Total posts: 2,193
Posted in:
“The gods envy us. They envy us because we’re mortal, because any moment may be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we’re doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again.”
Achilles - Troy
Created:
Posted in:
"And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon, and the Dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not. Neither was their place found anymore in Heaven. And the Great Dragon was cast out, that old serpent called the devil and Satan which deceiveth the whole world, he was cast out into the Earth and his angels were cast out with him."
[Revelations 12:7-9] by Cradle of Filth
Created:
Posted in:
“For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity.”
Jean Dubuffet
Created:
Posted in:
“Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods.”
Christopher Hitchens
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
From the many atheists i've talked to, even some on these sites but not many here more in real life, i've been able to get them to a point of "maybe" or "that's a lot more logical" than one god in regards to multiple gods. Of course, i advocated for my belief which isn't really "gods" per se, but it's closer to that idea. I would say atheists "definitely" don't believe in "god." At least from a smaller sample size of people i've talked to. They are universally against the Abrahamic god... other platforms i've noticed they can entertain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
This is what Scripture tells us.
Here is just one other thing the scripture is wrong in... how many wrongs does there have to be before you get you're being manipulated by priests that hope you go to church long enough to have kids that they can eventually molest. There is nothing good about your god... bury it, six feet under.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The mistake most people make when someone gets banned is searching for their most recent posts, that is not the case most of the time. It's called an accumulation effect, not single posts.
Like i've told the others... if that's the case, i don't agree with moderation. The person had to be clearly malicious or abusive in my opinion to deserve a ban. Just being a jerk and/or unsympathetic to other people's views shouldn't accumulate to get you in trouble. If this is all that got Gold did to get in trouble, even D, i don't agree with moderation. I've personally seen D in the category i would ban, but i never saw Gold in that category... so, i'm just trusting everyone else that he was... personally, i never saw it. But the very least i agree with moderation is if he was told not to be mean to someone and continued to do so... that i would say borders abusive behavior and is why i've conceded defense. But... if what you're saying is true only, i don't agree with mod action. I would go as far as to say the mods are targeting users bc some users prefer to snitch left and right. I think snitch users, those that try to shut down other people that they dislike, are just as toxic as an abusive member. And i hope mods aren't giving them power.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
This is what i have a big problem with bc it is essentially reverse bullying by snitching to shut someone down bc you don't like what they have to say. I think it's just as toxic as the latter. And your observations of Gold are the same ones i've had which is why i was confused. I never noticed him being abusive. Yes, he targeted some users more than the rest.. but it's bc he didn't like their views. Plus, i think, and i'm not trying to victim shame, i think that some of the times it's the targeted person's fault for either pushing the accused to get more mean or arguing with the person. In any case, i'm not trying to be mod on this anymore. All we can do is trust the moderation team has taken these things into account and that there was abusive behavior. I never saw it, and i rarely see it in general. I just's see people that don't like other people's views and let them know. There is nothing wrong with that. And the site really has to consider people that report everyone that's a little mean trying to get them in trouble are just as toxic.Mostly its just people with frail egos who are distraught that someone is criticizing them publicly and want the mods to shut it down.
Created:
-->
@Castin
This is sorta something i have a problem with. Many cases of being a jerk shouldn't be stacked against you to get you banned. I think there should be a clear instance of being malicious and abusive that gets you banned. I've seen it from D, but he already got banned for the time i saw it. I'm just hoping that's what got him in trouble again... not that he's mean-spirited bc we all know he is.Doesn't look like he recently said anything any worse than normal, it must have just been an accumulation of offensive behavior.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Yeah, me too. I guess i should have said something but i am really anti-snitch. If i am modding in a official capacity i can do something about it, but if i'm not i usually keep things to myself and let the person just get reported.He was never really abusive with me either. There was a recent incident but it was pretty isolated as far as my history with him goes. I did however watch him abuse others, always theists or conservatives.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Looks like he did and now i can say this. One of the users i've clearly noticed being abusive is... well, him. Not even an ounce of defense from me. Good job mods. The weirdest thing still is though... he was never abusive with me, just annoying. I really wonder why i am a repellent to abusive people.Did disgusted just get banned?
