Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/30/12 03:49 PM, Insanctuary wrote: your spite towards not me, but what you assume of me?

If you feel that you're being misrepresented, then represent yourself better. Given that nearly every single person you've come into contact with on this site feels the exact same "spite" towards the exact same "assumption" of you, it seems rather obvious that the communication error here is on your end, not ours.

Insanctuary, don't try to sound smart. You got your ass beat in my thread, I don't think you can live it down.

At 10/30/12 07:05 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: If you feel that you're being misrepresented, then represent yourself better. Given that nearly every single person you've come into contact with on this site feels the exact same "spite" towards the exact same "assumption" of you, it seems rather obvious that the communication error here is on your end, not ours.

It's not me that is poorly representing itself. The poorly developed society we live in is the culprit behind these misconceptions and needless semantics.

At 10/30/12 07:13 PM, Insanctuary wrote: It's not me that is poorly representing itself. The poorly developed society we live in is the culprit behind these misconceptions and needless semantics.

I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

At 10/30/12 07:14 PM, Entice wrote: I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

I'm being as honest as I can. It is not helping that our society is premature and I have to explain myself by stating that it is in risk of making it sound like I'm perfect compared to it all.

At 10/30/12 06:57 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 06:43 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

At 10/30/12 06:28 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I'm not talking about a comprehensive similarity...

Computers have the same functionality as animals do < who wrote this then?

I did, but you took it out of its original context. After I've stated this, I mentioned the properties and symbolism they both apply themselves to without any state of awareness.

You've misunderstood my expressive concepts. I never said they were entirely identical. This would be preposterous.

See first reply.

They both still react to symbolism and are both unaware of everything else.

Proof or never happens.

Dogs are unaware of danger that is outside of their programmed selves. Chasing after people in cars is the result of their system not keeping up with today's advances. They can't go beyond their programming. They are old computers in a world being developed by new and improved computers that are self-aware.

Busted in 3, 2, 1... So as human, chump. Toddlers do not aware of most danger. Adults aware of it because they has been taught this or that way. Give them total strange task and tell them to solve. Wanna bet, I say 90% will fail to aware. What about 10%? See below.

But that's why we have terms like 'evolution', 'mutation' and especially 'learning' and 'trial and error', right? The first dog will chase after car, if it survives or realize whatsoever of its action did is useless, (before you jump up and say no, dog doesn't aware! Get your ass to Wikipedia, first) the dog will not repeat the first action. The possibility is low, still, it happens.

That's why most animals have the 'teaching each other' system. It exists for a reason. If ones fail something, other simply never repeat it again. Same as living cells, or bacteria, if ones fail to exist, other will mutate. These are what defines learning.

Computer does not, and never! Proof or never happens. Oh ho, someone is arguing how computer functioning with a computer hacker. Great!

At 10/30/12 07:34 PM, dem0lecule wrote: Computer does not, and never! Proof or never happens. Oh ho, someone is arguing how computer functioning with a computer hacker. Great!

Well you can simulate learning within a program (between animals in a game, for example).

At 10/30/12 07:36 PM, Entice wrote:

At 10/30/12 07:34 PM, dem0lecule wrote: Computer does not, and never! Proof or never happens. Oh ho, someone is arguing how computer functioning with a computer hacker. Great!

Well you can simulate learning within a program (between animals in a game, for example).

We are arguing on the ability of learning 'outside' of the given functions. That, is absolute a failure.

At 10/30/12 07:34 PM, dem0lecule wrote: Busted in 3, 2, 1... So as human, chump. Toddlers do not aware of most danger. Adults aware of it because they has been taught this or that way. Give them total strange task and tell them to solve. Wanna bet, I say 90% will fail to aware. What about 10%? See below.

You're missing the point that we are self-aware, regardless if we have to sustain a ground for morals, critical thought and acting on the many aspects of life.

