>>13917

I somewhat agree with what Fisk is saying, but it comes across very pretensions. But here's the thing, she never went to a Priest, Rabbi, and such to get an opinion on the particular religion. She went to random people she knew and claimed to experts on it.

This is a bad thing to do if you're intrigued about religion. I understand it's suppose to be funnier this way, but here it's poorly executed.

Fisk's pose in the last panel makes me want to punch him in the mouth.

And why don't you just become a Taoist? OH RIGHT! One of the three basic principles is Compassion!

>a more objective perspective

I see what you did there, Naylor, and it made me facepalm. Also, nice to see the tradition of having young kids talking like adults is alive and well.

>>13921

Saw it too... I raged a little inside.

>Fisk's pose in the last panel makes me want to punch him in the mouth.

That too...

>always contradicting each other
>asking me to accept things blindly first
>no way to reason any of it out between them
>more objective perspective
>something very wrong with being so certain about something, just because it makes you feel better.

"There's something VERY wrong about being SO certain about something because it makes you feel better."

While I do agree with this, you just KNOW the irony here never even hit Naylor.

>>13917

I bet Naylor didn't even think he was writing anything the slightest bit ironic with that last li-

>>13925

Dammit!

Where's the flying star in the sky followed by the rainbow. That's what you normally get after a public service announcement.

>>13917

I just... I don't.... ow my brain.

You know. Is it ironic (not just the statements in the comic, that's obvious) but ironic that neither of them have any real friends? Cause, I know in RL, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be friends with a girl like that. She goes to people ask them about their beliefs, then disses them because they, as CHILDREN (not more knowledgable adults) actually behaved like kids and couldn't fully explain things to her satisfaction.

Does this clan ever meet defeat in their lives on anything (except Elizabeth who seems to have lost the gamble of life at being a strong independent woman confident in herself, ethnic identity and job,and is now the chamber maid to a half time husband and kids she doesn't fully like).

And yet, as a comic page, still nothing happens in it. It's boring to look at and the read only reinforces how unrealistic these drawings are as characters. They're the exact same person, just drawn differently.

OBJECTIVE perspective OBJECTIVE perspective OBJECTIVE perspective OBJECTIVE perspective OBJECTIVE perspective OBJECTIVE perspective OBJECTIVE perspective OBJECTIVE perspective

... >:O

I kinda get Fisk's point if he wasn't an Objectivist. See, most religions DO want you to put your faith in blindly, I'm happily a half-Buddhist right now because I feel that it's a ... Teaching (it's not actually classed as a religion) that makes sense to me.
Objectivism makes sense to Naylor because he's a retard.
There's a difference.

I really wonder if Naylor thinks there is going to be any sort of enlightenment coming from this bile'o crap...
Typically, if people were just seeking something to make them feel better, they have security blankets for that. While many presume faith is merely a validation of oneself and a guarantee to one's existence come a after-life. Both of these factors are more just a chip off the ice-burg, just as well to what she is suggesting 'whole right and wrong' It's perhaps more likely that there 'isn't' a right or-wrong. Faith/Religion/etc, existed Ooooodles before a great many were even in practice, it is just as well possible that while 'God' so to speak, has appeared to separate perceptions and has developed in different shapes over the years. The fact that Religion and faith was always a constant may be more reason then anything else to suggest perhaps that at the very core, they are all united under the principle.

think Naylor filled the strip up with enough chat bubbles? There may actually be more ink done to the text then to the characters.

>>"There's something VERY wrong about being SO certain about something because it makes you feel better."

While I do agree with this, you just KNOW the irony here never even hit Naylor

When I read that line I LOL'd. I mean, wow, just wow. It's the funniest thing in this comic yet and he doesn't know it. Which might make it even better if it weren't so pathetic and ragey. I hope for more quotes of this type!

I don't care if I've used this already...

Clearly Naylor hasn't heard of Natural Law and other religious based arguments in ethics and other fun things that actually require RATIONAL THOUGHT, not just faith.

>>While I do agree with this, you just KNOW the irony here never even hit Naylor

Somehow this did not end up being quoted in my post. Huh.

And also, as someone else mentioned, Janie did not talk to anyone like a rabbi, priest, etc., and I think any decent parent, knowing their child was curious, would consider taking their kid to talk to spiritual leaders who are prepared to answer in-depth questions, and, unlike other children, are probably not going to feel hurt if their view is rejected by a ten year old. Like, seriously, I'd imagine most kids would feel pretty bad getting their beliefs bashed by a peer and expected to justify it like expert theologians in order not to be regarded as an idiot. I'm not saying some adults, and even perhaps some priests (I, er, knew a rather excitable one once) won't be butthurt by this type of thing, but overall, that would be the real sensible option, and, provided he didn't (fat chance) make them all laughable strawmen (cue Janie running out of confessional after molestation attempt) it would be a better story, this conversation would be more justified, and Naylor might actually seem like less of a docuhe.

The key term is, of course "decent parent" and "less of a douche", both of which I don't think can ever be applied to Fisk or Naylor (may he never breed)

It's not all that surprising that Fisk does not care to really help Janie along in her quest for spiritual relavence. After all, he's never seen religion do anyone any good in his life.

His Randian dune-cock has fucked the judiasm out of his wife; his sister cock-sucked the faith from her catholic boyfriend/husband; all the praying that the muslims do sure doesn't help them against all the bullets and shit Fisk sends their ways; and those of Eastern faith killed his old man.

So, yeah. Fisk paid lip-service to encouraging Janie to find faith, almost knowing she'd look in the wrong place (kids, her peers) and only being too happy to be the voice of authority (as an adult who knows some shit, natch) and indoctronate her into his own religion of Objectivism.

Maybe this may make sense if Janie was 13/14/15 years old, but a 10 year old doesn't have their beliefs shaken easily. Why? Children are naive.
So this sort of conversation doesn't make a whole hell lot of sense granted the context, much else all the damned plot holes and poor storytelling.

Typical comic is pretty typical.. we were just waiting for the objectivism thing to be pulled out his ass.


There is no God or Kings ONLY NAYLOR.

This makes you wonder if all along Naylor wanted to lead to something like this, to find an excuse to preach objectiveism.

>>13940

This is Naylor. So I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

Ah... well, looks like the last strip, where Janie actually acts her age, was just a one off. Now we're back to the 'I AM A FORTY YEAR OLD PHILOSOPHY PROFESSER AND I TEACH SCEPTICISM'.

This makes me a sad panda...

>There is no God or Kings ONLY NAYLOR.

a sad but true thing we are forced to compute

god i want to slap naylor and just say "No, that is not how children behave!!!"

Know what's great? Lackadaisy's little filler comic for St. Patrick's Day had its own criticism of religion. It took one page and was entertaining so as not to make your brain hurt.

You know, this whole episode completely ignores that religions, along with "LOL BLIND FAITH" also teach something called ethics and a way to live.

Granted, many people utterly misinterpret/abuse/ignore it the message, but you don't even NEED the blind faith to follow the philosophy or the teachings themselves. For instance, you can believe Jesus was just some guy - not the son of God - and STILL think he had some good advice about treating the poor and follow his advice.

>>13917

I find it mildy amusing that mangod and demonspawn can have a casual conversation while breathing and running at the same time. Apparently Naylor has never gone for a jog other than to the toilet to shit out this crap.

...sigh...just when I start to get that tiny little flicker of hope that I won't be condescended towards for once...

My two cents, adjusted for inflation: religion, as I've come to understand it, was created to comfort the people who had no control or understanding of their world--it was an answer to many questions no could generate on their own, hence why science has displaced it in the minds of many. To say that it's somehow bad because it brings comfort is really missing a large amount of the point, and that's not even getting into how many religions provide good (though sometimes overwrought or questionable) rules for just living life...

I may be an atheist, but saying "it's wrong because it makes you feel good" is just ignorant and short-sighted. And let me tell you what, living in uncertainty is a far sight less pleasant than the alternative.

I'm an atheist but think religion has a place as long as that is really only "be kind to each other." I hate when people feel they are better then everyone else and know better then then everyone else because of their religion. As Gandhi once said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Naylor seems to be the "Ctrl Alt Del" of the furry community. I've never seen so many "WORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS" captions without moving the story on a significant amount. How can Naylor continue to write so much crap without moving the story?

>>13963
>>provide good (though sometimes overwrought or questionable) rules for just living life...

Chances are, if it seems overwrought or questionable now, it seemed perfectly reasonable at the time it was first set down.

Modern society as a whole has a bad habit of layering what makes sense from a modern standpoint with what made sense back in the day where if you were really really lucky and took care of yourself and didn't get any really bad diseases or infections, you might live into your fifties.

I mean, yeah, some of the stuff in old religions looks horribly sexist or pointless to us, because we're not fighting to keep our population from slipping below sustainable numbers, and we're not taking our lives into our hands every time we eat a porkchop.

>>13917
Oh, for fuck's sake, Naylor! This is the most thinly veiled piece of mealy-mouthed objectivist crap I have ever read. Fuck you, Jay Naylor.

>>13920
Same here.

>>13967
Even if it wasn't WORDSWORDSWORDS, he still couldn't move the story forwards because he can't finish a freakin' plotline.

>>13917

Ok, one last strip (hopefully) to complete the whole religion arc. And I gotta say... It doesn't make me as angry as I thought it would.

Now, of course, it is a rather ham-handed way of presenting the old "Since we stand outside the bubble of religion, we can see how ridiculous they all are when we look at them" argument so popular among certain atheists, and of course we have Janie talking like a philosophy student at 10 years old (I know many kids are rather precocious and intelligent, but c'mon). But I have to say, I'm kinda impressed that Fisk lets Janie speak her mind and do most of the talking, only giving some of his viewpoints at the end. Its actually seems like a rather nice parenting strategy of letting his kids find their own path in life and make up their mind about spirituality on their own.

But, if I may make a detour on the subject, I'm almost concerned that it seems too good to be true. I remember reading the discussions about the Temple-arc (roughly, strip 39 to 43) were the discussions turned to how atheists tend to raise their children, and someone (I think it was Sechs) complained about how when you read the homepages of people who have recently become parents and when asked what they're gonna teach them about religion its never "yes, we're gonna teach them the falsehood of religion and make sure that they become atheists when they grow up". Its always "we're gonna teach them to appreciate reason and logic and allow them to make up their own minds on the subjects as they get older"; the implications being that since they have learned to be rational and haven't been exposed to religious teachings, they will be able so see how ridiculous religions are and become atheists all through their own power. I think Sechs said "If you want to raise your kids to be atheists, just come out and say that you wan't to raise your kids to be atheists", which I always thought was a very good point. I mean, if people have a right to raise their children with certain religious and spiritual beliefs, they should certainly have a right to raise them without religion and to encourage them to be atheists, so there's no point to not just flat-out say it. I suppose its a way of showing that they're better than many religious people by encouraging children to "think for themselves" rather than shoving a particular belief down their throat, but I doubt that the picture is really so rosy-tinged as its often made out to be. Parents for the most part try to impress their own values upon their children, religious, non-religious or anti-religious, so its simply natural that they also try to raise their kids with their own views on spirituality. Saying that you're trying to teach you kids to be "rational" isn't really differentiating you from religious parents, since they too think that their religion is the most reasonable one and if their children truly learn to be reasonable, they will adopt their religion as a matter of course. I find the same problem with certain "freethought" summer camps, like Camp Quest. They often go out of their way to state that their purpose isn't to indoctrinate children away from religion but to encourage "rational inquiry, critical thinking" etc., when its just so patently obvious that, yeah, they want to teach children to be critical of religion. I mean, their most well-known activity is the "Unicorn Challenge" where, if campers can disprove the existence of an invisible, immaterial Unicorn, they win a "godless" pre-1953 dollar note, or a ten-pound note with Charles Darwin on it in the UK. Some councilors have claimed that its meant to teach children about the nature of falsifiability, but can you really be anymore obvious what the real intent of the challenge is? If its all about avoiding religious indoctrination, why don't they just encourage parents to send their kids to secular, unbound camps? Bottom line: if atheism is the best view on life and the universe, then be proud of it and just say that you want to raise your kids that way rather then try to hide behind diffuse terms like "I'm allowing my kids to make up their own minds and to develop critical thinking skills".

Well, I'm back after my "slight" detour from the subject; I hope you can forgive me for it and I'll try to be less long-winded in the future. Let's wrap it up!

Well, like others have said, its strange that Janie has only sought to seek information about religion from other children, rather than going to a priest, or a rabbi and so on. I guess it goes along with the comic's theme of having religious and political strawmen being children, so Naylor don't have to give them even slightly coherent arguments to respond to. But the worst part has to be Fisk's line at the bottom of the page:

>>You can do it from a more OBJECTIVE perpective.

Seriously Naylor, you're really gonna make such an obvious reference to the philosophy you're trying to get across here. You might as well just come straight out and have Fisk say that he's an Objectivist! Your Mary Sues agree with Rand on everything anyway, so what's the point in trying to hide it. Besides, in Obectivism intelligence is equated with being absolutely certain about the truth of the philosophy, so there should certainly be something wrong with with being uncertain about your spiritual beliefs. At least he didn't put the word in emphasis; that would propably be too obvious even for him.

Well, lets hope and pray (haha!) that this is the last page of the whole religion story-line, and that Naylor goes back to haphazardly jumping between different narratives so we can find something new to vent our rage on.

I really thought naylor was turning this around on Friday. Can we all pretend this page never happened, since it's remindede me of how Naylor can turn a pleasant scene into what is basically an objectivist windmilling his cock (read: Naylor's foreskin) in your face. Most people outgrow the 'arsehole teenage atheist' stage, but not our Jay. NOT OUR MOTHERFUCKING BIGOT JAY. NO FUCKING WAY.

Considering who this is coming from it could have been worded A LOT worse. I'm actually surprised he managed to not be....too offensive.

Sooo....Good Job?

>>13921
I get it.

It's because it rhymes, right?

>>13977

Why would you be impressed that Fisk let's Jane do the talking? What, like you were expecting him to do some parenting on his own? Hell, he's only running with her because Elizabeth told him to in a manner were the alternative would have turned her into his cousin he 'rescued'.

In fact, I'm not so sure how I feel about the fact there are kids in this "comic" at all. As many have said, none of them act like kids. Few of them seem to respect or interact with one another like kids. It's like a world of midget adults and the only thing for certain I can be happy about with all the woman he convinces to go out with him in real life is the fact he's not actually gotten any of them pregnant, because if this is his idea of healthy parent/child relationships, heaven help anybody that's gotta deal with those kids outside of his immediate control.

>>13917
>There's no way to reason any of it out between them!

Congratulations. You have just insulted every single religion, both by complaining none of them use any reason, and by insinuating they're all the same shit. Also, I like how examining "meditationism" and Christianity qualifies you as some sort of expert on religion in general.

>If you want to explore spiritual beliefs, you can do it from a more objective perspective.

The "objective" perspective being to start off with faith that all religions have no truth to them. Of course.

>There's nothing wrong with being uncertain, Janie. There's something very wrong with being so certain about something, just because it makes you feel better.

Every religious person is religious simply because it makes them feel better. Well, that's nothing new. But wait...

>There's nothing wrong with being uncertain
>nothing wrong with being uncertain
>being uncertain
>UNCERTAIN

Well, this is new. I thought everything had a right side and a wrong side, with the right side being whatever objectivism proclaims. Please tell me Fisk hasn't actually doubted his religion dogmatic philosophy for once!

OH wait, that's right, Naylor did recently decide that being gay for pay is fine. So I guess there's that.

>>13990

2/10. You might get a rise out of maybe 2% of the regular population.

Aside from the whole facepalm-inducing, hypocritical bit there at the end, I have to say that I understand the whole 'look at religion from a more objective standpoint (I refused to use 'objective perspective') by not exposing ones children to it' way of thinking, as that was the the way I was brought up as a child.

Also, am I the only one here who wants go to his twitter and quote the various hypocritical bits in this strip, especially that last little gem, and tell him that it might be a good idea to start practicing what he preaches?

i find the whole

>There's nothing wrong with being uncertain, Janie. There's something very wrong with being so certain about something, just because it makes you feel better.

very amusing.

why? because naylor is a prime example of him being VERY sure about what he does because he's lulled himself into thinking that it feels good - or something to that extent.

>>13993
To be fair, I wasn't exposed to religion as a child and was an arsehole atheist for my early teen years. I still have no religion, but can't say I really find religion that important if you keep it to yourself. But when you force it upon others, or force atheism upon others, that's when I get pissed off.

>>14005

Yes, I was the same way during much of my teen years. Until I realized that the main problem that I had with organized religion was the people who constantly were trying to shove it down others throats, and that I was doing the exact same thing with, only with my atheism.

Someone whose daddy was a baptist and his daddy was a baptist and HE's a baptist - is probably going to have the same attitude towards other religions as someone whose dad was an atheist and his dad was an atheist and he's an atheist.

Someone who shops around the marketplace of religions/philosophies and decides on Baptists or Atheism is likely going to have more in common with regards to their attitudes about other religions.

Okay, obviously Naylor is flogging the dead horse of his beliefs. I don't understand how the hate from our peanut gallery hasn't crested yet. Don't we expect this?

But whoever pointed out the absurdity that Janie is so confident but hasn't really talked to anyone except kids about religion deserves the THREAD PRIZE, because that's a really good point that Naylor missed in his writing. Someone mail them a stack of Wendy's coupons (I keep adding stuff to make clear I'm not sarcastic, but it keeps coming off as more sarcastic!).

In all honesty, this is just a reflection of Naylor. With all his bluster, he doesn't know his shit. He doesn't even know his Objectivism. Does anyone think he's read St. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Socrates' "Euthyphro," the Buddhist canon works, the Tao Te Ching, Avicenna's rational defense of Islam, Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis (overrated, I know, but still), Wittgenstein's writing on religion, Alvin Platinga, etc.?

Naylor's woefully underread and uneducated (and I'm not "liberal," so I ain't saying education makes you liberal), which given his preening is one of his most glaring faults to me.

He carries himself like an intellectual but has neither the patience nor experience of one.

>>14008

On the other hand, it's a webcomic mocking things. I'm fairly certain that the South Park guys don't do an extensive research on the target of their ire; they just have their target do absurd/disgusting things, and then say "You don't want to be like that guy, do you? That's DISGUSTING/ABSURD!"

>>14011
>>I'm fairly certain that the South Park guys don't do an extensive research on the target of their ire

Actually, they often do.

Among other things, their "right to die" episode was in editing up to a half hour before it went to air, as they tried to make sure it was as relevant as possible to what was going on in the Schiavo case.

>>14012

Well, a few they do, granted. The "THIS IS WHAT THEY REALLY BELIEVE" of the Scientology and Mormonism ones.

But others? The targets are depicted shitting out of their mouth. Or

>>14014

Their production schedule is probably one of the more rigorous ones on television. They try to remain relevant at all times and they do a hell of a lot of research for most of their episodes.

Some are just fun episodes with no real message, which is fine.

heh ...

Of course I chuckled at that last one. Because the obvious comeback is obvious:



Are you certain about that?

>>14016
>>Some are just fun episodes with no real message,
I preferred those, like the one where they went to that frontier village, or when they infiltrated the girl's slumber party for the cootie catcher.

>they do a hell of a lot of research for most of their episodes.

You mean like the Manbearpig episode which had nothing to do with GlobalWarming, except that it mocked Al Gore for taking it seriously? Or the Global Warming episode which just showed people overreacting but had no actual Global Warming info IN it?

>>13968
I enjoy your use of the comma ellipsis XD

so... how would naylor explain christmas? would the fisks even celebrate christmas?

>>14027
Hm, Objectivist Christmas...
I see a massive incestuous butterbean contest while the women feed the men.

>>14021
The first episode was just about making fun out al gore. the second one was a lesson in "Quit trying to find somebody to blame and fucking help the katrina victims"
>>14027
Well, selling the commercialized aspect of it, of course. It's a day to celebrate family, friends, and give gifts to show them how much you care more than a religious holiday anymore.

>>14032

true, but christmas carrols and stuff - there is so much christian tradition merged into secular christmas tradition, that even if you're not religious, then a lot of people will still sing psalms or songs that have religious origins.

in a situation like that, then a child would very much wonder why they're doing that

>>14027
Christmas at Fisk's house - 'Thank you, worthless woman, for my, new, foreskin stretcher.' (extra commas show intelligence!)

