Brovo

1x1 RPs

Because people are lazy.

Before someone jumps down my throat with a terminator tank, no, I'm not talking about everyone who goes there. There are people who genuinely just want to do a long standing role play with a partner. Not with a group, just a partner, and that's not lazy, no, that's a personal preference.

Lazy is just how prevalent the... "Romance" in 1x1 is. You could also describe it as sleazy. It's low-class entertainment for vagabonds and the generally immature. I put it in quotations because there's two kinds of romance. Everyone claims to be type 1, most are type 2.

#1: Romance as a genre choice, a thematic style, not as the singular dominating point. It's not about wangst, it's simply a story that happens to contain romance. It's one of the two genres that traditionally cannot stand on its own anyway: You see a lot of romantic comedies in film for this reason.

#2: Because they want porn, er, a quickie, uhm, what I mean is, they want a ton of PG13 cybersex...

Look there's no nice way to put this, but a lot of the "romance" in 1x1 is literally just a series of meat shops. Stop me when you've seen this before: [Title]x[Title]. Like WerewolfXVampire, GirlXBoy, etc. This is literally the definition of a meat shop, where you select what kind of meat you want to pound. And cook.

Why is 1x1 so sleazy and lazy? Because it's fucking easy. First of all, you usually only want a single partner, and 1x1 is all about that. Second of all, you only need to get one other person to agree, and 1x1 is all about that. Third of all, the very title itself is kind of a dead giveaway: 1x1. Yes, it can stand for one on one. It can also stand for something else that is definitely not PG13 and would make Fonz blush brighter than the sun at mid day in Norway during the summer.

As if the meat shopping wasn't enough of a problem, you also have a lot of people there who register and basically just stay in that section permanently, without ever having read the rules on the site. For example: How many times have you seen comments about "adult content" being partially or even completely allowed in one way or another? Or even having to mention adult content allowance or denial... On a site that flat out denies adult content.

Again, not saying everyone who wants to RP in the 1x1 section is lazy or sleazy, there are some people who genuinely just want a partner... But the majority of it is just cheap, sleazy, lazy, softcore pornography. If you're really lucky, it might be censored.

♘Evolution vs. Creationism☼

xAsunaWolfx said
@Brand- Agreed. Asking why there is still dirt doesn't make sense since the earth is really composed of it and without dirt... Well, there would be little to no life. While monkeys are.... Monkeys

tl;dr: Maths and statistics.

We'll over-simplify it to an extreme.

You have 100 subjects. Lets call them Original Monkeys. Original monkeys have a breeding rate of three per year, as the base value to follow.

Now, random mutations occur within the Original Monkey breed, as when two parents mate (or in the case of cells: asexual reproduction) there is a chance that small parts of the genetic code get written incorrectly. Like if you keep making a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy--eventually, somewhere down the line, one copy is going to be different to the original due to an error in re-sequencing the code from its base parts.

So! We have a few mutations begin to appear. Some of them are beneficial, some are not, and some of the Original Monkeys do not mutate--after all, some copies do end up perfect by random chance.

Now lets say after a few generations, there are two new subtypes of Original Monkey: Fast Monkey and Rabbit Monkey. Fast Monkey is faster, and thus escapes more predators. Despite breeding at the same rate, more of their children survive, and thus start to dominate the habitat that the Original Monkey used to be the most effective in. Rabbit Monkey uses a different advantage: Multiplying faster and more often. Rabbit Monkey has six children instead of just three, so even if Rabbit Monkey loses two children to every one child Original Monkey loses, Rabbit Monkey still multiplies much faster and thus dominates the environment better, thus spreading that gene more effectively than the Original Monkey does.

Original Monkey then either continues on, or gets outpaced by evolved predators/its descendents.

Several generations later, and with further mutations, and you'll have several new subtypes of monkeys based on Rabbit Monkey and Fast Monkey. Continue going on and on and on, and eventually, a fast monkey sub-type might breed wings, or a rabbit monkey subtype might learn to burrow and evolve the appropriate tools for it. This doesn't remove the old versions from the environment, this simply means that the reproduction process is imperfect, occasionally glitches, and creates new traits, some of which are beneficial and thus naturally allow more survivors to pass it on, and some of which are not, which damage survival chances and the odds of passing it on.

This is also why you see imperfect design flaws--some imperfect things still get through by random chance. For example: The human appendix. It's totally worthless now but if it ruptures it will probably kill you if you don't get immediate medical attention. Why is it still there? Because one of our ancestors needed it for some purpose that we no longer use it for as a descendent.

Here, an example of five human body parts that are totally worthless nowadays.

