Gwazi Magnum

Full-forum games?

I assume you mean something like this?

Note: Not advertising, that link was the site (and others, same community, different site engine) was where I RP'ed for years before joining the Guild it's long dead now. I've abandoned all hope of it ever reviving.

Basically an entire site dedicated to one overall plot/story (which honestly are the RP styles I prefer). But what you're specifically ordering all seems to have more RPG elements to it. Simply put, what you're looking for just is not possible on the Guild for two main reasons.

1. It is designed to be a site for thousands of people to plan and start unrelated roleplays. If everyone did multi-topic's it would spam the site extremely. Also, even if say only you guys did it all your topic's would be buried under other topics. You could just subscribe to those threads... but that's not only just one raw list (so not organized at all) but most people will probably still have that cluttered by other threads on the site that they also subscribed to.

2. RPG elements like stats, gold, leveling up require either a lot of paper work, or a lot of coding. And the Guild simply does not have the coding to support such things. You have to track, calculate and implement all of this manually.

Now, it's entirely possible for the Guild to allow all of this... (#1 more easily I imagine, you just need to make sub-topic's to be created by user's for specific RPs and then let them go nuts with posting forums or sub-topics within that original sub-topic.

Example: Make Sub Topic *Galaxy War*, within this sub topic you can post sub topic *Roleplays* and then post each roleplay in that universe seperately.

However, I would not see it getting much success. People who come to this site normally come to experience many separate and instanced RP's. To get a lot of variety and make a lot of new characters. If they wanted to invest fully into one Universe they would of joined a site that focused on that rather than a generalized Guild.

"Double, Double! Toil and Trouble!"

It can also be just to fill rolls though. I mean technically anyone does it whenever there's any person a character has to talk to who is not another's character (ex: Tavern lady, shop keeper, the bandit you just fought etc.) but what most people refer to when they say double is really just that made to be a more plot relevant character, which is almost necessary in all RP's, especially 1x1.

I can think of one 1x1 particular I was in (where I believe even at the day the Old Guild died it was the 1x1 with the most amount of posts in it, so obviously a lot of plot was needed) where new characters where constantly made to help with the plot. My main's father who acted as a villain for a while, the other player was playing a kind of Assassin whose father did the same and a lot of her father's old friends were roleplayed to act as Guides/supports to for the battle's and challenges that were to come.

Also if our characters were to ever be in different area's for a reason (at one point we had to split up for several months) we needed other characters for them to engage if for nothing more than to keep them engaged, have more stuff to post on and also simply prevent them from coming back insane from a lack of social interaction.

When do you consider an RPG to be "Dead"?

Basically what Brovo... said?

It really varies RP to RP, and even say most people (GM including) drop out, it can still go on if those remaining keep it moving.
For one fun example, very first RP I joined on the Guild me and two others essentially went post crazy. Covering about 10 to 20 pages a day, this caused the majority of players go "I can't keep up with this" and quit, which by some people's definitions (X people leave the RP) would cause it to be 'dead', but in truth it was the exact opposite, it was so full of life that some people just couldn't handle it.

In terms of the other commonly foreseen death of an RP: "X amount of time with a post" I'm having trouble thinking of a specific forum example atm oddly enough. :/ However this one is easily countered regardless, people have lives/other plans. Something might of happened that caused the RP is take a break because maybe they just moved, a relative died, they just had a kid/got custody of their kid etc. Stuff that would take them a few months to focus on and adapt to before they could RP again, and assuming the players are still in touch they can easily just start it from where they left off.

Romance in Roleplays: Yes or No?

I'll be replying to them mainly as the OP questions asked, simply cause it helps me better collect, organize and explain my thoughts on the matter.

---

Well here's an old topic I did not think I'd find myself ever discussing again.

Brovo said What is your opinion of romance?

Romance can be good, great even in an RP. But it is very commonly abused/misused, and is by no means necessary.

Brovo said Good or bad?

Overall Good I'd say, but has a lot of potential of bad/killing RP's. But honestly speaking? I think any Roleplayer who allowed their RP to get killed over an in-RP romance was not an roleplayer who was going to help the RP stay alive too much regardless (and I even criticize my former RP-self by saying this).

Brovo said Do you enjoy it or avoid it?

Now? I avoid it, for reasons better explained below it basically got the point it's too basic/elementary/meaningless. Maybe I just ran into meh examples (outside of cases where the whole RP was based on a romance), but it largely just doesn't grab me now like it used to. Mainly due to by familiarity with romances now, and having once been burned by long enough stuff, stuff practicing relationships is no longer something I run into nilly-willy as if it's all positive and great, and there's a lot of pain and ugly involved... something close to no RP's ever address (and no, I'm not going "Oh woe is me! I once had a bad relationship so I shall forever mope. I'm simply saying I learned its not nearly as picture perfect as most RPs paint it as, and so simply as a result I care not to get involved where they are put in such a fantasy light).

In the past I did get into it a lot however, but that's just about to be described below in the next questions answer.

Brovo said Why, and to what extent do you pursue or avoid romance in role plays?

Back when I first joined the Guild to a little more than mid-way through my Roleplaying time on the Guild I was involved in a lot of romance RPs. Now I mainly try to avoid of them.

I got heavily into romance's back when I started here because quite frankly it was foreign territory to me at the time, and like many roleplayer's I wanted to roleplay & be part of something I didn't actually experience or wasn't be. Take advantage of the powers of fantasy and narrative to put myself in a brand new world. And honestly it did help me build up basic relationship skills which eventually helped me in getting involved in an actual (however, also with a lot of fantasy/built of garbage which had to be knocked off over time). However having been 15-17 during most of this, it could of very easily also just been my hormones going off.

I don't get involved in RP's really though at all today, and that was largely due to burn out. Having gone 20k+ posts crazy on the old site I mainly just lost interests in forum roleplay's, especially when other venue's like D&D started to become available. But assuming I beat this burnout and got involved (which given my insane amount of free time I might) relationship based RP's would be one's I largely avoid. For two main reasons, first being that I simply no longer have the same fantasy motivation as before, by now its already is an area I have experience in. Secondly, RP's mainly paint a false image, going by logic such as "Love will always keep us together", simply overlooking actual pressures relationships face (time to see each other, relevant interests, location, schedules, other commitments, simply knowing what to say when your partners upset etc.) and also set's up imaginary end goals (ex: We've had sex, the end. We got married, the end. We had a kid, the end.) where relationships keep going past that, they don't magically become perfect. If anything the demands on them become even harder. So it's also a main fact of if I did get involve in a RP romance, it most likely feel incredibly stale, and unrealistic, and that simply does not make for good narrative or story telling.

Brovo said Is there any difference between group rp romance and 1x1 rp romance?

99% of the time I'd say yes.

Group RP's have a plot/goal outside of the relationship basically all the time, mainly cause very rarely do people want to RP a Polygamists relationship or some sort of love triangle. It gives a general focus, plot or theme to follow. If say Mark and Tawina stay back and go on a date, Jim, Tyler and Sarah might still be busy holding off the Orc horde. Rather terribly cause they're missing two of their people. Or say Mark and Tawina want to run off and live on their own happily, but they can't because there world is in danger (which could serve as a good plot hook). The two players might want to say "The war get's won and they run off to live their dream", but then you got three other players who put their foot down and go "No, we got a plot to do".

1x1 has no enforced plot by outside parties, if they stick to a non-relationship plot or not is entirely dependent on those two. Granted, a relationship plot is not all bad (ex: Clannad anime), but without there being other plots to keep it somewhat more realistic it's up to the two players to keep it relevant, engaging and moving. It has much more potential to fall apart simply because there's no outside party to leash to try to stop it if does start to become all "Love my life, shall we be happy forever?" sort of thing.

Brovo said Other than that: Romance, yay or nay?

Yay because it is simply foolish to boycott certain themes or character arch's, and romance is a big one if done right. But you need a good group of roleplayers to actually make a decent RP out of it and avoid it simply being a dating sim.

Roose Hurro said never one to force himself on an unwilling female.

So he's not a rapists?
Why exactly did you feel the need to state this part? o.O

Mentally scarring heterosexuals

That must of been a surprise for them. :P

Griever said MOST of the guys I know are fine with "straight-acting" homosexuality, but still openly despise any flamboyant or "extra" behaviors, i.e. assless chaps, speedos/jockstraps, crazy costumes and hitting on str8 guys. Contrary to what you believe, this is the mentality of most heterosexual LGBTQ-supporters.

