Make the call

[Krig the Viking]

I figured you'd swing that way (btw, have you done any actual farming or hunting in Canadia's farmland? if so and you aren't an ethical vegetarian then by dint of familiarity via repetition the sight of an animal's insides ought not to be especially off-putting).

I've never actually been hunting myself, growing up on a farm, you get used to the occasional sight of animal insides. But even out on the farm, you very rarely see a naked man killing animals with his bare hands for fun.

My dog, as an example, is a friendly and sensitive little mutt who is visibly saddened when she's informed that she has to remain home when I leave. She doesn't eat while I'm away, only resuming when I return, and she's quite beside herself when I make it back home. It's quite plain to see that she's searching her recollections when I tell her to fetch a bone or ball from somewhere in the house, or that she's thinking when I task her with figuring out how to get at a hard-to-access treat. Though her intellect isn't much in human terms (I'm essentially babysitting a hairy toddler) she learns quickly for a dog. We've established clear lines of communication through voice and gesture so that the dog is aware of my instructions and I'm cognizant of her pressing biological needs. I've never had any doubt that she's conscious of the world in a canine way and that she experiences various cognitive and emotional states.

The key words there are "in a canine way". As I see it, the point of the comic is essentially "Animals are not people". Obviously, animals have emotions (as anyone who's seen a frolicking calf should know), but the difference is that they're animal emotions, quite different from our own. The comic pokes fun at our human tendency to anthropomorphize animals and project human emotions (human Fe) onto them, by inverting the roles and emphasizing the differences (nudity and casual savagery, something that typically would indicate sociopathy or some other severe mental illness if a human acted like that). A fondness for this sort of inversion is something I've noticed very often in Ni types, to the point of being a characteristic feature.

You may or may not agree with the point of the comic, but that's a whole other discussion.

As to whether the cartoon as a whole or what it depicts are strictly ILI humor, an equal case could be made for it being that of an SLI, ILE, or SLE, and perhaps especially the last two as our destructive little human pet openly displays his pleasure by smiling throughout all the events shown. How often do you know of xLIs to do the same compared to xLEs?

In theory just about any type could have produced that comic, but I found it to be more characteristic of the sort of thing ILIs typically produce. Not only the Ni humour based on inversion and mirroring, but also the fact that the comic is a string of bizarre images that we're expected to intuitively piece together ourselves. ILEs, for example, tend to have much more explicit and obvious punchlines (Weird Al for example), because their goal is to elicit an Fe reaction. ILIs tend to find more humour in jokes that leave people confused and uncertain of whether or not they should be laughing.

I dunno, overall it just seems pretty obviously ILI to me. IEI would be my second guess, due to the Ni.

[Korpsy Knievel]

The key words there are "in a canine way".

Humans are conscious in a primate way, it's just of an enhanced sort (or so it anthropocentrically appears; aliens, angels, or even the rocks in our back yards may well have their own opinions on our supposed advanced state). So while the dog thinks like a dog and the human like a human, both exhibit patently animal consciousness. Though I examine other ontologies I generally gravitate toward those that are consonant with substance monism and reject supernaturalism. So in conjunction with this and an acceptance of evolution, I see no point in hominid development where a transition from animal to not-animal occurred. To think otherwise, in my opinion, is to adjudge the content of a social-linguistic construction as true.

ILEs, for example, tend to have much more explicit and obvious punchlines (Weird Al for example), because their goal is to elicit an Fe reaction. ILIs tend to find more humour in jokes that leave people confused and uncertain of whether or not they should be laughing.

Quite so, though I know a few xLEs whose idea of a good joke is to reduce someone to a bloody heap on the floor, so far less cheery forms of vulnerable Fi (don't care about you except that..) and mobilizing Fe (...everyone understand I'm not to be toyed with) would appear to be in play there as well.

Example: