└ Tags:

Discussion (19)¬

  1. Ketil W.Grevstad says:

    😂😂 funny this one, I like it

  2. M27Holts says:

    Weakness and Inconsistency. Anybody with an IQ above 70 can see that religious dogma demands FAITH because it’s all bollocks! Or can they?

  3. Peter says:

    M27Holts, I’m pretty sure it’s never a matter of capacity, but rather willingness.

  4. paradoctor says:

    I second Peter’s motion. Religions are not “faiths”, they are “prides”. They are about loyalty and community, not validity nor reality.

    As for “who created God?”, that’s the Paradox of Origin: what caused the first cause? I know only three possibilities:
    1. The Endless Line. Each cause has a cause, which has a cause, and so on infinitely, so there is no first cause.
    2. The Ray. There’s a first cause, and it is uncaused.
    3. The Loop. There’s a first cause, which has a cause, which it causes, so causation flows in a loop.
    None of these theories satisfy. The first is infinite, the second is chaotic, and the third is loopy. If I had to choose, I’d reluctantly favor the Loop, especially if the loop encompasses all causation, with a Final Effect causing the First Cause.

    And as for ‘what is a woman?”: sex is not gender. Sex is biological; it’s about DNA and anatomy. Gender is psychosocial; it’s about beliefs and practices. Sex is on a spectrum, but it’s a highly bimodal spectrum. Gender is all over the place.

    It is folly to legislate sex; that’s a biomedical matter, beyond the competence of politicians and priests. It is tyrannical to legislate gender; that’s a matter of faith, in a society (and species) that worships sex, and therefore is protected under the First Amendment.

  5. Son of Glenner says:

    paradoctor: Please remember: the First Amendment (to The Constitution) only applies to the USA and its inmates/inhabitants and does not apply generally, ie to the rest of humankind.

  6. Chris Phoenix says:

    No one can define “fish” either. Biologically (in terms of species relationship), there’s no category that includes all fish and excludes humans.

    And by the way, “species” isn’t easily definable either. Around the world, seagull populations breed with adjacent populations – but go all the way around, and the ends of the chain overlap, but don’t breed with each other.

    So if anyone says “define woman” like that’s an argument against treating trans people like people, ask them to define fish.

  7. Shaughn says:

    That’s not a little bit fishy, Chris Phoenix: then no one can define trans either. 🙂

  8. M27Holts says:

    Sigh…when did life suddenly become a social game of “Lets pretend”….suppose it’s only just changed from small groups to society in general?

  9. paradoctor says:

    Define woman? Define fish? All right then; define “bicycle”.

    Son of Glenner: Sure, and I’m addressing the gender wars in national terms. I admit that it’s a bit nonstandard to point out that humans worship sex, and therefore the forms of fucking are a religious matter, in which we Americans have Constitutional liberty. But it’s true; humans do worship sex.

  10. Donn says:

    Sure, the animals called “fish” in English belong to at least 3 classes. But that isn’t a problem, if someone asks you to define “fish.” It’s a member of one of the following classes: Agnatha, Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes.

  11. M27Holts says:

    Worship sex eh. Haha , I have just been inaugurated as bash-the-bishop , Doctor Mondo…High Priest to the Bondage Cage of the chocolate jockstrap….

  12. Son of Glenner says:

    M27Holts: Chocolate jockstrap? Sounds a bit uncomfortable!

  13. Mockingbird says:

    Author, please can we have a cartoon featuring Webley the Archbishop of Bullshit.

  14. M27Holts says:

    SOG. If your significant other likes chocolate and is hungry…

  15. postdoggerel says:

    In cocoa’s realm where sweet desires entwine,
    A jock strap crafted from the finest chocolate,
    A playful twist, a fantasy so divine,
    A sensual treat that’s hard to forget.

    Its form, a sculpted marvel, rich and dark,
    Molded with care and artisan’s delight,
    A confectionary work, a daring mark,
    In passion’s dance, it sets the mood just right.

    Silken threads of caramel wrap around,
    Intriguing textures, hidden treasures lie,
    A secret whispered, in moments so profound,
    Where love and chocolate, desires multiply.

    In this sweet sonnet, we shall boldly share,
    The love for chocolate, a flavor so rare.

    – chatGPT

    I struggle to know just what this means,
    But now I have brown streaks in my blue jeans.


  16. suffolk blue says:

    Help. I was searching the interweb for chocolate jockstraps and it brought me here. What on earth is this place?

  17. M27Holts says:

    A twilight zone for the unwary surfer….you are washed up on the beach of unrelenting logic my friend….

  18. M27Holts says:

    Anyway the internet play-zone has just informed me that temperature play is all the rage nowadays…so get out your melted dark chocolate to drip on the body in an orgasmic exploration into the darker side of Charlie and the chocolste factory…

  19. suffolk blue says:

    M27 wise words, mon ami. I’m resisting the temptation to make a joke about a Careless Whisper


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly 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.