He Said I Could!


The artist, on his website, specifically said I could paste this cartoon on my blog. So I did.

Enjoy! And check out his other cartoons.

add to del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg itreddit Stumble It!

18 thoughts on “He Said I Could!

        • What’s wrong with explaining how it’s fallacious and then calling the writer a douchebag? It’s all about synergy.

          Hey, as long as it makes small men feel big, right?

          Operative qualifier: “explaining how it’s fallacious.”

          That, my friend, is exactly what you generally DO NOT do. You tend to show up, make naked assertions based on the perceived superiority of your own positions, then you insult ANYONE who doesn’t think along the exact same narrow-minded Scarlet A party lines as yourself, somehow imagining that such constitutes rationalism and freethought.

          I just attribute it to that PhillyChiefAlphaMale “I think I’m always right” BigToughGuy personality you usually come with.

          • You tend to show up, make naked assertions based on the perceived superiority of your own positions, then you insult ANYONE who doesn’t think along the exact same narrow-minded Scarlet A party lines as yourself, somehow imagining that such constitutes rationalism and freethought.

            No, I disagree. Most of the time he shows up, make a very pointed, relevant observation, sometimes caustically, sometimes not. Most of his comments I find myself thinking “Why didn’t I say that?”

          • Your inability or unwillingness to understand and accept the explanations I give is precisely why you’re worthy of whatever name I happen to give you after the explanation, Jackass. 😉

            • **Let the record show that I’d taken this post in humorous stride with SI, and was just trying to be cool, until PhillyChief stopped by and had to get his dig in like the “big secure man” he is. I will now use my newly-invented “OPINION” tags to indicate text that denotes opinion as opposed to verifiable fact.

              SI, I’m not implying Philly never spits wisdom because of course he does. [OPINION] But, when it comes to the arguments he has with me, he can’t fight his way out of a paper bag, and I mean that. That’s exactly why he constantly resorts to the “douche” stuff. It’s a dancing around the issues thing. [/OPINION]

              Also, you tend to use similar style SI: base claims on opinions, and break out the names and cussing when the going gets tough. [OPINION] It’s a distraction[/OPINION], that’s why I’m seeing how long you’ll use it for. Now that you clarified the “moderation” thingee, for now I’ll say I’m in it for the long haul, so keep that in mind if you start getting tired again. Let’s actually have arguments with some substance; [OPINION]we we’re almost there on the “billboard” thread[/OPINION]. Or, keep doing the Team Scarlet A thing. Either way, I’m down.

              It doesn’t matter who it is, if they challenge Philly’s perceived intellectual superiority and they are not explicitly atheist, he’ll resort to being a smart-ass and calling them names. The names change, as do those who receive them, but it’s all the same. As we saw with TitForTat the other day, Philly will do this to whoever comes along and thinks differently than he, all the while really believing them to be “irrational” while he himself is a Chiefs fan. Get. Over. It.

              *****

              I’m not gonna get into it with either of you in this thread. I was basically trying to be cool with you, SI, but I see it’s not necessarily mutual. I thought the second cartoon was totally appropriate, even though I was the butt of the joke.

  1. Biased and repugnant.

    There. On topic and civil. Happy?

    Now, think the resident attack dogs can have a day off?

    😉

    • The first comic is biased and repugnant? I would really love for you to explain your comment, but are you sure you can be on-topic and civil for that long.

  2. I thought the second cartoon was totally appropriate, even though I was the butt of the joke.

    Actually, that cartoon works both ways. Look at it again. It explicitly makes fun of atheists who don’t use adjectives, instead resorting to name-calling. The use of the term douche-bag was serendipitous

  3. Thanks SI, but I did walk away with that original impression, which is part of the reason I saw so much humor in it. As if needed a silly cartoon to tell me that some atheists argue exactly like verbally challenged teenagers watching South Park and taking bong rips.

    Have a nice day.

  4. “Douchebaggy?” According to Webster’s, the appropriate adjective is “douchebageous (pronounced “doosh-BAY-jee-ous”).

  5. That was pretty damn funny.. There was an old deacon at our church who was ^always^ complaining about making things less offensive. Don’t ideas deserve criticism? Really just goes to show the ^assumed superiority^ to many believers roll with.

Comments are closed.