VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thu, Apr 22 2004, 19:18:55
Author: MKIceman
Subject: Re: And this is called backpedaling, folks.
In reply to: Tilly 's message, "Re: And this is called backpedaling, folks." on Thu, Apr 22 2004, 18:52:34

>I'm sorry if this double posts...Stupid browser
>crashed.

No worries, I don't think it did. :)

>>Okay. My comment was to qualify why I thought it was
>>disturbing, since I don't like to state opinions
>>without giving reasons.
>
>Okay then, my reply was that "OMG it creates serial
>killers! Just ask the FBI!" is ridiculous. Geoffrey
>Rush, "Quills" Marquis De Sade: "It's a *fiction*, not
>a moral treatise." "Suppose one of your precious wards
>had attempted to walk on water and drowned? Would you
>condemn the Bible? I think not!"

Ah, apologies for the confusion. I will clarify this point here. It has been found, by profilers and criminal psychologists, that the vast majority of fetish and serial killers have obsessive tendencies and tend to be obsessed with fantasy violence (e.g., fictional criminals, in the context of this discussion). The majority of these cases has been found to have certain fantasy genres, like D&D or similar role-playing games, as a common obsession.

I reiterate: does this mean that liking fantasy genres or fantasy violence will turn me into a killer? I don't believe so. But I am making the distinction between a like and an obsession.

How does this relate to the points raised? I believe a simple like of a genre crosses the line into obsession when not one but numerous graphic sexual fantasies are written about criminal behavior (e.g., rape fantasies). Despite my disagreement with such, however, I still firmly disagree with mocking such fans or fandoms.

Are there still any confusing or unclear parts of that? If so, could you please point them out? I apologize again for the confusion, and I hope to avoid further confusion if possible.

>>>That, and your insistance that Heywood must "do
>>>something" to stop people from "obssessing" over him.
>>>My points: First of all, he shouldn't have to and
>>>second, he actually did ask people to stop. You kinda
>>>ignored those and went on with your preaching about
>>>other things.
>>
>>Again, that was not and is not the crux of my
>>argument. But, to address this point, I did notice
>>some gentle requests for it to stop, but the vast
>>majority of it was left unchecked.
>
>So it's your business how heywood deals with people
>who are bugging him?

Not if they only bug him, because then it only affects him. But if they end up swaying entire discussions and sentiments toward one line of thinking, with no chance of disagreement from anyone who differs in opinion, then it becomes my business, because then it affects me.

>>See above. Contrary to the tone of some of my posts,
>>it is not my goal to criticize on a continual basis.
>>I offer such conceptual discussions in the hopes of
>>constructive solutions (e.g., "this is the problem,
>>now how do we avoid it?" or "this is the problem, this
>>is how we avoid it").
>
>But it *wasn't* a problem, and I also have to add that
>your posts come across as anything but helpful. or
>haven't you noticed?

When not one but numerous posts by different people indicate some hesitation or fear of posting an opinion that differs with the most vocal sentiments of the board (a board that upholds free-speech), then I consider that a problem.

While pointing out the problem may not be constructive in and of itself, I still see it as more helpful than merely ignoring the problem altogether. Furthermore, I offer discussion on how to avoid it, or constructive solutions to the problem. Since I have already offered possible solutions with regards to format, I will now offer a possible solution with regard to content: perhaps a disclaimer somewhere stating that the GAFF board is not GAFF but merely a ranting place?

>>Since I cannot comment further on the anatomical joke,
>>I will address your point about the alleged Heywood
>>joke: I never stated it was a joke, and I clearly
>>stated in that "gaffy Trek fic" thread that it was not
>>intended to be a joke. In fact, I even clearly stated
>>what it was in that thread, where it was first said:
>>it was a criticism of obsessive fans.
>
>My piont still stands: We're supposed to read your
>mind (even when your tone is ever so much less than
>civil,) but an old, clearly ridiculous and harmless in
>joke isn't clear enough for you?

You don't have to read my mind when I clearly stated it in that thread, as I said. But you don't have to take my word for it: please do go back to the thread for reference and verification.

Regarding your private joke made in a public forum, it wasn't so old or infrequent as to escape notice when rebutting the point of self-importance. In fact, it's right here in this very thread, in your post entitled "STOP LIKING ME ;)".

--Matt

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:





Forum timezone: GMT-3
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.