And that's the tl;dr to evolution as a process. Out of 100 original monkeys, 10 have random small mutations, 5 of them reproduce more successfully due to that mutation, which then spreads through as a dominant gene. There are still original monkeys, they just aren't as effective anymore. Like how each edition of Windows is supposed to improve upon the previous version--some of them are terrible and die quickly, like Vista or ME, while others are great and live on for ages, like XP. XP spawned Vista, but Vista was inferior, so XP outlived it. Vista spawned Windows 7, which was better than XP, but hasn't totally eliminated it, and so on.

Hope that makes sense.

Shy said
Wow this thread exploded 0.0

And remarkable, it isn't closed! Life's little marvels, eh'?

Legend of Renalta 2 (Dark Fantasy)

@Everyone: I'll be reading up and working on posts tomorrow, now that I have some stuff to work with. ;)

♘Evolution vs. Creationism☼

Yog Sothoth said i would like to point out that in today's world people are treated as inferior because they lack understanding, which is why I make criticisms of ignorant atheists.

That's like saying that because some people are bad we should kill all white people. There's utterly no connection there. At all... Even basic philosophy follows some kind of basic paradigm of logic. I'm sure you know this.

Yog Sothoth said also in my opinion, being angry does not give one the right to be ignorant,

Yet you're arguing for the "right" to be taken seriously despite your abhorrent spelling and grammar. You are willfully ignorant of how actual English functions.

Also, who the hell are you to be telling people whether or not they're allowed to be ignorant? A person is allowed to not know something. That's not evil, that's... Very normal. The first step to wisdom, in fact, is to admit that you know nothing. You argue that atheists calling people dumb makes them assholes then turn right around and say that people are not allowed to be ignorant.

Yog Sothoth said that is called double standards

Something you know quite intimately, apparently.

Yog Sothoth said and is why it is harder to break down prejudices.

Like the ones you have against atheists. Because after all, only atheists would ever call people dumb. That logic is totally, completely infallible.

Yog Sothoth said bullies are the way they are usually because they themselves have been bullied, does that give them the right to hurt other people? no it doesn't. there should never be an excuse for ignorance.

Ignorance =/= Bullying. The fact that you equate the two to be inseparable is actually somewhat disturbing. Ignorance is to bullying what ice cream is to a bicycle: Nothing in common. Ignorance is not knowing something, it is the lack of awareness of something. This is not a crime, and it's not unreasonable. We are human beings, mammals with limited capacity for knowledge, flawed memories that are often poisoned by emotion, and whose primary organ for conscious function we still don't understand all that well.

Bullying is malicious behaviour done with the intent to attack and degrade someone. There are many reasons why this happens, not just because someone who was bullied becomes a bully. That logic makes no sense, if that was true, everyone who was bullied should become a bully, but that's not what it. It has a lot more to do with upbringing, financial and social stimulus and problems, than it does with having been bullied. I was bullied, I'm not a bully now. Most of my friends were, the majority of them are not bullies now.

You approach this topic with an extremely black and white opinion. That doesn't strike me as philosophy, which is a field prone to being so grey it sometimes hurts to try and understand it. Again, read the thread, and when you see that nobody was attacking anyone or trying to degrade each other, you'll see what I mean.

Not that it matters now, me thinks, you've thoroughly derailed this thread from its original course into lands that will likely get it closed. Good job.

Yog Sothoth said
nice way of showing how much of an asshole you are. you're just proving my point about how atheist like you are ignorant dicks like the religious extremists. you sir are sad and pathetic

You know. Posts like these show what kind of a person you really are. To presume characteristics and traits about other people you don't even know, so you can further dehumanize them and reassure yourself that the cruel things you say to them are justified. Things like calling someone an asshole because they find your writing hard to understand, or how people who disagree with you are, as you so put it, "ignorant dicks". Perhaps, as a philosopher, it's time for you to sit down, and be introspective with yourself. Ask yourself, genuinely, why you feel the need to call someone who didn't like your lack of English skills a "sad and pathetic" person.

You hate bullies, and yet, you behave like one here. After all, you're trying to degrade Kadaeux and viciously attack him on a personal level because, again, I must stress this... He didn't like the way you wrote something.

Congratulations. You are the perfect epitome of the phrase "pot meeting kettle". Please. I implore you. Learn how to be a decent person, then learn how to read threads, then you can start posting and be taken seriously.

Turtlicious said
This whole thread is terrible, but I'd like to point out this post because I've never seen someone so scared of brown people.

It's a terrible day when I agree with you, but yes, that is extremely amusing.

Legend of Renalta 2 (Dark Fantasy)

PCSutfin said
So are Soulwalkers able to simply walk around as spirits or just hop into people's heads?

Hop into people only for now.

Legend of Renalta 2 (Dark Fantasy)

PCSutfin said Question: does Soulwalking have a chance of the target realizing what's happening to them? If so, what affects a target's ability to detect Soulwalking?I need to know this for my next post.Edit: I read the Soulwalker description again and have another question. Does Soulwalking only allow the user to 'jump' into someone's body or does it allow them to walk around as a spirit AND hop into a person's body at will? If moving around as a spirit is possible, are there common ways of people detecting and seeing spirits?

Like everything in Renalta, soulwalking can be detected and resisted, mainly by those with mental abilities or training, like diplomats, politicians, mages, telepaths, etc. At first it can only be used to spy, not to control. It can be developed later on to service whatever purposes you have in mind. :p

♘Evolution vs. Creationism☼

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Guys, I'm sorry for the echoes in here. I can't help but notice I've made a lot of double posts.

I noticed. How strange is it not? Maybe it's a sign from the great and almighty Fonz that certain uncool activities were becoming prevalent within these hollowed halls dedicated unto his glorious name and has taken it upon himself whilst jumping the shark to inform us that this thread has jumped the shark into the sun.

Or maybe it's server lag.

♘Evolution vs. Creationism☼

--Double post--

♘Evolution vs. Creationism☼

Yog Sothoth said
a good amount of science has to do with educated guesswork and trying to prove it to be fact. look at paleontology, that is mostly guesswork and is never truly proven to be fact, and that is a form of science. are you suggesting that science is always fact and never involves any sort of guesswork? my whole point is that at the end of the day both religious and non-religious people have tendencies to be assholes to one another, and claim to want the right to an opinion but insult others who don't share their opinion.

He didn't suggest anything of the sort Yog. He just said you don't really understand science, and that's not a crime, or an insult. He's just stating you likely don't understand how something works. That's fine. There are plenty of things I don't understand, there are plenty of things he doesn't understand, plenty of things that people all over the planet don't understand. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something.

Nobody is doing that in this thread. Gwazi may have overreacted but he by no means wants to dehumanize religious people. He was one once, he's just angry about it. That's all. There's nothing wrong with anger and he came to his senses and pulled back when it was explained to him what he was doing wrong.

As for science... The scientific method at its core is really and truly this: To find physical evidence (as defined as being something observable, verifiable, repeatable, etc) and create a theory based upon that evidence. We found the fossils of dinosaurs, so we know they probably existed. The fine details may be out of our grasp, but we can get the crude idea of what they were like. The T-Rex for example has rows of sharp teeth: That's customary for a predatory animal. Ergo, the T-Rex was probably a carnivore.

Which is why Creationism is not a science and Paleotology is. Paleotology finds evidence and attempts to fit that into the puzzle to create a greater understanding of the world around us. Creationism starts with a premise, and tries to prove it... And fails every time.

♘Evolution vs. Creationism☼

Yog Sothoth said
a good amount of science has to do with educated guesswork and trying to prove it to be fact. look at paleontology, that is mostly guesswork and is never truly proven to be fact, and that is a form of science. are you suggesting that science is always fact and never involves any sort of guesswork? my whole point is that at the end of the day both religious and non-religious people have tendencies to be assholes to one another, and claim to want the right to an opinion but insult others who don't share their opinion.

He didn't suggest anything of the sort Yog. He just said you don't really understand science, and that's not a crime, or an insult. He's just stating you likely don't understand how something works. That's fine. There are plenty of things I don't understand, there are plenty of things he doesn't understand, plenty of things that people all over the planet don't understand. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something.

Nobody is doing that in this thread. Gwazi may have overreacted but he by no means wants to dehumanize religious people. He was one once, he's just angry about it. That's all. There's nothing wrong with anger and he came to his senses and pulled back when it was explained to him what he was doing wrong.

As for science... The scientific method at its core is really and truly this: To find physical evidence (as defined as being something observable, verifiable, repeatable, etc) and create a theory based upon that evidence. We found the fossils of dinosaurs, so we know they probably existed. The fine details may be out of our grasp, but we can get the crude idea of what they were like. The T-Rex for example has rows of sharp teeth: That's customary for a predatory animal. Ergo, the T-Rex was probably a carnivore.

Which is why Creationism is not a science and Paleotology is. Paleotology finds evidence and attempts to fit that into the puzzle to create a greater understanding of the world around us. Creationism starts with a premise, and tries to prove it... And fails every time.