Animals aren't consenting, no comparison

Post #391,790 by drook 7/10/14 2:59:17 PM Reply	Animals aren't consenting, no comparison -- Drew
Post #391,791 by mmoffitt 7/10/14 3:08:17 PM Reply	Well, any old port in a storm, I guess. I'm not allowed a little joke? Okay. I understand. This "sex" thing is *very* serious business with you.
Post #391,792 by drook 7/10/14 3:19:37 PM Reply	There's a difference between a joke and an insult And you continue to demonstrate that you think gender is only about what you're willing to put your dick in. Lots of people do gay jokes, and they can be funny and offensive at the same time. You weren't. -- Drew
Post #391,794 by mmoffitt 7/10/14 3:48:29 PM Reply	WHAT? "Quick! Hide the Sheep!" was a gay joke? In what dialect? I tried to explain for the learning impaired what I was poking fun at with my follow-up. But, I'll explain further. The strip character said, in brief, "it doesn't matter where I put my naughty bits" (he's FECKIN' right about that BTW. I don't care and neither should anyone else). But at least on this board, you and the rest of the thought police win. I'm weary of the knee-jerk "You homophobic MOFO, Get out of Here!" bullshit I have to read in response to virtually any thing I post that is remotely related to anything anyone says about sexual proclivities.
Post #391,797 by drook 7/10/14 4:07:51 PM Reply	No, he didn't say that He said that his attraction to a person is not dictated by their genitalia. You think that's the same as, "It doesn't matter where I put my naughty bits." In fact, he was pretty emphatic that it does matter where he puts his naughty bits: Only in other men. He just has a more flexible definition of "men" than most people. Do you even realize that you are exactly the type of person he was writing about? -- Drew
Post #391,798 by mmoffitt 7/10/14 4:16:13 PM Reply	Um, what? Again? Wasn't his character protesting that he was being "wrongly" classified as "straight" because he'd had (and now apparently prefers) vaginal sex with transgender males? And you think that's different from saying, "Where I put my naughty bits doesn't define me?" Or, rephrased, "It doesn't matter where I put my naughty bits?" Sheesh.
Post #391,799 by drook 7/10/14 4:33:34 PM Reply	Transgender males are not sheep He is talking about whom he has sex with. "With whom" is not the same as "with what". -- Drew
Post #391,801 by a6l6e6x 7/10/14 5:43:29 PM Reply	So, it would have been funny if Mike said women and children instead of sheep? Anyway, it was clear to me he was joking. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #391,804 by folkert 7/10/14 7:00:19 PM Reply	It is called bias... We all have it. Many her have been set to a certain bias by reaction to Mike's explanations and totally emphatic responses. I recently gave up giving a crap... hence I see others taking up the stone carrying. Anyway, I see where Drook is coming from and how Mike could easily be classified as the direct people the cartoonist was writing about... but then, the animal comment could have been taken both ways or one way or t'other. Drook took it one way due to his pedantic bias. Mike is surprised it was taken that way... he shouldn't be. Me, I'm starting over with another life soon... Phuch-ophph y'all... I don't care anymore. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #391,809 by drook 7/10/14 8:23:17 PM Reply	No, offensive but funny would have been ... So the sheep are safe but the rams better run. -- Drew
Post #391,811 by mmoffitt 7/10/14 8:34:36 PM Reply	Sorry, Drew, I still don't get your objection. But, that's okay. I guess my sense of humor doesn't align with yours. And I sincerely meant no offense. So, I guess the best thing I can do is not take box's bait. ;0)
Post #391,818 by Ashton 7/11/14 1:41:11 AM Reply	This is Weird. My reading: indeterminate.. joke?/snark?/intent?? (Aside from just not caring what was 'meant', this is complex shit!) I don't think that most people Could grok this opus--far enough to guess intent. And logic-alone is never Enough (my mantra anyway--so many practical applications..) Especially so on this topic: does a one see any purpose in doing a n! on the possible cross-mixes, at their various surgical-stages: pre-op, in-between-ops, post-op? (we're up to six already)--and that doesn't even hint at the psychological stages and the varieties of mind-sets and.. and..) And then: when you throw-in humor atop all those permutations..? I'd think that those who Would do a parse like that--are persons either confused-about? unhappy-with? or insanely-iimaginitive! folk (hooked-on-'sex' to a degree where 'official gender' (say) really is no hang-up:) ..just so long as kinkier is possible: "So let's experiment. On me; wtf--I'm bored." I conclude that, for any of us who are quite clear about own Attraction/Desire/(repulsion?) and horniness, such of us aren't going to be very good at creating Humor (as this cartoonist tried?--or didn't?) or Seriousness either, or telling what the author was trying to do: without simply projecting our Own proclivities. So if one cannot empathize with n-Stages/facets and "how I'd feel if I were hot for this-one or that-one", htf Could you tell the subtle difference among snark, condemnation and/or funny-ha-ha? I don't Care wtf the author had in mind. I found it neither funny, sad, enlightening nor snarky: It's just Box, stirring-pot, imagining he can hold someone's coat, or that Mike might have some opinion? on this skit--probably (I merely surmise..) he has no more interest [or knowledge of the lore] or in w.t.f the panel might mean-if-Anything? than have I. It's a finger-trap: pretty low level of practical joke? I accept Mike's laissez-faire/~not giving a crap about what people do with their naughty-bits (nor do I) while questioning his prefs that child-bearing is was once its main raison d'etre [Hah: it was to get laid, reliably]. In an over-populated world: the incentives need to became the opposite. (Although, at the rate of 2014 planetary mindfulness-->projected: fer-shure that matter will be handled by nature, when only the 1% have air conditioners.) I will, happily-or-not poke my nose into someone else's bizness, though.. if that bizness involves hurting animals for fun or profit--we know what happens to kids who torture animals. (If they live long enough,)

Welcome to IWETHEY!