Created:
-->
@Raltar
Fair enough. But i'm not a newb to these sites. In regards to the debates... i read a lot of them and their comments. And, i've voted, debated and commented on DDO. I still don't get it to be honest, bc i see jerks and have encountered uncomfortable situations... i just don't see many abusive people. I'm being honest, i don't see it.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I truly hope that is happening and the mods are doing a good job in weaving them out. That is why i got up and arms about Gold. Bc i never thought he was abusive... he was just annoying. So... i started getting concerned that those being called abusive truly aren't abusive. I think some people are just jumping the gun in pointer their fingers at someone bc they don't like said user. To me, that is just as shitty as an abusive person. It's like calling someone a pedophile bc you saw them playing with kids. That to me is mob mentality and that's what made me concerned enough to start this thread. In no way do i protect abusive people, but to be honest... i just don't see that many abusive people on this site. I see jerks, but come on people... don't throw people under the bus bc you don't like them. I'm afraid that's happening. I just have to have extra trust in the mods that they are able to notice that. Which i think having a thread like this helps bring awareness to keep in mind these elements. As i said to the above user.. why don't people target me to the point i would call it abuse? I've been called delusional by atheists and a satanist by theists... is that what everyone is considering abuse? I'm truly lost on it and i hope the mods are conscientious of tattletales. They're just as bad in my opinion bc it's a passive aggressive form of bullying.As for the possibility that the person was not truly trying to be abusive, do you think it's likely that the mods would take action on someone who didn't mean to be abusive or wasn't crossing a line? They always give plenty of warnings before any ban and plenty of time for the user in question to respond to the warnings and explain him/her self in a reasonable manner. Wouldn't this weed out people who meant no harm?
In regards to the block function. I think the block function is enough. Bc then the user can't address you and you won't see their notifications. If you decide to continue talking to them bc they brought you up... i think the person made the choice then to continue talking to the person they blocked. If they block them... just don't talk to them. It's really that easy... or am i being unsympathetic again bc apparently my skin is made of steel...
Created:
-->
@Raltar
I have around 600 posts already here... what is really bothering me is why don't i see it? Why don't these users attack me? You have 37 posts and you already see a lot of them? Where? Why don't they target me? I even have wildly illogical beliefs of everything being a part of a higher consciousness... I just don't get it... why don't i get targeted? I'm not trying to undermine if you have and honestly i would back you up against any bully... but, i seriously don't get this bc it never happens to me... i mean, is it something i do right? Is it bc i usually ignore someone that isn't trying to argue me? Is it bc i don't fight back? I don't know... i wonder why i've never been targeted in a way where i would say the person has gone over the line. Yes.. i've been targeted but only by being called delusional and that i have a big imagination or being called a satanist (both atheist and theists attack me)... but is this what everyone finds to be abusive? I'm truly curious.As far as the rest, I agree this site has some seriously problematic people who seem to be here exclusively for the purpose of trolling and getting their jollies by making other people uncomfortable.
Created:
-->
@Castin
This site isn't that big yet... so there aren't that many people. In any case, i am saying in this specific case if it does happen without the person truly being abusive, just having objections. Plus, i've seen people get blocked just bc the other person didn't like what they had to say about their beliefs. So it does happen. I just think it's a bad idea to punish someone on these kind of grounds. Even me, i personally have specific topics that fire me up. I will target any theist that tries to change the definition of god to something like pantheism, or another platform i believe in. I hate it when theists try to change it up bc they hear people say these are more logical platforms. Or anyone anti-gun. So, i target people like that and correct them or rebuke them too. If someone told me i can't... that would be bs. There aren't that many people that do it to begin with... it's specifically certain users that would. And if i can't rebuke them and be called a harasser bc they told on me... then why the hell are we on a debate site to begin with?Come on. If they alienate that many people, they need to take a look at their behavior. 😄 The idea of so many people blocking you that you can no longer even find conversation on the forums seems extreme.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not in favor of abusive traits and that's why i've conceded this a long time ago on this thread. To me, he never came across as abusive but i've come to realize not everyone see's things how i do. Someone really has to go overboard for me to think they are abusive. He just seemed confrontational to me, but given some examples from others and their testimony... i can see how it was abusive and that's why i said i've conceded any further defense. Trust me... i'd still be backing him up if i didn't see faults. I agree moderation did a good job at this point.I'm not here to feel warm and safe that is not what I am suggesting at all. I've been in this business for more than a decade, I'm not talking about opposition and neither is anyone else. Don't know why you are supportive of abusive traits. Not confrontational but abusive.
But you have it correct what my main concern is... if it's confrontational... i don't think it warrants punishment and it sounds like you agree there. That was my main point on this thread. I'm the last person that would defend abuse since that falls under malicious and i think i've made it clear i'm against that 100%.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
There was a user on DDO i'm forgetting his name. He would be a prefect example of what i mean. He always got on my nerves and was mean-spirited... but he always did through conversation and explaining his reasons for not believing me. He also sorta targeted me so it was annoying... but i would never have wanted him to get in trouble... nor did i think to censor him just bc he made me uncomfortable. Darn... i'm trying to remember his name... i think it started with a W... and no not willows. Although willows was like this with me... i know he wasn't as kind to others as he was to me.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not defending Gold anymore bc i accept his punishment. My concern is with how harassment is handled. Someone might think it's harassment just bc the person responds to them the most bc they don't like their view. When someone has the polar opposite view than you or might think your view is poisonous... the replies to you might not be nice (we can't expect everyone to be like secular or other kind opposition). However, if they are questioning and asking for your logic... i think it's fine. On top of that, i don't think a user should be able to go tell mods i don't want a specific user to talk to me. Bc then if everyone did that, than the user will have no one to talk to and why i think it's illogical to say you are harassing someone bc i told you not to talk to them. That just doesn't make sense. So i'm talking about a specific scenario and not by a user like Gold. His punishment mainly brought this issue to light and i've meant to focus more on that than him. And mind you... i'm not talking about someone that just undermines you, plays semantics, and changes your words to mess with you... as you know who i'm describing. That wouldn't even be minimally substantive. When i say minimally substantive i mean there are questions and inquiries... even if those are presented in a more mean-spirited way that will likely bring you not to like said user... but, they still try to dig into your belief and tell you why they don't agree. In this specific scenario, i don't think it's harassment if this user decides to focus on your views the most (which should in a way be a compliment), and i also don't think it's right for mods to tell them they can't talk to other people. As long as it's substantive.
Created:
-->
@Castin
What would said person do if everyone in the religion forum that dislikes him/her says they don't want to be talked to by the user in question? He/she can only talk to people that agree? And how is it harassment if i think your view is poisonous to the world and someone has to say something? Just let you say it unabated bc it makes you feel uncomfortable i targeted your view?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
All that is great... it isn't better than forums and forums aren't better than formal. They are both equally good at what they do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
There can be many reasons why they didn't. I don't know the first thing of the proper structures for debates or the rules. Why would i do something where i'd just lose bc i didn't know the rules? One of my debates i lost bc i didn't have good spelling. Like i had the time to go back and edit all of my work... i don't have that kind of time. Today and yesterday are rare days i can be on this site for a few hours. Than comes down to popularity of the person (which makes a difference in some cases) and semantics. People win off semantics... you know? That isn't winning in my book. There are a lot of things that go into those formal debates that give you a win that has nothing to do with the arguments. But again... i'm not saying they are bad... you aren't getting it or keep dismissing it. It's not better than the forums. And yeah... some topics don't have a conclusion... but you can get a lot further along than you can with the formal. My contention is that Brutal made it seem like the formal debate function is the only way to debate your ideas and/or so much better that he didn't want to waste his time answering Etrnl's arguments... it's not, and that comes off as very self important, bottom line.I have had thousand post threads on DDO and never seen a resolution. The problem is that what drives a worldview gets in the way. The parties involved become dead to anything other than their viewpoint and they cannot be reasoned with. That is when challenging them to a formal became the only avenue to put up or shut up. They refused to do both. So I just walked away from the discussion and refused to engage the person again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I just gave you a reason why ID is more logical than creationism. I really don't feel like going into all of the platforms that would be logical for ID ... I mean, it's actually pretty basic for what it comes down to. I doubt human intelligence and human minds are the first and only intelligence that has ever been. Going down that rabbit hole... i believe there are other intelligences, lower than humans and higher intelligences that exist. At the very least, this could implicate "gods," higher intelligences, and/or entities that can create simulated realities or seed physical realities... or something i haven't thought of. Basically, you either believe this is all that there is and ever was in regards to human type intelligence, or not. I'm in the 'or not' camp. I guess you would also be in this camp if you believe in sentient aliens... i think there is more than just that. Our minds proves to me consciousness and intelligence are real. The implications of it being real in a seemingly infinite platform i find to be mind bending.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
They are held accountable in a different way. The entire community will come down on them if they aren't being logical. In any case, you are pointing out pro's to formal debates. I never said there aren't any. I never said you don't have to know a bunch and research it. It's still debating none the less. But it is no better than the forums when you are having a conversation with someone that also knows his/her stuff, and isn't trolling. In that case, i believe it is even better than the formal debates for the main reason... you can get to a conclusion. This doesn't mean you can't with formal debates. But, more often than not, given talking to the right person, that is more achievable on the forums since you aren't bound to just 5 rounds. Following certain debate structures... sometimes you only have 2 rounds to debate your idea. That is not enough to get to the conclusion of certain topics. On top of that, the substantive people on the forums aren't just some random dummies... they are well studied on the topics they are talking about. Plus, for me personally, i'm a paralegal... i don't need extra help in learning how to debate since i do it for work every freaking day. It's refreshing coming to the forums and shooting from the hip. That doesn't mean i am just spewing nonsense and speaking from ignorance. I have researched and debated the topics i am most passionate about many times over the years. I don't need to use a formal debate to get better. All i need is to debate people on the forums and continue to grow.I do the same in a thread, but people cannot be held to account as easlity as in a debate for what they believe.
Bottom line... both have their positives and both have their negatives (i would say debating with structure, by design, has more negatives than the latter imho anyways). But in any case, to make it sound like formal debates are the only intellectual way to address your issues and/or the best way to do it is simply false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
"But i still even have beef with that. Debating has a pro and con, but reality is, in real life... both people are pro and con."
I just read that back and now i'm sounding like i'm trying to say formal debates aren't good. That's not what i meant and i acknowledge there are good things in formal debates. My main beef with formal debates is that i find it to be a disservice to the audience in certain cases. By debating someone that says something like "Hitler didn't kill Jews," by debating this person you are basically saying it's a debatable subject. Your giving dumb statements or topics a level of respect that they don't deserve. That's always been my main beef with formal debates. Not that they're bad, just in certain cases why debate the opposite side and give it even an ounce of respect. This has to do with debating in general. Everything else about this site i said stands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That doesn't happen on this site. You are talking like the judges on this site are professionals, they're not. I for one am no professional when i decide to vote and i don't even think about half the stuff you said. I just vote for the person that i felt had the better arguments and/or if i found there is one argument that needed to be addressed in order for the whole thing to be true... and, i won't consider any of the other arguments if this argument isn't met. And i am decently intelligent, so my vote is sorta good ... but not anywhere near professional. There are people worse than me, way worse. Plus, everyone voting is in the forums. Like i already mentioned to Brutal... a formal debate that's not this site in real life... can be good. But i still even have beef with that. Debating has a pro and con, but reality is, in real life... both people are pro and con. Debating's like a sport, a hobby... It is not nearly the best way to get to the conclusions of an issue. Regular discourse with debate elements is the best... and that's what you find in the forums. Seriously how do you guys not get that? Your arguments that it's better are really making you guys seem like you're trying to make yourselves out to be more intellectual bc you formally debate. If you guys would say debating has it's own positives... like research and sources, i would agree there are elements to it that are good... but, you guys are making it out that if you don't debate formally ... you're stupid or lower than me. Give me a fucking break... it reeks of self importance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I see what you mean... it's sorta in line with the idiot that will get in the way and kill both of us. I guess you really can't stop an idiot from rushing in... but, i suspect, i don't think there are any studies on this... most people that will come to your aid know how to handle situations like that.I just don't want some idiot to get himself killed, I'm there to save people not myself. You have a good point though
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Don't even feel ashamed. That is what i think this site is missing, to be able to get things off your chest. We are humans and not everyday is rainbows. It feels good, even if it is rude and selfish, to release the hardships of this beautiful but shitty world. That is why i think moderation should take things like that into account. Now if you continued incessantly being that way... it's a problem. But in the heat of the moment, every once and awhile.. now that's human and what i would like to see allowed in this site. As castin said, i agree, i like it =)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Really? Most likely most of the people that will come to your aid will be people that can actually help. The "flight" people will be gone running and crying. I personally have the protector personality. This personality also shapes who i am. I train, i know how to shot six targets in 2 seconds, reload in a second, and shot six more and repeat, i''ve been in many Muay Thai fights... traditional rules (i can snap a bat with my kick)... and, you would want me to run away and call the cops that will show up when you're dead? You've clearly never met a protector before.
And if your worry is that someone running in would mess up your, whatever you're doing... most protectors read these situations better than others. Things slow down and their thought process doesn't get jumbled up by the adrenaline. Now... if it's one of this "flight" people that think it's a good idea to come help... when they consciously try not to step on ants when they're walking... then i would agree with you for them to stay out of the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Sure, i already knew that's your views. I just don't think you're right.That's like saying a one legged tiger is more logical than a unicorn, neither are logical. Like ID and creationism, neither are logical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
This is a story you would like to propose and low and behold"That sounds a lot more possible to me"
Not really... i acknowledge anything could be possible and only saying that those things make more sense. Ultimately, ID is much more logical than creation. At least if we anthropomorphize... there is evidence humans intelligently created. But no evidence that humans pop things into existence. And since this is the only reality we can observe... ID would be more logical by our standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Or you can clog the drain with you girthy-ness and not lose your key's in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Yeah, but i call theists out on that. Over my years explaining platform i have found to be more logical than latter ones, i notice theists try to copy them. They'll say... yeah, my belief is like pantheism. But... i'll call bs on that bc that isn't what the Bible says, or the Koran... or any of the Abrahamic religions. They said god created, said for it to happen, and it came about... plus more that adds to them being creationists. Plus, most of the more well known theists concede that it isn't intelligent design since ID would be more scientific... They stick fast to their impossible platforms bc that's all they've been arguing their entire life. Just bc a creationist tries to copy my logic doesn't make them right... it's actually a compliment to what i'm saying or anyone purposing ID is more logical than creationism.
Created:
Posted in:
20. length of penis?
