Search:

[QUOTE=Stealthbomber16;917896]I have to decide if I want to commit to a bit hard enough to make a calendar entry to necro this in one year[/QUOTE]

that might get you banned and hit by a truck

Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16

I have to decide if I want to commit to a bit hard enough to make a calendar entry to necro this in one year

that might get you banned and hit by a truck

[QUOTE=Helz;917858]I think this list is not accurate at all. For many years FM posts were not counted and once they were it did not go back and count the previous posts. If they were I would expect some peoples posts to break 50k and a lot of the older names who haven't come around in a long time to be higher up on the list.[/QUOTE]

to be fair, older fms often had much less posts from what I have seen. We've had FMs in the past couple years where individual players were going over 1000 posts by themselves. From what I have seen of the ancient ones, they generally wouldn't even break 1000 total

Originally Posted by Helz

I think this list is not accurate at all. For many years FM posts were not counted and once they were it did not go back and count the previous posts. If they were I would expect some peoples posts to break 50k and a lot of the older names who haven't come around in a long time to be higher up on the list.

to be fair, older fms often had much less posts from what I have seen. We've had FMs in the past couple years where individual players were going over 1000 posts by themselves. From what I have seen of the ancient ones, they generally wouldn't even break 1000 total

[QUOTE=OzyWho;917888]Step 1 - let's all call each other brother and sister.
Step 2 - have technology that can detect bad gene matches.
Step 3 - have a away to avoid bad matches, even a dating app will do.
Step 4 - no more incest problems and everyone lives happily ever after.[/QUOTE]

Step 2 advanced - euthanize everybody with bad genes

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Step 1 - let's all call each other brother and sister.
Step 2 - have technology that can detect bad gene matches.
Step 3 - have a away to avoid bad matches, even a dating app will do.
Step 4 - no more incest problems and everyone lives happily ever after.

Step 2 advanced - euthanize everybody with bad genes

Could people even try to respect the rules? Thread closed

Could people even try to respect the rules? Thread closed

the reason general incest would give a higher proportion of Haemophilia and similar genetic diseases:

If I happen to be XH Xh = carrier female, then it implies that at least 1 of my parents had at least one small h of their own. Therefore, there's a significantly higher chance my brother would have it too, versus if he was just some other random male.

And since at least 1 of my parents has at least 1 small h, it implies that at least 1 of my grandparents has at least 1 as well. Which increases the chance of all of my aunts, uncles, and cousins that share that grandparent having it too.


So basically just think of it as incest simply amplifies the chance of any recessive alleles you're carrying of expressing themselves in the offspring.

the reason general incest would give a higher proportion of Haemophilia and similar genetic diseases:

If I happen to be XH Xh = carrier female, then it implies that at least 1 of my parents had at least one small h of their own. Therefore, there's a significantly higher chance my brother would have it too, versus if he was just some other random male.

And since at least 1 of my parents has at least 1 small h, it implies that at least 1 of my grandparents has at least 1 as well. Which increases the chance of all of my aunts, uncles, and cousins that share that grandparent having it too.


So basically just think of it as incest simply amplifies the chance of any recessive alleles you're carrying of expressing themselves in the offspring.

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;917817]I’m guessing there is a catch to this because I can’t imagine it’s at all common for people to be able to shag their sisters without ending up with children with serious mental and physical disabilities. So, most people carry those recessive alleles, right?[/QUOTE]

[url]https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-are-dominant-and-recessive-alleles[/url]

Scroll down to the bottom here and see the description of Haemophilia

If two people like these had babies:
XH XH = healthy female
XH Y = healthy male

The babies would be guaranteed to inherit the dominant big H since the parents do not possess the recessive small H.

Since the babies don't have it either, if they had babies with each other they would also only get the dominant big H.

and etc. So, outside of a genetic mutation, these people could have incest babies forever without developing haemophilia

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

I’m guessing there is a catch to this because I can’t imagine it’s at all common for people to be able to shag their sisters without ending up with children with serious mental and physical disabilities. So, most people carry those recessive alleles, right?

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/wha...essive-alleles

Scroll down to the bottom here and see the description of Haemophilia

If two people like these had babies:
XH XH = healthy female
XH Y = healthy male

The babies would be guaranteed to inherit the dominant big H since the parents do not possess the recessive small H.

Since the babies don't have it either, if they had babies with each other they would also only get the dominant big H.

and etc. So, outside of a genetic mutation, these people could have incest babies forever without developing haemophilia

[QUOTE=SuperJack;917804]here is your assumption that getting married gets you children.
or that you can have children without marriage


I vote to ban marriage altogether within the aspects of law. I found it quite annoyed that I had to pay money to get a piece of paper just so that I can save money on tax and make future paperwork a little less hassle free.[/QUOTE]

my bad, i meant we should euthanize everyone except you SJ, as you clearly have the perfect genes

Originally Posted by SuperJack

here is your assumption that getting married gets you children.
or that you can have children without marriage


I vote to ban marriage altogether within the aspects of law. I found it quite annoyed that I had to pay money to get a piece of paper just so that I can save money on tax and make future paperwork a little less hassle free.

my bad, i meant we should euthanize everyone except you SJ, as you clearly have the perfect genes

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;917799]I’m confused as to why people think Pakis having a higher risk of genetic disorders is better than cousin marriage being the cause.

It could also be that one cousin marriage isn’t that big a deal, but several generations doing it over and over could. Think about it. You share 12.5% of your DNA with your cousin. What happens when your kid marries another cousin of theirs? They may be more closely related than normal because of inbreeding.[/QUOTE]

if you don't carry any bad recessive alleles then inbreeding wouldn't put your kids at risk for anything. Technically, the best way to ensure genetically superior children would be to find the two humans with the most "perfect" genes and force them and their offspring to inbreed. That is actually a large part of why white supremacists look down upon interracial marriages because they feel the white blood is superior and that breeding with other races introduces their defects to the white population (which would technically be true if the 'white bloodline' was actually superior/defect free)

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

I’m confused as to why people think Pakis having a higher risk of genetic disorders is better than cousin marriage being the cause.

It could also be that one cousin marriage isn’t that big a deal, but several generations doing it over and over could. Think about it. You share 12.5% of your DNA with your cousin. What happens when your kid marries another cousin of theirs? They may be more closely related than normal because of inbreeding.

if you don't carry any bad recessive alleles then inbreeding wouldn't put your kids at risk for anything. Technically, the best way to ensure genetically superior children would be to find the two humans with the most "perfect" genes and force them and their offspring to inbreed. That is actually a large part of why white supremacists look down upon interracial marriages because they feel the white blood is superior and that breeding with other races introduces their defects to the white population (which would technically be true if the 'white bloodline' was actually superior/defect free)

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;917799]I’m confused as to why people think Pakis having a higher risk of genetic disorders is better than cousin marriage being the cause.[/QUOTE]

my point is that we are talking about something that happens to roughly 1 in 200 pakistani babies in birmingham in the UK. There are all kinds of horrible things that could happen to your child that occur more frequently than 1 in 200. For example if you're black, there's a very high chance your child will be black. So we should probably ban black marriage!

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

I’m confused as to why people think Pakis having a higher risk of genetic disorders is better than cousin marriage being the cause.

my point is that we are talking about something that happens to roughly 1 in 200 pakistani babies in birmingham in the UK. There are all kinds of horrible things that could happen to your child that occur more frequently than 1 in 200. For example if you're black, there's a very high chance your child will be black. So we should probably ban black marriage!

[QUOTE=OzyWho;917739]From that perspective, remember that relatively recently Pakistan and India were one and the same country and got split in 2 due to religion.
And I doubt, though I haven't checked, that there's much more Pakistani than Indians in.. well.. anywhere tbh. And the article wouldn't had specified the 30% to be Pakistani if it wasn't the case.[/QUOTE]

the dailymail article is a farce and should be ignored. It fails to identify any of its supposed sources. The site is notorious for that. It's banned as a source on wikipedia. Not that they're wrong about arranged cousin marriages being more likely to produce children with genetic defects. That's undeniably true. But if they can't actually show you the research study then the numbers are probably just made up for the sake of sensationalism.

[SPOILER=60 percent]"city’s British-Pakistani community, in which around 60 per cent of mothers are married to their cousins according, to a major academic study." [/SPOILER] which study? and note this is talking about just the city of bradford and not the entire UK


[SPOILER=545]"New official figures shown to the Mail reveal a worrying picture across England. Shockingly, cousin marriages are a key factor in an average of two child deaths every week.
This figure is derived from the fact that a total of 545 boys or girls born to closely related couples have died in childhood during the past five years, according to the Department for Education, which collates data from Child Death Overview Panels in every council area. (It is the job of these panels to examine the deaths of any child under the age of 18.)
Thousands more children of consanguineous marriages survive, but with appalling physical or mental problems. These include blindness, deafness, blood ailments, heart or kidney failure, lung or liver problems and a myriad of often incurable and complex neurological or brain disorders."[/SPOILER] All of this nonsense is based on the 1 fact they referenced of 545 people age 0-17 dying over the course of 5 years. Note that the statistic is just deaths, and NOT deaths due to a defect.

[SPOILER=bbcDaily]"According to a report for the BBC’s Newsnight, British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population.

They are responsible for three percent of all births, but produce just under a third of all British children with such health problems.

In Birmingham, around one in ten children from first cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious life-long disability caused by genetic ailments, according to health officials in the city, where half the mothers of Pakistani origin are married to a close relative."[/SPOILER]
Here they have just super lazily copeid the following from the BBC article:
[SPOILER=bbc]"British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder."[/SPOILER]
Which itself fails to cite the source for 13 times, 3%, 1/3. But I guess if you cite me saying "100% of all people are gay", then technically you had a source! good for you! Please note that the dailymail article is published in 2018 and citing a 2005 article from bbc as if it is completely up-to-date factual information LOL.

[SPOILER=report]"Meanwhile, a research document by the NHS-funded Enhanced Genetic Services Project reveals that in Birmingham in 2009-2010, the combined infant stillbirth and death rate ‘definitely or probably’ due to genetic disorders inherited from Pakistani cousin parents was 38 times higher than that among white European babies in the city.

The report — one of the most thorough into this health and social problem — says: ‘Almost a third of the affected children die before five years of age.

Most of the survivors suffer chronic disability, and they are cared for by their families, posing tremendous emotional and financial strain.’"[/SPOILER]
So here is the actual report: [url]https://www.phgfoundation.org/documents/376_1412153210.pdf[/url]

The dailymail claim is wildly off. The paper says that the number of infant deaths +still births due to autosomal recessive conditons was 38 fold higher in pakistani babies. NOT due to genetic disorders in general and NOT specific to cousin-marriages.
In fact, in table 5 you can see the ID+SB totals for all congenital anomalies:
Maternal Ethnic Groups SB+IDs Total Births
European 106 37,764
Pakistani 166 20,117

So 106/37764 = 0.0028
166/20117 = 0.0082

0.0082/0.0028 = 2.94. So a little less than 3 times as likely, nowhere close to the dailymail claim of 38 times. And since the data is not specific to cousin-marriages, it is entirely possible that a chunk of that difference is, as SJ suggested, due to the pakistani parents having a higher percentage of congenital anomalies themselves (although that gets into a who came first, the chicken or the egg? issue).

the next quote about a third dying before 5 is also bogus since it's specific to all british children born with "severe autosomal recessive disorders" and is not specific to pakistani children the way the dailymail tries to frame it as such.





