Torin D. Jasoon

There is no way in hell(actually only in Hell) that “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a carte blanche, a blank check, a permission, to engage in sadism and masochism or domination or submission. That’s absurd.

Take it up with those many Christians, over many centuries, who flagellated themselves, wore sackcloth or hair shirts, and otherwise “mortified the flesh” as part of their “lifestyle cult”. Cite to them, with chapter and verse, the passages that declare masochism a sin.

That is not what Jesus and His disciples taught, and your silly effort to mischaracterize them in this way would be evil, if it weren’t just pathetic (but then, so many forms of evil are banal).

That’s consistent with your refusing to address toy because she has chosen, voluntarily, to serve another. Here you make clear that it is not only your personal preference to refuse any subservient rôle, but in your view Christianity itself forbids such a “submission”.

Your only problem is that Jesus disagreed with you:

“Jesus … riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. … So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”     [excerpted from] John 13:1-17

Whereas your version of Christianity involves “serving not some other human”; evidently you think that Jesus guy got Christianity all wrong.

Meanwhile, the ideology of wicca, and of BDSM, and I dare say paganism, is about establishing power over other human beings.

Really? Care to cite chapter and verse on that?

In any of the texts of [capital-W] Wicca, for instance?

Or in whatever text you think all pagans hold in common? (And what text is that?)

As for BDSM, surely it can’t have escaped your attention that — due to the emphasis on “safe, sane, and consensual” — for anyone to take on a “dominant” r7ocirc;le, someone else has to voluntarily take a “submissive” rôle?

How much actual power exists in a relationship where either party can choose to withdraw, can choose not to enter in the first place, by simply not consenting?

This is rôle-play, even in real life, not the literal “slavery” (or “involuntary servitude”) quite properly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

Your silly notice that there isn’t some justifiable usage of “tax-deductible” just doesn’t hold water.

So now you resort to misstating what I said, the old straw-man strategem.

For the record, I never claimed there “there isn’t some justifiable usage of ‘tax-deductible’”. Quite the contrary. The term refers, justifiably, to a donation (contribution) which one may deduct from one’s taxes.

The problem is that you misapply the term “tax-deductible” to an organization. But you cannot deduct the entire organization from your taxes, only (at most) the contribution you gave it.

Thus the contribution is “tax-deductible”, but the organization is not.

This term is used in the field, and is perfectly acceptible.

Yes, it is, and it has a clear meaning: “deductible from taxes”.

Contributions may be deductible from your taxes, in which case those contributions are “tax-deductible”.

Organizations are not deductible from your taxes, thus organizations are not “tax-deductible”.

Organizations may be exempt from taxes, in which case they are “tax-exempt“.

People sometimes confuse these two terms. You did, and you quote others who did. The IRS does not. I’ve cited several examples of the correct usage from the official IRS(.gov) website’s pages. Apparently you prefer to believe the IRS got it wrong. So be it. You’re free to cling to even the most blatant error, in the face of all evidence. But everyone else now has fair warning that you are doing so.

I cited two mainstream pages, including one with many hundreds of thousands of hits or more per day in this field, as showing how it is commonly used, by people really working in this field…

Which should be fair warning to others about relying on those sites for accurate advice about tax laws.

… and not just silly wicca or BDSM practitioners trying to get their jollies…

Since I’ve clearly stated above that I’m a Humanist, not a Wiccan, and that I’m an outsider in relation to the BDSM scene, I wonder why you bring them into this. Or is this another of your attempts at ad hominem argument, trying to discredit what I say as coming from both of the groups you denounce here, even though I belong to neither of them?

… by tripping up people on their puny-minded orthodox reading of some IRS regulation.

This is hilarious: “puny-minded orthodox reading of some IRS regulation” — translation — correct citation of a tax term’s proper usage, from the official site of the government agency that actually administers, explains, and executes tax rules.

If any site on the web can be trusted to use these tax terms properly, it’s irs.gov — the site I keep referring you to.

You don’t cite any page from the IRS using these terms the way you do, because you can’t. You cite unofficial websites instead, because your erroneous usage can only be found on unofficial sites.

Once again, for the record, getting this 501-c-3 status doesn’t mean you have a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval that you are not a cult and you are a church.

As if the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval were ever applied to churches. But you were the one who brought up “tax-deductible [sic] recognized religion” as a status that you claimed Wicca lacks. Now that your claim’s been proven false, you’re falling all over yourself backtracking, and claiming that “tax-deductible” [sic] status is utterly irrelevant. Well, fine, then you shouldn’t have brought it up, should you? But you did, and you were wrong, so why not just admit it, instead of whining about the fact that you were proven wrong?

