Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/14/11 05:47 PM, afuckingname wrote: except your 'tradition' has only been around for a fraction of the time, what part of "it was socially acceptable for women to dress in little clothing for the majority of humanity, tens of thousands of years" do you not get

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm actually giving a specific example that concretely connects your general assertion to the specific issue at hand. You need to reign in your debate horses :P

I want to build off of what Malachy said.

Originally we were a 2 party system: Federalists vs Democratic.
Very quickly the Federalists died out and the Democratic Republicans reigned supreme until Jackson came along and then the Democratic party was born. Then the party split and you had the Whiggs and Democrats. Then the whiggs died out and the Republican party was born out of opposition to slavery and since then we've had those parties. The whole point is that throughout these dichotomies there has always been one common thread:

One party stood for a strict interpretation of the constitution and limited government and the other stood for a loose interpretation of the constitution and big government. This dichotomy has even further been expressed in the wider world with the whole Cold War stand off between Democracy and Communism.

Thats why there are only 2 large political parties in our country because it stems from all the way back from the days of the Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans. (The mid 1800s was kind of weird because the major dichotomy there was slavery but thats a whole different issue)

Obviously nobody here ever heard of the 1920s.

In the 1920s there was the social phenominon of "Society Vamps" or women who would bob their hair and wear shorter skirts. In our modern view, the way they dressed would be totally acceptable, and even arguably conservative. This is no different. It's the same phenominon in a different time, so I don't understand why there is a debate about it. All these kinds of phenominons are is a testament to the growing social liberalism in our society that has been growing over the last century. It isn't a bad thing because as these behaviors become more socially acceptable and the whole "taboo" aspect drops, then the number of assaults and rape will decline as people get used to it, such as we've seen over the last century. Just because women are dressed more liberally today than they were in the 1920s has that directly caused a raise in the number of rapes? Of course not. So stop worrying about this.

It doesn't matter if your ends are good, conveying misinformation is NEVER an acceptable means of achieving any kind of end. We saw it in McCarthyism and we see it here. I don't care what the intentions are, the bigger issue here is an intentional strike against the integrity of our educational system. Abstinence should be taught, but with proper context, and with alternative viewpoints offered.

At 4/22/11 02:14 AM, daethdrain wrote: if it's stoner food were talking about hot pockets is where it's at. Maybe some nachos or taqitos and brownies mmmm.

You forgot ice cream. Get the fuck out.

System Restore is the quick and dirty way of doing it

At 4/22/11 02:03 AM, TightRope wrote: I HAVE SEEN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE KILLING FIELDS AND INTPO THE HAERTS NOF MADMEN! I HGAVE SEEN THE DEMON IN THE MOORS! I HAVE EATN ANOTHER MANS LIVER WITH A SIDE OF SCROTE SACK! DON'T FUCK WITH ME OR MY FRIENDS OR I IWLL HAVE YOU FOR BREAKFAST BITCH!

AND I HAVE SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN THE TOP OF THE MOUNTAIN!!!

At 4/22/11 02:10 AM, KillerGoose wrote: I'm gay for Dante

This thread is now complete in accordance with the prophesy

At 4/22/11 02:09 AM, BrazilianNinja wrote: Some things can only be expressed with a jpg.

Feel free to bandwagon, or put this on a T-shirt.

Question my morality, but do not question my intellect good sir. Care to explain this strange twist of events while you're here?

At 4/22/11 02:03 AM, Seatbeltnazi wrote:

Actually it was the lies, I don't think she was ever pregnant lol

And so the plot thickens **eats popcorn**

At 4/22/11 02:00 AM, PuRpLe-KusH wrote: I think ima bout 2 go sip sum Bacardi so i can get on your level. Also, maybe you should just do what your heart tells you because nuthing beats a failure but a try

Oh look, yet another thread I can properly make a Fight Club reference to. In addition to that i think the OP should listen to On my Level by Wiz and enjoy the rest of his night

My general reply to everything in this thread:

It's all about the personal stats ;)

At 4/22/11 01:55 AM, BrazilianNinja wrote: Someone grapple OP by the back of the head and slam him against a sink, please?

Hey, hey, hey, hey.... hey... This isn't nam, there are rules y'know. We're all pacifists, except me. I once dabbled in pacifism, not in nam of course.

At 4/22/11 01:55 AM, Krbyfan1 wrote: The mother had full ability to take the camera from him.

The kid had the ability to at least put pants on.

Everyone had the ability to have some dignity in what I just saw but none was shown.

Shmagreed! Couldn't have said it any better myself

At 4/22/11 01:51 AM, ylerskay wrote: My answer to all the above is, my dicks hard.

I feel ya, My uncle richard can be a hardass too sometimes

Now your next great milestone will be turning 16

bud dum tssssssk

At 4/22/11 01:42 AM, Death wrote: he's not gay though. he's a product of marketing research.

5 points to griffandor.

At 4/22/11 01:45 AM, TightRope wrote: my grammer not always bad also i am drunk andam a really good writer and like to draw and i herar that girls like things like that espeically guiys who are good at it and they will suck your cock and all this stuff yaddda yadda yadda you know the usual ynonsensine lol

I'm going to write a book on why kids shouldn't be drinking and quote you in it

On bahalf of this community, you're thanks is not accepted.

Maybe she'd like you if you had better grammar

At 4/22/11 01:35 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

Delineating on the deconstruction of a deconstruction of a typical stereotypical reply is so cool bro.

Giving a comment of general approval for both your wittiness and you're recognition of what i had to say is equally as cool

What am i referring to? Only one of the greatest musical masterpieces of the 20th century; Thats right ladies and gentlemen: Stairway to Heaven by Led Zepplin.

How the West Was Won Version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3UNW-D6x vc

Studio Version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcL---4xQ YA

YOU DECIDE

aha, its funny because he comes from an obviously broken family structure so i'm going to administer psychological judgements and be condescending about it because i don't share his experience.

I'll have a smoke to that.

At 4/22/11 01:15 AM, letiger wrote:

Or, am I choosing a wrong argument for applying knowledge as a machine. I probably am, though I am bringing up another good point. No, I'm quite certain I used it right. I can't think straight right now.

Lol, "human as an agent" just means "humans just based purely on their actions". It's most prominant in ethical philosophy when one discusses whether or not morality is based on the action of the person or their motives (human as a person), but yea good thoughts though. xDDDD

At 4/22/11 01:06 AM, MiroDK wrote: I'm not thinking straight and I'm not going to type much since I'm just going to bed, but didn't Nietzsche say that philosophies are nothing more than an interpretation of our natural intuitions? I think that was from 'Beyond Good and Evil', but it makes sense.

To that i say:

At 4/21/11 11:41 PM, zero-gravity wrote:

Btw, I've found that Nietzsche's existentialism and falibalism are the greatest trolling tools for philosophical discussions.

Yes, and in a way he is correct. Philosohy's are created out of our interpretations of the universe, but then i would use socrate's definition of objectivism which states that objectivism is only achieved through communication; subjective phenomenon that is reaffirmed by others subjectively experiencing the same thing.

At 4/22/11 12:53 AM, letiger wrote:

big ol' argument #2

Great thoughts, but that doesn't contradict my model at all, and in many ways i agree with you. Human as an agent refers to the idea of looking at an individual simply as a, for lack of better word, "machine" or rather looking at a person purely based on their actions. An "agent" is someone or something that performs an action

Gentlemen, you can look back in American history and point any number of occasions and point out how this government has been a total hypocrite to its founding principles. Many would argue that our "alphabet agency" control of our economy has been the biggest hypocrisy, but an even more apparent hypocrisy to me has been the government's policy on drugs. Why?

It completely violates the idea of personal sovereignty

While many point out various arguments for the criminalization of drugs as "your behavior affects other people" or "you can do violent things on drugs", the underlying argument has always been "we're making a decision for you because we know how to protect your safety and well being better than you." and I just have to point out that is an argument that has been made by every dictatorship and autocracy ever made. Its the argument that the communists, absolutists, fascists, etc all used for their abuse of power.

What if somebody does coke in their basement and doesn't interact with anyone else during the time they're high? Well then its not a problem, except for the individual. Under rights theory, you are endowed any right as long as it does not compromise the rights of others, so considering nobody's rights are bing compromised when you make the personal decision to do drugs, it should be a right.

But why does nobody care? Social stigmas, tyranny of the majority, etc etc

I understand many of you feel that there are more pressing issues at hand like the economy and what not, but to me the government's policy on drugs is a giant black spot on what our founding fathers had in mind. Imagine, what if the government took the same stance on food as they did with drugs? Would there be an uproar then? Of course there would and all of you would be making the same arguments I am right now.

Freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom itself. Legalize

peace

Watch Fight Club

Lets learn math first:

1=/=4

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/forum/4

There ya go

Freedom Haters man

rah rah fight the powa