The General Chit Chat Thread 2

[rathoriel]

^ That's pretty obvious. Of course we all want something exotic or different from what we can normally have. Most the girls are pretty sluttish or mean these days which is why it's so hard to find the ever so ellusive nice girl. A girl who doesnt talk behind your back, want you to fund her shopping purchases and who thinks just being with you is enough to make her smile.

I feel bad for the next generation looking for nice girls to settle down with. They're a rare species.

Of course, the girls on box are all the exceptions?

Note to all: Nice to see some familiar names in the last few pages and a big hello to the people Ive never spoken to before.

Daley is back

[animemamba]

(click to show/hide)

60 - 3.5%
65 - 2.5%
70 - 2.2%

On average, 8.2% of the Roman population was over the age of 60. Which makes one in every 12 Romans. I'd say that nets us more than 10 000.

As for the recent history.

Here's a picture of an Iraqi born in 1788, the picture was taken in 1895.

Well. Now bring them here and make them prove their age. That's what said.

...
And while you'll be bringing them, you could explain to me what does it all have to do with tardyness of teenegers and lower rate of marriages  today, because I'm still missing that part

We are stuck inside a eternal vortex in the bakaBT forum, all here have all or none connection to the great spirit in the sky. Everything is connected and separated in a close and distant relation.

Even you are my brother or my sister from a distant or close relative.

(some mumbojumbo, sorry )

[TiYlER]

o.O

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the quoted text...

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

60 - 3.5%
65 - 2.5%
70 - 2.2%

On average, 8.2% of the Roman population was over the age of 60. Which makes one in every 12 Romans. I'd say that nets us more than 10 000.

As for the recent history.

Here's a picture of an Iraqi born in 1788, the picture was taken in 1895.

Well. Now bring them here and make them prove their age. That's what said.

...
And while you'll be bringing them, you could explain to me what does it all have to do with tardyness of teenegers and lower rate of marriages  today, because I'm still missing that part

How about the opposite, give me proof that a 60 year old or for that matter a 50 year old skeleton pre the 18th century world was an unheard of miracle of archaeology.
...
Which is something I never tried to answer or even questioned you about.

Hmm. Firstly, I'd disagree that you weren't expected to live together for more than a few years. Given ones life expectancy if you actually managed to get to a marritable age and given that families of those times were expected to have an amount of children numbering well north of 10. Unless twins are 10 times as common as I thought, I'd say you'd be at the very least expected to live together for a decade and at most to about two.

It'd say that current tardiness is more to due to the view of marriage rather than anything else. Your feelings on the subject of your spouse ranked somewhere between "cry some moar" and "tough shit, luv" in those times. Being single would nearly certainly mean that'd you'd starve be shunned by the community and that the holy union was more of an economical and political deal you had because you were told to more than anything else. Not to mention that just generally "I want x" mattered to the world and the ones around you about as much as that fly I swatted 15 minutes ago.

In comparison, current marriages, at the very least those without children, are binding only to the point of petty feelings. Given such a change, I'd say it's natural for marriages to become a less time consuming endeavour.

Also. I would also say that the divorce rates aren't exactly all telling either. After all, a happily married family only counts as one marriage, and a dick or a whore who remarried and redivorced 6 times count as 6. I would like too see the difference between the statistics of the chance for an individual to find a happy marriage compared to overall average divorce rates. But I'm far too tired to do that.

Hey, if I said "Bring me rainbow bunny who poops gold" would you still continue with serious answers?

Well. I have said it was usually not (expected) for more than 20 years, rarely 30. You say two decades. That's kinda... funny. But don't forget getting married at 12 +-  wasn't exactly rare.
Either way in the past it was a thing of strategy, union or conviniece and perhaps religion with little choice for the married individuals while today it is a thing of joy for most. Which is why there are divorces, and say what you will, there are times more than there used to be few decades back. Old generations tied by traditions dying out I guess.

And while some are what you said, I don't think someone who remaries several times  has to be any kind of dick or whore. Do you call anyone who had more than, say, 5 partners overly whore-ish? Those people are just shortsighted and shouldn't get married so fast at the first place. In many case it has a lot to do with being stuck beween two worlds, on one side "You have to marry the person you like to be with them, so the god wills" and othe the other "It's ok to divorce". Simplified.

Why should everyone spend life with one person anyway? To perfect mastery of boredom?
But that is all subjective as it gets and varies localy.

I'm not sure the tardyness of teenagers is caused by today's view of marriage tho. Erm.

...Probably. It's in my nature.

I only remembered a post of yours saying "a few years". If you wish, I'll rethink and rephrase my argument once I get some sleep.

