All hail Diamonds.

Dervish said
On topic of attention whoring, the amount of epeen stroking in that picture thread is unreal. If I wanted to get shitfaced, I'd go to that thread with some whisky and take a drink every time somebody posted a picture saying something self deprecating or humble bragging and then all the replies that are the overly excited "omg! You're beaaautiful! <3" that follows.

"Post Your Picha"
Home base of RPG's White Knights.

idlehands said
Sinatra should be played when drinking whiskey or a martini, wtf is wrong with your friends. @Dervish, I agree.

Dervish said
As in Frank Sinatra? What kind of weird ass friends do you hang out with that they demand to listen to old show music when getting stoned?

Smiral said
My friends put on Sinatra when we smoke out, it's so off putting. This is why I prefer smoking alone.

That's a totally normal thing for my girlfriend to do.

Blitzkrieg said
"Post Your Picha"Home base of RPG's White Knights.

We must stand for what's right.

Also, that gif in your sig is awesome. My great uncle had to tote around a Bren gun in the war. Got shot in the head for his trouble, yet lived. Thus, I am reasonably certain I am bulletproof.

I'm not sure if the cat was standard issue in his kit, though.

Dervish said
My great uncle had to tote around a Bren gun in the war. Got shot in the head for his trouble, yet lived. Thus, I am reasonably certain I am bulletproof. I'm not sure if the cat was standard issue in his kit, though.

There is a whole ton of pictures out there of WWII soldiers playing with cats. I have no clue where they kept getting them from.

I like to consider myself one of the greatest enemies to the local order of white knights, as I defeated their greatest champion in the field of battle two years ago.

I always thought that was photoshopped or something. Cool.

Cats can pretty much live anywhere.

PrimezTime said
Well that's good but I don't agree with "religion hurts people". Now again, I'm not going to go into in depth because this really isn't the time or place, but I'll offer my two cents.The only problem with religion is that humans tend to make errors. Everyone has their own interpretation about everything. Now from my point of view, those homophobic people are wrong because my God teaches everyone to be accepting and loving of their fellow man and woman. But to them, they might think the gay couple down the block is wrong because there was a verse in the bible that said it was wrong even though they probably couldn't remember which bible verse it was. Or maybe they just want that gay couple to a good afterlife and try to explain to them why it is wrong.Now we as human beings are naturally bad, but we aren't perfect. Mistakes are made and horrible things happen.

Fair enough.
Though it was Religion that told them it was ok, and even labeled it as a good thing to be doing.

And even if we get past all the "Causes violence and pain" bit, there's still the matter of proving if the God even exists or not.
But honestly, if you're religious but not a hateful bigot you're probably fine in my books.

Just as long as when a serious topic is being debated like education, health care etc you don't pull an argument like "Well God says to spread his word to all. So we should teach God in our schools" or "Well god says sex is just for creation, so let's ban protection", then we should be fine.

Also like you, I don't really care to get into a giant religious debate here.

Magic Magnum said
Fair enough.Though it was Religion that told them it was ok, and even labeled it as a good thing to be doing.And even if we get past all the "Causes violence and pain" bit, there's still the matter of proving if the God even exists or not.But honestly, if you're religious but not a hateful bigot you're probably fine in my books.Just as long as when a serious topic is being debated like education, health care etc you don't pull an argument like "Well God says to spread his word to all. So we should teach God in our schools" or "Well god says sex is just for creation, so let's ban protection", then we should be fine.Also like you, I don't really care to get into a giant religious debate here.

Cool, cool.

Reason these were late.

My last response for Primez was almost immediately after his post.
However, when I went to send it the Guild crashed so I went back left the post waiting to be sent again for when it was back up.

Got distracted with playing Rust so when I finally did notice the Guild was back up (hours later) I just immediately posted the reply, not bothering to read the other posts until I got off of rust (which is now).

ImANargleHunter said
You can't argue religion with science or science with religion because they are two entirely different things.As much as you like to seem informed you are .What's nice about religion is that it gives you moral guidelines. Some people should not be left to decide right or wrong on their own.

Both try to give answers to the world, the reason we exist etc.
Science has yet to find proof of religion, so they don't except it as something that should be taught to people as fact when there's also a scientific explanation for it.
Closest you can get is "Science is right, but guided by God's hand". But even then, there's still the claim God exists that needs to be proven first. And with most religions you can open their Bible and find something in it that would argue against Science.

So in another words, they're two different and conflicting answers for the same thing.
Also, if you need religion to have morals... That says a lot about your character.
Atheists also have morals, religion is not needed in the slightest to have them.
Also depending on what religion you look at those morals would allow/approve the killing of towns, the kidnapping and raping of virgin women, slavery etc.
And to state "That's misinterpreting the Bible" is dodging a bullet and known as a logical fallacy.

idlehands said
Oh...you're an atheist. Formally religious. This all makes everything clear. Yeah. It's different sides of the same coin. I'd say it takes faith to believe there is nothing out there. You can't prove or disprove the existence of a deity, in whatever shape or form.Fuck. I'm being drawn into my own pet peeve.

Science doesn't claim there's nothing out there.
In fact in claims there is quite a ton out there, we just don't really know what exactly to expect once we're there yet.
Unless if you mean Religion, in which case it depends on the Religion.

And although you can't prove or disprove a deity, something still does need to be proven before it can properly be treated as fact.

Shy said
Seriously though I've tried very hard to stay out of the religion debate. Either get over it or move it into Off Topic people, thats where it belongs.

Normally I would of.
But recently when conversations here have happen comparing spam to OT people have claimed that spam is capable of just as serious and intelligent if not more so than OT is.
So I figure why not put that to the test?

Note: I'm not purposely trying to start these discussions here. I'm just not shying down from them if they do so happen to appear.

You really need to just let it go dude. People who try to dig trenches and start a big fight in Spam tend not to fair well.

Magic Magnum said
Reason these were late.My last response for Primez was almost immediately after his post.However, when I went to send it the Guild crashed so I went back left the post waiting to be sent again for when it was back up.Got distracted with playing Rust so when I finally did notice the Guild was back up (hours later) I just immediately posted the reply, not bothering to read the other posts until I got off of rust (which is now).Both try to give answers to the world, the reason we exist etc.Science has yet to find proof of religion, so they don't except it as something that should be taught to people as fact when there's also a scientific explanation for it.Closest you can get is "Science is right, but guided by God's hand". But even then, there's still the claim God exists that needs to be proven first. And with most religions you can open their Bible and find something in it that would argue against Science.So in another words, they're two different and conflicting answers for the same thing.Also, if you need religion to have morals... That says a lot about your character.Atheists also have morals, religion is not needed in the slightest to have them.Also depending on what religion you look at those morals would allow/approve the killing of towns, the kidnapping and raping of virgin women, slavery etc.And to state "That's misinterpreting the Bible" is dodging a bullet and known as a logical fallacy.Science doesn't claim there's nothing out there.In fact in claims there is quite a ton out there, we just don't really know what exactly to expect once we're there yet.Unless if you mean Religion, in which case it depends on the Religion.And although you can't prove or disprove a deity, something still does need to be proven before it can properly be treated as fact.Normally I would of.But recently when conversations here have happen comparing spam to OT people have claimed that spam is capable of just as serious and intelligent if not more so than OT is.So I figure why not put that to the test?Note: I'm not purposely trying to start these discussions here. I'm just not shying down from them if they do so happen to appear.

New pet peeve, turning Spam threads into OT pissing wars.

Blitzkrieg said
You really need to just let it go dude. People who try to dig trenches and start a big fight in Spam tend not to fair well.

I'm just replying to people's responses.
That's how a conversation works.

Plus this is the pet peeve thread, I simply listed them.
Can't be blamed for how people respond to it.

idlehands said
New pet peeve, turning Spam threads into OT pissing wars.

Like I said, spam's been claiming it's just as capable as OT to hold these discussions.
So when one does accidentally start here, I haven't been bothering to move it now to test it.
If people want to me take these back to OT from now on that's fine.
Just don't be mad when I say "OT has more intelligent and serious discussions than spam" next time a Spam vs OT discussion pops up.

Magic Magnum said
Just don't be mad when I say "OT has more intelligent and serious discussions than spam" next time a Spam vs OT discussion pops up.

You really don't get it do you? Certain threads are specifically started in spam to house serious discussions and these are typically well taken. OT discussion that occurs inside a thread is very rarely taken well after a few posts. Also just because someone responds to your post doesn't mean you have to explain what you said or refute their claims. In case you hadn't noticed Spam had moved on. If you bring back a topic that Spam has clearly finished with it isn't well received. You brought it to a point where nobody cared anymore or where they even got peeved with you (see what I did there?) yet your response to them continues to try and start something. It's over. No one cares. Buh-bye.

