This touching scene is somewhat ruined by the fact that Danny just keeps playing the opening bars of Mele Kalikimaka over and over again. It’s all he knows how to do so far.
I’m thinking Danny is playing “They Can’t Take That Away From Me” now.
desolation0
I was thinking, ‘maybe he’s playing “Du Hast.”‘ Then I had to look for a “Du Hast” ukulele cover on Youtube because that is a thing that must exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=murSGzmRRgE
Moojoo
Oh nooo, the sound was muted on that video. So sad, I wanted to hear.
Yeah and then you consider what happens to the Bobby calves
JessWitt
*gulp* now I see myself going vegan in the future. I’d have an easier time being vegetarian.
Yumi
But then you might start to consider the various sufferings of the people who work to produce your non-animal based food, and pretty soon you’ll just stop eating.
JessWitt
Oh why couldn’t I have been an android?
chris73
True that, agriculture is NZs largest economic sector and Fonterra is NZs largest which means theres a lot of people whose entire livelihood depends on this
foamy
JessWitt: You really don’t wanna know what goes into electricity.
@foamy: I knew the Mars story was covering for something!
JetstreamGW
Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybody’s gonna die.
Come watch TV?
neeks
@ jetstream: A+++++ reference
Ivanka the Terrible
Don’t be silly. Dairy cows are specifically _not_ kept pregnant, the whole point is to get them started lactating but not actually have calves that need the milk. As a dairy cow, you’re also allowed out of the barn on a regular basis and never killed for the same reason you’re not kept pregnant. And you get pretty good healthcare.
Being breeding stock in the quiverful cult is WAY worse than being a dairy cow.
drs
Milking diary cows is very painful for the cow.
Victor
What? No it isn’t. Not milking dairy cows is painful for them, milking them is not.
Wait, WHAT is this?! I’m too afraid to google whatever the hell it is.
Yumi
It’s a religious movement that basically wants Christians to out-reproduce everyone and has a lot of…views. The 19 Kids and Counting people are part of it.
Leorale
Isn’t there some study that dudes with more older brothers are more likely to be born gay? I don’t have a source, bu if that’s really true, that’s some statistically imminent strife right there
Irredentist
Is your source Leslie the gender studies teacher lol
Leorale
Hah, did she say that too? Nope, I know who told me. It’s just that they might not be accurate, and it was long ago so it could’ve been overturned. I don’t like to say science stuff unless I’m quite sure. : )
Yumi
I’ve heard that too, though I’m not sure how true it is. But really, there’s still always a chance that a kid won’t grow up allo cis het, and when you have nineteen of them…
Leorale
Yeah, assuming they understand that a kid can be Born That Way, they’re rolling the heck outta those dice.
Yumi
Of course, they DON’T understand that, so I guess they’re content to roll away.
Delicious Taffy
*ROLL* I got a 14, but with my bonus, that’s 17.
…Wait, what are we rolling for?
Orion Fury
Initiative. You lost.
Leorale
Yahtzee!
Ivanka the Terrible
It’s cute that you think members of the quiverful movement are allowed enough reproductive autonomy for being gay to make any actual difference in their sex lives.
The women have it worse for obvious reasons but it’s not like they let the men off the hook on their duty to the cult, either.
Yumi
I wasn’t talking about it as making a difference in their sex lives?
Adam Black
It’s true.
More accurately the more older brothers a man has, the more it is, he is gay.
Adam Black
The more ^ likely.
Protip: offering qualified explanations is frequently unfruitful when you ( ^ have . Dammit ) aphasia.
(Or you could just pretend to be another Cyber hipster wordsmith playing off random riffs of Africa American Vernacular. But sadly, kinda not. Early onset dementia , here I come. )
This talks about that study. I could not find a link to the actual paper, so take the facts stated here with a grain of salt.
TL;DR
1) Applies to men only. Women are seemingly unaffected by older siblings
2) Firstborn son is 3% likely to be gay. Forth is 6%.
3) 944 samples
Chupicron
There are lots of studies that try to suggest something about genetics making you gay or women suddenly being more likely to produce gay kids the more kids they produce for some inexplicable reason. But I’d sooner suggest the latter seems like a side effect of what seems to be the primary cause in every other species on Earth we’ve studied homosexuality in: Population density. Every species we have studied homosexual behavior in sees a disproportionate skyrocketing in homosexual behavior the denser the population gets, and we actually see humans replicate this pattern.
So yeah, based on that fact that basically everything with a spine and many things without is more likely to exhibit homosexual or bisexual behavior the denser populations get, having a single household in the double digits I would expect raises those odds quite a bit.
Chupicron
Side note there. The population density link has been found and reported again and again both in captive studies (Primarily of rodents.) and wildlife observations since at least James Robert Hammock’s 1971 study. It rose again in the 1990’s, 2000’s, and 2015. The studies always come to the same conclusion that there’s a distinct correlation between population density and “homosexual behavior.” (They call it that in studies as a catch-all for both gay and bisexual animals.)
But people don’t seem to like this answer on either side of the fence because it’s not as catchy as saying there’s a (Constantly discredited and quite frankly nonsensical in concept.) “gay gene” that people want there to be to try to validate themselves or to try to find it and “fix” it. It implies it’s natural and something you absolutely can not control, but it also flies in the face of the “born ___” idea and just isn’t catchy in a slogan about your right to exist and not be oppressed by zealots. So social environment always drives us back to the drawing board when we’ve basically known for going on 40 years now.
ischemgeek
Mind you the “born ___” idea itself is also highly supported in literature, inasmuch as sexual orientation seems to be imprinted either in utero or in the early years of development and it’s not something a person can change willingly or be trained/abused out of.
It’s the ol’ nature/nurture debate – is it nature that a person is left-handed or is it nurture? Or does it matter, because 10YO John Smith can’t change his left-handedness now no matter how much you smack his hand when he tries to write – all you’ll end up with is a left-handed kid who’s been trained to write with his off hand and has a whole shitload of baggage associated with being beaten into writing with the other hand and shamed for using his left?
vlademir1
To be fair there is at least some data on various epigenetic correlations (largely, but not exclusively, in utero hormone levels during various stages of development) with a man being gay which in theory could support the idea that prior pregnancies and their uterine impact could shift the odds in small but statistically significant ways on top of the well established links with population density.
Arianod
I thought the Opus Dei had the copyright on that?
Kit
“Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.”
Psalm 127:4-5
Interpret that passage in the worst way possible. Now add Bill Gothard.
Delicious Taffy
Seems like a bit of a jump to read that as “All women should be making babies at all times”. All I got out of it was “Anyone with a big family sure is lucky.”
Consider the birth rates from 2000+ years ago, though. I doubt it was easy to have more than a few kids, without half of them dying before puberty. It probably would be seen as a blessing to have a ton of kids.
Leorale
‘Blessed’ in this context might be more like God will reward them for their good choices — more like ‘blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth’ type of deal. (Not sure if it would mean post-apolocyptic reward, heavenly reward, or what.)
So: having kids when you’re young makes a warrior of God more powerful (cuz the kids are tools to use for God). Great rewards shall befall men who have lots of children.
Leorale
Oh wait no it could also be “great rewards have befallen men who have lots of children” like you said. Either way, it’s a totally sweet place to be, according to this passage. So… get on that, I suppose.
Delicious Taffy
Kids are expensive. No thanks.
Trolldrool
That’s pretty much the entire reason for the mass migration from Europe to America in the 18th century. For untold generations, people had been producing as many children as possible because less than half of them were suspected to live to see their tenth birthday. But then, someone discovered that better hygiene lead to a longer life. Except for the women, I believe Semmelweiss was still seen as a bit of a looney.
But people were still producing children at the same pace, because that’s how they’d been doing it for hundreds of years, which meant that suddenly when daddy died, his inheritance had to be split evenly between twice and some times thrice the amount of children. For everyone. Naturally, this wasn’t possible, so thousands upon thousands went across the sea to America where if the stories were to be believed, you could just stick a shovel in a patch of fertile soil and call it your own.
Trolldrool
Point of that long rant, no less than 150 years ago, it was an unfortunate part of life that less than half the children born would survive to hit puberty, so there was a rational reason to have a lot of children and conditions were very likely the same back in the times described in the old testament. Today, when we’ve discovered how doctor’s washing their hands when delivering children can prevent infections that make giving birth the #1 cause of death for women, that kind of reproduction just leads to overpopulation.
Knayt
Then throw in Michael and Debbie Pearl, who make Gothard seem downright kind.
CJ
Wait, they are planning to sabotage all electricity generating sources so you will need so many children just to keep you farm working or are they planning to ruin economy by adding millions of uneducated unskilled workers?
434 thoughts on “Stuff like this”
Doctor_Who
This touching scene is somewhat ruined by the fact that Danny just keeps playing the opening bars of Mele Kalikimaka over and over again. It’s all he knows how to do so far.
Emperor Norton II
In a previous strip, it was revealed that Danny apparently managed to play a chord that is pretty damn hard to do, so I think he’s beyond that…
Stephen Bierce
I’m thinking Danny is playing “They Can’t Take That Away From Me” now.
desolation0
I was thinking, ‘maybe he’s playing “Du Hast.”‘ Then I had to look for a “Du Hast” ukulele cover on Youtube because that is a thing that must exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=murSGzmRRgE
Moojoo
Oh nooo, the sound was muted on that video. So sad, I wanted to hear.
desolation0
Gah sorry Moojoo. Meant to share this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW3LJH1Yj8o
Icarus
F#m is not a hard chord. It’s just not a learner’s first choice.
Needfuldoer
Is that the ukulele equivalent of Smoke on the Water?
Tacos
Yeah keep the hat. It’s sorta grown on me.
Doctor_Who
Dina wears a hat. Dina is the best character.
Wearing a hat makes him slightly more like Dina. Therefore it is an improvement.
JessWitt
Still his hat could use some eyes and teeth.
Nightsbridge
If we recruit Dina to draw on it, he’ll never even notice until it’s too late.
inqntrol
Yeah it actually looks good on Danny, Joe must be jealous that he doesn’t have one too.
Leorale
That hat isn’t for everyone. Joe would look like he’s the hardworking Proletariat, like, in propaganda posters.
chris73
You mean like this?
https://cdn.theculturetrip.com/images/56-199207-soviet-propaganda-poster.jpg
Rukduk
That’s…pretty uncanny actually.
Leorale
That’s the stuff!
0kami
Nice example! I did manage to find another one, also with the “newsies cap”.
http://members.pundak.co.il/goblinindustry/images/tt4.jpg
Leorale
Wait, that one’s in Hebrew…?
Leorale
I think it says:
WORKER (m) WORKER (f)
YOUR PLACE IS SERVING WITH US
So, uh, Joseph Rosenthal would fit right in
Leorale
Google translate correction:
“Men and women workers:
Your place is in our ranks!”
zoelogical
o.O
fogel
@chris73: that one’s kind of ironic on the day the G-20 ended
MM
Or a very, very lost Newsies chorus member.
Sporky
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Average joe
Now I kinda want to see art of some kind of that with like the angry old Tampa dude as the guy in the top hat
ValdVin
Now I can’t stop thinking about what hat would suit Joe.
My wife can wear any hat, and does. I can’t wear any hat, and am glad not to be alive when it’s notas compulsory, as it doesn’t do much for my looks.
Deanatay
It DOES look like a toadstool – maybe it’s literally grown on HIM.
Yumi
In all the surrounding awfulness, this is a nice moment. I’m proud of Danny.
On a separate note, I learned more about the Quiverfull movement today, and I am scared.
Maveric1984
What, you dont want to spend 20+ years never having a period because you’re constantly pregnant?
chris73
Sounds more like the life of a diary cow
JessWitt
Sounds awful. And now I get why people go vegan.
chris73
Yeah and then you consider what happens to the Bobby calves
JessWitt
*gulp* now I see myself going vegan in the future. I’d have an easier time being vegetarian.
Yumi
But then you might start to consider the various sufferings of the people who work to produce your non-animal based food, and pretty soon you’ll just stop eating.
