Random Comic
hate

hate

With apologies to Rudis Muiznieks, whom I have just learned I inadvertently plagiarise in this strip. Sorry Rudis! Your comic must have hidden itself away in some dark corner of my brain, where it has sat for over a year making squeaky little leprechaun noises.



Discussion (43)¬

  1. JMo says:

    But their magically delicious!!!!!!

  2. Jerry w says:

    Hey, they’re not “little”, they’re vertically challenged.
    Or maybe, umm……Height impaired?

    Gosh and Begorrah, less than two weeks to St. Pat’s day,
    let’s hoist a keg or two.

  3. Jim says:

    It’s their lucky charms that are magically delicious! x

  4. Tom S. Fox says:

    OMFG! PLAGIARIST! STONE HIM! BURN HIM AT A STAKE!

    http://cectic.com/010.html

  5. author says:

    Oh shit! That was accidental.

  6. Tom S. Fox says:

    Yeah, I know, I was just kidding. I don’t really want you to get stoned. Drugs are bad, you know.

  7. dyl says:

    wow. That sucks. Funny accident though. Somehow J&M remains funnier, little bastards.

  8. tie says:

    awesome!

  9. Matt Oxley says:

    it isn’t plagiarism when Jesus & Mo is way funnier than the other one.

    I can handle leprechauns, but I really hate that damn rabbit that keeps stealing my Trix

  10. Eric Meyer says:

    Jerry, they’re “differently tall”. Get with the 90′s, man!

  11. Tom S. Fox says:

    Don’t knock Cectic, it’s actually pretty good!

  12. Hobbes says:

    I use unicorns in the same argument.

  13. John The Geologist says:

    As an old bastard I heard a derivative of this many years ago, when the Author and Cectic were scribbling with crayons.

    Each of the toonists has merely encapsulated the zeitgeist for their respective audiences.

    Obviously as a Brit the Authors version is funnier.

    And of course you could also argue that Cectic also plagiarised Tolkien !

    And as I used to live in Ireland I can confirm that they really are little bastards. Tend to come out mostly on Friday/Saturday nights and Saturday/Sunday mornings. Odd really.

  14. Grindlay says:

    Author, how dare you suggest that Leprechauns don’t exist. I have one in my kitchen right now, mending my shoe. He’s fine so long as you keep your eye on him.

  15. Hey, barmaid, get a grip! Of course you can hate God even though it doesn’t exist! You can and you should and you have to; that’s what I say. What we hate when we hate God is the God that the godbotherers come up with: the one that allows earthquakes and hurricanes and endless amounts of suffering for animals and humans; the one that would force a raped 9-year-old child pregnant with twins to carry the pregnancy to term at the serious risk of her life; the one that tells men to beat ‘their’ wives.

    That God hates us and we get to hate ‘him’ right back.

    Barmaid, dear, what were you thinking?!

  16. Colonel Leisure says:

    Grindlay, are you sure you’re not a leprechaun yourself? That beard and all…

  17. dyl says:

    cetric may be great. I like hearing the same joke from different tellers, It’s a story-telling differential. In this case i think cetric was over the top and goofy, where in J&M I saw the chrs thinking and failing. It’s just a matter of preference. Funny is subjective.

  18. John The Geologist says:

    Ophelia – you are traducing dog and ascribing nasty things to him.

    Whose mercy and love do you think it is that saves the tiny child from dying in a nasty plane crash (when the other 360 passengers died agonising deaths amid the flames) ?

    You would have thought that having made the earth only about 10K years ago dog would have done it properly and sorted out the earthquakes. OK – I can accept the hurricanes as part of ongoing weather patterns but earthquakes indicate he is a totally useless builder.

    He is no better than the tossers who built my house complete with cracks in the walls and nail pops. And did I hear mention somewhere of intelligent design – as if, chance would be a fine thing. FUD more like (and I dont mean in the IBM sense so you can probably work out the initials).

  19. dyl says:

    check out this argument from the religious. http://www.dailypaul.com/node/82671
    I don’t hate god. Nobody does. I hate YOU.

  20. Me, I don’t have anything against Leprechauns. But I hate vampires. They suck.

  21. Maggs says:

    Hmmm. Leprechauns and Fairies, Vampires and Father Christmas, Dogs and Gods, how is a poor human to work out what is conspiracy to pretend belief and what is an actual truth to believe in… Children get very traumatised by finding that Father Christmas is not real when they’ve been lied to all those years; do you think that it might follow that when they have had that trauma, there is no way they are going to let anyone smash their precious beliefs again?

  22. Daoloth says:

    Bertrand Russell spilled a lot of ink over whether it was possible to make true or false statements about things that do not exist (e.g.”The present king of France is bald” when there is no present king of France).
    His answer (in brief) was that you cannot- the phrase can be analysed into 3 component parts. Standard glosses of it is like this:
    1. there exists an x such that x is the present King of France
    2. for every x that is the present King of France and for every y that is the present King of France, x equals y (i.e. there is at most one present King of France)
    3. for every x that is the present King of France, x is bald.

    Thus there is no internal contradiction because (1) is false. It surprises people that you can make valid statements about all x when there are no xs, but not validly make statements about some xs unless these actually exist.

