It’s the Evil Satanic Dangling Parts syndrome again.

I think that fundies (of all stripes) actually believe that our satanic dangling bits no longer exist when they are hidden.

We all know that Starbucks is just a front company set up by Number One as a cover for world domination and ransoms of ONE MILLION DOLLARS.  ergo this logo is evil, and the Republicans and Christians are protecting us, the way they protected us by wanting to fight Al Qaida in Iraq.

“Slutbucks”, eh?  I like it.  There’s one in Vienna now too.  I don’t patronize them unless I’m in Boondocks, CA, where there’s no other choice if you want half-decent coffee.

I prefer to call them Starfucks.  I don’t see anything wrong with the logo, but then I don’t give a shit about nudity in artwork. 

I would prefer to see a hairy chest partially covered by a long beard rather than a woman’s tits.

The Resistance says the new image “has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute,”

Now why can’t she have her legs spread “like a woman ready to make love to her husband for purposes of procreation,” or “like a woman ready to give birth to our lord and Savior Jesus Christ?”

One would have thought the focus of fundie objections to have been the paganism of the figure represented and that that would have been more offensive than the nudity, which is incidental.

There’s no pleasing the pedantic.

Now why can’t she have her legs spread “like a woman ready to make love to her husband for purposes of procreation,” or “like a woman ready to give birth to our lord and Savior Jesus Christ?”

Thriceberg, if you have to ask, you’ll never get it.

One would have thought the focus of fundie objections to have been the paganism of the figure represented and that that would have been more offensive than the nudity, which is incidental.

faith- the paganism is a concomitant of the nudity; and nudity is never incidental.

zilch says:

faith- the paganism is a concomitant of the nudity; and nudity is never incidental.

From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

Incidental-

• adjective 1 occurring as a minor accompaniment or by chance in connection with something else. 2 (incidental to) liable to happen as a consequence of.

Concomitant-

• adjective naturally accompanying or associated.

Are we really in disagreement here?

I guess some people are just pedantic. 

When I use the word incidentatl, I don’t mean by chance, I mean all of the rest of the definition.

faith- I’m pretty pedantic too.  No, I don’t think we are really in disagreement here: when I use the word “incidental”, I mean to stress the minor nature of the accompaniment, not the chance nature.  And nudity is never minor, although minors are sometimes nude.

cheers from rainy Vienna, zilch