Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/5/08 11:37 AM, poxpower wrote: There is unbiased research, it just doesn't support the claim that porn is really bad for kids.

Go away

I've yet to see you post a scrap of it, so no, I won't. Give me links, feel free to embed them and hide them with in tricksy words if you choose to or to post them in that ugly version of garbled URL-ness.

At 11/4/08 04:44 PM, poxpower wrote: Questions for Proteas and anyone else:

Is it wrong to:

- Slap a girl if she asks for it during sex?

She has to ask? :O
It's ok.

- Have sex with many women at once?

I see nothing wrong.

- Have sex with a midget? The midget is also gay. He has a mustache, but it has no soup stains.

While the gayness is tempting, the mustache isn't for me. He's all your pox

- Put peanut butter on your crotch so you dog licks it off

Yeah, it's a little weird and bordering on bestiality.

- Mistake your ass for a crisper and lose a cucumber or two in it

Vegetables are bad for you, but if you're into it, go ahead.

- Give a blowjob to a guy in a locker room. He's clean.

As long as I'm not in the locker room, have fun.

- For a girl to hit a guy during sex? He's got bruises after but she totally thinks it's cute

Only if he was asking for it. But if he's not man enough to stop it, he deserves it. But it's a crime anyways, so it's wrong.

- Two girls to finger each other while saying dirty things like "Jesus was a dark skinned man"

We all know Jesus wasn't a man silly. They can say whatever they want.

- A guy to make a robot goat for the express purpose of fucking the shit out of it

No worse than a fleshlight, but it's a little weird.

- Own more than 20 didos and/or 10 different penis pumps

I see no reason to have twenty statues of Dido, but I'm sure it's ok.

- Buy a real doll

Weird, but ok.

So yeah, didn't see anyone debate with my previous post, I'm assuming that it's either solid or been said before.

Here's my two cents:

1. When/how to allow children to view "objectionable" material is something that should be left up to individual parents and no one else. Everyone's going to have a different parenting style, and even two completely contradictory ones can both be somewhat right.

2. While I have to disagree with your view that viewing porn or extreme violence at a very young age isn't going to be damaging (just ask any of the billions of people with traumatic childhood experiences related to such things), I do think that the social stigma of sex is blown ridiculously out of proportion.

The FCC sparks a media frenzy and charges multiple six-figure fines because Janet Jackson's boob appears on national television for three seconds, yet they have no problem with the nigh-constant grisly corpses on "C.S.I." or the routine lobotomies on "Heroes." Extremely, recklessly violent video games are casually slapped with an "M" rating and are consistently bought for 10-year-olds while a secret sex minigame in GTA: San Andreas results in retailer bans, an automatic "AO" rating, and, you guessed it, fines and a media frenzy. Flash a tit on the silver screen and you're looking at a hard "R," but the Joker's neat little magic pencil trick can be easily viewed by a child of any age without parental accompaniment.

My point is this: for some reason, in this country, we treat fictionalized acts of destroying life with casual nonchalance, but we treat fictionalized acts of creating it (not to mention something so innocuous as a bare breast or saying the word "fuck" more than once) with abhorrence and moral outrage, and it's more than a little ridiculous. I'm not suggesting that anything be banned or censored to any more of a degree than it already is. In fact, less all-inclusive censorship (but more private censorship options for parents) would be a much better system. What I'm saying is that perhaps our perception of what is and is not "acceptable" needs serious re-evaluation.

Clearly Pox is looking for something that is entirely objectivist in nature. The problem about such a thing is that objectivism requires a medium of measurement in order to judge if something is ultimately good or bad.

If the APA is assumed to be trustworthy in it's analysis, which i DO consider it to be, then we can assume that the following statement is assumed to be factually correct:

Subjectivity, particularly child subjectivity to pornography and sexual images creates a distorted view of sexual relations between men and women where the male physically and emotionally dominates the female.

Think about it this way, why is it of more value that childeren get to experience sexual activities a few years younger than they're biologically or mentally designed to, than it is for these individuals to grow up with more respect and understanding of females and sexual relationship. Which one is more important for the developement of a functional family? which one is going to be of more value when individuals of that era are raising childeren of their own? If nothing else, i can imagine that this new wave of aggressive masculinity does little for the man but ruin his family and most importantly, ruin his most valuable fiscal investment for the future and for society; HIS childeren. After all, there have been no medical or psychological journals, widely acknowledged or respected atleast, that state that a dysfunctional family is beneficial for childeren.

In the court case Ginsberg vs. New York, the court ruled that there was sufficient evidence that porn harmed children to allow states to ban porn from children.

I haven't seen the evidence though.

But yeah that's why places get to ban porn.

At 11/3/08 01:45 AM, BetaOrionis wrote:

If you grow up with porn, it'll lose it's luster. Seriously, how much porn can you watch before it gets dull. I think I may have watched 5 total hours of porn in my life and I'm already sick of it. It was only cool when I wasn't allowed. Let the kids have a good time, being good little rebels.

This man speaks truth. I'm already really bored of porn and I'm not worried about kids seeing a pair of naked breasts (of the female variety) or anything. But some of the hardcore porn that's on the internet concerns me. I'm only 19 and yeah, I am actually pretty concerned about what type of generation we're breeding if we allow all this unabashed access to hardcore porn wherein they degrade women and act out seriously sadistic fetishes.

People who argue about violent cartoons or videogames being dangerous are wrong, there's a disconnect because they're very artficial and unrealistic. But porn and by porn I don't mean the old school flicks with plots I mean fucking chicks throats and slapping them around calling them little whorebags and shit, that is very graphic and real and I'll be damned if watching hours of that doesn't damage a kid's psychology because it certainly has messed with mine.

At 11/3/08 05:23 PM, Bramly-apple wrote:

And how many kids watch Naruto and didn't manage to kill their friends?

Irrelevant, they still imitate it.

I agree with you about kids needing to be bought up more mature, and the best to make develope maturity is to give kids the responsibility to fend for themselves sometimes.

Parents need to teach their children better than they do. just putting your kid in front of a tv to let em watch imported cartoons of superhuman fighters beating each other to death and slinging energy balls around and not teaching them anything is begging for trouble. Maturity needs to be taught, its not something that develops naturally.

well.... it CAN, under the right conditions, but kids today are not in that kind of environment. Today's environment teaches children to be irresponsible and outright stupid. Kids today can gorge themselves on food and not have to hunt it down or grow it. and many parents don't lift a finger to control their kid. (hence, why they are fat bastards) They have little control over their children, even in a public place. Either that or they simply try to keep their kid in line by yelling and threatening them with a beating every time they step out of line and the kid doesn't learn any respect for the parents. In time the kid is too old to beat, the kid knows it, and knows the parents can no longer effectively do anything to them.

Which brings me to my next point. Kids today are not taught respect. They neither give it nor do they receive it. When a parent calls on their kid, you usually hear "What?" often in an annoyed tone. Parents should never tolerate such behavior. they need to teach their children to respect them, and in turn they should respect their children. On the flip side, Parents need to stop spoiling their children by giving them what they want when they want it. Make them EARN their keep, even if its by doing menial chores around the house. Also too many parents are too willing to bend to their child's will just to make them stop whatever they are doing. If the child says "I want" and you say "no" and the child makes a scene, punish the child, don't reward such behavior by saying "ok fine, just shut up." Remind the child that they are only embarrassing themselves by making a scene and go about your day as usual. show the little punk brat that you are not phased by his behavior. When you get home, punish the child in a way that will torment em. For instance, taking away something they like, perhaps their video game or radio, computer, or phone privileges.

Remind your children who is in control and who will remain in control. YOU. If your child decides to try turning rebel, handle the situation accordingly. as he tries to overpower you by acting worse and worse, keep piling on the punishment, all the while, letting the kid know he can end his suffering at any time by apologizing and acting right.

If your kid breaks the law, let em go to prison. Don't bail the little bastard out. Let em have a taste of real life. Too many parents try to shield their children from the "real world" then later the child becomes an adult, enters the real world and gets swept away by bad influences.

Basically what I'm trying to say is this: Keep your child's life in perspective. Don't allow them to believe that they are in control of anything that they are not indeed in control of. Make them personally responsible for their own actions, but still push them in the right direction. make them do their homework before they do anything fun. assert the necessity of a good education. If the child falters, put em back in the right path. if they insist on going down the wrong road, get tough with them. you are the parent, you are in control.

