The Title Fairy Dances with the Stars-lolz

[Nekka-Lucifer]

I'm going to decline that as in no way am I claiming to be divine

I think you just insulted yourself

[Nemesis]

I kind of prefer "Moo" to Moo, but I'd be fine with either.

What about ""Moo""?

[Tarhalindur]

Nominate Haswhatshisface for "Don't have a cow, man!"

It seems appropriate somehow.

[Sarcastro]

Nominate hasdgfas for "Not Gay Anymore"

NO WAY

Why not? It's a tribute to the fact that, despite finding yourself attracted to men, you perservere on a daily basis in order to turn away from such an unnatural, sinful lifestyle, prefering to remain heterosexual, as God clearly intended when he made you attracted to men.

If you'd prefer, "

Not Bi Anymore

" would also work, if you feel it's more accurate. I also think "

Fight the Gay!

" has a nice ring to it.

[Mr. Flay]

Sarc, don't be a dick.

[Sarcastro]

What? Unlike every other title that's been suggested for him, mine actually have something to do with what he's said and done on this site.

[Sarcastro]

By the way, was "

Holy Cow

" rejected as being too obvious or something? Because at least it doesn't sound extremely dumb.

[JordanA24]

Nominate Haswhatshisface for "Don't have a cow, man!"

It seems appropriate somehow.

Second

That's better than Moo IMO, and certainly better than Sarc's suggestions.

[JDodge]

What? Unlike every other title that's been suggested for him, mine actually have something to do with what he's said and done on this site.

No, you're being an ass by going

out of your way

to belittle someone's beliefs in a rather (in my opinion, which should

really

tell you something) immature way.

[Mr. Flay]

JDodge, we agree again...I sense a disturbance in the force. ^{(TM Shea)}

[hasdgfas]

My problem with "Don't have a cow, man" is that I

am

the cow. I don't get how that fits better than "Moo"

Plus, Sarc. I find your comments rather offensive and insulting as you're misconstruing my statements in a way that I never intended them to be construed, which, as JD said, was belittling my beliefs unnecessarily. You may think it's funny or has more to do with what I've said, but that was one thread that people are going to forget about in a few months and isn't what I want people to remember me for.

[Sarcastro]

What? Unlike every other title that's been suggested for him, mine actually have something to do with what he's said and done on this site.

No, you're being an ass by going

out of your way

to belittle someone's beliefs in a rather (in my opinion, which should

really

tell you something) immature way.

I wasn't belittling his beliefs, I was making fun of one of his statements. As far as I can tell, nothing I said actually conflicts with his beliefs. Well, except the bit about holy cows. I suppose he's not a big fan of Hinduism.

And you guys should stop belittling my suggestions. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't give you the right to make fun of them. After all, this is my

religion

we're ta- I mean my

suggestions

we're talking about. You have to respect other peoples' suggestions, no matter how crazy they may sound to you.

[Oman]

I wasn't belittling his beliefs,

was belittling my beliefs unnecessarily.

going out of your way to belittle someone's beliefs

2 v. 1

It sounds like you were, as you weren't making fun of his statement, you were portraying

him

in a satirical way. Whilst it may have been funny to you (as I assume you and I have different values and thus different humour), it certainly looked immature and belittling.

Perhaps the biggest problem was this:

as God clearly intended when he made you attracted to men.

which is just an attempt at comedy at someone else's expence.

If you feel that his beliefs are stupid (and you certainly are able to) then you can't say so in one sentence, and expect

your

ideas (the suggestion) to be accepted.

[Sarcastro]

Yes, Oman, it was comedy at someone else's expense (yeah, okay, I guess it apparently wasn't funny to most of you, but it was to me). And the whole point of my post was to point out how hypocritical it is that when I criticise and make fun of hasdgfas, everyone is quick to criticise me in defending his supposed right to not have "his religion belittled".

I made my first post as a joke. Besides hasdgfas, only IH seemed to have a problem with it. Quite frankly, though, I got a little bit pissed at hasdgfas's response, so I decided to push it. And then you guys got preachy on a subject I feel strongly about: "No, you can't make a joke about his

religion

, that's just

wrong

", so I decided to point out how hypocritical you were being.

And now I'm writing this, because I realise that this has turned into something I didn't want it to be, and I don't want people thinking I was just trying to troll hasdgfas or something. As I said, I made a joke and then tried to prove a point in an admittedly less-than-stellar fashion (and probably in the wrong place).

So we can go back to proposing random cow-related titles for hasdgfas now.

[Thestatusquo]

I wasn't belittling his beliefs,

was belittling my beliefs unnecessarily.

going out of your way to belittle someone's beliefs

2 v. 1

It sounds like you were, as you weren't making fun of his statement, you were portraying

him

in a satirical way. Whilst it may have been funny to you (as I assume you and I have different values and thus different humour), it certainly looked immature and belittling.

Perhaps the biggest problem was this:

as God clearly intended when he made you attracted to men.

which is just an attempt at comedy at someone else's expence.

If you feel that his beliefs are stupid (and you certainly are able to) then you can't say so in one sentence, and expect

your

ideas (the suggestion) to be accepted.

Oman, your lack of logic only serves to prove you're Australian. First off, you start with a nice little argumentem ad populum. This goes very nicely with the strawman you make for your second argument, but doesn't really do your position much justice.

It's an argumentum ad populum because you're saying that sarcs statement is invalid simply because less people agree with him. Remember that the majority of people used to believe that the sun rotated the earth? Yeah...About that.

It's a strawman because you reversed the argument. Sarcs point is that it's kind of silly for people to ridicule him for making a joke at someones expense, as they are doing the exact same thing to him that he is supposedly wrong for doing to someone else (this argument is flawed for other reasons, but does not change the fact that you're a git.) Basically you just agreed with sarc, but turned it around so that it seemed like you weren't. Would have been tricksy, cept there was no way it was purposeful.

Lastly, since when are negative titles not allowed? Thoks title isn't given to him for a warm and fuzzy reason. Titles are given to people for memorable events which are indicative of who a person is. If you don't think any of the suggestions for his title are valid in that respect, then fine, disagree on those grounds, but I think that it's silly for you to stand up here and expect that no negative titles can ever be made ever.

[Sarcastro]

Actually, to be honest, I sort of have a problem with what's going on right now. I don't really like this practice of lots of people just trying to think up a title for someone, as if there has been some arbitrary decision that it's time for someone to get a title. A nomination shouldn't be made for its own sake but for the sake of the title that is being nominated: that is, it should be a good one already - people shouldn't have to brainstorm more once it's in the title thread. Now, in some cases modification is obviously understandable, if people are trying to think of the best way to phrase something (an event or such) that is obviously title-worthy, but this frequently is not the case.

I suppose you could make the case that that's what's happening with hasdgfas, since all the titles are based largely on the same subject - cows. But to be honest, that subject does not seem inherently title-worthy to me. If someone had a good idea for a title involving cows, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with the attitude of "I think hasdgfas should have a title and I think it should be related to cows, but I can't think of a good one, so let's just shout out random ideas until we get a decent one". That is not generally a recipe for truly great titles, nor is it really in the spirit of the thread. I mean, if you want to just go from player to player inventing titles, that's fine, but if we're going to do that, we could at least start with older players who still don't have titles. Not only do they deserve them more (no offense to hasdgfas and other newer players), but they're also a lot more likely to have truely memorable moments and characteristics that would better lend themselves to titles.

[Oman]

A nomination shouldn't be made for its own sake but for the sake of the title that is being nominated: that is, it should be a good one already - people shouldn't have to brainstorm more once it's in the title thread.

OMFG! GO GO SARC!

Rather than the cows incident, I want to view one that personally annoyed the hell out of me, Nekka's attempts at title. A perfect example of what Sarc was saying (And I'm using a fragment here because I couldn't be bothered wording it better): "Let's just shout out random ideas until we get a decent one".

Shea, I disagree with you, and understand you probably put a lot of work into that, however, the fact you've just gone around the site disagreeing with anything I've said makes me not really give a rat's arse. Enjoy!

[Thestatusquo]

I like how you can "disagree" With two confirmed logical fallacies. Good luck with that.

[Oman]

Disagreeing with this

Basically you just agreed with sarc, but turned it around so that it seemed like you weren't.

But I understand why you feel the need to assert your authority over myself.

[Mr. Flay]

I don't really like this practice of lots of people just trying to think up a title for someone, as if there has been some arbitrary decision that it's time for someone to get a title. A nomination shouldn't be made for its own sake but for the sake of the title that is being nominated: that is, it should be a good one already - people shouldn't have to brainstorm more once it's in the title thread. Now, in some cases modification is obviously understandable, if people are trying to think of the best way to phrase something (an event or such) that is obviously title-worthy, but this frequently is not the case.

This is good stuff, and I agree with it.

[Shanba]

Sarc, we've established that hasgfas is christian and believes that being gay is a personal choice, and is a sin against God. It's difficult for me to comprehend how you can't see that your title suggestions might offend him. So, I guess that means your either ignorant or offensive (/false dichotomy). But you see where I'm going, yeah?


OTOH, I do agree with that you were saying about titles in general. But you could have found a more constructive way of making your point.

[Nemesis]

Titles have always been improved by brainstorming though. Most of them start out as a good idea and then get turned into a better one.

Sarc, we've established that hasgfas is christian and believes that being gay is a personal choice, and is a sin against God. It's difficult for me to comprehend how you can't see that your title suggestions might offend him.

Pffft. If stupid religion didn't come into it then he wouldn't find it offensive. He got called a 'cow' and ran with the idea. Being called a cow is offensive to some people. Sometimes jokes offend, sometimes jokes make people laugh.

I don't see why everyone is making a big deal over this when titles sometimes are negative things.

It's very meh to me... But then again I don't believe in a divine being that decides if you have ever done something he considers wrong... And if so, you get tortured forever. That idea makes me laugh. So I don't know how it feels to take religious beliefs seriously. It seems to be religious joke = offensive joke, but any other joke is just a joke... The unbelievable situation with the danish cartoon a while back just goes to show that religious people can't take a joke about their religion, yet they could take a joke about anything else. So I don't think a title that could be funny should never get nominated if it could cause offensive... Purely because people can say "no thanks", what harm is there in suggesting it if you stop when someone says 'no thanks'?

[Shanba]

Titles have always been improved by brainstorming though. Most of them start out as a good idea and then get turned into a better one.

Sarc, we've established that hasgfas is christian and believes that being gay is a personal choice, and is a sin against God. It's difficult for me to comprehend how you can't see that your title suggestions might offend him.

Pffft. If stupid religion didn't come into it then he wouldn't find it offensive. He got called a 'cow' and ran with the idea. Being called a cow is offensive to some people. Sometimes jokes offend, sometimes jokes make people laugh.

"Stupid religion" does come into it, though. You can't ride roughshod over someone's beliefs just because you don't share them. Hell, they might be right, and you might be wrong. It's similar to why you wouldn't call a Greek Cypriot a stupid fucking Turk: you know it's going to offend them and you're going out of your way to

be

offensive.

Calling him a cow is different, in this case, because of the context (which is also what makes teasing him about possibly being gay offensive). The cow joke is a long running joke established throughout the site/scumchat and anyway, cow is not an insult that is particularly offensive.

I don't see why everyone is making a big deal over this when titles sometimes are negative things.

If I nominated you for the title "Stupid Fucking Cuntweasel" then the negativity might be just slightly too much, don't you think?

It's very meh to me... But then again I don't believe in a divine being that decides if you have ever done something he considers wrong... And if so, you get tortured forever. That idea makes me laugh. So I don't know how it feels to take religious beliefs seriously. It seems to be religious joke = offensive joke, but any other joke is just a joke... The unbelievable situation with the danish cartoon a while back just goes to show that religious people can't take a joke about their religion, yet they could take a joke about anything else. So I don't think a title that could be funny should never get nominated if it could cause offensive... Purely because people can say "no thanks", what harm is there in suggesting it if you stop when someone says 'no thanks'?