Anyway, of course marrying blood relatives leads to a higher percentage of genetic disorders. But since people love to use shitty sources on here I thought it would be fun to show the bs that is being read as fact

Originally Posted by OzyWho

From that perspective, remember that relatively recently Pakistan and India were one and the same country and got split in 2 due to religion.
And I doubt, though I haven't checked, that there's much more Pakistani than Indians in.. well.. anywhere tbh. And the article wouldn't had specified the 30% to be Pakistani if it wasn't the case.

the dailymail article is a farce and should be ignored. It fails to identify any of its supposed sources. The site is notorious for that. It's banned as a source on wikipedia. Not that they're wrong about arranged cousin marriages being more likely to produce children with genetic defects. That's undeniably true. But if they can't actually show you the research study then the numbers are probably just made up for the sake of sensationalism.

Spoiler : 60 percent :

"city’s British-Pakistani community, in which around 60 per cent of mothers are married to their cousins according, to a major academic study."

which study? and note this is talking about just the city of bradford and not the entire UK

Spoiler : 545 :

"New official figures shown to the Mail reveal a worrying picture across England. Shockingly, cousin marriages are a key factor in an average of two child deaths every week.
This figure is derived from the fact that a total of 545 boys or girls born to closely related couples have died in childhood during the past five years, according to the Department for Education, which collates data from Child Death Overview Panels in every council area. (It is the job of these panels to examine the deaths of any child under the age of 18.)
Thousands more children of consanguineous marriages survive, but with appalling physical or mental problems. These include blindness, deafness, blood ailments, heart or kidney failure, lung or liver problems and a myriad of often incurable and complex neurological or brain disorders."

All of this nonsense is based on the 1 fact they referenced of 545 people age 0-17 dying over the course of 5 years. Note that the statistic is just deaths, and NOT deaths due to a defect.

Spoiler : bbcDaily :

"According to a report for the BBC’s Newsnight, British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population.

They are responsible for three percent of all births, but produce just under a third of all British children with such health problems.

In Birmingham, around one in ten children from first cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious life-long disability caused by genetic ailments, according to health officials in the city, where half the mothers of Pakistani origin are married to a close relative."

Here they have just super lazily copeid the following from the BBC article:

Spoiler : bbc :

"British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder."

Which itself fails to cite the source for 13 times, 3%, 1/3. But I guess if you cite me saying "100% of all people are gay", then technically you had a source! good for you! Please note that the dailymail article is published in 2018 and citing a 2005 article from bbc as if it is completely up-to-date factual information LOL.

Spoiler : report :

"Meanwhile, a research document by the NHS-funded Enhanced Genetic Services Project reveals that in Birmingham in 2009-2010, the combined infant stillbirth and death rate ‘definitely or probably’ due to genetic disorders inherited from Pakistani cousin parents was 38 times higher than that among white European babies in the city.

The report — one of the most thorough into this health and social problem — says: ‘Almost a third of the affected children die before five years of age.

Most of the survivors suffer chronic disability, and they are cared for by their families, posing tremendous emotional and financial strain.’"

So here is the actual report: https://www.phgfoundation.org/docume...1412153210.pdf

The dailymail claim is wildly off. The paper says that the number of infant deaths +still births due to autosomal recessive conditons was 38 fold higher in pakistani babies. NOT due to genetic disorders in general and NOT specific to cousin-marriages.
In fact, in table 5 you can see the ID+SB totals for all congenital anomalies:
Maternal Ethnic Groups SB+IDs Total Births
European 106 37,764
Pakistani 166 20,117

So 106/37764 = 0.0028
166/20117 = 0.0082

0.0082/0.0028 = 2.94. So a little less than 3 times as likely, nowhere close to the dailymail claim of 38 times. And since the data is not specific to cousin-marriages, it is entirely possible that a chunk of that difference is, as SJ suggested, due to the pakistani parents having a higher percentage of congenital anomalies themselves (although that gets into a who came first, the chicken or the egg? issue).

the next quote about a third dying before 5 is also bogus since it's specific to all british children born with "severe autosomal recessive disorders" and is not specific to pakistani children the way the dailymail tries to frame it as such.





Anyway, of course marrying blood relatives leads to a higher percentage of genetic disorders. But since people love to use shitty sources on here I thought it would be fun to show the bs that is being read as fact

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;917652]Incest is probably quite bad but I don't think that incestuous marriage should be regulated.

I'd also like to point out that, along with the handful of states that were mentioned in the OP, first-cousin marriage is actually legal in EVERY SINGLE country that the posters in this thread are from (except aamirus, assuming she is from the US). Have you noticed?[/QUOTE]

I think there’s a second reason to ban it. The first reason as you mentioned: likelihood of genetic defects. Well we don’t ban people with genetic defects in general from having children so that logic doesn’t fit.

I actually think the laws come from older times where inheritance, noble families, royal families etc were more important. As a noble it makes sense to ban the royal family from incestual marriage because it forces them to marry one of you. Same with peasants and nobles. So I don’t have evidence but that’s my suspicion, because I can’t imagine why lawmakers would sit down and be like “incest is gross let’s ban it!” And not ban all other gross things or high risks for genetic defects, etc.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Incest is probably quite bad but I don't think that incestuous marriage should be regulated.

I'd also like to point out that, along with the handful of states that were mentioned in the OP, first-cousin marriage is actually legal in EVERY SINGLE country that the posters in this thread are from (except aamirus, assuming she is from the US). Have you noticed?

I think there’s a second reason to ban it. The first reason as you mentioned: likelihood of genetic defects. Well we don’t ban people with genetic defects in general from having children so that logic doesn’t fit.

I actually think the laws come from older times where inheritance, noble families, royal families etc were more important. As a noble it makes sense to ban the royal family from incestual marriage because it forces them to marry one of you. Same with peasants and nobles. So I don’t have evidence but that’s my suspicion, because I can’t imagine why lawmakers would sit down and be like “incest is gross let’s ban it!” And not ban all other gross things or high risks for genetic defects, etc.

wow looks amazing!

wow looks amazing!

[QUOTE=rumox;917580]The list is fine, I enjoy the list and would even say do it again. Just don't ping the people :)[/QUOTE]

This

Originally Posted by rumox

The list is fine, I enjoy the list and would even say do it again. Just don't ping the people

This

This is not a debate at all. Sending people notifications for posts they don’t need to be notified about is annoying. Trying to act proud of that is just childish

Instead of being like “ooh it’s no big deal get over it!” You could just listen to the complaints and agree not to do it again

This is not a debate at all. Sending people notifications for posts they don’t need to be notified about is annoying. Trying to act proud of that is just childish

Instead of being like “ooh it’s no big deal get over it!” You could just listen to the complaints and agree not to do it again

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;917170]Why does your AI automatically cause inbreeding lol? I've conquered half the known world in a game (with a ton of kinsmen) and had no inbreeding (unless I forced it, which would be dumb).[/QUOTE]

It just depends on the religion/culture you’re playing as. If it allows incestual marriages then they will happen since it’s the best way to keep your lands consolidated

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Why does your AI automatically cause inbreeding lol? I've conquered half the known world in a game (with a ton of kinsmen) and had no inbreeding (unless I forced it, which would be dumb).

It just depends on the religion/culture you’re playing as. If it allows incestual marriages then they will happen since it’s the best way to keep your lands consolidated

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;917100]people already did that, there was a huge conspiracy when trump got elected that he got helped by Russia in the election, twitter won’t mind
regardless, since when does twitter get to decide whats false and whats not?
and, i dont think its ‘verifiably false’ that trump won the election, its not clear to me what happened exactly. there were some inconsistencies that i didn’t really understand, and while im not jumping the gun and saying he 100% won and there was widespread fraud, i dont think its fair to qualify the statement that he lost it as verifiable either[/QUOTE]

Whether you think there was voting fraud or not, it’s objectively true that congress counted the electoral college votes and determined that Biden was the winner.

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

people already did that, there was a huge conspiracy when trump got elected that he got helped by Russia in the election, twitter won’t mind
regardless, since when does twitter get to decide whats false and whats not?
and, i dont think its ‘verifiably false’ that trump won the election, its not clear to me what happened exactly. there were some inconsistencies that i didn’t really understand, and while im not jumping the gun and saying he 100% won and there was widespread fraud, i dont think its fair to qualify the statement that he lost it as verifiable either

Whether you think there was voting fraud or not, it’s objectively true that congress counted the electoral college votes and determined that Biden was the winner.

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;917035]Not that it matters where you or I got it from, what matters is that Twitter is selective about what it deems violent rhetoric and what it doesn’t, and the theme seems to be, if you attack Israel, or white people, especially white MEN, that’s not violent :P but if you think the election was unfair, and you have a speech on how it was stolen (did any of you read the full transcript of his speech or watch it? I did recently, and it wasn’t anywhere near as bad as ppl made it out to be, it’s your typical MAGA Trump speech, like literally; ironically I read it on Al-Jazeera, which if I’m not mistaken is an islamic fundamentalist news network, funny how they can be more objective than CNN, I wonder what that says about CNN and other news networks like them)[/QUOTE]

well i don't really go on twitter but I thought the "censoring" was mainly posts that were verifiably false like "Trump won the 2020 election".

I think you would prove your point if you tried tweeting "Trump won the 2020 election" and "Hillary won the 2016 election", and see if twitter flags/censors both posts or not.

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

Not that it matters where you or I got it from, what matters is that Twitter is selective about what it deems violent rhetoric and what it doesn’t, and the theme seems to be, if you attack Israel, or white people, especially white MEN, that’s not violent :P but if you think the election was unfair, and you have a speech on how it was stolen (did any of you read the full transcript of his speech or watch it? I did recently, and it wasn’t anywhere near as bad as ppl made it out to be, it’s your typical MAGA Trump speech, like literally; ironically I read it on Al-Jazeera, which if I’m not mistaken is an islamic fundamentalist news network, funny how they can be more objective than CNN, I wonder what that says about CNN and other news networks like them)

well i don't really go on twitter but I thought the "censoring" was mainly posts that were verifiably false like "Trump won the 2020 election".

I think you would prove your point if you tried tweeting "Trump won the 2020 election" and "Hillary won the 2016 election", and see if twitter flags/censors both posts or not.

[QUOTE=SuperJack;917065]Like sticking a stick into a cave.

Not the sticks fault that the cave is absolutely massive and well used.[/QUOTE]

well played

Originally Posted by SuperJack

Like sticking a stick into a cave.

Not the sticks fault that the cave is absolutely massive and well used.

well played

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;916536]deep[/QUOTE]

not really

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

deep

not really

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;917056]Just recently noticed some states in America allow marriages between first-degree cousins. Why? That sounds horrible lol. Yeah maybe doing it once or twice every 10 generations isn’t so horrible but, I mean, I don’t understand genetics all that well but marrying someone who shares 12.5% of your DNA with you sounds like a recipe for getting congenital diseases

I get ppl ‘shagging’ their cousins and whatnot, but marrying them? What are people thinking?

The reason I saw this is because in my current playthrough of CK2, my dynastic members kept marrying within the family (usually generations apart, so the two spouses would only share like a great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather), which would be fine if they didnt do it over and over... I’ve already seen shitty traits like ugly, weak and slow (dumb, for those not familiar with the game) pop up...[/QUOTE]

lol in ck3 there's an achievement for: "Have only two distinct parents, grandparents, and great grandparents". Which is achieved by having brother and sister marry and have children. These children share the same 2 parents. Then have these children marry. Now their children have 2 parents and only 2 grandparents. Then have them marry. Now their children have 2 parents, 2 grandparents, and 2 great grandparents.

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

Just recently noticed some states in America allow marriages between first-degree cousins. Why? That sounds horrible lol. Yeah maybe doing it once or twice every 10 generations isn’t so horrible but, I mean, I don’t understand genetics all that well but marrying someone who shares 12.5% of your DNA with you sounds like a recipe for getting congenital diseases

I get ppl ‘shagging’ their cousins and whatnot, but marrying them? What are people thinking?

The reason I saw this is because in my current playthrough of CK2, my dynastic members kept marrying within the family (usually generations apart, so the two spouses would only share like a great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather), which would be fine if they didnt do it over and over... I’ve already seen shitty traits like ugly, weak and slow (dumb, for those not familiar with the game) pop up...

lol in ck3 there's an achievement for: "Have only two distinct parents, grandparents, and great grandparents". Which is achieved by having brother and sister marry and have children. These children share the same 2 parents. Then have these children marry. Now their children have 2 parents and only 2 grandparents. Then have them marry. Now their children have 2 parents, 2 grandparents, and 2 great grandparents.

Following this logic ladder I think I can say Abortions are objectively good because they send the fetuses to heaven before they have a chance to lose out on salvation during life! I mean helping others get to heaven sounds like a good thing. So if you are already doomed to hell for your sins, the best way you can help your fellow man is by killing as many babies as you can find before they do something that would get them sent to hell!

Following this logic ladder I think I can say Abortions are objectively good because they send the fetuses to heaven before they have a chance to lose out on salvation during life! I mean helping others get to heaven sounds like a good thing. So if you are already doomed to hell for your sins, the best way you can help your fellow man is by killing as many babies as you can find before they do something that would get them sent to hell!

[QUOTE=Mike;916474]You make a lot of valid points. The Blind are they at fault for walking passed someone passed out on the ground and not helping them? No they are not. The same goes for salvation. Jesus charged us with a task to go out and spread the word. In your case you are not blind, but it is your choice to accept Jesus into your heart or not. The Bible teaches man kind to help out one another.[/QUOTE]

alright so again I am curious where the cutoff point is. If I've never heard of jesus then I'm fine. But what if I've just heard his name but that's it? Or just a couple of stories about him? or a lot about him but not the rest of the bible? etc.

And isn't it kind of paradoxical that if nobody ever teaches me about jesus, then I am good to go, but as soon as they tell me about him I have to believe or I'm screwed? Like, missionary work is essentially cruel then because you're taking salvation AWAY from people.

Originally Posted by Mike

You make a lot of valid points. The Blind are they at fault for walking passed someone passed out on the ground and not helping them? No they are not. The same goes for salvation. Jesus charged us with a task to go out and spread the word. In your case you are not blind, but it is your choice to accept Jesus into your heart or not. The Bible teaches man kind to help out one another.

alright so again I am curious where the cutoff point is. If I've never heard of jesus then I'm fine. But what if I've just heard his name but that's it? Or just a couple of stories about him? or a lot about him but not the rest of the bible? etc.

And isn't it kind of paradoxical that if nobody ever teaches me about jesus, then I am good to go, but as soon as they tell me about him I have to believe or I'm screwed? Like, missionary work is essentially cruel then because you're taking salvation AWAY from people.

Your penis

Your penis

Like out of curiosity are these islanders all going to hell even though they don’t know of Christianity? Do you consider this guy a hero? [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Chau[/url]

Like out of curiosity are these islanders all going to hell even though they don’t know of Christianity? Do you consider this guy a hero? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Chau

[QUOTE=Mike;916314]I get that. I do believe in God you do not. That is your right. But I respect you because you talk with Intelligence. You try to submit facts not BS. I still think we are on a similar page. Unless you do not agree with what you have already posted. I do not believe that is the case here.

[COLOR="#00FF00"]Now on to the punish. that goes into the Salvation is not achieved by works alone. It is a matter of faith. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

So why didn’t Jesus show up earlier? And why did he only show up in one part of the world? It seems pretty unfair, for example, that native Americans should have to burn in hell for another 1500 years before they even get exposed to Christianity.

I think a possible answer will be that those who were never exposed to god’s word are exempted from needing to believe, but this leads to a followup question: what counts as me being exposed enough? I mean if a missionary that can’t even speak my language just hands me a Bible that I don’t know how to read, would that be enough? So now I go to hell for poor linguistic skills?

Originally Posted by Mike

I get that. I do believe in God you do not. That is your right. But I respect you because you talk with Intelligence. You try to submit facts not BS. I still think we are on a similar page. Unless you do not agree with what you have already posted. I do not believe that is the case here.

Now on to the punish. that goes into the Salvation is not achieved by works alone. It is a matter of faith.

So why didn’t Jesus show up earlier? And why did he only show up in one part of the world? It seems pretty unfair, for example, that native Americans should have to burn in hell for another 1500 years before they even get exposed to Christianity.

I think a possible answer will be that those who were never exposed to god’s word are exempted from needing to believe, but this leads to a followup question: what counts as me being exposed enough? I mean if a missionary that can’t even speak my language just hands me a Bible that I don’t know how to read, would that be enough? So now I go to hell for poor linguistic skills?

[QUOTE=Mike;916240]Easy Thru Prayer. I used to be a hard core Anti Bible person. I would laugh when others gave me this exact same answer. But until I truly stopped fighting and accepted God and just sat and talked to him a lot of the Fog went away and clarity came. the answers are always in the word of God. It is the crazy religions people trying to control others mis-using Gods word to further there own wants and needs that have dissuaded people into not following Gods word.[/QUOTE]

can you describe what hearing God's word is like? i assume it's not like hearing morgan freeman randomly start talking inside your head?

Originally Posted by Mike

Easy Thru Prayer. I used to be a hard core Anti Bible person. I would laugh when others gave me this exact same answer. But until I truly stopped fighting and accepted God and just sat and talked to him a lot of the Fog went away and clarity came. the answers are always in the word of God. It is the crazy religions people trying to control others mis-using Gods word to further there own wants and needs that have dissuaded people into not following Gods word.

can you describe what hearing God's word is like? i assume it's not like hearing morgan freeman randomly start talking inside your head?

[QUOTE=aamirus;916236]are themselves BS
[/QUOTE]

to clarify: since they are essentially just the product of greedy/power-hungry humans using the idea of God to give themselves power over others

Originally Posted by aamirus

are themselves BS

to clarify: since they are essentially just the product of greedy/power-hungry humans using the idea of God to give themselves power over others

[QUOTE=Mike;916232]True, You can. But then if you try and make God's word what you want it to mean are you truly Reading it? Is it not to read something, Read it in the way it was Written? (The way the Author (in this case God) Wrote it)[/QUOTE]

okay but how do we know what God meant? You say read it in the way it was written by God but since it's just transcribed and translated and interpreted by humans, how can we actually do that?

Originally Posted by Mike

True, You can. But then if you try and make God's word what you want it to mean are you truly Reading it? Is it not to read something, Read it in the way it was Written? (The way the Author (in this case God) Wrote it)

okay but how do we know what God meant? You say read it in the way it was written by God but since it's just transcribed and translated and interpreted by humans, how can we actually do that?

[QUOTE=aamirus;916230]to play devil's advocate though, christianity is one of the dominant religions today specifically because of the two things you're complaining about. Because of popes, archbishops, kings, emperors, etc. pushing it for the sake of "god has given us the right to rule, so therefore all you peasants must listen to us, and if you don't you're a heretic and will be burned!"[/QUOTE]

i mean [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI[/url] and [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII[/url]
should be enough for anybody to see that these religious leaders are a farce.

(the first one bribed and murdered his way to the papacy and the 2nd one created the anglican church just so he could divorce his wife cuz he wanted a male heir)... both are considered to be divine rulers by their respective christian sects

for me that seems like it should be enough for anybody to see organized religion itself as a farce. Not to say that there is no god or higher power, but just that the myriad of organized religions we have are themselves BS



ok rant aside, for anybody who is a roman catholic specifically, i'd be curious how it's possible to believe the pope is god's chosen speaker whilst also acknowledging that historically most of the popes are SERIOUS sinners

Originally Posted by aamirus

to play devil's advocate though, christianity is one of the dominant religions today specifically because of the two things you're complaining about. Because of popes, archbishops, kings, emperors, etc. pushing it for the sake of "god has given us the right to rule, so therefore all you peasants must listen to us, and if you don't you're a heretic and will be burned!"

i mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII
should be enough for anybody to see that these religious leaders are a farce.

(the first one bribed and murdered his way to the papacy and the 2nd one created the anglican church just so he could divorce his wife cuz he wanted a male heir)... both are considered to be divine rulers by their respective christian sects

for me that seems like it should be enough for anybody to see organized religion itself as a farce. Not to say that there is no god or higher power, but just that the myriad of organized religions we have are themselves BS



ok rant aside, for anybody who is a roman catholic specifically, i'd be curious how it's possible to believe the pope is god's chosen speaker whilst also acknowledging that historically most of the popes are SERIOUS sinners

[QUOTE=SuperJack;916225]

It's those that abuse their position and abuse the books to twist them for their own selfish desire that I have issues with. Also those who try to force their beliefs on others.

[/QUOTE]

to play devil's advocate though, christianity is one of the dominant religions today specifically because of the two things you're complaining about. Because of popes, archbishops, kings, emperors, etc. pushing it for the sake of "god has given us the right to rule, so therefore all you peasants must listen to us, and if you don't you're a heretic and will be burned!"

Originally Posted by SuperJack

It's those that abuse their position and abuse the books to twist them for their own selfish desire that I have issues with. Also those who try to force their beliefs on others.

to play devil's advocate though, christianity is one of the dominant religions today specifically because of the two things you're complaining about. Because of popes, archbishops, kings, emperors, etc. pushing it for the sake of "god has given us the right to rule, so therefore all you peasants must listen to us, and if you don't you're a heretic and will be burned!"

[QUOTE=Mike;916223]But people fail to truly read it.[/QUOTE]

let's ignore the bible and just examine this statement. What is it supposed to mean? Can't I say this about almost any text and then try to argue that it (that text) means whatever I want it to mean?

Originally Posted by Mike

But people fail to truly read it.

let's ignore the bible and just examine this statement. What is it supposed to mean? Can't I say this about almost any text and then try to argue that it (that text) means whatever I want it to mean?

closed for judging

closed for judging

like every loser hacker on sc2mafia, why doesn't donald just make himself a smurf account? Then he can play whackamole with the twitter mods

like every loser hacker on sc2mafia, why doesn't donald just make himself a smurf account? Then he can play whackamole with the twitter mods

[QUOTE=Helz;916012]I am not sure I understand what you mean. The election results were pretty blatant on December 4th.

There were lots of protests arguing for stuff like 'Stop the Steal' and such. They actually started in early November but thats kind of erroneous given the subject of this thread.[/QUOTE]

From the rioter's pov, trump didn't officially lose until the day of the riots when congress certified the votes

Originally Posted by Helz

I am not sure I understand what you mean. The election results were pretty blatant on December 4th.

There were lots of protests arguing for stuff like 'Stop the Steal' and such. They actually started in early November but thats kind of erroneous given the subject of this thread.

From the rioter's pov, trump didn't officially lose until the day of the riots when congress certified the votes

but for the capitol riots, the time since trump lost to them was 0 days. That was the whole point lol. Why would they bother rioting during all the time they believed trump had won?

but for the capitol riots, the time since trump lost to them was 0 days. That was the whole point lol. Why would they bother rioting during all the time they believed trump had won?

search engine spiders are on every site they can find

search engine spiders are on every site they can find

[COLOR="#201f1f"]..[/COLOR]







































































































[B]</butishtmlcoolerorbbcode>[/B]

..

[QUOTE=OzyWho;915877]As far as the topic of this thread is concerned, plurality and condercet are both the same in the sense of mandatory lynch at EOD.

Me personally I'm not a believer in condercet. As much as I'm not a fan of a 3 way tie with 2 votes on each at EoD1 - I'm not confident that condercet improves that scenario. If anything I think it's the opposite and is similar to yzb's voting system where the scum could vote each other if the numbers allow it - making it in my eyes even less informative than a 3 way tie EoD1 with just ~50% of votes present.[/QUOTE]

i didn't mean condorcet. I think voss expressed interest in other kinds of new voting systems too

Originally Posted by OzyWho

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned, plurality and condercet are both the same in the sense of mandatory lynch at EOD.

Me personally I'm not a believer in condercet. As much as I'm not a fan of a 3 way tie with 2 votes on each at EoD1 - I'm not confident that condercet improves that scenario. If anything I think it's the opposite and is similar to yzb's voting system where the scum could vote each other if the numbers allow it - making it in my eyes even less informative than a 3 way tie EoD1 with just ~50% of votes present.

i didn't mean condorcet. I think voss expressed interest in other kinds of new voting systems too

no notification

it does show up in the quotes tab on the profile tho, so maybe you're seeing that and mistakenly assuming that's what the notification is referring to

no notification

it does show up in the quotes tab on the profile tho, so maybe you're seeing that and mistakenly assuming that's what the notification is referring to

[QUOTE=Helz;915885]I never really thought about it until today but why do I get a quote notification when I quote someone else? Is that intentional?[/QUOTE]

test

Originally Posted by Helz

I never really thought about it until today but why do I get a quote notification when I quote someone else? Is that intentional?

test

well it's not perfectly attuned to what you wanted but i guess this works
[url]https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/misc.php?do=vsatpomy[/url]

well it's not perfectly attuned to what you wanted but i guess this works
https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/misc.php?do=vsatpomy

Ozy you should talk to [MENTION=6527]Voss[/MENTION] he’s very interested in finding new voting systems that might be better than the existing/usual options

Ozy you should talk to @Voss he’s very interested in finding new voting systems that might be better than the existing/usual options

How does connect 5 compare with connect 4? 🤪

How does connect 5 compare with connect 4? đŸ€Ș

I just don’t understand why the standing variants are so much more popular. They are OBJECTIVELY worse. Like, more effort switching attachments/modes to reach hard to reach places, more effort to avoid getting the wire tangled, more effort to drag the damn thing around the house.. I just can’t think of one pro and yet somehow they’re so much more popular

I just don’t understand why the standing variants are so much more popular. They are OBJECTIVELY worse. Like, more effort switching attachments/modes to reach hard to reach places, more effort to avoid getting the wire tangled, more effort to drag the damn thing around the house.. I just can’t think of one pro and yet somehow they’re so much more popular

[QUOTE=rumox;915769]I absolutely wouldn't be surprised of destructive riots if Trump won. I think anyone who tries to confidently argue there wouldn't have been is being pretty dishonest.[/QUOTE]

I don’t see why losing to trump the 2nd time would be THAT much worse than losing the first time. So I can agree just like the first time there would be “not my President” marches everywhere but I just have a hard time believing in the violence conspiracy theories without evidence. I mean a key issue between left and right is guns and frankly the left just aren’t as in to guns.

Now, anarchists who would have started shit no matter who won? That I can buy into as it just makes sense they’d try to ride the wave whatever the wave was.

But nonetheless there’s a key difference here. Your trumpy voters felt right in their insurrection because they were convinced that the election was stolen from them. Can’t even really blame someone who thinks they are just defending their country right? But if trump had won, you would NOT have the majority of democrat voters thinking that they’d been swindled, cheated, etc. Maybe largely cuz Biden just wouldn’t be a little bitch like trump was. Would there be some salty fucks? Sure. But I still haven’t heard a reason why they would act significantly more violently than they did after Hillary lost

Originally Posted by rumox

I absolutely wouldn't be surprised of destructive riots if Trump won. I think anyone who tries to confidently argue there wouldn't have been is being pretty dishonest.

I don’t see why losing to trump the 2nd time would be THAT much worse than losing the first time. So I can agree just like the first time there would be “not my President” marches everywhere but I just have a hard time believing in the violence conspiracy theories without evidence. I mean a key issue between left and right is guns and frankly the left just aren’t as in to guns.

Now, anarchists who would have started shit no matter who won? That I can buy into as it just makes sense they’d try to ride the wave whatever the wave was.

But nonetheless there’s a key difference here. Your trumpy voters felt right in their insurrection because they were convinced that the election was stolen from them. Can’t even really blame someone who thinks they are just defending their country right? But if trump had won, you would NOT have the majority of democrat voters thinking that they’d been swindled, cheated, etc. Maybe largely cuz Biden just wouldn’t be a little bitch like trump was. Would there be some salty fucks? Sure. But I still haven’t heard a reason why they would act significantly more violently than they did after Hillary lost

[QUOTE=Helz;915341]No. Not at all. You asked what the difference was between the Hillary loss and hypothetical Biden loss.
My statement has nothing to do with the 'raid of the US capitol to stop democracy.'

But yeah; I dont care for the media but from what I understand there was hardcore groups of people set up to riot if trump won. When people set up with firebombs and still use them after they win I would call that terrorism in favor of the democratic party.

I think that Republicans will be worse in the coming years. But fuck off with your efforts to put words in my mouth. I have no problem crossing lines and being emphatically clear about it as I do it.[/QUOTE]

Could you cite your source on firebombs and plan to revolt if Biden lost?

Originally Posted by Helz

No. Not at all. You asked what the difference was between the Hillary loss and hypothetical Biden loss.
My statement has nothing to do with the 'raid of the US capitol to stop democracy.'

But yeah; I dont care for the media but from what I understand there was hardcore groups of people set up to riot if trump won. When people set up with firebombs and still use them after they win I would call that terrorism in favor of the democratic party.

I think that Republicans will be worse in the coming years. But fuck off with your efforts to put words in my mouth. I have no problem crossing lines and being emphatically clear about it as I do it.

Could you cite your source on firebombs and plan to revolt if Biden lost?

[QUOTE=OzyWho;915750]Who on this site gives Reputation in order to send out anonymous sarcastic comments?
I know it's either [MENTION=8508]SuperJack[/MENTION] or [MENTION=29585]aamirus[/MENTION] .
:thinking:

Is it possible to view old Reputation comments without receiving a new one? I promise I can't find a way. NotLikeThis[/QUOTE]

I almost never give out rep unless someone gives it to me first, mainly because I forget it exists

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Who on this site gives Reputation in order to send out anonymous sarcastic comments?
I know it's either @SuperJack or @aamirus .


Is it possible to view old Reputation comments without receiving a new one? I promise I can't find a way.

I almost never give out rep unless someone gives it to me first, mainly because I forget it exists

[QUOTE=SuperJack;915140]As an adult, I do adult things and get stupidly excited over trivial things.

The most recent being a vacuum cleaner.
My family have used Dyson for as long as I can remember.
I always thought they where the best, and maybe at one point they where and all their adverts and marketing makes it seem like so.

After moving to our own place we stuck with Dyson, either my mum's old one or buying a second hand one. We never gave it much thought.

But now I'm even more adultman I've done a lot of Research, and I believe I've just fallen into the evil claws of marketings and aware of dysons dodgy attempts to twist the law to benifit them. since it's time for me to buy a new vacuum we've come to a new choise.

The opinions and reviews all tend to point to Miele, also recommend to go bagged as that combination offers the best equipment. We also needed something more suitable for carpets and this is our result.

[url]https://www.miele.co.uk/e/cylinder-vacuum-cleaner-complete-c3-cat-and-dog-pro-powerline-sgef3-11085190-p[/url]


[Img] https://media.miele.com/images/2000015/200001550/20000155076.png[/img]
Buying new and direct. I will let you know how the equipment is.

Let us know your thoughts on vacuums and what you use for your home[/QUOTE]

Yup dysons are terrible and the rollable vacuums with hose like in your picture are easily the best kind. Standing vacuums are terrible in comparison

Originally Posted by SuperJack

As an adult, I do adult things and get stupidly excited over trivial things.

The most recent being a vacuum cleaner.
My family have used Dyson for as long as I can remember.
I always thought they where the best, and maybe at one point they where and all their adverts and marketing makes it seem like so.

After moving to our own place we stuck with Dyson, either my mum's old one or buying a second hand one. We never gave it much thought.

But now I'm even more adultman I've done a lot of Research, and I believe I've just fallen into the evil claws of marketings and aware of dysons dodgy attempts to twist the law to benifit them. since it's time for me to buy a new vacuum we've come to a new choise.

The opinions and reviews all tend to point to Miele, also recommend to go bagged as that combination offers the best equipment. We also needed something more suitable for carpets and this is our result.

https://www.miele.co.uk/e/cylinder-v...ef3-11085190-p



Buying new and direct. I will let you know how the equipment is.

Let us know your thoughts on vacuums and what you use for your home

Yup dysons are terrible and the rollable vacuums with hose like in your picture are easily the best kind. Standing vacuums are terrible in comparison

[QUOTE=Helz;915333]Literal rioters with bombs and a 4 year international campaign generating hate as inequality[/QUOTE]

So is the general defense of raiding the us capitol and LITERALLY trying to stop democracy that “BLM was bad too”? Hence democrats would have been same/worse! Because BLM = all of the Biden voters?

Originally Posted by Helz

Literal rioters with bombs and a 4 year international campaign generating hate as inequality

So is the general defense of raiding the us capitol and LITERALLY trying to stop democracy that “BLM was bad too”? Hence democrats would have been same/worse! Because BLM = all of the Biden voters?

[QUOTE=Grayswandir;915314]Oh now having read Helz’s post I understand why you mentioned the Trump reaction although Helz isn’t trying to convince himself the reaction in 2016 was ‘better’ than the Biden reaction, I read that as him saying the Bidenite riots if Trump had won would’ve been a lot worse than the Trumpite riot we had this month.[/QUOTE]

Why would the Biden losing reaction be significantly worse than Hillary losing?

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

Oh now having read Helz’s post I understand why you mentioned the Trump reaction although Helz isn’t trying to convince himself the reaction in 2016 was ‘better’ than the Biden reaction, I read that as him saying the Bidenite riots if Trump had won would’ve been a lot worse than the Trumpite riot we had this month.

Why would the Biden losing reaction be significantly worse than Hillary losing?