That’ll teach me to make assumptions.
There are two ways to look at this webcomic. Continue reading My immediately revolted, but increasingly bemused, reaction to this @xkcd comic.
Because, really: by any standard of sentient-species morality and/or ethics nature is just plain awful.
Mind you, this guy is (reluctantly) calling BS on the XKCD strip in question. He says that the strip anthropomorphizes science, instead; and as God is my witness I didn’t see that until after I wrote the title to my post.
Which is a shame.
I would have liked to have seen Bigfoot. I enjoy cryptozoology: it’s refreshingly free of conspiracy theories about international Jewish plots.
Click through: I refuse to spoil the joke. Then again, it’s xkcd, so you’ve probably already read it. And laughed.
…they’re fairly sure that Jesus was not actually born on December 25th. In all probability, shepherds wouldn’t have had flocks out in the fields at that time of year.
PS: Apparently, the question of whether or not the ancient Romans had a religious holiday on December 25, and whether it was or was not a Mithraic one, is a matter of some dispute that has not quite reached the level of ‘academics fighting each other with knives.’ You learn something new every day…
…that’s exceedingly interesting, and neatly deflates the “Well, Candidate X can’t win because of [insert random bit of historical trivia here]” arguments that we get a lot. Well-played, although there’s a typo for 1800 and the forums are right: 1996 IS a slight stretch. Forgivable, to be sure.
Although I don’t know if Randall intended to, this time: