Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Fat slut. There you go, some attention.

Yeah I've eaten mealworm cookies and candy ants, they were fine.

Espresso, cereal, coffee, shower, massive shit. My morning routine wouldn't be possible without it.

At 1/14/14 11:10 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Well, most child support laws are structured to have the highest earning spouse pay the other spouse money to cover the other spuse's care of the children. This amount paid is relative to the child's lifestyle prior to the divorce, the amount of money each spouse makes and how much time the receiving spouse has with the children.

So, if the law is followed properly, the reason the father still has to pay is because the father made dramatically more money than the mother. If the mother made more SHE would be paying child support.

So if the mother is granted custody and she made more money than the husband, she would be entirely responsible for child support? No of course not it doesn't work that way.

No. Child support is based upon the child's lifestyle prior to the divorce. If the parents together made a great deal of money, the child's lifestyle is more likely to be higher, thus meaniing the child's post divorce 'needs' will be higher than that of a child whose parents were broke.

This is how the laws (including alimony) are meant to work. Though personally, I disagree with it. I believe that the post divorce payment system should be based on a reasonable lifestyle (with the other current limiting factors still used).

So on a percentage of income basically, that's what a "child's lifestyle" is a euphemism for apparently.

Actually, that's 100% wrong. If a father cannot afford it at the outset, the law would grant no child support. If the father faces an unintentional drop in income, the father should file for an adjustment to correlate with the new lower income. If the father's income increases, the onus is upon the mother to file an adjustment for better support.

Most child support laws and alimony laws have been made gender neutral in that the highest earning spouse is the one that pays. So complaining about the laws as written is like wanting to make more than women AND have them pay the money in a divorce.

If the father chooses not to pay child support he is thrown in jail. If the mother chooses not to spend child support on her children she isn't thrown in jail. Since the father is legally responsible for paying child support the mother should be held just as accountable for spending that child support on her children. Currently there is a clear amount of gender bias taking place or at the very least a great deal of injustice towards the payer of child support.

So let's discuss child support for a bit.

I thought about an interesting fact that child support isn't based upon which parent the children stay with most often and for how many days out of the month. It may be a tedious thing to calculate, but lots of fathers are paying a ridiculous about of child support to the mother when he is taking care of the kids for more than half the month himself. This begs the question where is this child support going to?

Also, child support is adjusted to a man's income. Shouldn't child support be a figure based on how much it actually costs to adequately feed, cloth, and educate a child in America adjusted to inflation? It makes sense, but I tell you why this can't be the cases, because lower income fathers would have no chance of paying for this.

On top of this if a father can't afford to pay the child support he's thrown in jail, because he can't and isn't supporting his children effectively describing him as a bad parent. Mothers on the other hand, when they can't afford to support their children (some even with child support) they aren't thrown in jail, they are given welfare. Double standards aren't limited to social issues, they are deeply imbedded within our laws with serious consequences towards men.

At 1/13/14 06:24 PM, Ron-Geno wrote: @ the marriage part:
Doesn't a prenup prevent most of the negative consequences of divorce?

Not unless if a prenup prevents paying alimony.

@ the male pill part:
Good news: They're working on it.

Yeah I've been hearing that for a while that article pretty much sums up my thoughts. Drug companies aren't invest for god knows what reason. That Indonesian plant's mechanism is very cool.

And yeah, males of the world definitely have some problems to face that need fixing.
However, I'm glad I was born a man
Women still have it bad (worse imo).

I wouldn't care if men had it obviously worse, I'd still be glad I was born a man.

At 1/13/14 03:53 PM, Tybia99 wrote:

At 1/12/14 03:46 PM, Saen wrote:

At 1/12/14 03:35 PM, Razefan wrote: Well here's a question

is recombination random?

If not, isn't that one of the main arguments for theistic evolution?

Recombination of genes is random, evolution due to natural selection is nonrandom. Evolution in small populations is primarily random due to genetic drift. The element of randomness itself isn't a divine property in any sense.

Is it random?

Well damn this article was a few months past my genetics class in college. I'll have to find some basic research on this very cool.

I had three thousand eyes restricts in my fusion deck, 3 metamorphosis magic cards and shit tons of 1 star special effect monsters among other cards.

