TRIPPY SPEAKS OUT!
Tickle me pleasantly surprised at the responses. It seems for the most part that people are agreeing with me, but raising two very good points:
The first is that the stories are in no way deceptively labeled. They are each clearly marked NC-17, which further presents a dialog confirming your age. The story titles and descriptions make clear the nature of the content. Therefore, those complaining should realize that they are viewing an open forum in which a multitude of opinions may be expressed. If they come upon content that appears distasteful, they should ignore it.
The second is that regardless of what I may say, the stories show a great deal of disrespect toward beliefs that many hold sacred. All I can say to this is that, for the most part, humor stems from a lack of respect, be it towards self or a sensitive social issue or philosophy.
If I were to try to classify myself, I believe I'd be a post-structuralist secular humanist. As far as the issue of respect goes, while I may not have a great deal of respect for your beliefs in and of themselves, I respect your right to believe in whatever you wish.
That said, let me touch upon some comments:
imokru writes:
"You know what else? Another thing occured to me right after I reviewed last time. Putting a start to a dialogue thing like this up really seems like you're just trying to start an arguement. People have already said if they liked your stuff or not. They have every right to not like what you write. If you are going to write stuff mocking Jesus in the Bible section, be prepared for a lot of bad reviews because you have to know that its going to upset people. Quit whining. That's just the way it goes."
I would urge you to read what I have written before replying as it seems apparent to me that you have not. Furthermore, upon reading the comments it seems that for the most part people are in agreement with what I have said, so this review stood out somewhat.
"One last thing. It's also kind of annoying when all you non-christian types start lumping all the Christians in together {That's an example of irony, all you non-christian types that I'm lumping into one category :) }"
Again, please read what I have written. I very clearly distinguished between those who responded in a Christian manner and those who made what I essentially consider to be "threats upon my soul," and have gone so far to say that such people are not true Christians. Furthermore, I applauded those who came off as true Christians for sticking to their beliefs.
"Obviously the people who tell you to go to Hell are not the same as those people who just say that they don't like what you write. There is a different degree of spiritual maturity, obviously. I doubt those "go to hell" people really understand what the Chriatian faith is about."
This was the crux of the latter half of what I wrote.
Tallulah responds:
"Hmmm. Interesting points you make, congrats on doing a coherent argument! Can I argue back? Can I can I can I? Oh, what the hell, I will...
1) I still think you are needlessly upsetting people on this. When someone has strong religious belief it's usually kinder to respect their beliefs. Making fun of their religious figures may please some, but it hurts others. I guess that's why some have been flaming you. You say you're not trying to infuriate Christians...but you don't seem to be trying to please them that much either!"
Indeed I am not. I'm certainly not saying that I wasn't expecting flames or that people don't have the right to flame me. I was merely commenting on the hypocrisy of the flamers.
"2) I agree with you about the flamers who threaten you with hell. :)"
Thank you. It seems most people are in agreement on this point.
"3) Don't diss Harry Potter! And why does getting laid automatically not make you a loser?"
You'll have to excuse me on this. Someone pointed out that I was further mistaken on this point (the person who originally posted the comments appears to be a girl)
kori wrote in with a lengthy post, so lengthy that I decided not to post it here.
Well I certainly followed what you wrote... and while you didn't seem to be making any clear argument I agree with what you said. I apologize for taking your post out of context, as I needed to use it to illustrate a particular point. I didn't mean to demean you in any way.
hemlock writes:
"And what's wrong with reading Harry Potter?"
Well, I'm not here to start a debate about Harry Potter as quality literature. My favored authors fall along the lines of Ellings, Faulkner, and Dennett. Consequently, I don't find the work of Rowling to be quite up to par with my standards.
"Well,I guess I could just do like everyone else and call you all sorts of names but....God is not gay,or straight or anything for that matter.He(term used for convenience)is neither male or female and does not have sexual desires of any sort.It is foolish to write something like this because God created sex and is'nt bound by it. The creator of all existence is not bound to human desires.Well,there's your food for thought,and here's a fork.Dig in."
A very interesting point you raise. I believe you will have a tough time defending this assertion scripturally within the context of the Hebrew scriptures. Namely, God is referred to using the Hebrew word "hu", the third person male pronoun. Furthermore, what is seen as "ho" in the name "Jehovah" is the same pronoun "hu".
As to whether or not God possesses the male member, I believe that lacking evidence to the contrary that entirely left to individual interpretation.
purple mage writes:
"Frankly, I find this offensive. BUt I won't condemn you to an eternity of hellfire. Only God can do that. Question, though. WHy do you call us defending Christians "hypocrites"? Have we no right to defend? We are defending a character in this stupid story as much as you are defending the story itself. Hey, think about it, that also makes you a hypocrite. Oh, joy. So, before any of you cretins [look that up in the dictionary, will you? Yes, C is between B and D] write another idiotic stupid moronic story like this one, why don't you think about it first?"
