0907: "Ages"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Apeiron
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:34 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Apeiron » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:10 pm UTC

Daemian Lucifer wrote:A pet peeve has forced me to join just so I could point it out:The beginning should be non-sapient,not non-sentient.Babies are sentient,and thats a fact.Whether they are sapient is debatable.

Signing out.


This. Most life is sentient, despite the ignorance and laziness of Sci-Fi writers.

It's not peevish to point to the truth. It's being a good person. Don't apologize for it. :)

Grungydan
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:11 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Grungydan » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:32 pm UTC

It actually took more posts than I expected for someone to get butthurt about the "non-sentient" joke.

Also, is "hating XKCD but continuing to read and post" the new Justin Bieber?

User avatar
jetsam
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 7:06 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby jetsam » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:36 pm UTC

Before getting into the last category, I too, imagined your description fit. It doesn't.

blackhatmatt
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:30 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby blackhatmatt » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:37 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
I realized it was a cartoon and therefore looked past any technically incorrect information.


Yeah, I get that. I guess I just draw a distinction (and maybe it's unfair of me) between getting stages of childhood development wrong (which is technical) and recognizing that they exist at all. Saying that any child between the ages of birth and 2 is "non-sentient" (whether or not that's the word he wants; honestly I've never been able to keep the different between sentient and sapient straight) plays to the notion that young children are somehow not people, which is a notion that I find disrespectful. Just pushes one of my buttons, I guess.

Scott Auld
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:42 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Scott Auld » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:47 pm UTC

Registered for the sole purpose of saying I always look forward to Mon/Wed/Fri to get a new XKCD comic, and this one ... disappointed somehow.

I realized it was a cartoon and therefore looked past any technically incorrect information.


I think most XKCD fans think of it as more than just a cartoon. The strip is educational, thought-provoking and sometimes challenges the comfort zone. There's nothing wrong with having high expectations and I doubt Randall minds people holding him to a high standard.

RogueCynic
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby RogueCynic » Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:28 pm UTC

I thought it was a whimsical comic. As to the necrophilia and virgin references, I would say they are almost the same. A virgin, not knowing anything about sex, just closes her eyes and lays there. I wonder how ugly a woman would have to be to die a virgin?
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby SirMustapha » Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:31 pm UTC

When Randall says something right, he's better than God. When he says something wrong, "it's just a cartoon".

Lovers gonna love.

McPoopers
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:11 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby McPoopers » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:18 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
BrianB wrote:
SirMustapha wrote:Randall,

You gotta be FUCKING KIDDING ME.


Apparently your capability of authoring an intelligent comment is on par with your perception of the comic itself.


What's there to perceive?

That Randall thinks it's somehow funny or deep to attach generic, stereotypical, idiotically caricatural phrases to certain age periods? That Randall made the brilliant discovery that the life of a human being is more or less divided in stages? That a comic as shallow and ridiculous as this could evoke any emotional or humourous response? That "WOOOO COLLEGE WOOO [vomit]" is now supposed to be funny? That "old people have sex!" has somehow turned into an interesting punchline?

All those things considered, I genuinely think that the most intelligent thing that can be done is to consider that the author is fucking kidding with me.


Fortunately for you, Randall offers full refunds on all comics that fail to reach a customer's individual threshold for humor! There's a link to it in the store, right next to the pills that turn righteous feelings of entitlement into a genuine ability to contribute to society.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

webgrunt
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:04 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby webgrunt » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:19 pm UTC

"I'm glad I'm not the clueless person I was five years ago, but now I don't want to get any older."

Yeah, I started thinking this before I turned 17. I was actually bummed about turning 17 and even more so when I turned 18.

Now I'm 46 and birthdays don't mean anything to me. I age at a constant rate as far as I can tell, not once a year.

Zrana
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:03 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Zrana » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

RogueCynic wrote: I wonder how ugly a woman would have to be to die a virgin?


I take issue with equating virginity to ugliness. Some people just don't have the desire or urge for sex, period. Or even cuddling romance in my case. I stopped thinking I was weird for it when I stumbled upon a website about asexuality. I am amused at how accurate the joke in highschool of me being asexual turned out to be. My lack of having sex is by far not related to my looks. (I'm well aware I'm not drop dead gorgeous either, but then most people aren't.)

Being over 30, I'm pretty sure this isn't a mis-labeled phase I'm going through.

(Don't get me wrong, though, I can still be a sucker for a good romance story. As long as I'm not the one in it.)

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby cphite » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:16 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:When Randall says something right, he's better than God. When he says something wrong, "it's just a cartoon".

Lovers gonna love.


