half

October 16th, 2009

Todays link.


Discussion (28)¬

  1. Grouchy-One says:
    October 16, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    It’s hard to argue with logic like that!

  2. Blondie says:
    October 16, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    That’s why islamic countries have no problems with transsexual men wanting to become women, but do have a problem with transsexual women wanting to become men. Because they are totally equal, it’s degrading for a man to become a woman, but okay if he wants to step down the ladder, but it’s infuriating to islamic men when a woman wants to be surgically altered into a man. She wants to sneak up te ladder when Allah has decreed that she was to be an inferior female. Talk about social climbing! And hey, it’s all totally fair, because if the transsexual men wanting to become a woman was a transsexual woman wanting to become a men, he would be treated just as the transsexual woman who wanted to become a man, and that’s totally the same and very equal and fair. Right?

  3. KrateKraig says:
    October 16, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    A fine example of religious reasoning.

  4. John Moore says:
    October 16, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Do men usually wear a burka? Maybe Mo is trangendered????

  5. nina says:
    October 16, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    funny that Mo dresses as a modest woman while he’s promoting the arrogant ideology that keeps the women second class.

  6. Andy Armitage says:
    October 16, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    A real chuckler, this. Love it!

  7. Diane G says:
    October 16, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    Bravo!

  8. John Cowan says:
    October 16, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    It would have been funnier to Yanks, at least, if Jesus had said “Separate but equal?” in the second panel, since that was the phrase used here to justify racial discrimination from the 1860s (when blacks became legally free and equal) to the late 1950s and early 1960s (when actual equality began to commence to start to arrive). Everything from education to toilet facilities to seating on the bus was “separate but equal” until the U.S. Supreme Court finally broke the legal color line by saying “Separate is inherently unequal”.

  9. JohnnieCanuck says:
    October 16, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    I have heard that some places when a woman goes to the doctor, he is not allowed to look at her uncovered body, so she is behind a curtain with a female nurse who describes what she sees and the diagnosis is made without the benefit of sight or touch.

    Something tells me surgery might get complicated.

  10. wideangler says:
    October 17, 2009 at 7:31 am

    is mo really a woman when talking about men being the complimentary half is actually promoting the superior stance of the males hence mo has a hypocrites attitude. ;D

  11. TIE says:
    October 17, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    very good one, I cringe every time I see in youtube or tv a muslim woman saying that Islam is very liberating and gives women great rights and blah blah blah…

    it’s as sad as a black person defending the main Kampf

  12. Margo says:
    October 17, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    Great comic, as always 🙂
    JohnnieCanuck, you also made me chuckle.

  13. Petra says:
    October 17, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    NOTE: This comments section is provided as a safe place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69V6_yd_j7c

  14. Rosemarie says:
    October 17, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    Am I missing something here? “comments of a sexist nature will not be tolerated”.
    Should we be talking about Islam at all then?

  15. Crusader Rabid says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:38 am

    A marriage is a union of one man and one woman, IMHO.

  16. grouchy-one says:
    October 18, 2009 at 9:28 am

    @Rosemarie – it’s not sexist or racist, it’s religious and I must expect you to be a bit more sensitive about that ;-P

  17. Toast in the machine says:
    October 18, 2009 at 10:54 pm

    Adding ‘IMHO’ at the end doesn’t make the statement any less idiotic.

    As it’s your ‘opinion’ – and not simply, for example, your ignorant prejudice – you will be able to describe the steps of reasoning (and relevant evidence) that led you to it. I await your explanation with interest.

  18. Kristian says:
    October 19, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    A marriage is a union of one man, one woman and 7-8 sheep, IMHO.

    So you are all perverted, hell-bound heretics. Except me, my wife and our sheep.

  19. dyl says:
    October 19, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    Author,
    my server is down. gimme a new one. I’m bored.

  20. dyl says:
    October 19, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    also, how about a “What Would Barmaid Do?” shirt?

  21. Vaginarian says:
    October 19, 2009 at 11:01 pm

    The problem lies in societies giving religion the power of a parallel government. If religion was not allowed to create rules & laws or make us do some things and prevent us from doing other things, religious belief would be laughable and harmless. If there’s one thing all countries should try and put in a world constitution it’s that there’s only one government in each country – with absolutely no role in any form for the religion.

  22. Grouchy-One says:
    October 20, 2009 at 7:51 am

    Vaginarian – I agree wholeheartedly. However stories like
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/19/us-death-penalty-bible
    don’t offer much hope (thanks to BHA for the link)

  23. Crusader Rabid says:
    October 20, 2009 at 10:41 am

    T.i.t.m & K: be less ridiculous.

  24. Kristian says:
    October 20, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    SILENCE, Infidel! You son of Cain, who spit on the name of The Lord, by ‘marrying’ in such disgustingly limited numbers!

  25. Toast in the machine says:
    October 20, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Crusader Rabid – are you conceding you are an ignorant, bigoted idiot? If not, where is the explanation for your ‘opinion’?

  26. Kristian says:
    October 20, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    Aha.. I read it as ‘Crusader Rabbit’. Shesh, silly me!
    Marital duties do tend keep you up at night, with all those sheep to look after.

  27. DragonsDream says:
    October 20, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    Funny as always.

    Just spent the last week reading from the beginning and now I get to make my first post. Been a while since I engaged in high level philosophical/theological discussion.

    Brilliant stuff! It’s amazing how quickly one becomes desensitized to the idea of “blasphemously” seeing an image of ol’ Mo. I wonder if it still counts as a blasphemous image of Mo when he is completely shrouded in a burka.

  28. Omer says:
    November 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    when the only one husband per woman rule came it was because otherwise it would be difficult to decide who was the father.

Comment¬

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.