Partners? No. 1-2 Marriages: probably not, if more: probably yes. Perhaps not a whore or a dick, but someone who shouldn't marry for sure. However, as I've said a few times ago, I've been raised in a very traditional manner and I kind of naturally put a sort of importance on said event fairly rare nowadays and to be honest, divorces are very rare in my social circles, even thought I'm from the country that currently holds the largest divorce rates in the EU. I can only think of three examples of it throughout the people I constantly interact with or the people my parents do. So my view on the subject is likely a bit skewed. And, to my amusement, the only thing I've actively been taught about marriages is to not choose my partners on the basis of affection.

Personally, I'm not really interested in the prospects of playing the dating game or the hunt for decades. I've got many vices and interests. There are days where I simply want to put a check and shove the issue to the "solved problems" bin and retire to my other pursuits.

Perhaps, however that's what my reasoning told me in the ten minutes I've bothered to think about the topic. If you got another answer, feel free to share.

I'm not even sure I actually said anything about "just a few years". I said not 50, 30 is unique and over 20 rare. Well. Was, not is.
Well, I'm not big fan of marriage in any form, age or for any reason, but good half of people who get divorced shouldn't got married at the first place. Hey, you're 20, I'm 20, we know each other for almost two weeks, let's get married! ... Ya. I wonder how that will go.

But looking at some of the older pairs who are together for 40, 50 years ... Divorce at the right time can be a good thing. Why force it like that. I think that it's in nature of humankind to dislike person you spent several years in one room with. Sure, there still might be mutual respect and such, but still.

But still, I can't believe you'd go that far because of like 15 years old movie joke 



@Animemamba
...Umm.
Okay.
You could say that, or it's simply that everyone started conversation at different point and it gets a little confusing when everyone talks about a bit different thing. The spiritual part makes it look way more complex than it really is

@Tyler
Bah.

[Soryon]

WOW look at this idiot!

I remember doing something similar with FB profiles on an old guild forum and a bunch of people thought I was stalking them, lol.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?=743264506

[metro.]

WOW look at this idiot!

I remember doing something similar with FB profiles on an old guild forum and a bunch of people thought I was stalking them, lol.

I'm seriously missing something here aren't I?

[TiYlER]

@Tyler
Bah.

FINE. I won't remind you then.
>:|

[Soryon]

WOW look at this idiot!

I remember doing something similar with FB profiles on an old guild forum and a bunch of people thought I was stalking them, lol.

I'm seriously missing something here aren't I?

Look at the link it takes you to =) Its not a specific user link, its the profile of anyone who clicks it while logged in.

[elvikun]

@Tyler
Bah.

FINE. I won't remind you then.
>:|

Hey, like everyone doublechecks all links all the time. Now were back to random people shouting random offenses at random places. So just "Bah".

[Saras]

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

60 - 3.5%
65 - 2.5%
70 - 2.2%

On average, 8.2% of the Roman population was over the age of 60. Which makes one in every 12 Romans. I'd say that nets us more than 10 000.

As for the recent history.

Here's a picture of an Iraqi born in 1788, the picture was taken in 1895.

Well. Now bring them here and make them prove their age. That's what said.

...
And while you'll be bringing them, you could explain to me what does it all have to do with tardyness of teenegers and lower rate of marriages  today, because I'm still missing that part

How about the opposite, give me proof that a 60 year old or for that matter a 50 year old skeleton pre the 18th century world was an unheard of miracle of archaeology.
...
Which is something I never tried to answer or even questioned you about.

Hmm. Firstly, I'd disagree that you weren't expected to live together for more than a few years. Given ones life expectancy if you actually managed to get to a marritable age and given that families of those times were expected to have an amount of children numbering well north of 10. Unless twins are 10 times as common as I thought, I'd say you'd be at the very least expected to live together for a decade and at most to about two.

It'd say that current tardiness is more to due to the view of marriage rather than anything else. Your feelings on the subject of your spouse ranked somewhere between "cry some moar" and "tough shit, luv" in those times. Being single would nearly certainly mean that'd you'd starve be shunned by the community and that the holy union was more of an economical and political deal you had because you were told to more than anything else. Not to mention that just generally "I want x" mattered to the world and the ones around you about as much as that fly I swatted 15 minutes ago.

In comparison, current marriages, at the very least those without children, are binding only to the point of petty feelings. Given such a change, I'd say it's natural for marriages to become a less time consuming endeavour.

Also. I would also say that the divorce rates aren't exactly all telling either. After all, a happily married family only counts as one marriage, and a dick or a whore who remarried and redivorced 6 times count as 6. I would like too see the difference between the statistics of the chance for an individual to find a happy marriage compared to overall average divorce rates. But I'm far too tired to do that.

Hey, if I said "Bring me rainbow bunny who poops gold" would you still continue with serious answers?

