Kisai wrote:Honestly, I don't find kevin and kell interesting enough to read daily, I'll come back to it after months. It only has two simple appeals, computer/nerd jokes and "how can I do the same joke only with animals" with an consistant continuity that you don't usually see in joke comics.
But generally I didn't care about the animals-eat-animals aspect because that is what animals do. Humans eat other animals too and that's why we have crazy PETA people who kill more animals.
Personally, I find that if you can't separate reality from fiction, stop reading fiction. Nobody is forcing you to read it. Furries aren't real, despite the countless people who buy fursuits and goto conventions together.
How is this any different from "defeating" bad guys when they look human in any childrens/teens animation?
http://www.kevinandkell.com/about/faq.html
Why shouldn't a prey species be willing to use a weapon? If I were prey I would be thinking, "I might appear to be incompetent, but at least I wouldn't be eaten."
Bill says :
The mindset of any prey species is, "Let 'em try. My (speed, camouflage, quills, safety in numbers, etc.) will protect me."
Chris Kolher, the webmaster of kevinandkell.com, has summarized the predator/prey relationship in the two 'Prime Directives' :
THE PREDATOR RULE: "As a predator, you may kill and eat someone as long as they are not in any way related to you. You must completely devour them, or leave the rest to be completely devoured by scavengers. Disobey either of these two rules and it's considered murder."
THE HERBIVORE RULE: "As a herbivore, you may defend yourself from predator attack. If, during an attack, a herbivore were to kill an attacking predator, the herbivore would be spared a murder charge, as long as they could prove it was "self defense". Any herbivore who kills cannot eat the individual they killed and be spared a murder charge, since herbivores are not subject to the Predator Rule."
I think the point of this thread is being missed. Original poster says "I used to read X comic untill the Author of X did something I find offensive and now I won't read it anymore, who's with me?"
My response is more along the line of
"If you don't want to read it anymore, nobody is forcing you to"
mcDuffies wrote:I think the point of this thread is being missed. Original poster says "I used to read X comic untill the Author of X did something I find offensive and now I won't read it anymore, who's with me?"
My response is more along the line of
"If you don't want to read it anymore, nobody is forcing you to"
I'm always surprised that someone still uses this arguement.
It's in people's nature to comment on things they've seen, read, experienced, both good and bad. If I read a comic I don't like, well, of course I'm going to bash it sooner or later! I wouldn't like live in a world where I'd be forbidden to do that!
We shouldn't all just talk about stuff we like and think happy thoughts. What would that make of us? But criticizing something doesn't make it a crusade against it. One forum thread does not make a crusade.
Incidentally, I think that your paraphrase of the first post isn't quite right. It's more like: "I used to read X comic and always felt there was something wrong with it, but when author of X did a certain thing, it helped me sum up my thoughts and realise what is wrong."
* * *
It's funny though, how we kind of realise that one comic is bad like this, in waves. There was that time when we talked about Dominic Deegan in several instances, all iniciated by different, unrelated, people, and now it's K&K's turn.
Nothing unusual though. Talking with people helps you straighten your thoughts and put them into words. Sometimes, only through discussion, you actually figure out whats and whys of the subject. So I'm not surprised that if there's a thread about K&K, suddenly a lot of people appear to hate it, even though they never mentioned it before.
mcDuffies wrote:My response is more along the line of
"If you don't want to read it anymore, nobody is forcing you to"
I'm always surprised that someone still uses this arguement.
It's in people's nature to comment on things they've seen, read, experienced, both good and bad. If I read a comic I don't like, well, of course I'm going to bash it sooner or later! I wouldn't like live in a world where I'd be forbidden to do that!
We shouldn't all just talk about stuff we like and think happy thoughts. What would that make of us? But criticizing something doesn't make it a crusade against it. One forum thread does not make a crusade.
rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.
Bad taste and jackassery don't deserve fire bombings, promises of murder, and so on. But there was genuine emotional harm intended in the images, and so the reaction while not justifiable, is at least understandable.
