Fizz.

I love you icon, whenever I see it it makes me laugh

But when has that ever happened? Rather, in most cases everypony starts discussing something off the road and a moderator comes in and shuts it down. No new thread is ever made, no discussions are made. As for your last part, once again, I never said people should be allowed to go into whatever. I said that we should be allowed to simply discuss. What's so confusing about having a topic deviate? I know that when the main idea is completely lost we should definetly stop, but it's different if we just let it bounce around a bit. Are guests viewing the forums going to start at page 15 of a topic, or page 1?

We know how this works, we each post a lyric of a song until we finish it! Then, the person who finishes the song chooses the next one! No hipster obscure stuff pls. Lets start with a well known one: "Three months of winter coolness, and awesome holidays...

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

Or how about a general unwritten rule of thumb that is basically: Do not stray too far off topic on a thread, keep the general idea alive, and if OP requests it, stay strictly aligned to the subject/question/issue in the first post. Or we could ruin potential conversations by demanding every adhere to the latter part of the post.

No you didn't, if you would of you would've noticed 2 things: - You cannot just randomly change the thread idea - If OP requests a thread stay specific, it stays specific. If you would have noticed either of those two things, you would have not posted this statement that spits in the face of everything I've said

>fails to read thread >fails to read post >fails at arguing Oh look, OPs can request their threads to be single topic only! How nice! If you read, you'd notice this. It's so obvious you didn't it hurts. Not to mention I said people completely changing the topic would still be illegal, and rather if the topic floated to another discussion over time THAT is the difference. Is this not a community discussion forum? Why should we limit what we can say to extremely limited discussions? Honestly, you're forgetting something I've said: This community is so unattatched because we limit conversation too much. Give a bit more freedom. I'm not saying go completely off topic, that's not right. But if someone isn't discussing the exact issue/question/statement the thread starts with, we shouldn't completely end that discussion! That's counter productive!

Then they TALK ABOUT WHAT THE TITLE MENTIONS. If other users aren't going to talk about that in the first place, then no one would reply to those people! Multiple conversations can be in the same thread. The problem with creating new topics is we're spammed with almost identical threads because the topics are linked but a bit too different to discuss in one thread. That is completely opposite of my point. For one, I believe I said that the posts should NOT be useless, random, irrelevant crap. But the posts shouldn't only have to be what the topic said. Quite frankly, I fail to see what is wrong with a conversation being allowed to stem. And even more so, how in God's name would a thread about, say, cucumbers deviate into useless horseapple? I'm not saying people should be able to spout whatever, THAT'S for the general discussion thread, I'm saying the conversation should be allowed to mold outside the original borders. Do you see the threads here? All people do is post a little, like something then move on. The little discussion we have is only arguments because you cannot expand upon the original idea. Maybe because, I dunno, the people wanting to discuss slightly off topic stuff don't want to have their conversation interrupted? You're failing to see the idea that I'm not saying people should be allowed to change what is going on, I'm saying that if the discusson flows a different path, we shouldn't block it because that restricts conversation. You can't make a thread from an ongoing discussion, that's ridiculous. ;_; I like to agree with you! ;_;

This sounds like a horrible idea in the name, because...because we all know going off topic is bad. Right? But why is it? The problem with this place is that, out of so many forums and message boards that I've been to, this is the only area that seems to strictly enforce the on topic rule. And there really isn't any need to! For example, in a thread about, "Why is Pinkie Pie's Hair So Bouncy?", why is it a problem if the conversation evolves into a discussion about, say, Pinkamina? Isn't that the entire point of a conversation? I mean, as long as someone doesn't completely derail a thread with something completely off topic and irrelevant, what's wrong with the direction of the conversation completely changing over time? If anything, it only opens the community up more, allowing intense discussions to last pages upon pages. Rather than, post your opinion on something, maybe argue with someone for a page or two and then you're done. The game threads have more community interaction than actual discusson. Even more to the point, usually the off topic ends at a certain point, and then we don't need a mod to go around and clean it up. If you let the community just talk things around, they'll probably sort themselves out. The only time you really need administrators to step in is when people are having a flame war or someone posted something illegal/completely irrelevant to any current conversation/etc. Why erase a perfectly good chance at the community to bond simply because of some stupid rule that only exists because other communities have it? A topic shouldn't just be the only thing to talk about, it should be a starting point in a conversation. An exception would be if the OP decided s/he didn't want the topic to stray off and would rather keep everything on the point. Like this thread. >inb4 funny guys attempt to derail this thread

*sigh* You're not getting this, at all. Debating with you is like trying to argue with a brick wall. -Atheism has no morals -Atheism has no guidelines -Atheism has no boundaries -There is no official atheist way of thinking. So in that sense, one cannot kill in the name of atheism, because you'd only be killing in the name of something that doesn't exist. Rather, they'd kill in their own view of the world. Saying religion is slime is not atheism. It is a personal belief. Nowhere in the atheist Holy Book does it say that we should harm the religious, because there is no atheist Holy Book, or any book at all. Atheism is too lax to allow any official way of practicing it. But one could use religion was a weapon because there are quotes and sayings in religious Holy Books that promote violence.

Yes, you will. Which is a shame, it's very close minded to think that way.

Sure, but atheism doesn't promote this ideology! Atheism doesn't permit nor block it! Because atheism as an idea is too vague to link any actions to. But Christianity promotes it. An atheist can personally believe atheism allows them to do whatever the hell they want, but atheism does not say that. It also doesn't say that. Because, honestly, it isn't an actual thing. It's a term for a way of thinking. There isn't atheism, there is an atheist mind set, but not atheism.

Oh for God sakes, re-read the post! You cannot kill in the name of atheism BECAUSE THERE IS NO OFFICIAL ATHEIST GUIDE LINES. Atheism isn't about adhering to some set of rules, it's a private belief that there is no God! Because atheism is simply, "I do not believe in God." But Christianity isn't "I believe in a God", it's "I believe in the Abrahamic God and follow the set of rules written in the Holy Bible." Do you understand yet? Atheism doesn't have a book to follow or rules to make. People who kill theists do it because they personally believe theists are wrong. Atheism, in its own sense does not condone nor condemn killing....nor does it promote or condemn eating pizza because atheism does not have established guide lines. RECAP: Christianity has rules and established guide lines. Atheism means you don't believe in God. So thus, one cannot kill in the name of atheism. They can CLAIM to, but atheism does not promote nor disapprove of killing or anything. Atheism has no morals, or laws, or guides, or traditions. It's a belief there is no higher being.

Okay, now find the book that all atheists follow diligently.

There are plenty instances in the Bible where one can interpret the sayings to kill any non-Christians, even if some of the instances are only for the Chosen People. Once again, atheism isn't an entire idea, it's a sort of way of thinking. You cannot kill in the name of atheism because there is no definite atheism! There is nothing to source. You can only kill in your or your group's personal beliefs. A radical extremist "Christian", on the other hand, could take some part of the Bible and use it as a reason to kill. There are so many ways to interpret Holy Books, which leaves a ton of room for abuse. But atheism cannot be abused in the fact it technically is not an established idea, it is just a way to think.

*sigh* You missed my point, LRP. Radical atheists like Josef Stalin and Dahmer are entirely dangerous, yes. BUT, as a belief, atheism DOES NOT command you to kill "infidels" because there is no official guide to atheism! It's simply a lack of beliefs. Thus, an atheism isn't obliged to, say, stop a woman from exposing her hair to the public. No no no, because the Inquisitor's actions were commanded and engineered by their Holy Book, but Josef Stalin's personal beliefs were that theists were the scum of society.

Radical/extremist atheism is dangerous, but you don't see atheists claiming their beliefs allow them to deny the rights of others, or to create or evade laws. Religion is a beautiful, wonderful thing, except when it's forced or shoved down a person's throat. Atheists certainly can do the same thing, but their beliefs don't tell them to do it, because they have none!

Stay classy, LRP, stay classy.