Speaking as a Straight Ally/LGBTQ supporter (as in to the point in my college's Pride Club it sadly got to the point where only I was making an effort to show), people who accept one expression of sexuality & gender identity but not another aren't actual LGBTQ supporters.

Writer of the Month #3 Guidelines

I never took place on WOTM before, but having looked at the OP I do heavily suspect the topic had something to do with it.

It sparked about no imagination/creativity in my mind. Maybe if WOTM left more vague (or simply less) requirements would take part cause that leaves more theme's and plots available which can draw in more people.

As for comparing this to Spam Adventures? That's spam, they're insanely active simply, mainly because them posting all day and day about basically anything has allowed for an insanely close bit (though exclusive) community, so as a result they are practically always on there interacting with one another, especially flocking to things like that which would involve them and all their friends.

Opinions on faking sickness to skip school, work etc.

Brovo said First you really don't wanna be that guy who is looking for work or post secondary at age 20 who doesn't even have a high school GED cuz they skipped too many classes to qualify for it.

Well I assume for most of us it went without saying not to skip that insane amount of days.

Brovo said And if you think you aren't training yourself subconsciously for later on in life, you are a fool who does not understand the power of sloth and addiction.

True, however for some people (not everyone sadly though) work actually gives you motivation to go because you may enjoy it, or in some people's cases you simply want to make that money. School however for many people often kills much motivation to go (combination of bad teachers, disliked mandatory course or simply shitty student community) which for many people leave's a very understandable reason for not wanting to go.

Brovo said That it is largely paying for you to attend, I might add.

Not if it's a Private school. :P

So My Sister Might Be Dying. . .

My condolences, and glad to hear she seems to be getting better. :)

Rare said And you shouldn't make a post about your dying sister, because most of the people on here don't care about personal stuff like that.

Ouch that's cold...
You should note for other's it's simply odd/awkward to be in this situation, being told a situation where you feel horrible for not giving sympathy but you hardly know the person (or the person they describe) so although it's recognized as a terrible situation people simply find it odd or hard to actually have strong (or any) legit feelings towards it.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Brovo said If by financially you mean you haven't moved out yet and pay your own bills, then trust me when I say you haven't hit that level yet.

Yes this is what I meant.

Brovo said One thing, from several months ago... Congratulations?... I was also specifically talking about religion... Something you apparently missed. No worries though.

I brought up Joricks example because that was something that happened on the Guild that you would of been around to see. Most of my other changes/revelations took place in other places that you would not of been there to see. Also that was a big total stance altering change. I may get small update's and alterations to positions constantly due to new information, but it would be a bit redundant to list all of them because it's more an informational update than a change of stance. Also there's only so many serious topics to have stances on: Abortion, Drug Legalization, Religion, LGBT Rights, Gender Equality, Education etc. And those are honestly the main 6 I simply have the most knowledge & interest then. And if my overall stance/position on those changed so enough it occurred more than once every few months, then I'd be a pretty big floater then wouldn't I? :P

Besides, I realize you were talking specifically about Religion. But I felt the need to highlight that I have on several occasions absorbed new information to the point I would totally change my stance on the issue. It's just that Religion wasn't giving the same level arguments that the other topics were which is why no change was being observed here.

Brovo said Thunderf00t and Richard Dawkins target people that are to society and/or those who openly attempt to slow scientific progress in the name of their religion to a cult-level fanaticism. Bill Nye only fights creationism in the classroom--not all religions on the planet, and specifically made the point of stating that any adult can . Neil deGrasse Tyson has nearly always focused on science to the exclusion of faith, because like Bill Nye, he only fights it when it crosses into his territory: Science.

Before I go into details with specific people, I will make a single argument that does apply for all the examples. They all do at least criticize faith/the idea of believing something without proof or evidence to be flawed and illogical.

Thunderf00t I can grant other than the point made above does mainly target the extremist, and in further reflection the same would also apply to Bill Nye & Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Richard Dawkins does argue Religion in general. Arguing the very system of it should be questioned and that it spreads like a virus, and he does specifically argue even moderate/casual religious people and the idea of just respect or passing someone's blind faith.

[quote=Brovo]The vast majority of atheists generally don't give a fuck about theism, and that's... Generally how it's supposed to be. Kind of like how one does not give a shit about candles if they don't have any. They only care if some candle salesman then comes by and attempts to shove the candle in their face or down their child's throat.[quote]

A fair point, but to play devil's advocate.

Majority opinion or views is not always correct. I mean in the past most people though the sun revolved around the earth, that it was ok to discriminate based on skin colour. But we know today that these things are false. I know those aren't great examples mind you since your arguing not giving a shit and those examples were about active beliefs or behaviour's. But simply the fact that most people think _______ doesn't make it right, nor does simply not caring about ______ mean it's the right stance.

Note: This is specifically a devil's advocacy in regards to the specific quote above though. I do notice this is argued much more down below where this point isn't too relevant anymore.

Brovo said And we're back to extremes, joy. Yes, lets punish the religious now for crimes they did centures ago, like in the Crusades. While we're at it lets punish me for having German ancestry-- somewhere down the line my family lineage served in an invasive force that murdered, pillaged, and raped villages as soldiers of the Reich, the Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, or a barbarous tribe.

That isn't the same thing, one is active beliefs, values and a system followed. The other is part of your genetic make up which you have no control over.

Brovo said A Teapot orbiting the Earth is acceptable because it displays the ludicrous nature of blind faith without evidence having to resort to a rape claim about the opposing side. Basically: It's a positive claim, it requires no need to point at religion, it just posits blind faith in the teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars is irrational. I know all about Russell's Teapot, why are you lecturing me on this?

It wasn't meant as a lecture but a comparison as to why the idea of simply passing/allowing blind faith isn't a good practice.

Brovo said -A list of examples of non-religious related wars and conflicts-

I never claimed that all conflict was caused by Religion, only that Religion was a cause of conflict and violence.

Brovo said Fact of the matter is this Gwazi. There will always be religious people. Holding absolute xenophobia towards them will do nothing but make you paranoid and miserable.

Simply accepting something as ok though because it cannot be 100% removed is not always an effective outcome though.
There are thing's that should not be accepted even if we know it will not completely go away, if one of those things is moderate religion though is going to be addressed further below.

Brovo said Except that the Catholic Church has funded scientific progress for centuries (censoring the bits they didn't like albeit, but gotta give credit where credit is due), and Judeo-Christian art, literature, music, and architecture all were so wildly successful that they still hold core parts of modern society.

True, credit should be granted where it's due. But funding scientific results they do not is ultimately harmful to science.

Brovo said Atop this, many "religious" conflicts were generally orchestrated to acquire resources or to put mercenaries to work. There were a couple of the later, less successful crusades that were issued by the Pope specifically to just give the rampaging bored mercenaries something to do other than slaughter villages and rape people in Europe. So he sent them to the middle east to go slaughter people and rape women there instead... Not for actually, religious, reasons

Eh... That's more changing the victim than stopping violence. That seems more of a case of "These people are of value/use to me, they aren't. So kill them instead" which I would not value any higher than a Pope who simply allowed the Mercs to kill his own people. Now the argument could be said "But it's tactics/logical, they are his people", that is true. However if we look at it as a global perspective, if we want more peace and cooperation among different groups of people we aren't going to get it by simply allowing other people to die in order to save our own.

If it was a case of say a Pope using Religion to stop a war? That'd be different, but simply changing the victims doesn't sway me.

Brovo said Except when your hatred is so extreme that you take it all the way out onto a role playing forum who when I last polled them on oldguild was roughly 52% christian, and there's only maybe a half a dozen full out fundie psychos amongst them... And yet you broadly target them all... And repeatedly try to get under their skin, even as multiple threads on this subject by you get closed or deleted for being flagrant trolling, flaming, and hate speech. Can you at least see how this behaviour is completely unacceptable?

We can probably also get similar results on a poll that was something like "Do you believe weed should stay illegal?" or depending on the group you caught "Do you think LGBT people should not marry?", but we would still argue them even if it was majority opinion. However, I realize you're pointing at the fact I'm going after Religion as a whole, not just the extremists who actually cause the issues. And I will admit, I probably should loosen up and focus it on those who are actually doing harm.

I don't purposely get under their skin though, I am blunt with my opinion and that just happens to bother people. Granted I won't take any efforts to change my approach or method simply because people get annoyed by it, but getting people's skin is not an actual goal of mine.

As for the Mods closing the thread? They have almost never left a reason or explanation as to why they close a thread when they do so. They simply close it suddenly without a word. As a result for all intents and purposes it's just as likely they simply do not like to see people in conflict on the Guild, rather than say the thread is simply being flaming, hate speech or trolling. I've seen threads closed down before that were actually very good and interesting just because one person was upset by the way things were going. And having seen people wishing to avoid conflict by almost any means before (My High School friends are largely like this. If there's some conflict in the group they ignore it completely until it builds to the point it simply is impossible to ignore) I was fairly willing to simply assume the Mods/Admins didn't like seeing conflict on their site and would close a topic whenever it would start to show too much.

Lesson of the story: The Mods/Admins should really make a post about why they're closing the thread before the close it.

Brovo said If everyone said everything that was on their mind the entire world would be a blood bath by Tuesday. There's such a thing as a little white lie. Even then, I've made it very apparently clear to you before I don't hold a high opinion of your loaded questions. I've even called you intellectually dishonest before. What makes you surprised to learn this stuff? How is it dishonest that I never told you? Not telling you is not being dishonest: It's literally just not telling you.

People have argued the value of white lies to me before, but I still find it to be something that purposely feed's a person false information, which as a result leaves them less aware and less prepared for the truth which can ultimately hurt them in the long run, even if the intention of it was good.

As for simply not telling people? Not as bad as a white lie because there's no false information to take it's place and cause harm. But it's still holding back info that as a result of being held back leaves the person not as well aware or equipped.

Note: Obvious exception if said info would cause harm if exposed.
Like telling an abusive partner where their spouse is when in a rage.

Maybe I've just been exposed to poor arguments for white lies though, the main example I was given by people to defend it was telling something they're parent loves them when in fact the parent is completely abusive and clearly doesn't care. All that does it give the abused child false hope and set's them up to a bigger let down and pain later on. Obviously it feels nicer as the moment to be all fuzzy and warm with the white lies, but that's only making it worse for the person you're lying to so you don't have to deal with the pressure of being honest with them.

As for you specifically? You've said similar things true, and a fair amount in those PMs was those you have said before. But the overall combination of what was exposed in the PM's as a new perspective I was not aware of until now.

Brovo said And yes, yes you do start fights. Look at your own opening question and seriously ask yourself... Why would you ask something so blatantly flame-bait-tastic?... Did you really not see how that might be flame bait considering it's literally a double logical fallacy as I explained earlier whose only purpose is to "win" a debate before you even started it?... A debate I might add that is quite literally about ... Really?

Start fights? I admit to, I will start debates/topics that I know fully well at some point will turn into a fight. But the goal is never to start the fight, but for the debate that can happen before then.

As for the baiting? Being perfectly honestly that one did completely miss me as being a logical fallacy for some reason. It's obvious when explained to me, but on my own I simply didn't catch it. I honestly thought I was simply making the argument of "You don't need Religion to know you don't need to rape and murder people". This was a big hiccup though, I know. :/

Though this was to be fair a one-two sentence one argument in the OP. It's not like the cover of my post was "Do you need Religion to not rape?" or anything like that.

Brovo said Also, it should say a lot that when we're almost 100% agreed on every topic, but on religion I literally just straight up tell people that you won't learn, attack other people's beliefs, and intentionally attempt to rile up the religious... Really, I mean, it should.

That argument can go two ways however, I could also say we're almost 100% agreed on every topic but on religion I'm constantly disagreeing with you.
Granted, I don't say you're attacking people, won't learn or intentionally attempt to rile up people (you don't). I simply view(ed) it as I simply wasn't making the right points, arguments, proof, evidence etc. to sway you otherwise. And I honestly respect that, it shows you have a high standard to change your stance it wasn't something that would happen willy-nilly.

Brovo said You have to learn to live with them, that's kind of what freedom and tolerance and so on is all about.

Good point, though note that also allows freedom of opinion. And I was never pushing for any laws or anything that would ban religion, make religious people less important etc. From a legal sense, all I want is to see Religion stop being valued as the influence it is over things such as Education, Government and Science. I do personally strongly disagree with religion, but I would never take legal action to suppress them, that's counter-productive to the whole point of not only freedom but science as well.

Brovo said Especially on a !@#$ing forum about !@#$ing role playing.

I don't go around to every RP or casual site and have debate's like this. I have them here because there is an establish community and section of the Guild made for topic's like this. Where they do also come up often. I assume anyone on Off Topic is here because they want to be involved in such discussions. You'd never see me do it somewhere such as in an Roleplay chat, or go to another RP site and start it right off the bat without having an idea of the community or if they have a section for such things or not. That would just be ridiculous. :/

Brovo said If you seriously read my posts, at all, you'd realize that, no, I'm not afraid at all to fight religion or the religious, in any way, on any front. Hell, I enjoy it to a certain extent. I just know when to draw the line and say that it's going too far into the realm of nitpicking, extremism, or stupidity. Randomly starting threads that attempt to attack every single potential contribution religion and the religious have made, then ending it off with a self-answered rape question.

My last post there was worded poorly. :/

"you have become a bit afraid/reluctant of fully criticizing and being at odd's with it."

I was conscious and aware that you constantly tackle Religion with no qualms. But even in Religion there are certain area's you put your foot down on.
Basically what we were debating, I had issues with the system of Religion itself and you weren't going to go that far. It wasn't mean to imply you did not tackle religion, but that there were limits (very high limits mind you, but still limits).

"I think having grown up around religious people, people who are good and decent people who happen to be religious"

Though my reasoning behind the source was flat out wrong, I'll admit that. I originally assumed part of your reason for having this limit was two things.

1. Not getting enough proof/evidence/good arguments to convince you that Religion as a system was bad
2. Not wanting to completely trample over people's toe's on this because it is something that is held dear to several people who either feel close to or at least highly respect

Up to this point, I wasn't exposed to enough good argument's and points to make me back of on Religion. Though this post did bring up enough good points to at least make me halt & reconsider (In all honesty, you might of been helped by simply going full out blunt and bringing out the PMs. [+Imperfectionist's evaluation into my history] I've noticed I tend to absorb info people when people aren't holding anything back). Not to say you've fully convinced me yet mind you, but you did at least halt me and make me have to start re-reflecting (which granted, was the same way I was for a bit after debating Jorick. I didn't change then and there, I had to leave and reflect for a while before actually making the change).

Brovo said I told Imperfectionist there they had permission to post up those PM's so it could be pointed out to you, to your face, instead of behind your back for once. Because believe me, I hear a lot of people talk about how irritated, frustrated, and sometimes even pissed off they are with your antics, from Skype to Steam to PM's on Roleplayer Guild and so on. I figured you deserved to get a look at it because I'm blunt enough to say it and have the integrity to stand by what I've said

Thanks for that :) I much rather just being told the facts/situation like that rather than being kept in the dark.

Though I'm honestly not surprised at all that people have been complaining about me behind my back, I don't make much (if any) efforts to make my argument's and points likable/gentle outside of simply not mindlessly insulting people when it's not relevant. Mainly just going by if the argument I make it logical enough people will note it, and if not it can be exposed for how it is. I'm too concerned with how many friends or enemies I make in the process, I'm more than used to being the sole person surrounded by people who hate me, so some people getting annoyed about me behind my back is basically "Seen it, Had it, Expected it".

Brovo said An adult who believes that God created the universe? Not worth seriously fighting. Sometimes fun to engage in philosophical banter, even to practice, but to fight?... It's pointless, they're not the enemy. The fundamentalists are... And so is our own hatred, because it blinds us to real targets, to real problems, and creates convenience scapegoats. Like that if all religion was gone, magically, the world would be a better place. No, not really, we'd find some other dumbshit stuff to fight over, like ideology, political or economic. It's just in our nature.

Good point, which has made me realize one other thing on myself.
As much I try to practice Logic over Emotion there is one emotion I've been unconsciously allowing to slip by, hatred.
Which is arguably the worse one to let out. :/

And also good point on the finding another reason, I do realize that humans use more than just religion to excuse violence and hatred. But it would make sense where if Religion was gone those desire's would transition to others motivations. Though that does lead me to one question, if it became over something such as say Politic's would it be as easy for parents to teach it to their children like they do Religion?