On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam" [8] ("Profound anxiety about criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv (English: The Qur'an and the life of the Prophet Muhammad ISBN 87-638-0049-7). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before one agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:
One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen.[8]
In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen had been assaulted by five assailants who opposed his reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture.[9]
The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. Comedian Frank Hvam declared that he would (hypothetically) dare to urinate on the Bible on television, but not on the Qur'an. [10][11] The translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to concerns about violent reprisals.
rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.
Not really. The Jyllands-Posten called for depictions of the prophet Mohammed in such a manner that would anger muslims in an effort to make a statement in favor of freedom of speech. Most of those sent in were simply made with the intention to piss people off and hence only one or two were funny in any way.Paul Escobar wrote:rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.
What a horridly defective analogy. The proper one would be a Christian eating a ham, and a Jew proceeding to send him death threats because of it.
The problem with that is that the fundamentally religious would disagree with you there, so while it is a sound notion, those that wish to impose religious laws believe that they apply to everyone.A religious rule saying you can't draw a prophet, or can't eat ham, or can't what the hell ever, obviously only applies to people who subscribe to that religion. The notion that non-Muslims should be obliged to adhere to some Islamic rule or other is absurd.
KWill wrote:The Jyllands-Posten called for depictions of the prophet Mohammed in such a manner that would anger muslims in an effort to make a statement in favor of freedom of speech. Most of those sent in were simply made with the intention to piss people off and hence only one or two were funny in any way.
Paul Escobar wrote:That is not correct, but I've seen that assertion float around a lot. It originates from the imams who misrepresented the whole issue on their incendiary tour of the Middle East (see Kisai's link a few posts back). Jyllands-Posten simply asked some cartoonists to "draw Mohamed" - they were completely free to interpret that any way they wished. Of the 12 drawings, 6 actually don't feature the prophet, and of the 6 that do, 3 are positive or neutral depictions. Whether the final 3 are negative and/or insulting is up to interpretation.
KWill wrote:You also realize that to a vast majority of muslims, any depiction of the prophet is blasphemy, whether in a neutral context or not.
Paul Escobar wrote:KWill wrote:You also realize that to a vast majority of muslims, any depiction of the prophet is blasphemy, whether in a neutral context or not.
Amusingly, the purpose of Sunni Islam's prohibition against depicting Mohamed is to prevent idolatry, as only God is to be worshipped. Mohamed was but a man, and to treat a perceived affront to him as blasphemy - now that rather looks like idolatry. :wink:
KWill wrote:Not really.Paul Escobar wrote:rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.
What a horridly defective analogy. The proper one would be a Christian eating a ham, and a Jew proceeding to send him death threats because of it.
rkolter wrote:KWill wrote:Not really.Paul Escobar wrote:rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.
What a horridly defective analogy. The proper one would be a Christian eating a ham, and a Jew proceeding to send him death threats because of it.
Actually, Paul's correction is valid. A better example would have been:
It's like devouring a steak with great gusto, sighing with pleasure as the savory flavor of each bite bursts in your mouth, throughly enjoying your unquestioned right to partake in the steak's meaty excellence, while sitting at a table surrounded by vegans, and wondering why they're not looking happy about your good time.
legostargalactica wrote:rkolter wrote:KWill wrote:Not really.Paul Escobar wrote:rkolter wrote:There is a difference in the Mohammad cartoons - it is against that religions faith to depict the prophet, and this is something that was known by the artist when the artwork was drawn. It would be akin to a person who knows the dietary restrictions of the Jewish feeding a Jew ham and then wondering why nobody laughed at the joke.
What a horridly defective analogy. The proper one would be a Christian eating a ham, and a Jew proceeding to send him death threats because of it.
Actually, Paul's correction is valid. A better example would have been:
It's like devouring a steak with great gusto, sighing with pleasure as the savory flavor of each bite bursts in your mouth, throughly enjoying your unquestioned right to partake in the steak's meaty excellence, while sitting at a table surrounded by vegans, and wondering why they're not looking happy about your good time.
god i love doing things like that.
i mean.. i have the utmost respect for the vegan lifesty..... ::bursts out laughing:: sorry, couldn't keep a straight face.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests