FANDOM


  • Alright, look, we all know this is a sensative subject. I have discovered that Mav and loli got into an argument over the religions due to mav's disclaimer, and that comments were deleted. I CAN and WILL look at edit history if I have to, and if people are deleting other's arguments I CAN and WILL demote people's editing powers. I DON'T want to do this, but until I can sort out EXACTLY what happened I will be revoking all comment-deleting priveleges from EVERYONE. Honsetly I shouldn't have ever let anyone do that in the FIRST place, but whatever.

    What it seems Mav meant to say is that the religions in LCRP are not meant to be real-life religions. Now, many of them are more than obviously parodies, parallels, or just re-named religions from real life, but they are still meant to be fictitious religions in a fictional world. As ALL OF THIS IS MADE UP. THE ENTIRE THING IS MAKE BELIEVE. Additionally, even in-universe no one religion is "right" and the resy "false" (unless a religion was made worshipping Krayt, in which case it would be kind of true, and meta, since Krayt made the RP...). ALL of this is done so that we can have a rich and complex magical and fantastical setting. 

    While it is true that players should ask the council before just making religions, that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow players to let their imaginations run wild. If someone wants their character to be a member of some church they made up, why not let them? There's no reason not to. Additionally, all the religions on the religion page are "valid" in the sense that they are an allowed and accepted part of the game, like a "valid" attack post would be. BUT, all of them are NOT "valid" in the sense that they are an actual cosmogony, as none of them are, since none of them are real-world religions. On that note, I am not saying that any religions, real world or RP based, are "False" or "Wrong" I personally am a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that doesn't mean I have disdain or something for other religions. I, (and I think Mav, and I hope loli too), don't really CARE what you believe, or if you don't believe (as long as you don't use those beliefs or lack thereof as a weapon, a reason to hate/discriminate, or try to cram them down my throat. But most people don't do that, and just because one memeber of a religion or one non-religous person does that doesn't mean every member of that religion or every non-religous person does).

    So, if you have a problem with the religion page, do NOT delete ANYTHING until Krayt, the LEADER of LCRP, Myself, the OWNER of this wiki, and if nessecary the entire rest of the council can mediate a compromise or solution between whatever two parties are fueding.

      Loading editor
    • You're acting wholely out of context. Mav's note was uncomfortable at best, something that the staff should only tell users when the issue presents itself. He was slightly out of line, as he is not a Role Play counselor/advisor, nor is he the RP leader. After further review, I found that his explanation was his and his alone as he was the only one to include a creator/god. Here, for the sake of public transparency, is what was said, copied from the page history:

      None of the mentioned religions are valid explanations for the creation of the world or universe in LCRP. They are only to flesh out the world and provide exposition. We are leaving the specific aspects of the creation of the universe as ague as possible, as to not offend anyone of any religion. If you or a loved one is offended by these religions, then feel free to make your own.~Mav Actually, you will not make your own religions without first consulting the authorities, not of this Wiki, but of this Role Play. If you have an issue with any of these religions, then take it up with us, as any unreasonable compromise on this strange diversity would degrade on this RP's worldbuilding process. Worldbuilding is a whole composed of many, many, manymanymany parts which together serve for a more in-depth expierience within the game. It serves as an agent to sweep you from your worries of this temporal world into its own set of fantastical misfortunes, or fortunes. If you, dear reader, are offended by this or any other aspect of the LCRP world, then you have simply to leave it be. You wouldn't go to a concert hosting a genere of music you despise, nor would you enter an art gallery filled with art you know you detest. We are the music-makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams.~Lolimon Mav: if none are valid explanations, then I will take the singular liberty of removing all the reasonable, as well as the bhogus creation stories.~Lolimon

      Now, I added the word singular because I like superfluous modifiers. I really wish I had a better reason, but the fact is that I don't. However, after I edited the page was when I realized he was trying to explain/defend himself which is why I deleted the entire note, because I hadn't thought to rewind and try again. That's all she wrote.



      But as for you, ma'am, there is a different story entirely. First I wil make it very clear that I am not arguing with you, I am chastising, so don't expect me to reply, or even ever react to any response you may give to this part of my comment. Based on this blog post, you had not read the discourse included above and therefore had no information on which to base the demotion of your fellow RPer's editing powers. That is an abuse of power which, until you accept this, has not gone without note. It is up to you, myself, and apparently Janner(Did you know he's a member of the council now?) to make sure this ship doesn't sink in the times while Krayt is away, as well to advise and generally help him out, and here you've accidentally jumpped the gun. Because of this I have both observed one thing and done another: First I observed that you were really excited that there even might've been an arguement- a fire you could responsibly put out- An agent to save a reputation you never lost.;) I also returned the favor in that no abuse goes unpunished. This issue has been taken to Krayt, who will be the judge of this (Don't worry, he may be stern, but he's very lenient.). But until he returns, I have removed you as a mod in both the council group as well as the the main group. Notice my action won't inconvenience you in the slightest, as the groups are both dead, and even if they weren't, the RP rules aren't up, so they are still dead as doornails. In all reality, it's not much of a punishment...

      This is all being copied down for Krayt to read in case it mysteriously vanishes somehow.

        Loading editor
    • I like to think my note was reasonable, and I don't see how its uncomfortable. Could you explain that one a bit more? Furthermore, I'm lead to believe that I am at least a council member in LCRP (considering I had the same powers as you on here and I'm in the LCRP group). About the creator thing, I didn't fully flesh out my creation story. I only mentioned briefly that Müdamir was the believed creator of the universe (which you decided to glance over the fact you took key words like "believed" and "thought to be" the Müradi'i section). 

      Also, no need to show her what you said. I'm the one who told her about this ordeal. Including the fact that you deleted my comments. She read through it all beforehand and made a reasonable use of her powers to temporarily demote both of us in an attempt to sizzle the flame before it became a wildfire. 

      Of course she's excited there's an argument. She was quite literally in the Debate Club and frequently debates with her friends in real life, so it shouldn't be much of a shock that she provoked you. And if anything, I have a reputation I need to get back, not her (she only did Ignis, I did Raindrops, Noon, Flameouts, etc.). 

      And while I see your way of thinking when demoting her in the LCRP, I think it's quite odd the way you executed it. Considering that she demoted us to sizzle the flame before it started, demoting her in the LCRP would only add more wicker to the flame, would it not? From the outside, it looks like a cheap vengeance grab to exercise your power, but I see where you're coming from for the most part. 

      As for my unwanted recommendations (*group sighs in unison*), I'd recommend that Lola try to make up with Wendell. Really, despite how much you may contempt her, she isn't some ravenous beast who wants to rip Christians into noodles or something. She's a normal person. As for Wendell, I personally think the quick demotion was a little out of hand, when you could have just brought it up to Lola to figure out more about the situation. I'll admit I was a snitch (and something else that rhymes with it), and that my comments made towards Lola that he deleted were a bit off the collar. My apologies. 

        Loading editor
    • The problem being I'm not good at the whole vengence thing (Generally I end up looking stoopid.:P), though that is a logical conclusion. Okay, explaining things a bit more; There's an issue that makes most of the populace (I think) more uncomfortable than if we had coated our under wear with peprica, and here you are very generously giving us a staunch second coat.