It's always just a cartoon. Some of them are funny; others are sad. Some of them are witty; others just goofy. A few have been brilliant; a few others have been pretty lame. But it's always just a cartoon.

Usually it's the responses that are more interesting.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby cphite » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:28 pm UTC

blackhatmatt wrote:
cphite wrote:
I realized it was a cartoon and therefore looked past any technically incorrect information.


Yeah, I get that. I guess I just draw a distinction (and maybe it's unfair of me) between getting stages of childhood development wrong (which is technical) and recognizing that they exist at all. Saying that any child between the ages of birth and 2 is "non-sentient" (whether or not that's the word he wants; honestly I've never been able to keep the different between sentient and sapient straight) plays to the notion that young children are somehow not people, which is a notion that I find disrespectful. Just pushes one of my buttons, I guess.


My take is that he was simply poking fun at the fact that kids that age spend most of their time staring into space and drooling on themselves, in-between bouts of screaming and pooping.

philip1201
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby philip1201 » Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:58 pm UTC

RogueCynic wrote:I thought it was a whimsical comic. As to the necrophilia and virgin references, I would say they are almost the same. A virgin, not knowing anything about sex, just closes her eyes and lays there. I wonder how ugly a woman would have to be to die a virgin?


What's the death rate of medieval Arab girls under the age of 12? My instincts say that, especially in the first 2 years, it might just be over 75%. If children grow up in heaven (or whatever the Islamic version is), then females who die a virgin can have any level of attractiveness.
Also, people talk. Virgins hardly have to have no idea what's going on.

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby bmonk » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:07 pm UTC

Daemian Lucifer wrote:A pet peeve has forced me to join just so I could point it out:The beginning should be non-sapient,not non-sentient.Babies are sentient,and thats a fact.Whether they are sapient is debatable.

Signing out.

Another option: non-sophont, or non-speaking. IN fact, "infant" means just that, etymologically: in-fans = "non-speaking."
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

User avatar
savanik
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:10 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby savanik » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:43 pm UTC

Daemian Lucifer wrote:A pet peeve has forced me to join just so I could point it out:The beginning should be non-sapient,not non-sentient.Babies are sentient,and thats a fact.Whether they are sapient is debatable.


Sentient: Having sense perception; conscious. Being aware of one's self.

Anyone who has studied developmental psychology (a fairly standard starter in psychology) can tell you that babies do not have self-awareness until roughly 12-24 months of age and that there is a simple, repeatable test that can be done to verify this and when it happens.

Sapient: Having great wisdom and discernment.

Hmm. This is somewhat debatable on the matter of whether instincts count as wisdom. Babies can be remarkably skilled at manipulating parents through instinctive behavior. But I would say 'no' on that front, too. Despite talk of the 'wisdom of babes' they have no real cognitive abilities at the ages listed and are incapable of true formative thought.

As a side note, many science fiction authors have used 'sapient' in their works to mean 'derived from Homo Sapiens stock', which I would say most infants are. ;) But this is a colloquial definition.
"If it were up to the copyright lobby, owning a pen would be punishable by fines." ---Arancaytar

Daemian Lucifer
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:43 am UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:47 pm UTC

savanik wrote:Sentient: Having sense perception; conscious. Being aware of one's self.


Sorry,but no.From the dictionary:

1
: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2
: aware
3
: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

So babies are sentient.

savanik wrote:As a side note, many science fiction authors have used 'sapient' in their works to mean 'derived from Homo Sapiens stock', which I would say most infants are. ;) But this is a colloquial definition.


Which is why its my pet peeve.For a long time I too was thinking these two were the same thing,and got really angry at those lazy writers for deceiving me once I found out the difference.

amnotyoursavior
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 7:42 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby amnotyoursavior » Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:19 pm UTC

internetters gonna internet

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5478
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:49 pm UTC

The short definitions I like to give for sentient vs sapient are thus:

Sentient = Feeling (literally "sensing")

Sapient = Thinking (literally "wise")

Something which sees and hears, hungers and thirsts, perceives, intuits, desires, and emotes, is sentient. Babies definitely do this.

Something which reflects, deliberates, believes, intends, judges, acts (as opposed to just behaves), something self-aware and self-controlled, conscious and willful, is sapient. I'm not even certain all adults do this.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
radtea
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:57 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby radtea » Sat Jun 04, 2011 12:46 am UTC

I was expecting the mouse-over text to involve who the old folks are having sex with--it's more often with significantly younger people than you'd think, although the actual numbers, which vary by gender, are open to question: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships
Coming on Midsummer's Day to a Web Browser Near You: http://www.songsofalbion.com

werdenaz
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:05 am UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby werdenaz » Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:11 am UTC

I'm with Daemian Lucifer, and glad someone else noticed. And joined just to point this out, like I did also!

Since I joined for the same reason I may as well add my 2cents : 'Star Trek' ruined the term 'sentient' for everyone by telling them it means something it doesn't. At age 0-2 humans are nothing BUT sentient beings, they react purely on senses while discovering how their mind, the seat of their sapience, works. :)

As you were :twisted:

Wilhelm
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:33 am UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Wilhelm » Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:32 am UTC

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-unintenti ... ituations/

The article above was released on Cracked today. It's a good read, but once you get to the second page, you'll realize just why it's hilarious that this comic and this article were released on the same day. I warn you- make sure nobody wants to see what you're laughing so hard about when reading #2 on the list (the bit that relates to today's xkcd).
Where I sell a limited range of unofficial merchandise:

http://www.cafepress.com/from_the_internet

Rilian
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Rilian » Sat Jun 04, 2011 5:07 am UTC

My brother engaged in actual conversations before he was even a year old. So there.
And I'm -2.

User avatar
Tyris and Cortle
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:39 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Tyris and Cortle » Sat Jun 04, 2011 9:18 am UTC

The identity-mask we wear in public and around family has engaged in conversation while we were asleep. Is it sapient? No.
And Stent!
You can't look dignified when you're having fun.

aljohnso
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:17 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby aljohnso » Sat Jun 04, 2011 5:47 pm UTC

My additions to the "children" section of this thread...

pre-whatever would probably have been preferable... pre-sophont, pre-literate, pre-appreciated...

And I have fairly good recall of when I was pre-communicative... in the late phase I thought adults were stupid since I could understand them but they could not understand me. I certainly had self awareness much earlier - I remember waking up and looking out the bars of my crib and seeing the family having a picnic in the back yard - I was furious, and my father came to the window (left open to monitor me, no doubt) and picked me up out of the crib to stop my screaming... My feelings of being taken advantage of were strong enough to fix the memory in my mind. I was something of the order of 1 year old at the time. With my son, and my concerns about autism trends in geeks, I made faces and jokes and such using physical humor/story telling, and the little guy tracked just fine from a very early age.

Anyway, if munchkins are on your mind I would suggest that you don't understand the little guys, and ya gotta cut them as much slack as you can.

Allen

correnos
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:17 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby correnos » Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

webgrunt wrote:"I'm glad I'm not the clueless person I was five years ago, but now I don't want to get any older."

Yeah, I started thinking this before I turned 17. I was actually bummed about turning 17 and even more so when I turned 18.

Now I'm 46 and birthdays don't mean anything to me. I age at a constant rate as far as I can tell, not once a year.


AFAICT that works pretty well right after a person's 21st birthday.
If you're seeking the bottleneck, look at the top of the bottle.

User avatar
Schadenfreude
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:03 am UTC
Location: "I'm loyal to nothing, general...except the dream."
Contact:

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Schadenfreude » Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:47 pm UTC

Meh. Multiple mediocre jokes, art is more nonexistent than usual.

Look, I know the webcomic world is pretty diverse, but the good ones put in effort to actually be comics. This is an unimpressive scribble-chart that I could reproduce in 5 minutes.
"Shake my hand. Come on, boys, won't you shake a poor sinner's hand?"

User avatar
Various Varieties
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:24 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Various Varieties » Sat Jun 04, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

The "everything is exciting!" phrase in the context of a list of different ages reminded me of a certain Douglas Adams quote:

"I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
-- (The Salmon of Doubt, p. 95)


Have to say, "against the natural order of things" is a funnier phrase to end with than the sex joke Randall chose...

feyayeruka
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:22 am UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby feyayeruka » Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:25 am UTC

OMGZ *total* GOOMHR moment - I have an age that fits into this chart!

well, it was either that or: My mother died when she was at an age on this chart. Not funny, not a good comic.

silleknarf
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:41 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby silleknarf » Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:53 pm UTC

My non-sentient age goes up to about 11, I have next to no memories before that!

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby webgiant » Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:56 pm UTC

blackhatmatt wrote:
cphite wrote:
I realized it was a cartoon and therefore looked past any technically incorrect information.


Yeah, I get that. I guess I just draw a distinction (and maybe it's unfair of me) between getting stages of childhood development wrong (which is technical) and recognizing that they exist at all. Saying that any child between the ages of birth and 2 is "non-sentient" (whether or not that's the word he wants; honestly I've never been able to keep the different between sentient and sapient straight) plays to the notion that young children are somehow not people, which is a notion that I find disrespectful. Just pushes one of my buttons, I guess.

The interesting thing here is that people are people even if they're not sentient or not sapient. Until a person is dead, what happens between birth and death doesn't remove personhood, even if the current person is non-sapient. Two examples of non-sapient persons are infants and the unconscious (short-term and coma). In fact, there are no periods of the life of a person in which non-sapience cannot occur, especially those college years.

There's no real debate on human beings who are born being persons, so calling an infant "non-sapient" is nothing more than applying an adjective to a very real person.
Last edited by webgiant on Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby SirMustapha » Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:58 pm UTC

Various Varieties wrote:Have to say, "against the natural order of things" is a funnier phrase to end with than the sex joke Randall chose...


Randall missing the opportunity to make a lame sex joke? IMPOSSIBLE.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby webgiant » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:08 pm UTC

savanik wrote:
Sentient: Having sense perception; conscious. Being aware of one's self.

Anyone who has studied developmental psychology (a fairly standard starter in psychology) can tell you that babies do not have self-awareness until roughly 12-24 months of age and that there is a simple, repeatable test that can be done to verify this and when it happens.

Sapient: Having great wisdom and discernment.

Hmm. This is somewhat debatable on the matter of whether instincts count as wisdom. Babies can be remarkably skilled at manipulating parents through instinctive behavior. But I would say 'no' on that front, too. Despite talk of the 'wisdom of babes' they have no real cognitive abilities at the ages listed and are incapable of true formative thought.

I have emphasized these two portions of your comment to point out that until one can discern the self, discernment cannot occur. The first text in boldface is more accurately part of the definition of sapience, not sentience. Self-awareness is sapience, not sentience, because sapience requires abstract thought (or in the case of infants, proto-abstract-thought) whereas sentience merely requires physical sensation.

TA67
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:04 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby TA67 » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:28 pm UTC

I'm convinced this comic took all of maybe 10 minutes to think of and create.

User avatar
SpringLoaded12
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:58 am UTC
Location: Guarding the Super Missile
Contact:

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby SpringLoaded12 » Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:15 pm UTC

Change the alt text's "5 years" to "one year" and I think it fits perfectly.
"It's easy to forget what a sin is in the middle of a battlefield." "Opposite over hypotenuse, dipshit."

Rilian
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:33 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Rilian » Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:46 am UTC

Tyris and Cortle wrote:The identity-mask we wear in public and around family has engaged in conversation while we were asleep. Is it sapient? No.

How does any part of you interact with other people while you're asleep?
And I'm -2.

jfriesne
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:00 am UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby jfriesne » Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:41 am UTC

Moose Hole wrote:I'm just hoping that with 72 virgins, I can get at least one to put out.


The joke's on the Muslims... it turns out that having sex after you're dead makes just as much sense as eating after you're dead. No body == no need to reproduce == no sexual urges == no wonder there's so many virgins in heaven. :)

blackhatmatt
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:30 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby blackhatmatt » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:58 am UTC

cphite wrote:
blackhatmatt wrote:
My take is that he was simply poking fun at the fact that kids that age spend most of their time staring into space and drooling on themselves, in-between bouts of screaming and pooping.


Yeah, see, people who think this tend not to have spent time with babies. I don't say that as judgment, just noting that it's a bit of an oversimplification.

Fat Tony
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:12 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby Fat Tony » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:What's there to perceive?

That Randall thinks it's somehow funny or deep to attach generic, stereotypical, idiotically caricatural phrases to certain age periods? That Randall made the brilliant discovery that the life of a human being is more or less divided in stages? That a comic as shallow and ridiculous as this could evoke any emotional or humourous response? That "WOOOO COLLEGE WOOO [vomit]" is now supposed to be funny? That "old people have sex!" has somehow turned into an interesting punchline?

All those things considered, I genuinely think that the most intelligent thing that can be done is to consider that the author is fucking kidding with me.

Not cool, not funny, not a good comic.


What I think he meant to say.
Wanna hear the truth? Life is downright ok.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby cphite » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

blackhatmatt wrote:
cphite wrote:
blackhatmatt wrote:
My take is that he was simply poking fun at the fact that kids that age spend most of their time staring into space and drooling on themselves, in-between bouts of screaming and pooping.


Yeah, see, people who think this tend not to have spent time with babies. I don't say that as judgment, just noting that it's a bit of an oversimplification.


joke [johk]
noun, verb, joked, jok·ing.
–noun
1. something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act: He tells very funny jokes. She played a joke on him.
2. something that is amusing or ridiculous, especially because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce: Their pretense of generosity is a joke. An officer with no ability to command is a joke.
3. a matter that need not be taken very seriously; trifling matter: The loss was no joke.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0907: "Ages"

Postby SirMustapha » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:13 pm UTC

Indeed, Randall's knowledge about babies and infants overall seems to be nothing other than a joke.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pfhorrest, yappobiscuits and 84 guests