Still got some time left in the 10% coupon code for the Dumbing of Age/Shortpacked! store! Just input code BOTCON13 during checkout and you save that 10% off any order of anything.
Discussion (168) ¬
[ Comments RSS ]
Still got some time left in the 10% coupon code for the Dumbing of Age/Shortpacked! store! Just input code BOTCON13 during checkout and you save that 10% off any order of anything.
Loading ...
Aww.
This calls for a collective “D’AAAAAAAAAWWWWW”, doesn’t it?
One, two, three…
D’AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWW, did I start too early?
D’AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW!
Now kiss!
Galasso as your Gravatar makes it look more like you’re issuing a battle cry.
YOU WILL KISS FOR THE GLORY OF GALASSO!!!
ALL HAIL GALASSO!
In the name of Mighty Galasso, thy will be done!
All of these gravatars are accurate.
D’AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW!
Don’t worry. Dina already ruined the moment.
You calling Dina a twat-blocker? 😛
I believe the term is ‘twat-swatter’. I can’t recall where I heard it, but it is, in fact, a thing.
I think Dane Cook used it in a comedy routine.
Dane Cook inventing it automatically invalidates it.
clamjammer
D’AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWW
That’s Dina’s hat talking. It’s telepathic powers have finally broken into her mind.
Her and the hat have truly bonded.
So it’s just like The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, talking hats, eh wot?
Like the student president in ?
Bah, I always get that link thing wrong…
…I will never view weird hats with faces the same way again.
More like Headmaster from Transformers Animated.
Bathroom bonding is the best bonding.
ha hah aha ha a haha ha!!!!! +1
Given her proclivity for standing on hinged side of doorways, I half expected Dina to come out from the other stall rather than through the front door, but that’s me. 🙂
Silly Dina, you cannot bond properly without a glue-gun, everyone knows that. 😛
At least she’s not trying to do it with an ARC welder.
I fully agree, using an arc welder without the right welding mask is just asking for eye-damage.
Crap, if Dina overheard that sneeze story she’s probably gonna end up really confused about ‘adult stuff.’
Dina strikes me as the sort of person who tries to learn about sex from a textbook and maybe nature documentaries.
She follows the mating patterns of dinosaurs, obviously. No male has done the low pitched mating call so she has not heeded it.
…Crap I learned about sex in that way…
I used to have the Joy of Sex book when I was a teenager, complete with drawn characters sporting 70s hair and mustaches, the the dean confiscated it.
See, she’s doing it in completely the wrong way. While health class was “useful” and all, she should have learned about sex the way I did: from cable TV and older kids on the playground.
Older kids taught you about sex? Tht sounds kinda criminal somehow.
Not quite, i mean… we all got our first sex notions from playground gossip.
You had sex with older kids on the playground? Kinky.
You should’ve seen what my health class was like.
I d’awwed!
And I felt spot-on with Dorothy in this one: I don’t believe in God but I do believe in people. Yay.
I don’t believe in people. They’re actually a myth.
I don’t believe in -ism’s. “-Ism’s in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.” Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I’d still have to bum rides off people. “
Is that a Ferris quote?
Yes. Yes it is. 🙂
But according to Glass Onion, the walrus was Paul
Douglas Adams had a good theorem on this one.
The universe is infinite in size. Since not all the available space is taken up with people, the number of people is less than infinite.
And any number divided by infinity is effectively zero. So reality is 0% people, and thus people do not exist.
And therefore, any people you meet are merely the product of your diseased imagination.
Unfortunately, {all integers} and {all even integers} have the same (infinite) magnitude, since they can be mapped one-to-one (or so I’m told).
|
[See the ‘hotel with infiinte rooms’ thought experiment, in which a hotel with infinite full rooms can house infinitely more people by just moving the occupant of each room N to room 2*N first, thus freeing up infinitely many odd-numbered rooms for the new infinite number of people.]
Just as even integers can be infinite despite there being integers which aren’t even, the number of people can be infinite despite there being volumes without people.
That’s only a valid approach if the universe is in fact infinite, though. Ah, but that can then be sidestepped with the possibility of an infinite /number/ of universes/realities, regarding the many worlds eisenvalues thing. (And, of course, that if one came into existence then chances are it’s not the only one, with no known upper limit. One person, one ‘sun’ (star), one planet, one universe… this is incidentally a relatively strong argument against absolute monotheism. If one god were in fact able to come out of nowhere, infinitely many others would too by exactly the same means.)