Don't allow your child[ren] to become another statistic.

At 11/5/08 08:50 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

2. (just ask any of the billions of people with traumatic childhood experiences related to such things)

Getting beaten by your drunk dad or sent to war against other children isn't the same as watching a movie.

And dude, there's so many crazy things that can traumatize kids. For instance, the biggest scare I ever had as a kid was seeing the dudes get all turned into cyborgs in Superman 3. All instances of me seeing tits and extreme violence are great moments.

At 11/5/08 09:25 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Subjectivity, particularly child subjectivity to pornography and sexual images creates a distorted view of sexual relations between men and women where the male physically and emotionally dominates the female.

The word "distorted" is based on the false assumption that we have the correct relation to sex in our current society.
Which also is based on the false assumption that there is somehow a correct view on sex.

So you're still left with purely moral judgments.

As for the shit about "male dominating" etc., I don't see that this had anything to do with porn since porn has increased steadily with women getting more rights and equality, as well as all the smart wife roles in Sitcoms.

Think about it this way, why is it of more value that childeren get to experience sexual activities a few years younger than they're biologically or mentally designed to

First off, you can't decide the "mentally" part. And physically, all you need is a boner and that comes about really really young. Probably 8-9. Girls don't need anything special.

So yeah.

Which one is more important for the developement of a functional family?

Careful there, this argument leads down a dark path.

At 11/5/08 10:46 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

I'll be damned if watching hours of that doesn't damage a kid's psychology because it certainly has messed with mine.

Well seeing as you have a messed up mind, maybe we shouldn't rely on your testimonies?
Haha.
But seriously, are you admitting that you treat women violently or something? What are you admitting to here? That you think women are real dolls with periods?

Or that you just feel guilty for watching so much porn?

At 11/5/08 11:16 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/5/08 10:46 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

I'll be damned if watching hours of that doesn't damage a kid's psychology because it certainly has messed with mine.

Well seeing as you have a messed up mind, maybe we shouldn't rely on your testimonies?
Haha.
But seriously, are you admitting that you treat women violently or something? What are you admitting to here? That you think women are real dolls with periods?

Or that you just feel guilty for watching so much porn?

LOL I knew you were going to say that once I read what you quoted.

Kind of. I'm saying that the way I view women and my sexual desires have become much more sadistic and I believe (with a great deal of confidence) that the primary and possibly only responsible cause for this is exposure to hardcore porn. In a way yes, I do view women a little more objectively and I view them similarly to how the stereotypical blue collar worker sees them. You know, a sexual object, and your only concern is using them for sexual gratification. This is a patently wrong worldview to have, or at least in my opinion and how our current society sees it and I wouldn't want my children to grow up with those images engraved into their minds.

At 11/5/08 05:56 AM, poxpower wrote: Maybe you have biased opinions?

I'm a human being, of course my opinions are biased. Are you telling me that you aren't human and are completely unbiased?

Huh welcome to the real world, where you need actual proof when you make claims.

This isn't the real world, this is an internet message board, and I'm not signing up for LexisNexis in a vain attempt to prove you wrong and just have you deny credibility of the author AGAIN because it still doesn't meet you're standards for objectivity.

I can push it as far as I want if I'm just speculating, like you.

Then you can't make the claim that kids are capable of coming to their own decisions sans outside influence, as it's virtually impossible to form any kind of opinion in a vacuum.

it's quite unclear to which degree and how permanent the effects are going to be for seeing, say, a couple porno movies.

Then why don't you conduct your own study, that way you can come back and provide supporting materials for your own argument, namely; exposing minors to porno has no long term psychological effects. Otherwise, your argument is moot.

How is that "abuse"? That's not even clear at all. That's just you making wild guesses once again.

.... I just explained, in the plainest terms, what a change of attitude could lead to, and you blew me off to ask me why those results could POSSIBLY be bad.

I call bullshit. You really can't be this insane.

Maybe I will.
Though that was 30 years ago, he's probably dead by now.

You won't know until you try, now will you?

Sorry, but there's a plethora of red flags there. If this was an addiction, there would be thousands of people currently addicted to porn, it would wreak many lives and you'd hear about it OUTSIDE THE BIBLE BELT and Feminist rallies.

How's this for outside the Bible Belt? A study done by Stanford University in California and Duquesne University in Pennsylvania (which means they would have had local participants),

At 11/5/08 05:56 AM, poxpower wrote:
I guess you assumed I didn't check anywhere else first.

O of course, you just gave me the completely unsourced, unsubstantiated site first as part of some masterful ruse.

http://www.canada.com/topics/lifestyle/r elationships/story.html?id=3c0f656f-4d3e -411a-97e2-c63aede3a4b4

Why do I know you looked this up 3 seconds before you posted it?
Why didn't you post this first, instead of the wiki article which itself states "This paragraph is completely bonkers"?

Why would you even give me a wiki article when you have something more credible?
Stop lying, you didn't have a fucking clue about this article until you got called out for posting complete gibberish as "proof". No SANE person would hide good evidence and submit grade A dog shit in it's place.

But here, lemme counter your evidence with the same response you gave mine:

It's bullshit, unsubstantiated bullshit. Complete hippy propaganda, not based in fact, written by someone with a clear biased, bullshit agenda.

It's worthless. Try again.

in fact, maybe a diagnosable case right here?: http://gizmodo.com/357908/the-biggest-st ar-wars-collection-in-the-galaxy

Worthless.

I know how this game works.

Indeed.
Post unsubstantiated wiki article.
Get called out.
Post real article, pretending like you didn't look it up 5 seconds ago.

Your move Shirly.

You know, way back when I was a wee little n00b, it was amusing to have pox come over here from general and put on the whole "political snob" act to mess with people.

Now it's just sad.

At 11/5/08 11:51 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

This is a patently wrong worldview to have, or at least in my opinion and how our current society sees it and I wouldn't want my children to grow up with those images engraved into their minds.

Current society elected Bush twice.
As long as you don't cause harm, you can think WHATEVER YOU WANT about women. You can even hate them. You can fuck guys OUT OF SPITE and don't let any bible-thumping, bra-burning douchebags tell you that what turns you on is right or wrong.

And here's more food for thought: I claim that women think men are only good for money and that it's wrong to show rich men in movies because it gives women the impression that men will always buy them everything.

How that's not even WORSE? They don't even like ME they like my money! At least if you objectify a woman, you'd like HER anyway.

FUN, FUN TIME.

At 11/6/08 12:37 AM, Proteas wrote:

I'm a human being, of course my opinions are biased. Are you telling me that you aren't human and are completely unbiased?

In the case they we'd both be biased, I think it's safer to not pass any laws or advocate restrictions. You always need a damn good reason to take away people's rights, no matter their age.

So on that front alone, even if we're BOTH super-biased, I think I'd still win.

of the author AGAIN because it still doesn't meet you're standards for objectivity.

Haha MY standard? I doubt you could convince anyone with a reference to a study without having the study in hand yourself.
I'd believe you if there was some sort of evidence landslide but it seems pretty divided and subjective.

Then you can't make the claim that kids are capable of coming to their own decisions sans outside influence

That's why we live in a society. They'd get porn, but they'll get everyone's values too. I don't see how watching porn will undo all the parenting work or the laws. Porn's influence would only be bad IN a vacuum where that's all they ever see of sex.

Then why don't you conduct your own study

I don't think they'd let me : (

.... I just explained, in the plainest terms, what a change of attitude could lead to

Haha no you didn't. You said "abuse" when it wasn't brought up. Then I guess you forgot what you were talking about.

Unless you mean the "objectification of women" which you failed to explain.

So again, what are the concrete "abusive" actions? Cause "objectification of women" is a VIEWPOINT and a THOUGHT and you know what we call people who police people's thoughts?

Fascists.

How's this for outside the Bible Belt?

What the fuck? That shit is retarded. Am I a television addict if I watch tv 11 hours a week? Again this seems like a shitty article written by some idiot who think porn will destroy the world.

Oh shit I'm an internet addict, I'm on the internet every day! If you asked me 10 questions about the internet, you'd find that I AM BIASED IN FAVOR OF THE INTERNET! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

At 11/3/08 01:42 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I'd say the "R" word, but that of course would make an an arrogant, elitist, bigoted asshole.

I'm drank, so forgive.. "Republican">??