    This was all part and parcel of Russell’s goal to make mathematics (and predicate calculus) watertight. Self- referentiality and statements about non-existence were banned, but somehow this feels a bit restrictive to some:

    This old kids joke makes sense to me (sort of):
    “Q: What is red and invisible?
    A: No tomatoes”

  23. Hobbes says:

    dyl, Ad Populum! Appeal to popularity. Believers cannot deal with the idea that many do not believe. It frightens them. If everyone really believes, then it must be real. If some do not, then there exists an argument against existence.

    My own brother sent me a book about a scientist who became a believer. He wanted me to read it and give my thoughts. But, he wasn’t wanting to hear my thoughts, he wanted to hear an echo.

    I read it, and gave him a critique. The book was basically the Ad Populum and the Appeal to Emotion arguments. My critique angered my brother, even though I gave him calm, logical arguments. The idea of real unbelief seemed painful to him. And, so it is.

  24. Waldemar says:

    to Daoloth:

    you read the books of Douglas Hofstadter on Russell and Kurt Goedel? Goedel makes the point.

  25. Daoloth says:

    Hobbes and Dyk- I think you raise an absolutely key point. The opposition to rationalism is the (sometimes honest and sincere) belief that morality can’t exist without some kid of theistic underwriting.
    I reckon this is probably the origin of a lot of opposition to Darwinism. And on this I can’t help feeling that Dawkins is right. Anyone who can’t imagine how/why they/anyone should be good without a cosmic CCTV to watch them is a dangerous infant. Lets hope that all those rapsts and murderers in waiting don’t lose their faith!
    Oh, wait up- they often do it because God told them.
    We’re doomed Captain Mainwairing…doomed!

  26. Ish says:

    Little emerald buggers, they can take their pot of gold and stick it where the sun don’t shine

  27. Submoron says:

    Wasn’t it Steven Weinberg who said that he didn’t like god? In the sense that he didn’t like Obadiah Slope or any other nasty fictional character. See Dawkins’ remarks on the god of the Old Testament.

  28. Daoloth says:

    Waldemar- I agree with you. Hoffstadter is pretty good on this- I think his “I am a strange loop” is even more accesible than “Godel, Esher and Bach” on the topic. Ruling out self-referentiality by fiat rules out perfectly valid sentences.
    Trying to rule in Gods existence by an effort of logic has a venerable history and it has sucked in some pretty clever folk (Descartes, Lewis, even Russell was tempted apparently). Trying to argue that God must exist because we (atheists) hate him is the bottom of the fucking barrel though!
    However I have now decided that I also hate the Easter Bunny (hoppity- boppity bastard) Tooth fairy (body-part stealing burglar) and Santa Claus (House-breaking paedophile- “Sit on my knee and tell me you have been good little, girl”- I ask you!?)

  29. Rudis says:

    You will be hearing from my lawyers shortly.

  30. Poor Richard says:

    Lepercons, toof ferry, eager bunsies, sandy claws–how could we have any morality without them? Well, if they don’t frighten the children, we can always call on the debbil hisself. This is why we used to lock the kids in a closet on xmas eve, then give them a present the next morning by letting them out. Told ‘em sandy claws eats ‘em. Not deterred by cookies and milk.

    Speaking of, buy them G.S. cookies now. As Poor Richard says, “Today’s brownie is tomorrow’s cookie.” MMM, evil Samoas.

  31. John The Geologist says:

    A good collection of atheist statements can be found here:

    http://www.bspcn.com/2008/08/25/101-atheist-quotes/

    All of them are very good but I especially liked Hitchens quote that “””What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”””.

    Not only does that apply to dog but it also applies to the world of woo, quackery, mumbo-jumbo and charlatanry.

  32. John The Geologist says:

    And on the topic of lists here is a good list of 50 reasons why an idiot might be a creationist:

    http://bobbie-the-jean.deviantart.com/journal/23586617/?offset=140#comments

  33. No wonder the strip looked familiar. Hahaha

  34. thescallop says:

    Yeah! Leprechauns suck!!!

  35. Jerry w says:

    thescallop: “Yeah! Leprechauns suck!!!”

    Does this mean that you had one go up on you?

  36. JohnnieCanuck says:

    I see what you did there, Jerry.

    Interesting POV you have. Yoda is an more than an inspiration, for you? :-)

    My thought is that a Leprechaun might suck down a scallop the same way it would a fresh oyster.

  37. JMo says:

    Another wonderful example of the tolerant, caring, loving, peaceful, understanding folks of the Islam belief system. 75 year old woman getting lashes and prison for getting bread from someone not in her immediate family. I am going to my local mosque and asking for the proper chanel for conversion. I have so been wanting to beat an old woman I can just taste it.

  38. Haha. Getting converted is as easy as uttering two sentences.

    It’s getting out that’s the problem.

  39. thescallop says:

    Jerry w: Yes, that’s what I meant and it was disappointing

  40. King Strongbeard says:

    Stupid Leprechauns! Always stealing my stuff and hiding in the last place I look which happens to be right were I left it. I hates them so!

  41. Molly Black says:

    I actually had this discussion with the pastor of a Unitarian church in Austin, TX. We didn’t use imaginary little men all dressed in green as our example, but I couldn’t believe that such a thing could even be thought by somebody as seemingly intelligent as this man. I found out my mistake, argued my points, then decided I would look for a different place to integrate into the community.

    Ah well. I know better now.

  42. fenchurch says:

    Wow, you guys only have leprechauns?
    Lucky.
    Up to my bare hoo-hoo in Underpants Gnomes over here!
    Gotta admire their business plan, though.

Comment¬

NOTE: This comments section is provided as a safe place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.