      And yeah, my sister's the same way, though we don't have a debate club...:P



      More later.

        Loading editor
    • Ah, I see. So you think that the issue of religions in LCRP is controversial enough, and my changing of the disclaimer to include more vague and confusing word choices only fueled it. Reasonable conclusion, though I would have to disagree, although I may be biased from the whole creator's bias thing. xD

        Loading editor
    • first off, I'm not actually in the debate club, as my school doesn't have one (they are thinking of making one, and I WILL join it when they do!) just wanted to clear that up

      Second of all, mav is right, i don't want to rip people up. Murder is bad. Not sure why i'd need to explicitly say I don't want to rip anyone, Christain or otherwise, up, as that should be a given, but I figured i'd do it just to be safe.

      And mav is again, right. I he showed me that, AND I checked the page's edit history to be safe.

      Peraphs preventing anyone from deleting comments that fast was rash, but let's be honest, none of us should be allowed to do that.

      Since the LCRP group isn't doing anything I don't actually care that you did it, though I will concur with Mav that it sounds a bit power-graby, but whatever.

      Additionally, I am not excited there's an argument. I have half a mind to delete the religions page and just declare the world of LCRP to all be the followers of the vauge "Church of Religion." I am so sick of the two of you and this page. And yes I am often at fault too, but seriously guys, a DISCLAIMER turned into a full on comment-deleting argument! (According to Mav comments were deleted)

      Loli, I would like you to elaborate on how Religions is that contraversal, as I don't understand. Plenty of fantasy worlds have their own religions and gods, sometimes those gods arevery much in universe real, and sometimes they aren't. For example, Dungeons and Dragons (A game I love very much) has TONS of religions, each with their own god(s)/godess(es), all of which are actually entities in the D&D multiverse. In my mind, there is no problem with having made-up religions in LCRP, but if you think there is an issue, please be upfront about it.

      Also... I DIDN'T know Janner was part of the council...

        Loading editor
    • Dangit, I had a feeling you weren't in the debate club, but I put it anyways (for reasons even I am unaware of). xD

        Loading editor
    • First rule of debate, don't use information that's not true.

      Unless, of course, you're the current president, or at this point any politician, in which case... please don't get us in a war?

        Loading editor
    • I told you I would not respond, but you asked me a question and it would be wrong for me not to answer the comment. First, yes, looking back it could be interpreted as a power grab, if only I needed powah...Y_YxD Secondly, I never said you wanted to, it was assumed by our favorite skelatal friend over here. Third, you can't actually exercise the founder power without Krayt's permission. With great power come increased electric bills, or so they tell me. Fourth, we can't declare something like that without bringing it to the council/Krayt (and no you aren't the senate.xP).

      Fifth, I should have thought not to number these...

      Sixth -phew- You can like for me to do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I'll do them. You have no power over me, nor I you. The issue being that I am unfortunately the elder of the two of us and have less time to fret about these exciting bits of emotional vomit you get to enjoy anymore. Because I am the elder, more is expected of me; I have to be the mature one now, and if you haven't noticed, that's harder than I might make it look.XP But seriously, I have to think what Krayt would do, tone it down to something within reach of any power I was actually given, and act with as little bias as if I weren't even involved. It's very hard. Which meant demoting you in a time when it would not matter. You said yourself that I did nothing to put you out of your way or acted as your superior, it then follows that I have not exited the realm of the power given me.

      If that doesn't make sense then just tell me, don't rant. I won't get to read it if you do.:P

      OH, but the point I was going to make, before I myself left to rant (What a great example I'm setting...:P), was that I don't expect you to understand. You are outside the realm of understanding any real reason I give you because you are not in any group ([Nanoo nanoo, humans have these strange things called re-ligions, though I have not gotten a straight answer on how to ligion something, it has to happen for them to have to re-ligion it...]) where moral obligations are commanded(Or in some, demanded) of you. in short, I can use all the most eloquent words I know to describe the world around me, but they will lose all meaning to a blind man.

      Seventh; ... I know, do you know when it happened?...

      Again, this is all being recorded for Krayt's sake (I was informed that I have to warn you until it's through by some guy nammed carl from the NSA...xD).

        Loading editor
    • Wendell8319 wrote:
      First rule of debate, don't use information that's not true.

      Unless, of course, you're the current president, or at this point any politician, in which case... please don't get us in a war?

      I actually looked into that, most of his info is *sadly* pretty spot on...

        Loading editor
    • "You are outside the realm of understanding any real reason I give you because you are not in any group"

      Actually, she used to be pagan. So. xD

      "Because I am the elder, more is expected of me; I have to be the mature one now, and if you haven't noticed, that's harder than I might make it look."

      Well, I go by a little mantra (doesn't mean it'll apply to you, just what I follow myself). The day you finally call yourself mature, you are the most immature you've ever been. But you know, considering I'm barely a teenager, what do I know. xD

      But the rest of it seems pretty reasonable (except the paragraph about maturity, I dunno why but I have an unreasonable bias against people who claim they are mature...probably because I used to do it. xD).

        Loading editor
    • Well, she says a lot of stuff.



      It's really wierd though, 'cause I used to claim that a lot too, but something happened and now I just feel terribly responsible for all of you dorks...xD

        Loading editor
    • I mean, I feel responsible for my friends (probably because I'm overbearing but whatever), but I'm still not mature, emotionally or physically. 

        Loading editor
    • Overbearing?O_o

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, quite overbearing at some points. I have one really good friend, and I wake her up, remind her to eat (sometimes she forgets), force her to do her schoolwork, and occasionally pull a motivational speech out. Every day. xD

        Loading editor
    • So basically I'm a mom friend but I'm not a middle aged woman. xD

        Loading editor
    • Fair enough. So then this is where you escape to be a kid, but something gets in the way of that, doesn't it? Something that blocks you, resulting in a harder push for immaturity and/or what you think will free you, if only shortly, from responsibility. But it has to be some subconcious block, otherwise you'd have gotten rid of it a very long time ago...



      The mysteries of life.:P

        Loading editor
    • Well, from a certain point of view. I don't have any quarrels with being overly-responsible, I mostly come here to exert my "creativity," so to say. Whether or not that creativity is mature or not isn't up to my judgement, but it's some way to exert feelings. Art is just a blank canvas that you paint a self portait onto, with some abstraction. And just as someone can't truly paint a picture of something they haven't seen, a writer can't truly write a story without some experience of going through what they're writing about. In layman's terms, you can't write about grief if you've never grieved before. 

      And quite honestly, I'm holding myself back, most of the time. I could throw a lot of punches, but I neglect to because of a certain instance of me not pulling my jab. Kinda scarred me, if you want to overdramatize it. It's like a secret book of poems, so to say. You keep it a secret so nobody sees your emotions in their rawest form. But instead of it being secret, it's abstraction that keeps people from seeing your true feelings, in my case. 

      When you abstract something, it becomes a different painting of the same model. A different bust of the same hero. I feel that's how true writing, and art in general, works. Your emotions are the model, and the story becomes the painting. Your true self is the first painting, and the story you craft is the second. Just different enough so people won't realize. But as the styles of the artist become closer, one can easily draw similarities. And eventually, you hit a point where you are two artists. There is no separation between your true self and the art you form. And that's when people see your true form, isn't it?