>>14027

Eh, oddly enough lots and lots of families celebrate Christmas but aren't necessarily religious, like my family. Christmas is just a really good excuse to get together, exchange gifts, and have mimosas. It's also really all about the kids. Now that my sister has two very lively young trouble makers, Christmas has been really all about watching them open gifts and have a good time.

I don't think Christ is ever mentioned when we get together for the holiday. Same with Easter. So really, I don't think they'd have to explain Christmas.

>>14028

What? No sweater hogans?

>>14011

Shit, cool yer jacks Hugh. I'm not talking about the content of the comic; I'm talking Naylor himself.

Dude's an underread asshat who pretends to have culture.

>>14056

Don't you mean overrated?

>>14049

i know, i too do christmas without any real religious interference

but what i meant is that how will naylor deal with christmas for the uber-kids? how will he make naylor and waifu explain crunkmas?

commercialism would be an easy cop-out, but the kids would not be able to not notice all the christian overtones - its stuff like that which naylor hopefully will choke on

>>14056

Oh, well, yes. He is pretentious without anything to be pretentious over.

I have an assignment to do, so I don't have time to analyze this. But I'm sure you guys are totally free, so have at it.

>>14072
Oh, I will say one thing though.

BACKGROUNDS! HONEST TO GOD BACKGROUNDS!

>>14072
Dear God. They're not beautiful, but I'll take 'em. Finally, no more Great Gray Void. At least until next week.

>>14072

You know, I know the dialogue is just an attempt to stick more Objectivist crap into the comic, but really, I don't have a problem with it. Couple that with the ACTUAL FUCKING BACKGROUNDS and...and...God, I hate saying this, but HE ACTUALLY MADE A GOOD STRIP.

God, I feel so dirty...

>>14075

I can't help but say the same. It's...it's not buried in bullshit politics or thinly veiled skewers at liberals or atheists or minorities or gays. It's honestly...pretty good philosophy all the way around.

Colour MY ass stunned.

Broken clock, twice a day.

Good Job Naylor.

>>14072

Oh, of course! Fisk ALWAYS has the right answer...

"Oh, everyone is wrong except daddy! Daddy is always right!"

Never doubt the knowledge of the Randian Man-God

>>14072

Awesome guest-strip.

Not much to complain about this time. Without the context of religion this could be a great end to an arc...but silly sad context has to butt in and remind me that never does any religion I'm aware of say you shouldn't be happy in this world, but whatever.

Guess I'll let it slide this time.

>>14072

Did Naylor really do that strip?
Seriously, did he really make that?

Backgrounds, coherent text and actual relevance to the message behind this arc. Even a good joke at the end.

Props to Naylor (or whoever did this).
That's what we want from you Jay, to do stuff like this.

The only things I can fault here are Fisk/Naylor taking a break in his light hearted family comic to dedicate quite a bit of strips to a slow moving story about religion, and that he reused the same "joke" he used about 10 strips or so ago.

This strip would be great if not for the oh--- 15 prior strips leading up to this.If anything it seems kind of out of place, something coherent, decent backgrounds and typical parent/child conversation? It's almost like he mocking us.

>>14072

Wow. It's like... the extreme laziness of his arguments against religion have become some sort of Halfass Black Hole that has sucked the lack of effort out of the rest of the comic, and caused Naylor to actually strain himself so far as drawing backgrounds.

Either that or it's just a subliminal thing about Fisk being God, because the grass and trees and whatnot didn't exist until he summoned them by name.

>>14072
Holy god, they're sitting on... On... Oh god, it's been so long I don't recognise it anymore!
And Naylor probably stole this off some kind of philosophy site, because if he made this up, he'd see what a lie his life was

really, if i were to spurr a reason for this amount of effort his putting into this. Its rather ironic the most work he's ever done likely on a comic for quite some time would be likely a better ending to this comic then some of the others he's put together.
Its not like it was going anywhere anyways and its only a matter of time before he starts insulting anouther brand of culture...
You know, next he's going to start saying why feline-Race people are better then mouse or dog's
And don't believe in all that fanasty about equaility, beacuse clearly my opinion is the only one that has and vaild reasoning to it.

One more thing...(sets the picture riiiiight where it should guuu~)
Its only a matter of time that we disover Fisk's has actually been working in a undercover division of the third rank =0!

if someone who is not familiar with objectivism were to read this comic page they would most likely agree with it

without any direct references to anything else, then what fisk says on the page is more simple realistic common sense, than anything else.

of course, us knowing the context and the horror that has been all the previous comics - then it just barely gets above horribble suck

>>14092

also, this highlights how lazy naylor is again

now we have proof he can do backgrounds - so why doesn't he do them always?

we also know that he can do dialogue that is full of narm and ham, that doesn't come off as an author rant because it fits the flow of the comic.

this means that when naylor goes back to doing shit comics our complaints will be all the more justified!

I am optimistic about the amount of progress this strip has shown.

>>14094
That's his plan. He's getting your hopes up so that he can CRUSH THEM beneath his heel later.

I'm just worried what he is going to do with Charlie.

>>14087

That's a little extreme. The only people that should be compared to Hitler are other mad murderous dictators, not comic creators.

As for the strip, I'm surprised that Naylor actually expressed his opinions without openly mocking others. That's how they should be represented if he wants people to take them seriously. Though I'm still not happy that he derailed the main plot for this almost pointless rant.

>>I'm just worried what he is going to do with Charlie.

I think it's safe to say that he completely forgotten about her.

>>14096
Send her flying off a cliff in a car with an orgasmic look on her face, like every other interesting character?

I think he's been reading this board and is making corrections in the new strips accordingly. Next up: Elizabeth having fun with the kids.

>>14102
No, that would require him to admit he was wrong about something, which goes against his almighty Randian way of thinking and living.

>>14072

Honestly, I agree with him on the point he's trying to make here. I certainly don't like any of the Objectivist implications he's trying to make, but on it's own, this strip is actually decent.

>That's a lot smarter than telling me you bought Abigail at Wal-Mart.

If that was supposed to be a brick joke, I'd say it was mildly funny. Not that it somehow makes the first time any funnier.

>>14087

He's not a Nazi. It's just that he writes any character that isn't a mouthpiece for him as a complete stereotype, presumably because writing three dimensional characters is just too hard for him. Also, it's not like he wants to destroy all the inferior races and cripples for the glory of the master race. He wants to destroy everyone who thinks differently than him for the glory of Objectivism! That's completely different.

>>14103
He would never admit it, but him saying that he 'just happened to decide to improve it' would give him an erection for feeling so clever and make fanboy readers think 'wow! This just gets better and better!' and buy more of his porn.

Jay Naylor shows, aptly, exactly why Objectivism doesn't work. Objectivism requires that all decisions you make moral or otherwise must be to maximize what benefits you the most because you are all that matters.

It's the opposite of Altruism. Both are horrible in practice.

>>14072

Wow... I can't believe I'm seeing this. A GENUINELY GOOD STRIP!! I'm still in shock about the whole thing. Sure, some previous strips have been okay, but this is propably the first strip that can be called "good" in a truly positive way. I mean, it's not great or anything; in a good webcomic, this kind of thing would be par of the course. But when you consider the average quality of Original Life, it looks like a frickin' masterpiece. This is for several reasons:

1) ACTUAL GODDAMN BACKGROUNDS! I know you have pointed this out several times, but it still blows my mind that Naylor actually spent time to draw some decent looking scenery. Again, it doesn't look fantastic, but its such a breath of fresh air to see some actual details in the background rather than the empty void that we get almost everywhere else (though its a little jarring that the third panel suddenly goes back to the void again). The rest of the artwork isn't bad either, though I have a few complaints. The feet in the first panel are once again badly drawn, with Fisk's being conveniently hidden behind his tail, and Janie's looking like pencil erasers. In the last panel, it looks like they're sitting with their legs hanging over a cliffside. So, does the road they've been running on just go straight over the edge of a cliff? Who the hell stamped or paved the road like that? And while Janie has her legs properly dangling over the edge, if you look at Fisk, one of his legs seems to just disappear straight into the earth. He looks like he's suddenly been amputated. Also, at first I thought that they were sitting by the sea, but now I think it's supposed to be a forest, but the artwork doesn't manage to make it clear and it looks much too close to Fisk and Janie rather than being in the distance. But still, its nice that he at least put in some effort to this strip; since he evidently can draw backgrounds that make the strips look better, it seems confirmed that he just doesn't do so out of laziness.

2) A positive message. While I know, like Sage pointed out >>14075, thats it's just a veiled attempt to put more Objectivism into the comic, it doesn't seem overly preachy or degrading, and actually makes an effort to promote a positive personal view rather then to mock and insult the views of others. Now granted, I do find the whole "we need to seek happiness in this world rather than the fantasy world religions claim awaits us after death" schtick kinda annoying. I hear people complaining about that all the time and yet, as I think some other poster here said whom I'm unable to find at the moment, I hardly know any religion that claims you shouldn't try to be happy in this life. Trying to have a good relationship with God while being happy with your life isn't mutually exclusive. There's also one line that kinda bothers me:

>>And I work very hard so you can have the same thing.

Apart from not naturally flowing from what he said previously, it sounds a little like guilt-tripping someone into appreciating your own view by declaring that you have me to thank for what you are! Not to mention that his "hard work" consists of being a domestic terrorist who's away from his family most of the time, so it rings kinda hollow (where does Fisk make his actual money from the job anyway? Looting the bodies of the people he kills?). But overall, the strip has a good, positive and unoffensive message, and its nice to see that in a comic that mostly just builds up unpleasant strawmen for mocking.

3) A realistic, moving father-and-daughter moment. This is the first time in the comic that we've actually seen an interaction between Fisk and his kids that seems like an actual, more or less realistic parenting moment. Where Fisk doesn't seem like a Randian Man-God with the emotional prescence of a bronze statue, but like an actual parent sharing a tender moment with his child. He doesn't give a long speech about the evils of any opposing philosophies, but simply encourages Janie to seek happiness in her life and be what she wants to be; to let her make up her own mind about what she wants to believe in. I would go so far as to call this the comic's first Crowning Moment of Heartwarming, simply because its such a huge improvement over how similar scenes have been handled before it. Its so nice to see a strip that really feels like an actual character interaction between a father and his daughter, rather than just an opportunity for soapbaxing between two one-dimensional author stand-ins. We even get a funny joke at the end.

So there you have it: I'd say this is the best strip in Original Life so far: not brilliant but much better than the vast majority we've been subjected to so far. Unfortunately, the feeling is undermined by the fact that the strips preceding it have included some of the worst moments of OL so far, and that the religion arc has stretched on for far too long, even when most arcs have just been abandoned midway through. It just feels jarring to get such a good end to a storyline that has been so awful.

Also, I don't think that this is the beginning of a positive trend for Original Life. This is the only strip that's been genuinely good so far, and one standout strip isn't really an indication that better things are on their way. In fact, I'm actually hoping that it isn't; I'm fairly certain that there is no chance that this comic will actually become good. The only thing it can lead to is that it becomes mediocre rather than bad, and then it wouldn't be nearly as funny to mock.

Well, and with this, I guess the religion arc is finally over (yeah, I know I predicted that on Monday, but if it doesn't end here, where it looks like a perfect ending for a story arc, it will destroy all goodwill this strip has managed to build up). Its been a thorougly unpleasant experience except for a strangely good ending, and I hope it takes a long time before we're subjected to more poorly made commentary of religion. I'm looking forward to having something else to write about. See you on Monday!

This is the first OL strip I've seen that I don't totally hate.

>>14108
I dunno...I liked the machine gun arm stuffed animal Bonk...

>>14110
I don't care if you're being sarcastic or even thinking of joking, get the fuck out.

Background? Moderately funny joke?

Could it be that this is actually a webcomic?

>>14072

Preachy comic is preachy. Also, way to insult every religion or belief system on the planet outside of your own of course, as fantasy. Stay classy Naylor.

>>14085

That's gotta be the funniest reply I've read. Like I said before, Jay has the ability to be a complete/full cartoonist, when he wants to be (minus his just basically insulting anyone who has a non-objective belief system that is.)

But yeah, like you said, you can't have a character talking about trees and grass if you don't draw them. Only REAL problem I actually have with there being an actual background, with not drawing a background at all previously, you actually have no idea where physically they are in context to what you'd imagine would be their home.

I mean, where do they live exactly? In a suburban neighborhood? In the woods? The background loses it's impact on the scene because you have no prior context to take it with.