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

***Clarification on an a family history bit I mentioned***

Having scanned it over I feel like I may of ran over a detail too quickly. I am not in bad terms with my parents or anything and my Mom and I have made peace since the days we argued daily. However, I never got much a chance to grow too closer with either, somewhat with my dad because we at least home some of the time, but my Mom was always someone I argued with. But there is not any kind of abusive or cruel relationship between us. My relationship between me and my parents are more neutral, I can get along with them, but I can also get by without them (emotionally, I wouldn't say I could do so financially yet).

Brovo said @Gwazi: At work so can't make a long post, but if you seriously think an extreme hatred of all religion indiscriminately isn't blatantly unhealthy... Then you really are beyond learning anything. Hatred breeds nothing but more hatred. Nobody wins, and everyone suffers until they are utterly consumed by it. It also overpowers rational thought.

Also, apparently my being extremely blunt with you presuming you would be mature enough to take it was a bit unfounded when you then state, boldly, that I lied to you... Somehow

I've highlighted several times how I've learn many things through such debates, it's just that you do not find me agreeing with you on the topic of Religion. Also almost every famous atheist and/or scientist share's this stance in one form or another, may it be Thunderf00t, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens etc. If it was another example that has not been culturally accepted such as belief in a teapot orbiting the earth, or adults going to church to worship the tooth fairy and such belief's has led to people being cruel to one another, starting genocides, the end of relationships, children removed from their homes, children being cut off from any education consisting of science, you would still be disagreeing with me like this?

It's not even the people of the Religion I hate, it's the system of Religion that has been used to destroy minds, gather people to commit terrible acts against one another, and has held back scientific advancement for a long time. I understand how hatred is a terrible thing to be feeling towards something, but it would be pretty impossible not to hold hatred towards a system like that once you really look at it in that sense.

Also your bluntness is fine, I can take bluntness. I prefer bluntness, but simply being blunt alone will not convince me. And what I said was there some things you simply were not being 100% blunt/honest on your opinions until now. Looking at the PM's you've said stuff such as:

"Gwazi is here to reinforce his own sense of belief by attempting to tear down the beliefs of others and start fights"

"Except he doesn't learn"

Which was stuff you never said outright to me, either having held it back completely or said it in a gentle way (which you admit was your approach on steam) so it wasn't obvious (which is why I prefer bluntness. Your honest opinion is shown without question and at risk of confusion or misinterpretation. It wasn't that you lied you to me, it was that there things on your mind in regards to this topic towards me that you didn't say, and had to revealed through the PM's.

But to be fair, even in debate's we tend not go into personal evaluations of people unless if it's asked. But it is kind of unfair in reflection to say you are not being 100% open on your thoughts in me and I myself haven't put my whole thought's in the table either (Not out of gentleness, just lack of relevancy) but to describe my thoughts bluntly on you and your position here, if for nothing more than to be fair and be on a better understanding with one another:

I find you be a very logical and rational person, one who is not afraid to call out bullshit when you see it and argue your points fiercely but calmly to defend your point and I highly respect and admire that. In most issues I tend to find myself in close to 100% agreed with you. However, in the topic of Religion although I see this same thing going on I think having grown up around religious people, people who are good and decent people who happen to be religious, you have become a bit afraid/reluctant of fully criticizing and being at odd's with it.

I really can't go any deeper than that because personally, I don't know you well enough to go any further with such claims. Even the last part is iffy and I'm pretty sure is wrong or misinterpreted.

I would prefer though we find a way to make whatever hostility that seems to be between us over this topic to be found, exposed, and stopped. I'm fine if that doesn't happen and we end up going our separate ways not getting along with one another. I'm more than used to that result with people in things, and I've built of enough tolerance that one more person isn't going to effect me. But I'd rather we not get to this point, it would be a shame and a waste if this allows us to become at odds with one another when we agree and get along in almost every other topic.

I do honestly want to be proven wrong wherever I debate a stance/opinion of mine, doing so means I've learned something new and have a chance to grow. But I just haven't ran into the right argument, or proof yet to convince me otherwise. Something that shows Religion does provide good, a good at can be enjoyed without bringing in all the bad, a good that Religion doesn't preach to be only from them. Now if this is shown, I'd still walk away an atheist like you, unable to believe in something without the proof for it to exist, but if I can be shown that Religion (or at least) some of it, can provide something of value to people without claiming to be the sole provider of it, and without carrying the bad baggage Religion also holds I will step down from my earlier argument.