      Regardless, my apologies for ranting. It's just something that gets me worked up. But I suppose it is one of the mysteries of life. Otherwise, we'd have a clear answer. But emotions and art are quite subjective, so one can never truly understand another. 

        Loading editor
    • And believe me, if I came here to avoid responsibility, I wouldn't be leading an army. xD

        Loading editor
    • Mav, I know you put a lot of time into that, but I'm not going to read it. I forgot my sarcasm sign again.

      It isn't a real army, but I can see what you're saying.:P



      Now, I have a super stupid idea. I am going to make an alternate Wiki that is totally child proof, and worthy of TLG approval. That way there will be a fun wiki, and this one. If it doesn't work out, it never happened, okay?xD

        Loading editor
    • Ah, understandable. I wasn't mad though, just so you know. xD Alrighty, that sounds like a fine idea.

        Loading editor
      • *Whipes sweat off brow*
        Loading editor
    • Yeah, I try not to get as mad as I did before I got kicked off MocPages. Because honestly I looked quite stupid when I got mad. xD

        Loading editor
    • well i'm A) Sorry I dissappeared, and B) glad this diffused



      But loli, stop taking potshots at me about religion. I can HAVE morals without being religous. I can figure out what is right and what is wrong without consulting the bible or a similar holy text. That's what a lot pf philosophy is. XD And if it makes you feel better, I do actually go to a church. *room goes silent* it's a Unitarian Universalist church. Basically, a UU church teaches you about many different religions, drawing on texts and words from all over the world. The purpose of these texts are twofold: 1. to allow you to see the wide vareity of religions out there and pick one that most resonates with you (none of them did for me), and 2. to see the underlying similarites in religions (which are ususally moral ones. Like don't be a jerk. Too me that implies they were all independantly thought up that way, meaning people came up with that stuff). The stories and texts are often interpreted more metaphorically. (I will say that some of the more social justice elements that my UU church often gets involved in I don't entierly agree with, both politically but also that I, as a fierce believer in seperation of church and state, don't think any churches should do anything politcally, but that'll never happen. :P)



      Mav: I don't think Paganism acrtually has a set of moral rules in it. Then again, everything about paganism, especially neo paganism, is very vauge. EDIT: okay, it has some but there's many of them, it really depends on which part you subscribe too



      Both of you: I have, however, found god in his noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and one of his religous texts, "The Loose Cannon" can be found for free online. It includeds many stories, gathered by the council of olive garden, some of which do deal with morality. My favorite among them being the story of Fearsome Pirate Pete, in which he learns valuable lessons about Compassion, Trustworithness (and not eating gerbals), not to be prejudce, humbleness, and loyalty. So, you know if that counts, then I guess I can get morals from the FSM. Then again. I'm not very humble... and sometimes in-game i'm not too trustworthy or loyal... but I'm very compassionate, I don't THINK i'm prejudce, and i would never eat a gerbal.

        Loading editor
    • Wendell8319 wrote:
      well i'm A) Sorry I dissappeared, and B) glad this diffused


      But loli, stop taking potshots at me about religion. I can HAVE morals without being religous. I can figure out what is right and what is wrong without consulting the bible or a similar holy text. That's what a lot pf philosophy is. XD And if it makes you feel better, I do actually go to a church. *room goes silent* it's a Unitarian Universalist church. Basically, a UU church teaches you about many different religions, drawing on texts and words from all over the world. The purpose of these texts are twofold: 1. to allow you to see the wide vareity of religions out there and pick one that most resonates with you (none of them did for me), and 2. to see the underlying similarites in religions (which are ususally moral ones. Like don't be a jerk. Too me that implies they were all independantly thought up that way, meaning people came up with that stuff). The stories and texts are often interpreted more metaphorically. (I will say that some of the more social justice elements that my UU church often gets involved in I don't entierly agree with, both politically but also that I, as a fierce believer in seperation of church and state, don't think any churches should do anything politcally, but that'll never happen. :P)



      Mav: I don't think Paganism acrtually has a set of moral rules in it. Then again, everything about paganism, especially neo paganism, is very vauge. EDIT: okay, it has some but there's many of them, it really depends on which part you subscribe too



      Both of you: I have, however, found god in his noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and one of his religous texts, "The Loose Cannon" can be found for free online. It includeds many stories, gathered by the council of olive garden, some of which do deal with morality. My favorite among them being the story of Fearsome Pirate Pete, in which he learns valuable lessons about Compassion, Trustworithness (and not eating gerbals), not to be prejudce, humbleness, and loyalty. So, you know if that counts, then I guess I can get morals from the FSM. Then again. I'm not very humble... and sometimes in-game i'm not too trustworthy or loyal... but I'm very compassionate, I don't THINK i'm prejudce, and i would never eat a gerbal.

      • snort*

      A C K C H Y U A L L Y 

      Pepsiman is the one true king and creator, not the false deity fLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER. So that's why I'm declaring a Holy War. xD

      But yeah, paganism as a term is naturally vague. So it really depends on which "paganism" you subscribe to. 

      And yeah, I'm incredibly arrogant, loyal to basically nobody, and very few people trust me. Aren't character flaws great. xD

        Loading editor
    • Wendell: I never said you couldn't.:P Someone, probably the great pepsiman, had to put the separation of right and wrong in your mind. How do you know lieing is wrong? Because it is what it is and it is wrong. But to know it was wrong it has to have first contradicted what I like to call universal truth- truth that trancends all religion. It is a moral law written in our hearts. But how did it get there? What/Who put it there? Maybe mav's pepsiman, as the great Lawgiver, gave you that law from the get go. But also, he wrote in the hearts of millions, and some decided to make that law reality in their own way, but pepsiman needed it done his way, so he suddenly inspired a devout pepsican to write his diet word.XD

      If that didn't make sense, then read what this guy here has to say about it. Unless you're too weak to take a chance.:PxP

        Loading editor
    • Wendell8319 wrote:
       

      Both of you: I have, however, found god in his noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and one of his religous texts, "The Loose Cannon" can be found for free online. It includeds many stories, gathered by the council of olive garden, some of which do deal with morality. My favorite among them being the story of Fearsome Pirate Pete, in which he learns valuable lessons about Compassion, Trustworithness (and not eating gerbals), not to be prejudce, humbleness, and loyalty. So, you know if that counts, then I guess I can get morals from the FSM. Then again. I'm not very humble... and sometimes in-game i'm not too trustworthy or loyal... but I'm very compassionate, I don't THINK i'm prejudce, and i would never eat a gerbal.

      As I said previously, You don't get morals from an external party, they are engrained in you from birth.:)

      This is the stuff I try to avoid, because if someone says that they're one way, they either know it and don't feel that it is needed to share every time the opprotunity arises, or they think that they're one way and tell everyone that they are that way even though they are, at heart, quite the opposite.

      As a second person I can confirm your extreme pride, weasly-ness, and predjudice toward all who don't share in your opinion.xDXD And you know I wouldn't say that if it weren't, to some degree, true of myself as well.;)

        Loading editor
    • LolimonTheWise wrote:
      Wendell: I never said you couldn't.:P Someone, probably the great pepsiman, had to put the separation of right and wrong in your mind. How do you know lieing is wrong? Because it is what it is and it is wrong. But to know it was wrong it has to have first contradicted what I like to call universal truth- truth that trancends all religion. It is a moral law written in our hearts. But how did it get there? What/Who put it there? Maybe mav's pepsiman, as the great Lawgiver, gave you that law from the get go. But also, he wrote in the hearts of millions, and some decided to make that law reality in their own way, but pepsiman needed it done his way, so he suddenly inspired a devout pepsican to write his diet word.XD

      If that didn't make sense, then read what this guy here has to say about it. Unless you're too weak to take a chance.:PxP

      I dunno why you said "maybe," Pepsiman is CLEARLY the truth. xD Yah see, Pepsiman doesn't care how people are nice, he just cares that people are nice. And if you're not nice you're drowned in an endless boiling sea of Coca Cola.

      • shrug*

      But I guess I'll read th-*spits Pepsi out*

      s o   l o n g 

      But I've read longer so imma dissect it. It seems that the writer operates from the stance of that Christianity is the absolute truth, as evidenced here:

      "Doubt and skepticism are valid postures as long as they are motivated by the search for truth rather than a repudiation of it." (in reference to athiests doubting God)

      There's also the proposition that the author gives, citing a paraphrase of Ravi Zacharias:

      "When you say there is evil, aren’t you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver."

      This thesis is inately flawed, in that it assumes the viewer is morally correct. Take the example that a psychopath reads this. He may see nothing wrong with lying, manipulating, and using other people for his own gain, but would everyone else consider that morally correct? Accepting that there is "good" requires some subjective lense, as many people have many different beliefs when it comes to morality. Given a more extreme example, say a religious extremist/terrorist, in their own eyes, what they are doing is morally correct. Therefore, a moral "law" is simply a social construct, based on previous mistakes and experiments. At least, from my point of view.

      "But academic ethicists realize that morality is too central and binding a reality in human experience to be relegated either to individual or collective human will, desires, or beliefs. Nor can it be adequately understood on the basis of social contracts or evolution."

      Actually, there aren't very many shared traits between most beliefs (apart from regional similarities such as the Abrahamic religions behing inherently similar). Of course there are the typical "do not lie" and "no not kill," but the way that humans have interpereted and act on these ideas vary depending on the region, family, personal beliefs, etc. Take veganism, some would consider it a morally correct position to take, while others would consider it optional. There is no "central and binding" facet of humanity to tell us whether or not it is moral, but some choose to and some choose not to restrict their diets based on the wellbeing of animals. Similarly, based on religion, some may choose not to eat pork or cow. On the other hand, members of other religions don't see pigs or cows in the same way Islam or Hinduism do. Therefore, isn't it safe to assume that there aren't any built in moral guidelines to humanity?

      Later, the author gives an example of a scenario where everyone reading the story would supposedly reacting strongly with a sense of justice. The exact scenario can be summarized as such: A mother gave birth to a baby via means of C-Section. During the procedure, the baby's face was mutilated by the tools. The baby couldn't breastfeed and breath at the same time. The doctors told the mother that the baby would be fine, and sent her home. Later, the mother came back to tell the doctors that the baby hadn't gotten better. However, to her dismay, the doctors told her to never come back to the hospital (threatening to call the police if she did). She also found out that the hospital had purged any records of the baby.

      What the author claims is that anyone reading should have a strong sense of justice, seeking to have the doctors punished for such behaviour. But I have a very notable example of people that wouldn't have reeked in terror.

      The doctors.

      If they did it, then they likely have no objections to the practice. Therefore, there is more evidence pointing to the lack of a "lawgiver" (other than Pepsiman). 

      Afterwards, the author points to a quote from GK Chesterson:

      "If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can make one or two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat."

      The author then uses the quote to affirm that:

      "To deny that there are things that are right, and others wrong, is as absurd as denying the cat as in Chesterton’s example. But if the point is so obvious, and if so many have turned to God on the basis of the pressure morality puts on their unbelief, how is it possible that some of the leading ethics professors in the best of our universities around the world can affirm the objectivity of morality while rejecting God?"

      The error the author makes in proposing this claim is that he assumes two extremes, one being his friend's belief of a rejection of morality, and one being the absolute belief that morality is objective. The much more reasonable conclusion would be simply to state that morality is subjective, and we should focus on crafting a morality that best suites the world and its needs rather than looking to old texts to find it. He also claims that the existance of morality itself points to the existance of God. However, as shown before, this claim is false. 

      The author then proposes a counter-argument to his claim:

      "The first argument for morality without God is fairly easy to grasp. It is simply the claim that morality is not different from other truths that we grasp about our universe without having to appeal to God. It is not different, for example, from our grasp of logical and mathematical truths. "

      He attempts to dispute this by claiming that there was a bait-and-switch, going from the question "where does morality come from," to the question "how do we know about morality." And while this claim is correct (in that it did not answer where morality came from), it serves no purpose as to explain where morality did come from (other than the author further stroking his religion). 

      The author's second counter-claim states that:

      "Philosophers proceed to point out that logical, mathematical, and moral facts are necessary truths. When philosophers say that something exists necessarily, they mean that it has always existed and it will always exist. It is not possible for it not to exist. "

      However, this isn't the case. Moral law does not exist in the first place. It is a subjective belief, not an objective rule. The root of what is wrong about this essay is that it claims morality is objective (which it is not). 

      The author, however, denies the counter-claim by stating, "Thus one can argue that the laws of mathematics, logic, and morality are all grounded in God. They exist necessarily, but they are also in need of explanation, and that explanation is God."

      This is simply not the case if you are of the opinion that God is false. The author disguises a religion as plain fact to prove his own point, which is an incredible logical fallacy. Going off the assumption that God is real, yes, this claim is correct. However, the author fails to realize that not everyone believes God is real. There are other explinations as to the origin of logic and math, such as simply that they are a part of our universe because they come from the existance of other items (i.e. math exists because items exist that need to be counted). One could argue that math is a social construct, seeing as how different countries operate in different bases (such as how the metric system is based in 10s), or one could argue that math can be interpereted different ways depending on your system. Either way, it serves to show that there are more than one answer to the question "where is math grounded?"

      The author's third counter-claim is that:

      "If we say that moral obligations are commands that God issues and which He requires us to obey, we must be assuming that we are already obligated to follow God’s commandseven before He issues any command at all. In other words, the fact that we have the obligation to obey commands issued by God is itself an obligation that is simply true—it is not one of the commands God issues. You obey God’s commands because you already have the obligation to obey God. God cannot make it the case that you ought to obey the commands He issues if it weren’t already the case that you ought to do so"

      (In Layman's Terms, if God gives us commandments that we have to follow, then the commandment that we must follow God must also be mandatory. This creates a paradox that leads into wondering why we must follow God's orders at all.)

      This again is built on the basis that God definitely exists, which I won't get into again. But for the sake of the argument, I'll take the side of believing in God. So by that logic, why should I follow him? Let's go through some absolutely true points if God definitely exists.

      • God has built morality into us.
      • God has commands of us, typically involving morality.

      The author brings up the same points to be absolutely true if God exists. However, he claims that the belief that there is a third-power commanding us to follow God is false, because a theist takes his moral obligations from God.

      But wait, aren't moral obligations build into us? Or at least, so a theist would say. In my opinion, morality is subjective but that's not the case when I'm roleplaying as a Christian. So if morality is absolute, then what need is there for a God to exist?

      "Not only are certain things wrong to do, we are prohibited from doing them. Not only are some things good to do, we are required to do them."

      Once more incorrect, considering there are people that have no psychological turmoil whilst being a pedophile (while the rest of the world throws them in a small stone cell and feeds them three times a day). 

      While yes the majority of people do have the morality to understand the flaws of pedophilia, there are a sizable chunk of people that do not. Therefore, if morality was built into our hearts, we wouldn't deal with pedophilia because it wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

      The author also claims that a moral law must exist outside of societal pressures because the citizens of Germany joined the Nazis, and Nazis are bad.

      Again, to us the Nazis are bad, but to the citizens of 1940's Germany, not so much. To them, the Nazis were bringing economic, militaristic, and societal power. To us, on the other hand, they were bringing war, death, and literal genocides. 

      The author brings up this quote from Joel Marks:

      "I had thought I was a secularist because I conceived of right and wrong as standing on their own two feet, without prop or crutch from God. We should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, period. But this was a God too. It was the Godless God of secular morality, which commanded without commander—whose ways were thus even more mysterious than the God I did not believe in, who at least had the intelligible motive of rewarding us for doing what He wanted."

      The issue comes in assuming that your subjective morality is the objective morality (which is nonexistant). One could claim to have the perfect morality, one that only brings good and denies bad, but that would just be it. A claim. I could claim to be highly proficient in hand to hand combat, but until I go into the ring, there's no evidence (spoilers: I'm not). 

      The author also brings up a quote from Arthur Leff:

      "All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have. Given what we know about ourselves and each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing prospect; looking around the world, it appears that if all men are brothers, the ruling model is Cain and Abel. Neither reason, nor love, nor even terror, seems to have worked to make us “good,” and worse than that, there is no reason why anything should. Only if ethics were something unspeakable by us, could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs."

      The quote argues that because we have both tried love and terror to achieve a perfect morality, there must be some aspect of it that is out of our reach. However, Arthur denies that there always have and always will be people with severly messed up moralities. I could hug a terrorist all I want but he's still gonna kill me. xD

      "Napalming babies is bad.

      Starving the poor is wicked.

      Buying and selling each other is depraved.

      Those who stood up to and died resisting Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and

      Pol Pot—and General Custer too—have earned salvation.

      Those who acquiesced deserve to be damned.

      There is in the world such a thing as evil."

      While yes, most would agree with these statements, there are those who don't. Many still fight for the Nazi and fascist beliefs of Hitler and Stalin, and it their eyes, they are bringing salvation to the world. To everyone else, they are evil. While objective morality may not exist, popular morality does. Most people believe that Hitler was a pretty bad guy, so it becomes a widely accepted fact. And while this isn't the perfect system (looking at you, American Slavery), in the modern era, it serves as at least a basis for develouping a moral code. One can add or detract from this as they may, to the judgement of their peers. 

      I could go on and on, but I doubt that I will make any signifigantly new points. I'm growing weary reading through the article (which is incredibly long and dull), but I tried my best to sound reasonable when presenting my points. I'm just trying to...I don't even know what, I doubt anyone's opinions will be changed after reading this. xD

        Loading editor
    • This still hasn’t resolved itself? Look, this was a dumb argument to begin with, in all honesty. People these days are so fragile they get upset about everything. If Mav hadn’t put in a disclaimer, we can’t even know how many people would get upset. And there was nothing wrong with saying “Look. These are all made up. You don’t have to actually believe one of these, and we’re not forcing you. This is just for character depth.” Can we just let this drop? Because it’s been a long time and now it’s just another religious debate with neither side convincing the other

        Loading editor
    • JediMaster0310 wrote:
      This still hasn’t resolved itself? Look, this was a dumb argument to begin with, in all honesty. People these days are so fragile they get upset about everything. If Mav hadn’t put in a disclaimer, we can’t even know how many people would get upset. And there was nothing wrong with saying “Look. These are all made up. You don’t have to actually believe one of these, and we’re not forcing you. This is just for character depth.” Can we just let this drop? Because it’s been a long time and now it’s just another religious debate with neither side convincing the other

      Oh, you know none of us are the most mature people. xD But regardless, this debate has kinda been fizzling out so I'll just end it with a treaty (like half of the other debates). So imma just initiate an online handshake with Lola (if he ever replies, xD).

        Loading editor
    • I'll second that handshake

        Loading editor
      • awkwardly tries to figure out how to shake hands with two people at once*
        Loading editor
    • O_o Mav, that was just a source I said I agreed with. If you want to argue about it, talk to Ravi Zacharias, the guy who wrote the source, not the messenger who cited it.:P



      That aside, I'll go for another one of your treaties. But what if we just dropped religion all together? If you guys refuse to see it any other way than your own, and I won't waver in my standing, then why bother at all? Why not drop it totally? Or maybe keep it from prevalence by making it vague like what they had in LoM.

      The other, more drastic and dramatic option is that I just leave the RP, *Mav's face lights up hopefully* -but that won't happen because I've contributed close to half(?) of the lore and worldbuilding.:P *Mav crumbles into a crestfallen pile of bones*

        Loading editor
    • Eh, I was in the debating mood. xD

      And about dropping it, the main thing is that religion is an aspect of worldbuilding. And who doesn't like worldbuilding? That said, we should probably focus more on other aspects at this point (like  p l u m b i n g ), given how much we've discussed religion in specific. 

      And I'd like it if SOMEONE rebuilt me. *glares at Lola as he slowly walks away*

        Loading editor
    • JediMaster0310 wrote:
      This still hasn’t resolved itself? Look, this was a dumb argument to begin with, in all honesty. People these days are so fragile they get upset about everything. If Mav hadn’t put in a disclaimer, we can’t even know how many people would get upset. And there was nothing wrong with saying “Look. These are all made up. You don’t have to actually believe one of these, and we’re not forcing you. This is just for character depth.” Can we just let this drop? Because it’s been a long time and now it’s just another religious debate with neither side convincing the other

      I thought it had. Shows what I get for leaving for more than ten minutes.:P I just didn't like it because if we disclaim something small like religion, then why don't we just post out front that this is all fake and strip all hope of escape to another world from the RPers? You don't see disclaimers like that on the LotR/Sw/ninjago/any other wiki or publication is all I was getting at.:P

        Loading editor
    • And following your logic, Sand couldn't have left because he contributed to a good 1/3 of the events in SWRP's history. Yah see how that turned out...

