The Goblins Fan Forum

Master TMO wrote:
Of course, the obvious answer is: This isn't a "natural" species, but one created somehow (even way back in ancient pre-history or by a deity of some sort), and the physical attraction is a leftover from one of the original species.

Of course it's not a natural species ... it was created by an ancient deity long ago precisely to allow us to one day have a long discussion on the possibility of (and for some, fervent desire for) Half-Snake Lesbian Sex Scenes

Borys wrote:If Yuan-Ti can't feel love, what feels white Kin towards angry Kin?
Trueseeing? Or however they call it?
Or it's just an excuse for upcoming half-snake lesbian sex?

Look, once we start getting petty little things like "plot" and "biology" and "common sense" involved, the Half-Snake Lesbian Sex Scene is never going to happen.

You know the theory that any word or phrase can become hilarious if it's repeated often enough. I've just read 'half snake lesbian sex' so many times that I can't not giggle with every extra post it appears in. This one included.

DrinksTooMuchCoffee wrote:As you crest the ridge, you spot a herd of wild mules...

"Life always...finds a way."
--Ian Malcolm

Fool! That was Harrison Ford, not Jeff Golblum...right?

BuildsLegos wrote:Fool! That was Harrison Ford, not Jeff Golblum...right?

Er...left.

Glemp wrote:

Oh, then I had no idea there were so many lesbians around here. I guess I'll try to behave myself so they don't hurt me.

Lesbianism is not required.

This reminds me of one of those Funny 'cause it's true jokes...

What's the difference between a Fantasy Lesbian and a real lesbian?

A fantasy lesbian will let her boyfriend watch. A real lesbian doesn't have a boyfriend.

Reads_Books wrote:What's the difference between a Fantasy Lesbian and a real lesbian?

A fantasy lesbian will let her boyfriend watch.

The second line of the answer is superfluous, just fyi. It amounts to explaining the joke, which is never a good way to make it funny. With that line removed, the joke is hilarious.

Reads_Books wrote:A fantasy lesbian will let her boyfriend watch.

Wouldn't that make her technically bisexual?

Also, as much as I enjoy reading this stuff, has anyone considered that there might be youngsters around the forum, who probably shouldn't read too much detail / mention about HSLSS? We are also being heavily off-topic.

T' Northerner wrote:You know the theory that any word or phrase can become hilarious if it's repeated often enough. I've just read 'half snake lesbian sex' so many times that I can't not giggle with every extra post it appears in. This one included.

I second this. This all went amusingly ridiculous pretty quickly!

BuildsLegos wrote:Maybe I'm just being a stinky religious type, but I'm pretty sure a deity's craftsmanship is the definition of naturally made.

A deity's craftsmanship is the definition of supernaturally made. As in made outside the realm of the natural world.

LooksAndSmiles wrote:Wouldn't that make her technically bisexual?

More to the point, it would make her not-a-lesbian. [/explainingthejoke]

RocketScientist wrote:

BuildsLegos wrote:Maybe I'm just being a stinky religious type, but I'm pretty sure a deity's craftsmanship is the definition of naturally made.

A deity's craftsmanship is the definition of supernaturally made. As in made outside the realm of the natural world.

Master TMO already explained it better.

BuildsLegos wrote:

RocketScientist wrote:

BuildsLegos wrote:Maybe I'm just being a stinky religious type, but I'm pretty sure a deity's craftsmanship is the definition of naturally made.

A deity's craftsmanship is the definition of supernaturally made. As in made outside the realm of the natural world.

Master TMO already explained it better.

If your definition of "better" is "incorrectly," then sure. There's nothing natural about a supernatural being. The answer is not "yes" in any realm, with or without gods.

It's made by artifice it's therefore artificial, duh!

RocketScientist wrote:If your definition of "better" is "incorrectly," then sure. There's nothing natural about a supernatural being. The answer is not "yes" in any realm, with or without gods.

I'm not wrong! You are! (j/k - had to throw in the immature childish response for fun)

What I believe I was getting at was that if there is a supreme being responsible for the creation of the world/universe, any result of that original creation would be considered 'natural', as they came about through the natural interplay of the various laws, rules, and original state of the setting. I'll even throw in some leeway in that if the creator being goes back in and tweaks something, we can call that 'natural'.

But if someone else comes along and makes changes outside the creator's scope, that's typically what we can call 'unnatural' or 'supernatural', depending on who it is. The beings making these changes could range from a mere wizard to a supernatural being of some sort, just not the original creator.

Please note that I'm not getting into the argument that if man is natural, then anything man does is also natural. It's a valid point, but also completely destroys any reason to have the conversation. And if you don't want to have the conversation, then why are you here?

Master TMO wrote: What I believe I was getting at was that if there is a supreme being responsible for the creation of the world/universe, any result of that original creation would be considered 'natural', as they came about through the natural interplay of the various laws, rules, and original state of the setting. I'll even throw in some leeway in that if the creator being goes back in and tweaks something, we can call that 'natural'.

So, the original creator is neither supernatural nor unnatural, but the very definition of natural, whether that creator is sentient or not. Then your difference with RocketScientist is a matter of definitions, and neither your definition nor hers is invalid.

Pfft, this is the internet, we'll have none of that 'agreeing to disagree' around here.

T' Northerner wrote:Pfft, this is the internet, we'll have none of that 'agreeing to disagree' around here.

Couldn't agree more.

This is important.

Someone is wrong
on the Internet.

Master TMO wrote:What I believe I was getting at was that if there is a supreme being responsible for the creation of the world/universe, any result of that original creation would be considered 'natural', as they came about through the natural interplay of the various laws, rules, and original state of the setting. I'll even throw in some leeway in that if the creator being goes back in and tweaks something, we can call that 'natural'.

I agree with pretty much everything except the last line. If the creator is a clockmaker god who just sets everything in motion, and lets it run without interference, you can call that "natural" by such a definition. But any change that was directly made by a sentient being, interfering with the operation of the mechanism after it has begun, that would be artifice. The difference is that nature is not something you can stop and start again; once you wind it up and let it begin running, you have to let it continue operating indefinitely until it burns itself out, or else you're interfering. It's like how (even according to the most radical pro-life definition) choosing not to breed at your absolute first biologically-possible opportunity, with the first possible sex partner you happen to meet after becoming fertile, is not considered "killing" the child you could theoretically have had. At some point thereafter, depending on who you ask, the life has "naturalized", and at that point, any human action that ends its life cannot be called "death from natural causes".

But if someone else comes along and makes changes outside the creator's scope, that's typically what we can call 'unnatural' or 'supernatural', depending on who it is. The beings making these changes could range from a mere wizard to a supernatural being of some sort, just not the original creator.

Again, that last clause is the part I don't agree with. Just because you raised a bird from the egg before releasing it doesn't mean that it's your property, or that you have the right to capture it again. Once something has been free for the first time, you can never again enslave it without infringing upon that freedom. This applies even if the "egg" in question hatched an entire cosmos; once you put your universe "in the wild", you no longer have the right to interfere with it, the way you could if it was still "domestic".

Glemp wrote:

T' Northerner wrote:Pfft, this is the internet, we'll have none of that 'agreeing to disagree' around here.

Couldn't agree more.

This is important.

Someone is wrong
on the Internet.

Added a link to the quote (it's where I heard/read it first).

Jochi wrote:

Master TMO wrote: What I believe I was getting at was that if there is a supreme being responsible for the creation of the world/universe, any result of that original creation would be considered 'natural', as they came about through the natural interplay of the various laws, rules, and original state of the setting. I'll even throw in some leeway in that if the creator being goes back in and tweaks something, we can call that 'natural'.

So, the original creator is neither supernatural nor unnatural, but the very definition of natural, whether that creator is sentient or not. Then your difference with RocketScientist is a matter of definitions, and neither your definition nor hers is invalid.

Correct. IRL, I'm not religious myself, but in this setting we know there are beings called gods. We have the MoM sword and Herbert as proof. If we assume that one of them (or several working in concert) created this world, they'd stand in that supreme being position. Conversely, if no sentient being was responsible, presumably the laws of physics would stand in for it.

Also, in regard to tweaks by the creator being called 'natural' or not, I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt by allowing their changes to still be 'natural' to separate them out from those who came after and modified their toy.

Jochi wrote:

Master TMO wrote:What I believe I was getting at was that if there is a supreme being responsible for the creation of the world/universe, any result of that original creation would be considered 'natural', as they came about through the natural interplay of the various laws, rules, and original state of the setting. I'll even throw in some leeway in that if the creator being goes back in and tweaks something, we can call that 'natural'.

So, the original creator is neither supernatural nor unnatural, but the very definition of natural, whether that creator is sentient or not. Then your difference with RocketScientist is a matter of definitions, and neither your definition nor hers is invalid.

Tell that to Rocket, s/he's the one being rude here.