Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Please read the forum rules before posting.

Check if you are posting in the correct category.

The Off Topic section is not meant for discussing Cookie Clicker.

Jarr2003 ✭✭✭✭✭

The new FNaF game is actually really good


Last Active
  • Re: What is your sex?


    If you expected anything else at this points you've clearly not been paying attention.
    You actually have an extremely rare condition that causes you to grow tomatoes instead of testicles.
  • Re: 15,000

    leave the forum
  • Re: Should Hate Speech be Legal?

    Not in front of children who don't know how to use words properly
    So you're saying that people should be arrested for saying "fuck" in front of children?
    Just to clarify, I was joking when I said this. I didn't actually mean I consider that hate speech.
    It isn't legal in my country and I am thankful for that. Humans abuse the right of free speech far too much to deserve it.

    Basically what the below post says.
    Hate speech needs to be defined because each person has a different definition.
    For me hate speech is about inciting hatred or targeting someone with abuse. Sending someone multiple messages saying hateful things about their race/religion/sexuality/disability/gender (identity)/anything else I forgot, is wrong.
    Making 1 joke saying all muslims are terrorists is fine. Trying to stir up hatred of muslims is not.
    I have to disagree with you on this. It doesn't matter whether it's offensive or not, whether humans abuse free speech or not, ultimately it is still a human right. The right to free speech is a necessity, and attempting to limit such a thing because you don't want people's feelings to be hurt is a short sighted and ultimately not even effective "solution." Seriously, think about it. We all hate the Westboro Baptist Church (for example), but why? Because they say crap like "god hates fags." But when the Westboro Baptist Church can't share their beliefs, no matter how backwards they are, it becomes easy to forget just how bad they really are. Furthermore, when they can't share their beliefs, it just gives them more ground to stand on. Like I've said before, groups like the Westboro Baptist Church need to be allowed to say stuff like "god hates fags" because most people, when they hear that, they immediately understand why the Westboro Baptist Church is so hated.

    Furthermore, why the hell would you trust politicians to say what is free speech and what is hate speech. You yourself have said that all politicians are corrupt, yet you seem to support the idea of them deciding what is okay to be said, and what is not? When you have people in office who say that safety is more important than human rights, why would you ever support the idea that these people should be allowed to control the very things that you say? It's only so long before someone tries to change what is considered "hate speech" in the UK, and it's only a downward spiral from there. Free speech is a necessity, whether you like it or not.
    Edit: Oops... I misread that as ILLEGAL. MY BAD.

    Certain types of hate speech should most definitely be illegal. Spreading hate and threats of violence toward a certain group of people is not protected under free speech at all. Want to know why?

    Well... there are actually limitations on free speech, such as CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Threatening ethnic/religious/sexual orientation/other groups with violence and hatred is clear and present danger for the targets.
    I dunno where you live, but in America, hate speech is 100% free speech. You seem to be referring to threats, which are considered illegal, at least when said threats are considered serious and dangerous.
    Under the assumption that by "hate speech" you mean "all of X group must die" then no, it should not be legal.

    Those sorts of things can only do harm.
    Just because something is purely harmful does not mean it should be illegal.
  • Re: Five Knights at the World's Gate (Forum Game)

    this is stupid
  • Contested Territory Battle Royale

    Basically three teams fight for control of a small area of contested territory. Not much else to add to a description. :P

    Character Template:

    [Weapon] (Can be changed at your team spawn)
    [Perks] (I haven't made any perks yet, but feel free to say perks in this category, and I might add them)

    What I'll likely do with perks is that I'll make it so that there are basic perks you can pick from (or suggest perks that are around the same usefulness) and progressively award more as you do things that I think would earn a perk. That would probably be things like killing enemies and taking control of the contested territory.

    The poll option you pick is your team permanently, so pick carefully. I would like it if you could keep the teams generally balanced in size, though.

    Anyways, I'll add more details and actually start the game when there is a decent amount of players (at least one player in each team, I think)

    Team Red Active Players:

    Team Blue Active Players:

    Team Yellow Active Players

    To be made