      • devilish grin*
        Loading editor
    • LolimonTheWise wrote:
      JediMaster0310 wrote:
      This still hasn’t resolved itself? Look, this was a dumb argument to begin with, in all honesty. People these days are so fragile they get upset about everything. If Mav hadn’t put in a disclaimer, we can’t even know how many people would get upset. And there was nothing wrong with saying “Look. These are all made up. You don’t have to actually believe one of these, and we’re not forcing you. This is just for character depth.” Can we just let this drop? Because it’s been a long time and now it’s just another religious debate with neither side convincing the other
      I thought it had. Shows what I get for leaving for more than ten minutes.:P I just didn't like it because if we disclaim something small like religion, then why don't we just post out front that this is all fake and strip all hope of escape to another world from the RPers? You don't see disclaimers like that on the LotR/Sw/ninjago/any other wiki or publication is all I was getting at.:P

      Well I put the disclaimer considering that you were once saying that we shouldn't have polytheistic religions because it might offend the Christian majority, but now you're arguing that the disclaimer breaks immersion?

        Loading editor
    • Gentlemen, let’s just leave any disclaimers out. If people don’t like what we include, they don’t have to participate. We can’t live our lives forever hopping around, praying we don’t accidentally anger someone. All we can do is what we think is best. So with that, I say we drop this debate and focus on finishing up the pages for our nations on this Wiki, as I’d like to get this RP going soon too

        Loading editor
    • JediMaster0310 wrote:
      Gentlemen, let’s just leave any disclaimers out. If people don’t like what we include, they don’t have to participate. We can’t live our lives forever hopping around, praying we don’t accidentally anger someone. All we can do is what we think is best. So with that, I say we drop this debate and focus on finishing up the pages for our nations on this Wiki, as I’d like to get this RP going soon too

      True, I'd have to agree. I'll take back anything that I said that could be provoking and just ends the argument here. Though I've already mostly fleshed out Mülrania, I do have to help my friend get adjusted here (by the way, did I tell you guys I recruited my friend? I gave her Heyfedd).

        Loading editor
    • Also, I am nowhere near a gentle man. xD

        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:
      LolimonTheWise wrote:
      JediMaster0310 wrote:
      This still hasn’t resolved itself? Look, this was a dumb argument to begin with, in all honesty. People these days are so fragile they get upset about everything. If Mav hadn’t put in a disclaimer, we can’t even know how many people would get upset. And there was nothing wrong with saying “Look. These are all made up. You don’t have to actually believe one of these, and we’re not forcing you. This is just for character depth.” Can we just let this drop? Because it’s been a long time and now it’s just another religious debate with neither side convincing the other
      I thought it had. Shows what I get for leaving for more than ten minutes.:P I just didn't like it because if we disclaim something small like religion, then why don't we just post out front that this is all fake and strip all hope of escape to another world from the RPers? You don't see disclaimers like that on the LotR/Sw/ninjago/any other wiki or publication is all I was getting at.:P
      Well I put the disclaimer considering that you were once saying that we shouldn't have polytheistic religions because it might offend the Christian majority, but now you're arguing that the disclaimer breaks immersion?

      Yeah, I realized that that majority didn't feel how I felt, so I had to change my "poi' o' fview."~Master Wu xP

        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:
      JediMaster0310 wrote:
      Gentlemen, let’s just leave any disclaimers out. If people don’t like what we include, they don’t have to participate. We can’t live our lives forever hopping around, praying we don’t accidentally anger someone. All we can do is what we think is best. So with that, I say we drop this debate and focus on finishing up the pages for our nations on this Wiki, as I’d like to get this RP going soon too
      True, I'd have to agree. I'll take back anything that I said that could be provoking and just ends the argument here. Though I've already mostly fleshed out Mülrania, I do have to help my friend get adjusted here (by the way, did I tell you guys I recruited my friend? I gave her Heyfedd).

      Her??? Does mavvy have a girl fwen-*Is shoved into a dufflebag*xP



      But seriously, that's cool man.:)

        Loading editor
    • LolimonTheWise wrote:
      SithMaverick wrote:
      JediMaster0310 wrote:
      Gentlemen, let’s just leave any disclaimers out. If people don’t like what we include, they don’t have to participate. We can’t live our lives forever hopping around, praying we don’t accidentally anger someone. All we can do is what we think is best. So with that, I say we drop this debate and focus on finishing up the pages for our nations on this Wiki, as I’d like to get this RP going soon too
      True, I'd have to agree. I'll take back anything that I said that could be provoking and just ends the argument here. Though I've already mostly fleshed out Mülrania, I do have to help my friend get adjusted here (by the way, did I tell you guys I recruited my friend? I gave her Heyfedd).
      Her??? Does mavvy have a girl fwen-*Is shoved into a dufflebag*xP



      But seriously, that's cool man.:)

      • l a u g h s   h y s t e r i c a l l y *

      n o

      xD

        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:
      LolimonTheWise wrote:
      SithMaverick wrote:
      JediMaster0310 wrote:
      Gentlemen, let’s just leave any disclaimers out. If people don’t like what we include, they don’t have to participate. We can’t live our lives forever hopping around, praying we don’t accidentally anger someone. All we can do is what we think is best. So with that, I say we drop this debate and focus on finishing up the pages for our nations on this Wiki, as I’d like to get this RP going soon too
      True, I'd have to agree. I'll take back anything that I said that could be provoking and just ends the argument here. Though I've already mostly fleshed out Mülrania, I do have to help my friend get adjusted here (by the way, did I tell you guys I recruited my friend? I gave her Heyfedd).
      Her??? Does mavvy have a girl fwen-*Is shoved into a dufflebag*xP


      But seriously, that's cool man.:)

      • l a u g h s   h y s t e r i c a l l y *

      n o

      xD

      xD

      Me inside the dufflebag: Wow, you've really expanded since last I was shoved in here. Is that an ice cream bar? With a soda fountain?! Woah, a wide screen tv! Looks like Marry Popins had a duffle bag too.xP

        Loading editor
    • You'd be right! You see if you take a left, you'll be in the game room, it's got a pool table, a blackjack table, and a Monopoly board! And to the right is the closet I added, it holds my 7 pairs of identical red sweatshirts and blue jogging pants. And further down the halls is the spa (that I only use with visitors...*unwilling visitors), and my sacrificial ritual room. I also added a second dungeon in here...just in case...xD

        Loading editor
    • The 'Pages are down again for me. Is it just me?

        Loading editor
    • LolimonTheWise wrote:
      The 'Pages are down again for me. Is it just me?

      Aaaaaas usual. xD

        Loading editor
    • Once the 'pages get back up, I'm gonna try to do SWRP. I really need to get back in the groove...

        Loading editor
    • Wendell8319 wrote:
      Once the 'pages get back up, I'm gonna try to do SWRP. I really need to get back in the groove...

      Me too, I'm just waiting for my friend to quality check my character intro so I don't end up sucking. xD

        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      Once the 'pages get back up, I'm gonna try to do SWRP. I really need to get back in the groove...
      Me too, I'm just waiting for my friend to quality check my character intro so I don't end up sucking. xD

      A good plan. I need to figure out who I'm going focus on, probably TUR/TLE and Ben F & Maw Z, I think the EE will have to take a backseat and just sit around, generating money from a shop post every once in a while.

        Loading editor
    • Wendell8319 wrote:
      SithMaverick wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      Once the 'pages get back up, I'm gonna try to do SWRP. I really need to get back in the groove...
      Me too, I'm just waiting for my friend to quality check my character intro so I don't end up sucking. xD
      A good plan. I need to figure out who I'm going focus on, probably TUR/TLE and Ben F & Maw Z, I think the EE will have to take a backseat and just sit around, generating money from a shop post every once in a while.

      Yeah, sounds good to me (though I did completely forget about TUR/TLE's existence). I'll be focusing on Alex and KP, with some attention to something called an actual plot. xD

        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      SithMaverick wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      Once the 'pages get back up, I'm gonna try to do SWRP. I really need to get back in the groove...
      Me too, I'm just waiting for my friend to quality check my character intro so I don't end up sucking. xD
      A good plan. I need to figure out who I'm going focus on, probably TUR/TLE and Ben F & Maw Z, I think the EE will have to take a backseat and just sit around, generating money from a shop post every once in a while.
      Yeah, sounds good to me (though I did completely forget about TUR/TLE's existence). I'll be focusing on Alex and KP, with some attention to something called an actual plot. xD

      Well, see, TUR/TLE is my main CIS character. XP Yay! PLOT!

        Loading editor
    • Wendell8319 wrote:
      SithMaverick wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      SithMaverick wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      Once the 'pages get back up, I'm gonna try to do SWRP. I really need to get back in the groove...
      Me too, I'm just waiting for my friend to quality check my character intro so I don't end up sucking. xD
      A good plan. I need to figure out who I'm going focus on, probably TUR/TLE and Ben F & Maw Z, I think the EE will have to take a backseat and just sit around, generating money from a shop post every once in a while.
      Yeah, sounds good to me (though I did completely forget about TUR/TLE's existence). I'll be focusing on Alex and KP, with some attention to something called an actual plot. xD
      Well, see, TUR/TLE is my main CIS character. XP Yay! PLOT!

      Ah, I getcha. And the whole plot thing is if I can actually...you know...write well. xD

        Loading editor
    • The Pages are back up, guys.  And don't worry... I need to get in the groove, too.  I have a completely new storyline.

        Loading editor
    • Bounty1313 wrote:
      The Pages are back up, guys.  And don't worry... I need to get in the groove, too.  I have a completely new storyline.

      Yeah, we ALL need to get back in the groove. xD And also, speaking of storylines, is the one with Aaron (that's his name, right?) and Kal still in the works?

        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:
      Bounty1313 wrote:
      The Pages are back up, guys.  And don't worry... I need to get in the groove, too.  I have a completely new storyline.
      Yeah, we ALL need to get back in the groove. xD And also, speaking of storylines, is the one with Aaron (that's his name, right?) and Kal still in the works?

      No, completely different.  Although it does deal with sons and a father... except, there are three sons now.  And the father did abandon them.  But, I can give you the run-down as to what happened for Aaron.



      Basically, the Mereels would find Aaron on Hrth'ging, I think, and they would make a desparate escape from the planet, since it was occupied by pirates.  Then, they'd figure out the deal with Aaron, and then Kal would contact Alex (that's her name, right? I forgot), and they'd have a long, LONG conversation about why they left Aaron with Quentin.  Basically, since they were two big political leaders, and since Aaron was conceived out of wedlock, they didn't want a major scandal, since at the time of Aaron's conception, about anything would cause a rebellion on Mandalore.  So, they sent baby Aaron into the smuggler Quentin, and the two of them would eventually end up in the Mandalore II dimension on accident, causing Aaron to grow rapidly, but Quentin to stay the same age (cause he had the same disease that Darin Shi had that made him not age between going in an out of those dimensions and stuff).  However, Aaron would still resent Kal and Alex for not just raising him as their own, or getting married in the first place to settle the issue.  Willing to still be a pilot, Aaron would enlist in the CR Navy and be an active member in the Mereel family.  His enlistee name for the CR Navy would be Aaron Mereel, but however, in any other scenario he would prefer to be called Aaron Bastard (or something of that nature) as an insult to his parents.  Whew.  Big story, eh?

        Loading editor
    • Also, I, personally can't seem to access the Pages.  I'm so glad to have AMAZING internet that I can ALWAYS trust.

      (Just kidding, I have very choice words for AT&T.)

        Loading editor
    • Bounty1313 wrote:

      SithMaverick wrote:
      Bounty1313 wrote:
      The Pages are back up, guys.  And don't worry... I need to get in the groove, too.  I have a completely new storyline.
      Yeah, we ALL need to get back in the groove. xD And also, speaking of storylines, is the one with Aaron (that's his name, right?) and Kal still in the works?

      No, completely different.  Although it does deal with sons and a father... except, there are three sons now.  And the father did abandon them.  But, I can give you the run-down as to what happened for Aaron.



      Basically, the Mereels would find Aaron on Hrth'ging, I think, and they would make a desparate escape from the planet, since it was occupied by pirates.  Then, they'd figure out the deal with Aaron, and then Kal would contact Alex (that's her name, right? I forgot), and they'd have a long, LONG conversation about why they left Aaron with Quentin.  Basically, since they were two big political leaders, and since Aaron was conceived out of wedlock, they didn't want a major scandal, since at the time of Aaron's conception, about anything would cause a rebellion on Mandalore.  So, they sent baby Aaron into the smuggler Quentin, and the two of them would eventually end up in the Mandalore II dimension on accident, causing Aaron to grow rapidly, but Quentin to stay the same age (cause he had the same disease that Darin Shi had that made him not age between going in an out of those dimensions and stuff).  However, Aaron would still resent Kal and Alex for not just raising him as their own, or getting married in the first place to settle the issue.  Willing to still be a pilot, Aaron would enlist in the CR Navy and be an active member in the Mereel family.  His enlistee name for the CR Navy would be Aaron Mereel, but however, in any other scenario he would prefer to be called Aaron Bastard (or something of that nature) as an insult to his parents.  Whew.  Big story, eh?

      Ah, I see. I would like to say Alex calls Aaron 'Aaron Lil B*tch,' but I doubt Krayt would allow that. xD

        Loading editor
    • Bounty1313 wrote:
      Also, I, personally can't seem to access the Pages.  I'm so glad to have AMAZING internet that I can ALWAYS trust.

      (Just kidding, I have very choice words for AT&T.)

      Yeah, I can't access MocPages either. And I also happen to have an AMAZING provider who would NEVER put their profit before my net neutrality.

      • Verizon looms over me*
        Loading editor
    • Also, forgive my blatant ignorance, but are we still keeping the conception date at that one battle in the TC conflict? Because now I just lie the idea of Anthony Se-el watching it all play out and he would about to go scold them when he  d e d. xD

        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:
      Also, forgive my blatant ignorance, but are we still keeping the conception date at that one battle in the TC conflict? Because now I just lie the idea of Anthony Se-el watching it all play out and he would about to go scold them when he  d e d. xD

      Yeah, Aaron's conception was after the battle in the TC conflict.  That was after a whole lot of rebellions and takeovers, which was why Kal and Alex hid away Aaron.  And I would gladly have made Alex call Aaron a bitch, but I guess it wouldn't go well with a lot of people. :P

        Loading editor
    • Bounty1313 wrote:
      SithMaverick wrote:
      Also, forgive my blatant ignorance, but are we still keeping the conception date at that one battle in the TC conflict? Because now I just lie the idea of Anthony Se-el watching it all play out and he would about to go scold them when he  d e d. xD
      Yeah, Aaron's conception was after the battle in the TC conflict.  That was after a whole lot of rebellions and takeovers, which was why Kal and Alex hid away Aaron.  And I would gladly have made Alex call Aaron a bitch, but I guess it wouldn't go well with a lot of people. :P

      hAhA   M Y   M A N

      • high five but misses and faceplants on presumably concrete*
        Loading editor
    • Screen Shot 2018-06-29 at 1.49.01 PM
      (basically Aaron)
        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:
      Screen Shot 2018-06-29 at 1.49.01 PM
      (basically Aaron)

      oof

        Loading editor
    • Hello there

        Loading editor
    • Started chat for SWRP because MOCpages’ servers are horrible monsters

        Loading editor
    • G E N E R A L    K E N-* c o u g h *

        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:

      Bounty1313 wrote:
      Also, I, personally can't seem to access the Pages.  I'm so glad to have AMAZING internet that I can ALWAYS trust.

      (Just kidding, I have very choice words for AT&T.)

      Yeah, I can't access MocPages either. And I also happen to have an AMAZING provider who would NEVER put their profit before my net neutrality.

      • Verizon looms over me*

      Cox is my internet provider and they DEFINITELY don’t support net neutrality

        Loading editor
    • I have Xfinity... I don't think they understand the meaning of net neutrality....

        Loading editor
    • Wendell8319 wrote:
      I have Xfinity... I don't think they understand the meaning of net neutrality....

                                            *Ajit Pai laughs maniacally in the distance*

        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:

      Wendell8319 wrote:
      I have Xfinity... I don't think they understand the meaning of net neutrality....

                                            *Ajit Pai laughs maniacally in the distance*

      By Ajit Pai I assume you mean the Evil Incarnate

        Loading editor
    • Wendell8319 wrote:
      I have Xfinity... I don't think they understand the meaning of net neutrality....

      I have AT&T... I have no idea if they are for net neutrality.

        Loading editor
    • Shoktrooper63 wrote:

      SithMaverick wrote:

      Wendell8319 wrote:
      I have Xfinity... I don't think they understand the meaning of net neutrality....
                                          *Ajit Pai laughs maniacally in the distance*
      By Ajit Pai I assume you mean the Evil Incarnate

      Yeah. That man makes me seriously reconsider whether or not satan is real... (I'm kidding, he's not that bad... right?)



      (Right?! O.O)

        Loading editor
    • Wendell8319 wrote:
      Shoktrooper63 wrote:

      SithMaverick wrote:


      Wendell8319 wrote:
      I have Xfinity... I don't think they understand the meaning of net neutrality....
                                          *Ajit Pai laughs maniacally in the distance*
      By Ajit Pai I assume you mean the Evil Incarnate
      Yeah. That man makes me seriously reconsider whether or not satan is real... (I'm kidding, he's not that bad... right?)



      (Right?! O.O)

      The man drinks out of a giant coffee cup and spins fidget spinners. Satan is real, and his head demon is Ajit Pai.

        Loading editor
    • Bounty1313 wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      Shoktrooper63 wrote:

      SithMaverick wrote:


      Wendell8319 wrote:
      I have Xfinity... I don't think they understand the meaning of net neutrality....
                                          *Ajit Pai laughs maniacally in the distance*
      By Ajit Pai I assume you mean the Evil Incarnate
      Yeah. That man makes me seriously reconsider whether or not satan is real... (I'm kidding, he's not that bad... right?)


      (Right?! O.O)

      The man drinks out of a giant coffee cup and spins fidget spinners. Satan is real, and his head demon is Ajit Pai.

      darnit I got demoted again...

      xD

        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:
      Bounty1313 wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      Shoktrooper63 wrote:

      SithMaverick wrote:



      Wendell8319 wrote:
      I have Xfinity... I don't think they understand the meaning of net neutrality....
                                          *Ajit Pai laughs maniacally in the distance*
      By Ajit Pai I assume you mean the Evil Incarnate
      Yeah. That man makes me seriously reconsider whether or not satan is real... (I'm kidding, he's not that bad... right?)


      (Right?! O.O)

      The man drinks out of a giant coffee cup and spins fidget spinners. Satan is real, and his head demon is Ajit Pai.
      darnit I got demoted again...

      xD

      Crap, did I get demoted too? I'm still the Queen of lies, right?! XD

        Loading editor
    • Wendell8319 wrote:
      SithMaverick wrote:
      Bounty1313 wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      Shoktrooper63 wrote:

      SithMaverick wrote:



      Wendell8319 wrote:
      I have Xfinity... I don't think they understand the meaning of net neutrality....
                                          *Ajit Pai laughs maniacally in the distance*
      By Ajit Pai I assume you mean the Evil Incarnate
      Yeah. That man makes me seriously reconsider whether or not satan is real... (I'm kidding, he's not that bad... right?)


      (Right?! O.O)

      The man drinks out of a giant coffee cup and spins fidget spinners. Satan is real, and his head demon is Ajit Pai.
      darnit I got demoted again...

      xD

      Crap, did I get demoted too? I'm still the Queen of lies, right?! XD

      I dunno, you might have to ask the big man about it. 

        Loading editor
    • SithMaverick wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      SithMaverick wrote:
      Bounty1313 wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      Shoktrooper63 wrote:

      SithMaverick wrote:




      Wendell8319 wrote:
      I have Xfinity... I don't think they understand the meaning of net neutrality....
                                          *Ajit Pai laughs maniacally in the distance*
      By Ajit Pai I assume you mean the Evil Incarnate
      Yeah. That man makes me seriously reconsider whether or not satan is real... (I'm kidding, he's not that bad... right?)


      (Right?! O.O)

      The man drinks out of a giant coffee cup and spins fidget spinners. Satan is real, and his head demon is Ajit Pai.
      darnit I got demoted again...

      xD

      Crap, did I get demoted too? I'm still the Queen of lies, right?! XD
      I dunno, you might have to ask the big man about it. 
      • Santa clause walks in* "Ho. Ho. Ho."*Drinks Coke* "I'ma da big man noaw. Ya take orda's from meh!":P
        Loading editor
    • LolimonTheWise wrote:
      SithMaverick wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      SithMaverick wrote:
      Bounty1313 wrote:
      Wendell8319 wrote:
      Shoktrooper63 wrote:

      SithMaverick wrote:




      Wendell8319 wrote:
      I have Xfinity... I don't think they understand the meaning of net neutrality....
                                          *Ajit Pai laughs maniacally in the distance*
      By Ajit Pai I assume you mean the Evil Incarnate
      Yeah. That man makes me seriously reconsider whether or not satan is real... (I'm kidding, he's not that bad... right?)


      (Right?! O.O)

      The man drinks out of a giant coffee cup and spins fidget spinners. Satan is real, and his head demon is Ajit Pai.
      darnit I got demoted again...

      xD

      Crap, did I get demoted too? I'm still the Queen of lies, right?! XD
      I dunno, you might have to ask the big man about it. 
      • Santa clause walks in* "Ho. Ho. Ho."*Drinks Coke* "I'ma da big man noaw. Ya take orda's from meh!":P

      Sorry, I don't take orders from Coca-Cola   H E A T H E N S

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.