It’s common for comics like this to reuse frames to reenforce that point that “everything else being the same” these two ways off responding to the first frame are fundamentally different. It’s not common to read the frames as all four of them happening in series.
I agree, If we read them the way you suggest the meaning is less clear. Is flying proof of religion? Nope! It’s proof that this person can fly. What it does do though is provide a case of potential “supernatural” that can be explored for more information. What if he flew using fairy dust … does that prove Catholicism?
Funny how fast you clutch your pearls as soon as an ounce of good faith was given to your argument that had so little relevancy to the point of the comic.
Acting offended doesn’t make you correct, it makes you hypocritical.
This has nothing to do with liking the comic or not. Stop moving the goal post. It’s about making bad faith arguments and then backtracking when people point you out on it.
Why do you think this level of aggression is justified? The guy isn’t being rude or unreasonable. Some of you are sounding totally unhinged in this thread.
It’s ‘aggression’ when atheists respond to a bad faith argument, and ‘not being rude or unreasonable’ when others pose the bad faith argument to begin with.
It is. It’s surprising to me how defensive people are getting over a comic. Flying is an obvious stand-in for the left character’s beliefs, so the people acting like you can’t treat it literally are just being intentionally obtuse. This thread feels like reddit all over again, and that’s not a good thing.
Christ man all I did was point out that the comic’s internal logic was an awkward fit for its theme.
It’s common for comics like this to reuse frames to reenforce that point that “everything else being the same” these two ways off responding to the first frame are fundamentally different. It’s not common to read the frames as all four of them happening in series.
I agree, If we read them the way you suggest the meaning is less clear. Is flying proof of religion? Nope! It’s proof that this person can fly. What it does do though is provide a case of potential “supernatural” that can be explored for more information. What if he flew using fairy dust … does that prove Catholicism?
Funny how fast you clutch your pearls as soon as an ounce of good faith was given to your argument that had so little relevancy to the point of the comic.
Acting offended doesn’t make you correct, it makes you hypocritical.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. You can like the comic and I can not like the comic. That’s perfectly fine.
This has nothing to do with liking the comic or not. Stop moving the goal post. It’s about making bad faith arguments and then backtracking when people point you out on it.
Why do you think this level of aggression is justified? The guy isn’t being rude or unreasonable. Some of you are sounding totally unhinged in this thread.
deleted by creator
Nice try with the double standards.
It’s ‘aggression’ when atheists respond to a bad faith argument, and ‘not being rude or unreasonable’ when others pose the bad faith argument to begin with.
It is. It’s surprising to me how defensive people are getting over a comic. Flying is an obvious stand-in for the left character’s beliefs, so the people acting like you can’t treat it literally are just being intentionally obtuse. This thread feels like reddit all over again, and that’s not a good thing.
Agreed. I think it’s the upvote/downvote system. It’s an inherently flawed way to facilitate good faith discussions.