Well. I have said it was usually not (expected) for more than 20 years, rarely 30. You say two decades. That's kinda... funny. But don't forget getting married at 12 +-  wasn't exactly rare.
Either way in the past it was a thing of strategy, union or conviniece and perhaps religion with little choice for the married individuals while today it is a thing of joy for most. Which is why there are divorces, and say what you will, there are times more than there used to be few decades back. Old generations tied by traditions dying out I guess.

And while some are what you said, I don't think someone who remaries several times  has to be any kind of dick or whore. Do you call anyone who had more than, say, 5 partners overly whore-ish? Those people are just shortsighted and shouldn't get married so fast at the first place. In many case it has a lot to do with being stuck beween two worlds, on one side "You have to marry the person you like to be with them, so the god wills" and othe the other "It's ok to divorce". Simplified.

Why should everyone spend life with one person anyway? To perfect mastery of boredom?
But that is all subjective as it gets and varies localy.

I'm not sure the tardyness of teenagers is caused by today's view of marriage tho. Erm.

...Probably. It's in my nature.

I only remembered a post of yours saying "a few years". If you wish, I'll rethink and rephrase my argument once I get some sleep.

Partners? No. 1-2 Marriages: probably not, if more: probably yes. Perhaps not a whore or a dick, but someone who shouldn't marry for sure. However, as I've said a few times ago, I've been raised in a very traditional manner and I kind of naturally put a sort of importance on said event fairly rare nowadays and to be honest, divorces are very rare in my social circles, even thought I'm from the country that currently holds the largest divorce rates in the EU. I can only think of three examples of it throughout the people I constantly interact with or the people my parents do. So my view on the subject is likely a bit skewed. And, to my amusement, the only thing I've actively been taught about marriages is to not choose my partners on the basis of affection.

Personally, I'm not really interested in the prospects of playing the dating game or the hunt for decades. I've got many vices and interests. There are days where I simply want to put a check and shove the issue to the "solved problems" bin and retire to my other pursuits.

Perhaps, however that's what my reasoning told me in the ten minutes I've bothered to think about the topic. If you got another answer, feel free to share.

I'm not even sure I actually said anything about "just a few years". I said not 50, 30 is unique and over 20 rare. Well. Was, not is.
Well, I'm not big fan of marriage in any form, age or for any reason, but good half of people who get divorced shouldn't got married at the first place. Hey, you're 20, I'm 20, we know each other for almost two weeks, let's get married! ... Ya. I wonder how that will go.

But looking at some of the older pairs who are together for 40, 50 years ... Divorce at the right time can be a good thing. Why force it like that. I think that it's in nature of humankind to dislike person you spent several years in one room with. Sure, there still might be mutual respect and such, but still.

But still, I can't believe you'd go that far because of like 15 years old movie joke 

I have no memory of you saying either of those. Weird, oh well. And as I said, that's not an occurrence that happens in my life. The youngest couple I know of that married is my sister who was 26 at the time, and I believe that she knew her spouse for well over two years by then. The example you are giving me is one my mind analyses in the same group as those stupid home videos or bugs bunny cartoons.

I do not deny such a possibility.

What movie?

[TiYlER]

Hey, like everyone doublechecks all links all the time. Now were back to random people shouting random offenses at random places. So just "Bah".

...yeah, I'm having a really hard time figuring out what that means. Blame my poor reading skills :shrug:

[metro.]

Shouting obscenities can be fun though!
Actually it loses it's charm pretty much instantly.

[undetz]

Penis!

[TiYlER]

What the hell has this turned into!?

[Saras]

What the hell has this turned into!?

4chan

[metro.]

What the hell has this turned into!?

4chan

/wrists

[elvikun]

Hey, like everyone doublechecks all links all the time. Now were back to random people shouting random offenses at random places. So just "Bah".

...yeah, I'm having a really hard time figuring out what that means. Blame my poor reading skills :shrug:

Nevrmind, just look at that idiot in the mirror.

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

60 - 3.5%
65 - 2.5%
70 - 2.2%

On average, 8.2% of the Roman population was over the age of 60. Which makes one in every 12 Romans. I'd say that nets us more than 10 000.

As for the recent history.

Here's a picture of an Iraqi born in 1788, the picture was taken in 1895.

Well. Now bring them here and make them prove their age. That's what said.

...
And while you'll be bringing them, you could explain to me what does it all have to do with tardyness of teenegers and lower rate of marriages  today, because I'm still missing that part

How about the opposite, give me proof that a 60 year old or for that matter a 50 year old skeleton pre the 18th century world was an unheard of miracle of archaeology.
...
Which is something I never tried to answer or even questioned you about.

Hmm. Firstly, I'd disagree that you weren't expected to live together for more than a few years. Given ones life expectancy if you actually managed to get to a marritable age and given that families of those times were expected to have an amount of children numbering well north of 10. Unless twins are 10 times as common as I thought, I'd say you'd be at the very least expected to live together for a decade and at most to about two.

