Posted In: comic
– I’ll be at Emerald City Comic Con next week. Find me in Artist Alley at table X4!
– Also, I’ll be running a short kickstarter next week to reprint the Modest Medusa Season 2 book and Coloring Book. So please check that out!
Support Modest Medusa! Help Jake make comics!
the return of emo!medusa….why is she blinding/gagging/hiding her snakes? perhaps she´s sick+tired of them sneakily stealing her food?
HER NAME IS “SHUT UP!” HaHAHhahaHAHAhaAHHhaHAHahHAHa!
I found that mildly amusing.
The one has bags over her snakes heads? This has to be a several panel story in itself!
They’re an emotional bunch…
Modest has learned a lot of self-control and stability in the human world, by comparison.
I was just thinking that myself, how much she’s matured in her short time in Portland. lol It took me over fifteen years here (Portland) to start growing up, by way of comparison.
We are a bunch of adult children here, right?
To paraphrase Bowling for Soup, “Grade School never ends”.
I stopped maturing at age ten and have been faking it ever since. I’m now 32 and my life goal is secretly still to become a ninja turtle.
“Adults are just kids grown up, anyway.”
-Walt Disney
Shut Up. What a great name.
I wonder what is the cutesy shortened form.
(dibs on Shoo!, it is such a cute pseudo)
I think I remember “Shut Up.” XD!
But Modest has wept before and they all seem to think that she’s not a loser. It’s either life lesson time or time to say something totally inappropriate and make the situation worse.
I remember when she named herself.
Fooo! Abuse of logic can be a fun game, but it doesn’t prove anything. ‘Losers, weepers.’ can be taken as short for ‘If one is a loser, then one is a weeper.’ It follows that (using the rules of formal logic, and surely they’re at least in 1st grade and are familiar with formal logic!) ‘If one is not a weeper, then one is not a loser.’ [That’s the contrapositive, but you knew that.) This leaves the truth of the converse and inverse (“If one is a weeper, then one is a loser.’ and ‘If one is not a loser, then then one is not a weeper.’) unknown.
There is a more serious abuse of logic here, however: The whole argument is based on the premise that a loser is always (necessarily) a weeper, which is false. The false premise destroys the entire argument.
Logic is being abused! This is an insidious use of faulty logic in an attempt to disrupt the ability of readers to think rationally. Save yourselves! Print off a copy of this comic and then burn it. (This would be best done outside, unless you live next to a refinery.)
😉 ;-}} B-}}
This this the most fantastic comment I read today
Glad you liked it. ;-}}
This was my initial thought too 😛 Although perhaps “losers, weepers” is stating the equivalence of those two terms, in which case the logic is valid, if you accept the premise.
Statistically speaking, provided the probability of ‘weeper given loser’ is greater than the probability of ‘weeper given not loser’, P[W|L] > P[W|¬L], learning that someone is a weeper increases your initially assigned chance P[L] that they’re a loser, since then:
P[W|L](1-P[L]) > P[W|¬L](1-P[L]),
P[W|L] > P[W|L]P[L] + P[W|¬L]P[¬L],
P[W|L]/(P[W|L]P[L] + P[W|¬L]P[¬L]) > 1,
and so by Bayes’ rule:
P[L|W] = P[W|L]P[L]/(P[W|L]P[L]+P[W|¬L]P[¬L]) > P[L].
I have no comment on whether being a weeper is more likely if you’re a loser than if you’re not. I guess it’s time to start collecting data.