I was going to point out how you misrepresented my arguments in every one of your retorts, but quite frankly, this argument over a funny text meme has already gone too far and I have better things to do. However, I would like to point out more clearly than last time that to assume that the sender is a man and the receiver is a straight woman is the view heteronormative worldview. This could easily be read as a lesbian trying to get with a woman they didn't know was straight, a man trying to get with another man who is gay, or any other perceivable combination of queer individuals where one member has a boyfriend.

I will admit that I also used the flawed premise in one of my arguments, and I was being a bit of a pedant originally, but honestly your arguments have been less than insightful and that one detail kinda ticked me off.

Also, you used occams razor wrong.

A quick search gives 7% for the proportion of religious wars of all wars, which makes the claim that religious wars killed the most people unlikely.

I hate religion as much as the next guy, but you don't have to make shit up.

First, there is nothing in the image that indicates that either speaker is of a certain gender.

Second, I was pointing out how it can be read as passive aggressive, not trying to say it wasn't the best course of action. If I comment on someone's funny video/meme/niche internet microblog, "This was unexpectedly funny!" There are both favorable and unfavorable readings of it. I was trying to be nice, it could still be interpreted validly as the opposite.

Third, I don't identify with the sender. I have never tried to engage in romantic relationships, and I'm not interested in doing so now. It is hard to identify with someone who is interested in romantic relationships when you aren't, but I can understand their perspective. If you have ever had a friend who is a straight guy, you can understand how they perceive social ques differently and have different expectations of communication differently than straight women.

However, I agree that this was the best course of action in the situation. Unfortunately, there isn't a nice way of straight forwardly saying, "Hey, I recognize this romantic advance, but that's not what I am looking for in this relationship/I am already in a committed romantic relationship." I think your justification of your argument isn't valid and seems more like a knee-jerk reaction to me saying something slightly against the grain.

they are being nice...

Nah they're trying to be nice. Honestly, to me, it reads much more like they aren't even registering that they are a potential romantic partner who is interested in them. It also makes it seem like they were using the guy who made the playlist, which is unlikely to be the actual intent. A more straightforward rejection would be preferable. Being ignored hurts more than being rejected imo. That being said I don't see how you could reject advances in a polite way in this situation.

Btw, have I mentioned how much I love taking funny Internet memes seriously?

Edit: I made an admittedly weird argument that wasn't an argumented well on my part (should have been more about how it can be interpreted differently rather than it being "not nice," whatever that means.) However I'm not a coward, so I'll keep this up. But the argument below is kinda mental, with nothing much to be gleaned, so be warned .

I kinda hate these types of comics. There really isn't any reason why this should be a comic other than the writer's medium of choice. The message gains nothing from the visual aspect. The comic could really have been improved if the author showed what the characters are talking about, but we just get a wall of text with a crudely drawn woman to represent the opposition. Also, the art has no appeal and is generally ugly.

Source?

It looks like the target was held up to a plaster wall for clarity.

Edit: nope I'm stupid, it's a styrofoam target, so it was probably a target for airsoft

Ok, but why do they even need side indicators? I thought socks could go on either foot.

This is really nitpicky. When there is war, there is anti-war protest.

I know this is quite a bit later, but this comment confused me. I do not see how loosening zoning laws that limit density and banning corporations from owning houses are mutually exclusive.These policies can and should work together as part of a bigger urbanist policy. I also don't see how supporting local developers is that bad of a thing. I'd rather have the money stay in the community and go to a community member than some multinational corporation who owns thousands of homes across the country. Still it isn't the best. Cooperative housing or need based housing who is better, but realistically those can't fill up the excess of stock that we need. We will need input from private developers, as well as a big government housing initiative.

"deregulation" detected. ready the down votes. /s

Seriously though, zoning laws are a big reason why we have the current housing crisis. If given the opportunity, someone or some business will build high density housing. But you can't with he current implementation of zoning laws. Without that barrier, you would see a lot more high density building projects

Still we do need zoning laws. I don't think anyone wants a factory or a garbage dump in their back yard. Used correctly zoning also helps limit sprawl.