OOTS #318 - The Discussion Thread

[ed]

xyzchyx, i don't understand why it's so important to you to continue asserting, in spite of an utter and complete absence of evidence, that it's theoretically possible sex (by which i mean summon the beast with two backs IX) didn't occur.

given the demographic of OOTS, giant isn't gonna address the matter head-on, but honestly, you seem to be dead-set on pulling an ostrich maneuver here. no offense, but are you sure you aren't projecting your own situation here?

ed

[CelestialStick]

xyzchyx, i don't understand why it's so important to you to continue asserting, in spite of an utter and complete absence of evidence, that it's theoretically possible sex (by which i mean summon the beast with two backs IX) didn't occur.

given the demographic of OOTS, giant isn't gonna address the matter head-on, but honestly, you seem to be dead-set on pulling an ostrich maneuver here. no offense, but are you sure you aren't projecting your own situation here?

ed

Well Ed, while I never doubted that they had sex, in fairness to the singer formerly know as "xyzchyx," I must say that as a logical proposition the contention that they did not have sex is perfectly valid as none of the evidence contradicts it. :)

[ed]

you're right, but to view the absence of evidence as being equally supportive of point is, IMHO, not a good idea.

given:
1. giant wants to maintain a certain kid-friendliness in OOTS. i understand and respect that choice, as i imagine almost everyone here does. as a consequence,
2. OOTS will never show a panel in which actual sex occurs.
3. absent 2, above, no evidence can be said ever to exist as short of a "still" of the act in flagrante delecto, as anything short of such a thing can always be explained away.

the circumstances make it clear that some kinda happy took place. while certainly xyzchyx and i disagree as to what "happy" might actually constitute, there's clearly some degree of elevated pheromone levels at play, cuz otherwise, celia wouldn't be hiding.

now, while it's entirely possible he's right and i'm wrong--and i would take no shame whatsoever in being proved wrong at some point in the future should that ever come to pass--it does seem to fail the occam's razor test, no? it is the simplest explanation for the circumstances we can observe.

ed

[CelestialStick]

you're right, but to view the absence of evidence as being equally supportive of point is, IMHO, not a good idea.

given:
1. giant wants to maintain a certain kid-friendliness in OOTS. i understand and respect that choice, as i imagine almost everyone here does. as a consequence,
2. OOTS will never show a panel in which actual sex occurs.
3. absent 2, above, no evidence can be said ever to exist as short of a "still" of the act in flagrante delecto, as anything short of such a thing can always be explained away.

the circumstances make it clear that some kinda happy took place. while certainly xyzchyx and i disagree as to what "happy" might actually constitute, there's clearly some degree of elevated pheromone levels at play, cuz otherwise, celia wouldn't be hiding.

now, while it's entirely possible he's right and i'm wrong--and i would take no shame whatsoever in being proved wrong at some point in the future should that ever come to pass--it does seem to fail the occam's razor test, no? it is the simplest explanation for the circumstances we can observe.

ed
I don't think that "they had sexual intercourse" is any simpler than "they did other stuff." :) I still agree with you that they had sex. Of course I also think it's silly that anyone thinks V is female. ;D

[ed]

stick quoth
i also think it's silly that anyone thinks v is female.
infidel!

:>

ed

[CelestialStick]

infidel!

:>

ed
ROFLMAO! :D

[Skyserpent]

BOW CHICKA-BOW-WOW!!!

[xyzchyx]

xyzchyx, i don't understand why it's so important to you to continue asserting, in spite of an utter and complete absence of evidence, that it's theoretically possible sex (by which i mean summon the beast with two backs IX) didn't occur.Because there's really absolutely no evidence that it DID occur.

given the demographic of OOTS, giant isn't gonna address the matter head-on, but honestly, you seem to be dead-set on pulling an ostrich maneuver here. no offense, but are you sure you aren't projecting your own situation here?Possibly partially. But from a simple literary standpoint, it still makes more sense that they did NOT have sex, while not explicitly saying that they didn't, thereby causing many of the readers to assume that they did only to discover some time later that they were wrong. It is an extremely common literary tactic to play with an audience's mind like this, and in this particular instance, it even opens up the greatest potential for an entertaining and humourous backstory (whole sitcom episodes have been built on such a premise many times). Also, remember, the last time there was sex in OotS, it wasn't on-pane, but it still was explicitly mentioned... so there's no reason to assume that Rich is going to skirt around the issue.

I understand WHY it's natural to assume that they had sex, but in absence of any real evidence to contradict either proposition, it's more reasonable to just assume they spent the night lip-locked and just making out than to assume that they went all the way just beccause that's what's culturally expected of a couple that spends the night together.

Anyways, I'm done asserting my position. Repeating it isn't going to change anything... If anyone wants to argue with me about it further, they can PM me.

[CelestialStick]

Because there's really absolutely no evidence that it DID occur.
Possibly partially. But from a simple literary standpoint, it still makes more sense that they did NOT have sex, while not explicitly saying that they didn't, thereby causing many of the readers to assume that they did only to discover some time later that they were wrong. It is an extremely common literary tactic to play with an audience's mind like this, and in this particular instance, it even opens up the greatest potential for an entertaining and humourous backstory (whole sitcom episodes have been built on such a premise many times). Also, remember, the last time there was sex in OotS, it wasn't on-pane, but it still was explicitly mentioned... so there's no reason to assume that Rich is going to skirt around the issue.

I understand WHY it's natural to assume that they had sex, but in absence of any real evidence to contradict either proposition, it's more reasonable to just assume they spent the night lip-locked and just making out than to assume that they went all the way just beccause that's what's culturally expected of a couple that spends the night together.

Anyways, I'm done asserting my position. Repeating it isn't going to change anything... If anyone wants to argue with me about it further, they can PM me.
While I didn't agree with Ed that there's any evidence to contradict your position, I also don't agree with you that there's anything that makes assuming they didn't have sex more reasonable than assuming they did have sex.

[Ronald_saveloy]

If I don't forget one, we had three "bed-scenes" (of any kind in this strip so far.

1. Durkon and Hyalga
We didn't actually see the action (and honestly, I don't wan't to see dwarves having sex either!) We only had Redcloak, the monster in the dark and the demon cockroaches peeping in on the crystal ball (those ol' dirty bastards. ;) ) This is the only scene, we actually know, they had sex.

2. Elan and Samantha
They were fondling a bit, but Samantha still got her lingerie on. So, no sex there at all, especially since the order definitely crushed the party.

3. Roy and Celia
We don't know what really happened. We've got some hints only and some strong inuendo. But personally, I don't want to know, what really happened. I know, that Roy and Celia had a good time, what makes me really happy! If I want, I can imagine what might have happened. And this way, it works fine for me.

I really like the style, how such matters are handeled in this strip. So keep it on, Giant.

[Carrion_Humanoid]

Gah! late comics make me mad!

[Schattendrache]

...good thing the next comic isn't due for days then, isn't it?

[tee_kay_one]

Gah! late comics make me mad!

**grabs false beard and stones**

and here we go again... ;D

[CelestialStick]

Gah! late comics make me mad!
Well the comic came out on Thursday early morning (Eastern Time) and your complaint came out late morning Saturday (Eastern Time), so apparently you get mad at late comics but not at late complaints. ;D


If I don't forget one, we had three "bed-scenes" (of any kind in this strip so far.

1. Durkon and Hyalga
We didn't actually see the action (and honestly, I don't wan't to see dwarves having sex either!) We only had Redcloak, the monster in the dark and the demon cockroaches peeping in on the crystal ball (those ol' dirty bastards. ;) ) This is the only scene, we actually know, they had sex.

2. Elan and Samantha
They were fondling a bit, but Samantha still got her lingerie on. So, no sex there at all, especially since the order definitely crushed the party.

3. Roy and Celia
We don't know what really happened. We've got some hints only and some strong inuendo. But personally, I don't want to know, what really happened. I know, that Roy and Celia had a good time, what makes me really happy! If I want, I can imagine what might have happened. And this way, it works fine for me.

I really like the style, how such matters are handeled in this strip. So keep it on, Giant.
I must echo Ronald's call for Rich to never, ever, under any circumstances, show us dwarves having sex! ;)

[molonel]

Because there's really absolutely no evidence that it DID occur.

You've never heard the phrase, "the walk of shame," have you?



But from a simple literary standpoint, it still makes more sense that they did NOT have sex, while not explicitly saying that they didn't, thereby causing many of the readers to assume that they did only to discover some time later that they were wrong. It is an extremely common literary tactic to play with an audience's mind like this, and in this particular instance, it even opens up the greatest potential for an entertaining and humourous backstory (whole sitcom episodes have been built on such a premise many times). Also, remember, the last time there was sex in OotS, it wasn't on-pane, but it still was explicitly mentioned... so there's no reason to assume that Rich is going to skirt around the issue. I understand WHY it's natural to assume that they had sex, but in absence of any real evidence to contradict either proposition, it's more reasonable to just assume they spent the night lip-locked and just making out than to assume that they went all the way just beccause that's what's culturally expected of a couple that spends the night together.

All of this just so you can assume that two cartoon characters didn't do the nasty?

[munehiro]

I must echo Ronald's call for Rich to never, ever, under any circumstances, show us dwarves having sex! ;)

but hey, it's entertaining, AND educational! :)

[CelestialStick]

but hey, it's entertaining, AND educational! :)
ROFLMAO!!

Sure, in Bizarro World. ;)

[Bakta]

**grabs false beard and stones**

and here we go again... ;D

Twenty shekel for the beard

[CelestialStick]

Twenty shekel for the beard



Nobody--and I want to be perfectly clear: NOBODY--is to stone anyone until I say so, even if they DO say "Jehovah." :D

[The Doctor]

What I didn't really understand was... why was Roy hiding Celia? Is he not allowed to have a girlfriend?

[CelestialStick]

What I didn't really understand was... why was Roy hiding Celia? Is he not allowed to have a girlfriend?

I'm guessing that it's a combination of not wanting to get teased about it and a common view, expressed by some people on this thread, that it's a bit inappropriate to have sex on a first date.

[Holy_Knight]

I'm guessing that it's a combination of not wanting to get teased about it and a common view, expressed by some people on this thread, that it's a bit inappropriate to have sex on a first date.
I'll admit I was sort of wondering why he hid her too, but both of those reasons make sense. It's also possible that Roy didn't care that much, but Celia herself was shy about it. That could even potentially explain why she wasn't already gone--Roy might have thought it was no big deal and either invited or expected the others to come, but when Celia found out she freaked out a little bit.

[CelestialStick]

I'll admit I was sort of wondering why he hid her too, but both of those reasons make sense. It's also possible that Roy didn't care that much, but Celia herself was shy about it. That could even potentially explain why she wasn't already gone--Roy might have thought it was no big deal and either invited or expected the others to come, but when Celia found out she freaked out a little bit.

Yes, even though she was clearly the agressor here, she might not have wanted to advertise that to everyone else. There still are double-standards about women being sexually aggressive, though they've really melted considerably since I was a teen. Still, all the "way to score Roy!" comments in lieu of "way to score Celia!" suggest that the double-standard remains.

From what we know of Roy, however, I'm guessing that he's as eager as Celia for the others not to know.

[Lethe]

Pff, most likely she just didn't want everyone seeing her when her hair was messed up ;).

[CelestialStick]

Pff, most likely she just didn't want everyone seeing her when her hair was messed up ;).
LOL. I have to admit that that would be like an awful lot of women in the real world. :D

[Ronald_saveloy]

Pff, most likely she just didn't want everyone seeing her when her hair was messed up ;).


That's truely drawn from life, isn*t it?

[Dags]

Still, all the "way to score Roy!" comments in lieu of "way to score Celia!" suggest that the double-standard remains.

It's possible that this is just due to the fact that Roy is one of the main characters in the story, and Celia is still a background character (for now?).

[CelestialStick]

It's possible that this is just due to the fact that Roy is one of the main characters in the story, and Celia is still a background character (for now?).


I suspect that that's one of the reasons, along with what I suggested above. :)

[Kanashimi]

Yes, even though she was clearly the agressor here, she might not have wanted to advertise that to everyone else. There still are double-standards about women being sexually aggressive, though they've really melted considerably since I was a teen. Still, all the "way to score Roy!" comments in lieu of "way to score Celia!" suggest that the double-standard remains.



Thus why guys call it "getting lucky" ;)

[CelestialStick]

Thus why guys call it "getting lucky" ;)
Except, not with some of the whom I've been with. ;)

[maputo]

I'm just glad to see that SOMEBODY had a good new years eve.

[firepup]

(which goes back to implying that his Wisdom is in the nether realms). imply nothing- it's mentioned he has no wisdom- he radicly changed alignment when owl's wisdom was cast on him.

[CelestialStick]

imply nothing- it's mentioned he has no wisdom- he radicly changed alignment when owl's wisdom was cast on him.
That's right. When he got the Owl's Wisdom he saw the error of his ways. It was hysterically funny. :D


I'm just glad to see that SOMEBODY had a good new years eve.
I see you're a first-time poster. Welcome to the boards, fellow medium-sized creature! ;D

[Arian]

not usually I hope.

Word. He can go and "have a little action" with himself :P if that's his attitude.

[Ronald_saveloy]

I see you're a first-time poster. Welcome to the boards, fellow medium-sized creature! ;D

Are you shure, he is a medium-sized creature? If not I'd be very, very concerned when I run into an oddlooking creature with a bunny on it's head, that looms in a dark dungeon. :o

Fortunately, this board is no dungeon. Welcome on board, maputo! :)

[CelestialStick]

Are you shure, he is a medium-sized creature? If not I'd be very, very concerned when I run into an oddlooking creature with a bunny on it's head, that looms in a dark dungeon. :o

Fortunately, this board is no dungeon. Welcome on board, maputo! :)
LOL! I'm fairly confident that a wolf in sheeps clothing is a fellow medium-size creature. ;)

[Haggis_McCrablice]

What I didn't really understand was... why was Roy hiding Celia? Is he not allowed to have a girlfriend?

It's like your brother and his girlfriend--you know they're doing it, but you don't want to have to sit and watch them bill and coo and play kissy-face. "Hey! Get a frigging room, huh?"

[YellowHats]

...
There still are double-standards about women being sexually aggressive, though they've really melted considerably since I was a teen. Still, all the "way to score Roy!" comments in lieu of "way to score Celia!" suggest that the double-standard remains.
...
Talking aboot double-standards: Did people make such a big fuzz when Hilgya and Durkon went wild?
Dwarves are humans, too! :o

[CelestialStick]

Word. He can go and "have a little action" with himself :P if that's his attitude.
You seem quite condemnatory of men's desires, but I have seen no comparable condemnation on your part of women's desires.




Talking aboot double-standards: Did people make such a big fuzz when Hilgya and Durkon went wild?
Dwarves are humans, too! :o
Welcome to the boards, YellowHats!

I recall no such similar fuss over the speed with which Durkon and Hilgya rushed to have sex. I suspect it's because they had sex and then split up in the very same strip. People probably didn't respond to the speedy progression to sex because of the speedy progression to sorrow. Of course one could point to this episode as a good example of why rushing into sex often isn't a wise idea.

[Tobimaro]

Later than I intended, but here it is.

Later than you intended?

Well, this was rather quick for me. But still, great comic.

I'd almost feel sorry for Belkar, if he did not deserve the kind of treatment that V is giving him.

And the Roy/Celia matchup is going quite well. ;D

Grovar

[theKOT]

Some people just love to see prejudice. I think the reason people are cheering Roy more than Celia is because they feel more attached to the hero of the strip than a secondary character. If Roy was a girl, people would still be cheering her more. Seriously, why does everyone seem to be paranoid about prejudice on this board? You are all so jumpy.

Oh yeah, and I didn't like this comic. I don't approve of sex outside of marraige, no matter what people say. So yes, that means every strip that features it will make me frown a bit. Additionally, the exposition was cut and dry, uncreative, and just a boring read.

Lastly, in Origins, the Oracle is referred to as a she. on page 53 durkon uses the pronoun "her" to describe the oracle. Therefor, I suggest that the Oracle is indeed V's relative. Durkon thought of the Oracle as a she, maybe Roy thought of it "he". Still, I'm confused as heck over the suggested flirting in Origins... so many questions.

[The Doctor]

I think the reason people are cheering Roy more than Celia is because they feel more attached to the hero of the strip than a secondary character.

Well, I haven't actually been cheering, but if I would, I would have done so because I think Celia is a much better catch than Roy.
So, yay Roy, you hooked Celia.
And Celia... well, Roy ain't that bad... if it works for you, I'm happy for you, girl. And may I once again say you look hot in that dress, even with morning hair.

[Arian]

You seem quite condemnatory of men's desires, but I have seen no comparable condemnation on your part of women's desires.

I've never heard a woman express the view that "a successful date" was synonymous with "a date which ended with the two people having sex", that any date that ended that way was successful, and any date that didn't end that way wasn't.

OTOH, I've heard men say that in so many words, as well as implying it in various ways.

BlythraB quoted "If a guy asks a girl out, it's usually for a little action."

I.e.:"I didn't ask you out tonight because I enjoy being in your company, or because I thought you'd like this movie, or because I think we might be able to have a good future together. Nope, I asked you out because I didn't think you'd agree to put out for me unless we did all this other garbage first. But you know what it was really all about, so let's go to it."

I don't think all men think that way, and I hope (as BlythraB said,"not usually, I hope") that the majority don't. But I know that a few do. And as I implied, it's an attitude which would totally destroy any chance of me going near his bed.

- And if a woman said it, it would destroy any chance of me going near her bed as well. :)

Re me being condemnatory of "men's desires", I'm wondering who else's voice is ringing in your head at the same time as mine, that you interpret condemnation of far more people and far more perspectives than I intend to express. I feel that you're hearing a subtext behind my comments that isn't actually there.

I'm sorry to offend you in either case, but if offending you can't be avoided, I'd prefer you were offended by an opinion I actually hold, rather than by an opinion held by "people like her" that's drowning out what I myself have to say.

[somatic]

Oh yeah, and I didn't like this comic. I don't approve of sex outside of marraige, no matter what people say. So yes, that means every strip that features it will make me frown a bit.

What I like about the internet is how it's helping to phase religious nuts out of society. In a worldwide forum, the things they say just sound silly. That's why I like the internet.

Sure, cuddly forums like this will tolerate them, but the rest of the world generally mocks them by now, and I love that.

So yeah. Mr. Religious guy doesn't like comics with sex outside of marriage. He thinks there's an invisible man following him around for his entire life judging everything he does, to decide whether he gets into heaven, and he believes in virgin births.

Have fun with that. The internet is phasing the crazies out, and I couldn't be happier.

[RebelRogue]

Oh yeah, and I didn't like this comic. I don't approve of sex outside of marraige, no matter what people say. So yes, that means every strip that features it will make me frown a bit.
Well, I don't approve of murder. In all likelihood I disapprove of it more than you disapprove sex outside of marriage. Still, I've laughed at lots of OoTS moments that's revolved around it. In other words, I fail to see why such outlooks on life should affect opinion on a comic strip!

[Idless]

Well... in addition there wasn't actual sex outside marriage. It’s was a fiction, where sex was implied. (in a different universe, with no God to condemn it(maybe there is one god that does, but then there is one to approve it too. Beside that world might not have some of the same pre-marriage sex problems that your culture has))

It’s the same point as Rogue’s: There is also only fiction, about killing, not actual killing going on.


I really liked the strip, and I don’t read a whole lot in the Bed-hair, otherwise that two young but mature people may have had sex, because the both wanted to, and liked each other on many levels. I mean they have known each other for some time, and they connected perfectly on their date. I better liked the dating strip though, that was so cute/awesome.

Then again, I come from a culture where a girl can say, before she goes out: “I want to get laid tonight”. Don’t think that makes her easy to get. Girls having the guts to say that knows what they want.

So… did you guys ever consider how much your culture affects you?

I know a girl that voted for W. Bush because he disapproved pre marriage sex, like her. In my culture that’s crazy… but maybe not in hers.

...Idless

[The Doctor]

Let's not get into a flamewar about this... for some people, certain acts don't fit their morality.
As I understood it the Giant has stated that everyone is free to not like something and to state that they don't as long as they are polite and don't dictate their morality on others.
Impying someone is a 'religious nut' for stating he dislikes (implications of) out-of-marriage sex sounds to me as rather offensive.
Let's all be friends and accept that we are all different (and will not always be pleased with what we get to see on the internet... we'll have to deal with it).

Group hug!

[Ronald_saveloy]

BlythraB quoted "If a guy asks a girl out, it's usually for a little action."

I.e.:"I didn't ask you out tonight because I enjoy being in your company, or because I thought you'd like this movie, or because I think we might be able to have a good future together. Nope, I asked you out because I didn't think you'd agree to put out for me unless we did all this other garbage first. But you know what it was really all about, so let's go to it."

I don't think all men think that way, and I hope (as BlythraB said,"not usually, I hope") that the majority don't. But I know that a few do. And as I implied, it's an attitude which would totally destroy any chance of me going near his bed.


Arisan, I can tell you, that not all men are like those cave men, who only think with their "trouser titans". >:(

Unfortunately, those guys are somewhat a kind of standard in our popular culture. So, the vast majority of men, often shy persons, are therefore labeled to be one of these sex-obsessed idiots too - and are constantly rejected. Even if they are not interested in sex, but in getting into a serious relationship with an interesting and amiable woman, or maybe just a good friendship. :P

I won't expose my sexual allignment here. That's none of your bussiness. But I'lll give my two coins about one-night-stands:
In my eye's, one-night-stands are the manifestation of our throwaway society in sexual relations: Rip him/her open, have him/her, dispose him/her the next morning! :P Truly a waste!

[Carrion_Humanoid]

I would laugh if in a few comics, celia come over to roy and says "Im pregnant". Roy would be speechless, Belkar would be laughing, and Everyone else would be. . . Whatever. Hm. . . Half Celestial, i think.

[Idless]

Let's all be friends and accept that we are all different


Well kinda my point as well, with:

So… did you guys ever consider how much your culture affects you?

I know a girl that voted for W. Bush because he disapproved pre marriage sex, like her. In my culture that’s crazy… but maybe not in hers.

Thats another great feature in the Internet:
People from all over the world can meet and share. (sometimes tend to take that for granted, and that leads to not considering cultural differences online, that they otherwise would have irl)

When in Rome, do as...

but when on the Internet???

...Idless

[charik]

Lastly, in Origins, the Oracle is referred to as a she. on page 53 durkon uses the pronoun "her" to describe the oracle. Therefor, I suggest that the Oracle is indeed V's relative. Durkon thought of the Oracle as a she, maybe Roy thought of it "he". Still, I'm confused as heck over the suggested flirting in Origins... so many questions.
Durkon says 'her', Roy says 'she'. So yeah, either Rich forgot or there's something going on there.

[Charik steps in front of theKOT, facing everyone else]
Ease up on criticizing his moral standards. He's not making the claim that his are better than anyone else's, nor is he criticizing the Giant for portraying or implying acts that go against it. He's merely stating that he didn't find the strip as funny as many of the rest of us, and explained why.

[Alfryd]

...Indeed I can think of no other western European event so antithetical to the Enlightenment notion of individual rights to life, liberty and property as the French Revolution's Reign of Terror...
Really? Nothing at all? Not the rise of fascism? Not the centuries of brutal feudal barbarism that gripped the continent prior to the renaissance, and lingered in France and Russia right up to their- oh yes!- Revolutions? Not the Spanish Inquisition? Not the Venetian police state?
Are all of these truly, categorically, less antithetical to "the Enlightenment notion of individual rights to life, liberty and property" than the French Revolution?

...By inspiring German nationalistic anti-rational Romanticism, furthermore, the French Revolution did more than any other historical event to destroy the hold of the Enlightenment on western European thought...
Apart, of course, from publicising the entire bloody idea of the European Enlightenment in the first place. Blaming the French Revolution for german anti-rationalism is like blaming Jews for the holocaust by being in Germany.
By the same logic, I could blame all the rest of Europe for Robespierre's Reign of Terror, since it was the universal approbrium from the rest of Europe's monarchies that sank France into a prolongued and savage war with it's neighbours that neccesitated the brutal police state that evolved from the revolution. Unlike the US, France did not have the advantage of being seperated by 3000 miles from their would-be conquerors.

...rather than providing an example of anything positve, stands out as an exemplar of how even the absolute best of human ideas can be utterly twisted and perverted by the flaws of human [nature] into the greatest of evils.
You certainly demonstrate the technique.

While there were certainly horrible unintended consequences to the French revolution, it was significantly reponsible for the establishment, over subsequent decades, of France as a relatively liberal nation-state with parliamentary assemblies and varying degrees of political enfranchisement among the populace. This was a major and permanent victory for the principles of the Enlightenment. And the revolution demonstrated that a mobilised, malcontent citizenry could overcome both overwhelming military aggression and brutal state repression to impose their priorities on government, and that did not go unmarked.

[Adeptus]

It’s the same point as Rogue’s: There is also only fiction, about killing, not actual killing going on.
<snip>
Then again, I come from a culture where a girl can say, before she goes out: “I want to get laid tonight”. Don’t think that makes her easy to get. Girls having the guts to say that knows what they want.
<snip>
I know a girl that voted for W. Bush because he disapproved pre marriage sex, like her. In my culture that’s crazy… but maybe not in hers.


Sorry for the waste of bandwidth, but I have to say I agree with this poster 100%

I love the attitudes in OotS. Despite the monsters the world seems a very nice place.

/edit: The poster ragging on KOT was nasty. I don't agree with his style at all. This is not meant as support for the personal attack on KOT

[theKOT]

[Charik steps in front of theKOT, facing everyone else]
Ease up on criticizing his moral standards. He's not making the claim that his are better than anyone else's, nor is he criticizing the Giant for portraying or implying acts that go against it. He's merely stating that he didn't find the strip as funny as many of the rest of us, and explained why.
Yes. I never even mentioned religion. I never criticized people who didn't agree with me. I made the simple statement that the subject matter dampened my enjoyment of this strip, due to a moral objection. That said, typically I can look past stuff like that in movies and enjoy the rest(Bond movies are a good example). This strip however, just wasn't interesting to me. Lastly, it seems tolerance tolerates everyone except those with intolerances.

[CelestialStick]

Well, I don't approve of murder. In all likelihood I disapprove of it more than you disapprove sex outside of marriage. Still, I've laughed at lots of OoTS moments that's revolved around it. In other words, I fail to see why such outlooks on life should affect opinion on a comic strip!

Excellent point. :)

[The Glitter Ninja]

Well, I don't approve of murder. In all likelihood I disapprove of it more than you disapprove sex outside of marriage. Still, I've laughed at lots of OoTS moments that's revolved around it. In other words, I fail to see why such outlooks on life should affect opinion on a comic strip!

Excellent point. I honestly don't understand people who get upset when a worldview other than theirs is represented. One of the reasons we (i.e. humans/people/whatever) read books and watch TV and enjoy comics is to experience another perspective, to open our minds and make us think, to experience what others would do. If we just wanted to see people doing exactly what we would do, it would be beyond boring. It would be pointless.

I'm not trying to be disparaging. If someone gets offended because a couple of stick figures in a comic had "pre marital sex" it's none of my concern, even if I don't understand that kind of thinking. Maybe especially because I don't understand it.

[Em]

Humans live for about 80 years. Life is far too short to condemn any kind of "immorality" that does not result in unhappiness, exploitation or injustice.

The explosion made me happy; I have been unwillingly kissed by someone frighteningly similar to Belkar, with equal murderous tendencies...

[Morchaint]

Humans live for about 80 years. Life is far too short to condemn any kind of "immorality" that does not result in unhappiness, exploitation or injustice.

well said.


oops sorry quote didnt work. so Ill just copy and paste.

[CelestialStick]

Humans live for about 80 years. Life is far too short to condemn any kind of "immorality" that does not result in unhappiness, exploitation or injustice.

The explosion made me happy; I have been unwillingly kissed by someone frighteningly similar to Belkar, with equal murderous tendencies...
And yet you do exactly what you accuse them of doing: you condemn someone for having a different moral position from yours. This is the vaccuous self-contradiction of postmodernist "thought."

"You don't believe in murder but you enjoy the fantasy killing in OOTS, so why do you object to the fantasy sex?" is a legitimate argument. It argues logically within the framework of the person making the objection to the fantasy sex. "You're wrong to impose your morality on others" is an illegitimate argument in that it attempts to do exactly what it accuses the other of doing: imposing their morality.

[Ronald_saveloy]

"You don't believe in murder but you enjoy the fantasy killing in OOTS, so why do you object to the fantasy sex?" is a legitimate argument. It argues logically within the framework of the person making the objection to the fantasy sex. "You're wrong to impose your morality on others" is an illegitimate argument in that it attempts to do exactly what it accuses the other of doing: imposing their morality.

Hear ye!

But isn't it legitimate to defend your own morality? Okay, better say "In my oppinion, you're wrong to impose your morality on others!"

[CelestialStick]

Hear ye!

But isn't it legitimate to defend your own morality? Okay, better say "In my oppinion, you're wrong to impose your morality on others!"

Sure, there's nothing in general wrong with defending your own morality; even though I don't have a problem with Ceclia and Roy having sex I have no problem with people who oppose it, because that's a legitimate position. Attempting to impose one's morality by saying that "you have no right to impose your morality," however, contradicts itself and therefore has no legitimacy. It is an intellecutally and morally vaccuous position.

[theKOT]

I'm not angry that it was featured, and it can often be a good part of literature. In fact, it is probably the thing that bothered me least about this comic. I just thought this comic, overall, was of low quality. I'm not trying to impose my morality! I just said it dampened my enjoyment of the comic somewhat. I never meant to spark a controversy, and this is the last post I will make on the subject.

[Nixie]

isn't this about the comic, not morality?

Anyways,
I thought the comic was good. It was funny (duh!) and had some romance (Nixie = Helpless Romantic).
Overall,
Great job, Giant, keep pumping 'em out!

[The Giant]

isn't this about the comic, not morality?

The Voice of Mod: Quite true. While I don't have time to read this thread, I get the impression that at least one person has violated the Rules here. And even if they haven't, this topic is dreadfully off-course. So I'm locking it, and it will be reviewed later for rules violations.