But that's why we have terms like 'evolution', 'mutation' and especially 'learning' and 'trial and error', right? The first dog will chase after car, if it survives or realize whatsoever of its action did is useless, (before you jump up and say no, dog doesn't aware! Get your ass to Wikipedia, first) the dog will not repeat the first action. The possibility is low, still, it happens.

So you are telling me that dogs can't learn to do anything except tricks and dodging cars if they survive the first one?

That's why most animals have the 'teaching each other' system. It exists for a reason. If ones fail something, other simply never repeat it again. Same as living cells, or bacteria, if ones fail to exist, other will mutate. These are what defines learning.

You are taking out the fact we are self-aware from this very important discussive formula.

Computer does not, and never! Proof or never happens. Oh ho, someone is arguing how computer functioning with a computer hacker. Great!

You are still under the impression that this determines animals are closer to humans and not computers. Computers do trial and error to. Computers react to languages and symbols. Computers have a short life span...

At 10/30/12 07:51 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
You're missing the point that we are self-aware, regardless if we have to sustain a ground for morals, critical thought and acting on the many aspects of life.

I wish we have a triple face palm icon on here.

What the fuck did you just say? You were talking on learning outside the box, and suddenly you derail it to self-awareness? Self-awareness has absolutely nothing to do with doing shit outside of the box. In fact

So you are telling me that dogs can't learn to do anything except tricks and dodging cars if they survive the first one?

You are the asshole who said dog can't learn, wanna quote?

They can't go beyond their programming. They are old computers in a world being developed by new and improved computers that are self-aware.

You are taking out the fact we are self-aware from this very important discussive formula.

Cough & cough. Are you having Alzheimer? One moment you talking about learning the next thing you jump to self-awareness. Also, 'discussive' ain't a word. Nice to sum up your making up shits.

You are still under the impression that this determines animals are closer to humans and not computers. Computers do trial and error to. Computers react to languages and symbols.

For the last time, human belongs to animal, for fuck sake. Computer do trial and error because it has been given so to do. Says you tell a program to scanf("%c"); and you asshole inputs an integer, the program fails to function. Learn some logic and at least research before you argue on, professor.

Computers have a short life span...

What does it even have anything to do with learning outside the box ability, and your shitty derailed self-awareness?

At 10/30/12 08:03 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

At 10/30/12 07:51 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
You're missing the point that we are self-aware, regardless if we have to sustain a ground for morals, critical thought and acting on the many aspects of life.

I wish we have a triple face palm icon on here.

Is it because you can't do it yourself with that dick in your mouth?

What the fuck did you just say? You were talking on learning outside the box, and suddenly you derail it to self-awareness? Self-awareness has absolutely nothing to do with doing shit outside of the box. In fact

This entire time I was debating the concept behind animals not having a sense of awareness. Where were you?

So you are telling me that dogs can't learn to do anything except tricks and dodging cars if they survive the first one?

You are the asshole who said dog can't learn, wanna quote?

No, I'm making the point that your interpretation for animals being able to learn from their lessons is fasifiable. It is like saying a kid can run from the police because they are a fast runner. This doesn't mean they aren't good at reacting to obstacles.

They can't go beyond their programming. They are old computers in a world being developed by new and improved computers that are self-aware.

You are taking out the fact we are self-aware from this very important discussive formula.

Cough & cough. Are you having Alzheimer? One moment you talking about learning the next thing you jump to self-awareness. Also, 'discussive' ain't a word. Nice to sum up your making up shits.

I know it wasn't a word, but it felt so good typing it up. Same goes for the word ''pawnlyness''. I didn't jump to self-awareness, you've just caught up with the 5 1 0.

You are still under the impression that this determines animals are closer to humans and not computers. Computers do trial and error to. Computers react to languages and symbols.

For the last time, human belongs to animal, for fuck sake. Computer do trial and error because it has been given so to do. Says you tell a program to scanf("%c"); and you asshole inputs an integer, the program fails to function. Learn some logic and at least research before you argue on, professor.

No, we are not. We are human beings with an advanced cognition. Animals don't have what we do. We are not animals because we do not respond to our instinctive orders unless we give into them.