It'd say that current tardiness is more to due to the view of marriage rather than anything else. Your feelings on the subject of your spouse ranked somewhere between "cry some moar" and "tough shit, luv" in those times. Being single would nearly certainly mean that'd you'd starve be shunned by the community and that the holy union was more of an economical and political deal you had because you were told to more than anything else. Not to mention that just generally "I want x" mattered to the world and the ones around you about as much as that fly I swatted 15 minutes ago.

In comparison, current marriages, at the very least those without children, are binding only to the point of petty feelings. Given such a change, I'd say it's natural for marriages to become a less time consuming endeavour.

Also. I would also say that the divorce rates aren't exactly all telling either. After all, a happily married family only counts as one marriage, and a dick or a whore who remarried and redivorced 6 times count as 6. I would like too see the difference between the statistics of the chance for an individual to find a happy marriage compared to overall average divorce rates. But I'm far too tired to do that.

Hey, if I said "Bring me rainbow bunny who poops gold" would you still continue with serious answers?

Well. I have said it was usually not (expected) for more than 20 years, rarely 30. You say two decades. That's kinda... funny. But don't forget getting married at 12 +-  wasn't exactly rare.
Either way in the past it was a thing of strategy, union or conviniece and perhaps religion with little choice for the married individuals while today it is a thing of joy for most. Which is why there are divorces, and say what you will, there are times more than there used to be few decades back. Old generations tied by traditions dying out I guess.

And while some are what you said, I don't think someone who remaries several times  has to be any kind of dick or whore. Do you call anyone who had more than, say, 5 partners overly whore-ish? Those people are just shortsighted and shouldn't get married so fast at the first place. In many case it has a lot to do with being stuck beween two worlds, on one side "You have to marry the person you like to be with them, so the god wills" and othe the other "It's ok to divorce". Simplified.

Why should everyone spend life with one person anyway? To perfect mastery of boredom?
But that is all subjective as it gets and varies localy.

I'm not sure the tardyness of teenagers is caused by today's view of marriage tho. Erm.

...Probably. It's in my nature.

I only remembered a post of yours saying "a few years". If you wish, I'll rethink and rephrase my argument once I get some sleep.

Partners? No. 1-2 Marriages: probably not, if more: probably yes. Perhaps not a whore or a dick, but someone who shouldn't marry for sure. However, as I've said a few times ago, I've been raised in a very traditional manner and I kind of naturally put a sort of importance on said event fairly rare nowadays and to be honest, divorces are very rare in my social circles, even thought I'm from the country that currently holds the largest divorce rates in the EU. I can only think of three examples of it throughout the people I constantly interact with or the people my parents do. So my view on the subject is likely a bit skewed. And, to my amusement, the only thing I've actively been taught about marriages is to not choose my partners on the basis of affection.

Personally, I'm not really interested in the prospects of playing the dating game or the hunt for decades. I've got many vices and interests. There are days where I simply want to put a check and shove the issue to the "solved problems" bin and retire to my other pursuits.

Perhaps, however that's what my reasoning told me in the ten minutes I've bothered to think about the topic. If you got another answer, feel free to share.

I'm not even sure I actually said anything about "just a few years". I said not 50, 30 is unique and over 20 rare. Well. Was, not is.
Well, I'm not big fan of marriage in any form, age or for any reason, but good half of people who get divorced shouldn't got married at the first place. Hey, you're 20, I'm 20, we know each other for almost two weeks, let's get married! ... Ya. I wonder how that will go.

But looking at some of the older pairs who are together for 40, 50 years ... Divorce at the right time can be a good thing. Why force it like that. I think that it's in nature of humankind to dislike person you spent several years in one room with. Sure, there still might be mutual respect and such, but still.

But still, I can't believe you'd go that far because of like 15 years old movie joke 

I have no memory of you saying either of those. Weird, oh well. And as I said, that's not an occurrence that happens in my life. The youngest couple I know of that married is my sister who was 26 at the time, and I believe that she knew her spouse for well over two years by then. The example you are giving me is one my mind analyses in the same group as those stupid home videos or bugs bunny cartoons.

I do not deny such a possibility.

What movie?

...Example of what?

Either way, the point was... when marriage was "designed", it was not expected to last for 50+ years. Not even 30. Not even 20, in most cases.

Close enough?

No idea what movie. It was a comedy I presume. Over 10 years old, most likely. And it was said in a park. But the quote was enjoyable enough to remember, while the movie itself wasn't as it seems.

[metro.]

I'm pretty sure marriage was designed to be forever. In it's religious form of course.

[Havoc10K]

8- you will never understand what the fuck is going on here, but you don't give a damn anyway.

[TiYlER]

I gamble all the time.

(click to show/hide)

My friend "Waffles" says "hi". Because it was her, I actually got up off of my computer for a few minutes.