Home
Today Asok the intern came out. Tomorrow he'll have some things to say about the so-called government of India.

Cue the inevitable cries of "Stop being political! You're ruining Dilbert!"

Allow me to address that right now.

It's only political if there's someone on the other side of the debate. In this case, no one favors a government deciding which sexual acts among consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes are allowed and which are punishable by jail.

If I am wrong, and you favor the government restricting what kind of sex you can have with another consenting adult, please proudly state your case. I'm listening.

Cue cricket sounds...

 

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +190
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 24, 2014
LCM:
"To me the difference between thought patterns of homosexual mentality and paedophile (sic) mentality appears very narrow. "
As a heterosexual, I do not personally have pedophile tendancies, but your thesis is clearly wrong. Most pedophiles are heterosexual. I'd trust my kids more around gay folks than straight ones.

Johno_the_teacher
"Disclaimer: I am an evangelical Christian, and as such have views about the morality or otherwise of homosexual acts which you may disagree with."
And thank you for that. The religious opposition towards gays, like the earlier opposition to women's sufferage, the right of Blacks to vote and otherwise be equal (remind me why there is a southern baptist convention again?) etc. is the reason that religion is failing, not only in America, but around the world.
Please continue to preach against equality and fairness and kindness and tell the rest of us not only to avoid your religion, but who to avoid being around.

And am I seriously the only one who realized Scott was being sarcastic with his original post? sheesh people.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 13, 2014
@Ludwig817

[ It's about walking up to an artist finishing a painting and spray painting a slogan on his canvas just because you feel like it. ]
It's more like setting up your own painting right next to his.
 
 
Feb 12, 2014
@MTBob

[ [and carry banners and signs announcing that they are gay (not fine).]
If you want free speech, it means free speech for everyone, not just those with whom you agree - If we are going to have a free country, letting someone carry a banner and sign is the cost.
It's a price I'm willing to pay. ]

Hi Bob, For the record, that's high-sounding bull-feathers. It's not about free speech. Not even a little. It's about walking up to an artist finishing a painting and spray painting a slogan on his canvas just because you feel like it. The rest is just rationalizing the bad behavior as free speech.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 10, 2014
"Scott just learned that there are a lot of idiots that favor the government restricting what kind of sex you can have with another consenting adult."

I don't think he's actually admitted to having learned that. He seems to still be in denial, though it also seems he's no longer responding to comments on this topic, so who knows?

[Many people would like the government to discriminate against OTHER people. That goes without saying. The question is whether anyone would accept in principle the idea that the government gets to decide which sex acts are okay FOR EVERY ADULT in the privacy of their homes with other consenting adults. Laws need to apply to all. -- Scott]
 
 
+5 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 10, 2014
HAHA - Scott just learned that there are a lot of idiots that favor the government restricting what kind of sex you can have with another consenting adult.

Scott - you'll have to add "people aren't idiots" to the list of things that you no longer believe.
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 10, 2014
@Ludwig817

This is one of my favorite quotes:
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".


[and carry banners and signs announcing that they are gay (not fine).]
If you want free speech, it means free speech for everyone, not just those with whom you agree - If we are going to have a free country, letting someone carry a banner and sign is the cost.
It's a price I'm willing to pay.


[Heck, while I'm ranting, let's balance the budget and fix that darn deficit while lowering taxes, keeping a strong military, taking care of our vets, providing jobs and education, building infrastructure, and taking care of our seniors.]

You were probably being facetious, but let's see if our generation is good enough to figure out that puzzle!

[I'm sick of being a guinea pig. Get decisive - and stop farming me for opinions. If I wanted my opinion I'd read more of my own stuff.]

Somebody got out of the grumpy side of the bed this morning.
 
 
Feb 10, 2014
As an artist you should do what moves you and stop vacillating with the audience and pulling all this A|B crappola. You can't have it both A and B and then determine the outcome from stats pulled off server software. Are you a marketing type who writes a little code or are you an artist who shapes opinions and goes viral? One shapes, the other is bent by it.

I guess the only thing that annoys me more than being wrong is oscillating back and forth between wrong and right. So stop this A|B testing. And do what you want.

It's your comic strip. You don't need anyone's permission. You don't need A|B testing. And this kind of indecision frankly makes you look weak and diminishes anything you choose to defend.

I'm sick of being a guinea pig. Get decisive - and stop farming me for opinions. If I wanted my opinion I'd read more of my own stuff.

My $.02
 
 
+5 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 10, 2014
[338e]“And each form of government enacts the laws with a view to its own advantage, a democracy democratic laws and tyranny autocratic and the others likewise, and by so legislating they proclaim that the just for their subjects is that which is for their—the rulers'—advantage and the man who deviates1 from this law they chastise as a law-breaker and a wrongdoer. This, then, my good sir, is what I understand as the identical principle of justice that obtains in all states
[339a] —the advantage of the established government. This I presume you will admit holds power and is strong, so that, if one reasons rightly, it works out that the just is the same thing everywhere,1 the advantage of the stronger.” “Now,” said I, “I have learned your meaning, but whether it is true or not I have to try to learn. The advantageous, then, is also your reply, Thrasymachus, to the question, what is the just—though you forbade me to give that answer.

--Debate between Plato and Thrasymachus


Even back then, it was well known that it doesn't matter what kind of government you have. Even in the "ideal" democracy, there is still abuse of power.



Then, we have Thomas Paine in his "Common Sense", wrote about the distinction between government and society.
"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others"


So, what do we make of all this?

Just because something is law, does not make it right.
Just because a majority of society wants a law, doesn't make it right.

Ideally, there are human rights which prevail over laws, whether those laws come from government or society.


When societies are formed, we humans invariably want to deal with those who wish to do harm to others. We form constitutions (ultimate law) which allow us to form governments to enact/enforce/judge common laws. All of which is meant to deal with the dark side of human nature. Laws do not compel us to do something. They are meant to restrict. Sounds like a necessary evil. After all, to ensure "justice", we have to deal with those members of society that chose to do harm.

But, I think eventually, this gets carried away, and the definition of what is considered "breaking the law" becomes more and more broadly defined. For example, thanks to Obamacare, I might be breaking the law simply because I exist.

And now, because the number of laws has grown so much, no one really knows what is restricted and what is not. It's so complex, it's unmanageable.

See how much we've grown:

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-regulation-of-american-people.html
 
 
Feb 10, 2014
Scott, go ahead & make Dilbert as political as you want. The only reason not to is that you'll lose readers. The readers you'll lose don't care about your definition of political. Show them a gay character and, man, they're gone.

"No one favors a government deciding which sexual acts among consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes are allowed and which are punishable by jail. " Well, I guess since this is a democracy, that means we can get rid of all those state laws punishing "sodomy" by jail time! Right? Let's do it today!
 
 
Feb 10, 2014
To those referring to sovereignty and right of democratically elected representatives, let me clarify that the law was made by the British (not blaming them, just pointing out that it was not made by democratically elected representatives).

The law survived, partly because most law-enforcers did not even know about it. When the law criminalizing 'intercourse against the order of nature' was first challenged in Delhi High Court, the judges threw out the petition stating that they had never heard of anybody getting harassed for sexual preferences, and that the law was used only to punish sexual abuse of children or mentally retarded. The Supreme Court had to direct the High Court to consider the petition. The High Court then struck down the law, with caveats against child abuse, etc. It was only then that most people in India found out that such a law existed.

Religious bigots appealed in Supreme Court against the order. Supreme Court invited the Govt. of India to defend the law. The (democratically elected) Govt. said it agreed with the High Court that the vintage law was unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court concluded that the law could not be called unconstitutional, but suggested that the law be repealed by the legislature.

Giving this backdrop just to emphasize that the whole matter has nothing to do with sovereignty, right of democratically elected representatives, etc.
 
 
Feb 10, 2014
The comic was printed in Indian newspapers, and created no controversy.
 
 
Feb 10, 2014
@lcm You are a moron. It's Indians like you that make my fellow countrymen look ignorant.
 
 
-24 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 10, 2014
I am Indian, and I have problem allowing homosexual behaviour. I see it as some sort of mental illness that need to be cured. To me the difference between thought patterns of homosexual mentality and paedophile mentality appears very narrow.
 
 
Feb 10, 2014
As usual, I am impressed by the quality of many of the other comments! (Phantom II, you and Drowlord and Whitlenew (sp?) amaze me with your thoroughness.)

I continue to find it interesting that the conservatives to my right want the government to keep out of their lives as long as it's things like guns and taxes and (OMG) regulations, but come sex talk time, they want to make sure that their neighbors can't love the wrong gender, decide they'd like to have sex without having a baby, and god help'em if they do get pregnant and aren't ready - kill the abortionists, etc. Oh yeah... keep your nose out of my business, but if that guy next door's smokin' pot...

Heck, while I'm ranting, let's balance the budget and fix that darn deficit while lowering taxes, keeping a strong military, taking care of our vets, providing jobs and education, building infrastructure, and taking care of our seniors.

Oh, wait...
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 10, 2014
Scott,

There is some sort of sham here. Three out of every two comments are against your motion and yet the counter of likes for the post is 140 .

I know, I know. My math is not poor. Three out of two is Google statistics.

.
 
 
Feb 9, 2014
@ MTBob
[[I should not be required to celebrate someone else's sexuality, whatever it is.]
And I should not be required to celebrate someone else's lack of sexuality, whatever it is.

And how do we get from "leave me alone" to me requiring you to celebrate sexuality?
Turn the channel. Don't watch that parade. Don't visit that website.
How does me getting my rights, get to me requiring you to celebrate sexuality? ]

Hi Bob, Most of the rhetoric from the activists has indeed been "leave me alone" or "don't treat me differently", and I am very much okay with that. However, actions speak louder than words. Time and time again, somebody minding their own business organizes an event celebrating or marking something that has nothing whatever to do with sexuality of any kind, and the activists demand to participate (totally fine) and carry banners and signs announcing that they are gay (not fine). They demand public spectacle (celebration) in the middle of someone else's unrelated event, for example, the Manhattan St. Patrick's Day parade. So, even though they say they want "leave me alone", they prove again and again that they don't mean it. It's just a cover deception. That's how we get from "leave me alone" to "required to celebrate".

For public events not related to sexuality, if the straights aren't carrying banners and signs announcing their sexuality, then the gays don't need to either. Like people keep telling me, "be weird in your own space", and I think they mean it.

As far as Dilbert and Asok and India ... The Dilbert world is Scott's personal parade and he can take it anywhere the muse leads. I look forward to his continued creative clarity. It ranks right up there with the TV show "Dinosaurs".
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2014
no one favors a government deciding which sexual acts among consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes are allowed and which are punishable by jail. -- Scott

No one is questioning the existence of anti-gay sentiment. -- Scott

Are you just trolling now? After all the links posted about the laws in Africa, all the people in the US pushing for anti-gay laws, you're still claiming NO ONE wants the government to regulate sex acts? Not a single person in the teeming masses of humanity?
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2014
Bobby F:
Just so:
> - relationships between close relatives
There's enough medical evidence for the damage inbreeding does. You see it in animals and you have seen it in aristocats. Howewer, two gay brothers - who cares?

> - polygamy
There's a fine and fuzzy line between educating and cultural conditioning. I have absolutely no idea where one thing ends and the other starts. However, for instance two self-confident western women deciding to share one guy should not be a problem. Legal things need sorting out though. (Are they both married to him or to each other too? Can two men and two women marry into a quadruple? Important for inheritance. Stuff like that.)

> - !$%*!$%*!$%*!$%*!$%
Well - can't really say much about that, for obvious reasons...
 
 
Feb 9, 2014
While I agree with most of your statement, the "no one" seems to be a little bit overly optimistic. There are enough people in the USA who would like to control this. And in islamic and other christian countries this is most likely even higher. Not to mention India and Russia.

P.S.
What is your stance on polygamy? Or Incest? Obviously in cases where all involved parties agree? This most likely has in most countries a majority of people against it.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2014
[I should not be required to celebrate someone else's sexuality, whatever it is.]
And I should not be required to celebrate someone else's lack of sexuality, whatever it is.

And how do we get from "leave me alone" to me requiring you to celebrate sexuality?
Turn the channel. Don't watch that parade. Don't visit that website.
How does me getting my rights, get to me requiring you to celebrate sexuality?


[Everything seems to eventually devolve into the political these days, this zero-sum game where one side has to be totally right and the other side has to be totally wrong.]

I also see this, and I think the media, with it's endless, escalating, breathless "news" is part of the issue.

"This week, - Sochi: 30 seconds spoiling the prime time coverage for tonight, and 16 minutes of "oh my god, terror, terror, terror, something could happen. Oh nothing happened? Cut to Munich 1976 'Oh my god'".

Everything is presented as if it's happening to me, in my neighborhood, in my town. Oh, someone was killed (in the Congo) You are next! Be afraid! Watch our program! Meet the Press is no longer a news maker meeting the press, (being interviewed by the press), it's now David Gregory interviewing the press.

Everything is presented as a zero-some game, and everything is life and death, and everything is no compromise. Constantly competing for attention. Go to a PTA meeting, a school board meeting. Go to an HOA meeting.
It's turning into "I gotta get mine, now, (because it won't be there tomorrow if you take it first, or you will break our deal and I won't get my turn)".


Our next president needs to be the best hostage negotiator we can find.


Again the point was, no one is arguing, "I want the government regulating my bedroom activities."

Wait, I volunteer! I want the government regulating all bedroom activities. But it will require 5 years of study and 50 million dollars, and I volunteer to be in charge.

 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog