Is it me, or did the opening segment to Karate Kommandos at the end of your review mention Chuck Norris' name a lot. It's as if the editors of the segment thought that viewers would forget his name unless they mentioned it ad nauseum. Or maybe Chuck just likes to hear his name a lot?
Huh, that was an interesting one. I thought how much hype actually surrounded him was just exaggeration. This is pretty compelling evidence that her really is that arrogant. Granted I doubt Chuck stood behind Jo Duffy with a shotgun or anything while the latter was writing the script, but the image won't leave my head for some reason.
Also, and this is nit-picking, it amused me that Chuck said the trick is to wait for his enemies to attack and use their momentum against them, as that's really more a Aikido thing, rather than a Karate thing. Then again it's not that uncommon for Karate to be used as a blanket term for martial arts. *Goes off to mutter about the Karate Kid remake*
Technically, that's a valid spelling of commando. In Germany. Sorry Mr. Norris.
He really is incredibly, shockingly blonde. What's up with that anyways? Had they never actually seen Chuck Norris?
That's the beauty of attack dogs. One moment, it's man's best friend. The next, it's a snarling fuzzy death machine.
You know, they could have shot him when he came into the room, but that honestly was their only chance. It is entirely possible to cross twenty-five feet before someone can draw, sight on, and fire at you. Their guns are already up but since they're idiots standing next to the door, they're unlikely to get off many shots. (No, I'm not making this up, people actually test this stuff. It's a basic part of Marine hand-to-hand training in fact.)
They really, really like Chuck Norris' name in that opening crawl.
Another short one. You saving up for something man?
Your comment at the end of the review made me realize that a Chuck Norris and Mr. T crossover would actually be very plausible and somehow crazy awesome.
Chuck Norris used to have a real badass image... then he went around insisting Obama show his birth certificate and talking about "death panels" and I realized just how crazy he is. Good lord, is every media project about him designed to boost his ego?
So now Steve Ditko has something besides "Mr. A" that is so widely reviled. Well, at least he just penciled it and didn't write it.
A Sumo called Tabe? Tabe as in Japanese for 'eat'? Oh geez, that's just...really terrible. How lazy do they have to be to come up with something like that?
Here's some slightly amusing trivia. You pronounced "Tabe" right the first time (Tah bay), and it's Japanese for "to eat." Get it? Because he eats all the time! Har har har har!
That's about as creative as the land of Tierra Libre (Free Land) in the animated Rambo movie.
I don't think Chuck was an actor in the show/comic's story. He was a government special agent or something, much like how in Jackie Chan Adventures Jackie is an archaeologist who ends up working for a secret govermnent bureau when he finds a magic artifact.
Also funny you should mention Mr. T. (does he still throw people hella far, or did those "comics" die finally?), since in the show Chuck also does the live-action narration/moral closing bit. It wasn't as good as T's cartoon. I also believe Too Much was his foster kid or something like that.
Hey, I don't mind you changing from the scedule. It's your show, you review whatever the hell you want. ^^
Anyways, I thought that this was one of your funniest episodes in a while. I'm glad that you didn't use the "Because Poor Literacy is Kewl" joke for the Kommando title. It's like the "I am a Man" thing, it's really easy to overuse. (Speaking of which, we havn't seen the I am a Man punch in some time, Link.)
Think the references to "The Children's Story" might have something to do with Steve Ditko cramming all of his later work with allusions to objectivism?
I'm surprised we've gone so many episodes without having one of Marvel's Star comics featured so far.
Answering the end credits: I read A Children's Story as a school assignment... in HIGH SCHOOL, when I was old enough to appreciate the content. I think it more ironic that THIS PARTICULAR class seems to be assigning it, given that Norris seems to have brainwashed the kids (and the ninjas) into thinking he's some superhuman bullet-proof demigod...
Wait, wait, you went through this ENTIRE comic and didn't notice that Too Much looks like Troy McGreggor from "The Final Sacrifice"? My God, they even have the same initials! DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS MEANS? CHUCK NORRIS IS ZAP ROWSDOWER'S SECRET IDENTITY!
I remember catching that cartoon on Adult Swim a couple years ago but not being able to watch more than an episode and a half. And I like to think I have a pretty high tolerance for crap.
And yeah, it does seem like the theme song mentions his name a lot. It's like the Head-on of stupid action cartoons.
In the 80s, either Steve Ditko really DID need money that badly... Or he was just happy to draw for the sake of drawing. He even did two Transformers coloring books: http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Steve_Ditko
And man... that Super Cruiser is something straight out of the Bill Murray army comedy STRIPES.
I counted 9 mentions of "Chuck Norris" and 1 of plain old "chuck" in that short credit sequence thingy from the show. But more importantly, the return of Ninja Style Dancer. It really is a highlight, and I've missed him lately.
Hmmm, I'm starting to think that the book choice wasn't really accidental.
Maybe the writer was trying to warn us about the brainwashing content of Chuck Norris's material?
And no, Mr.T against Chuck Norris wouldn't work; there'd be so much memetic bad-assery in a small vicinity that the fabric of space time would rip apart.
You're FOR gay marriage? Wow, the one place I would think the constantly changing homosexual agenda would not be rammed down my throat.
Why should the government sanction unions between homosexuals when this is completely unnatural? Argue until you're blue in the face about how homosexuals cannot help themselves; but how does this in any way indicate this is natural as opposed to a psychological or physiological defect? In legal terms; why should we consider marriage as an 'act of love' as opposed to a union meant to benefit society with the reproduction and raising of children? Why should 'tolerance' be equated with 'acceptance'?
Not, cool, Linkara, not cool. And I usually agree with you when it comes to politics.
Well, it could have been worse, with the spelling.
It could have been Chuck Norris' Kool Karate Kommando with Nearly Awesome Zeppelin Internships.
Why is it nearly awesome? Because you don't ride a Zeppelin with the shape of Chuck Norris. It was so awesome, the concept made every villian in an alternate dimension suffer a heart attack.
Thank you Linkara, for your hard work. You gave another great review.I enjoyed the return of the Ninja Style Dancer.
Chuck Norris: I barely know who he is. I've seen one episode of his cartoon, and Nostalgia Critic's review of that "movie" he did.
Whenever I do see him, however, I understand his popularity less and less. I have to wonder though, If someone kicks a windshield apart, like Norris did at the end there, wouldn't he lose his legs?!
Anyhoo, Keep up the good work and have a great day.
I have an issue of this series that my brother in law gave me. Man alive, Marvel and DC would publish some crap back in the day. And this was hardly the only comic that was basically just an advertisement. That's really all the Star imprint was for- publishing comics based off of toy/cartoon properties. But they weren't all bad. I have an issue of Visionaries(Based on a toyline that used hologram stickers on the weapons) that was borderline brilliant.
The best thing about the whole Chuck Norris list meme (which I normally can't stand) is that it's the purest form of Irony the internet has ever produced. Not one person who utters a Chuck Norris fact actually believes it.
And the icing on that cake is that ol' Chuck himself is completely oblivious to the fact that people are actively mocking him. Seriously. See interviews where it's brought up.
"Give me your best shot. Any argument you make will be based on questionable logic and emotion as opposed to objective thought."
Objective thought is a fallacy, especially in this matter. However, let's evaluate if your own opinions are based on purported "objective thought," shall we?
"Why should the government sanction unions between homosexuals when this is completely unnatural?"
This statement assumes a few things: -That because something is natural, it is good, and that to be unnatural is to be evil. -That homosexuality is unnatural. -That the government should be in the business of sanctioning or prohibiting what is "natural" or "unnatural."
Let's start with the first premise, shall we? That because something is natural, it is good. Diseases are natural - they are an element of nature that exists as part of an ecosystem, either to stem population growth or simply have popped up along with all of the other creatures on this earth.
And yet we combat diseases. However, if that argument isn't good enough, let's then look at eating habits - while biologically humans are CAPABLE of digesting meat, the digestive tract is in fact better suited for handling roughage, plants, and other assorted non-traditionally "alive" elements, assuming we take the word "alive" to be more of a basis of animal rather than plant life, since I'm sure some people would argue that plant life is still life.
And yet we still consume meat for various reasons, primary of which is that meat tastes good. Yet it is not "natural" for our bodies.
Speaking of what's natural for our bodies, our bodies react to various stimuli in certain ways - sexual, emotional, psychological, etc. Yet social standards (which are NOT natural, they are artificial as part of living in a civilized society that no longer requires such natural instincts) prohibit us from acting a lot of the time on those stimuli. What was "natural" to us has long since been abandoned since it was necesasry for survival millions of years ago.
What is artificial and not natural, are, in fact, good as well. Structures to protect us from the elements, cleaning supplies, transportation, and the very computer you're typing at are all unnatural and artificial, and yet they are good.
And finally there is the role of government. Now, I have my own opinions on the role of government as I'm sure you have, as well, however a government is, again, an unnatural and artificial creation and the laws that it governs by are ever-changing. Society once dictated that certain human beings should not be classified as full people and the law, set forth by the government, dictated it to be so. Ethically, such things are, however, abhorrent, especially when looking at it from the point of view of a society that finds such practices barbaric and inhuman. The government may sanction or prohibit as it chooses, however it does not mean that they are ethically correct.
"You're FOR gay marriage? Wow, the one place I would think the constantly changing homosexual agenda would not be rammed down my throat."
I'm not exactly certain how I was "ramming" the 'constantly changing homosexual agenda' "down your throat" when all I was doing was making a joke about Chuck Norris' own political opinions. I imagine the majority of my fanbase IS in favor of legalized gay marriage as I am. You are not - fine, I don't really care all that much for your opinion, but you're free to have it.
However, I was not "ramming the agenda," but playing on Too Much's hero worship against something I disagree with, which I've done before against comic characters and, indeed, real people whose opinions and reputations I don't much care for (Frank Miller, Rob Liefeld, Jimmy Carter, Rick Olney, Gary Brodsky).
"Argue until you're blue in the face about how homosexuals cannot help themselves; but how does this in any way indicate this is natural as opposed to a psychological or physiological defect?"
As I said, I was making a joke. You're the one who decided to bring a debate to the table over a joke made about a comic that worships Chuck Norris based on a TV show that worships Chuck Norris.
"In legal terms; why should we consider marriage as an 'act of love' as opposed to a union meant to benefit society with the reproduction and raising of children?"
In legal terms, marriage has nothing to do with the "benefit of society" and "the reproduction and raising of children." Society is benefited by an increase in the general happiness and welfare of the people within the society and the taxes they pay, the property they purchase, and the relationships they possess. Legally speaking marriage is simply a way of assigning ownership of property, which children fall under because they are considered incapable of making decisions for themselves.
However, if we really wish to say that the primary legal and societal necessity of marriage is reproduction and rearing of children, then divorce should be illegal and adoptions and foster care never granted to single individuals.
"Not, cool, Linkara, not cool. And I usually agree with you when it comes to politics."
For which I'm appreciative for the most part, but then again I wonder what exactly you were expecting of me and my opinions on gay marriage when I have openly and frequently stated my viewpoints on equal rights when it has come to women and transgendered individuals.
Actually, divorce IS illegal. It is breach of the marriage contract.
I didn't expect that you would be one to carelessly throw around the word "hate". Hate connotes the wish to harm something even to the point of destruction/death. Chuck merely disagrees with the position that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. He does't go around roundhouse kicking them... that tends to not get your message across.
Secondly, my daughter (7) is very conscientious about language. You were one of the few TGWTG reviewers that I could listen to without headphones... but lately you've been peppering your dialog with more curses. When you started in the the asses and bastards, she declared that you are stupid for it. Now you're in the same category as so many others, where I have to treat you like the friend I can't bring over because I'm ashamed of him. I've witnessed too many people fall away by degrees.
You are my brother, Linkara, and as such, I feel the need to admonish you because I care for your wellbeing. You're on a slippery slope. I hope you regain your foundation.
Lewis, I was going to give Desert Eagle a piece of my mind for his statement, but I think you took care of it far better than I ever could have. Great job.
I'm surprised Chuck Norris never did another movie after the Chuck Norris Facts came out to capitalize on his revitalized pop culture status. Although, the fact that he's now 70 (I had no idea he was that old!) may have something to do with it.
As for the comic, it looks like just another cheap tie-in. I don't know why they put so much of the story in a school. Do kids really want to read about being in school? I'd rather read about being somewhere else, like in a far-flung adventure in a jungle somewhere.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the "Karate Kommandos" just leave the super cruiser outside of the school.
I mean, was that their hiding spot for it? Really? Leave the weapon of mass roundhouse-kicking right next to where children study? A weapon that is sought after by gun-toting ninjas?
Yea I sometimes find the whole Chuck Norris thing over-exaggerated. Some of them are good but others are pretty stupid. I really don't think anyone's found the last digit of pi yet.
Those ninjas are the WORST ninjas I have ever seen! Hello? Where are the ninja weapons?
A high tech military vechicle designed to infiltrate populated areas by appearing to be a standard recreational vehicle.
Did this comic come out before or after the release of Stripes
(See line "...Once in Italy, their mission is to guard the EM-50 "Urban Assault Vehicle" (disguised to look like a large recreational vehicle, specifically, a late 70s GMC motorhome). )
"Secondly, my daughter (7) is very conscientious about language. You were one of the few TGWTG reviewers that I could listen to without headphones... but lately you've been peppering your dialog with more curses. When you started in the the asses and bastards, she declared that you are stupid for it. Now you're in the same category as so many others, where I have to treat you like the friend I can't bring over because I'm ashamed of him. I've witnessed too many people fall away by degrees.
You are my brother, Linkara, and as such, I feel the need to admonish you because I care for your wellbeing. You're on a slippery slope. I hope you regain your foundation."
Fair enough, but with respect, AT4W in terms of age rating is PG-13 or borderline-R - the subject matter of comics I've mocked can include violent death (Countdown), destruction (Amazons Attack), alcoholism (JLA: Act of God), sex (Ultimates 3, The Dark Knight Strikes Again), psychological horror (Silent Hill: Dying Inside), and just overrall adult themes and situations. Karate Kommandos just happens to be one of the tamer comics I've reviewed thanks to the fact that the cartoon it was based on was intended for children, anyway.
It's of course your perogative and your right as a parent how much you wish to expose or shield your daughter to such themes and situations in media, but I guess my point is that the show has never exactly been child-friendly.
However, you're probably right that lately I've been using more "friggin's" and "damns" and the like and I should probably pull it back a bit.
"However, you're probably right that lately I've been using more "friggin's" and "damns" and the like and I should probably pull it back a bit."
Yeah. I believe it can be much funnier without the repetitive use of swear words. I know Bill Cosby and Jack Benny didn't repeatedly swear in their shows. I wish some people could see that. Of course people these days believe talking like a sailor equals the road to true happiness.
"Yeah. I believe it can be much funnier without the repetitive use of swear words. I know Bill Cosby and Jack Benny didn't repeatedly swear in their shows. I wish some people could see that. Of course people these days believe talking like a sailor equals the road to true happiness."
That's why I stopped watching the AVGN, all the swearing and toilet humor. He made intelligent observations, don't get me wrong, but the thing is his reviews weren't all that entertaining. I haven't noticed an overflow of cussing in the reviews lately but yeah, you might wanna watch that, Linkara.
I don't think you should hold back on your "damns" and "friggen" words. I can hardly call those curses, especially the kind of things you see on T.V. nowadays. You are probably the most self controlled critic on TGWTG, and I never even considered you, or TGWTG meant for kids.
A lot of the subject matter is for a mature audience of late teens to early adult hood, and shouldn't be watched by children who probably don't even care about opinions of others. I know when I was young I didn't care less about what critics response to the media was.
Give me literally one good reason to be against it.
"Why should the government sanction unions between homosexuals when this is completely unnatural?"
The definition of "natural" is "of, or occurring in nature." There are over one thousand documented species of animals with homosexual members, and humans are no exception. Homosexuality is quite natural.
"Argue until you're blue in the face about how homosexuals cannot help themselves; but how does this in any way indicate this is natural as opposed to a psychological or physiological defect? "
Psychological or physiological defects are natural too.
"In legal terms; why should we consider marriage as an 'act of love' as opposed to a union meant to benefit society with the reproduction and raising of children?"
Since when was that the purpose of marriage? Ever heard of couples who don't have children? Sterile couples, perhaps? Perhaps we should ban those people from getting married too.
Of course, the fact that Linkara is a feminist and often starts his show with "ladies, gentlemen, and others," which says he recognizes more than the gender binary, totally means he isn't for the rights of all people. Mmhmm, end sarcasm.
And yes, disease is perfectly natural. It's nature's way of attempting to thin out the weak. There are diseases for every creature, from animal to plant, and the only creature that is able to combat this is human. And we haven't always been able to combat disease effectively until fairly recently.
It's always so fascinating to watch the obviously privileged try to argue against protecting the rights of the human beings they're trying to oppress. Some of the arguments are just so... funny.
Bacteria are living organisms (but not all cause diseases). Viruses are not living organisms, but still cause diseases. I can't think of any virus that has actually been a good thing...
There's also tons of other micro-organisms that can cause problems or be helpful. Or they can just be sitting around being perfectly harmless...
Take demodicids, for instance. Demodicids are these very tiny microscopic creatures with several legs that live at the base of the eyelashes for several creatures.
In fact, it is estimated that 96% of the human race has demodicids crawling around through their eyelashes. Yay! :D
"No one said anything about the natural state of man."
On the contrary, the premise being examined was whether natural=good. The essence of naturalist ethics is that "good" is the natural state of man and the world. The natural state of man is to be healthy without any diseases or handicaps. Therefore, according to the naturalist perspective, diseases and handicaps should be cured whenever possible.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the naturalist argument (there's an argument to be made that poverty is the natural state of man, which creates some rather unfortunate implications), but the "disease=natural" misconception is one of my bugaboos.
Wow. I... yeah, that's privilege right there I'm seeing.
"Healthy" is the state of humans that are wealthy and fortunate enough to live in a country with good health care. It's a good state to be in, and hopeful, but there are many things that can throw this balance off. And even "curing" these natural diseases that have been living with us since the dawn of humanity have allowed new diseases to crop up. Sometimes bacteria becomes immune to the antibiotics that we've developed to combat the disease, thereby creating even more nasty diseases. And sometimes our own bodies rebel against the unnatural bubble we privileged people have put ourselves in with antibiotic everything. Our bodies are a carefully crafted balance of bacteria, and when we go and try to kill the bacteria that would normally kill or just eat what the pathogenic bacteria would eat, that balance is thrown out of whack.
Yeah, we've learned how to keep the staph on our skin from entering the bloodstream when we're cut and making us sick, but the privileged humans are kind of the exception. Not every human on this planet knows this or has access to the means to do so, and animals have no idea what these words even mean, just that it hurts and they need to clean it with their dirty, dirty tongues.
Not to mention, the means to combat these diseases? Are usually man made. The ingredients exist in nature, but only man has taken them all and synthesized a drug from them. Go ahead and tell me chemotherapy exists without man creating it to combat cancer. Cancer is natural. It sucks, and chemo is great, but cancer still exists without any human help/attempt to destroy. Natural isn't always good, and unnatural isn't always bad.
"The definition of "natural" is "of, or occurring in nature." There are over one thousand documented species of animals with homosexual members, and humans are no exception. Homosexuality is quite natural."
There's a contradiction in the information you placed-
When a male dog does what you call a "homosexual" act on another dog, that is a form of dominance. The dog is showing the other who's boss. Same will go with females.
Others may do it out of aggression or to prevent conflict, and often times an animal will do homosexual acts whenever they fail to identify the gender of the other animal, which more likely occurs in the lower sections of the animal kingdom. When an animal mates with another, it does so as a means of reproduction.
Another way to argue with this, is if homosexuality is really natural because animals enact in homosexuality, then cannibalism too would be considered natural. Since animals enact in cannibalism when food is scarce, or when they mistake their own kind for prey
I will finish this with two quotes from my source:
'It Is Unscientific To "Read" Human Motivation And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior'
and this,
'As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach'
"Nature does not have a consciousness. It does not "weed out the weak". "
It is true that nature does not have a consciousness. However, think of it like natural selection. It doesn't have a consciousness either, but it has a way of almost seeming to have a life of its own, with the way it furthers the evolutionary process.
"When a male dog does what you call a "homosexual" act on another dog, that is a form of dominance. The dog is showing the other who's boss. Same will go with females. "
There is legitimate homosexual activity as well as sex for dominance.
"Another way to argue with this, is if homosexuality is really natural because animals enact in homosexuality, then cannibalism too would be considered natural."
Sure would. Technically, I don't really find a fault with putting the dead to good use. Personally I wouldn't engage in it myself, because I think it's disgusting, but I still think that it's a better solution than putting a corpse in an expensive box, and burying the box for some reason.
Even humans who are wealthy and have good health-care in their own country get sick, sometimes severely so. There is no discrimination amongst bacteria and viruses, and sometimes even your own body just up and deciding to start acting defectively.
Really, the only "natural" order of things is to be disorderly. Entropy. Everything is heading toward it.
I don't particularly believe in privilege myself. Nobody has control over things like being born or being healthy (there are measures that can be taken, of course, but obviously, it isn't an end-all-be-all thing).
I do think there are people that face injustice in the world but simply pointing blame doesn't tackle the root of the problem.
You know while reading through some She-hulk comics I discovered what exactly happened in US 1. Eventually they apparently all left Earth. US is a space truck driver and his love interest and her Uncle run a space truck stop. God how I wish I was making that up.
Ugh, god, he really really is. Though I can definitely see how he inspired that meme. Originally that meme was meant to be about Vin Diesel, but it suits Mr. Norris a lot better.
"And yet we still consume meat for various reasons, primary of which is that meat tastes good. Yet it is not 'natural' for our bodies."
Not to dis you or anything but actually we consume meat because Vitamin B-12 is necessary for survival, yes you can get it from beer, some algae, yeast, and I believe, not entirely sure, bugs, but lots of people in America at least, aren't keen on eating bugs. Plant foods are generally devoid of B12.
The primary reason we consume meat isn't just taste it is because it is a B12 rich resource that is usually widely available. We have developed our taste for it because we need it for the metabolism of every cell of the body, especially affecting DNA synthesis and regulation, but also fatty acid synthesis and energy production.
So why do we have to cook it? To prolong our lives even more so we don't get diseases. If we just ate living fish and bugs we could probably do ok though. If you consider bugs meat.
Which brings me to my next point. Now to be fair this is based on what a zoo keeper said so take what you will from that. so anyway, I went to the zoo once and they said they used to just give vultures road kill but that they realized the vultures weren't too healthy so they started giving them store bought cooked meat and their health improved. Yes some animals don't need their meat cooked, but those animals also tend to have shorter lifespans than humans, plus any meat eater can eat cooked meat so its not like cooking is bad. Its just a way to improve food. But technically cooking isn't natural, unless you use a really insane argument that we are a part of nature and we cook so it is natural "Which I would argue" (just kidding). :D but yeah cooking and morals are some of the few things that separate us from animals :P
""Healthy" is the state of humans that are wealthy and fortunate enough to live in a country with good health care."
Oh nonsense. Just because you live in a poor country with bad healthcare doesn't mean you personally can't be healthy. It is, in fact, possible to care for your own health.
What, do you think people in poor countries just stumble around puking and leaking pus from their rotting sores all day?
"It is true that nature does not have a consciousness. However, think of it like natural selection. It doesn't have a consciousness either, but it has a way of almost seeming to have a life of its own, with the way it furthers the evolutionary process."
The key word there is "seeming". Just because you perceive a conscious force there does not mean there is one.
To quote Linkara, "Evolution does not work that way." There is no "goal" or "purpose" to natural selection. Nature does not "weed out" weak individuals. In fact, "weakness" doesn't even enter the equation. Natural selection does not separate the weak from the strong, it separates the adaptive from the non-adaptive.
"There is legitimate homosexual activity as well as sex for dominance."
You really don't get it do you? When a male attempts to do a "homosexual" act to another, the other male will or will attempt to retaliate. Because he does not want to be lower than the other animal.
Because a male [unintelligible] another male doesn't do it as means of [unintelligible], but as DOMINANCE. It is NOT because it is homosexual! It means he is #1 and even sends a message to the female animals saying that HE'S the one they want. Another thing I want to note is that with dogs, they will want to [unintelligible] the first thing they can come in contact with, if they catch wind of a female in heat, but cannot locate her. Actually the smell of a female in heat causes a frenzy of those behaviors, because she releases a pheromone.
Besides. Reproduction is necessary for survival, therefore an animal can never be homosexual. But it's interaction with other instincts such as dominance, will lead to behavior that appears to be homosexual, but it isn't.
As said before, it is a foolish and unscientific approach to sentiment human behavior into animal behavior.
And oh yeah, and besides cannibalism, you would have to accept filicide, as something 'natural', which is the deliberate act of the parent killing their child.
In regards to Steve Ditko, I'd recommend (if you haven't read it already) his recent coffee table biography Strange and Stranger, by Blake Bell...aside from a highly entertaining read, it sheds a little light on the whole "needs a paycheck" phase of his career.
The abridged version is that Ditko was an extremely hard-line objectivist at that point in his career (and remains so to this day), and put his beliefs into direct practice through his comics work...pretty much the only jobs he really took in mainstream comics at that point were menial, mindless stuff like Karate Kommandos (and the aforementioned Transformers coloring book) while saving his "real" ability for personal projects, including objectivist-oriented graphic novel material that's so underground it's probably touching magma (although, without condemning or condoning objectivism itself, do IMHO seem, at a glance, at least visually interesting. But then again, Ditko's always been a master designer, hasn't he?).
Anywhoo, despite one's feelings on the man's politics, I highly recommend the bio. Good stuff.
"You really don't get it do you? When a male attempts to do a "homosexual" act to another, the other male will or will attempt to retaliate."
Unless, of course, the recipient is another (willing) homosexual.
"Because he does not want to be lower than the other animal."
Gay sex isn't only utilized for dominance.
"Because a male [unintelligible] another male doesn't do it as means of [unintelligible], but as DOMINANCE."
Sometimes, maybe even often. But not always.
"It is NOT because it is homosexual! It means he is #1 and even sends a message to the female animals saying that HE'S the one they want."
See above.
"Another thing I want to note is that with dogs, they will want to [unintelligible] the first thing they can come in contact with, if they catch wind of a female in heat, but cannot locate her. Actually the smell of a female in heat causes a frenzy of those behaviors, because she releases a pheromone."
Okay, that's one solitary species of animal out of how many? There are more than six million species of insects alone, you know. Dogs aren't representative of every animal ever.
"Besides."
That's not a sentence.
"Reproduction is necessary for survival, therefore an animal can never be homosexual. "
Oh man, I lol'd.
Pro-tip: humans are animals. If your logic held, then there'd be no such thing as a homosexual human either - not to mention that not all animals (nor all humans) reproduce.
"As said before, it is a foolish and unscientific approach to sentiment human behavior into animal behavior."
It's also foolish and unscientific to assume that all animals function in the same exact way, and that homosexuality is a fluke that exists only in humans (which, by the way, are animals).
"And oh yeah, and besides cannibalism, you would have to accept filicide, as something 'natural', which is the deliberate act of the parent killing their child. "
Animals have their reasons for that. Human society works its way around such things. Maybe millenia ago it might've been an idea, but it's obsolete now.
What the...? *looks at the top of the page* Yes...it says this is the comments of Atop The Fourth Wall. What's all this darn serious posting regarding the legality of same-sex marriages doing here? Well, you're not dragging me into that trap, I can tell you!
First, I'm going to talk about my opinion of the latest review. Another great pick, Mr. Lovhaug. I liked this one because, after having some rather painful subjects being thrown on the fire, this one didn't have me reaching for the aspirin. Yes, Chuck Norris Karate Kommandos was dumb and dull, but not to the point were I cursed myself for not acquiring a taste for alcoholic beverages and thus not being able to drink the memories of such horrors away.
Second, I am going to mention something regarding one of your posts in response to the whole same-sex marriage kerfuffle. However, I am still not getting involved in that argument. I'm referring to where you say "the digestive tract is in fact better suited for handling roughage, plants, and other assorted non-traditionally "alive" elements, assuming we take the word "alive" to be more of a basis of animal rather than plant life, since I'm sure some people would argue that plant life is still life."
While it is true, the human digestive tract does differ from those of carnivores, it is still not that of a herbivore ether. Simply put, we are pretty much designed as omnivores, and it is difficult (though, admittedly, not impossible) for humans to live solely on a diet based on meat or vegetation. I am not putting the kibosh on anyone who wants to pursue a vegetarian lifestyle for ethical, religious, or any other personal choices. However, to say mankind is meant to be a herbivore? The science doesn't back up that statement. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm thinking of making up some more country-fried SPAM! :)
Everyone's at least a LITTLE gay. Just look at David Boreanaz and tell me you wouldn't feel safe in his arms.
On the hot topic of sumo wrestlers, I get annoyed every time I see one portrayed as a hungry hungry hippo character. Sumo Wrestlers are huge and fat, yes, but the good ones are disciplined about what they eat (even if it is a large quantity) and work out a lot. They've got plenty of fat, but they've got plenty of muscle, too. This comic was far from the worst I've seen, I'd still like to see more respectable portrayals of sumo wrestlers in general.
Then again, if a sumo character is being included, it probably is as a gimmick, so the most respectable portrayal is probably none at all ^^;
That's not a complete argument. I have not seen any form of reproduction between a male and a male.
“Okay, that's one solitary species of animal out of how many? There are more than six million species of insects alone, you know. Dogs aren't representative of every animal ever.”
“Pro-tip: humans are animals. If your logic held, then there'd be no such thing as a homosexual human either - not to mention that not all animals (nor all humans) reproduce.”
“It's also foolish and unscientific to assume that all animals function in the same exact way, and that homosexuality is a fluke that exists only in humans (which, by the way, are animals).”
Psychologically, we are not animals. We think more than animals, and the expressing of our behavior is not as limited. While we can express ourselves through speech, gesture, writing, etc, animals cannot. Animals "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on. This borrowing does not mean that they are homosexual. An animal that goes after a male to prove it is #1, will eventually go after the female some time later. Especially during (in mammals), the mating season. Hey! Maybe the animals will hump something to make sure it is ready WHEN the mating season comes! In this case, how do you know that the animals you speak of are really homosexual, and not just borrowing those manifestations of reproduction? Do you even know if the animal knows what homosexuality even is? What you are doing is linking animal behavior with human behavior.
The term homosexuality is limited to the human species, because in animals we can ascertain only motor behavior. Specifically, meaning what it looks like they're doing. Since the expression of the animal is limited, we can't use what looks like homosexuality in an animal as means of calling it natural.
I have never “assumed” that all animals function in the exact same way. Or did you say that because I used the dog as an example? God forbid I use an EXAMPLE!
As for the 'not all animals reproduce' thing, what species of animals are there that don't need to reproduce exist? Or are you talking too about the fungi? Such as the sea sponge and mushrooms? Or are you really saying that not all WANT to reproduce? In the animal's case you are wrong. The animal will have the drive/instinct to reproduce unless the animal is neutered or spayed, which requires human assistance.
And as for your “Humans=Animals” thing, show me those animal schools that teach their young the ABCs, and their animal hospitals that have animals caring for the young and old, and their animal governments that protect the animals with their animal army, and their animal game boys, that they use for entertainment, and their animal writing material to write books, and their written animal language, and their animal toiletries. So far I have seen none of that.
“Animals have their reasons for that. Human society works its way around such things. Maybe millenia ago it might've been an idea, but it's obsolete now.”
But if what you've been saying earlier was true, we should still allow filicide and cannibalism because they're both natural, regardless of our society. Did the pig and the mantis have a reason for killing and eating its young even though there was plenty of food to go around? Was there a way around that? In that case we should be allowed to lick other people's feet, rummage through trash, trespass, and run around town in the nude without being given awkward faces and having the police called. I mean, if licking feet, rummaging, trespassing, and being naked is natural because the animals do it, why can't we? Insects, and forest/house mammals trespass in human territory all the time. Male porcupines urinate on the females before mating. Cats and Dogs mark territories with their urine. Bears scratch big gaping holes in trees.
In fact. Since MARRIAGE isn't a natural animal act, we might as well not have it at all. The whole Gay Marriage thing would be nothing since animals don't marry. Same goes for: education, government, money, cars, news, comfortable furniture, ATMs, businesses, video games, and finally, COMPUTERS. Also, animals don't have societies, is that still classified as 'natural'?
If you want to do what is 'natural', be my guest and ditch the stuff I listed, and live your life, free as a bird, doing what you do as long as the animals do it.
HAH! We are so frickin' animals. Every daily behavior I see can be traced back to something more primitive. Sure, we're unique among the local fauna, but we really need to get over ourselves.
Rate of death from infectious diseases, compare a wealthy nation with decent health care to a poor nation with poor health care. Please look it up. If diseases were unnatural, then the rate wouldn't differ too much.
Also, I seem to remember several species that when the females were taken out of their world view, the males started having sex with each other, and when a female was reintroduced, they were uninterested in the female. I want to say cockatiel is the bird I'm thinking of there. I do know happy homosexual penguin pairs have been recorded. The Japanese macaque have homosexual couples engage in courtship as well. Homosexual black swans have been known to just use a female for the eggs and then drive her off to live in peace together. In fact, more cygnets from homosexual black swan pairings survive to adulthood than heterosexual ones.
"Unnatural" means "not occurring without help in nature." Homosexuality happens in nature without human help. Learn a new way to oppress the minority.
Linkara, you are one of two Christians that give me hope for Christianity and make me rethink my belief it's such a joke. Too bad you and the other person (a very sweet, very snarky, very devout Christian who happens to also be a lesbian) are two voices being drown out by the idiots.
"That's not a complete argument. I have not seen any form of reproduction between a male and a male."
I haven't seen any form of reproduction between a sterile couple. Let's ban sterile people from getting married.
"Psychologically, we are not animals."
Biologically, we are. What are we, if not animals? Plants? Fungi? We have to fit into ONE of the seven kingdoms.
"We think more than animals, and the expressing of our behavior is not as limited. While we can express ourselves through speech, gesture, writing, etc, animals cannot."
Some animals can - gorillas and dolphins, for instance.
"Animals "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on. This borrowing does not mean that they are homosexual."
Of course not - changes of hormones in the womb would mean that they are homosexual.
" In this case, how do you know that the animals you speak of are really homosexual, and not just borrowing those manifestations of reproduction?"
That's what constant research is for - following select animals for an extended period of time. It would also help to catch animals at a time other than mating season.
"The term homosexuality is limited to the human species, because in animals we can ascertain only motor behavior."
So what you're saying is that homosexual animals can't exist because humans can't see it? I guess that means that there is no such thing Neptune, because I've never seen it - only speculative pictures in textbooks.
"As for the 'not all animals reproduce' thing, what species of animals are there that don't need to reproduce exist?
"As for the 'not all animals reproduce' thing, what species of animals are there that don't need to reproduce exist?"
I wasn't referring to a specie. I was referring to specific animals. Not all humans reproduce, not all animals of particular species reproduce.
"Or are you talking too about the fungi? Such as the sea sponge and mushrooms? Or are you really saying that not all WANT to reproduce? In the animal's case you are wrong. "
Ah, so you've read the mind of every animal ever. Damn, I severely underestimated you.
"And as for your “Humans=Animals” thing, show me those animal schools that teach their young the ABCs,"
Wow, I feel like an idiot - this entire time, you were just trolling me.
Yeah, it turns out that humans have somehow surpassed all forms of biological classification because we invented schools. We are no longer considered to be mammals because...uh...you say so.
"But if what you've been saying earlier was true, we should still allow filicide and cannibalism because they're both natural, regardless of our society."
I wasn't aware that "it's natural" was the only requirement to allow anything you want, ever. Conversely, "it's unnatural" is a terrible reason to ban gay marriage - especially considering that marriage is a socially constructed institution, which means that heterosexual marriage is just as unnatural as homosexual marriage. We should eliminate marriage altogether, and skip straight to the sex, right? Doesn't get more natural than that.
"Did the pig and the mantis have a reason for killing and eating its young even though there was plenty of food to go around? "
I'm sure they do. I just haven't googled it. I know that lions, for example, will kill male young, so as not to have any rivals later on.
"Was there a way around that? In that case we should be allowed to lick other people's feet, rummage through trash, trespass, and run around town in the nude without being given awkward faces and having the police called. "
Clearly you did not read my previous post about how societal norms have eliminated the need or even the want for that (even though you copied and pasted it).
"In fact. Since MARRIAGE isn't a natural animal act, we might as well not have it at all. "
Oh hey, you beat me to it. :)
"The whole Gay Marriage thing would be nothing since animals don't marry. Same goes for: education, government, money, cars, news, comfortable furniture, ATMs, businesses, video games, and finally, COMPUTERS."
Again, human-constructed norms.
"Also, animals don't have societies, is that still classified as 'natural'?"
Wait, what? Animals don't have societies? What???
"If you want to do what is 'natural', be my guest and ditch the stuff I listed, and live your life, free as a bird, doing what you do as long as the animals do it."
Congratulations on intentionally missing any point I've made in this entire conversation.
Pro-tip: the only reason I've been making the "natural" argument is because some genius said that gay marriage should be banned because homosexuality is "unnatural."
Yeah I know what you mean by the "start hating gay marriage kid" joke. I hate it when one of the people I look up to turns out to have some insane irrational view on something. It just ruins all that you thought about that person.
Also I might as well jump on the gay argument. I love reading these and seeing the people against gay whatever making up a bunch of bull, and then get smashed by actual logic.
I personally think that sexuality isn't like the sides of a coin. Its more like a spectrum. Or a percentage to make things easy to explain. Not many people are 100% gay or 100% straight. Everyone is somewhere in between. I have gay friends that admit that they really like boobs. Does that make them not as gay? Or how about one guy I know who is on the straight side but now and then includes his girlfriend in butt play. Is he not straight after all? Who knows except for him. There's really not a fork in the road for sexuality. Its more like where you stand on a bridge. The people that see where they are on that bridge and are comfortable with it are the good people. The ones who are not comfortable are the ones starting the problems we see here.
Also marriage for only reproduction would make total sense if we only allowed reproductive couples to marry and not allow them to ever use any kind of birth control.
"Also marriage for only reproduction would make total sense if we only allowed reproductive couples to marry and not allow them to ever use any kind of birth control."
This reminds me strongly of medieval marriage laws
If this 'supercruiser' is meant to be so advanced and secretive then why the hell are they showing it at all? And to elementary kids at that! Does the FBI regularly show what make of cars it uses to follow suspects? Does the CIA let the press look at the engines of the UAVs?
@Linkara: You know what? I overreacted. This does not mean I changed my mind by any degree (I have already started a rebuttal which I'll probably post on TGWTG eventually) but getting upset by the one-off joke was uncalled for. I also realize, in hindsight, my argument was poorly worded and should have been laid out in a more precise manner to properly describe my views (which I have done better in the past).
I recently heard about your show from one of my parishioners. I am a minister with MCC (Metropolitan Community Church).
As a lesbian Christian, a feminist and a comic fan, I am glad to hear that someone like you is around.
I look forward to your continued work!
Now I direct this next line to "Lili" who said:
"Linkara, you are one of two Christians that give me hope for Christianity and make me rethink my belief it's such a joke. Too bad you and the other person (a very sweet, very snarky, very devout Christian who happens to also be a lesbian) are two voices being drown out by the idiots."
Trust me. There are alot more of us than you think. These loud and obnoxious voices you here are not as many as their noise would suggest.
So don't judge Christianity simply by the rudeness or close-mindedness of some.
After all, the same could be said of any group. For example, I have been insulted and attacked for my orientation by Atheists as well, but I also know many good hearted Atheists as well.
The key is to not allow the venom of some to make you despise an entire group.
Why does the term "small name, big ego" come to mind when talking about Chuckie?
Ooh, THAT'S the supercruiser? Man, Roddimus Prime is going to be so jealous...
Why the hell does the Super Ninja look like Van Halen via Kabuki dance?
Finally, if he had really done that flying kick in the stinger (which is a really bad idea in ANY serious martial arts battle), one of two things would've happened; he would've broken his foot slipping on the glass and gotten run over by his target, or his belly would've been shredded open by the hole in the windshield he just punched through.
Also, why is his team called the "Karate Kommandos" when two of his teammates are a samurai and a sumo wrestler? Last I heard, Jiujitsu (the traditional martial art of samurai) and sumo were NOT karate.
The whole gay marriage debacle on here has to be pathetically humorous to me, being both gay, a mormon (complete with jokes about polygamy) and with friends that are in multiple-partner relationships. I'm not going to comment on it, for fear of the backlash and extending the idiocy further, but I will say that I'm now tempted to make a "Bachelor lions live in gay prides" joke.
Is it just me, or does Norris look weird when he just has a stache?
ReplyDeleteSo, if if Chuck Norris's apparent awseomeness lies solely in his enemies being idiots, does that mean he's also secretly Prince of Space?
ReplyDeleteIs it me, or did the opening segment to Karate Kommandos at the end of your review mention Chuck Norris' name a lot. It's as if the editors of the segment thought that viewers would forget his name unless they mentioned it ad nauseum. Or maybe Chuck just likes to hear his name a lot?
ReplyDeleteHuh, that was an interesting one. I thought how much hype actually surrounded him was just exaggeration. This is pretty compelling evidence that her really is that arrogant. Granted I doubt Chuck stood behind Jo Duffy with a shotgun or anything while the latter was writing the script, but the image won't leave my head for some reason.
ReplyDeleteAlso, and this is nit-picking, it amused me that Chuck said the trick is to wait for his enemies to attack and use their momentum against them, as that's really more a Aikido thing, rather than a Karate thing. Then again it's not that uncommon for Karate to be used as a blanket term for martial arts. *Goes off to mutter about the Karate Kid remake*
Technically, that's a valid spelling of commando. In Germany. Sorry Mr. Norris.
ReplyDeleteHe really is incredibly, shockingly blonde. What's up with that anyways? Had they never actually seen Chuck Norris?
That's the beauty of attack dogs. One moment, it's man's best friend. The next, it's a snarling fuzzy death machine.
You know, they could have shot him when he came into the room, but that honestly was their only chance. It is entirely possible to cross twenty-five feet before someone can draw, sight on, and fire at you. Their guns are already up but since they're idiots standing next to the door, they're unlikely to get off many shots. (No, I'm not making this up, people actually test this stuff. It's a basic part of Marine hand-to-hand training in fact.)
They really, really like Chuck Norris' name in that opening crawl.
Another short one. You saving up for something man?
Your comment at the end of the review made me realize that a Chuck Norris and Mr. T crossover would actually be very plausible and somehow crazy awesome.
ReplyDeleteChuck Norris used to have a real badass image... then he went around insisting Obama show his birth certificate and talking about "death panels" and I realized just how crazy he is. Good lord, is every media project about him designed to boost his ego?
ReplyDeleteSo now Steve Ditko has something besides "Mr. A" that is so widely reviled. Well, at least he just penciled it and didn't write it.
A Sumo called Tabe? Tabe as in Japanese for 'eat'? Oh geez, that's just...really terrible. How lazy do they have to be to come up with something like that?
ReplyDeleteHere's some slightly amusing trivia. You pronounced "Tabe" right the first time (Tah bay), and it's Japanese for "to eat." Get it? Because he eats all the time! Har har har har!
ReplyDeleteThat's about as creative as the land of Tierra Libre (Free Land) in the animated Rambo movie.
The people who make Chuck Norris list jokes have probably never seen a Chuck Norris movie. Most of them SUCK!
ReplyDeleteAs far as I am concerned, he has made two good movies: Lone Wolf McQuade and Code Of Silence.
Bruce Lee totally kicked Chuck Norris's butt... :D
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Linkara... I think you're forgetting something very important. The REAL reason why Chuck Norris is able to beat up so many ninjas.
The Inverse Ninja Law.
As seen here on the latest page of Dr. McNinja.
http://drmcninja.com/
I don't think Chuck was an actor in the show/comic's story. He was a government special agent or something, much like how in Jackie Chan Adventures Jackie is an archaeologist who ends up working for a secret govermnent bureau when he finds a magic artifact.
ReplyDeleteAlso funny you should mention Mr. T. (does he still throw people hella far, or did those "comics" die finally?), since in the show Chuck also does the live-action narration/moral closing bit. It wasn't as good as T's cartoon. I also believe Too Much was his foster kid or something like that.
Nice "Inked Reality" logo.
Hey, the whole "RV" thing worked in Stripes hehe
ReplyDeleteOh man, that face really was terrifying! Holy Christ, I felt like Ted Bundy was staring into my soul!
ReplyDeleteHilarious review, Lewis! Loved it as always!
Hey, I don't mind you changing from the scedule. It's your show, you review whatever the hell you want. ^^
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I thought that this was one of your funniest episodes in a while. I'm glad that you didn't use the "Because Poor Literacy is Kewl" joke for the Kommando title. It's like the "I am a Man" thing, it's really easy to overuse. (Speaking of which, we havn't seen the I am a Man punch in some time, Link.)
Great episode, as usual.
Think the references to "The Children's Story" might have something to do with Steve Ditko cramming all of his later work with allusions to objectivism?
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised we've gone so many episodes without having one of Marvel's Star comics featured so far.
"I'm surprised we've gone so many episodes without having one of Marvel's Star comics featured so far."
ReplyDeleteRemember Air Raiders? ^_~
Wow, I nearly choked on my dinner when you said that Steve Ditko inked this wackiness.
ReplyDeleteThe pursuit of the paycheck makes fools of us all, right?
Answering the end credits: I read A Children's Story as a school assignment... in HIGH SCHOOL, when I was old enough to appreciate the content. I think it more ironic that THIS PARTICULAR class seems to be assigning it, given that Norris seems to have brainwashed the kids (and the ninjas) into thinking he's some superhuman bullet-proof demigod...
ReplyDeleteYou know someone had to do it...
ReplyDelete"A-CHUCKANORRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS!"
Seems Darkwing Duck is not the only one to have an ego the size of a small planet
ReplyDeleteWow! I actually having that issue when I was a kid.
ReplyDelete...I feel old now ;_;
Steve Ditko? Creator of the Question Steve Ditko?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I had to add that. The Question is my favorite superhero of all time, after all.
Wait, wait, you went through this ENTIRE comic and didn't notice that Too Much looks like Troy McGreggor from "The Final Sacrifice"? My God, they even have the same initials! DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS MEANS? CHUCK NORRIS IS ZAP ROWSDOWER'S SECRET IDENTITY!
ReplyDeleteYou like screwing with expectations? No offense Linkara, but I saw that Highlander gag in the Lunat!k review coming a mile away.
ReplyDeleteI remember catching that cartoon on Adult Swim a couple years ago but not being able to watch more than an episode and a half. And I like to think I have a pretty high tolerance for crap.
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, it does seem like the theme song mentions his name a lot. It's like the Head-on of stupid action cartoons.
In the 80s, either Steve Ditko really DID need money that badly...
ReplyDeleteOr he was just happy to draw for the sake of drawing.
He even did two Transformers coloring books:
http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Steve_Ditko
And man... that Super Cruiser is something straight out of the Bill Murray army comedy STRIPES.
The inclusion of Ninja Style Dancing made my day. XD
ReplyDeleteI counted 9 mentions of "Chuck Norris" and 1 of plain old "chuck" in that short credit sequence thingy from the show. But more importantly, the return of Ninja Style Dancer. It really is a highlight, and I've missed him lately.
ReplyDeleteIt's Just Another 80s Toy Cartoon. I remember those well. There was even a Rambo cartoon series. Rambo!
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I'm starting to think that the book choice wasn't really accidental.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the writer was trying to warn us about the brainwashing content of Chuck Norris's material?
And no, Mr.T against Chuck Norris wouldn't work; there'd be so much memetic bad-assery in a small vicinity that the fabric of space time would rip apart.
'Better start hating gay marriage, kid!'
ReplyDelete*facepalm*
You're FOR gay marriage? Wow, the one place I would think the constantly changing homosexual agenda would not be rammed down my throat.
Why should the government sanction unions between homosexuals when this is completely unnatural? Argue until you're blue in the face about how homosexuals cannot help themselves; but how does this in any way indicate this is natural as opposed to a psychological or physiological defect? In legal terms; why should we consider marriage as an 'act of love' as opposed to a union meant to benefit society with the reproduction and raising of children? Why should 'tolerance' be equated with 'acceptance'?
Not, cool, Linkara, not cool. And I usually agree with you when it comes to politics.
did you know that ninjas dont fight chuck Norris, they commit
ReplyDeleteNorris kiri
It's actually kind of refreshing to see someone who DOESN'T worship the ground Chuck Norris kicks on, for a change.
ReplyDeleteRandomly, I counted - the cartoon opening says "Chuck Norris" eight times. ...Yeah...
And, in response to Queen Anthai, I must sing it...
♪ Rowsdower saves us, and saves all the world!
Did Chuck Noris Rider kick that guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0i8AP9iV14
ReplyDeleteWell, it could have been worse, with the spelling.
ReplyDeleteIt could have been Chuck Norris' Kool Karate Kommando with Nearly Awesome Zeppelin Internships.
Why is it nearly awesome? Because you don't ride a Zeppelin with the shape of Chuck Norris. It was so awesome, the concept made every villian in an alternate dimension suffer a heart attack.
Fedor would murder Chuck
ReplyDeleteThank you Linkara, for your hard work. You gave another great review.I enjoyed the return of the Ninja Style Dancer.
ReplyDeleteChuck Norris: I barely know who he is. I've seen one episode of his cartoon, and Nostalgia Critic's review of that "movie" he did.
Whenever I do see him, however, I understand his popularity less and less. I have to wonder though, If someone kicks a windshield apart, like Norris did at the end there, wouldn't he lose his legs?!
Anyhoo, Keep up the good work and have a great day.
I have an issue of this series that my brother in law gave me. Man alive, Marvel and DC would publish some crap back in the day. And this was hardly the only comic that was basically just an advertisement. That's really all the Star imprint was for- publishing comics based off of toy/cartoon properties. But they weren't all bad. I have an issue of Visionaries(Based on a toyline that used hologram stickers on the weapons) that was borderline brilliant.
ReplyDeleteThe best thing about the whole Chuck Norris list meme (which I normally can't stand) is that it's the purest form of Irony the internet has ever produced. Not one person who utters a Chuck Norris fact actually believes it.
ReplyDeleteAnd the icing on that cake is that ol' Chuck himself is completely oblivious to the fact that people are actively mocking him. Seriously. See interviews where it's brought up.
the constantly changing homosexual agenda would not be rammed down my throat.
ReplyDeleteHURR FREUDIAN SLIP
Awww, Chris. <3
ReplyDelete"Rowsdower, could you put out my head?"
So the ninjas wanted the camper from STRIPES? Why didn't they just kidnap Harold Ramis?
ReplyDeleteAlso, little factoid for Power Ranger geeks: Barbara Goodson who did the voice of Rita Repulsa also did the animated voice of Too Much.
Taken from Twitter:
ReplyDeleteFotoVerite:
"@Linkara19Do you want to take DesertEagle hate mongering or can I."
Linkara:
@FotoVerite By all means, go ahead. ^_^
Yes; because obviously if I am against gay marriage I am a hate monger and probably a racist too.
Give me your best shot. Any argument you make will be based on questionable logic and emotion as opposed to objective thought.
"Give me your best shot. Any argument you make will be based on questionable logic and emotion as opposed to objective thought."
ReplyDeleteObjective thought is a fallacy, especially in this matter. However, let's evaluate if your own opinions are based on purported "objective thought," shall we?
"Why should the government sanction unions between homosexuals when this is completely unnatural?"
This statement assumes a few things:
-That because something is natural, it is good, and that to be unnatural is to be evil.
-That homosexuality is unnatural.
-That the government should be in the business of sanctioning or prohibiting what is "natural" or "unnatural."
Let's start with the first premise, shall we? That because something is natural, it is good. Diseases are natural - they are an element of nature that exists as part of an ecosystem, either to stem population growth or simply have popped up along with all of the other creatures on this earth.
And yet we combat diseases. However, if that argument isn't good enough, let's then look at eating habits - while biologically humans are CAPABLE of digesting meat, the digestive tract is in fact better suited for handling roughage, plants, and other assorted non-traditionally "alive" elements, assuming we take the word "alive" to be more of a basis of animal rather than plant life, since I'm sure some people would argue that plant life is still life.
And yet we still consume meat for various reasons, primary of which is that meat tastes good. Yet it is not "natural" for our bodies.
Speaking of what's natural for our bodies, our bodies react to various stimuli in certain ways - sexual, emotional, psychological, etc. Yet social standards (which are NOT natural, they are artificial as part of living in a civilized society that no longer requires such natural instincts) prohibit us from acting a lot of the time on those stimuli. What was "natural" to us has long since been abandoned since it was necesasry for survival millions of years ago.
What is artificial and not natural, are, in fact, good as well. Structures to protect us from the elements, cleaning supplies, transportation, and the very computer you're typing at are all unnatural and artificial, and yet they are good.
And finally there is the role of government. Now, I have my own opinions on the role of government as I'm sure you have, as well, however a government is, again, an unnatural and artificial creation and the laws that it governs by are ever-changing. Society once dictated that certain human beings should not be classified as full people and the law, set forth by the government, dictated it to be so. Ethically, such things are, however, abhorrent, especially when looking at it from the point of view of a society that finds such practices barbaric and inhuman. The government may sanction or prohibit as it chooses, however it does not mean that they are ethically correct.
"You're FOR gay marriage? Wow, the one place I would think the constantly changing homosexual agenda would not be rammed down my throat."
I'm not exactly certain how I was "ramming" the 'constantly changing homosexual agenda' "down your throat" when all I was doing was making a joke about Chuck Norris' own political opinions. I imagine the majority of my fanbase IS in favor of legalized gay marriage as I am. You are not - fine, I don't really care all that much for your opinion, but you're free to have it.
However, I was not "ramming the agenda," but playing on Too Much's hero worship against something I disagree with, which I've done before against comic characters and, indeed, real people whose opinions and reputations I don't much care for (Frank Miller, Rob Liefeld, Jimmy Carter, Rick Olney, Gary Brodsky).
"Argue until you're blue in the face about how homosexuals cannot help themselves; but how does this in any way indicate this is natural as opposed to a psychological or physiological defect?"
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I was making a joke. You're the one who decided to bring a debate to the table over a joke made about a comic that worships Chuck Norris based on a TV show that worships Chuck Norris.
"In legal terms; why should we consider marriage as an 'act of love' as opposed to a union meant to benefit society with the reproduction and raising of children?"
In legal terms, marriage has nothing to do with the "benefit of society" and "the reproduction and raising of children." Society is benefited by an increase in the general happiness and welfare of the people within the society and the taxes they pay, the property they purchase, and the relationships they possess. Legally speaking marriage is simply a way of assigning ownership of property, which children fall under because they are considered incapable of making decisions for themselves.
However, if we really wish to say that the primary legal and societal necessity of marriage is reproduction and rearing of children, then divorce should be illegal and adoptions and foster care never granted to single individuals.
"Not, cool, Linkara, not cool. And I usually agree with you when it comes to politics."
For which I'm appreciative for the most part, but then again I wonder what exactly you were expecting of me and my opinions on gay marriage when I have openly and frequently stated my viewpoints on equal rights when it has come to women and transgendered individuals.
Great Show, But the lip sync was a bit off in the middle of he middle.
ReplyDelete"Great Show, But the lip sync was a bit off in the middle of he middle. "
ReplyDelete...I seriously can't win against flash video, can I? XD
Wokling: "I have to wonder though, If someone kicks a windshield apart, like Norris did at the end there, wouldn't he lose his legs?!"
ReplyDeleteHe would if he weren't protected by Plot Armor. :) But then, Plot Armor is pretty much standard equipment on cheesy action heroes.
Actually, divorce IS illegal. It is breach of the marriage contract.
ReplyDeleteI didn't expect that you would be one to carelessly throw around the word "hate". Hate connotes the wish to harm something even to the point of destruction/death. Chuck merely disagrees with the position that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. He does't go around roundhouse kicking them... that tends to not get your message across.
Secondly, my daughter (7) is very conscientious about language. You were one of the few TGWTG reviewers that I could listen to without headphones... but lately you've been peppering your dialog with more curses. When you started in the the asses and bastards, she declared that you are stupid for it. Now you're in the same category as so many others, where I have to treat you like the friend I can't bring over because I'm ashamed of him. I've witnessed too many people fall away by degrees.
You are my brother, Linkara, and as such, I feel the need to admonish you because I care for your wellbeing. You're on a slippery slope. I hope you regain your foundation.
Lewis, I was going to give Desert Eagle a piece of my mind for his statement, but I think you took care of it far better than I ever could have. Great job.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised Chuck Norris never did another movie after the Chuck Norris Facts came out to capitalize on his revitalized pop culture status. Although, the fact that he's now 70 (I had no idea he was that old!) may have something to do with it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the comic, it looks like just another cheap tie-in. I don't know why they put so much of the story in a school. Do kids really want to read about being in school? I'd rather read about being somewhere else, like in a far-flung adventure in a jungle somewhere.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the "Karate Kommandos" just leave the super cruiser outside of the school.
ReplyDeleteI mean, was that their hiding spot for it? Really? Leave the weapon of mass roundhouse-kicking right next to where children study? A weapon that is sought after by gun-toting ninjas?
Wow, Chuck Norris is a dick.
Excellent review, sweets. Keep it up!
Yea I sometimes find the whole Chuck Norris thing over-exaggerated. Some of them are good but others are pretty stupid. I really don't think anyone's found the last digit of pi yet.
ReplyDeleteThose ninjas are the WORST ninjas I have ever seen! Hello? Where are the ninja weapons?
DesertEagle - I love how a one-off joke at Norris's political activities is somehow oppressing you.
ReplyDeleteA high tech military vechicle designed to infiltrate populated areas by appearing to be a standard recreational vehicle.
ReplyDeleteDid this comic come out before or after the release of Stripes
(See line "...Once in Italy, their mission is to guard the EM-50 "Urban Assault Vehicle" (disguised to look like a large recreational vehicle, specifically, a late 70s GMC motorhome). )
Thank you Linkara. I'm so glad that I'm not the only one who finds Chuck Norris overrated.
ReplyDelete"Secondly, my daughter (7) is very conscientious about language. You were one of the few TGWTG reviewers that I could listen to without headphones... but lately you've been peppering your dialog with more curses. When you started in the the asses and bastards, she declared that you are stupid for it. Now you're in the same category as so many others, where I have to treat you like the friend I can't bring over because I'm ashamed of him. I've witnessed too many people fall away by degrees.
ReplyDeleteYou are my brother, Linkara, and as such, I feel the need to admonish you because I care for your wellbeing. You're on a slippery slope. I hope you regain your foundation."
Fair enough, but with respect, AT4W in terms of age rating is PG-13 or borderline-R - the subject matter of comics I've mocked can include violent death (Countdown), destruction (Amazons Attack), alcoholism (JLA: Act of God), sex (Ultimates 3, The Dark Knight Strikes Again), psychological horror (Silent Hill: Dying Inside), and just overrall adult themes and situations. Karate Kommandos just happens to be one of the tamer comics I've reviewed thanks to the fact that the cartoon it was based on was intended for children, anyway.
It's of course your perogative and your right as a parent how much you wish to expose or shield your daughter to such themes and situations in media, but I guess my point is that the show has never exactly been child-friendly.
However, you're probably right that lately I've been using more "friggin's" and "damns" and the like and I should probably pull it back a bit.
"However, you're probably right that lately I've been using more "friggin's" and "damns" and the like and I should probably pull it back a bit."
ReplyDeleteYeah. I believe it can be much funnier without the repetitive use of swear words. I know Bill Cosby and Jack Benny didn't repeatedly swear in their shows. I wish some people could see that. Of course people these days believe talking like a sailor equals the road to true happiness.
"Diseases are natural"
ReplyDeleteDiseases are not natural. The natural state of man is to be healthy.
"Yeah. I believe it can be much funnier without the repetitive use of swear words. I know Bill Cosby and Jack Benny didn't repeatedly swear in their shows. I wish some people could see that. Of course people these days believe talking like a sailor equals the road to true happiness."
ReplyDeleteThat's why I stopped watching the AVGN, all the swearing and toilet humor. He made intelligent observations, don't get me wrong, but the thing is his reviews weren't all that entertaining. I haven't noticed an overflow of cussing in the reviews lately but yeah, you might wanna watch that, Linkara.
I don't think you should hold back on your "damns" and "friggen" words. I can hardly call those curses, especially the kind of things you see on T.V. nowadays. You are probably the most self controlled critic on TGWTG, and I never even considered you, or TGWTG meant for kids.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the subject matter is for a mature audience of late teens to early adult hood, and shouldn't be watched by children who probably don't even care about opinions of others. I know when I was young I didn't care less about what critics response to the media was.
Responding to DesertEagle:
ReplyDelete"You're FOR gay marriage?"
Give me literally one good reason to be against it.
"Why should the government sanction unions between homosexuals when this is completely unnatural?"
The definition of "natural" is "of, or occurring in nature." There are over one thousand documented species of animals with homosexual members, and humans are no exception. Homosexuality is quite natural.
"Argue until you're blue in the face about how homosexuals cannot help themselves; but how does this in any way indicate this is natural as opposed to a psychological or physiological defect? "
Psychological or physiological defects are natural too.
"In legal terms; why should we consider marriage as an 'act of love' as opposed to a union meant to benefit society with the reproduction and raising of children?"
Since when was that the purpose of marriage? Ever heard of couples who don't have children? Sterile couples, perhaps? Perhaps we should ban those people from getting married too.
Responding to mightysamurai:
ReplyDelete"Diseases are not natural. The natural state of man is to be healthy."
No one said anything about the natural state of man. The statement was that diseases themselves are natural. Bacteria are living organisms, too.
Of course, the fact that Linkara is a feminist and often starts his show with "ladies, gentlemen, and others," which says he recognizes more than the gender binary, totally means he isn't for the rights of all people. Mmhmm, end sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, disease is perfectly natural. It's nature's way of attempting to thin out the weak. There are diseases for every creature, from animal to plant, and the only creature that is able to combat this is human. And we haven't always been able to combat disease effectively until fairly recently.
It's always so fascinating to watch the obviously privileged try to argue against protecting the rights of the human beings they're trying to oppress. Some of the arguments are just so... funny.
Bacteria are living organisms (but not all cause diseases). Viruses are not living organisms, but still cause diseases. I can't think of any virus that has actually been a good thing...
ReplyDeleteThere's also tons of other micro-organisms that can cause problems or be helpful. Or they can just be sitting around being perfectly harmless...
Take demodicids, for instance. Demodicids are these very tiny microscopic creatures with several legs that live at the base of the eyelashes for several creatures.
In fact, it is estimated that 96% of the human race has demodicids crawling around through their eyelashes. Yay! :D
Sweet dreams, everyone!
Oh... and.... CHUCK NORRIS!
"No one said anything about the natural state of man."
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, the premise being examined was whether natural=good. The essence of naturalist ethics is that "good" is the natural state of man and the world. The natural state of man is to be healthy without any diseases or handicaps. Therefore, according to the naturalist perspective, diseases and handicaps should be cured whenever possible.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the naturalist argument (there's an argument to be made that poverty is the natural state of man, which creates some rather unfortunate implications), but the "disease=natural" misconception is one of my bugaboos.
"And yes, disease is perfectly natural. It's nature's way of attempting to thin out the weak."
ReplyDeleteNature does not have a consciousness. It does not "weed out the weak".
Wow. I... yeah, that's privilege right there I'm seeing.
ReplyDelete"Healthy" is the state of humans that are wealthy and fortunate enough to live in a country with good health care. It's a good state to be in, and hopeful, but there are many things that can throw this balance off. And even "curing" these natural diseases that have been living with us since the dawn of humanity have allowed new diseases to crop up. Sometimes bacteria becomes immune to the antibiotics that we've developed to combat the disease, thereby creating even more nasty diseases. And sometimes our own bodies rebel against the unnatural bubble we privileged people have put ourselves in with antibiotic everything. Our bodies are a carefully crafted balance of bacteria, and when we go and try to kill the bacteria that would normally kill or just eat what the pathogenic bacteria would eat, that balance is thrown out of whack.
Yeah, we've learned how to keep the staph on our skin from entering the bloodstream when we're cut and making us sick, but the privileged humans are kind of the exception. Not every human on this planet knows this or has access to the means to do so, and animals have no idea what these words even mean, just that it hurts and they need to clean it with their dirty, dirty tongues.
Not to mention, the means to combat these diseases? Are usually man made. The ingredients exist in nature, but only man has taken them all and synthesized a drug from them. Go ahead and tell me chemotherapy exists without man creating it to combat cancer. Cancer is natural. It sucks, and chemo is great, but cancer still exists without any human help/attempt to destroy. Natural isn't always good, and unnatural isn't always bad.
"The definition of "natural" is "of, or occurring in nature." There are over one thousand documented species of animals with homosexual members, and humans are no exception. Homosexuality is quite natural."
ReplyDeleteThere's a contradiction in the information you placed-
When a male dog does what you call a "homosexual" act on another dog, that is a form of dominance. The dog is showing the other who's boss. Same will go with females.
Others may do it out of aggression or to prevent conflict, and often times an animal will do homosexual acts whenever they fail to identify the gender of the other animal, which more likely occurs in the lower sections of the animal kingdom. When an animal mates with another, it does so as a means of reproduction.
Another way to argue with this, is if homosexuality is really natural because animals enact in homosexuality, then cannibalism too would be considered natural. Since animals enact in cannibalism when food is scarce, or when they mistake their own kind for prey
I will finish this with two quotes from my source:
'It Is Unscientific To "Read" Human Motivation
And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior'
and this,
'As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach'
"Nature does not have a consciousness. It does not "weed out the weak". "
ReplyDeleteIt is true that nature does not have a consciousness. However, think of it like natural selection. It doesn't have a consciousness either, but it has a way of almost seeming to have a life of its own, with the way it furthers the evolutionary process.
"When a male dog does what you call a "homosexual" act on another dog, that is a form of dominance. The dog is showing the other who's boss. Same will go with females. "
ReplyDeleteThere is legitimate homosexual activity as well as sex for dominance.
"Another way to argue with this, is if homosexuality is really natural because animals enact in homosexuality, then cannibalism too would be considered natural."
Sure would. Technically, I don't really find a fault with putting the dead to good use. Personally I wouldn't engage in it myself, because I think it's disgusting, but I still think that it's a better solution than putting a corpse in an expensive box, and burying the box for some reason.
Even humans who are wealthy and have good health-care in their own country get sick, sometimes severely so. There is no discrimination amongst bacteria and viruses, and sometimes even your own body just up and deciding to start acting defectively.
ReplyDeleteReally, the only "natural" order of things is to be disorderly. Entropy. Everything is heading toward it.
I don't particularly believe in privilege myself. Nobody has control over things like being born or being healthy (there are measures that can be taken, of course, but obviously, it isn't an end-all-be-all thing).
I do think there are people that face injustice in the world but simply pointing blame doesn't tackle the root of the problem.
You know while reading through some She-hulk comics I discovered what exactly happened in US 1. Eventually they apparently all left Earth. US is a space truck driver and his love interest and her Uncle run a space truck stop. God how I wish I was making that up.
ReplyDeleteUgh, god, he really really is. Though I can definitely see how he inspired that meme. Originally that meme was meant to be about Vin Diesel, but it suits Mr. Norris a lot better.
ReplyDeleteGreat review, Linkara/Lewis (whichever you prefer).
ReplyDelete"And yet we still consume meat for various reasons, primary of which is that meat tastes good. Yet it is not 'natural' for our bodies."
ReplyDeleteNot to dis you or anything but actually we consume meat because Vitamin B-12 is necessary for survival, yes you can get it from beer, some algae, yeast, and I believe, not entirely sure, bugs, but lots of people in America at least, aren't keen on eating bugs. Plant foods are generally devoid of B12.
The primary reason we consume meat isn't just taste it is because it is a B12 rich resource that is usually widely available. We have developed our taste for it because we need it for the metabolism of every cell of the body, especially affecting DNA synthesis and regulation, but also fatty acid synthesis and energy production.
So why do we have to cook it? To prolong our lives even more so we don't get diseases. If we just ate living fish and bugs we could probably do ok though. If you consider bugs meat.
Which brings me to my next point. Now to be fair this is based on what a zoo keeper said so take what you will from that. so anyway, I went to the zoo once and they said they used to just give vultures road kill but that they realized the vultures weren't too healthy so they started giving them store bought cooked meat and their health improved. Yes some animals don't need their meat cooked, but those animals also tend to have shorter lifespans than humans, plus any meat eater can eat cooked meat so its not like cooking is bad. Its just a way to improve food. But technically cooking isn't natural, unless you use a really insane argument that we are a part of nature and we cook so it is natural "Which I would argue" (just kidding). :D but yeah cooking and morals are some of the few things that separate us from animals :P
""Healthy" is the state of humans that are wealthy and fortunate enough to live in a country with good health care."
ReplyDeleteOh nonsense. Just because you live in a poor country with bad healthcare doesn't mean you personally can't be healthy. It is, in fact, possible to care for your own health.
What, do you think people in poor countries just stumble around puking and leaking pus from their rotting sores all day?
"It is true that nature does not have a consciousness. However, think of it like natural selection. It doesn't have a consciousness either, but it has a way of almost seeming to have a life of its own, with the way it furthers the evolutionary process."
ReplyDeleteThe key word there is "seeming". Just because you perceive a conscious force there does not mean there is one.
To quote Linkara, "Evolution does not work that way." There is no "goal" or "purpose" to natural selection. Nature does not "weed out" weak individuals. In fact, "weakness" doesn't even enter the equation. Natural selection does not separate the weak from the strong, it separates the adaptive from the non-adaptive.
@Lotus Prince
ReplyDelete"There is legitimate homosexual activity as well as sex for dominance."
You really don't get it do you? When a male attempts to do a "homosexual" act to another, the other male will or will attempt to retaliate. Because he does not want to be lower than the other animal.
Because a male [unintelligible] another male doesn't do it as means of [unintelligible], but as DOMINANCE. It is NOT because it is homosexual! It means he is #1 and even sends a message to the female animals saying that HE'S the one they want.
Another thing I want to note is that with dogs, they will want to [unintelligible] the first thing they can come in contact with, if they catch wind of a female in heat, but cannot locate her. Actually the smell of a female in heat causes a frenzy of those behaviors, because she releases a pheromone.
Besides. Reproduction is necessary for survival, therefore an animal can never be homosexual. But it's interaction with other instincts such as dominance, will lead to behavior that appears to be homosexual, but it isn't.
As said before, it is a foolish and unscientific approach to sentiment human behavior into animal behavior.
And oh yeah, and besides cannibalism, you would have to accept filicide, as something 'natural', which is the deliberate act of the parent killing their child.
*Sidesteps the emerging socio-political debate*
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Steve Ditko, I'd recommend (if you haven't read it already) his recent coffee table biography Strange and Stranger, by Blake Bell...aside from a highly entertaining read, it sheds a little light on the whole "needs a paycheck" phase of his career.
The abridged version is that Ditko was an extremely hard-line objectivist at that point in his career (and remains so to this day), and put his beliefs into direct practice through his comics work...pretty much the only jobs he really took in mainstream comics at that point were menial, mindless stuff like Karate Kommandos (and the aforementioned Transformers coloring book) while saving his "real" ability for personal projects, including objectivist-oriented graphic novel material that's so underground it's probably touching magma (although, without condemning or condoning objectivism itself, do IMHO seem, at a glance, at least visually interesting. But then again, Ditko's always been a master designer, hasn't he?).
Anywhoo, despite one's feelings on the man's politics, I highly recommend the bio. Good stuff.
You totally missed a trick at 10:40.
ReplyDelete"You turkeys won't get away with this!"
"I'm not a chicken, YOU'RE A TURKEY!"
You know burce lee once whiped the floor whith chuck norris,why dosent any one worship him?
ReplyDelete"You really don't get it do you? When a male attempts to do a "homosexual" act to another, the other male will or will attempt to retaliate."
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, the recipient is another (willing) homosexual.
"Because he does not want to be lower than the other animal."
Gay sex isn't only utilized for dominance.
"Because a male [unintelligible] another male doesn't do it as means of [unintelligible], but as DOMINANCE."
Sometimes, maybe even often. But not always.
"It is NOT because it is homosexual! It means he is #1 and even sends a message to the female animals saying that HE'S the one they want."
See above.
"Another thing I want to note is that with dogs, they will want to [unintelligible] the first thing they can come in contact with, if they catch wind of a female in heat, but cannot locate her. Actually the smell of a female in heat causes a frenzy of those behaviors, because she releases a pheromone."
Okay, that's one solitary species of animal out of how many? There are more than six million species of insects alone, you know. Dogs aren't representative of every animal ever.
"Besides."
That's not a sentence.
"Reproduction is necessary for survival, therefore an animal can never be homosexual. "
Oh man, I lol'd.
Pro-tip: humans are animals. If your logic held, then there'd be no such thing as a homosexual human either - not to mention that not all animals (nor all humans) reproduce.
"As said before, it is a foolish and unscientific approach to sentiment human behavior into animal behavior."
It's also foolish and unscientific to assume that all animals function in the same exact way, and that homosexuality is a fluke that exists only in humans (which, by the way, are animals).
"And oh yeah, and besides cannibalism, you would have to accept filicide, as something 'natural', which is the deliberate act of the parent killing their child. "
Animals have their reasons for that. Human society works its way around such things. Maybe millenia ago it might've been an idea, but it's obsolete now.
" Paul S. said...
ReplyDeleteDesertEagle - I love how a one-off joke at Norris's political activities is somehow oppressing you."
He's just confused about his own sexuality
What the...? *looks at the top of the page* Yes...it says this is the comments of Atop The Fourth Wall. What's all this darn serious posting regarding the legality of same-sex marriages doing here? Well, you're not dragging me into that trap, I can tell you!
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'm going to talk about my opinion of the latest review. Another great pick, Mr. Lovhaug. I liked this one because, after having some rather painful subjects being thrown on the fire, this one didn't have me reaching for the aspirin. Yes, Chuck Norris Karate Kommandos was dumb and dull, but not to the point were I cursed myself for not acquiring a taste for alcoholic beverages and thus not being able to drink the memories of such horrors away.
Second, I am going to mention something regarding one of your posts in response to the whole same-sex marriage kerfuffle. However, I am still not getting involved in that argument. I'm referring to where you say "the digestive tract is in fact better suited for handling roughage, plants, and other assorted non-traditionally "alive" elements, assuming we take the word "alive" to be more of a basis of animal rather than plant life, since I'm sure some people would argue that plant life is still life."
While it is true, the human digestive tract does differ from those of carnivores, it is still not that of a herbivore ether. Simply put, we are pretty much designed as omnivores, and it is difficult (though, admittedly, not impossible) for humans to live solely on a diet based on meat or vegetation. I am not putting the kibosh on anyone who wants to pursue a vegetarian lifestyle for ethical, religious, or any other personal choices. However, to say mankind is meant to be a herbivore? The science doesn't back up that statement. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm thinking of making up some more country-fried SPAM! :)
Everyone's at least a LITTLE gay. Just look at David Boreanaz and tell me you wouldn't feel safe in his arms.
ReplyDeleteOn the hot topic of sumo wrestlers, I get annoyed every time I see one portrayed as a hungry hungry hippo character. Sumo Wrestlers are huge and fat, yes, but the good ones are disciplined about what they eat (even if it is a large quantity) and work out a lot. They've got plenty of fat, but they've got plenty of muscle, too. This comic was far from the worst I've seen, I'd still like to see more respectable portrayals of sumo wrestlers in general.
Then again, if a sumo character is being included, it probably is as a gimmick, so the most respectable portrayal is probably none at all ^^;
“Oh man, I lol'd.”
ReplyDeleteThat's not a complete argument. I have not seen any form of reproduction between a male and a male.
“Okay, that's one solitary species of animal out of how many? There are more than six million species of insects alone, you know. Dogs aren't representative of every animal ever.”
“Pro-tip: humans are animals. If your logic held, then there'd be no such thing as a homosexual human either - not to mention that not all animals (nor all humans) reproduce.”
“It's also foolish and unscientific to assume that all animals function in the same exact way, and that homosexuality is a fluke that exists only in humans (which, by the way, are animals).”
Psychologically, we are not animals. We think more than animals, and the expressing of our behavior is not as limited. While we can express ourselves through speech, gesture, writing, etc, animals cannot.
Animals "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on. This borrowing does not mean that they are homosexual. An animal that goes after a male to prove it is #1, will eventually go after the female some time later. Especially during (in mammals), the mating season.
Hey! Maybe the animals will hump something to make sure it is ready WHEN the mating season comes! In this case, how do you know that the animals you speak of are really homosexual, and not just borrowing those manifestations of reproduction? Do you even know if the animal knows what homosexuality even is? What you are doing is linking animal behavior with human behavior.
The term homosexuality is limited to the human species, because in animals we can ascertain only motor behavior. Specifically, meaning what it looks like they're doing. Since the expression of the animal is limited, we can't use what looks like homosexuality in an animal as means of calling it natural.
I have never “assumed” that all animals function in the exact same way. Or did you say that because I used the dog as an example? God forbid I use an EXAMPLE!
As for the 'not all animals reproduce' thing, what species of animals are there that don't need to reproduce exist? Or are you talking too about the fungi? Such as the sea sponge and mushrooms? Or are you really saying that not all WANT to reproduce? In the animal's case you are wrong. The animal will have the drive/instinct to reproduce unless the animal is neutered or spayed, which requires human assistance.
And as for your “Humans=Animals” thing, show me those animal schools that teach their young the ABCs, and their animal hospitals that have animals caring for the young and old, and their animal governments that protect the animals with their animal army, and their animal game boys, that they use for entertainment, and their animal writing material to write books, and their written animal language, and their animal toiletries. So far I have seen none of that.
Continued-
ReplyDelete“Animals have their reasons for that. Human society works its way around such things. Maybe millenia ago it might've been an idea, but it's obsolete now.”
But if what you've been saying earlier was true, we should still allow filicide and cannibalism because they're both natural, regardless of our society. Did the pig and the mantis have a reason for killing and eating its young even though there was plenty of food to go around? Was there a way around that? In that case we should be allowed to lick other people's feet, rummage through trash, trespass, and run around town in the nude without being given awkward faces and having the police called. I mean, if licking feet, rummaging, trespassing, and being naked is natural because the animals do it, why can't we? Insects, and forest/house mammals trespass in human territory all the time. Male porcupines urinate on the females before mating. Cats and Dogs mark territories with their urine. Bears scratch big gaping holes in trees.
In fact. Since MARRIAGE isn't a natural animal act, we might as well not have it at all. The whole Gay Marriage thing would be nothing since animals don't marry. Same goes for: education, government, money, cars, news, comfortable furniture, ATMs, businesses, video games, and finally, COMPUTERS. Also, animals don't have societies, is that still classified as 'natural'?
If you want to do what is 'natural', be my guest and ditch the stuff I listed, and live your life, free as a bird, doing what you do as long as the animals do it.
HAH! We are so frickin' animals. Every daily behavior I see can be traced back to something more primitive. Sure, we're unique among the local fauna, but we really need to get over ourselves.
ReplyDeleteRate of death from infectious diseases, compare a wealthy nation with decent health care to a poor nation with poor health care. Please look it up. If diseases were unnatural, then the rate wouldn't differ too much.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I seem to remember several species that when the females were taken out of their world view, the males started having sex with each other, and when a female was reintroduced, they were uninterested in the female. I want to say cockatiel is the bird I'm thinking of there. I do know happy homosexual penguin pairs have been recorded. The Japanese macaque have homosexual couples engage in courtship as well. Homosexual black swans have been known to just use a female for the eggs and then drive her off to live in peace together. In fact, more cygnets from homosexual black swan pairings survive to adulthood than heterosexual ones.
"Unnatural" means "not occurring without help in nature." Homosexuality happens in nature without human help. Learn a new way to oppress the minority.
Linkara, you are one of two Christians that give me hope for Christianity and make me rethink my belief it's such a joke. Too bad you and the other person (a very sweet, very snarky, very devout Christian who happens to also be a lesbian) are two voices being drown out by the idiots.
"That's not a complete argument. I have not seen any form of reproduction between a male and a male."
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen any form of reproduction between a sterile couple. Let's ban sterile people from getting married.
"Psychologically, we are not animals."
Biologically, we are. What are we, if not animals? Plants? Fungi? We have to fit into ONE of the seven kingdoms.
"We think more than animals, and the expressing of our behavior is not as limited. While we can express ourselves through speech, gesture, writing, etc, animals cannot."
Some animals can - gorillas and dolphins, for instance.
"Animals "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on. This borrowing does not mean that they are homosexual."
Of course not - changes of hormones in the womb would mean that they are homosexual.
" In this case, how do you know that the animals you speak of are really homosexual, and not just borrowing those manifestations of reproduction?"
That's what constant research is for - following select animals for an extended period of time. It would also help to catch animals at a time other than mating season.
"The term homosexuality is limited to the human species, because in animals we can ascertain only motor behavior."
So what you're saying is that homosexual animals can't exist because humans can't see it? I guess that means that there is no such thing Neptune, because I've never seen it - only speculative pictures in textbooks.
"As for the 'not all animals reproduce' thing, what species of animals are there that don't need to reproduce exist?
"As for the 'not all animals reproduce' thing, what species of animals are there that don't need to reproduce exist?"
I wasn't referring to a specie. I was referring to specific animals. Not all humans reproduce, not all animals of particular species reproduce.
"Or are you talking too about the fungi? Such as the sea sponge and mushrooms? Or are you really saying that not all WANT to reproduce? In the animal's case you are wrong. "
Ah, so you've read the mind of every animal ever. Damn, I severely underestimated you.
"And as for your “Humans=Animals” thing, show me those animal schools that teach their young the ABCs,"
Wow, I feel like an idiot - this entire time, you were just trolling me.
Yeah, it turns out that humans have somehow surpassed all forms of biological classification because we invented schools. We are no longer considered to be mammals because...uh...you say so.
"But if what you've been saying earlier was true, we should still allow filicide and cannibalism because they're both natural, regardless of our society."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware that "it's natural" was the only requirement to allow anything you want, ever. Conversely, "it's unnatural" is a terrible reason to ban gay marriage - especially considering that marriage is a socially constructed institution, which means that heterosexual marriage is just as unnatural as homosexual marriage. We should eliminate marriage altogether, and skip straight to the sex, right? Doesn't get more natural than that.
"Did the pig and the mantis have a reason for killing and eating its young even though there was plenty of food to go around? "
I'm sure they do. I just haven't googled it. I know that lions, for example, will kill male young, so as not to have any rivals later on.
"Was there a way around that? In that case we should be allowed to lick other people's feet, rummage through trash, trespass, and run around town in the nude without being given awkward faces and having the police called. "
Clearly you did not read my previous post about how societal norms have eliminated the need or even the want for that (even though you copied and pasted it).
"In fact. Since MARRIAGE isn't a natural animal act, we might as well not have it at all. "
Oh hey, you beat me to it. :)
"The whole Gay Marriage thing would be nothing since animals don't marry. Same goes for: education, government, money, cars, news, comfortable furniture, ATMs, businesses, video games, and finally, COMPUTERS."
Again, human-constructed norms.
"Also, animals don't have societies, is that still classified as 'natural'?"
Wait, what? Animals don't have societies? What???
"If you want to do what is 'natural', be my guest and ditch the stuff I listed, and live your life, free as a bird, doing what you do as long as the animals do it."
Congratulations on intentionally missing any point I've made in this entire conversation.
Pro-tip: the only reason I've been making the "natural" argument is because some genius said that gay marriage should be banned because homosexuality is "unnatural."
*grabs some popcorn, reads the comments*
ReplyDeleteHas anyone mentioned homosexual behavior in swans yet?
"We should eliminate marriage altogether, and skip straight to the sex, right? Doesn't get more natural than that."
ReplyDeleteAmen to that brother
:D
people should read this before continuing the discussion any further
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_homosexuality
Yeah I know what you mean by the "start hating gay marriage kid" joke. I hate it when one of the people I look up to turns out to have some insane irrational view on something. It just ruins all that you thought about that person.
ReplyDeleteAlso I might as well jump on the gay argument. I love reading these and seeing the people against gay whatever making up a bunch of bull, and then get smashed by actual logic.
I personally think that sexuality isn't like the sides of a coin. Its more like a spectrum. Or a percentage to make things easy to explain. Not many people are 100% gay or 100% straight. Everyone is somewhere in between. I have gay friends that admit that they really like boobs. Does that make them not as gay? Or how about one guy I know who is on the straight side but now and then includes his girlfriend in butt play. Is he not straight after all? Who knows except for him. There's really not a fork in the road for sexuality. Its more like where you stand on a bridge. The people that see where they are on that bridge and are comfortable with it are the good people. The ones who are not comfortable are the ones starting the problems we see here.
Also marriage for only reproduction would make total sense if we only allowed reproductive couples to marry and not allow them to ever use any kind of birth control.
"Also marriage for only reproduction would make total sense if we only allowed reproductive couples to marry and not allow them to ever use any kind of birth control."
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me strongly of medieval marriage laws
If this 'supercruiser' is meant to be so advanced and secretive then why the hell are they showing it at all? And to elementary kids at that! Does the FBI regularly show what make of cars it uses to follow suspects? Does the CIA let the press look at the engines of the UAVs?
ReplyDeleteDouble cover-up? Maybe they're actually using a Peterbilt, and the RV is a distraction?
ReplyDeleteTaunting overweight people! Having lame kid sidekicks! Having even lamer villains!
ReplyDeleteChuck Norris: Karate Kommandos has it all!
A friend told me about your site. I'm glad that his praise was right on the money. Great review!
PS: Linkara, as a Gay Christian I just wanted to say, thank you for your kind words. You are a credit to our faith.
@Linkara: You know what? I overreacted. This does not mean I changed my mind by any degree (I have already started a rebuttal which I'll probably post on TGWTG eventually) but getting upset by the one-off joke was uncalled for. I also realize, in hindsight, my argument was poorly worded and should have been laid out in a more precise manner to properly describe my views (which I have done better in the past).
ReplyDeleteMr. Lovhaug ( I hope I spelled your name right),
ReplyDeleteI recently heard about your show from one of my parishioners. I am a minister with MCC (Metropolitan Community Church).
As a lesbian Christian, a feminist and a comic fan, I am glad to hear that someone like you is around.
I look forward to your continued work!
Now I direct this next line to "Lili" who said:
"Linkara, you are one of two Christians that give me hope for Christianity and make me rethink my belief it's such a joke. Too bad you and the other person (a very sweet, very snarky, very devout Christian who happens to also be a lesbian) are two voices being drown out by the idiots."
Trust me. There are alot more of us than you think. These loud and obnoxious voices you here are not as many as their noise would suggest.
So don't judge Christianity simply by the rudeness or close-mindedness of some.
After all, the same could be said of any group. For example, I have been insulted and attacked for my orientation by Atheists as well, but I also know many good hearted Atheists as well.
The key is to not allow the venom of some to make you despise an entire group.
Why does the term "small name, big ego" come to mind when talking about Chuckie?
ReplyDeleteOoh, THAT'S the supercruiser? Man, Roddimus Prime is going to be so jealous...
Why the hell does the Super Ninja look like Van Halen via Kabuki dance?
Finally, if he had really done that flying kick in the stinger (which is a really bad idea in ANY serious martial arts battle), one of two things would've happened; he would've broken his foot slipping on the glass and gotten run over by his target, or his belly would've been shredded open by the hole in the windshield he just punched through.
Also, why is his team called the "Karate Kommandos" when two of his teammates are a samurai and a sumo wrestler? Last I heard, Jiujitsu (the traditional martial art of samurai) and sumo were NOT karate.
ReplyDeleteThe whole gay marriage debacle on here has to be pathetically humorous to me, being both gay, a mormon (complete with jokes about polygamy) and with friends that are in multiple-partner relationships. I'm not going to comment on it, for fear of the backlash and extending the idiocy further, but I will say that I'm now tempted to make a "Bachelor lions live in gay prides" joke.
Damnit Chuck, I'm trying to take you seriously here.
ReplyDelete