Now I have yet to actually write out my pet peeves. A few have been said so I'll only say ones that haven't been:

1) People touching my food - just don't touch it unless you're planning on eating it. Sheesh.

2) Arrogant ignorance - Not sure if this one got said but anyone who is just so full of themselves they must be right and are ignorant of everything around them.

3)Saying you have to pee - honestly people. If we're sitting in the library studying, just say you'll be right back. I don't know why it bothers me but it does, I don't need to know what you're doing in there.

4) Are you ticklish? - Such a loaded question. Obviously regardless of the answer you're going to tickle them anyways. Why bother speaking first?

5) People who say "Oh I'll be there / doing this at this time" and then giving you NO NEWS when suddenly you can't find them. Is it that much work to text me and say your car couldn't start or your internet was down? I know it can't be because when I text you after waiting an hour you respond immediately. I'm not going to be mad if something came up just tell me.

Magic Magnum said Like I said, spam's been claiming it's just as capable as OT to hold these discussions.So when one does accidentally start here, I haven't been bothering to move it now to test it.If people want to me take these back to OT from now on that's fine.Just don't be mad when I say "OT has more intelligent and serious discussions than spam" next time a Spam vs OT discussion pops up.

Atop what Shy said about it being less than welcome in a thread meant for something entirely different, which was spot on, there's also the matter of the approach. Starting a thread saying "hey guys, let's talk about religion, what are your beliefs or lack thereof and why do you think that way and blah blah blah" is cool, we've had that sort of thing in Spam and it remained civil for a nice number of pages before the inevitable derpstorm came along. Saying "my pet peeve is religion" is starting shit off by antagonizing religious people, which is the opposite of what you should be doing if you want to have a serious discussion.

What you've done here is roughly equivalent to jumping into a random thread and saying "anyone who opposes abortion is retarded" and then complaining about it not spawning a civil discussion. Ever heard the saying "garbage in, garbage out"? It applies to conversations and discussions, start it with garbage and you're only going to get more garbage.

Actual pet peeves:

When someone asks me what I'm doing while I'm in the kitchen. Whatever I'm doing, I'm probably not too proud of it.

and

When someone asks something like "Making waffles?" when I'm sitting there buttering a couple of obvious waffles.

EDIT: I guess those were the same thing.

Magic Magnum said
Reason these were late.My last response for Primez was almost immediately after his post.However, when I went to send it the Guild crashed so I went back left the post waiting to be sent again for when it was back up.Got distracted with playing Rust so when I finally did notice the Guild was back up (hours later) I just immediately posted the reply, not bothering to read the other posts until I got off of rust (which is now).Both try to give answers to the world, the reason we exist etc.Science has yet to find proof of religion, so they don't except it as something that should be taught to people as fact when there's also a scientific explanation for it.Closest you can get is "Science is right, but guided by God's hand". But even then, there's still the claim God exists that needs to be proven first. And with most religions you can open their Bible and find something in it that would argue against Science.So in another words, they're two different and conflicting answers for the same thing.Also, if you need religion to have morals... That says a lot about your character.Atheists also have morals, religion is not needed in the slightest to have them.Also depending on what religion you look at those morals would allow/approve the killing of towns, the kidnapping and raping of virgin women, slavery etc.And to state "That's misinterpreting the Bible" is dodging a bullet and known as a logical fallacy.Science doesn't claim there's nothing out there.In fact in claims there is quite a ton out there, we just don't really know what exactly to expect once we're there yet.Unless if you mean Religion, in which case it depends on the Religion.And although you can't prove or disprove a deity, something still does need to be proven before it can properly be treated as fact.Normally I would of.But recently when conversations here have happen comparing spam to OT people have claimed that spam is capable of just as serious and intelligent if not more so than OT is.So I figure why not put that to the test?Note: I'm not purposely trying to start these discussions here. I'm just not shying down from them if they do so happen to appear.

You are so duuuumb.
I am an atheist. I never said that atheists don't have morals.

Some people need structure and guidance in their lives just to feel like they have a purpose. And that's okay.

I'm not going to tell someone religion is silly because what I call factual evidence supporting science could in the future be considered bullshit. If you think atheism is somehow better than religion, you're really just being close minded.
which you said is your pet peeve. Hmm.

#NARGLEOUT

Only one really strikes me as of now, "text talk"

Or whatever the hell it is. Why would you say "LOL" and not laugh instead? That is the normal human interaction. I'm totally fine with it in a actual text, but when I'm in front of you, and making conversation, don't do it.

Shy said
You really don't get it do you? Certain threads are specifically started in spam to house serious discussions and these are typically well taken. OT discussion that occurs inside a thread is very rarely taken well after a few posts. Also just because someone responds to your post doesn't mean you have to explain what you said or refute their claims. In case you hadn't noticed Spam had moved on. If you bring back a topic that Spam has clearly finished with it isn't well received. You brought it to a point where nobody cared anymore or where they even got peeved with you (see what I did there?) yet your response to them continues to try and start something. It's over. No one cares. Buh-bye.

Some people have gotten tired and wanted me to stop.
But there were others who also replied rather than saying stop.
So just because some people want it to stop, doesn't mean everyone is done with it.

If you want to say you and some others are tired of this that's fine.
But to claim spam/everyone is? That's just inaccurate, you can't account for everyone opinions on something.

Jorick said
Atop what Shy said about it being less than welcome in a thread meant for something entirely different, which was spot on, there's also the matter of the approach. Starting a thread saying "hey guys, let's talk about religion, what are your beliefs or lack thereof and why do you think that way and blah blah blah" is cool, we've had that sort of thing in Spam and it remained civil for a nice number of pages before the inevitable derpstorm came along. Saying "my pet peeve is religion" is starting shit off by antagonizing religious people, which is the opposite of what you should be doing if you want to have a serious discussion.What you've done here is roughly equivalent to jumping into a random thread and saying "anyone who opposes abortion is retarded" and then complaining about it not spawning a civil discussion. Ever heard the saying "garbage in, garbage out"? It applies to conversations and discussions, start it with garbage and you're only going to get more garbage.

Admittingly, listing that as a pet peeve probably was asking to start something.
However, it was related. They asked for pet peeves, I listed them.
That's not the same as walking into a random topic and starting a completely off-topic debate.

ImANargleHunter said
You are so duuuumb.I am an atheist. I never said that atheists don't have morals. Some people need structure and guidance in their lives just to feel like they have a purpose. And that's okay.I'm not going to tell someone religion is silly because what I call factual evidence supporting science could in the future be considered bullshit. If you think atheism is somehow better than religion, you're really just being close minded.which you said is your pet peeve. Hmm.#NARGLEOUT

First tip in discussions. Insulting the other side only loses yourself credibility. :)

As for structure, that is true.
If they absolutely need religion rather than a friend, parent, loved one etc to give them that then so be it.
If you had read all my posts, you would of seen my real issues with Religion is really when they:

1. Force it on others
2. Try to treat it as a fact in a Scientific or Education method (Ex: teaching it in school as fact)
3. As an excuse to promote bigotry and hatred

So using it as a sense of structure? Fine, there is no conflict here unless if you make it one.
The only issue is if that is also used to claim atheists lack morals/values (which although not here, I've seen claimed many times before).

Also, there's a difference between being close minded and not simply agreeing with everything a person tells you.
Open Minded people can still hold their own opinions, and still be able to change their views if given good enough reason. They just have to be open to the possibility.

Magic Magnum said
Some people have gotten tired and wanted me to stop.But there were others who also replied rather than saying stop.So just because some people want it to stop, doesn't mean everyone is done with it.If you want to say you and some others are tired of this that's fine.But to claim spam/everyone is? That's just inaccurate, you can't account for everyone opinions on something.Admittingly, listing that as a pet peeve probably was asking to start something.However, it was related. They asked for pet peeves, I listed them.That's not the same as walking into a random topic and starting a completely off-topic debate.First tip in discussions. Insulting the other side only loses yourself credibility. :)As for structure, that is true. If they absolutely need religion rather than a friend, parent, loved one etc to give them that then so be it.If you had read all my posts, you would of seen my real issues with Religion is really when they:1. Force it on others2. Try to treat it as a fact in a Scientific or Education method (Ex: teaching it in school as fact)3. As an excuse to promote bigotry and hatredSo using it as a sense of structure? Fine, there is no conflict here unless if you make it one.The only issue is if that is also used to claim atheists lack morals/values (which although not here, I've seen claimed many times before).

So duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumb.

Pet peeves, to me, are irrational things that bother people. A lot of these seem rational to me.

The closest thing to a pet peeve that I can think of are people who think they know more than they do. It becomes irrational when someone who isn't eloquent or intelligent participates in a serious discussion; one shouldn't expect everyone to be a savant to express themselves. Aristocracy isn't cool.