@BigBuggyBastage  
Sales Clerk: “I’m going to say yes, mostly out of sheer confusion. I do need to know what kind of stroke engine your pony runs on though.”
 
Me: “Um… yes?”
 
Sales Clerk: “Also, your pony’s religion would help a lot here.”
 
Me: “Same answer.”

@redweasel  
“Oil based holy lubricant…hmm…
 
Will a liter of Pentosin 0W-40 full synthetic do, sir?”

@Joseph Raszagal
 
you fool we need oil based holy lubricant, not water based!

@redweasel  
Quick, you round up some priests while I fetch the holy water.

@Whistle Blossom
 

Ew.

@MaresFillies  
(\ 😎

@Tepass  
Indeed man! :) /)

based

@MaresFillies  
Same here

@Background Pony #70FA  
Dirty communist detected.

Yeah, probably so. But I am not into quadrupeds.

@Background Pony #5693  
i want to cum inside the pretty ponies. ;3

@Narlepoax III @redweasel  
Ladies, ladies, please.  
Ponies are pretty.

@Narlepoax III
 
hey you’re not the one who wrote a half page essay on how you’re wrong, so I win for being the most pedanticest.

@redweasel  
Hey now, I didn’t say there was no difference. I said there was no “technical” difference.
 
IE, when you boil it all down to the basics, there’s really only opinion to go off of.
 
You might say, “But that’s so pedantic!” Well, yeah. I started off by saying that it was gonna get pedantic.

@Narlepoax III
 
uhh… no. wikipedia isn’t using outdated information, that I can see. the cladogram successfully identifies “catarrhini” as the common ancestor to all old world monkeys and apes. so it’s correct phylogeny, as far as I can see.
 
what he’s saying sounds more like a matter of opinion, whether catarrhini are what we call old world monkeys, or whether “crown cercopithecoidea” are what we call old world monkeys. even the paleontologist he’s quoting says “several genera of these early monkeys have been identified” but doesn’t say “monkeys are officially classified as anthropoidia,” so it’s not exactly a hard line stance that we must call all anthropoedia monkeys.
 
honestly, I don’t care if you call apes monkeys. it’s good to recognize that we have a common ancestor with monkeys, whether or not that ancestor counts as a monkey or an ape, and the common ancestor to apes and monkeys did have a tail, so why not call them a monkey? and since “new world monkeys” branched way before old world monkeys and apes, there are monkeys on each branch of the tree, so why wouldn’t the whole tree be monkeys?
 
but when you start saying there are no taxonomical differences, I can’t quite accept that, both because “monkey” isn’t even officially a group in the taxonomy, and because even if you consider “anthropoidia” to be “monkeys,” they’re a much more ancient branch taxonomically than hominoidea (apes), thus taxonomically very different.

@redweasel  
Shock of all shocks, Wikipedia is using outdated information.
 
Here’s a video by AronRa on the subject, he said it better than I could. He may be a nut when it comes to social sciences, but he’s pretty good when it comes to harder stuff.

@Background Pony #5693  
XD hahaha

@MaresFillies  
Phone sex? That’s just cruel man.  

Love you, Lyra. Call me if you need monkey dick. I’ll pay for the long distance phone sex. <3 xD

@Narlepoax III
 
uhh… no?
 
old world monkeys and apes had a common ancestor about 31 million years ago, and they’ve remained quite distinct since then. and if you’re talking new world monkeys, marmosets and tarsiers are practically siblings, compared to any lineage they share with apes.

@Ferrotter  
Well, if you really wanna get pedantic, there’s no technical difference between the taxonomic classifications of “monkey” and “ape”.
 
So humans can correctly be labelled as either.
 
 
@Cedric Moon  
Also, humans aren’t hairless. We actually have more hair follicles per square inch of skin than chimpanzees do. Our hairs are just very thin, short, and colorless; except in specific locations.

@Ferrotter  
Thank you for pointing out the coccyx dealio. I didn’t have the energy to explain it to him myself.

Nice one