T-Rex: There are two types of people: those who eat some of their dog's treats "to make sure they're good" before feeding them to said dog...
T-Rex: ...and those who don't!
Dromiceiomimus: What about people who don't have dogs? They form a third class, don't they?
T-Rex: ...Hrm. Maybe. But some of them would be sorted into one of the previous two types if they ever DID get a dog, so maybe it's fine?
T-Rex: Maybe we can just pre-sort 'em into two classes?
Utahraptor: What about people who never interacted with dogs and never will?
T-Rex: But Utahraptor...
T-Rex: - isn't ANY ontology with a catchall "miscellaneous" group just giving up? Surely we can organize our entire world into PERFECT SETS, with no worry that something will come around and, by mere DINT of its EXISTANCE, prove our entire enterprise FOLLY??
Utahraptor: Nope!
T-Rex: WELL FRIG!!
T-Rex: There's two types of people: dog-food eaters and dog-food eschewers, as well the standard set of orthogonal groups and perennial exceptions both known and unknown, each of which weakens my "two types of people" statement.
Off panel: Ahhh, yes.
Off panel: So logical. So SATISFYING.
