THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: JReynolds on 05 Nov 2008, 21:24

Title: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: JReynolds on 05 Nov 2008, 21:24
I checked out the new t-shirt that's coming out: http://www.questionablecontent.net/merch.php

It probably says something about my thought processes that my first thought was: "I hope that those are raisins in the cookie that the cat is eating. Chocolate is poisonous to cats."

Then I thought: is chocolate poison to cats? I think I read it somewhere, but I'm not 100% on it.

Then I thought: since the cat is wearing safety goggles and a lab coat, and is standing up, perhaps this is a sapient cat, genetic-engineered to tolerate, or even enjoy, chocolate.

Thus did I muse. Also: cute t-shirt design.

Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Vendetagainst on 05 Nov 2008, 21:41
Chocolate is quite toxic to almost all animals, including the closely-related great apes.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: mustang6172 on 05 Nov 2008, 21:42
My first thought is that it's a not so subtle Garfield reference.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Mad Cat on 05 Nov 2008, 22:05
Chocolate only kills... those between me and it.

Honestly, the question is not whether or not chocolate is toxic to animals. It's toxic to EVERYTHING. The question is, to a given animal, it's toxic in what dosage?

Humans have the right enzymes to break it down rather effectively, so it takes an ungodly amount to kill us. I know. I've tried.

Dogs, cats, and other vermin lack those enzymes and so can only survive rather small doses.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Tybalt on 05 Nov 2008, 22:09
OP, I want to have your brain.  That is just the weirdest reaction.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: danjc2 on 06 Nov 2008, 07:42
I thought i'd post and say Chocolate is poisonous to the vast majority of animals, ost famously dogs. It mostly has to do with their inability to process the caffiene and other chemicals within the chocolate goodness  :laugh:

However, as dogs are stupid enough to eat pretty much anything, you gotta be careful. Cats wont eat chocolate the vast majority of the time, because they're smart. A cat wearing a labcoat must be smart enough to avoid it. Or maybe he just developed the non-lethal chocolate cookie. who knows.

Anyway, i just wanted to post and say that this shirt is my new favourite. is it just me, or is that tiger almost too cute to exist? he looks so cuddly and adorable  :angel:
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Pelay on 06 Nov 2008, 08:07
hmm whilst I LOOOVE the shirt, am I missing something...I think therefor I nom?  Whats nom?  Am I internet illiterate?  Either way I'm getting one I just don't want to be wearing it around and have people all asking "what does that mean" and then I have no answer....sad.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Rocketman on 06 Nov 2008, 08:43
Humans have the right enzymes to break it down rather effectively, so it takes an ungodly amount to kill us. I know. I've tried.

That's pretty neat, actually. We eat poison and enjoy it.  :-D
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: BankHoldUp on 06 Nov 2008, 08:52
hmm whilst I LOOOVE the shirt, am I missing something...I think therefor I nom?  Whats nom?  Am I internet illiterate?  Either way I'm getting one I just don't want to be wearing it around and have people all asking "what does that mean" and then I have no answer....sad.

I guess the simplest explanation is that "nom" is an onomatopoeia relating to act of eating something. Try this: grab a muffin, take a bite, and say "OM NOM NOM NOM" as you chew. I guarantee that you will giggle. 
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Muppet King on 06 Nov 2008, 09:25
Actually you need quite a bit of chocolate to kill a dog.  My girlfriend's dog grabbed a Snickers bar out of a grocery bag one day; she freaked out and called an emergency vet and they said it would take the equivalent of ten snickers bars in one sitting to make the dog horribly ill and possibly kill him.  If your dog gets a hold of a brownie or a candy bar just give it a slice or two of bread and the bread will keep it from getting too sick.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Mad Cat on 06 Nov 2008, 10:51
Humans have the right enzymes to break it down rather effectively, so it takes an ungodly amount to kill us. I know. I've tried.

That's pretty neat, actually. We eat poison and enjoy it.  :-D
The entire brewing and bottling industry is predicated on that fact.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Surgoshan on 06 Nov 2008, 16:45
Actually you need quite a bit of chocolate to kill a dog.  My girlfriend's dog grabbed a Snickers bar out of a grocery bag one day; she freaked out and called an emergency vet and they said it would take the equivalent of ten snickers bars in one sitting to make the dog horribly ill and possibly kill him.  If your dog gets a hold of a brownie or a candy bar just give it a slice or two of bread and the bread will keep it from getting too sick.

The reason you have to worry about dogs is because they're gluttons.  They'll eat and eat and eat.  Put ten pounds of chocolate where a dog can get to it and he'll eat himself to death.

Cats, on the other hand, won't.  It's not because they're smart (though they undoubtedly are and my kitties are adorable proof of this), but because it doesn't taste good to them.  Dogs aren't obligate carnivores.  Cats are.  An obligate carnivore is one that can only survive on a diet of meat.  The internal biology of the cat reflects this; it's intestines are much, much shorter than non-obligate-carnivorous animals.  The digestion of proteins takes place primarily in the stomach and their absorption by the body happens almost immediately afterward in the intestines.  Most of the rest of the length of the intestines is devoted to the breakdown of carbohydrates by the parasites that rent space in our intestines.  Cats, not having those intestines, can't benefit from non-protein foodstuffs.  Therefor, they've evolved not to even taste other foodstuffs. 

We taste "salt", "sweet", "sour", "bitter", and "umami".  Cats don't taste "sweet", and are rather lean for "sour" and "bitter".  They're loaded with tastebuds for "umami".  "Umami" is, I believe, Japanese for "satisfaction" or "satiation" and is the taste we associate with meat and protein.  Cats are loaded for bear when it comes to savoring the delicious taste of flesh.  And good thing, too, because it's the only thing they can eat.

Since they don't taste sweet, however, most of the rest of the things we eat are wholly unappetizing to them.  They won't eat chocolate because all they can taste is its bitterness.

Dogs, with their longer intestines, can eat non-protein foods and benefit from them.  They can also taste "sweet".  And they're also terrible gluttons.  So they'll devour chocolate until the chemicals it contains kill them.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: tuna ketchup x on 06 Nov 2008, 16:50
That is a great shirt. And um, cats rule!
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Vendetagainst on 06 Nov 2008, 19:40
Surgoshan, I think you are my favorite poster.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Surgoshan on 06 Nov 2008, 19:52
What can I say?  I like knowing random shit. 

A few weeks back I went to DC with the 8th grade.  My students mostly bought trash that would help them listen to their ipods.  I bought $100 in books.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: ThePQ4 on 07 Nov 2008, 10:17
An obligate carnivore is one that can only survive on a diet of meat. 

...It is a wonder that my sister's cat is still alive then. She looooves eating vegetables --especially broccoli and lettuce...and she tends to get rather bitchy when she eats too much meat. How weird is that?
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: tuna ketchup x on 07 Nov 2008, 12:40
An obligate carnivore is one that can only survive on a diet of meat. 

...It is a wonder that my sister's cat is still alive then. She looooves eating vegetables --especially broccoli and lettuce...and she tends to get rather bitchy when she eats too much meat. How weird is that?

Some cats eat vegetation for roughage, but derive no nutrition from it.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Nov 2008, 13:54
The reason you have to worry about dogs is because they're gluttons.

Many are - my younger one at present is - but not all.  My older dog and her predecessor were both fine with open feeding - a bowl of dry complete food down at all times, and they took just what they needed.  The older one (now) when younger once even dropped a piece of raw beef steak on the floor when I said "walk" - the then senior one came too, but carried her steak with her :-)
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: deadline on 07 Nov 2008, 14:36
My mom's dog once got her paws on an entire box of brandy-filled chocolates, and she seemed fine.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Surgoshan on 07 Nov 2008, 17:28
An obligate carnivore is one that can only survive on a diet of meat. 

...It is a wonder that my sister's cat is still alive then. She looooves eating vegetables --especially broccoli and lettuce...and she tends to get rather bitchy when she eats too much meat. How weird is that?

Some cats eat vegetation for roughage, but derive no nutrition from it.

True.  As I recall, they like the texture.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: pwhodges on 08 Nov 2008, 01:39
Dogs do that just the same.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: billiumbean on 08 Nov 2008, 03:45
Jeph never makes mistakes.

The cat is studying the effects of theobromine in its immune system by "applying" a small dose of this toxic substance to its own body.  This is because a) As a cat, it is conscientious of animal testing and would much rather suffer ill effects in the name of science than live with knowing it is negating natural selection, b) It is also studying the internal ramifications that building immunities requires, and c) Finds this to be best, as it knows one can not document internal affliction as comprehensively if it were not personally felt by the one conducting the survey.

By waning, and possibly getting rid of, the ill effects of chocolate, and convincing others to do so, it ensures the survival of the species.

So, by employing a medically-geared scientific method, and by being willing to personally endure whatever negative symptoms may and probably will occur, it eats the chocolate-chip cookie for the empowerment of its race.

Cogito Ergo Nom.  It's really quite simple when you think it over a lot.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Dazed on 08 Nov 2008, 07:58
It's possible, just possible, that people may be overthinking this a little bit.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Surgoshan on 08 Nov 2008, 09:56
Dude, this is the internet; quit not overthinking it.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: JD on 09 Nov 2008, 17:52
Dogs aren't dumb, just single minded. Cats can be distracted by a ball of yarn.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Tybalt on 09 Nov 2008, 19:04
they are not distracted, they just have very specific priorities.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: JD on 09 Nov 2008, 19:12
Like gnawing my arm off, though i deserved it.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: lyra on 09 Nov 2008, 21:42
it is a cute shirt, and if i wasn't so cheap, i'd buy one
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: billiumbean on 09 Nov 2008, 22:05
Like gnawing my arm off, though i deserved it.
Yeah, that.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: satsugaikaze on 11 Nov 2008, 04:13
I fed my pet duck sugar water once.

I was a bit scared of what exactly it was doing by pulling its head backwards with its mouth open in a jerking motion. I thought I'd poisoned it or something.
But anywho, does 'Cogito Ergo Nom' stand for anything significant?
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: raoullefere on 11 Nov 2008, 11:45
Chocolate versus raisins. I'm wondering how good raisins are for kitty? I mean, given the shortness of the feline intestine, it looks to me as though it was pass through intact. Ouch.

Also, some cats are definitely gluttons. I checked in on a friend's cat once while he was out of town for a couple of days. My friend had left a small mountain of food out for his cat, so kitty wouldn't get hungry before I could provide a refill. That cat had eaten until he had the scours (yellow, liquidy waste) and yet when I arrived was dragging himself back from the litterbox directly to the food dish for another serving.

As for dogs, I never heard all this stuff 'bout no chocolate. "Round here, what you don't want to feed yore dawg is some sweet pataters. It will kill him, graveyard ded."

Phonetic exaggerations aside, it turns out dogs are nomming sweet potatoes all over the place and very ungratefully staying perfectly healthy, despite the warnings that say they should not. Apparently, no matter the human food, somewhere there is a dog that will thrive on it. My aunt's husky gorges herself on chocolate every December because my aunt cannot seem to grasp the idea that, no matter how deeply she buries the two or three pound box of chocolates in piles of other stuff, the dog can still smell it. For that matter, this same dog once ate a half-pound peppermint candle my aunt had left out on a counter 'safely out of the dog's reach.' And still it lives. I know I don't want to think about what my stool would be like if I ate eight ounces of peppermint-impregnated parafin.

Edit:  it was pass through intact/ it would pass through intact; after all, all your base, they belong to us.


Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Surrah_tarrest on 11 Nov 2008, 12:12
Chocolate isn't poisonous to rats. When my rat Sabina had an upper respiratory infection I gave her some semi sweet chocolate to help clear it up.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: LegendaryPancake on 11 Nov 2008, 13:11
Chocolate is quite toxic to almost all animals, including the closely-related great apes.
What's wrong with us then?
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: JD on 11 Nov 2008, 15:29
Superior Evolution, I suppose
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Aurjay on 12 Nov 2008, 06:11
Ok so here is my take on the shirt...

The cat knows thats eating chocolate could be deadly or at the very least bowel exploding. Now the phrase Congito Ergo Nom to me means that even though he knows all this he doesn't care cuz cookies are just soo damn good. The cat is basically performing a Social Scientific experiment on himself, hence the goggles and lab jacket. Knowing the possibility of bad effects does one still attempt to enjoy the things they love.

K there was my attempt at overthinking.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: LittleKey on 12 Nov 2008, 23:42
Cogito Ergo Nom.  It's really quite simple when you think it over a lot.
hahaha isn't it simple when you DON'T have to think over it a lot? And yeah, maybe the shirt is just referring to the fact that cookies are irresistible, so anything that's capable of thought will eat them. And I'm sure the cat made a nonpoisonous chocolate, that won't hurt hum.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Covetous on 17 Nov 2008, 06:45
Problem with chocolate is that it is piousness to dogs (and most possibly cats and any other animal earlier mentioned in the thread). But most dogs can withstand quite a lot of regular chocolate; this is due to 2 reasons. First being there is quite a lot of milk in most chocolate sold. Second is that there is most of the time a silly little amount of actual chocolate in the regular chocolate we buy.
The biggest problem with chocolate and dogs is the fact that there is an increased amount of dogs that are allergic to chocolate and then a very small amount of chocolate might hurt or kill them.


Edit: corrected and copy and paste error after spell check.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Rocketman on 17 Nov 2008, 10:22
Chocolate is that it is piousness to dogs

Well, it will send them to Heaven.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: La on 17 Nov 2008, 18:10
1) Raisins and grapes will destroy a kitty's kidneys, so it's probably better if it's chocolate...

2) I have to disagree with the poster that says cats won't eat human foods, or that they don't taste sweet things. My cat begs for food constantly and we have to be especially careful with sweet stuff because he definitely has a sweet tooth. When we first got him we accidentally left our breakfast plates (pancakes) where he could reach it and when we were in the other room he licked them clean and then subsequently threw up (it is undetermined whether that was caused by the syrup).

As I speak he has just been punished by my boyfriend for licking his cupcake and then sticking his head in his glass of coke... I'd say he enjoys sweets.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Surgoshan on 17 Nov 2008, 18:50
Cats can taste other things, and they love the texture of ruffage.

However, the notion that cats don't taste sweet isn't based on tests wherein they offer cats candy.  It's based on actual, unpleasant as it may seem, dissection and analysis of cats.  The domestic feline is the best understood of all mammals; they've been thoroughly dissected and examined in every fashion possible, as well as being subjected to numerous tests while alive.  They simply do not have taste receptors for sweet. 

And there are other things in syrup besides sugar.  Have you never wondered why syrup is brown?
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: raoullefere on 18 Nov 2008, 11:37
No, and I fear to ask now. But I need to avoid it anyway, so enlighten us.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Surgoshan on 18 Nov 2008, 16:36
A whole mess of crap (http://www.jce.divched.org/HS/Journal/Issues/2007/OctACS/ACSSub/p1647.pdf).  Truly, it's mostly sugar, but there are other things there to give it flavor the cat can detect.  To the cat, the syrup will taste a little bitter, a little sour, and have a nice texture.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: pointy sextant on 02 Dec 2008, 21:25
Chocolate is quite toxic to almost all animals, including the closely-related great apes.
What's wrong with us then?

Technically speaking in biological sciences we are dealing with three different concepts. Poison, Toxins, and Venoms.

Poisons are those chemicals that trigger biological reactions in the body of an organism that result in the production of a toxin when dosed in the proper amount, or by there very presence in sufficient amount muck up the works to a fatal degree. Usually however that process is described as a toxic one.

A Toxin is an organic chemical that can cause disease, impede biological processes, and generally muck things up, but is produced by the body itself in response to the presence of a poisonous level of a chemical.

Venom is a chemical entered into a biological system from the outside that produces the same general and deleterious effects of a Toxin, but requires no local accomplice in the organic systems processes.