Computers have a short life span...

What does it even have anything to do with learning outside the box ability, and your shitty derailed self-awareness?

Animals and computers don't learn outside of the box. Humans facilitate the intelligence of animals and build artificial intelligence. We are the fathers of intelligence, but too busy being babies right now.

At 10/30/12 08:12 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Is it because you can't do it yourself with that dick in your mouth?

Sucking dicks is the best thing since sliced bread you insufferable moron. Also your daddy issues are showing, again.

At 10/30/12 08:12 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Is it because you can't do it yourself with that dick in your mouth?

Start to piss? Good.

Beside, one can't put his own dick into his own mouth. Pic yourself or never happens. Derp!

This entire time I was debating the concept behind animals not having a sense of awareness. Where were you?

And why did you even bring up the learning outside of the box? Hmm? Again, wanna quote, my Greasemoney scripts saved all your arguments.

It is like saying a kid can run from the police because they are a fast runner.

What about there are kids can outrun cops, because the are actually fast runners. Pseudo logic has just failed in many ways.

Falsifiable? Ha!

I know it wasn't a word, but it felt so good typing it up. Same goes for the word ''pawnlyness''. I didn't jump to self-awareness, you've just caught up with the 5 1 0.

Alzheimer is the hell of a disease.

No, we are not. We are human beings with an advanced cognition. Animals don't have what we do. We are not animals because we do not respond to our instinctive orders unless we give into them.
Animals and computers don't learn outside of the box. Humans facilitate the intelligence of animals and build artificial intelligence. We are the fathers of intelligence, but too busy being babies right now.

Someone never takes biology. Oops. Like I said, read before shit.

At 10/30/12 08:14 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: Sucking dicks is the best thing since sliced bread you insufferable moron. Also your daddy issues are showing, again.

For someone who is hell-bent over the accusatory, pseudo-philosophical basis that I have daddy issues and resort to pseudo-philosophy, you sure are one to resort to pseudo-philosophy, yourself.

At 10/30/12 08:24 PM, Insanctuary wrote: For someone who is hell-bent over the accusatory, pseudo-philosophical basis that I have daddy issues

Your daddy issues are purely psychological, not philosophical.

and resort to pseudo-philosophy, you sure are one to resort to pseudo-philosophy, yourself.

When I say "I like sucking dicks" there is nothing remotely philosophical, analogical or metaphorical about it. I just like dicks.

At 10/30/12 08:22 PM, dem0lecule wrote:

At 10/30/12 08:12 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Is it because you can't do it yourself with that dick in your mouth?

Start to piss? Good.
No.
Beside, one can't put his own dick into his own mouth. Pic yourself or never happens. Derp!
Too bad you can't put your dick in your own hands, because...

This entire time I was debating the concept behind animals not having a sense of awareness. Where were you?

And why did you even bring up the learning outside of the box? Hmm? Again, wanna quote, my Greasemoney scripts saved all your arguments.

Because humans can advance and leave every other life form to rust over in limited capabilities?

It is like saying a kid can run from the police because they are a fast runner.

What about there are kids can outrun cops, because the are actually fast runners. Pseudo logic has just failed in many ways.

You must be very obese, then.

Falsifiable? Ha!

Reminds me of when the antagonist says ''Beat me?! Ha!'', then 2 minutes later they lose and the protagonist wins. If anything, you're not a protagonist nor a antagonist, you're a fagtagonist.

I know it wasn't a word, but it felt so good typing it up. Same goes for the word ''pawnlyness''. I didn't jump to self-awareness, you've just caught up with the 5 1 0.

Alzheimer is the hell of a disease.

You would know -- wouldn't you?

No, we are not. We are human beings with an advanced cognition. Animals don't have what we do. We are not animals because we do not respond to our instinctive orders unless we give into them.
Animals and computers don't learn outside of the box. Humans facilitate the intelligence of animals and build artificial intelligence. We are the fathers of intelligence, but too busy being babies right now.

Someone never takes biology. Oops. Like I said, read before shit.

I know biology, and I contest that it fully influences our behaviour patterns. There is a mix of physiological means and psychological means that are enhanced by our self-awareness to create an even more complicated level of interaction.

At 10/30/12 08:29 PM, Insanctuary wrote: If anything, you're not a protagonist nor a antagonist, you're a fagtagonist.

That is without a doubt the best thing you've said since that shit about the L symbol my fucking god can't stop laughing

At 10/30/12 08:28 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/30/12 08:24 PM, Insanctuary wrote: For someone who is hell-bent over the accusatory, pseudo-philosophical basis that I have daddy issues

Your daddy issues are purely psychological, not philosophical.

It's both.

and resort to pseudo-philosophy, you sure are one to resort to pseudo-philosophy, yourself.

When I say "I like sucking dicks" there is nothing remotely philosophical, analogical or metaphorical about it. I just like dicks.

This would be a psychological and philosophical problem. You should look into it, and by this, I do not mean your boyfriend's asshole as you give him a rimjob.

At 10/30/12 08:39 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

When I say "I like sucking dicks" there is nothing remotely philosophical, analogical or metaphorical about it. I just like dicks.

This would be a psychological and philosophical problem.

What problem?

pseudo pseudo pseudo pseudo pseudo pseudo pseudo pseudo pseudo pseudo pseudo pseudo pseudo pseudo

At 10/30/12 08:41 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/30/12 08:39 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

When I say "I like sucking dicks" there is nothing remotely philosophical, analogical or metaphorical about it. I just like dicks.

This would be a psychological and philosophical problem.

What problem?

The problem that only he can see through his superior intuition. This was like, the first argument he made on Newgrounds.

At 10/30/12 08:41 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: What problem?

You like dicks like pedophiles like children.

At 10/30/12 08:49 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 08:41 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: What problem?

You like dicks like pedophiles like children.

Most original anti-gay argument ever 10/10

At 10/30/12 08:50 PM, Entice wrote: Most original anti-gay argument ever 10/10

That would be ''faggot''.

At 10/30/12 08:57 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 10/30/12 08:50 PM, Entice wrote: Most original anti-gay argument ever 10/10

That would be ''faggot''.

The fuck did you call me?

That's a hate crime.

At 10/30/12 08:58 PM, Entice wrote: That's a hate crime.

No, I'm saying that ''faggot'' would be the most ''original'' anti-gay comment. I may be 100% against you, seeking to break down homosexuality for the psychological impairment that it is and always make this clear in every post regarding the subject, I don't resort to calling you a faggot; that is outrageously counter-intuitive.

At 10/30/12 09:07 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote: It would remind me that you are alive and make me depressed

Yes, because I'm everything you wanted to be. Compassionate, intelligent, awesome, a babe magnet, I have a big dick, I have control over my negative problems, I have meat on my bones, I don't look like I just climbed my way out of a random graveyard aftering dying from a heart attack for being such a sap in life, I have a wonderful girlfriend who would do anything and let me do anything, I understand life, while your life drains away, I have no disorders and... I don't live in one of the shittiest states in history.

At 10/30/12 09:16 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote: also you are a neckbeard who sits in his dark room all day getting horny about what shitty thread hes going to share with his only friends at newgrounds next

Are you implying that you were on the verge of spying on me? But instead looked into the wrong house? Besides, my threads only get shitty when you're in them.

At 10/30/12 09:12 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I have a wonderful girlfriend who would do anything and let me do anything

Does she know about the dog thing?

At 10/30/12 09:04 PM, Insanctuary wrote: No, I'm saying that ''faggot'' would be the most ''original'' anti-gay comment. I may be 100% against you, seeking to break down homosexuality for the psychological impairment that it is and always make this clear in every post regarding the subject, I don't resort to calling you a faggot; that is outrageously counter-intuitive.

Right on man there's much more intelligent ways to be a driveling, arrogant bigot.
I have no idea how you can frown on Christianity when your beliefs make about as much fucking sense as worshiping an anthropomorphic dog anus