OOTS #318 - The Discussion Thread

[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.