Is it about length or does girth compensate for average length? And no girth make higher than average length undesirable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Well i most certainly don't advocate for the Christians. They consider me satanic so there is really no reasoning past that. I'm not satanic however. I would say i'm agnostic spiritual. Spiritual isn't well defined and in my case means many things. For instance, i believe more than one platform bc all could be possible. And since there is no proof... i can't confidently say which platform is right. But, most, if not all, of the platforms have the same implications. My favorite platforms is non-duality, pantheism, panentheism, oneness. It sorta implicates things like Boltzmann brain ideas where an entire universe is a mind. But i think ultimately... we are all the manifestation of a eternal consciousness, intelligence, mind, etc. ('source'). But in any case, those are the spiritual platforms i am most curious about bc i think they are actually quite logical implications of having infinite time and space... which is a discussion in and of itself.Science likes all evidence. Evidence isn't proof, obviously, however, evidence can lead to proof. Unfortunately for theists, they have no evidence to support their beliefs. Only imagined evidence. I've met Christians who claim that the world around them is evidence of intelligent design, therefore a god. Theists generally have no understanding of what constitutes evidence. Only what they choose to believe. Valid belief isn't a choice. You don't choose to believe the sky is blue, or that fire is hot. These are undeniable parts of reality. You observe reality, not create it with what you choose to believe of it. Theists don't grasp that concept, and Mopac is no different.
Within this source we are all there. It's like infinite sand... everything in that sand exists. If you make a sandcastle, then you've actualized something that already existed in the sand. We all exist within this source, and to experience, we actualize and manifest as a character to an experience. But i don't expect you to believe me... i just want you to know how my mind works on analyzing these things.
Those platforms have similar implications. If there is evidence, what does that evidence look like? Since it is a mess... as in, everything exists within this source, there are a lot of things that can be true. So evidence for the spiritual wouldn't be easy to come by. It's not as easy as saying there are angels and demons. One implication of the top platform is fictional realism. Since everything exists, everything could exist in some possible world. Which is sorta like modal realism too. Therefore, spiritual experiences will be as vastly different than the humans on this earth.
I'm a little bias on this front bc i've had quite a few spiritual experiences (spiritual just meaning supernatural or not explainable). 4 of those experiences were quite profound. I have no logical way of describing how or why they happened. Now, even if i put my experiences aside... there are thousand if not millions, or more, people throughout time witnessing such experiences. There is two camps. Either you believe everyone is lying, mistaken, or mentally ill. Or, that there could be something to it. I'm in the second camp bc the way i see it, only one of these experiences has to be true. If just 1 is true. The implications of 1 happening at the very least, points towards a reality we are not aware of that can intelligently interfere with our world. Since i've had 4 of these experiences myself... i have really no other option than to think something is going on.
In conclusion, i would say evidence for the Christian god... sure, it's not really good bc that evidence could point towards anything. But is there this kind of evidence? I would say absolutely. I think it is disingenuous just to ignore these things that defy our laws and say that all of this evidence is fake. I know i'm not faking it... and i'm just one out millions that has seen something that blows my mind. I imagine what else has happened throughout the time of our existence. One other thing i know about these experiences... they aren't repeatable. So i also don't see how they can ever be anything more than weak evidence. Since hard evidence, proof, would require something repeatable. There may be some element to it that can be tested, but what i'm trying to say is currently we have no way to test these experiences that would make them any more than weak evidence. But that's evidence none the less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Formal debates are about who is the best advocate - the forums are about who is right.
+1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Absolutely. I don't believe in creationism which purposes that good just snapped his fingers and everything popped into existence. There is really absolutely no evidence that ever happens. I guess virtual particles, but that isn't as complex as everything. I don't know... i guess just bc it seems impossible i shouldn't say it is... but intelligent design makes a whole lot more sense. Either god or gods, that they pieced everything together from the ground up. Using things like morphic fields to create worlds and universes. That sounds a lot more possible to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
For sure. All of heard of heaven is that it's like eternal church... THAT SOUNDS SCARY AS HELL lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I really don't see a problem with anonymity as long as each report is weighed with the same rules all others are. So, i'm okay with it - vote yes.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I mean it doesn't make sense to tell people not to talk to other people then call it harassment if they do when we are on a site to debate other views. Of course, if it isn't substantive at all, it's harassment. But as long as the person is minimally being substantive in their replies, i think he/she should be able to reply to anyone on this site... even if the replies aren't what the other person wants to read. Minimally substantive would mean something like... why do you believe in this delusional idea. It may not be nice... but it's still a question. But if they keep following someone around calling them delusional... then, that's harassment. Imho anyways.What do you mean by the bolded sentence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I really didn't... i seriously got an F in reading comprehension on this one. Even stuff you said... i kept thinking this had to do with voting being anonymous. Call me a dumbass on this one Scotty.I literally told you 'so what' and it has a long answer. You just chose to ignore it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That song is sad af. Some of the other songs in that cd are pretty good. But that's really all he as. In honesty, he's up there for me bc i like the beats. But mine probably goes Jedi mind tricks, swollen members, and... ghostmane lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
He's up there in my opinion too... but he fell off the map sadly.
Created:
Posted in:
The question isn't about voting. The question is about reporting.
Oh crap!!! i've been construing this as voting being anonymous. Lol... reading comprehension isn't working for me today. Sure... what's wrong with anonymous reporting? It's not like that will change the fact someone is reporting anyways. Put me down for yes. Who cares who reports what as long as moderation evaluates said report the same as all other cases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah... i agree Vinnie has no equal. I've always and still think Jedi Mind Tricks is the best rap group.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How on Earth is that an argument to legalise drugs as opposed to reform privatised healthcare or rather to increase the regulation of it?
Bc once you do this and take the doctor part away... then they'll turn to illegal drugs and/or illegal drug dealers. Doing it the way i purposed would kill two birds with one stone. But you are absolutely right. And you know what? It's actually very easy to fix... but big pharma doesn't want to fix it. How many news channels have you heard explain how people do it like i told you above? Bc it's universal... that is exactly what you do, doctor shop. Everyone does it that way. But do they tell you? No. They just say "herion epidemic" Blah Blah Blah. Where all they have to do is 1) require ID when buying drugs and 2) the drug companies keep track of who gets what instead of the doctors. So if your ID shows you've already picked up for the month... you can't get more. But guess who's pockets would get less rich if they did that? This world is ridiculous and humans are trash.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I have not found that last sentence to be true. But I have found that powerful things are forged in fire, and that conflict is defining.Fwiw, I was gonna reply to many other points in your response to me, but they would probably all have fallen under debate about Goldtop, and if you get treated like a Goldtop apologist one more time it seems like you may start shooting people.
Yeah... my whole intention here was to bring attention to the definitions of the things he got in trouble for... not so much defend him. But bc i knew Gold and how he acts... i was a little surprised to be honest about the sexual harassment part of it which made me skeptical of the other reasons. But like i've mentioned, i agree with the moderation, however, i think the moderation should take a second look at the implications of things such as harassment when told not to talk to someone. That is just unavoidable and kinda not fair when the person is here to specifically reply to said users bc he/she disagrees with those user... it's a little like entrapment. I think as long as it's minimally substantive ... it shouldn't qualify as harassment.
In regards to that last sentence... i wanted to edit that too once i read it back. I just thought you'd say something so i can correct myself in reply, and thankfully you caught it. You do learn a lot from agreeable people... but what you learn from people that are totally against your ideas is different. For instance debating people like Gold have taught me all new analogies to make my point clear, made me focus on defining what i mean more succinctly, etc. You just learn different things from people that disagree with you and these things are extras that strengthen your main points and how they get communicated. That is why i like having people that are polar opposites to someone that is more agreeable or even someone that's nice but not agreeable. Bc nice people don't push you the same way someone that is a little more mean-spirited would.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Hell yeah. Did you see Solo... spoiler alert if you haven't but i think you have... when he showed up in the end. I almost died, but then i got really mad that they didn't use him in the movie. I thought if he is in that timeline... why the hell didn't you use him in the movie. Maybe bc he's a little too OP for solo to handle... but i think that movie would have crushed it so much more if they had even one scene with him going crazy on someone.Eh. He was more charismatic in Phantom Menace.
Created: