subject, they claimed that violent and peaceful stuggles were both tactics. That is what flipped the coin for me.

I am no animal abuser. I love my 3 year old Pembroke Welsh corgi. I would NEVER hurt an animal for no reason because that is simply a sick an perverted thing to do. BUT IF PETA IS GOING TO SAY THAT AN ANIMAL DESERVES TO LIVE WHILE A HUMAN DESERVES TO BE HURT OR DIE, there is something wrong with the picture!

And I quote from Ben&Teller: "If strangling every monkey on the planet with my bare hands would save one street junkie with AIDS, I'd do it"

(watch the Ben&Teller BS video and if you crosscheck the information, it all works out)

I respect animal rights, I dont respect PETA

A vampire eh? thats colorfully new. count chocula running round with al qiada planting bombs.

i personally circle "C- all of the above"

At 3/10/06 09:28 AM, TwO_FaCeD_PaRaNoID wrote: that means you have to clean it

ROFL you never just wank off on furniture now do you?

At 3/28/06 11:23 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

At 3/28/06 11:22 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: But you wouldn't have killed the guy who was shaggin your woman if he wasn't black. At least, that's what you were thinking at the time, and therefore you deserve a stiffer sentence.

Wrong topic :(

not hate crime

*whistles*

ROFL

bush was... unlucky.

he had a hard time with hard decisions to make and no doubt, he screwed up just like any other president in power, but what he did was put under the microscope ever since 9/11.

poor guy had the chips stacked against him. he tried his best, but he still sucked in the end.

i hate clinton expecially because i am korean. he gave north korea nukes and now that short little tard named kim jong ill will stay there till he turns gray and dies.

fuck clinton.

but anyways, to address middle eastern terrorism specifically, i think one needs to look more at the paris peace conference post world war one because this european supremecy imperialistic idea basically put the middle east in bondage till radicals emerged in the name of the koran and ousted the europeans.

the recent hatered towards the US is because the US likes to pretend to be a big tough policeman and meddle in affairs alot.

i still hate clinton.

i agree: to support one nation's personal endovors does not make you a facist. i get where your misunderstanding comes from.

let me explain why i dislike the war:

Iraq is simply making the US look bad! now if our soldiers were dying for something, then sure, but what instead did happen is one of those routine "planting the seeds of democracy" that results in some kinda civil war or dictorship: almost no exceptions to this rule, look at every US intervention where democracy was imposed.

Also, the US is showing its weaknesses, torture, civilian deaths, ect. the backbone of all US actions, this air of everything being morally justified evaporated due to the Iraq war.

my reasons for disliking the war is short and sweet: it does not create any benifit of any sort, and also because imposing anything, wheither it be democracy, communism, candy, emotions, whatever, is simply wrong on a personal and political scale.

YES and the disease is called PETA

At 3/26/06 11:47 PM, Judge_Dredd wrote:

At 3/26/06 10:38 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: So, anyone want to complete the analogy?

I was thinking:

Liberalism is to humanism as conservatism is to orthodoxy.

i like it - a lot!

*adds to sig*

let me try one.. um... *goes lowbrow*

Liberalism is to rights and freedoms as conservatism is to laws and restrictions.

You doofus you, liberals piss me off for one sole reason only: their views are suddenly better than ours because its "progressive"

screw that. i am a conservative (not a republican, there is a difference) and i do believe in moderacy, but this whole bullcrap about how animals dont deserve to be used for the betterment of humanistic medical treatment is stupid; the whole bullcrap about how welfare will make life's social problems disapear.

Liberal people act on, not logic, but passion. Passion leads to stupid stupid decisions.

decisions like welfare.

At 3/25/06 10:05 AM, Begoner wrote:

It's a fair system and it's proven to be succeessful. No other system has.

It's not a fair system. Not everybody has an equal chance. If you are born rich, you don't have to work a day in your life, but you can still afford to buy whatever you want and do whatever you want. If you were born poor, you are going to end up being poor. You can work as hard as you want, but you won't be able to get anywhere because the entire system favours the rich.

No other system has. Please. Cuba is a shining example of the wonders of communism. In the 1950s, it was in terrible economic downfall. Then along came Castro, and Cuba is now a wonderful place to live. The quality of life is very high, everyone is satisfied with the government, and the rich do not control everything.

YOU are an idiot. Communism is by far the worst of all possible economic systems in my mind. Basically, happyness is evenly distributed, and the government tells you how much happyness you are allowed to have and if you dont like freaking like it, your in jail. Cuba is no goddam paradice and i doubt you, sir, have ever even stepped foot on cuban soil. my grandma LIVES there. I visit. thank god for dual citizenship, yes?

Dont get me wrong, capitalism, in its unregulated form, is indeed just as bad as unregulated communism. i believe in the moderate, the compromise, so hence, we have our mixed market system of today. of course, someone gets hurt, someone will always get hurt, and always will in any system, so either we can take Begoner's approach and try the "equality in misery" or let the mixed market be were even the poorest people have at least A SMALL chance to improve social class.

now to you annoying liberals spewing that crap about how you cant change social class without aff action and welfare, hear this:

if your friend got a 2.0 cause he smoked weed all day and didnt study, but you were really close friends with him, and you got a 4.0, why dont you merry your ass down to the principal and tell him to take 1 point off of your GPA and give it to your friend so you both have 3.0 GPA. well why wouldn't you? because your friend is a dipshit that didnt earn his reward?

yes you can change, my family is testimony: from penniless student from korea to UMD proffesor. you say that you cant change your class? it takes some luck, but most of all, determination.

you dont have that determination? then stay the fuck down there and dont beg me to give you my hard earned money.

What really really makes me sad and lose hope for a logical discussion in newgrounds BBS is everyone here that claims the boy has not been psychologically damaged and that he enjoyed it.

Now this is probobly the most penis driven response i have ever heard in my life. You all who say this are forgetting: at the moment the boy may have enjoyed it but because his name was put in the papers and this teacher is now gonna be a journalist, this kid is gonna face some serious ridicule. He had to switch schools twice, is getting psychological treatment, and is so in shock from his initial testimony that he has stayed in his room for a month.

Aye, this be the backlash of a male oriented society.

*sips coffee*

*yawn*.........*stretch*

this thread is awsome for just loafing around.