At 1/12/14 01:57 PM, FairSquare wrote:

At 1/9/14 03:42 AM, Loki wrote: bbb

.

Sam help me find Mordor the ring hurts jnbjkbnmdvkldfslfmfmfkmm..

Egoraptor doesn't animate anymore, all he does is play video games with a hairy fat fuck.

Golf, eating out, car upgrades.

Was asked today by a group of students how much I charge for golf lessons. Yoloswag420dreybeatsblazeit

At 1/12/14 05:22 PM, laughatyourfuneral wrote:

Human evolution isn't going to be improved because having kids is no longer based off of how well you'd survive.

Tranhumanism will solve that problem

Evolution isn't "survival of the fittest" you are greatly mistaken.

At 1/12/14 04:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/12/14 03:46 PM, Saen wrote: There's no such thing as evolution in the teachings and minds of religions and "intelligent design". The belief is that every species that has ever existed on this earth was created separately by God. There is no potential for evolution in any sense with that mindset.

Actually, that is very much incorrect. Only the hardest of creationists and Intelligent Designers believe that every change was hand picked by God. The more common combination of religion and evolution is that evolution exists as stated, yet the seeds of it were planted by God.

You have a terrible tendency to speak of absolutes in this area and are very much off the mark. Not only has evolution not been definitively proven (though it has been close) many people believe in a more Deistic approach to a combination between cretionism and evolution.

Just because you believe you are preaching to the choir is no reason to be sloppy.

Well I hear new shit every day. Seems like creationists keep changing their minds. The patterns of change are the same however, whatever concepts creationists don't understand they fill in the gaps with god. Fuck you dude you have no right to make up new shit as you go. People like you are an embarrassment to science and Christianity, I'm done with you.

At 1/12/14 03:35 PM, Razefan wrote: Well here's a question

is recombination random?

If not, isn't that one of the main arguments for theistic evolution?

Recombination of genes is random, evolution due to natural selection is nonrandom. Evolution in small populations is primarily random due to genetic drift. The element of randomness itself isn't a divine property in any sense.

There's no such thing as evolution in the teachings and minds of religions and "intelligent design". The belief is that every species that has ever existed on this earth was created separately by God. There is no potential for evolution in any sense with that mindset.

At 1/12/14 01:45 PM, Tremulos wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the whole evolution thing depend on some sort of ridiculous Big Bang theory to account for the initial creation of matter? That takes a lot of believing in

No the big bang theory is in the realm of physics, evolution is biology. Evolution explains the origin of life through common ancestry and the diversity we observe throughout life. The big bang theory explains the origin of all matter in the universe along with the current expanding universe.

I wish I was clever at this.

I made a new driver and 3 wood from old Cleveland launcher heads. Also got a new Scotty Cameron putter. Shot an 85 and a 89 the last two times I played. Almost broke into the 30s on the back nine last time I played. Will post pics.

Also check out my youtube golf channel, YouGolf.

We measure electric car emissions and compare them with petrol cars with pounds of CO2 emissions per mile. In the case of electric cars using electricity from coal plants, they pollute around 4-10x less than the average petrol car depending on where you live.

Also electricity, no matter how it's generated is transported by power lines. Meanwhile fuel is spent to force oil up from the ground, transport it with a tanker, and haul it to a gas station with a truck. Include those emissions into gasoline and electric vehicles become >20x more efficient and less polluting. This idea is the same when comparing the emission of any electric appliance against its gasoline counterpart. Electric power is inherently much much more efficient than an ICE.

The main idea of electric car is in fact efficiency, this allows it to be operated so cheaply and that's why it's catching on like wildfire.

At 1/12/14 07:48 AM, YomToxic wrote: All because some savages with big money want to force their opinions on us.

The Christian Coalition sure.

At 1/12/14 11:57 AM, Razefan wrote: Genetic mutation is any permanent change to DNA,
Hereditary mutation is passed from parent to child while somatic mutations are acquired during someones life time

Genetic mutation that is beneficial is genetic evolution...

Regardless of the effect of mutation, whether harmful or not it is a factor in evolution. Mutations are mainly responsible for death.