JessWitt
Oh why couldn’t I have been an android?
chris73
True that, agriculture is NZs largest economic sector and Fonterra is NZs largest which means theres a lot of people whose entire livelihood depends on this
foamy
JessWitt: You really don’t wanna know what goes into electricity.
Renshear Blade
@JessWitt https://jeffvandyck.bandcamp.com/track/little-android
butting
@foamy: I knew the Mars story was covering for something!
JetstreamGW
Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybody’s gonna die.
Come watch TV?
neeks
@ jetstream: A+++++ reference
Ivanka the Terrible
Don’t be silly. Dairy cows are specifically _not_ kept pregnant, the whole point is to get them started lactating but not actually have calves that need the milk. As a dairy cow, you’re also allowed out of the barn on a regular basis and never killed for the same reason you’re not kept pregnant. And you get pretty good healthcare.
Being breeding stock in the quiverful cult is WAY worse than being a dairy cow.
drs
Milking diary cows is very painful for the cow.
Victor
What? No it isn’t. Not milking dairy cows is painful for them, milking them is not.
drs
Spelling is important.
Mandy
Wait, WHAT is this?! I’m too afraid to google whatever the hell it is.
Yumi
It’s a religious movement that basically wants Christians to out-reproduce everyone and has a lot of…views. The 19 Kids and Counting people are part of it.
Leorale
Isn’t there some study that dudes with more older brothers are more likely to be born gay? I don’t have a source, bu if that’s really true, that’s some statistically imminent strife right there
Irredentist
Is your source Leslie the gender studies teacher lol
Leorale
Hah, did she say that too? Nope, I know who told me. It’s just that they might not be accurate, and it was long ago so it could’ve been overturned. I don’t like to say science stuff unless I’m quite sure. : )
Yumi
I’ve heard that too, though I’m not sure how true it is. But really, there’s still always a chance that a kid won’t grow up allo cis het, and when you have nineteen of them…
Leorale
Yeah, assuming they understand that a kid can be Born That Way, they’re rolling the heck outta those dice.
Yumi
Of course, they DON’T understand that, so I guess they’re content to roll away.
Delicious Taffy
*ROLL* I got a 14, but with my bonus, that’s 17.
…Wait, what are we rolling for?
Orion Fury
Initiative. You lost.
Leorale
Yahtzee!
Ivanka the Terrible
It’s cute that you think members of the quiverful movement are allowed enough reproductive autonomy for being gay to make any actual difference in their sex lives.
The women have it worse for obvious reasons but it’s not like they let the men off the hook on their duty to the cult, either.
Yumi
I wasn’t talking about it as making a difference in their sex lives?
Adam Black
It’s true.
More accurately the more older brothers a man has, the more it is, he is gay.
Adam Black
The more ^ likely.
Protip: offering qualified explanations is frequently unfruitful when you ( ^ have . Dammit ) aphasia.
(Or you could just pretend to be another Cyber hipster wordsmith playing off random riffs of Africa American Vernacular. But sadly, kinda not. Early onset dementia , here I come. )
Kittyhawk Contrail
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2120218&page=1
This talks about that study. I could not find a link to the actual paper, so take the facts stated here with a grain of salt.
TL;DR
1) Applies to men only. Women are seemingly unaffected by older siblings
2) Firstborn son is 3% likely to be gay. Forth is 6%.
3) 944 samples
Chupicron
There are lots of studies that try to suggest something about genetics making you gay or women suddenly being more likely to produce gay kids the more kids they produce for some inexplicable reason. But I’d sooner suggest the latter seems like a side effect of what seems to be the primary cause in every other species on Earth we’ve studied homosexuality in: Population density. Every species we have studied homosexual behavior in sees a disproportionate skyrocketing in homosexual behavior the denser the population gets, and we actually see humans replicate this pattern.
So yeah, based on that fact that basically everything with a spine and many things without is more likely to exhibit homosexual or bisexual behavior the denser populations get, having a single household in the double digits I would expect raises those odds quite a bit.
Chupicron
Side note there. The population density link has been found and reported again and again both in captive studies (Primarily of rodents.) and wildlife observations since at least James Robert Hammock’s 1971 study. It rose again in the 1990’s, 2000’s, and 2015. The studies always come to the same conclusion that there’s a distinct correlation between population density and “homosexual behavior.” (They call it that in studies as a catch-all for both gay and bisexual animals.)
But people don’t seem to like this answer on either side of the fence because it’s not as catchy as saying there’s a (Constantly discredited and quite frankly nonsensical in concept.) “gay gene” that people want there to be to try to validate themselves or to try to find it and “fix” it. It implies it’s natural and something you absolutely can not control, but it also flies in the face of the “born ___” idea and just isn’t catchy in a slogan about your right to exist and not be oppressed by zealots. So social environment always drives us back to the drawing board when we’ve basically known for going on 40 years now.
ischemgeek
Mind you the “born ___” idea itself is also highly supported in literature, inasmuch as sexual orientation seems to be imprinted either in utero or in the early years of development and it’s not something a person can change willingly or be trained/abused out of.
It’s the ol’ nature/nurture debate – is it nature that a person is left-handed or is it nurture? Or does it matter, because 10YO John Smith can’t change his left-handedness now no matter how much you smack his hand when he tries to write – all you’ll end up with is a left-handed kid who’s been trained to write with his off hand and has a whole shitload of baggage associated with being beaten into writing with the other hand and shamed for using his left?
vlademir1
To be fair there is at least some data on various epigenetic correlations (largely, but not exclusively, in utero hormone levels during various stages of development) with a man being gay which in theory could support the idea that prior pregnancies and their uterine impact could shift the odds in small but statistically significant ways on top of the well established links with population density.
Arianod
I thought the Opus Dei had the copyright on that?
Kit
“Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.”
Psalm 127:4-5
Interpret that passage in the worst way possible. Now add Bill Gothard.
Delicious Taffy
Seems like a bit of a jump to read that as “All women should be making babies at all times”. All I got out of it was “Anyone with a big family sure is lucky.”
Consider the birth rates from 2000+ years ago, though. I doubt it was easy to have more than a few kids, without half of them dying before puberty. It probably would be seen as a blessing to have a ton of kids.
Leorale
‘Blessed’ in this context might be more like God will reward them for their good choices — more like ‘blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth’ type of deal. (Not sure if it would mean post-apolocyptic reward, heavenly reward, or what.)
So: having kids when you’re young makes a warrior of God more powerful (cuz the kids are tools to use for God). Great rewards shall befall men who have lots of children.
Leorale
Oh wait no it could also be “great rewards have befallen men who have lots of children” like you said. Either way, it’s a totally sweet place to be, according to this passage. So… get on that, I suppose.
Delicious Taffy
Kids are expensive. No thanks.
Trolldrool
That’s pretty much the entire reason for the mass migration from Europe to America in the 18th century. For untold generations, people had been producing as many children as possible because less than half of them were suspected to live to see their tenth birthday. But then, someone discovered that better hygiene lead to a longer life. Except for the women, I believe Semmelweiss was still seen as a bit of a looney.
But people were still producing children at the same pace, because that’s how they’d been doing it for hundreds of years, which meant that suddenly when daddy died, his inheritance had to be split evenly between twice and some times thrice the amount of children. For everyone. Naturally, this wasn’t possible, so thousands upon thousands went across the sea to America where if the stories were to be believed, you could just stick a shovel in a patch of fertile soil and call it your own.
Trolldrool
Point of that long rant, no less than 150 years ago, it was an unfortunate part of life that less than half the children born would survive to hit puberty, so there was a rational reason to have a lot of children and conditions were very likely the same back in the times described in the old testament. Today, when we’ve discovered how doctor’s washing their hands when delivering children can prevent infections that make giving birth the #1 cause of death for women, that kind of reproduction just leads to overpopulation.
Knayt
Then throw in Michael and Debbie Pearl, who make Gothard seem downright kind.
CJ
Wait, they are planning to sabotage all electricity generating sources so you will need so many children just to keep you farm working or are they planning to ruin economy by adding millions of uneducated unskilled workers?
Emperor Norton II