Was Scissors in a marathon or track event, then told THE OTHER participants couldn’t ‘run with Scissors’, so he had to go home? That’s how I read it . . .
Scissors is not with scissors.* But maybe we are supposed to believe “no running with scissors” actually means “scissors should not be involved in running in any way.” Because scissors can’t actually be involved in running except with someone else, there is no real situation where the rules would mean different things, so I guess they want us to assume that the rule is the same. It is not a large logical leap to make, but there is not really any reason to make it other than to see a pair if scissors sad that it can’t run. So the punchline is supposed to justify the joke I guess, but neither of them are justified.
*The blue scissors ARE actually running with scissors, because the black scissors are also there. But if the joke is that when the black scissors are around THEY prevent whomever they accompany from running, there should be no reason why the blue scissors need be scissors at all for the joke, nor why it should not be the black scissors that have to leave.
Well, he can still go to his ballet class.
He’s banned from competitive running because no one else is allowed to run with him.
“The blue scissors ARE actually running with scissors, because the black scissors are also there”
But black scissors is/are not running. If you have two pairs of scissors running in the same race, they’re both “running with scissors”
Maybe this cartoon made sense in another language, and didn’t translate well?
Maybe this cartoon made sense after a lot of drugs, and didn’t translate well to unimpaired senses.
It’s his obsession. It’s always running with those scissors.
Comics I Don't Understand 
Was Scissors in a marathon or track event, then told THE OTHER participants couldn’t ‘run with Scissors’, so he had to go home? That’s how I read it . . .
Scissors is not with scissors.* But maybe we are supposed to believe “no running with scissors” actually means “scissors should not be involved in running in any way.” Because scissors can’t actually be involved in running except with someone else, there is no real situation where the rules would mean different things, so I guess they want us to assume that the rule is the same. It is not a large logical leap to make, but there is not really any reason to make it other than to see a pair if scissors sad that it can’t run. So the punchline is supposed to justify the joke I guess, but neither of them are justified.
*The blue scissors ARE actually running with scissors, because the black scissors are also there. But if the joke is that when the black scissors are around THEY prevent whomever they accompany from running, there should be no reason why the blue scissors need be scissors at all for the joke, nor why it should not be the black scissors that have to leave.
Well, he can still go to his ballet class.
He’s banned from competitive running because no one else is allowed to run with him.
“The blue scissors ARE actually running with scissors, because the black scissors are also there”
But black scissors is/are not running. If you have two pairs of scissors running in the same race, they’re both “running with scissors”
Maybe this cartoon made sense in another language, and didn’t translate well?
Maybe this cartoon made sense after a lot of drugs, and didn’t translate well to unimpaired senses.
It’s his obsession. It’s always running with those scissors.