Jump to content

Catrie

Resident
  • Posts

    1,623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by Catrie

  1. 20 hours ago, Lukorange said:

    Trying a new skin 🙈 don't judge me.... <.< it's a demo I know but Im glad they didnt cover the face with marks or logos. I was in a good mood :) so I spent some hours making this shape. Have a good day too :3 

    Oppa...Saranghae ♥ uwu first DEMO then I buy ♥

     

    V?  Is that you? 

    • Like 1
  2. I use the Dark theme and all I saw was a block of white that seared my eyes.  No way am I reading through that mess.  Maybe if it were broken into paragraphs, but doubtful. 

  3. 41 minutes ago, Orwar said:

       Daily random mythology trivia: the 'modern' name Beelzebub which, depending on who you ask, is either an epithet for Satan, or one of the seven princes of Hell, derives from Baal/Báal/Ba'al ('Lord', 'Master', or 'Husband') and z'bhbubh ('flies'), i.e. 'Lord of Flies'. According to Peter Binsfeld's Treatise on Confessions by Evildoers and Witches (1589), Beelzebub represents the deadly sin of gluttony. Originally, the title Ba'al was given to Hadad, the ancient Canaanite deity of weather, storms, and rain, as he was considered too great for his true name to be spoken (much like the Babylonians referred to Marduk as Bel, and how modern Abrahamic folks usually go with 'Lord' or just 'God' rather than Elohim, Yahwe, El-Shaddai, Jehovah, or Adonai - although all those 'names' aren't proper names either, but epithets), but in time Ba'al became the chief deity (or possibly a separate deity completely, 3,500 year old mythology is a bit foggy sometimes) of the Phoenician pantheon as a god of fertility, war, and weather (retaining his power over lightning, which the Greeks interpreted as him being a version of Zeus). Ba'al was later the word used for the false deities that the descendants of the Israelites of the Exodus worshipped to anger Yahwe, and for a long time (in some circumstances still today), a synonym for an unbeliever or a false believer is 'Baalite' (or, as a verb for committing blasphemy, 'the worship of Baal').

    funnily enough, I'm currently watching this video. lol

     

    • Like 1
  4. 22 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

    I'll start.. 

     

    Centaur drake.png

     I like the armor. horse coat color is nice. The top half doesn't match the bottom half.  The hair doesn't match, nor does the style really work for what you have going on from the waist down.    Not too sure if the full tattoo really works with this.  It's like it should be two different avatars.  the body of the horse is too "clean" when compared to the human part of the body.  It just doesn't gel together for me.  

    • Like 1
  5. Oh. so now we're taking sides here? Nope. I don't play that game.  I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the person who originally started the original discussion and how smoking is where the line seems to be drawn.  Especially since the original post in this thread states " The question isn’t so much should the creative use of smoking in an artistic image be restricted, as whether the audience here is so programmable we should infringe on the artist’s freedom of expression? " 

    I bolded that part, because it clearly leads the question further.   It's not just about smoking, it's about everything else as well.

    All I'm getting, when asking why the other vices aren't covered is "Because."  "Because" isn't a valid answer.  It's what a parent tells a 5 year old when they want candy right before bedtime. 

    • Like 2
  6. 4 minutes ago, xLunaea said:

    Because the topic is about smoking. Not about alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. Save those topics for a different discussion. Not everything needs to be brought up all at once, that just creates chaos. Better to address one thing at a time.

    Why? so we can say the same thing in a multiple threads?  Also, highlighting stuff doesn't make it any more important. 

     

    2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

    k, punkin...

    that's very patronizing of you. lol 

    • Like 1
  7. 1 minute ago, xLunaea said:

    Again, the topic was about smoking. It was not about alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. Those are entirely different topics. So talking about any of those things is just going off-topic, IMO. Those are obviously important discussions to have as well.

    Again. Why are we focused just on smoking? If you're going to talk about the influence of smoking in pictures, you might as well cover the rest of the vices too.  And I don't see that as going off-topic.  It's all about the same thing.

    • Like 2
  8. 5 minutes ago, xLunaea said:

    Because the question was about smoking, not everything else.

    Why?  Why are we only focusing on smoking?  Why is that where we draw the line?  why is that one vice worse than sex, drugs, drinking,etc?  Why is that the one we are focusing on? Why is it okay to look at pictures that depict sex, drugs, drinking, violence but Gods forbid we see a picture of smoking? 

    Also " Because" is not an answer.

    • Like 1
  9. Just now, Luna Bliss said:

    Well wouldn't that all be off-topic?  I thought we're just discussing smoking here.

    If we're not, I have a good doc on HBO to watch about opioids:

    https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-crime-of-the-century

    But why are we limiting it to smoking?  Why aren't all the other vices being called out too?  If you're going to try to limit one, in what is essentially an art form, then we need to discuss why we aren't all the others. 

  10. 2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

    But does e-sex cause 500,000 yearly deaths in the U.S.?

    Can you prove that smoking in a digital world does?

    What about all the drunk driving deaths that happen each year? Yet, I don't see the original post talk about alcohol abuse?

    What about domestic violence deaths?  Don't see those mentioned here either. 

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...