human2
June 8th, 2016
Congrats to Martin in Vermont on winning this month’s raffle prize – a signed copy of Wrong Again, God Boy.
Become a Patron here if you want to join the fun next month.
Latest book…
Random oldie…
June 8, 2022-
- NICE T-SHIRT (Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust). Currently unavailable.
Mo driving always cracks me up.
I like it that Mo’s eyes are hidden by the steering wheel, suggesting that he can’t see where he’s driving. Subtle, Author.
It’s appropriate that he can’t see where he is going 🙂
There has to be something about Islam that is true. And this seems to be it. They want to stop people pointing out that it isn’t true.
Is this what is meant by ‘circular reasoning’?
“I want to stop people to point it out”.
Uhm, usually it IS the terrorists that DO the “pointing out”
@Jazzlet The blind driving the blind?
A great way to start the morning.
They are not wearing safety belts, seeming to imply they have no fear of their own mortality. So they can drive around blindly, crashing into and destroying other lives with no consequence. Imagine Mo as your Uber driver.
I’m siding with J on this one. I don’t know about the law in other countries, but in the USA, if a statement is true, it is not considered defamation–no matter how disparaging the statement is.
True. The truth cannot be defamation. Mind you – no need to point anything out anymore. After ISIS everybody knows what Islam is all about.
extro24 says [i]True. The truth cannot be defamation[/i]
I have a vague recall that if the malice was the reason for the reporting then even the truth maybe slander, libel, defamation etc
Damn mixed up my brackets again should not have been square
re
if the malice was the reason for the reporting then even the truth maybe slander, libel, defamation etc
in western legal systems anyway
this can be contrasted with Sharia based ‘legal’ systems
where telling the truth without malice can result in a death sentence
3 days with no comments – a technical problem or just no one bothering?
Pink S: or something (a lot) else?
something else – perhaps this Oldebabe :
Immorality among women is causing a river in Iran to dry up, according to a senior cleric from the Islamic Republic.
PS:
Immorality among women is causing a river in Iran to dry up
… but it very difficult to find the correct balans in morality.
Why else the floodings elsewhere?
Why else the floodings elsewhere?
Why else the floodings elsewhere?
Why else the floodings elsewhere?
well working on the basis that an imaginary sentient being is responsible for water level, it follows that if western behaviour produces flooding and storms due to immorality, then logic would suggest that dry deserts are the result of too much morality and that Iran should alleviate this by indulging in a mass premarital orgy.
[Or it might just be because the people upstream are using up all the water]
[I have no idea why my comment repeated 3 times- it looked fine before I posted it]
I kind of wish that I could be suprised that this comic coincides so well with what happened in Orlando yesterday, but considering the amount of Islamic terrorism it really isn’t so unexpected.
I would WAG that the shooter’s motivation would be more to do with his personal problems with the gay rather than his devotion to Daesh, but it makes him sound like a “noble” martyr than a crazy hater.
According to the ‘lando loony’s daddy he was a good boy. He beat his wife regularly, so I suppose that’s true.
Though she did manage to escape him, which makes him rather a weak, ineffectual, effeminate tosser, too.
But something that has puzzled me for nigh on half of a century, these grotesque lack-wits claim to dislike homosexual acts so much that merely seeing a kiss can not only drive their sons into therapy for life and cause them, themselves, to engage in mass murder yet they kiss each other, twice, every time they meet.
Male arabs are forever kissing and hugging other males, openly, in public, even great, fat, hairy terrorists with loads of guns do it.
Which leads to: how bad can their demented little godling think it is when they all do it?
Rampant hypocrisy? Doublethink? Or are they all closet pooves?
That last would explain their hostility.
I would like to play devil’s advocate and note that there is a difference between a platonic greeting and unspoken, repressed sexual tension, however considering the subjects in question, the latter wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
A new “highlight” in how to celebrate ramadan:
In an intro to a GoPro live “production”, appeal to your fellow-believers to follow suit, including a list of worthwhile targets.
Then go find your neighbour (a local police hotshot) and kill him and his wife in front of their child. Broadcast this live.
Happened in greater Paris today.
He was able to do so because he was released ahead-of-term from prison, from a sentence of Jihadic activities.
He did not survive the police intervention.
Rampant hypocrisy? Doublethink? Or are they all closet pooves?
That last would explain their hostility.
maybe
however what explains/justifies your use of the word ‘pooves’?
hardly the most appropriate word.
also would not the plural of ‘pouf’ be ‘poufs?’
I always thought it was spelled poof, anyway the father of the perpetrator is not only homophobic but also a wannabee jihadist. With a kind, nurturing upbringing like that it was probably only a matter of time, some lovely comments by the far right murrican xtians about this awful slaughter.
Any chance of stopping the ‘homophobe therefore closet gay’ bullshit? For one thing, it is demeaning to those who are genuinely in the closet or in denial about their sexuality; for another you wouldn’t suggest that the more anti-religion one is the more one is a closet believer….would you.
For God’s sake, try adding a filter betwixt thought and keyboard.
Sigh. Maybe it is time to give Trump a chance.
“For God’s sake, try adding a filter betwixt thought and keyboard.”
Do we look like people who care what God thinks?
Author, please be kind and delete my last post. Apologies AoC, unfortunately the intelligent part of my brain wasn’t working.
Respectfully, AoS…
‘Any chance of stopping the “homophobe therefore closet gay” bullshit?’
No, I’m afraid there’s very little chance, at least if we profess to believe in the results of replicable, controlled experiments. Teh Science sez it’s hardly “bullshit.”
Here are just three of the many citations one can find with a quick Google search:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn
http://www.livescience.com/19563-homophobia-hidden-homosexuals.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
Not quite sure what you mean by “those genuinely in the closet” — are you suggesting that the subjects of these experiments are all somehow faking it, and are actually straight-posing-as-gay-posing-as-straight, the better to fake us all out?
“you wouldn’t suggest that the more anti-religion one is the more one is a closet believer….would you.”
No, but now that you mention it, it’s an interesting hypothesis — perhaps it would be worth an experiment or two.
Any suggestions on how to hook a plethysmograph up to a soul to measure spiritual arousal?
It may have escaped your notice, Acolyte, (no, I don’t believe that) but many theists do insist that RMA’s (“Radical Militant Atheists”) are all closet believers who just need to be instructed in the proper manner for them to see the light. That is the entire point of the JW, LDS and other multi-million pound missionary effort. They’ve been doing it for at least six millennia so they must be convinced that there is a positive return on the investment.
Which does provoke thought.
Could they be correct?
Perhaps if the priests just found the right way to explain it all we would all become ardent zealots?
That could be in the top ten terrifying ideas I’ve come up with this year.
Smartalek: unfortunately there is no way to hook any measuring instrumentality to a “soul” as souls are entirely fictional. Were they not they would be at best problematic.
A “soul” is not the person, not the personality, not me, it is at best a recording device or a substance that takes a stain under certain conditions. So, even were souls real there would be no point to testing one. One may as well hook a sensor to a taste bud or measure the white marks caused by pressing on skin.
The idea of a soul is not life after death for the person reading this, it is the retention of a record, a stain or an after-image of some aspects of that being. The soul, if it existed, might well have been irreducible but that has no more promise for the being painting it with his life than would a photograph or a file in the N.S.A. archives.
A soul is no more the person than is the imprint left in a soft chair when one stands up. Or, as a wise man once said: “… a bootprint is not a boot.”
Though it is actually easy to measure religious fervour. P.E.T. and M.R.I. scans show measurable and repeatable differences in the reactions of sane beings and believers to stimuli.
I think it also works for sports teams.
P.S.: I always liked the word “poof” and it’s plural, “pooves” and have never considered it in the least derogatory. Like “Lesbian” it is a short, unambiguous and quite handy term to describe people with a sexual preference and a term that, unlike “gay”, does not deprive English of a fine and ancient adjective. I would really love the PLBT movements to reclaim “poof” as a respectable descriptor.
I would also love them to find a descriptor that didn’t make fun of a certain island in the Middle Sea but I suspect that that is a forlorn hope.