No, I believe you just entered a fallacy about mathematics. From what I learned, and I freely admit I know very little about it, there are different degrees of infinity. The subset of {all integers} is twice as large as {all even integers} because {all integers} can be defined as the union of the subsets {all even integers} and {all odd integers} (which, for the record, are of roughly equal size. Thus, the set of {all integers} is twice as infinite as the subsets {all even integers}. And let’s not even start on the comparisons of {all integers} to {all fractions between 0 and 1}.
tl;dr? Infinity comes in many sizes. Get your extra small infinity today!
Infinity does come in different sizes, but the cardinality of the whole numbers is the same as the cardinality of the even numbers is the same as the cardinality of the integers is the same as the cardinality of the real numbers is the same as the cardinality of the set of all prime numbers is the same as the cardinality of the set of all rational numbers. All of those sets are countably infinite. This is the smallest infinity, aleph naught.
Now, where different infinities enters this is that the cardinality of the set of all real numbers is not the same as the cardinality of the set of the rational numbers. The set of all real numbers is uncountably infinite. There is a hypothesis that the cardinality of the set of real numbers is 2^(aleph naught), but that’s still an open question.
I JUST learned this today! Such a wonderful idea. Just a few weeks ago I had the funny idea that 1/3, rather than half of numbers, are odd, because even + even = even, odd + odd = even, and only even + odd = odd, and I love how cardinality addresses this idea perfectly.
There’s no such thing as “twice as infinite.”
If you can take two sets and match every element in either set with an element in the other, they’re the same size. If one of those sets is the natural numbers, that basically means you can make an infinite list with the other set that has every element on there somewhere. The prime numbers, for instance: “2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13…” The average gap between them grows arbitrarily large as you go down the list, but every prime number is on there somewhere, so it’s a “countably infinite set,” meaning that like the natural numbers, it has cardinality “aleph-null,” which is the smallest infinite cardinal number.
Something like the set of all real numbers, though, or the set of all sets of natural numbers? It can pretty easily be proven that no matter how you generate a list, there will be some elements that won’t be on it. Take the latter, which I consider the proof to be more straightforward for: If the first entry in your list has the number 1, my set doesn’t, and vice versa. Same for your second entry and the number 2, your third and the number 3, ad infinitum. No matter what your list is like, my set isn’t on it. That means the reals and the power set of the naturals are uncountably infinite. And we’re not talking two-times-aleph-null — we’re talking two-to-the-power-of-aleph-null, because that’s how power sets roll.
You wanna get really weird? It’s been proven that using standard set theory, you can’t prove or disprove the continuum hypothesis, which says that there are no sets larger than the naturals and smaller than the reals. I have no idea how those proofs work.
Would that be different then that the proof that the reals are infinite? I can do that one in my sleep 🙂
Do you mean Cantor’s diagonal argument?
Because a proof that the reals are infinite would seem rather simple.
tl;dr of the other replies to this one:
There are different sizes of infinity! But the set of all integers and the set of all even integers are still the same size of infinity.
Yes, the number of people in the universe can be infinite, and the universe can be infinite and still have approximately no life in the universe. If you approximated the percentage of rational numbers in the real number line from (0,1), you’d find that it quickly approached 0%.
You don’t believe in me? NOOO! *disappears in a puff of smoke*
*Sniff sniff* I’m getting a little farklempt. Bless you, Willis.
Has Dina ever smiled like that before in DoA? A first!
Naw, I think she has.
Come on girls, let Dina in on that hug
I didn’t hear a flush. Joyce, you are just making life terrible for the next person to go in there.
I didn’t think you needed to flush for sad.
It depends on the consistency of the sad. I think she might even be able to leave the bathroom without washing her hands, and not have to worry about germs, either.
Dina reminds me of me in this one. I’ve actually been known to quote Elan from Order of the Stick when I’m around others: “I’m participating!”
Now THERE’S a crossover that needs to happen!
…except I would probably cry for weeks afterwards. If OotS teamed up with Willis, no one would be able to foresee the emotional havoc that would be wrought.
I might be interesting to see the DoA drawn OotS style and vice-versa.
On this note, should somebody mention to Dorothy that being an open atheist is probably going to put a somewhat bigger wrench in her presidential ambitions than having sex with her boyfriend?
She is ACUTELY aware, because she’s not an imbecile.
She’s a cute. and aware.
I’m sorry, but that deserves an appreciative groan. Well played, and yet, curse you, Perry the Platypus!
I’ve seen a lot of people bring it up so probably. Not something that ever occured to me personally, but I’m not exactly familiar with American elections and how they work.
Acknowledgement of one’s atheism is political suicide here in the US.
That’s not exclusive to the presidency. In most towns in America, you couldn’t get elected mayor if you admitted to being an atheist.
Of course there are exceptions, but they’re relatively few and far between. The USA is still a very religious country.
Is this the first time Dorothy’s presidential aspirations have been mentioned in the comic? I feel like this question should’ve reached “is Ethan gay?” levels, but people are just now starting to wonder about it, which is very strange.
It was brought up almost immediately: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2010/comic/book-1/01-move-in-day/worry/
And again: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2011/comic/book-1/06-yesterday-was-thursday/bridges/
And again: http://www.dumbingofage.com/2012/comic/book-2/02-choosing-my-religion/vice/
Also, it’s always been on her cast page.
There’s a cast page?
Oh there it is, next to the archive. Whadya know?
Don’t blame them, when comic time passes as slowly as the DOA universe people are likely to forget over time. 😛
Strangely enough, belief in god is actually a REQUIREMENT to running for office in like eight different states.
Not that such a requirement is constitutionally viable or could ever survive a legal challenge.
Not just “constitutionally viable”, it specifically SAYS in the US constitution that no religious test be required for running. Oddly enough, I read that part just last night when I was browsing it.
True, but that’s a completely different conversation.
One battle at a time. She’s hoping this whole ‘religion’ fad passes by the time she can be president.
Well, she does have about sixteen more years before it’s a concern, and in the time it takes for that to pass in the Dumbiverse (roughly 800 years assuming 1yr=1wk) who knows?
When Willisbot Prime continues the dumbing of Age project indefinitely after they place his brain in a robot body.
“WE ARE THE WILLISMEN”
Who Willises the Willismen?
“YOU ARE NOT COMPATIBLE
DELETE”
you will become like uzzzzzz
Why, Willis will Willis the Willismen, wouldn’t he?
It’s pretty much impossible to be an even vaguely politically aware atheist in the U.S. without feeling the uncomfortable knowledge that there’s a sizable percentage of the population, including people holding high political office and mainstream Presidential candidates, who don’t believe that you’re “really” American and want to deny you any legal rights – and who can and will say this openly with no significant repercussions.
It’s not like she goes out of her way to put her atheism on display or anything. Seems like it only ever comes up at all because of Joyce.
Trust me, running for president would bring it up too.
The President of the United States right now is a church-going Christian who has been attacked in the media both for allegedly not being a Christian and for his specific choice of Christian church and pastor. Give them an actual atheist to work with, and there is no way in hell that it could pass unremarked.
It’s easy for a candidate to pretend to be a christian. I’ve seen plenty of people fake Christianity.
SURPRISE DINA ATTACK!
A wild Dina uses Surprise attack!
It’s super effective!
Dorothy flinched.
Joyce flinched.
…I feel kinda dirty now.
As an atheist, I gotta say… you are just doing an amazing job of writing two characters with totally different belief systems, making them both likeable and getting them both right.
I’ve always enjoyed Shortpacked, but I think Dumbing of Age is one of the best comics on the web. Keep being babies, man.
I would slightly amend your point to say that he’s doing a good job of making people who are so adamantly atheist/fundamental/opposites and making them both likable AND getting along. While I wouldn’t exactly say Dorothy is pushy at all with her atheism, Joyce certainly is with her religion.
In the real world, I’d say that most people regardless of their beliefs (or lack therein) are likable and get along with each other fine, at least in my experience. It’s been said time and time again, but it’s really the openly pushy ones on both sides that rile the tensions in even the most even-headed of people.
I’m Catholic but most of my closest friends are either atheist or closer to agnostic, and we don’t have problems with each other. Honestly, I’d like more Catholic friends, but I don’t think any less of the friends I have at all. I love them so very much.
No, Dina, your line is, “WHAT?”
No, her line is “Good Job on voiding your bowels”
Nah your line should be “Now, kiss!”
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2lcwhs3&s=6
Happy birthday guys!
Also, Fair Use Act, etc. etc. I love you Brucey Poo
What do you mean “we”, interloper?
What? Dina was super engaged in that conversation.
I like the think she was off to the side reciting dinosaur facts, and the others were just ignoring her.
“Speaking of mucus, did you know that dinosaurs had no nasal turbines, unlike moss mammals and birds?”
She was engaged in that conversation the same way Ethan is engaged in making out with girls.
Wow. A more fitting comparison could not possibly have been made.
Now, how long has Dina been standing there? XD
And I absolutely love these two. And I still am going to assume Ethan and Walky are making out.
Whenever someone is off screen in DOA it’s always safe to assume they are making out with someone else.
It’s not 100% fool proof, but it’s the safer odds :p
And whenever Dina specifically is off screen, it’s always safe to assume that she’s standing just off screen, silently watching. Listening. Bonding.
And *everyone* is off-panel when in between panels.
Walky is describing in detail about the poop he took that morning.
And Ethan finally has a reason to hope Joyce comes back.
I dunno, it’s possible Ethan may find poop interesting. It’s never been brought up to him before so there’s no indication he’d be against it and the only time I remember it coming up in Shortpacked he looked impressed.
I’d like to think Dina was talking the entire time, giving Joyce life changing advice, but was drowned out by Dorothy’s snotty story.
Women hugging in bathrooms is way different from men hugging in bathrooms.
Or Women hugging bathrooms.
Just by saying that you have guaranteed the existence of huggable plush bathrooms available for sale somewhere on the internet. I hope you’re happy.
Honestly, I think Rule 34 is going to take place here. It’ll be one of the more challenging ones to fulfill, but that’s the thing about this rule: someone ALWAYS finds a way.
*fistshakes* Curse you, Rule 34!
…or Woman-Hugging bathrooms.
She places her faith in other people.
Or should I say, her FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAITH
Congratulations. Nice way to show two very different woman respecting each others viewpoints and being friends thru it all.
Also, gotta give Dina props for trying. She has a long way to go to get it right, but she Is trying. Suffering from near terminal shyness myself, I know this and applaud her for trying.
Kinda spooky how she manages to pop out from behind things though.
This country was not founded on religion despite most views to the contrary. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were either atheists or dieists. (yes I know, likely spelled it wrong.) No mention of God anywhere in our paperwork, until long after 1776.
I believe the term is spelled “Deist”, for the record. And while I don’t dispute your claim, isn’t one of the first lines of the constitution “Indivisible under God”? When did that get edited in, and by whom? Being a Canadian, my American history is horrible. (It’s also the only reason I do poorly on reruns of Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader? That and US geography)
“Under God, indivisible” is from the Pledge of Allegiance, and the “Under God” part wasn’t inserted until the 1950s, because of Communism.
Indivisible under God is from the Pledge of Allegiance and it wasn’t added to the pledge until the 50’s. Many of the Founding Fathers were Deist (notably Thomas Jefferson actual did a revision of the Bible removing all things he deemed impossible). Additionally the US signed The Treaty of Tripoli which affirmed that the United States of America was not founded as a Christian nation.
Thomas Jefferson just keeps getting cooler.
Not even sort of. But your grasp of American history is still better than that of most American evangelicals, so there’s that. If you care, the constitution starts:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The Declaration of Independence mentions being “endowed by our creator” with rights, but it’s not a legal document.
The US Constitution only mentions “God” once at the end where it says “in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”. This appears only two sentences after, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The Bill of Rights had no mentions of God, but it did include the “no establishment or prohibition of religion” part, better known as the separation of church and state.
I agree that the United States was certainly not founded on the basis of Christianity (or any other religion), but in the interest of accuracy, there were certainly religious people among the Declaration’s signers. One (John Witherspoon) was even an ordained Presbyterian minister, and I’m sure there were others, although determining the religious views of people who lived over 200 years ago is probably a fool’s errand.
Okay, but when you say “religious” you need to also admit that what we consider “religious” today is, as you partially acknowledge, not what was considered “religious” 200 years ago. Today, we insist the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were religiously-inspired documents because we don’t have a firm grounding in philosophers of the time, and we ignore the way religion was approached by, as above, Thomas Jefferson who edited the Bible to remove all impossible events from it, or even the very-religious Descartes, who believed God wouldn’t have given him the ability to reason if God hadn’t wanted him to make full use of it. Today’s so-called Constitutionalists who insist the Founders wanted us to be a Christian nation would have considered even the most Christian of the Founders heathens, if they’d actually met them.
Thank god you were there Dina. Who knows how that situation would have gone down without your help
I want a T-shirt with the following slogan on it: “Atheists do not believe in nothing. They believe in other people, of their choosing.” I am not an atheist (I’m actually spiritual, but in a non-mainstream sort of way), but I think “believe in people” is a good motto to live by.
As an atheist, I don’t believe in people, at least not in anything remotely similar to the way people believe in gods. Personally I see using the believe-in-as-in-trust definition of the term in a religious conversation as disingenuous. When asked if I, as an atheist, believe in something, my answer would be “Yes. That rock over there. I believe it exists. Next stupid question?”
Theoretically you could use a person as an example of an existent being too, but doing so invites the sort of confusion with the ‘feel good’ bait and switch that Dorothy is doing here. Better to just answer the question that was asked.
Yes, especially better to ask it and then say “Next stupid question?”
I’m agnostic, but I’d go with the “believe in people” answer, too, thanks all the same. I think it’s not only cute but also accurate, because I think the “House MD” definition of atheism was one of the best I’ve heard.
Religious person: If there’s no God, then nothing we do here matters.
Atheistic person: If there’s no God, then what we do here is all that matters.
(Not direct quotes, obviously.)
I think atheists and agnostics often DO believe in people just as much, and in some ways more than, religious adherents. For example: atheists and agnostics believe that morality can exists without supernatural intervention. We believe that it is possible to be a good person without needing the threat of Hell. Meanwhile, a very common argument for the need for religion is that it can’t.
Call it feel-good if you want, but I’m pretty sure you believe that, too. And I’d definitely characterize that as believing in humanity.
As a Humanist, I agree completely with this post.
One wonders how much damage the War of the Worlds effect has done to our society. (The thing where you assume other people tend to be less capable of critical thought than yourself, and therefore more in need of firm guidance.)
All I heard when I finished reading this comic was the studio audience going “awwwww” and clapping… then I pictured the camera zooming out to show the bathroom is just a set.
Nah, they’re filming on-location at Mother Bear’s Pizza.
Oh, Dina. ^^ You so awesome…
I love the big goofy grin on her face.
Dina………….future student of batman and amazi-girl.
I’ve been waiting for the ‘annnnnd…Dina’ moment all week.
I’m not disapointed.
Eee.
I like this. I generally like the way arguments and opposing beliefs are used in DoA, really — people can talk to each other and reach standstills and work up tempers and get to points where neither understands each other and all that, but they can still be friends, or they can still understand each other, because they’re pretty decent people who want to be pretty decent. Opinions can get in the way, but they can also be put aside.
Hooray for realistic people interaction! (And I like that Dina doesn’t just have the goofy grin, she does the thumbs-up and all. She knows this is a good goal to reach.)
Awwww.
Hooray for bonding!
Also, do the arms get mixed up easily when drawing hugs?
What are those dots on Dorothy’s arm?
Also, thanks David, for making Dina look and smile like Radical Edward. Must… Resist… Certain thoughts…
Freckles?
Freckles.
Dorothy is a secret Trill.
Before or after the host gets implanted into her?
Um, the host is the recipient. It’s the symbiont that gets implanted.
Now kiss!
OK, that one made me laugh out loud!
Woah… Almost shed a tear on that one… Thank you Dina for breaking up the mushy.
D’aww.
Good work, Dina. Good work,
What is Dorothy looking at in the last panel?
This is the first comic strip that made me literally LOL. Good job Dina, good job!
Who’s the bigger butt monkey, Dina or uhm, what’s his face, Doroth’s ex?
You mean Danny?
I feel like the Predator is targetting Dorothy’s upper arm. 🙂
I wonder if Dorothy mentions this date to Amber later?
“Ethan was there, and was kissed by this girl named Joyce …”
This is the best explanation I’ve heard so far for the mystery of why women take so long in the bathroom
It’s a little-known fact that about 80% of all female bathroom trips end in existential conversation, hugs and pizza.
Wow. No wonder girls are so concerned about dieting and yogurt that helps regularity. That’s a lot of pizza.
Dorothy ought to get those moles on her arm checked out…
Oh my god! I just realized… Dina probably showed up as the door to Joyce’s stall CLOSED! TELEPORTING DINA!!!