>>83509143
your b8 has no power here

Well I hope you took some free Cerebus comics because it's good.

As for the misogyny thing, Dave kind of went nuts and started to write a whole lot of sexist shit about women being problematic. Also some shit about pets being bad. It's been a while since I read any of his rants.

Even Gail Simone likes Cerebus, man.

>>83509143
>They said something about him being labeled a misogynist, does anybody know anything about this?

He went through a messy divorce and his anger started seeping into his work, and by seeping I mean blasted right through it like a high-powered water jet cutter.

Cerebus is an epic landmark work of comic booking and the writer/artist is absolutely crazy.

How am I baiting?

>>83510104

also untreated mental health issues and I think a bad drug trip that required hospital vists that fucked him up

>>83509303
>>83510104
Pretty much this, it's honestly pretty spectacular to watch Sim descend into deranged madness. Personal projections aside Cerebus is probably one of the most interesting stories I've read and Sim did a fantastic job constructing the world and characters, all his rambling sexism aside the main female characters have a lot of depth and complexity and I thoroughly enjoy it. I've got the first 4 books, S/T through Church & State II

WoW, I want to thank you for your opinions, I did pick up a copy and the story is interesting, not my cup of tea.

The misogyny goes straight beyond hating women into full on crazy shit mode.

Apparently, women are black holes that suck the energies out of men by their very proximity, and if we give them equal rights, we'll eventually have dogs eating at the dinner table like humans. I shit you not.

Also, cigarettes only started causing cancer when the government said it did, and AIDS is government made and spread by swimming pools.

>>83512931
>Apparently, women are black holes that suck the energies out of men by their very proximity

Weeeeelllllllllll, not too far off.

>>83509303
>>83512611
Anyone interested should look up his AV club interview
Its batshit insane
Him writing and answering his own questions in page long essays is only the tip of the iceberg

>>83509143
fcuking based

>>83513510
I personally think the combination of drug-induced psychosis and his bitter divorce just broke the man

>Pregnancy, it seems to me, is an altogether different matter.

>Inexplicable as it is that some acts of coitus produce offspring while others do not (despite the best efforts of medical science to establish irrefutable “laws” of cause-and-effect) it seems to me that here, God's hand is very much in evidence and “what God hath joyned together let not man put asunder” – sperm and egg, fertilized egg and uterine wall – very much applicable. If abortion is, as the feminists insist, a matter of a woman having control over her own body, then I think a public demonstration of a woman willing herself to become un-pregnant or willing her fertilized egg to detach itself from her uterine wall would settle the issue once and for all. At which point I would happily go along with the secular-humanist consensus view.

>But, of course, a woman no more has control over her reproductive functions – apart from abstinence – than she has over the number of hairs growing on her head or the colour of her eyes.

>Thus, to me, “a woman's right to choose” constitutes little more than an imbecilic paraphrase of “free will”. That is, we are all, by the grace of God, free to choose. That is what free will is. We can choose to commit murder, we can choose to steal, we can choose to commit adultery. The underpinning of the life of the God-fearing individual is that there is a price to be paid – sometimes in this world, sometimes in the world to come, sometimes in both – for choosing incorrectly. The ritual sacrifice of babies is well-documented among the pagan peoples named in the Torah and is, irrefutably, an abomination in the eyes of God.

>Is abortion in the same category?

>As a global civilization, here in the first nanoseconds of the 21st century the present consensus would appear to be “yes, no and/or maybe”. Half of us believe that abortion is in no way comparable. Half of us believe that it is. To me, all that is relevant is God's opinion and – since medical abortion evolved well after the death of God's Last Messenger and Seal of Prophets, Muhammad (peace be upon him) in 632 CE – that is unknown to us. It is unknown to me and it is unknown to you and it is unknown to Pope John Paul II, his predecessors and his successors. Likewise with God's opinion on condoms (ribbed, coloured or plain) and birth control pills.

>On the Last Day when all is made plain to us, I would not be terribly surprised – from my present vantage point of self-admitted absolute ignorance – to find that abortions and birth control will be indictable offences for some and non-indictable offences for others, based on God's superior and perfect knowledge of each individual . . . just as I would not be terribly surprised to find that abortion and birth control will be deemed murder, High Crimes against one's own soul and (far worse) the soul of another . . . or to find that abortion and birth control are considered lesser transgressions against one's own soul: more comparable to, say, smoking than to, say, murder. Genuine faith in God, it seems to me, brings one face-to-face with the profound level of one's own ignorance about what is right and what is wrong, post-632 CE. The fact that the various church hierarchies refuse to acknowledge their own ignorance in no way alters my own belief that we are all ignorant in these areas. But, the bottom line, to me is a) we won't know until the Last Day and b) “a woman's right to choose” contributes nothing to the debate.
For crazy....it's pretty logical

>>83519576
>For crazy....it's pretty logical

It really fucking isn't. Mods need to start banning biblethumpers, because this shit is getting out of hand.

>>83519537
>>83519576
I hate women as much as the next guy but I hate religion more. Fuck this retard.

>>83519619
>>83519662
Hmm? More Tangent?
>It gets worse.

>To me, it gets far worse when it comes to the animal kingdom and there, again, I think men must shoulder more than their fair share of the blame.

>In the same sense that it is true that women see themselves as interchangeable with men, homosexualists as interchangeable with heterosexualists, children and babies as interchangeable with adults, it is also true, for the most part, that women believe that animals are interchangeable with human beings.

>I believe, for the sake of appearances, they will allow themselves to be bullied into acknowledging that there is a distinction:

>“Uh, you do realize that your cat is just a cat. That a cat is a very low form of life.”

>Yes, pushed to the wall and having to, you know, say it out loud, to a man, a woman will grudgingly admit that a human being is a human being and a cat is a cat. But she is certainly not going to he amenable to exploring the subject to any great depth.

>“That is, you are aware that, no matter how much time and effort you devoted to doing so, you could never teach your cat to play even the simplest card game, like Hearts.”

>That's true. I know that little Snowball will never learn how to play Hearts.

>Inside, I can practically guarantee you that what she will be thinking is: Well, so what? I know lots of people who have never learned how to play Hearts, and/or What's so special about a stupid card game? and/or I think it's more important what's inside a person than whether or not they can play cards. Even calling female attention to this, making them laugh at the absurdity of it (I hope making them laugh at the absurdity of it: otherwise we are all inhabiting a Circle of Hell far closer to the innermost ring than I have hitherto suspected) will, I am entirely certain, in no way modify the fact that this is the way they think – or, rather, “think”: with their hearts, first and foremost, their love for little Snowball or little Whatever-It-Is dictating the fairy-tale foundation upon which their lives rest: that little Snowball and Mummy are just two peas in a pod.

>“Mummy.”

>Consider that one, if you will, gentlemen.

>>83519576
It's kind of hard to make "I just don't think we have the right to kill babbies" sound crazy.

Sims comes damn close though.

>>83519854
If you mean "believing in God is crazy" then, I guess so. But other than the core belief in the god of Abraham, I honestly don't see anything wrong with his abortion position. All of it seems to follow pretty logically from "there's a creator, and he cares what you do."

>>83519816
>>83519851
>>83519904
whereas, even though I see where he's coming from in the pet rant, it reeks of "I fought with my girlfriends about this so it's clearly a gender issue."

>>83519576
>Genuine faith in God, it seems to me, brings one face-to-face with the profound level of one's own ignorance about what is right and what is wrong, post-632 CE.

We know what's right and wrong far better than we know any esoteric religious claims. If we have to choose between them, it's religion that has to go, not our knowledge of morality.

>>83520021
>so it's clearly a gender issue

In a weird, roundabout way, it does make some sense. Women who declare they will never ever super duper never not in a million years ever have kids, will basically turn pets into their own little children, often by their own admission. I suppose guys can fall in the same trap, but hard to say it's ever been a prevalent thing to behold.

I disagree with Dave's anti-homosexuality position; I believe in a strong nuclear family and I don't think a homosexual couple is any less capable of that than a straight one. In fact, gays are keeping marriage relevant in a way.

>>83520107
>We know what's right and wrong
I think we have a built in herd mentality that sometimes intersects with morality, but I don't think people instinctively know "right from wrong."

>>83520210
I understand where he's coming from, and I've known plenty of women like that, and I see where he's drawing the connection, but that segment of the essay borders on who-gives-a-shit/"friend who smokes weed and won't shut up about legalization" territory

>>83519662
>I hate women as much as the next gay

>>83509143

Hes a misogynist, but he's honestly a pretty chill one.

His views can be summed up as pretty chovanistic, as in someone who sees women in the same way someone living in a Cerebus or Conan the Barbarian universe might- ditsy, overly emotional, petty, etc.

Thats what his views equate to. I think a lot of it is his divorce and the way he thinks modern women are. He essentially believes them to be callous, largely bandwagony, overly emotional as stated, petty, vapid, etc

Saying this, the guy isn't an asshole about it. I've actually got friends of mine who know him (we live in the same city) and from their stories, he's not a dick to women or anything and actually treats them well, but just has these views on them.

Disliking a comic because of someone's political views is stupid though, so the guy is a chum for giving you a free comic because of this

>>83520955
>as in someone who sees women in the same way someone living in a Cerebus or Conan the Barbarian universe might

this puts things in a very sad light

>>83519662
This isn't religion, it's schizophrenia.

>>83519816
>Uh, you do realize that your cat is just a cat. That a cat is a very low form of life

what are his views on evolution again?