Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I don't count myself as a regular and have never really considered the possibility of joining a crew because I am here so scarcly. However, I have read posts from the regulars mentioned in the original post and have always enjoyed what they have to say on many subjects. In my replies (if I am not deeply angered) I normally try to be civil and open while stating an opinion on a subject.
May I count as a loosly interpreted regular or am I still just a lurker?

I'm not going trying to belittle you but do you have a concrete definition of femminsim? So far I've gathered that you are only familiar to the old wave ideals (you know the Andrea Dworkin era).
Things have changed. Believe me or not, the banner of femmisim has extended to include all genders and sexualities because if it is one thing femminists have learned in the past its that the fight is not worth it if only one class or group benefits (I think the name femmisim has only held because the movement was started by women). Did you know that the original movement didn't include African Americans? Now we believe that all people should be equal regardless of race, gender or class.
Television disgust me as well in the way that they protray all gender stereotypes. On my femminist community list, that JCPenny commercial (the 'where is your mother?' one) is underfire because we know that (many)men are smart and capable enough to raise their own children.
Yes, I think the masculine identity has been overlooked because life in a patriarchal system automatically assumes that male identity is prevalent. I know my school offers a course in womens sexuality but I would be eager to pick up a credit in mens sexuality.
As for beating dead ponies, the fight's not over yet. I don't see it ending anytime soon. Women are still underpaid. Homosexuals are still murdered in hate crimes. My right to choose what to do with my uterus is threatened by the US president. What I look like is more important than what I can do. Women in the Middle East are still killed by their own families if they are raped. A same gender marriage is about to be banned in the US. I am still expected to fit into the mold of a size 6 housewife.
...
It'll be a cold day in hell when I go willingly into that mold.

Actually by the way that you advocate for equal rights among genders, by definition you are also a femminist. Welcome to the movement!

No, it's actually quite a beautiful dream but in reality it does not work. Humans are too competitive by nature to only receive what they need.
Also, (now I'm not sure about other country's policies on this) but in the United States minors cannot be taught about Communisim and Anarchy so many grow up with an ignorant fear of it. I was lucky enough to receive the neutral basics of communisim but other students aren't as enlightened. While these systems may not work I personally believe it is wise to learn about them in order to improve democracy (which is not perfect) or devise new and better forms of government.
If you need a 'realist's' veiw on communism try reading George Orwell's Animal Farm. He based the novel directly on Soviet/Russian communisim with many of the characters corelating with historical figures such as Josef Stalin.

After reading through some replies I just have to say that I believe barring homosexuals from marriage is in direct violation of 'pursuit of happiness'. George and his party are very cruel to want to keep two people in love from being married.
It's not just about the tax benefits you know. It's about being told that you may not legally spend the rest of your life with the person you love. Now that's a right I would hate to lose and a right I know many gay couples would love to have.

A friend on another list had the idea of setting up a monument right across from it that was dedicated to everyone who was brutality murdered in hate crime simply for their religous beliefs, sexuality, ethnicity or gender.

At 10/7/03 02:54 PM, Solamnus wrote: Freedom of Speech my friends.

Slander is not freedom of speech.

The role of GE and GM in modern society is not to cull the weak like we would cattle. Instead it is used to intervene on existing problems and prevent them before birth.
Yes, back in the day they did cull people and they did force sterilization. Was it right? No, it was cruel and unusual. It put humans on the same level as domestic animals. (And bear in mind that if the government can do it to one group of people they can easily turn right around and do it to you.)
Modern GE is used to identify possible genetic mutations in fetuses. I'll use Trisomy 18 (the chromosomal error that causes Edwards's Syndrome, a deadly genetic disorder) as an example. Trisomy 18 occurs after fertilization of an embryo. As the zygote divides, a slight error causes the cells to duplicate chrom #18 twice (humans normally have 46 set chroms, a trisomy human has 47). The cells then divide rapidly, with the error and develop into a fetus.
Imagine if the parents had genetic counseling and they knew that trisomy 18 was a possibility. Now, obstrticians can take a sample from the fluid within the placenta and test it for trisomy 18. If the cells test positive the couple now has the choice of aborting the cells before they develop more fully into a fetus. They can then try again for a healthy baby.
Or if they wanted to make sure the next one was healthy, they could have their ova and sperm harvested, fertilized and then karotyped for genetic disorders. A healthy zygote can then be chosen and implanted back into the mother.
That is how GE is being used.

"It's all well and good to say cull the weak until you are the weak."

Your proposal, as morally righeous as you make it appear, violates everyone's right to privacy. Barring 'masturbaters' from jobs is a violation of equal oppretunity employment.
Masturbation is a great way to relieve sexual frustrations. Repressing it leads to mental problems and stress on the individual.
Also, since when did you need porn to masturbate? I know I don't.
And hey, don't condemn something until you've tried it.
_My roommate_ - I think that person needs a nice tall glass of SHUTTHEHELLUP! I think they need to go jerk-off and chill already instead of freaking out.

You know what's ironic though? SUV's, Trucks and other 'working vehicles' are advertised as such. The commercials for Chevys, Fords, Dodges and GMCs all show the trucks/SUVs hauling livestock trailers, doing construction work or being used on rough terrain.
It's not the companys' fault if people who live in the suburbs or the city want to buy and drive a working vehicle with no intention of using it for it's true purposes.

As much of an enviromental and free speech advocate as I am, arson and violence are not the way to protest and I disagree with the E.L.F's actions.

At 3/11/03 11:29 AM, TheEvilOne wrote: Because we don't show agression toward our neighbors. Honestly, do you think Saddam wants these weapons just to defend his country? Of course he's going to use them to attack our allies and interests in the region.

We're showing plenty of aggression now. And actually I do not know what Saddam will do with his weapons and niether do you. Maybe he'll sell them or use them in a campaign or keep them for defense, who really knows what goes on in his mind.

This is the kind of argument that I just can't stand. Plain and simple: Saddam cannot be trusted. If we were to do the so-called "right" thing and destroy our nuclear stockpiles first, Saddam would use his weapons against us right then and there. Nice thought, but unrealistic--just like most of the anti-war arguments.

I know that and I stated it. It's like a stalemate situtation where a truce has been called and one of us has to drop but no one wants to go first. And who are you to say that the US or any other countries can be trusted with weapons of that caliber?

They have the right to protest. I have the right to express how uninformed and thoughtless some of those protestors are.

Good for you! You know your rights.

At 3/11/03 11:29 AM, TheEvilOne wrote: Because we don't show agression toward our neighbors. Honestly, do you think Saddam wants these weapons just to defend his country? Of course he's going to use them to attack our allies and interests in the region.

Who really knows what Saddam would like to do with them. For all we know, he's just making them to give to terrorists, or really wants to invade other countries or really is using them for defense. I know that you do know for sure either.

This is the kind of argument that I just can't stand. Plain and simple: Saddam cannot be trusted. If we were to do the so-called "right" thing and destroy our nuclear stockpiles first, Saddam would use his weapons against us right then and there. Nice thought, but unrealistic--just like most of the anti-war arguments.

I know that and I stated it. It's like a stalemate. We can call a truce and one of us has to drop but who's going first? And who says we can be trusted with weapons? What about North Korean, or India or anyone else in the nuclear club, can they be trusted too? No one can be trusted with weapons of that caliber.

They have the right to protest. I have the right to express how uninformed and thoughtless some of those protestors are.

Good for you. You know your rights.

It saddens me that the christen religion still plays a large part in US government, especially since the country was founded on freedom of religous expression or lack of.
I was reading a book of essays on anarachic theory and one essay stated that religion is set up to inhibit human freedom, advancement and expression. This can be seen when our government puts restrictions of abortion, stem cell research and other contraversial issues (based on 'religoius moral values'). Some good has come from these restrictions, the Nazi regime did not have restrictions and abused, experimented on and killed people with disabilities and dieseases.
This does not excuse its active role in our government though, especially since many Americans are 'godless' or follow another religion.

At 3/11/03 10:26 AM, BuckeyesNate wrote: ya, i saw some stupid anti-war people on the news before i typed this, so i was like ranting and raving or whatever, but i dont think economy is the only reason we should go to war, i remember that a while ago the nations accross the world signed something that said they would produce like only a certain amount of nuclear weapons, or like none or something, and sadaam broke that treaty, now we have already tried to get him to show us that they have been destroyed peacefully, but he never did. If we dont go to war then we give him a chance to use his weapons on us, thus killing civilians, at least if we go to war the people that die would be those who are there willingly (i know that sounds bad but its the truth).

Why should Saddam throw down his weapons when all the members of the nuclear club (ok, mainly us) should be allowed to keep them?

If we wanted Iraq to give up their weapons, we would have to do so by destroying ours first and what American is going to do that? I do not care for Saddam at all, but who are we to tell other countries to disarm their defenses while we keep stock piling our own?

Besides, who needs thousands of nuclear missles when it only takes thirty to destroy the world as we know it.

As for the anti-war protesters, there is nothing wrong with them, they are exercising their rights and standing up for something they believe in.

I'd agree with Ghandi and King. Washington slept around and ran up the patriot bill with luxery expenses. FDR was a great leader but he also had a mistress and was involved in several possible conspericies (including Pearl harbor) that are now being reveiwed by historians.

From what I know of Susan B Anthony, she was a powerful speaker and advocate of the women's suffrage movement.
My other canidate would be Vercingatorix, the leader of the gaelic celts in the time of Julius Ceaser. When his people were under seige in their last fort he gave himself up under the condition that his people go free. Unfortunatly after he was taken prisoner, Ceaser proceeded to burn the fort to the ground and attack outlying villages.

Bah. I have to agree with the behaviorist on this one, dogs can only be trained to hate certain people. Perhaps the dog was abused by people who fit that racial profile.

No, dog's aren't racists unless you make them that way. I know our lab dogs love us when we are wearing our street clothes but as soon as they see us in scrubs they hide in the corner and try to run away.

I'm more surprised that the couple was allowed to keep the pit bull, most states automatically euthanize stray pit bulls because they are a fighting dog.

At 2/27/03 12:38 AM, kittie_cross wrote: 1) Yes or no.. why or why not?

2) Is it really murder?

3) Should it be illegal?

1) Yes. While many people do choose to abort a fetus because they are not mentally or financially ready to care for a child there are other reasons to use it such as in the cases of rape, underage pregnancy, complications during birth that are lethal to the mother, severe handicaps (found through genetic testing) of the fetus.

2) It depends on the time period of the abortion. In the third trimester, the fetus is definatly human. Before that, it is a bundle of cells, a 'potential human'.

3) No. The government cannot dictate what women do to their bodies especially since this entire 'issue' is based on the personal perception of what makes a fetus a human.

Now that I'm in college, I think my tv intake has really gone down (while my PC addiction is quite healthy :P). Right now I think our (my roommate and I) tv time consists of "reward time" after finishing an assignment. Normally we watch cartoons, classic show reruns (MASH, game shows, the A team) or a Discovery owned channel. So far our favorite show is the XY factor on the history channel ;) Otherwise, we hook up an old SNES and play that for a bit.

I don't think we should give up on cloning and stem cell research just yet.
We really need to seriously consider the possibilities of organ cloning and harvesting. It's not a pretty thought (I always think of that scene in the matrix where the robotic arms are harvesting fetuses) but when you see how many people die waiting on organ donor lists, or more recently, die from organ rejection you know something has to be done.
The regeneration of nerve cells could also have been yielded but because of peoples' deep rooted religously based fear of thing they do not understand, we may never know.
Somedays, I think religion was put in place simply to prevent the advance of science (and with it's "moral" values it is).

At 3/4/03 05:11 AM, Judge_DREDD wrote:

At 3/4/03 02:26 AM, Neotrance_Ice wrote:

At 2/26/03 10:19 PM, CharlieZAngeL wrote: did you hear about the girl that protseted agianst the war by...

i have no probs with women who are anti-war. But what REALLY annoys me is stuff like this;

Israeli Army Spokeswoman

Could you please put your point into words. Your dislike of this picture could be interpreted as anything.

At 3/2/03 11:27 PM, Soundbyte2kx wrote: Let's see...
From a biology major's point of view, there is virtually nothing different between our brain and the brain of a cow apart from bulk and basic geometric configuration.

If we turn to the animal kingdom, we will find some facenating facts. Predatory species, by and large, posess significantly larger brains then their prey counterparts.

I'll provide you with an example. Compair the brain of a wolf to that of an antelope. The wolf's brain is nearly twice the size of the antelope's brain, with noticeably greater growth in the visual cortex, and the areas of the brain devoted to patern recognition.

Even ancient and relatively simple straightforeward killing machines, like sharks, posess large and complex brains (very little is known about the shark brain, let us not dwell on it further)

There are a few examples of predators having smaller brains then their prey counterpart. Voles have smaller brains then deer mice, but a vole only weighs in at a third that of the deer mouse's weight, and as such will only attack a deer mouse if it hasn't eaten in several hours.

The largest brain in the world belongs to the sperm whale, weighing in at 20 pounds, it should be noted that sperm whales are also active predators, as are nearly all mammals of the sea. (yes, even cute baby seals eat fish.)

From these facts, we can draw the conclusion Bigger brain = predator of smaller brain. Cows have a smaller brain then I do, so i will feel no guilt when i eat them.

But srest assured, no sperm whales will ever grace my plate.

Ok here's an idea though. Humans may have larger brains than many of the animals mentioned above but I distinctly remember my Bio. Prof. telling us that humans really only use a little more than half of the actual brain mass.
Also, one other interesting point, the brain of the horse and the ox are quite similar in size but out of those two animals, horses have more complex sociological behaviors (their 'language' utilizes nearly all body parts and they are able to form relationships with other species, besides humans) and have a higher degree of intelligence enabling them to remember patterns, past events and experiences.
(It can also be noted that it is illegal to sell horsemeat for human consumption in California and most horsemeat that is processed in the US is shipped overseas to Europe and Asia).
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that brain mass isn't really that much of an issue (to me). It's more in how you use it. I can vouch for horses being able to 'out smart' their human counterparts. Mine managed to unhook my bra with his teeth, a feat most human males cannot master.

At 3/1/03 08:27 AM, DarkBlueFlame753 wrote: On behalf of that guy I apoligize thats called idiot male syndrome were the bloods only flowing to one region if you catch my drift.

Hehe, apology accepted. Don't worry, I don't lump all guys into the 'stupid' category unless they prove themselves worthy.

Hey, I was reading an article in 'The Humanist' about religious statues that have been placed in front of state government buildings. The article said that one had recently been erected (in Ohio I think) in an 'under cover manner'. When discovered, the it was voted to remove the monument because christianity is not a part of the government. This action led to a wave of monument (depicting religous themes) removals but some states (coughTEXAScough) still have them.

What do you guys think about this? I think they should all be removed.

Hmmm, I always just left out 'the under god' part but I agree that it should be removed and I am saddened that some people in seats of power want to keep it.

Heck the 'under god' part actually makes it lose it's meaning.
"One nation indivisible."
"One nation, under god, indivisible."
The original just sounds right.

I have to agree though that patriotisim should not be mandatory.

Both.
Abstinence because it is a status symbol to have had sex and some kids are under the impression that you need to fall in love and start a family before you are 26 or you will become a dried up old spinster. Boys also seem to have a nasty habit of coercing young girls into having sex and those girls really need to know that it is acceptable to say no.

Safe sex because they aren't always going to be kids and they need to know what options are available to prevent unwanted children, STD's and HIV.

I also think schools should be able to make condoms and dental dams available to their students because it encourages safe sexual relationships.
And besides, who doesn't want free condoms ;)

Apprently, being white doesn't even matter in this country because there is always something to stereotype people with.
I'm a young white woman and I get crap placed down me because I attend a women's college. Apparently, this makes me and every other woman (or guy because there are some male students) a lesbian.
A guy from another college once asked me once how many lesbians were in my college (because I know these things :P) and I know of 2. Suddenly he says 'So they really are all lesbians?'
*the look*
How does 2 become all?

*I know I'm going to get killed for this one...*
I have to agree with the girl's decision to turn her back on the flag in protest of the war in Iraq. Patriotisim should not be mandatory.
I do not think she was trying to disgrace vets either because protesting a new war does not do that.
Like her opinion or not, we all have the right to protest something we do not like. It's what makes us the free people.
*Ok I'm done. Fire at will, I'm a woman, I'm built to take it*

I think the right wing country would turn into one of those super continent olligarchy countries reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 where everyone thinks/acts/dresses the same...oh and there's no sex either because right wings don't have vaginas.
Granted, the left wing country wouldn't be doing so hot either as they tend to make a lot of enemies very easily and would envoke the power of the 'tolerance police'.
Both countries would be continually at war which will keep their capitalisitic economies in balace with heavy scarcity.

I think I need a nap :/

Believe it or not babe, girls like to have sex as much as boys do. And for all you guys who get 'sluts' just keep in mind she's probably labeling you 'tools'.
And quite frankly, if I was down on my luck I would put in an application at the bunny ranch as a 'sex worker' so I could retire at 32.
Ironically I don't think that street prostitution should be legalized however, privatly run brothels that recieve regular check ups and enforce condom use should be made legal.

Anarchy is the act of self government. Communisim is people working together in a classless society to live and improve their lives. Neither of these concepts will work if the current apathetic human nature persists.
Until that time comes, I am going to hang on to Marx's theories and Thoreau's ideas. I think they may have been onto something. ;)

As an animal 'welfarist' I'm normally ashamed of my far-left cousins who like to pull stunts in the name of animal rights.
What's the difference? Well, an 'activist' lets all of the minks on the fur farm free to die horrible deathes in the wild from lack of survival skills. A 'welfarist' writes polite letters to fashion designers and models requesting that they not promote the fur industry.
As for eating meat. Well, I do but I would perfer if my cattle were humanly slaughtered.