Good gosh, you've understood nothing in the slightest, if that's all your takeaway.
Dudes... dudes--
Check out Ballard Street.
It's like this *one* particular Larson cartoon turned in to an hilarious industry, almost.
In any case, you've been warned.
Thanks for commenting, and I was hoping it might lead to some interesting discussion.
If I may ask-- did you feel like Gerrold was too harsh in particular towards Roddenberry?
Evolution doesn’t care about ideal mechanics- only good enough. Rape was common in the ancient world. Rape happens today despite the long term survival favoring long term pairs.
There's certainly some facts & reality there, professor, but that still doesn't change the fundamental point which Adams' made, and I defended. It's like you're freely swinging from 'matters of proportion' to binary values in order to fit your argument.
So attributing nobility to what is really a lack of ability is like attributing nobility to a rock.
Which was a poor analogy from day one, considering the many permutations.
Also-- that's a pretty weird, tight-ass understanding of what Adams meant by "nobility."
Like, seriously...?
A rooster would plot and murder its neighbors if it had the intelligence and opposable thumbs to make weapons.
Okay, you win on that one-- I fear you're exactly right there; ala chickens being such unnecessary assholes towards each other and other creatures.
Tell you what, though-- feel free to have the last reply.
It's like you dance around a smidgen of a circuitous argument, but can never actually figure out what you're actually trying to say. (or think)
Good luck, you.
That doesn’t refute the poster above. Humans have evolutionary imperatives too.
It does when you put it in context, tho, that being that the poster above did not refute Adams' point in any meaningful way. Specifically-- rape isn't ordinary in terms of two-sex species, and is likely a poorer long-term survival mechanism compared to courtship species.
That’s not nobility as the original Watership quote implies but a simple lack of capacity to conceive and implement evil. The original quote could equally wax poetic about how rocks don’t try to spoil other creatures lives.
That's not correct. Higher animals certainly possess more self-awareness than rocks, and have (as you say) a spectrum of capacity for self-awareness, for reflection, and for modifying one's behavior.
The real point is this-- unlike all known animals, we collectively have the information available to us of how terribly our existence and practices are fueling one of the greatest extinction events in Earth history... on track with causing civilisation to collapse, likely causing most of humanity to soon die out, if not go entirely extinct. We have not just that info based on the science, facts & reality, but the average mental capacity to understood and take necessary action to prevent all this. Or at least, we "had." Instead we've collectively chosen to pursue our individual lives and let things sort themselves out. Well, good luck with that.
Adams' quote was perfectly fair IMO.
People are not automatons that are obligated to no longer think a behavior is fucked up just because that behavior benefited these animals in terms of increasing the liklihood of them passing down their genes.
Sure, that's fine. Label and condemn as you like.
My point is, that's not a relevant rebuttal to Adams' quote, as most sexually dimorphic animals do not behave that way. I.e., females generally select their partners, and are not commonly raped. Indeed, that's part of the whole long-term survival point-- that 'courtship' species have better chances for genetic diversity & fitness for their environs.
As for one species empathising with another, that is a far cry from empathising more with another species than your own or being willing to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of another species. I WAS NOT saying that no species empathises with another.
*shrug*
Okay, if you say so. It sure sounded like it, but maybe I misread.
So much of that is dead wrong:
Cats: torture their prey to death as a form of play.
"Play" isn't just an idle pursuit. It's also a form of safe practice of one's life pursuit. In the case of cats, they evolved to be almost 100% carnivores, so it's natural for them to live, breath, and yes practice / play at honing their pursuit and kill skills. It is literally their fundamental job that separates them from dying off.
Dolphins: you dont want to know.
Let's not forget two things here: 1) much of the rapey stuff (as with ducks) also serves the fundamental life model of reproduction being one of the highest natural priorities, however its accomplished; 2) dolphins are hella smart, just like us, and if anything, it goes to show that smart species with idle time can devise some pretty wild pastimes.
If a person did half the stuff animals do, no one could look at them the same again.
To compare the lifestyles of a single animal species (humans) with all the others is a fool's mission. In fact, most animals live fairly predictable, innocuous lives. They have their classic interactions with the world and don't tend to bother other species-- mainly because it's not worth their time.
People do some awful things but we are also probably the only species that has members that sympathise with other species above ourselves.
Nonsense. Pretty much all higher social / tribal animals can pretty easily sympathise / empathise with other species, such as our fellow apes, dogs, cetaceans, corvids, elephants, parrots, and even domestic cats.
I don't know when the shift happened exactly, but I don't believe Gallagher draws Heathcliff the same way he did earlier in his run.
To me, the cat's more like a generic character now, and doesn't have some of the more distinctive physical style he used to.
Also maybe do something with some teeth, not just empty words.
What about creating some kind of govt program designed to help shoppers out?
For examples-- help with coupons, help with identifying best stores to shop at, help with delivery perhaps, help give incentives to customer-friendly stores, help shoppers best plan for cost & nutrition, etc etc?
Was, sadly.
Unbelievably, and almost impossibly, an even -more- attractive (and super-talented) actress played her in the movie about her life story.
Whoa... matttt's great; haven't seen one of his videos in ages.
But what is this... YewTube thing?
A frontend for YT I guess?
OMG, I haven't seen that song/dance since the 80's!
I love how you slipped it right in where I clicked.
HAHAHA... cleverest shizzle I've seen in ages!
Alright, what's our plan!?
(let's huddle together & plan)
Yeah the code you’ve mentioned is the standard for posting images within a comment.
Actually it's a little more than just that. It's a way not just to show the image auto-scaled down to the comment, but to create a popup option that can display a full-size version of that same image when clicked. Notice the hotlink option as you hover over the image, due to the image URL being listed twice, not once. I've rarely seen that method used on Lemmy, hence the share in case it was useful to anyone reading.
Anyway, I'm very interested in what you're saying, so this will just be a drive-by comment for now.
If possible, maybe I can help you test and ponder this stuff so that at the very least, we can better-shape an efficient suggestion to add to the GitHub for a future Lemmy. Cheers for now.
Thanks, got it!
I personally hate it, but it's always great to have options.
Btw, I was initially confused, and the code I mentioned above works inside posts, not from the list view.
This is how I've been doing it all along:
[](https://i.imgur.com/tF1IMJV.jpeg) *Nightlife in Prague*
Nightlife in Prague
Could you tell me what the new method is?
@axus@lemm.ee
Haha, I think maybe I feel you on that.
Filmation worked so much better when it came to shades of comedy & farce, and for me, there was a tonne of understated comedy & farce in He-Man, hearkining back to lots of H-B farce. (never watched Godzilla personally, have no interest at all, sadly or unsadly)
So Filmation to me were mostly disappointing (and again, the damn limited budget) when it came to TAS, but they also had to walk a sort of line, just like Rankin-Bass with The Hobbit, and then the "Return of the King."
The first one was fairly charming (and the songs were absolutely awesome), based on a children's book, but the latter?
Yeah, that shizzle just didn't work for a serious fantasy epic. Okay, I'll admit it had its points, but Rankin-Bass was so *not* the animation studio to do RotK, other than bringing back the super-charming... Glenn Yarbrough (sp?) as the narrator-singer.
Right back at you, herr bullshit maestro. And indeed, if there's one thing I can tell you, it's this, my boy--
Well, actually... maybe you'll see one day? NAH...! (lol)