Snipping the remainder of your snivelling gripes.

such a pity, since that way one misses much beauty in the world.

but then dyer discounts anything toy says simply because toy is a slave and hence isnt good enough in dyers mind to speak to. a further pity and it does put lies to what he speaks, he puts himself above toy.. not worth talking to…. toy is freer than you can ever hope to be dyer and this slave pities you

falara kajira toy

There really isn’t much of a basis for debate here, if you are willing to pervert and hijack the Bible to suit your own vain purposes. Televangelists may be greedy, there are churches that are corrupt, but that doesn’t mean that the ideology of Christianity, taken as a whole, is about establishing power over other human beings. It most certainly is not. It is about humility and serving not some other human with a boot on my neck, but serving God and the ideals and aspirations of Christianity. Meanwhile, the ideology of wicca, and of BDSM, and I dare say paganism, is about establishing power over other human beings. That all seems pretty self-evident, unless, of course, you’re trying to sugar-coat it to make it more digestible for mass dissemination, especially in places like on-line games.

Your silly notice that there isn’t some justifiable usage of “tax-deductible” just doesn’t hold water. This term is used in the field, and is perfectly acceptible. I didn’t cite two mistaken versions of its use, I cited two mainstream pages, including one with many hundreds of thousands of hits or more per day in this field, as showing how it is commonly used, by people really working in this field, and not just silly wicca or BDSM practitioners trying to get their jollies by tripping up people on their puny-minded orthodox reading of some IRS regulation. Please. Get a grip. Look at the hundreds of other hits on google to see that it is perfectly acceptible. Once again, for the record, getting this 501-c-3 status doesn’t mean you have a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval that you are not a cult and you are a church. You aren’t. It’s only a statement on the non-profit nature of your activites. The society at large, the media, other 501-c-3 groups are all free and able to criticize you as being a cult and not a church, and believe me, that’s what some of the best of them do.

I find it hard to understand why what I said playing this game in TSO, to people who were trying to get me to gnome in a house that turned out to be a BDSM house, or what I say in stories on my porno website, have anything to do with this discussion. I don’t find anything contradictory between running a site with pornographic stories, or using swear words against griefers in TSO and calling them sick fucks (once again, “sick fuck” is about an apt a term as I can find for them) and being an advocate of Judeo-Christian civilization. The two are not mutually incompatible. One of the basic tenets of this heritage is that you have a free will. I don’t claim to be some televangelist or preacher or Bible-thumper or church-goer. It is you who have characterized me as such, and you who are trying to find some way to prove me a hypocrite. A site that has erotic stories is just that, a site with erotic stories, some written by me, some written by other players. It is not the game of TSO which has kids in it. Your BDSM houses, on the other hand, are in a game with kids. And you publish your URLs in this game, and bring kids to your site, where they can read horrifying things like the art of making human beings into ponies and totally depersonalizing them. My stories are parodies of porn, and some of them are quite poignant. Some of the stories people have published on that site are actually quite interesting stories about people not just about sex. I don’t think they need to have any redeeming qualities, but I think it’s worth pointing out. We’ve been over this ground before, hmm? It’s very hard for you to jump over that argument: you are a menace in a game with kids and non-consenting adults. I’m merely somebody who swears at griefers and has a little porno page. There’s a world of difference, you freaks.

Only a small group of people who happen to get a link to this site from a small club of album-makers have gone to my story site — the hit counter probably registers in the middle 3 digits. Meanwhile, you are in a game where thousands of people see you daily. I wonder how you can live with that.

The Bible’s teaching about motes and logs doesn’t mean you get a pass to commit violence and slavery, and then tell anybody who questions it that they should get rid of their porn or any of their pecadilloes, and that they are illegitimate, and you are legitimate. There is no way that it can be construed. These are matters of scale. And only God can judge, not you. But I’m sure He’ll have something to say about people who have perverted his Good Book in such a heinous way.

If you wish to preach against pornography, do so, but please have the decency to do so from a perspective that doesn’t have as its base the violent, sexually explicit, and slave-owning ideology of BDSM.

I don’t think that naive players are brought into BDSM with a gun at their head — it is hard to use force in a game where you can delete or log off as we’ve already discussion many times. But I do think there is a subtle and not-so-subtle form of brain-washing that goes on, a bombardment, a recruitment that uses all kinds of games of language and ideology to achieve its ends. One of the main things it does is to pretend what it is not. It’s big on claims that there is “no foul language and no pornography” on its site (although videos of luridly grinning scantily clad dommes are a few clicks away ready to give you painful pleasures). It’s big on claims that it is about gentility and politeness (where the mind games and mind control and humiliation and demaning of humans is kept far off camera). Shame on you!

It’s curious that you keep inquiring haughtily, as if you’ve caught me at some secret slip, whether I “dislike” the lifestyle of BDSM. Oh, but I do. I heartily dislike it. There’s no secret about that. I vote against it with both hands. It’s my right. Indeed, it’s my duty. It is a loathsome lifestyle. It is wrong. It is perverse. What I used to think about it before TSO was that it was merely something to tolerate, because it did not invade the larger public space, and made no pretentions to convert youth, or non-consenting adults, and did not claim that it was a viable, mainstream, approved lifestyle that should spread through the land. Now I’m finding in TSO that it has every intention of invading every space and pretending what it is not in order to get a foothold. I find that pretty pernicious and I’ve been happy to fight back tooth and nail.

It’s hard to justify much more time spent on this debate. You are repeating yourself, and merely cutting and pasting posts from other threads and playing “gotcha” in such a tired and pathetic way that it would invoke pity if it did not invoke revulsion. You are perverts. Yes, perverters of the truth and the right. It’s OK to say that. You may be challenged. It’s all right in our free society to do that. We have freedom of religion and belief, or freedom of non-belief in our society. That means you can challenge beliefs and religions as well. No one is challenging your right to form a group and exist and do your thing. No one has asked that the attorney general shut you down and throw you in jail (although I’ll bet some local police might find some of the Gorean non-consent stuff grounds for arrest or fines). What I am doing is challenging you because a) I don’t think you have a right to exist in a game with children and non-consenting adults and b) I think you should be debated in an open society, because you aspire to the mainstream, and if it were up to you, you would change what we have to a closed society. Therefore you are an enemy of freedom – first and foremost the freedom of your “consenting” subs — and the fabric of society at large and deserve a fight.

It sheds light upon Dyerbrook’s current holier-than-thou posture.

Since that thread has become so long already (and started so long ago), let me address the exchanges here.

Dyerbrook wrote at December 23, 2003 11:35 AM:

I’ve counted four Sims in Alphaville already — I keep finding new cases — who were never into the BDSM lifestyle before, even played the Sims for months, who were friends of mine or other Sims, and now, they are suddenly into the lifestyle, sporting its regalia and insignia….

… I don’t intend to be pushed out of AV by intolerant thugs who want to create a closed society….

What I’d like to know is how Dyerbrook thinks this happened.

Did someone point a gun, through the Internet and the PC screens, at the Sims players’ heads, and force them to make their characters don these “regalia and insignia”?

Or did the players freely choose to do so?

If by force, were the players kept continuously online and at gunpoint thereafter, or did they get to sign off occasionally to do things like go to school or work?

If they got to sign off, then how were they forced to sign on again later, to resume this awful shameful degrading condition?

Couldn’t they make these characters discard the “regalia and insignia” and go back to a non-BDSM lifestyle?

If not, couldn’t they have simply abandoned the characters who were being so horribly abused?

In other words, exactly how is this “involuntary” recruitment supposed to have been accomplished?

On the other hand, if they joined freely and of their own will, why is Dyerbrook now determined to expel from Alphaville the same people he referred to as having been “friends” of his?

Doesn’t he respect their free will to live their lives as they choose? Or does he require that they must live as he wishes, in order to be allowed to stay in Alphaville?

If the latter, then who really is being “pushed out of AV”, and who really is behaving like “intolerant thugs who want to create a closed society”?

And as for Dyerbrook’s posturing as a well-intentioned Christian determined to rid Alphavile of foul disgusting influences….

brigit wrote at January 1, 2004 06:44 AM:

i couldn’t sleep last night and went into sims……saw a BDSM house open…had two people in it…so thought i would drop by…..OMG…two women who lived there and right in front of me landed……………dyerbrook………..*claps hands to her cheeks making the O shape with her mouth*….

and he said…..You Bitch…..this is one of those BDSM houses…..

now when he said that…i tagged him…it made me mad….the other woman said…omg who was that… now who is harrassing whom…..and after i tagged him…he ran away….and then the well spoken dyerbrook IM’ed me…..and said

You Sick Little F_ _ k……

so now who is the low life…..who is the one who has their mouth in the gutter….

Dyerbrook wrote at January 1, 2004 08:20 PM:

Yes, let me say it again for good measure, so you don’t have to bother fetching screenshots.
YOU SICK LITTLE F##K.

[Obscenity obscured by ##. —Raven]

Darksoul wrote at January 1, 2004 03:35 PM:

Oh my….dyerbrook has gay, naked sims on his site….how decadent for a man of god

http://syminalist.tripod.com/academy/id7.html

… and at January 1, 2004 03:40 PM:

and some more http://members.tripod.com/dyerbrook/gayfrats.htm

Are W/we learning anything about the little man?

toy wrote at January 1, 2004 07:13 PM:

or perhaps these gems

http://dyerbrook.tripod.com/simgems/id9.html

http://members.tripod.com/dyerbrook/roadtosedation.htm

Dyerbrook wrote at January 1, 2004 09:26 PM:

Yes, I have several Sim story sites, and indeed, one could be characterized as “pornographic”…. But what’s the difference between MY “porn” site, that is, a site with some adult stories and screenshots, and Lady Julianna’s, and why is it NOT a legitimate subject of conversation for TSO?

Well, gee, Lady Julianna had already written at December 27, 2003 09:31 PM:

I am sure Maxis is aware of my website and finds it not objectionable. There is no pornography on it, no profanity, no nudity. There is creative writing there, and general info on BDSM. None of this violates TOS.

And Dyerbrook still doesn’t know the difference?

Well. Let’s take it from that rhetorical question that he sees no difference. So he’s “no different” from the people he denounces as unfit to grace the virtual pavement of Alphaville. But then why does he stay, himself? And if he stays, what standing does he have to demand that others leave?

So much for his purity of motive.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-5, cf. Luke 6:41-42)

It revisits the “vote” count concerning the Stratics thread.

Due to looking only at the page linked by Urizenus, about 1/3 of the Stratics posters had gone uncounted in the earlier discussion.

toy

toy