Chocolate, like alcohol, and every single other element, chemical, and material in existence, is poisonous to any organic system in sufficient quantity. The advantage, as well developed wide ranging omnivores, that humans posses is that we can process, with a wide variety of enzymes and proteins and so on, what would be lethal doses of these chemicals in any other animal. We can eat everything because we are so bad at surviving on any one source of nutrients, unlike most animals that depend on a primary source of nutrients rather than eat anything that stops moving long enough to stick a fork in it like we do because of our many physical failings.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Alex C on 02 Dec 2008, 21:58
Yep, it's amazing how much a body can specialize towards functioning with a particular diet. It's even possible for a species to never develop the ability to synthesize essential compounds; after all, if their standard diet always supplies the necessary amount of a compound, then there's no real evolutionary pressure forcing the species to develop the capacity. Cats are yet again an obvious example of this; beyond even the sharp teeth and short intestines, cats cannot synthesize taurine. They typically don't need to since it is present in the flesh of animals who can synthesize it, particularly within the intestines.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: raoullefere on 03 Dec 2008, 00:02
Intestines! Oh, Yum! Maybe Jeph should put those on the T-shirt instead of the cookie.

Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Surgoshan on 03 Dec 2008, 19:09
When it comes to food, "intestines" can be called "chitlins" or "haggis".
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: raoullefere on 03 Dec 2008, 19:19
My response stands. I live in the land o' chitlins and have never eaten any, nor do I plan to outside of famine conditions. Anything that smells that horrible while cooking has to be bad for you. Same thing's true of boiled greens.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Surgoshan on 03 Dec 2008, 19:34
I read your post and was thinking "What about spinach?  Collard Greens?"

Then you went and mentioned greens...

You realize, of course, this means war.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: kafromet on 04 Dec 2008, 09:42
I once ate a chunk of fudge the size of a softball.







For breakfast. :oops:
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Alex C on 04 Dec 2008, 13:14
Man, that's not even a chunk anymore at that point. That's more like a boulder of fudge.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: raoullefere on 04 Dec 2008, 20:24
Then you went and mentioned greens...

You realize, of course, this means war.
If you come armed with a catapult that throws balls of turnip greens and chitlins, you'll probably win. No man can stand 'gainst such vileness.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: sofiabailote on 10 Dec 2008, 19:45
when I saw the "cogito ergo nom" design the first thing that came to mind was a Gary Larson's strip that had a bunch of cats in lab coats, and it was something to do with the "curiosity killed the cat" proverb. I love Gary Larson!
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Fenriswolf on 10 Dec 2008, 23:10
Please note people: chocolate is poisonous in small quantities for dogs. The thing is that most milk chocolate has fuck all actual chocolate in it. But if you have some nice tasty 70% cocoa dark chocolate it's only going to take half a bar to potentially kill a 20kg (44lb) dog. Please be careful. And yes, those stupid choc drops they sell for dogs have chocolate in them and that's a really dumb idea but it's not enough to really matter.

[/OT]
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Vendetagainst on 11 Dec 2008, 15:22
That's already been said, but we all appreciate your concern.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Michael.Massing on 06 Jan 2009, 15:41
Jeph's bear (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1285) seems to confirm the reading of BankHoldUp and others in panel(s) 3(/3.5).  Best to all, M.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: misterjamestkirk on 27 Jan 2009, 18:35
cogito ergo nom in latin means, "I Think Therefore I Nom" nom being a common lolcats phrase taht means eat
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Zingoleb on 27 Jan 2009, 22:06
Thank you for gracing this thread with your first post. Don't we wish you hadn't.
Title: Re: Cogito Ergo Nom
Post by: Mr. Skawronska on 28 Jan 2009, 06:33
Quote
What's wrong with us then?

I'm sure that there's a list somewhere, converted to a cross-referencing database;  Ask around.

Chocolate is that it is piousness to dogs

Well, it will send them to Heaven.

All dogs go to heaven;  Now we know some of the reason why.  Good job!

Quote
As I speak he has just been punished by my boyfriend for licking his cupcake and then sticking his head in his glass of coke

Awwwww!!! *Melt*

*toddles off to snuggle his kitty*

S