The Flinstones

Who's ready for a gay old time? Jk shit gets pretty real

Pebbles and Bam-Bam runaway to find Bam-Bam real parents episode when?

Ancient aliens oh boy

...

...

...

...

The-horror.jpg

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

the pterodactyls are always great in this comic, be it dropping people or eating them

...

...

...

Did they change the artist? The faces look different

Motherfucking bergs!

>to find Bam-Bam real parents episode when?
I don't think there is much to found.

...

Oh. . .Yeah

The end

...Is Fred Flintstone just a dumber Clark Kent?

>"To care for people who mean nothing to us."
So...we're fucked as a species, aren't we?

Yeah this isn't Pugh

Fred is pure

Eh. This issue is the worst (or least good, anyway) of the bunch so far, in my opinion.

Fred is a 10/10 husbando.

Biologically, Human emotions is weak. In practise though, Its why we are where we are today.
Thanks for the comic dump user, this was a fun one.

Yeah, because it is the most serious one. And because it is too right. There was a few hundred years of wars because the church took donations to absolve you of your sins, for example.

I want to protect his Yaba-daba-doo

The others were serious and right as well, but they were more than just morality preaching.

The kids look a bit too old.

Another 10/10, just like every other issue.

I do have to say that I miss the original artist, though.

Aww shiet nigga.

I think what's most depressing is even though Fred's actions are incredibly commendable they're just a drop in the bucket when compared to human greed and anxiety. We want to believe that we're born with some kind of inherent goodness when it's just blatantly false. I'm not saying that inherent goodness can't exist but when it does it's an aberration.

But that drop in the bucket is what keeps mankind going, after every war, every fight, that inherent goodness is what keeps humanity together.

Ahh, the Roman way

More like Nate Gazoo, am I right?

CHIN

The eternal debate is whether that drop in the bucket is even worth it given all of the terrible things that come before and after it. I would say no because that inherent goodness is an illusion in the first place.

this is giving me more nihilist thoughts than I'd want.

eh, we all have made it this far, we might as well go farther, see how deep we can go.

Dont give up yet user, Humanity aint dead yet.

Welcome to Sup Forums, Porn and Existential crisis await you.

I haven't yet but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's on the brink.

fuck I wish Russell was writing the jetsons comic

It's Rick Leonardi, a fucking legendary artist.
He's done better, though.

Nah, Fred is closer to Steve Rogers than Clark Kent.
Homegrown everyman, not an illegal alien. He's not trying to save the world, just trying to do his best everyday; even when sometimes the right thing to do isn't the easiest.

Humanity never could survive alone, thats why we work in such huge groups. We support each other so no one needs to stand alone.

I mean, that's where religion is supposed to come in. It's supposed to put weight on the scale for those tiny drops in the buckets so that they don't feel as a insignificant compared to material wealth and greed and personal gain.

Ideally.

It's a corrective for shortsightedness. Like government. What's best for us in the long term versus what's best for us in the short term versus what's best for us as individuals versus what's best for us as a whole.

Well fucking look at him. The muscles, the jaw, the hair, looks more like Supes than cartoon Fred.
He's missing a Pa to explain why he's such a good guy while most of the rest of the world is populated with turbodouches.

And I, respectfully, disagree.

Any good deed, no matter how small, makes a difference.

Maybe he's Pa and he's the one who gets to explain it one day.

Nah, there are plenty of examples of people caring about those they don't know.

Adam and Steve were the closest thing to a Pa he had.

Fuck this Hitchhiker's Guide bullshit.

Wars existed before that was a thing.

Yeah but they were shit wars because they weren't blessed by Capitalist Jehovah.

Then again, there's something to respect about a group of people that seize power simply because they know they're stronger than the people they seize it from rather than people who seize power because they think they're endorsed by Gawd.

Fuck off jaded teen, there's plenty good being done every day for goodness' sake.
Just look at refugees being accepted by the millions to save their lives, sometimes at the expense of those closer to us.

No, it mostly because the church was grafted onto the Roman war engine upon its decriminalization. Organized religion required integration into the status quo, which was empire and conquest.

Even indulgences were more concerned with public forgiveness for public transgressions than actual personal reassurance.

This is more a send-up of modern, buffet style, Christianity. How can I cut support for the poor and my fellow man and still be a Christian? Find someone who doesn't care and says I am.

>Hey...won't you believe in him?
>That even if there is no God or Buddha...
>...there is Fred Flintstone

Shhhhh. That's apparently evil to do now. For some reason. People are poison if they aren't the right color or religion or something.

Cheap bastard

God is just an excuse and an enrollment tool, wars are driven by greed for power.

>unicorns rubbing their horns together
Hey, Gatherer, I think Jean Grey has something to tell you

You're joking, right? Neither side of that situation cares about them. One sees them as animals and the other sees them as children.

>She personally knows the marauders

I don't know why but that's hilarious.

Interestingly enough, this is a perfect illustration of the Coase theorem functioning within a religious context in greater capitalist society.

The correct thing for the priest to do would be to tell him it costs more money than he would lose by suspending work to search for the lost worker.

Religion would therefor work to counteract the mundane/financial cost of being good by placing the value of a lost human life as greater than the value of the plant functioning.

But yes, it's also hard for a person of faith to operate like that while also believing in humanity to the extent required to also be a source of genuine spiritual comfort for his flock.

He has his selfish moments.

Religions means beliefs, beliefs translate into actions. If it were just that it'd be fine.
It's harder to patronize and accept an entire group of people when you know their children are going to be Stoning and Hanging your own descendants simply for their choice of Sexuality or differences in beliefs themselves.

The tolerance doesn't go both ways honestly, that's my only gripe with it. Like why would I invite some stranger into my home who hates me and my family and just wants somewhere to live despite wanting to hurt me?

I get what he's saying, but I still don't want any syrian refugees.

Children? Why, because they aren't left to their own devices in the middle of a civil war? Isnt that essentially what charity (the topic at hand) is, helping people out?

...yeah no shit, but I was saying there is something respectable about people who are honest about that when taking power. Most major conflicts in the last 500 years have had an ugly hypocritical morality injected in.

>These natives are savages and they need our authority for their own good!
VS
>These stupid brown-skinned cunts don't have guns or steel. Let's fuck their girls and make them farm shit for us because they're stupid nerds and we're stronger than them

Actually I was thinking of the reformation period in the 16th century. The period was known for abusing the sale of indulgence.

Once Protestantism became a thing, many european ruling houses hunted them for a long time. Even in the 18th century, two hundred years later, people were still jailed/executed for it.

No, they are poison if they start killing you
which is what they do

Plenty of people see people as people. We're just dealing with a built in flaw of the modern world... that by refusing to put a price on human life in a capitalist society, we now see it as worthless rather than priceless.

Whether that was the intent is a matter of discussion, but I think we can all agree that we'd prefer a system where at least ourselves and the ones we hold dear were seen as the latter. And if that is so, it makes no sense not to apply it to all. It would change our priorities a bit...

Or maybe one side only sees the moral obligation, and the other side only sees the risk.

It's a tough weigh, how do you even call that? Like if a starving dying murderer is dying at your doorstep and you know the man is dangerous, do you have an ethical obligation to save him? Aren't you responsible for his death if you don't? At the same time aren't you selfishly just considering your own preservation by doing so, is there any greater meaning in preserving life and existence beyond your own?

And if there isn't.. why live at all?
Just freeze yourself to death right now and hope in the future they can put you in the matrix or some preservation pod to prolong your morally empty meaningless existence until the sun explodes, if existence is only for existences sake.

Also a lot of people in Syria were already refugees from the Iraq war. The US completely fucked up the middle east.

Whether you think it's good or not, it's hard to argue it's charitable.

Why not? People call themselves Christians and can still turn away the poor and desperate? Why not give those people the chance to be half as bad Muslims as everyone else is a bad Christian?

>kids named hunter and gatherer

That's a really good way to get called a tyrant and deposed. With an axe most likely.

The church provided a lot of stability and charity for its time. And the thirty years' war did end all religious conflict in Europe until the Islamic invasion of today. That's a lot more than most regions of the world can say.

*isn't
damnit

Sure, but that's not a "war." I thought you were talking about conquest.

Because rather than be able to deal with their country they've fled and filled up another. They don't expect the refugees to change or assimilate nor see that their human beings who are both capable of harm and expected to shoulder the responsibility of what they're putting onto them.
> Isnt that essentially what charity (the topic at hand) is, helping people out?
This gets into the whole "If you give a man a fish" spiel.
The actual real charitable thing to do would take up arms and help fix their country, or atleast absolutely demand their own countries intervene and do so- but the people offering to help would never do something that bold or drastic.

>Maybe civilization was a mistake

I feel like that could be the tagline of the series.

>dat apple logo with a trilobite

I don't think it's charitable. The people that are allowing and begging for it aren't giving up anything.

How is it charitable if I go to town hall and beg the mayor to put up homes and shelters for the homeless? It's not like I have any intention of fixing poverty or working at the soup kitchen. I'm just asking a nice thing to be done on someones behalf because it feels good.

Charity (atleast in the Catholic view, which I am not but) is an act of sacrifice.

>sin-industrial complex

No, because they're being used as a means of reaffirming their host's belief in society. It's not altruism. It's other side of the coin of self-interest.
Agreed, though mainly because I haven't chewed on your argument enough to note any flaws. Fred was right about the crux of civilization being the ability of its citizens to care about people who mean nothing to us.
This is precisely why alcohol was invented.

I'm not a Christian.
>Why not give those people the chance to be half as bad Muslims as everyone else is a bad Christian?
It's pretty much an all or none thing. Either you have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt or no one gets the benefit. I mean I guess it's probably better for the refugees to stay. It may be better or worse for the countries they over-crowd. I don't have any stake in it. I'd probably just let them because it's an economy of needs and mine are met. But these kinds of questions are hardly left to subjective moral issues anymore, it's always a utilitarian thing.

But whether or not you believe in that kind of acceptance is purely based on how magnanimous one assumes the Human race to be.

>And if there isn't.. why live at all?

Because it's fucking awesome

Plenty of self-described Muslims (often with a Muslim education) live like Westerners, but you can't expect more radical Muslims to accept them as proper.
Which wasn't really a problem before the salafisation of the Muslim world.

No it's not? It's painful and terrible and cruel and if you're just living at the expense of everyone else's suffering and can still be happy you're probably some kind of narcissistic sociopath if not a hedonist.

You know how in the 1st Matrix that one traitor asshat wanted to be put back in the Matrix indefinitely and live rich and enjoy his false little comfort forever, even if he had to kill everyone onboard? That's what comes to mind.