Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/7/08 06:10 AM, Deathrownzl wrote: I personally do not think any game should be banned for simply being to violent..
Gamestores should be able to slap a R18 sticker on it & then its up to the parents to monitor there own kids.

The only things I think games should ever be banned for are the following

Child Pornography or Child Abuse
Promoting Animal Cruelty .
Rape or sexual abuse
Or Sick stuff like pissing or crapping on people on people
Murdering people so you can cook them up & eat them.

In otherwords the same stuff a game would be banned for if it were a movie.

javascript:MakeSmileySelection(13);
Beaten

I can understand the child porn as it's the only thing that is illegal to view even in the realms of fiction. But the rest of that stuff should be up to the developers. Why is it ok for the hannibal series of movies to have all that stuff while a game can't?
I was raised on video games and movies. I don't watch disney movies anymore. My movies have matured with me(I can even watch people having sex on film!!!). Why not my video games?

Have a sense of humor and enough of a backbone to say what you want without fear of what someone else will think.
If your skin is dark and I'm describing you I'll say "that black guy" to narrow down the field. And if you try your hardest to act the stereotype of your race (ie ghetto gangsta baggy clothes rap music and shit english) and you piss me off I'm more than willing to drop the n-bomb in reference to you.

How about taking some steps before going so extreme.
Parenting classes made more accesable. I know most hospitals have a required class of basic parenting skills of an infant before they'll let you plan a birth there. We could have parenting classes at each level of schooling. Sign your kid up for grade school, get a class on basic parenting skills for that age group. Same with Jr. High and High school.
Parents are usually struggling trying to find what's best for their kids and they will be open to new suggestions as long as the classes are kept non demeaning and reletively unoffensive.

It sucks turning a back on free markets, but it just doesn't seem to be working in this case. Or maybe it is and things have just gotten drastic enough that we can't tell how bad things could have been.
But my main reason for replying is the book you posted. Good read? Or is it written to get the point across in the first chapter and the rest is just expanding on the basic idea/filler?

At 4/29/08 06:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's already in the works.

The next generation of new cars and trucks will need to meet a fleet average of 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015, the Bush administration proposed Tuesday, seeking more fuel-efficient vehicles in the face of high gasoline prices and concerns over global warming.

New cars and trucks will have to meet a fleet-wide average of 31.6 mpg by 2015, or about a 4.5 percent annual increase from 2011 to 2015. In 2015, passenger cars will need to achieve 35.7 mpg and trucks will need to reach 28.6 mpg.

------

Makes sense to me.

But then again I can't really preach because one of my cars gets less than 8mpg.

I'm guessing that's not your driver though. If you have a fun car that gets 8mpg and you take it out for a spin every weekend that's not going to hurt too much assuming your main source of transportation gets alot more than that.

Also I disagree with the fleet standards. It's likely the companies will just put out a ton of tin cans that get 50mpg, think 3 banger metro, that nobody will buy just so their fleet numbers are lower.

I think the best option would be a luxury tax. You want a beast truck that gets 13mpg, prove you need it or pay a 15% luxury tax and throw some padding on registration/liscense fees as well. Hell put it so everything that gets >15mpg pre-2000 and >25mpg after. Use that extra revenue to lighten the tax put on gasoline. That seems fair in my mind. I drive a car that decreases demand/price so I get slightly cheaper gas. You drive an SUV that increases just as much, you pay the extra and carry the burden you're creating.

At 4/24/08 11:38 AM, Expl0it wrote: Tell us what we can do with our lives. It is no business of the feds what we smoke, drink, eat, or otherwise consume. they have no right to know who or what we have sex with in the privacy of our own homes. They have no right telling us what is "right" an d what is "wrong. T"hey should not violate our right to privacy and the persuit of happiness.

TL;DR: Anti-govt rant.

If you turned the mass of a penny into a string the size of which held those thoughts together you could reach the moon and back several hundred times.

Make SUV's and non-work trucks a target for vandalism.

I got a few of those and a razor for my 18th. Threw the political magnets and cards away. Still use that same mach 3 razor today, but it's getting harder to find blades so I'll have to switch it up soon.

At 4/24/08 07:30 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote:

At 4/24/08 07:24 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 4/24/08 07:16 PM, DiablaBlanca wrote: Well since I personally have just come from jail.

Ha ha, you can't vote.

That's kinda messed up. True, but not very nice.

That would be prison, and only felons can't vote.
On topic, I've had my screw ups and I spent a short time in jail. It hasn't effected my job in the least. It was pretty simple in the interview.
"Have you been arrested or put in jail for any reason?" "Yes. Explanation of what I did and that it was a single incedent and not a pattern." Shortly after that it was welcome aboard.
The stigma is not on jail it's on criminal behavior, getting rid of jails wouldn't make them stop recording run ins with the law.

What if we were to make say a worker. Alter them to be strong, obediant and capable of understanding complicated instructions, but on top of that took out any emotional sense or sense for self preservation. Would we have removed enough humanity from them to have effectively created a moral slave race?
What if all this is done in a lab situation, all test tubes no need for a pregnancy, just an egg to get it going. Now this is assuming you have no moral objection to stem cell research, so that argument I don't want applied here.
But in the end would it be morally correct to make a slave with many human traits, but lacking humanity?

definate civilian use.

Racism causes victims.
Victims get special treatment.
Everybody wants special treatment.
Everyone else gets labeled some sort of ism.

Give you a hint. All the tolerant atheists are watching this shit shaking their heads with all the tolerant theists. Why waste time arguing who's right and who's wrong or even more pathetically who's the bigger victim?

They're right to be going against this group. They are abusing their position of power. Saying it's in the best interest of gods plan and the community to get a 14,15 or 16 year old girl to marry her uncle is no different than the catholic priest telling a choir boy that god will be angry if he tells anyone about that finger in his corn hole. You may say that a 16 year old can make certain decisions and sex and marriage may be one of them, you may also say they're old enough to decide there religion. If you say that though you don't understand what this community does to their children. They are raised in tight supervision with little to no contact with the outside world, every bit of schooling they recieve is littered with religious propoganda and very little substance. Here in utah we have a problem with the boys that are kicked out of these communities, we call them "lost boys". Usually around 16 kicked out for something like making eye contact with their uncles wife or some insane shit. But these boys are coming out with what could barely translate to a fourth grade education and absolutely no sense for the real world. Religious freedom or not, this church and its communities are stepping way over the bounds of basic human rights. And those seem to be a higher priority in my book.

You can give everyone a high school diploma using the PC method.
Or you can give most of them an education using ops mothers or Sevenseize's method.
I say most because although I think everybody can learn, I know not everyone is willing.
More on topic, if they do threaten to fire your mom over this, I'd go as far as trying to get some national media attention. Some of the conservative talking heads like Bill O'rly or Glen Beck would eat this shit up.

I hope that your mom can take a stand for her classroom and demand she be allowed to teach proper english.
She's probably the least racist person in the school. She's trying to give them an education instead of letting them slide by.

When was the last time you've seen two kids fight? I mean actually hit eachother. I know violence isn't the answer and it's probably not the best idea to have kids hurting eachother. But the little schoolyard fights do help build character or at best a little thicker skin.
This kid needs a good fight.

You don't actually have to register it.
The old way.
I write a short story I put it on my blog.
It's my creative property.
The new way.
I write a short story I put it on my blog.
I put a notice somewhere on my website that everything written is my creative property.

It's wasting time really, not much will change and I'm sure if you forget to put a notice up you'll probably win if you contest it.

At 4/14/08 06:27 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/14/08 01:57 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: Get the economy growing again.
That's the one major obsticle to keeping our current medical system. We have this problem today because the economy is slowly deteriorating and business's are being forced to cut things that used to be expected.
I've commented on this and suggested solutions and regulations to help in too many other threads to continue. But that's it in a nutshell.

We could help guide that.

Business's are given tax breaks and exemptions for offering medical care in thier business package.
Why not add the same incentive in someone's tax returns as well?

I don't know how our culture of instant gratifacation would respond to that. We have all sorts of tax insentives for just about everything that people need or want, but still many people don't take advantage because it means spending money now that you don't get back till later. And still you have the same socialist redistribution aspect and you're just dodging the government involvement problems.
The sudden push for socialized medicine has had some effect on our capitalistic system to shape up. Just look at wal*marts $4 prescription plan for proof of that, but these are just for show or at best baby steps. If we want to keep our current system we need a major push for maturity to the new way of life we've made for ourselves. I can only think of ways to make companies push for that change. But I sure as hell have no idea what that change is.

Get the economy growing again.
That's the one major obsticle to keeping our current medical system. We have this problem today because the economy is slowly deteriorating and business's are being forced to cut things that used to be expected.
I've commented on this and suggested solutions and regulations to help in too many other threads to continue. But that's it in a nutshell.

You can say the president doesn't do much when it comes to making decisions. But there's one thing that's major this time around, supreme court appointment. We are looking at a good possibility of replacing 3 judges on the supreme court within the next 4 years. This is a big deal, having a conservative president is our only chance at finally get a conservative supreme court, something that's been vastly liberal for entirely too long.

At 4/12/08 05:13 PM, stafffighter wrote: To everyone here assuming people are smart and act for their own good and the good of others. Then why do we even need laws? It's because we're prone to negative actions that cause damage.

It's more of a question of where the line should be drawn. Make tattooing illegal? Outlaw sugar? Calling somewhere a "nanny state" is overused, but it applies. At what point do we stop trying to protect people from themselves? Or do we continue untill everyone has a government appointed babysitter telling adults not to stick that fork in there.

Maybe we should have a law against looking into the sun. Or assume that if peoples ears hurt they'll turn it down.

Oh no, religious people try to be good and don't go out partying and sleeping around.
I could give to shits how someone wants to live their lives and for what reasons. The exeption ofcourse is if they're being self destructive or hurting someone else.
I also don't care if someones opinion is I'm going to hell for my beliefs. I'll take there offers to go to church and related activities as an attempt to do something they feel would benefit me and kindly turn them down.

At 4/5/08 09:10 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: If you have insurance available through work why not just put in some overtime and take the government out of the loop?
The best option to avoid the socialist route would be to require companies to provide insurance to all full time employees. It used to be expected where ever you worked, but has slowly faded out of style. If every company start buying insurance for all there employees prices will drop. If insurance companies start competing with lower prices to attract larger companies we'll pretty soon have cheap insurance again.

Actullaly, they would just hire more part time employees to avoid having full time workers. We also can't have people who work 3 days a week getting full coverage, either. As for companies competing for companies, it sounds good on paper but the companies aren't going to lose profit under their watch. They will get the lawyers to do their "lawyer mind trick" and make sure there are loopholes

It all depends on the job. I have what you would call a low skill job. However it would be impossible to do if I wasn't full time and hiring extra employees costs money and most would play it safe and keep trusted employees that cost just a little more instead of taking on more with all the expenses outside of pay and insurance. Saying that, if you're in food or customer service, your hours will be cut most likely. But I like to consider those kid jobs, the type of thing you do when you want money in high school or college. Doing them as an adult or a career is just a sad commentary on your life.

If you have insurance available through work why not just put in some overtime and take the government out of the loop?
The best option to avoid the socialist route would be to require companies to provide insurance to all full time employees. It used to be expected where ever you worked, but has slowly faded out of style. If every company start buying insurance for all there employees prices will drop. If insurance companies start competing with lower prices to attract larger companies we'll pretty soon have cheap insurance again.
The conservative in me cringes at the idea of putting this burden on companies. But as it stands I find it to be alot better choice than the alternative.

From what I've heard from the discussions I've seen among pedophiles looking for treatment or at least understanding for there attraction there seems to be two constants.
Either they are socialy akward or immature and find the innocence of a child is their only hope for a fulfilling relationship. Or they are unhappy with the lives they lead and think back into their mindframes as a child when they remember being happy, only now it's mixed in with adult sexuality and want for a relationship.
The one constant is the self-hatred. They constantly beat themselves up, say whatever you want to a pedophile, they've told themselves ten times worse already. They always seem to describe themselves as monsters and feel helpless and borderline suicidal because they can't shake the attraction and know its wrong and fear actually following through and harming a child.
Definately a fucked up group of people, not because of the ailment, but how they treat themselves once they understand it.

I think it has more to do with understanding.
For me it's music. I understand beats, tempo, transition etc and I can pick up a new instrument or style of singing pretty easily. For you with drawing, you probably just understand something that's difficult for others to grasp. Chances are it came as a spark when you were younger and you've grown upon it. I've seen many times a person struggling with a subject and someone explains it to them in a certain way and they suddenly get it.
As for the evolutionary side of it. There are alot of time where our only chance for survival is to stay inside, now we could stay in fear the whole time, but we have logic and know that inside is safe so that feeling quickly goes away. So boredom will set in without our minds occupied and pretty soon you have insanity. So we create ways to keep our minds active during these times. Some people draw, some people sing, some sit and count. Anything to pass the time.

I'm conflicted with this. As a conservative it's obvious that I would want a republican to win, even the most liberal republican is better than the most liberal democrat. Or is it progresive now? I don't really care about the titles. So anyways. A long drawn out fight between her and obama would be helpful to get that end. But that said. I'd much prefer an honest defeat than a slimey win. It's obvious that obama is going to get the nomination and it would be best for the party if hillary stepped down to give the democrats the time to get set up to support their candidate.
Do you remember when the clintons were leaving the white house and they tried to take some furniture? Maybe hillary just really likes that couch. Think she'll drop out if we find a way to give it to her?
Joking aside. What would it take to get hillary to drop out sooner giving the democrats their best chance for victory?

If you're black I'm gonna say you're black. I don't mean any offense by this term and if you find yourself offended by me using it you can blow me.