Like I said earlier, mutation is not the driving force of evolution, it accounts for less than .1% of all evolution, natural selection and genetic drift and the driving forces of evolution.

Ugly, frilly, polka-dot, lacy, pink, large, or in any way "girly" panties. Also teen sex or women who pretend to be and dress like young girls.

Probably most people would consider an autistic villain taboo. To convince an audience of a truly evil and villainous autistic villain would be quite a feat from an actor and director. With a good plot I'm sure a great film could be made from the premise.

At 1/12/14 03:45 AM, Gagsy wrote:

At 1/12/14 03:18 AM, Saen wrote:

However you don't see me and most guys openly bitching about obsessive women do you?

All the time actually. Holy shit, talking on a website dominated by men I see this kind of thing all over.

Yeah I know girls can be very clingy and obsessive when it comes to their crushes, I have seen it, I have heard about it enough. This site is 25% moaning about girls.

But I'm the issue for calling out the guys that do it though?

Sure you can victimize yourself and manipulate that into a false issue. On a more realistic notion, how mature do you believe most guys on Newgrounds to be? My answer would be not much.

At 1/12/14 03:31 AM, mandog wrote: How about I pay you to walk everywhere? for every mile you walk, I give you £20, fair deal, and you get some rockin abs.

So if I walked 5 miles an hour I would make 100pounds an hour which roughly $165/hr walking 8 hours a day 5 days a week translates into ~$343,000 a year.

Do you people honestly think before typing anything?

At 1/12/14 02:52 AM, Gagsy wrote:
Dude, you've missed what makes a guy a 'nice guy' and not just a nice person. Its not about guys wooing a woman by being nice to her, its about guys who pretend not to want to woo a woman by trying to become her BFF and then get fucking butthurt when that woman only wants to be that guys friend in return. Yes its the women who determines what behaviour from men promotes sex and the 'nice guys' turn real damn un-nice when they realise that plan to befriend didn't end in sex. Then its all the "Oh women only want assholes not nice guys like me." That's what we mean by nice guys.

Do you get it now.

Frankly whether guys are behaving or pretending, they are being nice in order to woo women. Most kids and some adults don't handle rejection too well, both girls and boys. That speaks to a person's maturity, which is not gender specific. The same can be said of a girl who obsesses over her crush by being overly nice and clingy and after she's rejected turns hysterical and claims "all guys are dicks."

It's a cycle of immaturity equally prevalent in both of the sexes. However you don't see me and most guys openly bitching about obsessive women do you? No because the best thing to do is ignore a clingy woman, that's how you get a girl to leave you alone in the first place, maybe she'll learn to grow up as a result.

It's a very simple idea, if the amount you spend on gas per month meets or exceeds the monthly lease of an electric car you can drive an electric car at no additional cost. This is dependent on three variables, the mpg of your current car, how much you drive in a month, and if your daily commutes to and back exceed the range of the electric car (if you don't have a place to recharge your car while at work).

In America it's quite popular to have two cars, one fun gas guzzling car and the other a fuel efficient commuter car. The electric car is taking place of commuter petrol car for exactly this reason.

The Nissan leaf for example costs around $200/month to lease. For a car that gets 12mpg (a typical SUV), with gas at $3.50 a gallon you would need to drive around 685 miles a month to pay for the lease, or around three fill ups a month for a 18 gallon fuel tank. The average person drives around 250miles a week or ~1000 miles a month. $350/month on gas - $200/month lease = $150 savings.

It's electric, boogie boogie.

Or juice, fibers, and fruit.

Certain people are allergic to latex, some doctors will ask patients before examining them with latex gloves. You should tell your mom there are sheepskin condoms if she still wishes to use them.

At 1/12/14 02:15 AM, Gagsy wrote:

At 1/11/14 11:34 PM, Saen wrote: And I hate nice girls because they're just trying to get in my pants. Maybe people are nice simply because they're kind people?

There's nice people and then there's the nice guy syndrome.

Nice guy syndrome? Now guys who try to woo a woman by behaving nicely have a genetic disorder? Interesting, how would you diagnose a man would treats women like garbage in order to fuck her? There's nothing wrong with guys wanting to have sex, it's women who determine what behavior from men promotes sex.