The question you are asking is why I am calling the "defending Christians" hypocrites. Well, that isn't entirely accurate. I am calling the Christians who are reacting in an un-Christian manner (that is, the ones screaming for my blood) hypocrites, as they have professed their adherence to a particular doctrine, and consequently ask others to adhere to that particular doctrine while ignoring it themselves.
"We are defending a character in this stupid story as much as you are defending the story itself. Hey, think about it, that also makes you a hypocrite."
I don't follow your logic here. I adhere to no particular doctrine, nor do I ask anyone to follow a particular doctrine. As an agnostic I neither avow nor deny the existance of Christ or any other deity, and consequently neither avow nor deny any particular codified set of morals. As I am professing no particular system of beliefs, it is technically impossible for me to be a hypocrite.
Crescent Lancer notes:
"Listen, man, you ruined my life! I was watching 'Jesus Christ Superstar' and I was thinking how cute Pilate and Jesus would be together! Oh well, this was still amusing..."
My sincerest apologies. Apparently I hadn't fully considered the lasting repercussions this story may have.
IcaWolf writes:
"But 1 thing...i really don't like the way you use n--ger in this...i mean, in teh one about jim christian it seemed that you were just using it to show taht that's how the character talked and htought, but here it's your word...yah, i no u don't give a f--- what people think about ur writing or else you wouldn't write anymore but that really offends me...but whatever, you are free to write whatever you want! I will always stick by that, no matter how offended i get."
I assumed this particular word (n--ger, a word which began as a derogatory term for blacks, censored here as I am trying to maintain a PG rating) would strike a chord with someone. I tend to abhor the increasingly PC nature of the world in which we live today. The rationale behind using it is simple... words such as this are only harmful so long as people take offense to their use. When a word such as this becomes taboo because of its connotations, there exists no chance of its harmful meaning being diluted through casual use.
Vee-sempai writes:
"Dude, you're Jewish? That's even cooler, then. At least you actually have a basic understanding of what you write about, unlike a good deal of others here. Again, kudos to your courage."
I am no longer Jewish. That is to say, I was Jewish by doctrine only and not by bloodline. Jews have married into my family (for example, my uncle) and I believe a small fraction of my original bloodline may have been Jewish, however I haven't traced my family tree back far enough to confirm this.
And to conclude on a lighter note, Tallulah asks:
"And why does getting laid automatically not make you a loser?"
It's not that getting laid instantly removes any traces of loserhood from a person. I know many losers who have been laid. The removal of loserhood by means of getting laid is a temporary effect, lasting perhaps a week at most but more likely a day. However, the likelyhood of one being a loser decreases with the frequency at which that person is getting laid, unless said individual is getting laid only with other losers.
Tickle me pleasantly surprised at the responses. It seems for the most part that people are agreeing with me, but raising two very good points:
The first is that the stories are in no way deceptively labeled. They are each clearly marked NC-17, which further presents a dialog confirming your age. The story titles and descriptions make clear the nature of the content. Therefore, those complaining should realize that they are viewing an open forum in which a multitude of opinions may be expressed. If they come upon content that appears distasteful, they should ignore it.
The second is that regardless of what I may say, the stories show a great deal of disrespect toward beliefs that many hold sacred. All I can say to this is that, for the most part, humor stems from a lack of respect, be it towards self or a sensitive social issue or philosophy.
If I were to try to classify myself, I believe I'd be a post-structuralist secular humanist. As far as the issue of respect goes, while I may not have a great deal of respect for your beliefs in and of themselves, I respect your right to believe in whatever you wish.
That said, let me touch upon some comments:
imokru writes:
"You know what else? Another thing occured to me right after I reviewed last time. Putting a start to a dialogue thing like this up really seems like you're just trying to start an arguement. People have already said if they liked your stuff or not. They have every right to not like what you write. If you are going to write stuff mocking Jesus in the Bible section, be prepared for a lot of bad reviews because you have to know that its going to upset people. Quit whining. That's just the way it goes."
I would urge you to read what I have written before replying as it seems apparent to me that you have not. Furthermore, upon reading the comments it seems that for the most part people are in agreement with what I have said, so this review stood out somewhat.
"One last thing. It's also kind of annoying when all you non-christian types start lumping all the Christians in together {That's an example of irony, all you non-christian types that I'm lumping into one category :) }"
Again, please read what I have written. I very clearly distinguished between those who responded in a Christian manner and those who made what I essentially consider to be "threats upon my soul," and have gone so far to say that such people are not true Christians. Furthermore, I applauded those who came off as true Christians for sticking to their beliefs.
"Obviously the people who tell you to go to Hell are not the same as those people who just say that they don't like what you write. There is a different degree of spiritual maturity, obviously. I doubt those "go to hell" people really understand what the Chriatian faith is about."
This was the crux of the latter half of what I wrote.
Tallulah responds:
"Hmmm. Interesting points you make, congrats on doing a coherent argument! Can I argue back? Can I can I can I? Oh, what the hell, I will...
1) I still think you are needlessly upsetting people on this. When someone has strong religious belief it's usually kinder to respect their beliefs. Making fun of their religious figures may please some, but it hurts others. I guess that's why some have been flaming you. You say you're not trying to infuriate Christians...but you don't seem to be trying to please them that much either!"
Indeed I am not. I'm certainly not saying that I wasn't expecting flames or that people don't have the right to flame me. I was merely commenting on the hypocrisy of the flamers.
"2) I agree with you about the flamers who threaten you with hell. :)"
Thank you. It seems most people are in agreement on this point.
"3) Don't diss Harry Potter! And why does getting laid automatically not make you a loser?"
You'll have to excuse me on this. Someone pointed out that I was further mistaken on this point (the person who originally posted the comments appears to be a girl)
kori wrote in with a lengthy post, so lengthy that I decided not to post it here.
Well I certainly followed what you wrote... and while you didn't seem to be making any clear argument I agree with what you said. I apologize for taking your post out of context, as I needed to use it to illustrate a particular point. I didn't mean to demean you in any way.
hemlock writes:
"And what's wrong with reading Harry Potter?"
Well, I'm not here to start a debate about Harry Potter as quality literature. My favored authors fall along the lines of Ellings, Faulkner, and Dennett. Consequently, I don't find the work of Rowling to be quite up to par with my standards.
"Well,I guess I could just do like everyone else and call you all sorts of names but....God is not gay,or straight or anything for that matter.He(term used for convenience)is neither male or female and does not have sexual desires of any sort.It is foolish to write something like this because God created sex and is'nt bound by it. The creator of all existence is not bound to human desires.Well,there's your food for thought,and here's a fork.Dig in."
A very interesting point you raise. I believe you will have a tough time defending this assertion scripturally within the context of the Hebrew scriptures. Namely, God is referred to using the Hebrew word "hu", the third person male pronoun. Furthermore, what is seen as "ho" in the name "Jehovah" is the same pronoun "hu".
As to whether or not God possesses the male member, I believe that lacking evidence to the contrary that entirely left to individual interpretation.
purple mage writes:
"Frankly, I find this offensive. BUt I won't condemn you to an eternity of hellfire. Only God can do that. Question, though. WHy do you call us defending Christians "hypocrites"? Have we no right to defend? We are defending a character in this stupid story as much as you are defending the story itself. Hey, think about it, that also makes you a hypocrite. Oh, joy. So, before any of you cretins [look that up in the dictionary, will you? Yes, C is between B and D] write another idiotic stupid moronic story like this one, why don't you think about it first?"
The question you are asking is why I am calling the "defending Christians" hypocrites. Well, that isn't entirely accurate. I am calling the Christians who are reacting in an un-Christian manner (that is, the ones screaming for my blood) hypocrites, as they have professed their adherence to a particular doctrine, and consequently ask others to adhere to that particular doctrine while ignoring it themselves.
"We are defending a character in this stupid story as much as you are defending the story itself. Hey, think about it, that also makes you a hypocrite."
I don't follow your logic here. I adhere to no particular doctrine, nor do I ask anyone to follow a particular doctrine. As an agnostic I neither avow nor deny the existance of Christ or any other deity, and consequently neither avow nor deny any particular codified set of morals. As I am professing no particular system of beliefs, it is technically impossible for me to be a hypocrite.
Crescent Lancer notes:
"Listen, man, you ruined my life! I was watching 'Jesus Christ Superstar' and I was thinking how cute Pilate and Jesus would be together! Oh well, this was still amusing..."
My sincerest apologies. Apparently I hadn't fully considered the lasting repercussions this story may have.
IcaWolf writes:
"But 1 thing...i really don't like the way you use n--ger in this...i mean, in teh one about jim christian it seemed that you were just using it to show taht that's how the character talked and htought, but here it's your word...yah, i no u don't give a f--- what people think about ur writing or else you wouldn't write anymore but that really offends me...but whatever, you are free to write whatever you want! I will always stick by that, no matter how offended i get."
I assumed this particular word (n--ger, a word which began as a derogatory term for blacks, censored here as I am trying to maintain a PG rating) would strike a chord with someone. I tend to abhor the increasingly PC nature of the world in which we live today. The rationale behind using it is simple... words such as this are only harmful so long as people take offense to their use. When a word such as this becomes taboo because of its connotations, there exists no chance of its harmful meaning being diluted through casual use.
Vee-sempai writes:
"Dude, you're Jewish? That's even cooler, then. At least you actually have a basic understanding of what you write about, unlike a good deal of others here. Again, kudos to your courage."
I am no longer Jewish. That is to say, I was Jewish by doctrine only and not by bloodline. Jews have married into my family (for example, my uncle) and I believe a small fraction of my original bloodline may have been Jewish, however I haven't traced my family tree back far enough to confirm this.
And to conclude on a lighter note, Tallulah asks:
"And why does getting laid automatically not make you a loser?"
It's not that getting laid instantly removes any traces of loserhood from a person. I know many losers who have been laid. The removal of loserhood by means of getting laid is a temporary effect, lasting perhaps a week at most but more likely a day. However, the likelyhood of one being a loser decreases with the frequency at which that person is getting laid, unless said individual is getting laid only with other losers.