irreverentad Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 A serious answer, the gutter humour is, on the most part, isolated to a few threads (this one, general chat, relationship thread) I think it's quite easily avoidable if you want to avoid it. And it's far far outweighed by serious discussions. There's a hell of a lot more Bollitics on this forum than there is gutter humour. Well maybe as someone mentioned before a new General Chat thread should be made. I hate the term 'laddish' as I don't believe anyone I have come across on here has been a lager swilling chav. I think half the problem is that OT attracts a lot of people from different ages, backgrounds, cultures with different views on life and ways of communicating etc. Therefore it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time. It seems there are a fair few people who don't like the way some discussions are held (even though they break no rules or cause offence) and likewise a lot of the people like that style of chat. So maybe the solution is to have a clearly marked thread. Where people can chat in the 'laddish' (yuk) way if they wish of course within VT guideline. Likewise it is clear enough that other can avoid so it doesn't ruin their enjoyment of General chat or OT. I am happy to set one up, if most are happy with the arrangement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 20, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't think it's necessary, but then I'm not the one complaining about the "laddy" discussions (I agree they're not "laddy" but if that's how it's labelled then fair enough) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YLN Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 When people link to something on facebook and don't tidy the link. Like not taking away the featured_embedded part of a youtube link, or something I've seen twice in the past couple of days, a link to a google image that is sitting in front of its website of origin. The link is 5 lines long. It's just ignorant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 If were starting a more staid general chat, does this mean we can start more interesting bolitics and economy threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irreverentad Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 If were starting a more staid general chat, does this mean we can start more interesting bolitics and economy threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 20, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 20, 2012 I didn't say I wanted General Chat censored. I didn't say I wanted a different thread. I just said I was a bit pissed off that I was a bit pissed off (if that makes sense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 'your prayers have helped muamba' **** off. the paramedics and doctors saved his life. give credit where it is due. and that goes for any **** life saved by dctors and advances in science. Most definitely this. Also that if it was one of us that had collapsed, like **** would they have spent 2 hours getting our hearts going again. It would have been called the second we arrived at hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 20, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 20, 2012 The current issue of New Scientist is "The God Issue". That's OK. There's an article about how we have evolved to be naturally receptive to religion. The conclusion? 'Children are born believers... of what I call "natural religion"'. And... 'Adults do generally believe in gods. That such belief begins in childhood and typically endures into adulthood places it in the same class as believing in the permanence of solid objects, the continuity of time, the predictability of natural laws, the fact that causes precede effects, that people have minds, that their mothers love them and numerous others. If believing in gods is being childish in the same respect as holding these sorts of beliefs, then belief in gods is in good company'. O rly? Then I see that the article is by one Justin L. Barrett - 'director of the the Thrive Center for Human Development at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California'. In New Scientist. Shame on them. I am disappoint, son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The current issue of New Scientist is "The God Issue". That's OK. There's an article about how we have evolved to be naturally receptive to religion. The conclusion? 'Children are born believers... of what I call "natural religion"'. O rly? Then I see that the article is by one Justin L. Barrett - 'director of the the Thrive Center for Human Development at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California'. Seriously? I've always been impressed by NS's editorial ideology. What are they thinking? 90% of terrorism and 70% of war would disappear in a generation if we managed to outlaw the teaching of religion to kids. Those are highly scientific estimates, which I have carefully arrived at by a rigorous process of thinking for a coupla seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 20, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted March 20, 2012 I didn't say I wanted General Chat censored. I didn't say I wanted a different thread. I just said I was a bit pissed off that I was a bit pissed off (if that makes sense). Oh I know that. That's why I said a new thread wasn't necessary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 i motion to teach Sartre to children. minus the marxism though. stick to the 'existence before essence' stuff. although we may have a generation of intellectuals each seeking to give meaning to their own lives, rather than settling for what they have because religion said it's ok, subsequently there won't be enough stoic workers to keep things ticking along. on second thoughts keep religion in schools. we need people to know their place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The current issue of New Scientist is "The God Issue". That's OK. There's an article about how we have evolved to be naturally receptive to religion. The conclusion? 'Children are born believers... of what I call "natural religion"'. O rly? Then I see that the article is by one Justin L. Barrett - 'director of the the Thrive Center for Human Development at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California'. In New Scientist. Shame on them. I am disappoint, son. That's something that even Dawkins has said though. That they're more inclined to believe things that give meaning to things where there is none. It was even part of his program on faith schools. I don't think you can really argue that a child when given the choice is more inclined to believe a purpose based reasoning than a random one, simply due to everything in their lives being purpose based so why wouldn't they then extend that to everything in nature as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Those are highly scientific estimates, which I have carefully arrived at by a rigorous process of thinking for a coupla seconds. You copied that process from George Osborne didn't you ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ebay. why put no reserve if the opening price is £50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 People who call me Richie, Ricardo, Richy Boy, Dick and all other derivatives of the name Richard. Usually people at work trying to be all banterish in a david brent, word removed-ish kind of way. Its Rich or Richard you twunty bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 90% of terrorism and 70% of war would disappear in a generation if we managed to outlaw the teaching of religion to kids. I've often wondered if that would be the case. Take away religion, take away the need to kill and injur others that refuse to believe your god is the most merciful. But I do suspect something else will simply fill the void for those that need a cause to be destructive for. I'm not sure Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Kim Jung Il were particularly religious types. But between them they did inconvenience quite a lot of people. I think if we removed religion then flags, skin colour, posession of a caravan etc will be the things that fill the excuse void. I think. Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 A World without religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Its Rich or Richard you twunty bastards. Do you often refer to yourself in the plural? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 That Marvin Hagler was robbed versus Leonard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts