Quote from: TBlocks on April 04, 2016, 01:17:09 AM

Quote from: LC on April 04, 2016, 01:14:44 AM

Having April on there is a bit dumb since we're only three days into it.

Users online has basically remained the same, but part of the problem is topic creation is down. People seem to feel more comfortable commenting than they are creating new topics of discussion. This is something that could easily be remedied if more people made topics about whatever it is they want to talk about and certain people didn't try to shut down discussions they don't like.

Not making many topics is something I'm pretty guilty of so it's something I should probably work on for 2016.

Yeah I realized that while looking at it. Hopefully people are smart enough to realize that it's only the 4th.

The seems to be the big trend eh? Topics are certainly key to the whole forum thing. lol

Another thing is we're probably settling into our norm here for an offsite. If you take a look at the other offsites that have been around for a bit longer than us their activity drops a bit after the first year or two. Been kicking around the idea of an off topic thread that doesn't contribute towards post count that everybody can just post anything in as long as it doesn't break any of the really serious rules. This allows people to just carry on random conversations, post things they might not feel deserves and entire thread, image dump, et cetera. I'd need to talk to cheat about setting it up though and see if people would actually be interested in it.

>tfw I've been suggesting this forever

A permanent Anarchy that forces the Flood to move into a level of seriousness that's somewhere between Serious and Anarchy in terms of conversation quality.

Armengeddon

I understand and appreciate your sentiments, I really do, but you must believe me when I say that I'm different from you.

It's not something I'm willing to discuss, at least, not publicly. Last time resulting in a lot of backlash that I'd rather spare myself.

Of course. I meant more just the general use for it.
It's not really confined to love I'd say but probably works best there.

I'm glad. I've made a few jokes in reference to The Cave but no one picked up on it, so I just settled for a long-winded but (hopefully) romantic adaptation of the idea.

"Philosophy via romance" with Anti-Climacus.

Maybe something that reproduces and dies faster? Bacteria?

Definitely possible, but like eggsalad said, it would really depend on what type of evolutionary advantage the higher resistance to chlorine would provide.

you sound like you like this girl...a lot.

I do. To me, she's the strongest piece of evidence that God exists.

(Hold onto your butts.)

Plato once presented an idea: our world consists of two separate but connected realities: the world of form and the world of being. The world of being is the one that we see everyday with out own eyes. The world of form, however, is the world of ideals. Think of a circle. In the world of form, the circle is perfectly circular; round. But in the world of being, our world, no such perfect circle exists. Nature cannot create a perfectly round circle.

If in "my" world of form, existed the ultimate representation of everyting I've ever wanted in a woman, this girl would exist in both the world of form and being. She is -- literally -- the girl I've been dreaming of for years. I get up in the morning so I can see her, or I don't get up at all.

It is why I'm willing to commit my eternal soul to her through marriage.

Not so much that "you can choose to be gay", no. More that looking at sexuality as "You are attracted or X or you are attracted to Y, or possibly X and Y, and this does not change" is silly. I didn't know before that modern research backed it up, but I started to think this way looking at material for my Classical civilization courses. Ancient perceptions of sexuality were quite different from modern ones. There was no such thing as a "gay" person in Rome. If you wanted some man tail it wasn't really different from lady tail, the concern was about whether one was giving or receiving. Really, the idea of homosexuality or bisexuality as an identity, something you WERE rather than DID, came about as a result of the homosexual subculture that developed in major cities in the 19th century evolving into a homosexual lobby.

Good. That's where I'm at, and I just wanted to clarify.

Quote from: Anti-Climacus on April 03, 2016, 11:56:26 PM

The girl I love and intend to marry is currently with someone else. I'd like to start my life with her as soon as possible, but I'm sorta doing nothing until that point.

The faggotry is self-explanatory.

rip his larynx out.

Quote from: Anti-Climacus on April 03, 2016, 11:59:46 PM

Quote from: Koala on April 03, 2016, 11:57:33 PM

Challenge your rival to Mortal Kombat and then claim what you desire.

Were it so easy...

Action requires sacrifice!

Her parents marriage was destroyed by infedility, and my best friend (my love's sister) was virtually disowned by her father because she dated a boy he didn't approve of. If there's even a remote chance that her dad suspects I'm the cause of his daughter's failed relationship, that's like starting a race 500m behind everyone else (if I ever get to "race" at all). And on top of my somewhat controversial opinions on a great deal many things, I really can't afford any more bullets in my feet.

This is all ignoring the obvious ethical issues that coming between them would entail. No, I believe God rewards the patient, and for her, I would suffer a great deal of isolation.

The girl I love and intend to marry is currently with someone else. I'd like to start my life with her as soon as possible, but I'm sorta doing nothing until that point.

The faggotry is self-explanatory.

Over time, the resistant frogs would produce more resistant frogs, which would then proceed to have offspring with other more resistant frogs which would result in even more resistant frogs. Yes. You'd also need a diverse gene pool.

Raises some serious ethical questions, though.

You're thinking about it too hard.

Thank you.

You're not born believing in a creed or religion. Your gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality are fixed.

I still see no good reason as to why they should be allowed to be discriminated against.

my stance is exactly the same as verbatim's but he's more eloquent than me

Gotcha. Carry on.

then we shouldn't be doing that

boom

/thread

I think that's the consensus, yes. Not sure what Class is arguing for.

Military culture's pretty fucking good at self-perpetuation until you just tell them to deal with it.

Excellent point. Though I think the difference between white men and black men is a bit smaller than the difference between women and men.