Eh. I still don't feel it's right to go out of your way to offend someone. Religion is a touchy business - it claims to be the ultimate answer and some people believe that. Whether they are right or not is irrelevant - it's whether their beliefs have a right to be respected. I think they do, you may disagree. At any rate, going out of your way to offend them is not the answer.

[AniX]

I wish someone would give me the title "Stupid Fucking Cuntweasel"

[Nemesis]

"Stupid religion" does come into it, though. You can't ride roughshod over someone's beliefs just because you don't share them. Hell, they might be right, and you might be wrong. It's similar to why you wouldn't call a Greek Cypriot a stupid fucking Turk: you know it's going to offend them and you're going out of your way to

be

offensive.

Well, when I said 'stupid religion' I meant the everything that comes with religion. I wasn't calling one particular religion stupid, just the amount of offense people take to the smallest thing. The thing I was calling stupid isn't the belief itself but the lynchmob nature of them. Name one other thing that could cause death threats and riots because of a cartoon?

Calling him a cow is different, in this case, because of the context (which is also what makes teasing him about possibly being gay offensive). The cow joke is a long running joke established throughout the site/scumchat and anyway, cow is not an insult that is particularly offensive.

Well, consider no humans are actually cows... And some humans are actually gay... And being gay isn't a bad thing. I would 100% prefer to be called gay to being called a cow. (Although neither would offend me.)

The entire way of looking at this, that gay = bad and cow = meh... That's offensive. Being called gay might mean you are funny, have good taste, can dance, are tidy, etc... Based on the stereotype, people can joke about people being gay and it be a compliment. (Although granted, most gay people I know don't actually fit into the sterotype.)

And yeah, cow is a long established joke but when it was originally made it was more an insult to a state. (Insulting people's homestate = offensive to some.)

I don't see why everyone is making a big deal over this when titles sometimes are negative things.

If I nominated you for the title "Stupid Fucking Cuntweasel" then the negativity might be just slightly too much, don't you think?

That's one hell of an extreme you are going to there. But I can just say no and not be bothered. That wouldn't get passed because of the profanity anyway. I'm not going to get upset over something like that, there's no reason to.

Religion is a touchy business - it claims to be the ultimate answer and some people believe that.

Pffft. No scientist would take an evolution joke as a reason to put someone on a deathlist.

Whether they are right or not is irrelevant

That's true. My religious beliefs are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I believe a pink elephant orbiting the universe would take offense to me going to a zoo... If I believe that, then whether I'm right or not shouldn't affect how a title request is viewed.

But that also works the other way. Just because I believe in my pink elephant, it doesn't mean that any title request about not going to zoos should be slammed, just because it's against my religion.

it's whether their beliefs have a right to be respected

Well I'm not intending to turn this thread into a religious debate, I could try and convince people that their religion is wrong, I don't do it... That is about the most respect I'll give a belief. I don't even name all the bad things religions have done.

But hell, if someone makes a suggestion that is based on something valid but is exaggerated for comedic effect, that suggestion shouldn't cause the reaction it has. The suggestion is within the rules and those rules are the only thing that defines what is ok and what isn't.

People can believe whatever the hell they want to believe as long as nothing changes because of it.

At any rate, going out of your way to offend them is not the answer.

I actually wasn't going out of my way to offend anyone. I may have been unclear with the "stupid religion" comment, which I have hopefully clarified. But that's the only thing that I think could be considered offensive.

Especially when this all started because the suggestion "doesn't want to be gay despite his repressed feelings" was made into a funny title. It has a bit of truth to it so can be considered valid. I don't think religion has to come into it. I don't see why religious views are treated as a set of moral views with the added benefit of acting as a shield.

If my religion said all people with the letter "A" in their name were descended from whores, would my religion protect me from being held accountable?

What the hell makes religion so special anyway? There's no way I think I should pussyfoot around something because circular logic is believed by a lot of people. In mafia games we deal with circular logic all the time, I didn't expect many people to actually be religious when all day they see logic exactly like they believe being taken apart so easily.

They should be used to it by now... And no matter how offensive I am seen as being, I am holding back. I'm pussyfooting around it all anyway, just to be nice. And damn, it is taking most of my willpower.