At 11/6/08 01:06 AM, Proteas wrote: You know, way back when I was a wee little n00b, it was amusing to have pox come over here from general and put on the whole "political snob" act to mess with people.

Now it's just sad.

25k posts and a modship can't be wong. or so i'm told.

my profile sez otherwize.

At 11/6/08 07:54 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:
25k posts and a modship can't be wong. or so i'm told.

I personally base all my arguments on things about the user's account.

How many PMs do I think they get?
When did they sign up?
How cool is their level icon?
Did they pick the right color of aura?

I call this science 'accountology".

At 11/6/08 07:58 AM, poxpower wrote: I personally base all my arguments on things about the user's account.

How many PMs do I think they get?
When did they sign up?
How cool is their level icon?
Did they pick the right color of aura?

I call this science 'accountology".

I call this science 'accountology".

Ya no, i still think if Shrike turned up and said i'm an a-hole you'd believe him first kuz he's from the USA. But i'm bias kuz i aint.

Hey, it's good to have online friends. I value them.

At 11/3/08 01:39 AM, poxpower wrote: EXPLAIN THIS UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN TO ME

For people with kids, porn helps with natural family planning. (at least for males)

I don't get any of the arguments for keeping kids away from porn.

This is more tricky. We have a teen who spend long hours on the net, but we live on an island so there's safety margin. I think one can grow up a bit fast surfing the net.

Why?

You hear all the time how kids shouldn't see tits on tv or how it would destroy them to stumble on a porn site. But seriously, why? What the fuck are they gonna do?

It's a loss of innocence. It's about children growing up too quick. But when i was young i couldn't wait. My partner is more protective. Mothers are like that.

What's the argument for pushing sex ed to as late as possible? As far as I remember, as a kid, me and my friends were pretty keen on seeing a nude pair of tits. It was in fact AWESOME.

EXPLAIN THIS UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN TO ME

At 11/6/08 09:21 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: I think one can grow up a bit fast surfing the net.

I have no idea why that is bad.
Isn't that awesome?

It's a loss of innocence.

What part of the body is that again? Where can I get a refund if I was issued a faulty innocence?

It's about children growing up too quick. But when i was young i couldn't wait.

I don't care about growing up, I care that I'm going to die.

Being a kid sucks. You don't grow up from porn, you grow up from having responsibilities.

At 11/6/08 07:14 AM, poxpower wrote: So on that front alone, even if we're BOTH super-biased, I think I'd still win.

Based on what?

I'd believe you if there was some sort of evidence landslide but it seems pretty divided and subjective.

I doubt that. At this point, it's pretty clear to me this is an act on your part and your being stubborn for teh lulz.

What the fuck? That shit is retarded.

CASE IN POINT.

At 11/6/08 11:31 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/6/08 09:21 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: It's about children growing up too quick. But when i was young i couldn't wait.

I don't care about growing up, I care that I'm going to die.

The "theory" is that loss of innocence leads to teen pregnancy. Teens meeting "all manner of people" online and possibly getting into adult activities to sustain adult relationships..

Being a kid sucks. You don't grow up from porn, you grow up from having responsibilities.

..yes, and having responsibilities of your own kids to worry over ranks as number 1 on that list.

But you're right, navigating the net with skill far outweighs the need for concern, say compared to having a child roam the city streets at night.

At 11/6/08 11:50 AM, Proteas wrote:

I doubt that. At this point, it's pretty clear to me this is an act on your part and your being stubborn for teh lulz.

Doesn't it strike you as extremely arrogant to think that someone disagreeing with you must just be joking?

At 11/6/08 12:28 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

The "theory" is that loss of innocence leads to teen pregnancy.

Well then it has nothing to do with the abstract and subjective concept of innocence, now does it? Be careful with this issue unless you fall with Proteas and his moral patrol. Don't use moral judgments to make your decision.

The correct line of argument is:

- does porn increase the rate of teen pregnancies?
- does porn increase women abuse?
- does porn make people break laws or cause harm to others in any significant way?

As far as I can tell: no. Not at all. There's no study to back that up. It's always shit like "well this twisted fucker had a ton of porn!". And you're like "hey porn! My mom told me that was bad, I guess she was right!".
So, what then? If he had a huge DVD collection of Star Trek remastered episodes, we'd blame that shit?

And why do we never blame porn for someone's awesome sexual fortitude? Like, wow look at that George Cloney, boning those women, he must watch a lot of porn to get those great ideas!

It's ridiculous the second you turn the argument around, but somehow it explains deviancy perfectly?

But you're right, navigating the net with skill far outweighs the need for concern, say compared to having a child roam the city streets at night.

I don't know that your kid is that unsafe at night anyway. Probably more kids die at the pool than by the hand of some twisted pedophile. But holy shit those stories are horrible.

People really don't give any credit to kids. They're impressionable, but that's a GOOD thing. That's your chance to give them good values. This whole argument that porn will warp them somehow assumes that even if the kid's minds are totally pliable, they're somehow resilient enough to ignore everything the parent says is good/bad and just go and beat women and stab kids for pokemon cards. Way easier to blame porn and Mortal Kombat than just outright bad luck or shitty parenting.

Next thing you know, pox will be talking about how rape should be legalized...

At 11/6/08 03:25 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Next thing you know, pox will be talking about how rape should be legalized...

Yes, just as gay marriage leads to people wanting to marry their pets.

And handguns leads to people wanting portal able nukes.

At 11/4/08 03:51 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/4/08 03:28 PM, Cornbucket wrote:

Are you this dumb on purpose or by accident?

Don't underestimate poxxypoo, lol

I mean, he's no Christopher Hitchens, but ya know, he's not dumb

At 11/6/08 03:30 PM, Drakim wrote:

And handguns leads to people wanting portal able nukes.

I want a protable nuke, it would rule.

So since I'm bored, here's a list of possible future techs. Tell me if civilians should be able to own them:

- Personal force field that prevents people from shooting at you
- Invisibility cloak
- Mind control gun
- A gun that turns other people into homosexuals ( rad )
- Catapults ( but smaller, cause it's the future )
- A shoulder lazer ( like the predator )
- An exosuit that makes you super-strong and super-fast
- A mech ( for grocery shopping. Why not? )

cool

At 11/6/08 03:01 PM, poxpower wrote: People really don't give any credit to kids. They're impressionable, but that's a GOOD thing. That's your chance to give them good values.

To take a page from your book -- there's no such thing as "good values" so your argument is worthless. It's purely subjective, opinion-based morality and status-quo ethical bullshit based on popular social trends instead of science. It's pure fascism to tell kids what's "good" and what's "bad" so you should just let them figure it out for themselves. In some places, the objectification and rape of women is even considered virtuous... so what, are you trying to be the thought police or something, telling kids what counts as "good behavior" and what doesn't? How unscientifical.

At 11/6/08 05:49 PM, poxpower wrote: cool

I also dreamed of having psychic powers. Not like, that Jamaican lady who tells your fortune. I mean like, DBZ-level psycho-kinetic powers. Wouldn't that be so AWESOME?

Just forming energy balls and matter with your MIND. Holy fuck

At 11/6/08 05:49 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/6/08 03:30 PM, Drakim wrote:

And handguns leads to people wanting portal able nukes.

I want a protable nuke, it would rule.

So since I'm bored, here's a list of possible future techs. Tell me if civilians should be able to own them:

- Personal force field that prevents people from shooting at you

if everyone owns one, why not?

- Invisibility cloak

, easily combated with thermal googles

- Mind control gun

no,

- A gun that turns other people into homosexuals ( rad )

you can own one, but cant use it without consent of the person.

- Catapults ( but smaller, cause it's the future )

yes

- A shoulder lazer ( like the predator )

if theres force felids then why not

- An exosuit that makes you super-strong and super-fast

most definitly, although everyone else would have one too.

- A mech ( for grocery shopping. Why not? )

how could you not live with this.

cool

only thing im against is the mind control device,

but I could change my mind depeding on how fast/ ovious it is.

like dose it take over minds instantly? can you fight it back(like inside your mind)? dose it charge up, is there a loud high pitch noise when its chargeing?ecT:

At 11/6/08 06:25 PM, thedo12 wrote:

- An exosuit that makes you super-strong and super-fast

most definitly, although everyone else would have one too.

Not poor people.
I long to live in the day where rich people can buy more intelligence, longevity and strength than everyone else!
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee we'll have a jolly good time.