# Forum > Discussion > Friendly Banter >  Aedilred's Athanasiac Random Banter #241

## Aedilred

All hail and welcome to the random banter thread and before anyone asks, yes, it's totally a real word, honest. I wouldn't lie to you. Unless I felt like it.

Rules for Random Banter remain as always save that I have arbitrarily increased the number of threads required before you can start another one.

1. Spam. For RB, one-word posts are generally considered spam. Likewise, posts that are nothing but *actions like this* are also be considered spam. Remember that the quality of the post's content is much better than the speed of your response.

2. This isn't the Play by Post or Town forum, nor is it the Silly Message Board Games or Structured Games forum. Please avoid continuous roleplay or mock battles and fights such as the "competition for control of the universe".

3. If it's already a thread, don't bring it to RB. RB has such a huge range of subject matter even restricted to the little snippets that probably don't warrant their thread, it doesn't need legitimate thread topics cluttering it up as well. The exception to this is to bring something off-topic from one thread, but on-topic for RB and the subject doesn't warrant a thread of its own.

4. Don't advertise other threads in RB. Just because these new threads move at speeds more appropriate to a message board than an IM session doesn't mean you need to come over to RB and browbeat people into posting in your latest brainchild.

5. Please don't post single-line posts alerting us to your current status -- as in "I'm back." This is Random Banter, not "How to stalk Random GitP forum members."

6. Don't poke, kick or bump the thread. It will move at whatever pace it wants to. Also, please refrain from Captain Obvious comments akin to "My, the thread is fast today."

7. Random Banter can only be as good, or as entertaining, as you make it. Demands to be entertained will fall on deaf ears unless you can add something more meaningful to the conversation.

8. As this is a public forum, where the current topic is nicely recorded for you, and not a conversation where you could have missed the beginning, please refrain from asking something to the effect of "What's the topic?". Please take the time to read up a bit first.

9. Thread Creator must include the words "Random" and "Banter" as well as the thread #. Try to be concise as well.

10. Every post should contain two visible, legible complete sentences, Subject and Predicate. C'mon, make your old English teachers proud.

11. Remember, Random Banter is not your IM client. If you want to have a back and forth discussion with just one person, look in their contact information for IM details.

12. Whenever a new thread is created, all "first post", "first-page", and all posts of that nature will be deleted by the administrators. Please avoid doing this, as it is frustrating for them to deal with one-lined posts like this.

13. Double-posting is not your friend. We have edit buttons for a reason.

14. Once you have made a Random Banter thread, you must wait for 20 threads before making another one.

15. If you can avoid dibs calling on making the next thread, that will avoid people needing to wait if the thread hits 50 pages while the dibs-caller is asleep.


*Spoiler: Previously on Random Banter*
Show

Amotis' Random Banter #1
Dhavaer's Random Banter #2
PhoeKun's Random Banter #3
Rei Jin's Random Banter #4
Toxic Avenger's Random Banter #5
Jibar's Random Banter #6
Ego Slayer's Surrogate Random Banter #7
Sneak's Random Barroom Brawl #8
Sophistemon's Solemnly Random Banter #9
Vaynor's Very Random Banter #10
Bookman's Blathering Random Banter #11
Gralamin's Glorious Random Banter #12
Rilik's Resplendently Random Raillery #13
Gezina's Growling Grazing Random Banter #14
The Zerglings Utterly And Geeky Random Banter #15
jaqueses Truthfully Randomly Fireside Banter # 16
Jack Squats Jubilantly Quixotic Random Banter #17
Cardel's Banter of Cookie Jubilation #18
Archonic's Chaotically Random Banter of Rods #19
The Rod's Inanimate Temple of RANDOM banter #20
Luckys Loquaciously Loud-Mouthed Random Banter#21
Deckmaster's Divinely Delightful Random Banter #22
Saithis' Soliloquy of Random Banter #23
Loveable Lianae's Ludicrous Lampooning Lottery #24
NEO|Phyte's Neolithic Nest of Weasel Banter #25
Target's Random Banter of "non-violence" #26
Tarnag40k's Random banter of "grammar errors" #27
Kyrian's Random Banter of ADHDness #28
El Jaspero's Random Drunken Ramblings #29
Boss Smiley's Eloquently Eggy Banter #30
Lykan's Looney Explosionarama & Random Banter #31
Iames's Iambic Yarn of Yammering #32
Dispozition's Deviously Distressed Banter #33
CP's Copiously Combusting Banter of Carnage #34
Alarra's Altar of Random Banter #35
Eloquent Rune's Electrifying Rambling Banter #36
E_P's Very Own Quite Popular Random Banter #37
Hydrogelic's Foolish Mortal Random Banter #38
Ink's Smudgy Splotchy Random Banter #39
Azrael's Big Black Book of Banter #40
The Logic Vampire's Rational Random Banter #41
Shiny's Shimmering Space-hitchin Random Banter #42
ZombieRockStar's Random Banter #43
Nostrabel's Realm of Cookies and Random Banter #44
Charity's Cheery Chatter Circle #45
Samiam's Spontaneous Scintillating Soliloquy #46
LLama's Masked Mysterious Random Banter #47
Ravishing Rydia's Recumbentibus ^_^ Random Banter #48
Penguinizers Perilous Random Banter #49
Death's delightfully morbid surrogate random banter #50
Wayril's wonderfully weird surrogate random banter #51
Rawhide's Deck of Random Banter (52 Cards)
Korith's Sorrogate Random Banter of Zombie Killing #53
Surrogate thread of random Bor-dom #54
Rex Idiotarum's Painfully Pogoing Thread #55
The Wrath of KHAAAAAANtalass William Shatner Flavored Random Banter # 56 (Surrogate)
EmeraldRose's Random Banter of Lashing Wit #57
Captain van der Decken's Surrogate Ship of Random Loot (Banter) #58
SDF's Neverending I-Don't-Have-an-OotS-Avatar-Yet Story Banter #59
Mauril's Surrogate Dwelf Banter of Fantasy Race Confusion 60th Edition
Rockphed's Dice Rolling Toga Party of 61 Drunken CIA Analysts
var Lord_Magtok = Random(Banter*62) + Surrogate
Jibar's Retro Random Banter #63 
Malina's Random Spanish Banter #64 of morphical annoyance
Mr. E's Random Banter #65 of Cane Toting and Hat Tipping
Ego Slayer's Hellishly Random Banter #66.6
Purple Gelatinous Cube o' Doom's bowl of bantery j-e-ll-o randomness #67
Zephra's Random Banter of Ghostly Wailings, and Howling Fun#68
Cobra Ikari's Random Banter #69 of Rampant Hugging, Guttermindedness, and ;-) Kinky.
Scorpina's Random Banter #70
Raistlin1040's Super Special Awesome Random Banter #71(Now with 20% more tacos)
Uberblah's Random Banter #72 Of Caffeine And Sleep Deprivation Induced Randomness 
Luckys Random Banter #73
Castaras's Random Banter #74
D'anna Biers RB #75
Zeb The Troll's RB#76
Eldpollard's RB #77
Gezina's and Calamity's Random banter #78 of double entendre and doom
Random Banter #79 In Loving Memory of Hexa_Regina
Zeratul's random banter #80 of throwing puppies off bridges
Vespe's Random Banter #81 of singing dolphins and mostly harmless planets.
CSK's Giant in the Playground Forums Addicted Anonymous, Random Banter #82
Iames's Ramblingly Erratic Belldandy-Charged Random Banter #83
Serpentine's Scintillating Sensually and Sinuously Seductive Stochastic Satire #84
Radikalskippy's Random Banter #85 of lost ideas and where to find them...
Moon Called's Random Banter #86 of Sexy Anime Boys and Fangirl Squeals
Lilly's Lovely Random Banter #87
FdL's Fuzzbox-Fueled Random Banter #88
SweetRein's Sugary Restrained Random Banter #89
Midnight's Mutant Motorcycle Madness Random Banter #90
Em's Extremely Extraordinarily Epic Random Banter #91
Dragonrider's Random Banter in Conjunction with the Weighted Cube #92
Bushranger's Bodaciously Buffed Random Banter-y Rooster #93
Haruki's Historically Hilarious Honey-covered Random Banter #94 
North's Maple Syrup Flavored Non-Alliterative Random Banter #95 Eh?
Wadledo's Weirdly Warbling Watercress Watching Washing Machine Only Random Banter #96
SMEE's Random Banter #97 of gender bending and closet bursting
Raiser's Rambunctiously Rambling Random Banter #98
Dr. Bath's Random Banter, dripping with daring deeds of dastardly deipnosophists #99
VOTE, the Democracy Demon's Devilishly Devious and Decidedly Diabolical Desultory Derision (Random Banter) #100
Jack Squat's Justlessly Juxtaposed Random Banter #101
Dallas-Dakota's Dundering Dandelion's Devilish Damsel's Distress Random Banter #102
Destro Yersul's Dangerously Distracting and Doubtlessly Disturbing Random Banter #103
Aziraphales Actually Alliterative and Awesomely Affluent Random Banter #104
Cristo's Consistently Confusing and Constantly Casual Random Banter #105
 Dish's Delightfully Deranged and Deliciously Deliquent Random Banter # 106
Slayer's Seemingly Sweet and Socially Silly Random Banter # 107
Zero's ambrosial and aberrantly adventitious, abstemiously erudite Random Banter #108 
Coplantor's Completely Creative Cautious and Contemplative Random Banter #109
Rutskarn's Roly-Poly Rebellious and Rejected Random Banter #110
TwoBitWriter's Tubular Tracts of Thought-Talking Random Banter #111
Phase's Phully Phormed, Phalangeal, and Phantasmagorical Random Banter #112 
Wolfbane's Wonderfully Wacky and Wildly Wandom Random Banter #113
The Kiwi's Kinkily Knotted and Kookily Kickass Random Banter #114
Jude's Judgmental Jugular Jab and Jibber Jabbery Random Banter #115
The Throne of Thufir's Thoroughly Theoretical and Therapeutic Random Banter #116 
Random Banter #117
Dragonprime's Dynamically Dangerous Dextrous and Destructive Random Banter #118 
Farmer Felix's Fantastic FRandom FBanter #119 (may contain traces of fnuts) 
Groundhog's Random Banter of Weather Prediction and Anti-Gopherness (part one)
Groundhog's Random Banter of Weather Prediction and Anti-Gopherness (part two)
Mrmud's Mixed-Up and Minimally Mechanized Random Banter #121
Dogmantra's Dastardly, Despotic and Dangerous Random Banter #122
Alteran's Amazingly Anachronistic, Altruistic, and Antagonistic Random Banter #123
Admiral Euphoria's Random Banter Thread of Delusional Grandeur #124
Fred's Flying Fishy, Fighting, Fiery, Fantastic Face Off Random Banter #125
Cyranos Non-Alliterative Inaugurational Random Banter #126 To Usher In The Future
Thanatos's Tharmturges Present: Tropical, Tipsy, and Typically Random Banter #127
loopy's Legendary and Long-Awaited Lollipop Fuelled Random Banter #128
Shadow's Shady Shop of Sharks, Shingles, Shammies, Shiny and Random Banter #129
KataraAltinaII's Premature Not So Short & To-The-Point Random Banter #130
Supagoof's Supa-Sensational Silly Symphonies Set Sizzingly On Fire Random Banter #131
Pyrian's Pyrotechnic Pyre of Pyrrhic Pyros with Pyrotic Pythics Random Banter #132!
Perenelle's Pleasantly Playful and Passionately Peculiar Random Banter #133
Rpgsr4me's Ravenous, Roaring, Raging Rampage of Random Banter #134
Il'deav Ilah'naie's Indiscreet Intimacies on Indigo Iceboats Random Banter #135 
Recaiden's Resplendent and Rotating Realistic Random Banter #136
Jibar's Random Banter #137: Return of the Cat-muffin
Edge's Effluence of Extravagant and Effulgent Random Banter #138
Zeb The Troll's Zecond Go At Ze Random Banter #139
Curly's Rambunctious and Erudite Random Banter #140
Deth Muncher's Destructive and Meandering Random Banter #141
A Thread in Which Banter Most Random is Expulsed Into Existence, By Ravens_cry #142
Several Silly Sealions Stuffed Seaweed Southward Swiftly (Or, Random Banter #143)
The thread that changed name one last time, with style. (Random Banter #144) 
Banjos Bodacious & Boosted Bumper Bulletproof Box of Banter Most Random #145
Masa's Massively Masterful Message Medium - Random Banter #146
KuReshtin's Vociferously Ruminating Harbinger of Random Banter - #147 
Archonic's Archaic Acronymical Antidisestablishmentarianism Random Banter - #148
Skeppio's Splendidly Strange & Superbly Scintillating Random Banter - #149
Teddy's Turbulent and Topicless Random Banter #150
Fifty-Eyed Fred's Ferociously Fanatical and Fabulously Fascinating Random Banter #151
Rae's Really Rascally and Ridiculously Rowdy Random Banter #152
Haruki's Hot n' Holy Random Banter #153
MoonCat's Magnificently Mythopoeic Random Banter #154
Eadin's Exchange of Extraterrestrial Excuses AKA Random Banter #155
Happy HalfTangible's Horrific Hail of Random Banter #156 
AtlanteanTroll's Atrocious and Terrific Arcade of Terror - RB #157
LaLas Laughably Silly Random Banter Thread  RB #158
Zaydos's Zany Zooetic Random Banter - RB #159
Blue's Blessed and Blissful Random Banter - RB #160
Absolmorph's Azoic Arete of Adventitious and Aimless Random Banter - RB 161
Gwyn's Gloriously Green Garrumphing Garter of Garrulous Gabble! Random Banter #162
Eruantion's Euphoric, Elephant-filled Elevated Epoch of Eurhythmic Random Banter #163
 ATW's Awesome Androgynous Avaricious Azure Ardent Adamant Alluvial Random Banter #164
Cynical Avocado's Absolutely Admirable Accumulation of Random Bantering #165
August's Pink Plushy and Phantasmagorically Random Banter Thread #166 
Heliomance's Everchanging Thread Title Random Banter #167
Tragic_Comedian's Tremendously Tropical Random Banter #168
Qwertystop's Quickly Quilted, Quip-filled Random Banter #169
Thufir's Thupremely Thatithfying Thecond Random Banter With a Lithp #170
Feytalist's Fantastically Freakish First Random Banter #171
Dragonprime's Dashing Delight-fu Dazzling Dualistic Random Banter #172
Castaras' Random Banter #173: Bringing back your nostalgic Great Old Ones
Pokemon-freak89's Random Banter number eleventy-twelve... uhh... I mean... number 174
Dark Elf Bard's Random Banter #175:Playin' Underdark Jazz since the Drow went dark.
Mutant Sheep's Post Septaquintaquinquecentennial ApRiL fOoLs Random Banter: #176
Elemental's Excitingly Excellent Random Banter: No.CLXXVII (177) 
Amiel's Appeasingly Appropriate Arbitrary Amusement (Random Banter): No.CLXXVIII #178
"Your Angel of Banter Awaits." ThePhantasm Presents Random Banter #179
Serpentine's Secretly Sapphic Salacious Sacrarium of Random Banter #180
Dimonite's Decidedly Draconic Devious Discussions: Random Banter #181
Mercenary Pen's Meticulously Planned Machine of Prose Random Banter #182
Mynxae's Maliciously Magnificent Random Banter #183
Kneenibble's Knack for Knightly Knickers: a Knell for Random Banter #184
Coid's Crowing Conundrum of a Canticle of Crookedly Random Banter #185
Amidus Drexel's Alliterative and Awe-Accentuating Anvil of Random Banter CLXXXVI
Absolmorph's Awkwardly Amorous Albeit Alliterative Advances of Random Banter #187
Wombat's Whimsical Wonderland of Random Banter #188
Death's Daunting but Daring Denouement of Random Banter #189 
Dragon Eggs in Lederhosen and Burning Drakes with Random Banter
Devmaar's Notably Unalliterative Random Banter #191
Cuthalion's Creatively Created Cranny for Random Banter #192
TaiLiu's Tea-Filled Tome of Random Banter #193
FinnLassie's Fantabulous Facade of Random Banter #194
Taet's Acrostic: Everyone's Tuned into Random Banter #195
Random Banter #196
House of Much Random Banter and Haluesen's Various Wondrous Cookies #197
 Dallas-Dakota's Dastardly and Devious Dancing Debate of Random Banter #198
Random Banter #Who really knows anymore? #Rawhide knows it's 199
Forum Staff's Random Banter of Oh My Gosh You Guys Really Talked for 200 Threads???
Skeppio's Superfluously Splendid Random Banter #201
Teddy's Twofold Tempestuous and Tranquil Random Banter #202
EmeraldRose's Extraordinarily Energetic Espresso-For-All Random Banter #203
chaotic stupid presents the stupidly chaotic random banter #204
Asta Kask presents the awesome alliterative random banter #205
Mr.Silver has brought your fix: Random Banter #206
AtlanteanTroll's Additional Tirade Atrocious Threads Random Banter #207
KuReshtin's Kallously Konfusing Konsternations - Random Banter #208
jhunter_d's Gelatinous Jamborie of a Random Banter #209
Qwertystop's Unexpected To Everyone Or At Least To Him Random Banter #210
Peeble's Perfectly Pointless Popular Prattle #211
Durkoala's Desultorily Droll Drivel and Discourse (Random Banter Thread #212)
Raziere's Rollicking Red Raging Rant (Random Banter Thread #213)
Yung Crunk Presents B-Sides, Remixes and Outtakes: Random Banter, Vol. 214 (Random Banter Thread #214)
Aegis J Hyena's Super Hyena Fun Show: Random Banter Thread #215
WarKitty's Feline Frenzy Random Banter #216
Dark Shadow's Surprisingly Well-Lit Random Banter #217
2D8HP's extended mea culpa and Random Banter #218
Bartmanhomer's Ultimate Random Banter Thread #219
Peelee's Chicken Fried Random Banter Thread #220
Roland's Merciful Modly Mash-up Random Banter Thread #221 (also containing fragments of Tvtyrant's Terribly Tyrannical Random Banter Thread #221 and Rockphed's Ridiculous (Sports Hating) Random Banter #221)
Not-So-Mith'd Opportunity Random Banter 222
SZbNAhL's Similarly Sibilant (if unpronouncable) Random Banter #223
Thufir's Third Random Banter Thread #224
Mystic Muse's Magnificient Masquerade Random Banter Thread #225
Fyraltari's Fiercely Friendly Random Banter Thread #226
Anonymouswizard's Random Banter #227 and Free Cup of Tea
Sermil and the Banter of Randomness: Random Banter #228
Rater's Ridiculously Rambunctious Random Rantor #229
Enderlord's Random Banter #230 (Friendly warning: Might teleport. Don't get wet.)
DataNinja's Scintillating Digital Random Banter #231
A Wild Lurker Appears! Hyoi's Random Banter #232
I Can't Believe It's Not An Index CCXXXIII - Jasdoif's Random Banter #233
Tarmor's Terribly Tantalizing Tarasque Terrrifying Random Banter #234
Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum, Form smells a Random Banter #235 
Random MetaBanter  Random Banter no. 236 (now with Flowers!)
Mystic Muse's Mostly Mildly Mediocre Random Banter #238
Random Banter #239 - Now 50% more tangible!
Anonymouswizard's Astoundingly Assonant Random Banter #240



Go.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I can't wait for Christmas. When I was a little boy I wanted every single toy that exist in the entire world.  :Smile:

----------


## Mystic Muse

Thanks for making the new thread. 

Trying to get back in the saddle of working out. Did some tonight, may do a bit more in a moment, and ordered a jump rope and Yoga Mat online which will help in various ways.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Thanks for making the new thread. 
> 
> Trying to get back in the saddle of working out. Did some tonight, may do a bit more in a moment, and ordered a jump rope and Yoga Mat online which will help in various ways.


Good luck love!

I, meanwhile, bought a little yellow Shyguy figurine for like five dollars, in my quest to just Have More Stuff so my apartment doesn't look like Jack "Raiden" Metalgearsolid2's XP

----------


## Rater202

...Ypu think things like type-II diabetes and high cholesterol are common among hobbits? Their eating habits are quite gluttonous and in the novel are described as being somewhat heavyset in the middle with attention drawn to how much weight Bilbo has lost over the journey.

----------


## DataNinja

> I, meanwhile, bought a little yellow Shyguy figurine for like five dollars, in my quest to just Have More Stuff so my apartment doesn't look like Jack "Raiden" Metalgearsolid2's XP


Okay, but now that you've told someone, you'll exclusively get Shy Guy themed gifts for the rest of your life, you know that, right?  :Small Tongue:

----------


## BisectedBrioche

Mmm, new thread smell. Excuse me while I peel all the plastic off the post buttons.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> ...Ypu think things like type-II diabetes and high cholesterol are common among hobbits? Their eating habits are quite gluttonous and in the novel are described as being somewhat heavyset in the middle with attention drawn to how much weight Bilbo has lost over the journey.


It probably depends on where exactly in the Shire they live. Those who live closer to the edges are going to be a LOT more active than those living in places like Hobbiton, so while still almost certainly obese they'll have a significantly lower risk of related consequences.

A big issue I have with the Peter Jackson films is that the four main hobbits don't look right.

Frodo should begin as the plumpest, seeing as his exercise is predominantly walking.

Sam tends a good sized garden for a living, and so should have well developed muscles. But he also probably has the worst diet, and so should definitely have a beer gut.

Pippin is quite young, and should likely look like someone who's just started putting on weight after their teenage years. Especially because he's from Buckland, where hobbits are notably more adventurous.

As for Merry, from what I remember he's not just from Buckland, he's left the Shire for short stints. He should look noticeably stocky, and while he is carrying fat it's likely close to the edge of healthy. On the flip side he's carrying more weight as muscle, most likely being a bit slimmer than Sam but compensating with broader shoulders.

----------


## Murk

Hobbits are basically early 20th-century British countryside townsfolk, though idealised to fit the nostalgia of a comfortably wealthy author. 
Some of them (Frodo, Merry) are landed aristocracy and might be a bit round, but I don't think fat. More like _Hugh Bonneville in Downton Abbey_-shaped. 
I agree that Sam as a countryside labourer might have a beer gut. 

I'm not sure how common high cholesterol and type-II diabetes would be in early 20th century Britain, but I imagine it would be relatively rare.





> When I was a little boy I wanted every single toy that exist in the entire world.


I still want every single toy that exists in the entire world.

----------


## LaZodiac

> ...Ypu think things like type-II diabetes and high cholesterol are common among hobbits? Their eating habits are quite gluttonous and in the novel are described as being somewhat heavyset in the middle with attention drawn to how much weight Bilbo has lost over the journey.


Oh absolutely not. They do so much actual warm work that it seems unlikely to hit even with the concept of Second Breakfast, and physiology wise they're built for this sorta stuff; they are supposed to be stockier folk. If anything, Frodo losing all that weight is going to be the problem there.




> Okay, but now that you've told someone, you'll exclusively get Shy Guy themed gifts for the rest of your life, you know that, right?


This doesn't seem like an all together negative experience, honestly! Dedicate an area to Shyguy's Toybox...

----------


## Keltest

> It probably depends on where exactly in the Shire they live. Those who live closer to the edges are going to be a LOT more active than those living in places like Hobbiton, so while still almost certainly obese they'll have a significantly lower risk of related consequences.
> 
> A big issue I have with the Peter Jackson films is that the four main hobbits don't look right.
> 
> Frodo should begin as the plumpest, seeing as his exercise is predominantly walking.
> 
> Sam tends a good sized garden for a living, and so should have well developed muscles. But he also probably has the worst diet, and so should definitely have a beer gut.
> 
> Pippin is quite young, and should likely look like someone who's just started putting on weight after their teenage years. Especially because he's from Buckland, where hobbits are notably more adventurous.
> ...


As I recall, and admittedly its been a minute, Frodo would go exploring and camping with Merry sometimes, being considered extremely unusual by the standards of the hobbiton gentry. He had more activity than just walking, though he did that too.

----------


## Fyraltari

> ...Ypu think things like type-II diabetes and high cholesterol are common among hobbits? Their eating habits are quite gluttonous and in the novel are described as being somewhat heavyset in the middle with attention drawn to how much weight Bilbo has lost over the journey.


They probably have a genetic resistance to this kind of illnesses. Since they are a different subspecies, it's likely that they have a different metabolism* and that their cultural eating habits are roughly suited to the average need of a healthy Hobbit.

*I don't actually know how cholesterol and diabetes work

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> As I recall, and admittedly its been a minute, Frodo would go exploring and camping with Merry sometimes, being considered extremely unusual by the standards of the hobbiton gentry. He had more activity than just walking, though he did that too.


It's been a while since I've read FotR, but the point was more than he tends towards gentle exercise than the other three.

----------


## Keltest

> It's been a while since I've read FotR, but the point was more than he tends towards gentle exercise than the other three.


Yeah, and I dont know that its accurate. Theyre all childhood friends, except maybe Sam, and Frodo got himself a reputation as something of a wild character.

----------


## Rater202

> that their cultural eating habits are roughly suited to the average need of a healthy Hobbit.


Are they though?

As I noted, _The Hobbit_ drew attention to all the weight Bilbo lost on the way to the Mountain and notes that he's gotten nowhere near his accustomed quantity of meals nor of food per meal at least once, and yet he doesn't seem t be any worse of from the starvation than the dwarves. If anything, he's handling it better given that he pulls off some traditional fantasy hero moments in the Mirkwood against the giant spiders, where much fuss is made narratively about the party having no food at all after losing their supplies.

As for how type-II diabetes and high cholesterol work? A mixture of genetics and bad eating habits.

With diabetes the thing that gets you, if you're genetically susceptible, is frequent overconsumption of sugars and carbsrefined sugar wouldn't have been as common in the time period that Tolkien is alluding to with the people of the Shire as it is today, but it did exist and, strictly speaking, any carbohydrate is eventually stored int he body as sugar if it's not immediately consumed for calories or used to build a bodily structure. We know that bread and cakes and beer and wine are part of the typical hobbit diet, that's plenty of carbs and sugars right there.

Cholesterol problems come from eating to much fatty food on a regular basis. Stereotypically it's things like eggs, red meat, pork, and anything that's been fried in oil.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Cholesterol problems come from eating to much fatty food on a regular basis. Stereotypically it's things like eggs, red meat, pork, and anything that's been fried in oil.


That one's fine, hobbits love their mushrooms and probably have a diet low in meat and fried food by modern standards. I'm imagining a lot of roasted vegetables with a helping of carbs for most meals, with meat and cheese being reserved for breakfasts and dinner.

There's also the distinct possibility that, even accounting for different calorie requirements, individual hobbit meals may be smaller than the ones we're used to. I'm trying to remember how Frodo and company have the mushrooms they got from Farmer Maggot, I believe neither the meal at Maggot's or the one at Crick Hollow were particularly heavy. They eat a lot, but it might not be anywhere near as much asseven meals a day would seem.

Get up, have some fruits, do some work on the farm, break for bread and meat with the family, get back to the morning's work, have a bite with your drink at the end of the morning, as the day heats up pause work for a helping of vegetable stew, break for some light cakes or a sandwich* mid afternoon, come home to your meat and two vedge, then finish up the leftovers before bed. That sounds like a more than reasonable hobbit routine (although every other day substitute one of the meals for pie, and the more urban hobbits are probably partial to egg and chips).

* English sandwich, so like a slice of ham or a little bit of cheese and some pickle between two slices of buttered bread. Hobbits have definitely invented Branston pickle.

----------


## Rater202

That feel when you realized that South Park did a better job explaining about addiction than the DARE program did.

----------


## Peelee

> That feel when you realized that South Park did a better job explaining about addiction than the DARE program did.


DARE quite famously was a colossal failure.

----------


## halfeye

Tolkein was writing a fantasy, the whole point of all the eating was that it wasn't possible outside of fantasy without bad side effects, but in the fantasy those side effects didn't happen because it was a fantasy.

----------


## Rater202

> DARE quite famously was a colossal failure.


Yeah, turns out that telling kids that literally everyone is doing drugs and will try and make them do drugs and lying about the effects of drugs makes kids want to do drugs.

I remember there was n article on Cracked written by a former drug dealer who included an anecdote of having to explain the effects and risks of various drugs to his clients because their education about drugs was terrible.

But my point was... My school did DARE. They never explained what addiction actually was or why people would keep doing drugs when the side effects got worse. Also, the cop who did the lessons said he was gonna bring in donuts and he never did.

In comes South Park to sit down and explain the science of addiction in general, easy-to-understand terms. Granted, it was explained by Satan, but still.

----------


## LaZodiac

> But my point was... My school did DARE. They never explained what addiction actually was or why people would keep doing drugs when the side effects got worse. Also, the cop who did the lessons said he was gonna bring in donuts and he never did.


He brought them they were just all in his gut.

----------


## Metastachydium

> In comes South Park to sit down and explain the science of addiction in general, easy-to-understand terms. Granted, it was explained by Satan, but still.


I find that strangely appropriate. I mean, if anyone, that guy should have a good grasp of the mechanisms underlying Vice.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I have a very interesting question to ask everyone: What does everyone think of bitcoins or cryptocurrency? I'm not a fan of bitcoins or cryptocurrency because I have a very difficult time understanding virtual money plus I prefer old-fashioned money.

----------


## Fyraltari

> I have a very interesting question to ask everyone: What does everyone think of bitcoins or cryptocurrency? I'm not a fan of bitcoins or cryptocurrency because I have a very difficult time understanding virtual money plus I prefer old-fashioned money.


A huge scam.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> A huge scam.


Why is it a huge scam? I'm curious.

----------


## Peelee

> I have a very interesting question to ask everyone: What does everyone think of bitcoins or cryptocurrency? I'm not a fan of bitcoins or cryptocurrency because I have a very difficult time understanding virtual money plus I prefer old-fashioned money.


You only used gold coins, I take it?

----------


## Aedilred

> I have a very interesting question to ask everyone: What does everyone think of bitcoins or cryptocurrency? I'm not a fan of bitcoins or cryptocurrency because I have a very difficult time understanding virtual money plus I prefer old-fashioned money.


In practice, they have ended up being essentially an environmentally damaging scam. I do however think there is something worthwhile underneath it all: the challenge is how to actually execute the idea of a secure stateless currency without its being exploited by the world's worst people.

As to understanding crypto, I think it is easy to get bogged down in the detail of how the coins are created and the operation of the blockchain, which aren't irrelevant but are essentially secondary. All cryptocurrency really is is a currency like any other: it's worth what the market says it is and you can use it to pay for goods and services at the discretion of the vendor. No coins or notes are minted, but especially post-covid, many economies are largely cashless anyway, so this doesn't necessarily make a lot of practical difference. 

The main difference is that it is not backed by a state or run by a central bank, which in principle makes it more liberating, but in practice also makes it much more volatile, and therefore a much higher-risk investment than reserve currencies.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> You only used gold coins, I take it?


Coins and dollar bills.  :Smile:

----------


## Peelee

> Coins and dollar bills.


Paper money that's not even backed by gold? I thought you liked "old fashioned" money. Not this modern fiat currency.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Paper money that's not even backed by gold? I thought you liked "old fashioned" money. Not this modern fiat currency.


Green paper money isn't modern though. It has been for so many years before when I was born.

----------


## Rater202

> Paper money that's not even backed by gold? I thought you liked "old fashioned" money. Not this modern fiat currency.


Gold coins aren't old fashioned.

Bartering's old-fashioned.

You want me to make you some leather gloves? You better bring me two pumpkins my friend.

----------


## Peelee

> Green paper money isn't modern though. It has been for so many years before when I was born.


Your birthday is not what defines something as being modern. 



> Gold coins aren't old fashioned.
> 
> Bartering's old-fashioned.
> 
> You want me to make you some leather gloves? You better bring me two pumpkins my friend.


Best I can do is a small lump of gold. I banged it into a little disc shape though, that's pretty neat!

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Your birthday is not what defines something as being modern. 
> 
> Best I can do is a small lump of gold. I banged it into a little disc shape though, that's pretty neat!


Well what constitutes being modern then?

----------


## Peelee

> Well what constitutes being modern then?


Depends on the thing. With TVs, for example, curved screens are fairly modern and CRTs are old fashioned. But TVs have only been around for 70 years or so. Currency? That's been around for millennia. Fiat currency is incredibly modern.

----------


## Qwertystop

> Gold coins aren't old fashioned.
> 
> Bartering's old-fashioned.
> 
> You want me to make you some leather gloves? You better bring me two pumpkins my friend.


Questionable - apparently barter economies are mostly found among groups people who previously had money-based economies but then ceased to have access to money, rather than in contexts where money has not yet been invented yet (where instead you get things like gift economies or communal allocation of goods).

----------


## Rater202

> Questionable - apparently barter economies are mostly found among groups people who previously had money-based economies but then ceased to have access to money, rather than in contexts where money has not yet been invented yet (where instead you get things like gift economies or communal allocation of goods).


Damn you, public school!

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> I have a very interesting question to ask everyone: What does everyone think of bitcoins or cryptocurrency? I'm not a fan of bitcoins or cryptocurrency because I have a very difficult time understanding virtual money plus I prefer old-fashioned money.


It inherently goes against the principles of the kind of internet I like. Also a lot of things not suitable for this board.

I never asked for digital scarcity in the first place.,

----------


## Murk

I think cryptocurrencies are very cool. 
When I learned as a kid that money doesn't have inherent value I often thought "so why can't I just make my own currency?", which of course always failed. 

But cryptocurrency actually _did_ "just make their own currency" and some of them rather succesfully. 
I like that. It's like a conlang that people actually speak, a functioning micronation or a succesful indie kickstarter. 

Yeah, crypto quickly turned into an environmentally-damaging moneymaking scam, but that's just what people do with all cool things.

----------


## Aedilred

> Green paper money isn't modern though. It has been for so many years before when I was born.


Modernity started in around 1450  :Small Tongue:  

But Peelee's teasing you. The point is that modern cash money - all paper money, and almost all coins - is actually just junk with an exchangeable IOU printed on it.  If you look closely at some countries' paper money this is made explicit: £10 notes issued by the bank of England say for instance "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of £10": the note itself is just a promise of payment . The coins and notes have no value in and of themselves and the only reason people accept them as payment is that they believe the central bank issuing them is reliable enough that the debt will be honoured if ever called in. 

Once upon a time coins were made from precious metals, so the coin itself was worth roughly what it said it was even if the central bank in question collapsed. Once they stopped making coins out of precious metal, central banks still used to keep the value of their currency pegged to precious metals, so that say one US dollar was always worth the same amount of gold. For various reasons, most countries don't do that any more (I want to say "nobody", but there might be someone somewhere who still does). So modern money gets its value from what people believe it's worth, not because the coin or note actually has any value.* The coins and notes are just physical tokens to represent the transfer of money, most of which actually happens by adjustment of digital ledgers.

Cryptocurrency works in pretty much exactly the same way. The only difference is that there is no central bank behind the currency. This means that if the market loses confidence in a cryptocurrency (or , there's nobody to step in to try to steady the ship, and this is one of the reasons why crypto tends to fluctuate in value much more than most currencies that people trade in (i.e. volatility).

That is all very heavily simplified but hopefully explains what's going on. So what Peelee is getting at is that although you say you prefer "old fashioned money" the difference between the money you use, and crypto, is in many ways minimal. If you really want the money you carry around to have inherent value, you need to be using gold or silver (etc.) coins.**


*Of course, gold and silver only have a value of what people say they're worth too. But it has been taken for granted for millennia that precious metals do have inherent value.
**Some banks, including the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, do still issue gold and silver coins. But these are collection pieces, not intended to be used as everyday coins (in fact, the face value of the coin is usually much less than the precious metal content, so if you do pay for goods using them as coins, you're getting a very bad deal).

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> But cryptocurrency actually _did_ "just make their own currency" and some of them rather succesfully.


Here's the thing though, the more successful a coin is the worse at being a currency it is. The smallest unit of Bitcoin is one bitcoin, so let's take a wallet and do a weekly food shop!

I mean we could. But bitcoins are scarce but valued enough that I'd have to buy in the region of 240 weeks worth of food, plus spend more money to actually get a transaction slot. The very systems baked into successful cryptocurrency stop them from being used as practical currencies.

That's not getting into the philosophical disagreements some of us have against cryptocurrency and blockchains.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Why is it a huge scam? I'm curious.


Because cryptocurrency cannot and never will fullfill its basic promise while at the same time it causes a lot of damage (such as enbaling even bigger scams, like NFTs).

The main selling point of cryptocurrency is to be a currency freed from a central authority, one that would in time replace fiat money, right? Problem is that the nature of the blockchain technology and the encryption protocol means that each transaction takes ages. Imagine grocery shopping except that each buyer has to spend 15 more minutes at the register for the money they're paying to be transferred to the shop, can you picture the size of the queue? And since the value of each cryptocurrency varies wildly very fast, the amount of money you end spending at the end of the calculation is going to be very different from the one you promised at the beginning. You meant to give away $15 but what you actually gave could be anywhere between $0.03 and $250,000. Good luck!

Because the calculations take so long (and other factors, I'm not an expert), the blockchains end up splitting (or forking) creating parallel blockchains. Which one is the real one? Well someone is going to have to decide. What was that about cryptocurrencies not being beholden to central authorities?

As a result, cryptocurrencies have almost no practical application (except for cases where you really, really want your transaction to be untraceable. Like buying hard drugs or sex slaves) meaning almost all of its value come from speculation. Oops, that's a bubble! The only way to get rich using cryptocurrencies is to be one of the early adopter who convinced other people to join in and sold them cryptocurrency in exchange for large sums of fiat currency. Sounds suspiciously like a pyramid scheme to me. 

And finally, those huge calculations demand a huge (and ever-growing) amount of power. Since the power grid isn't running entirely on renewable energy yet, that does a tremendous amount of damage to the environment.




So, basically, cryptocurrencies are just another way the web 3.0 is turning the internet into a nightmare.



> I think cryptocurrencies are very cool. 
> When I learned as a kid that money doesn't have inherent value I often thought "so why can't I just make my own currency?", which of course always failed. 
> 
> But cryptocurrency actually _did_ "just make their own currency" and some of them rather succesfully. 
> I like that. It's like a conlang that people actually speak, a functioning micronation or a succesful indie kickstarter. 
> 
> Yeah, crypto quickly turned into an environmentally-damaging moneymaking scam, but that's just what people do with all cool things.


All money is fake, but that doesn't mean all money is created equal. Some are faker.

----------


## Peelee

> Because cryptocurrency cannot and never will fullfill its basic promise while at the same time it causes a lot of damage (such as enbaling even bigger scams, like NFTs).


Eh, NFTs aren't inherently a scam. Imean, the ape pictures were just money laundering, sure.

----------


## Form

I would advise anyone to stay far away from cryptocurrencies, including for the very good reasons already listed above by several others. As far as I know there is no problem that crypto claims to solve that is not already solved in a different, better way and cryptocurrencies are notoriously volatile, though cryptoenthusiasts sometimes like to claim they're not (because they're dishonest and/or delusional). The crytospace is rife with scams and, frankly, you'll have a hard time to tell the scammy ones apart from the 'legit' ones (because these ones are also scams) because of the very nature of cryptocurrencies.

I'd honestly consider going to a casino to be a better 'investment' of one's money. At least then it's clear you're gambling with your money and the casino is more honest about it.




> Eh, NFTs aren't inherently a scam. Imean, the ape pictures were just money laundering, sure.


I've yet to see or hear of a NFT that is not a scam or at the very least a blatant cash grab whilst providing nothing of value, so I'm going to continue to treat NFTs as inherently scammy.

----------


## Aedilred

> Here's the thing though, the more successful a coin is the worse at being a currency it is. The smallest unit of Bitcoin is one bitcoin, so let's take a wallet and do a weekly food shop!
> 
> I mean we could. But bitcoins are scarce but valued enough that I'd have to buy in the region of 240 weeks worth of food, plus spend more money to actually get a transaction slot. The very systems baked into successful cryptocurrency stop them from being used as practical currencies.
> 
> That's not getting into the philosophical disagreements some of us have against cryptocurrency and blockchains.


I mean, you can trade fractions of a base currency unit. You don't have to spend a minimum of one bitcoin on any transaction, just as you don't have to spend a minimum of one pound on any transaction.

As to transaction time, that is an issue, but it's one that also affects regular currencies and they've got round it without the need to wait for cleared funds every time. As to the fee, from what I understand, these do create friction but they're not that different in proportion to the transaction charge you often get for using a debit or credit card online. Or in some cases, the charge for a plastic bag from a supermarket.


Overall, I do entirely agree that people should stay well away from crypto unless they really know what they're doing (and chances are, if you're asking about it on a forum like this, you don't) and have enough financial security elsewhere that you can afford to lose everything you put into crypto. I do, however, think that the underlying principles have validity and I don't think that they or NFTs are _inherently_ a scam. (Much of the reason for this is sufficiently political that we can't really discuss it here). It's just that that's the way it always works out because the only people willing to put serious time and money into making it work are functionally scammers.

----------


## Peelee

> I've yet to see or hear of a NFT that is not a scam or at the very least a blatant cash grab whilst providing nothing of value, so I'm going to continue to treat NFTs as inherently scammy.


Let's say you play the new Star Wars game and you buy a lightsaber from the online store with euros. You then decide later on that you don't care for that lightsaber anymore and you decide to sell it to another player, not for in-game currency but for euros, just as if you had bought a collectible lightsaber from a store and fhen later sold it to someone else. Except it was a digital lightsaber that only exists in code online.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Let's say you play the new Star Wars game and you buy a lightsaber from the online store with euros. You then decide later on that you don't care for that lightsaber anymore and you decide to sell it to another player, not for in-game currency but for euros, just as if you had bought a collectible lightsaber from a store and fhen later sold it to someone else. Except it was a digital lightsaber that only exists in code online.


Okay, now let's say that what you bought and sold wasn't the lightsaber that you can use in-game but but a piece of text claiming that you are the lightsaber's owner that doesn't give you any special control over the lightsber. Everyone else is still able to use the lightsaber as much as they want, for free.

That's Non Fungible Tokens. You aren't buying the picture, you're buying a token saying you own the picture. Everybody else can just right-click on the JPEG to use it as a profile picture or whatever and there's nothing you can do about it. Because you didn't actually buy the picture.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Eh, NFTs aren't inherently a scam. Imean, the ape pictures were just money laundering, sure.


I've yet to see a good use for them that doesn't basically boil down to 'proof of access'. I mean sure, maybe I'll be able to buy a hairstyle for my Team Fortress 3 character and sell it to another player, but CSGO skin trading was a thing before NFTs came along.

They're not inherently a scam, but I really don't know of a single use for them that I actually want.

----------


## Form

> It's just that that's the way it always works out because the only people willing to put serious time and money into making it work are functionally scammers.


I feel that already says a lot about the nature of crypto if that's the kind of people it attracts more than anyone.




> Let's say you play the new Star Wars game and you buy a lightsaber from the online store with euros. You then decide later on that you don't care for that lightsaber anymore and you decide to sell it to another player, not for in-game currency but for euros, just as if you had bought a collectible lightsaber from a store and fhen later sold it to someone else. Except it was a digital lightsaber that only exists in code online.


Except you don't need NFTs for that, as shown by the fact that item trading between players was a thing well before NFTs. Outside of video games: see also things like transferring real money digitally to someone else's account, which is the same principle (digital transfer of a thing) and also does not require NFTs.

I also really don't like microtransactions in general, but that's admittedly separate issue from NFTs. Still, I feel that NFTs enabling those is just yet another mark against them.

----------


## Peelee

> Okay, now let's say that what you bought and sold wasn't the lightsaber that you can use in-game but but a piece of text claiming that you are the lightsaber's owner that doesn't give you any special control over the lightsber. Everyone else is still able to use the lightsaber as much as they want, for free.
> 
> That's Non Fungible Tokens. You aren't buying the picture, you're buying a token saying you own the picture. Everybody else can just right-click on the JPEG to use it as a profile picture or whatever and there's nothing you can do about it. Because you didn't actually buy the picture.


Except other people can't use the lightsaber. Other people could copy the image of the lights art, but as I specifically used an example of something that is not an image, that's not useful in any way. 



> Except you don't need NFTs for that, as shown by the fact that item trading between players was a thing well before NFTs.


You don't need euros to buy a fish as shown by the fact that trading between fishmongers and peasants was a thing. Imean, if we want to talk about "need". And disregarding that most trading is done with in-game currency and trading personally purchased digital items for real currency is trickier.

The question wasn't why are NFTs "needed". It was whether there is a non-scam use for NFTs. If you want to shift the discussion to need, that's all well and fair, but let's not use it as a rebuttal for the first issue.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Except other people can't use the lightsaber.


You're underestimating the determination of video game modders  :Small Amused: 

Don't do NFTs kids! There's a reason their creator called them No ****ing Thanks.

----------


## Aedilred

> I feel that already says a lot about the nature of crypto if that's the kind of people it attracts more than anyone.


I think it says more about the nature of people. The principal attraction of crypto is that it's absent central control, particularly state control. That makes it an ideal environment for people with no conscience to take advantage of others. Any time you create a space with minimal-to-no restrictions on behaviour, it lasts at best for a short time before those people discover it and ruin it. State of nature, baby.

Crypto is particularly bad for this because its nature tends to attract people who are both generally credulous and idealistic, and have no real experience with financial mechanisms or investments, who are perfect prey for the scammers.

----------


## Peelee

> You're underestimating the determination of video game modders


Well sure but it's not like nobody's ever engraved their own plates and made their own cash to pass off as the real thing. Doesn't mean that's not a non-scam use case of NFTs. 



> Don't do NFTs kids! There's a reason their creator called them No ****ing Thanks.


Oh, I'm not saying they're a good idea at all!  :Small Wink: 




> I think it says more about the nature of people. The principal attraction of crypto is that it's absent central control, particularly state control. That makes it an ideal environment for people with no conscience to take advantage of others.


I think you're right about the nature of people absent state control, but not in the way you think. And I actually have a fascinating case study to back that up, but sadly not one I could share here. It's really cool though. It's got bears.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Except other people can't use the lightsaber. Other people could copy the image of the lights art, but as I specifically used an example of something that is not an image, that's not useful in any way.


That's not how NFT works, though. They're tokens, not the object they represent. When somebody buys an NFT of one of the bored apes, they don't buy the digital file or anything like that. They get their name affixed to the relevant blockchain and that's it.

If someone buys an NFT of an in-game object, they don't get the object, they get their name added to the blockchain.

----------


## Peelee

> That's not how NFT works, though. They're tokens, not the object they represent. When somebody buys an NFT of one of the bored apes, they don't buy the digital file or anything like that. They get their name affixed to the relevant blockchain and that's it.
> 
> If someone buys an NFT of an in-game object, they don't get the object, they get their name added to the blockchain.


The object could also be the token.

----------


## Fyraltari

> The object could also be the token.


Could it? Wouldn't that make it no longer a token?

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> The object could also be the token.


That's great for all the token collectors. But I'm not collecting tokens, I'm collecting lightsabers.

It's like buying a milk cap with the picture of the Mona Lisa, and claiming that it means you own the Mona Lisa. Sure, there might be a contract out there saying the owner of the milk cap owns the painting, but I'm highly doubtful that's the case.

----------


## Peelee

> Could it?


Yes. I actually looked it up before I posted to ensure I wasn't just tossing out silly ideas.



> That's great for all the token collectors. But I'm not collecting tokens, I'm collecting lightsabers.


The token is built into the lightsaber. It's a digital item with a digital token attached. You cannot collect one without the other. By collecting tokens you are collecting digital lightsabers.



> It's like buying a milk cap with the picture of the Mona Lisa


No, it's not.

----------


## Keltest

> That's great for all the token collectors. But I'm not collecting tokens, I'm collecting lightsabers.
> 
> It's like buying a milk cap with the picture of the Mona Lisa, and claiming that it means you own the Mona Lisa. Sure, there might be a contract out there saying the owner of the milk cap owns the painting, but I'm highly doubtful that's the case.


Worse than that, because a lot of the time NFTs are being used to openly steal things like artwork and profit from that theft. Take your Mona Lisa milk cap. Youve got the contract, except that contract was written by some rando with a computer in Idaho who does not own the Mona Lisa to sell it in the first place. But they created an NFT of the Mona Lisa, and sold that, and now somebody out there thinks they actually own the Mona Lisa, and not just a sticker with their name on it that somebody has arbitrarily decided is attached to the Mona Lisa without any ability to decide or enforce that.




> The token is built into the lightsaber. It's a digital item with a digital token attached. You cannot collect one without the other. By collecting tokens you are collecting digital lightsabers.


This may be the theoretical idea of how they were supposed to work, but allow me to tell you quite directly that they do not work that way in practice. You might find some less malicious people who actually will give you the digital lightsaber with the token, but a very significant number of NFTs do not come with that.

----------


## Form

> You don't need euros to buy a fish as shown by the fact that trading between fishmongers and peasants was a thing. Imean, if we want to talk about "need". And disregarding that most trading is done with in-game currency and trading personally purchased digital items for real currency is trickier.
> 
> The question wasn't why are NFTs "needed". It was whether there is a non-scam use for NFTs. If you want to shift the discussion to need, that's all well and fair, but let's not use it as a rebuttal for the first issue.


Well, alright, allow me to put it thusly: The only reason for a company to push NFTs seems to be to allow them to sell a whole bunch of overpriced junk by introducing artificial scarcity whilst pretending this somehow empowers consumers when in reality it does not. We could get into the weeds about whether NFTs are technically inherently scammy or not and you might very well be correct, but in practice I don't see a meaningful difference. 

When someone tries to sell NFTs to a consumer base, even though NFTs do not actually fulfill a need that's not already met in different and better ways, I get very suspicious as to why they're pushing NFTs instead of something else that's less prone to abuse and/or less complicated. As such, I don't have a problem regarding NFTs as inherently scammy, technicalities and semantics be damned.

----------


## Peelee

> Well, alright, allow me to put it thusly: The only reason for a company to push NFTs seems to be to allow them to sell a whole bunch of overpriced junk by introducing artificial scarcity whilst pretending this somehow empowers consumers when in reality it does not.


I'm not disagreeing with any of this. However, the vast majority of that also describes the fine art world, I find it interesting to note.

----------


## Keltest

> I'm not disagreeing with any of this. However, the vast majority of that also describes the fine art world, I find it interesting to note.


I dont know if youre going to get much pushback against "fine art" being mostly also a scam too, frankly. The art world is somewhat notorious for having a lot of "famous for being famous" things that otherwise arent valuable at all.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Worse than that, because a lot of the time NFTs are being used to openly steal things like artwork and profit from that theft. Take your Mona Lisa milk cap. Youve got the contract, except that contract was written by some rando with a computer in Idaho who does not own the Mona Lisa to sell it in the first place. But they created an NFT of the Mona Lisa, and sold that, and now somebody out there thinks they actually own the Mona Lisa, and not just a sticker with their name on it that somebody has arbitrarily decided is attached to the Mona Lisa without any ability to decide or enforce that.


Why are you presuming the creator of the milk cap had any authority to give me ownership of the Mona Lisa, contract or no?

By my understanding, assuming theft isn't involved, what you buy when you purchase the NFT is whatever the associated contract says you do. Like when buying a DVD of a film this is rarely the thing itself, but rather a set of rights to use and/or display the thing under a certain set of circumstances.


For a legitimate, non-scammy use of NFTs? Access tokens. I could make a piece of digital art, and decide I don't want anybody who hasn't paid me to experience any of my art (I never promised non-scummy). I take this art and put it in a system that'll check for possession of a Boook token before allowing a user to access my art. Then I run off 20,000 Boook tokens on my preferred blockchain and sell them to people interested in experoencing Man Attacked By Hedgehog. There's alternative ways of doing it, but it is a legitimate use of NFTs.

----------


## Peelee

> I dont know if youre going to get much pushback against "fine art" being mostly also a scam too, frankly. The art world is somewhat notorious for having a lot of "famous for being famous" things that otherwise arent valuable at all.


Oh, I mostly mean in a "look a lot of this is obviously money laundering and the rest of it is split between arbitrary pricing and people with too much money buying them because they're bored and once you're rich enough money doesn't even really matter anymore" way. Except with cartoon apes.

----------


## Keltest

> Oh, I mostly mean in a "look a lot of this is obviously money laundering and the rest of it is split between arbitrary pricing and people with too much money buying them because they're bored and once you're rich enough money doesn't even really matter anymore" way. Except with cartoon apes.


I mean sure? If youre rich enough, you can fall for scams on a whim because you dont have to worry about it and you want to see what happens. Doesnt mean it isnt a scam.

----------


## Fyraltari

The fine arts world has a money laundering problem right now, that's for sure. But it has existed for literal millenia without it, unlike NFTs who, has far as anyone can tell, were used in the scummiest way possible from the moment they became a thing. Making it easier to posit one as inherently scummy than the other.

----------


## Peelee

> The fine arts world has a money laundering problem right now, that's for sure. But it has existed for literal millenia without it, unlike NFTs who, has far as anyone can tell, were used in the scummiest way possible from the moment they became a thing. Making it easier to posit one as inherently scummy than the other.


I've never said it wasn't scummy.

----------


## Rater202

Didn't we just have that conversation about how the company that sells you 1 sr foot of land in Scotland and thus the right toc all yourself "Laird" was a scam because all they're selling you is a piece of paper saying you own the land and have a title without actually having any legal claim to said land or title?

NFTs are basically the same thing, except instead of something tangible they're trying to make you pay for fake ownership of something that doesn't physically exist and that there are inherently an infinite number of copies of.

On cryptocurrency: Another problem is that as far as I can tell there's no direct way to exchange it for actual currency and not everywhere accepts crypto. If you've got billions in bitcoinbut wind up somewhere where no one accepts bitcoin and no one is willing to buy any from you well I hope you've got some real money in the bank or some cash on hand because otherwise, you might as well be trying to pay with Monopoly money.

----------


## Peelee

> Didn't we just have that conversation about how the company that sells you 1 sr foot of land in Scotland and thus the right toc all yourself "Laird" was a scam because all they're selling you is a piece of paper saying you own the land and have a title without actually having any legal claim to said land or title?
> 
> NFTs are basically the same thing


No, it's not, and that is a gross mischaracterization. NFTs give real ownership that they have the actual capability to confer.

If you want an analogy, think of it like you bought a print of the Mona Lisa and I bought the Mona Lisa. You could laugh at me because you got a copy of the exact same thing for at least ten dollars less than I paid, but I'm the owner of the Mona Lisa and you have a copy.

It's just that with digital goods it's much easier to make a copy and much harder to prevent unauthorized copies.

----------


## Keltest

> No, it's not, and that is a gross mischaracterization. NFTs give real ownership that they have the actual capability to confer.
> 
> If you want an analogy, think of it like you bought a print of the Mona Lisa and I bought the Mona Lisa. You could laugh at me because you got a copy of the exact same thing for at least ten dollars less than I paid, but I'm the owner of the Mona Lisa and you have a copy.
> 
> It's just that with digital goods it's much easier to make a copy and much harder to prevent unauthorized copies.


With the NFTs, you dont even get the print. You get a piece of paper that says you own the Mona Lisa, except since you dont actually own it you have no power to do anything with it.

Thats why its a scam. The NFT doesnt do anything. If you get a print along with that, you have just bought a print like normal, and the NFT was just them taking extra money from you to do nothing.

----------


## Peelee

> With the NFTs, you dont even get the print. You get a piece of paper that says you own the Mona Lisa, except since you dont actually own it you have no power to do anything with it.
> 
> Thats why its a scam. The NFT doesnt do anything.


The Mona Lisa is hanging in the Louvre. I can still sell it to someone else.

Again, it's not inherently a scam. It can be easily used for scamming, but it is not ipso facto a scam. Hell, there was famously an island nation that used a functionally identical system for their currency.

----------


## Keltest

> The Mona Lisa is hanging in the Louvre. I can still sell it to someone else.
> 
> Again, it's not inherently a scam. It can be easily used for scamming, but it is not ipso facto a scam. Hell, there was famously an island nation that used a functionally identical system for their currency.


Yes, frankly, it is ipso facto a scam. "Pay extra money for something of no value that I am trying to trick you into thinking has value" is definitionally a scam.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> With the NFTs, you dont even get the print. You get a piece of paper that says you own the Mona Lisa, except since you dont actually own it you have no power to do anything with it.


Except the piece of paper doesn't say that you own the Mona Lisa. It says you're allowed to use the Mona Lisa as a profile picture (as well as other stuff, possibly even commercial uses).

----------


## Peelee

> Yes, frankly, it is ipso facto a scam. "Pay extra money for something of no value that I am trying to trick you into thinking has value" is definitionally a scam.


Today I learned that fiat currency is a scam by the Keltest definition.

----------


## Keltest

> Except the piece of paper doesn't say that you own the Mona Lisa. It says you're allowed to use the Mona Lisa as a profile picture (as well as other stuff, possibly even commercial uses).


Which is a separate good from the actual token. The fact that you get an actual thing out of the scam sometimes, even if its what you wanted, doesnt make it less of a scam. It just makes it harder to spot the scam.




> Today I learned that fiat currency is a scam by the Keltest definition.


The value of fiat currency is the backing by the government (or, theoretically, another equivalently powerful entity). Fiat currency belonging to something that lacks that backing is absolutely a scam. Thats why cryptos that arent tied to something like the dollar have pretty horribly failed. They lack the promise of value from a source trusted and able to enforce it.

----------


## Peelee

> The value of fiat currency is the backing by the government (or, theoretically, another equivalently powerful entity). Fiat currency belonging to something that lacks that backing is absolutely a scam. Thats why cryptos that arent tied to something like the dollar have pretty horribly failed. They lack the promise of value from a source trusted and able to enforce it.


Oh no, if only NFTs and cryptocurrencies are to be treated as commodities and have full legal backing as provided by the appropriate governmental jurisdiction! Why, that would render your entire argument here completely moot. Boy it's a good thing that's not the case at all. 

OH WAIT.

Also, you're calling the rai stones a scam despite the consensus of the global economic community disagreeing with you. Again you've convinced yourself so I doubt anything that I say is going to dissuade you, but hey, giving it a shot.

----------


## Keltest

> Oh no, if only NFTs and cryptocurrencies are to be treated as commodities and have full legal backing as provided by the appropriate governmental jurisdiction! Why, that would render your entire argument here completely moot. Boy it's a good thing that's not the case at all. 
> 
> OH WAIT.
> 
> Also, you're calling the rai stones a scam despite the consensus of the global economic community disagreeing with you. Again you've convinced yourself so I doubt anything that I say is going to dissuade you, but hey, giving it a shot.


Peelee, you are literally just defending NFTs by going "they arent a scam, technically." You have not once even attempted to defend them on their own merits, or even claim that they have their own merits.

Youre also trying to put words in my mouth now.

Mostly what this is telling me is that you have _fallen for the scam._

So sorry, but I think at this point I should probably disengage from this conversation. Youre right, ive made up my mind at this point, and despite futurama references being the best references, being technically correct here is not the best kind of correct. Youll need more than that to even get me to consider your position at this point.

----------


## Peelee

> Peelee, you are literally just defending NFTs by going "they arent a scam, technically." You have not once even attempted to defend them on their own merits, or even claim that they have their own merits.


I'm not saying they're not a scam "technically". I'm saying they're not a scam full stop. They can be used to scam. So can any currency. They're not a good idea. They're stupid. They're pretty useless. But those things don't actually equate to being a scam. Things can be stupid while not being a scam, and can still be used as a scam.

Of course I'm not defending their merits. I never set out to. My entire position this whole time has been "they're not a scam", and I have already once mentioned goalposts shifting, and yet you're trying to engage in more shifting. I'm saying that your definition of a scam is bad and not one that I share.



> Mostly what this is telling me is that you have _fallen for the scam._


I haven't ever bought, sold, or engaged in any way with NFTs except for thinking they're stupid and talking about them here(and maybe with friends, I can't remember). But, again, if you've convinced yourself that I have just as you've convinced yourself that they're a scam, I probably won't change your mind.

----------


## Keltest

> I'm not saying they're not a scam "technically". I'm saying they're not a scam full stop. They can be used to scam. So can any currency. They're not a good idea. They're stupid. They're pretty useless. But those things don't actually equate to being a scam. Things can be stupid while not being a scam, and can still be used as a scam.
> 
> Of course I'm not defending their merits. I never set out to. My entire position this whole time has been "they're not a scam", and I have already once mentioned goalposts shifting, and yet you're trying to engage in more shifting. I'm saying that your definition of a scam is bad and not one that I share.


Then what exactly is your definition of a scam? Because the way youve been describing it, im not sure anything actually falls within that definition unless it involves outright lying, and thats not a very useful definition.

----------


## Peelee

> Then what exactly is your definition of a scam? Because the way youve been describing it, im not sure anything actually falls within that definition unless it involves outright lying, and thats not a very useful definition.


A fraud. NFTs are not a fraud on their face. They are useless on their face, but that's not the same as a fraud. They are exactly what they present themselves to be. Just because some people use it to launder money and then convince other people that they have hgher value than they really do does not make them a scam. That makes them instruments used in a scam. There is a significant difference that I _really_ wish you would recognize but do not think you will.

----------


## Keltest

> A fraud. NFTs are not a fraud on their face. They are useless on their face, but that's not the same as a fraud. They are exactly what they present themselves to be. Just because some people use it to launder money and then convince other people that they have hgher value than they really do does not make them a scam. That makes them instruments used in a scam. There is a significant difference that I _really_ wish you would recognize but do not think you will.


NFTs, as in the existence thereof, are being sold (literally and figurately) as addressing a specific need and niche in the economic system. They do not. Ergo, that would seem to qualify as a scam to me, under your definition. That they are useless on their face makes it a somewhat inexplicable scam, and its frankly baffling that so many people have fallen for it, but the fundamental premise of the idea of the NFT is to present value where there is none.

For that matter, anything that is useless on its face is pretty much definitionally a scam unless they are literally advertised as being useless, in which case I guess its just weird.

----------


## Peelee

> NFTs, as in the existence thereof, are being sold (literally and figurately) as addressing a specific need and niche in the economic system. They do not. Ergo, that would seem to qualify as a scam to me, under your definition. That they are useless on their face makes it a somewhat inexplicable scam, and its frankly baffling that so many people have fallen for it, but the fundamental premise of the idea of the NFT is to present value where there is none.
> 
> For that matter, anything that is useless on its face is pretty much definitionally a scam unless they are literally advertised as being useless, in which case I guess its just weird.


NFTs, as in _not the existence thereof_, are being sold as exactly what they are. There are no misrepresentations as to their use. This is where you seem to have the problem. They're an instrument. They are not themselves a fraud. If you play a game of three card monte, the person playing you is the scammer, three card monte is the scam, and neither of those facts make the playing cards a scam. They're an instrument used in the scam.

Again, a scam is a fraud. NFTs are not a fraud. Fraudulent actions using them as instruments are a fraud.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Considering that NFTs were explained very poorly when first introduced to the public I'm not surprised that many people fell for the scam. NFTs were sold to a specific market by claiming that possibilities were inbuilt features, then used respected people making high profile purchases to make them feel legit.

Like surely a multimillionaire wouldn't spend ridiculous amounts of money on something worthless. Even if most people's first thought after winning the lottery would be to like commission a replica of Nelson's Column made out of chocolate.

ETA: NFTs are still being sold as proof of ownership. Which isn't something they inherently are.

Would anybody here like to invest in my new NFT project, SnakeOilCoin?

----------


## Peelee

> Considering that NFTs were explained very poorly when first introduced to the public I'm not surprised that many people fell for the scam. NFTs were sold to a specific market by claiming that possibilities were inbuilt features, then used respected people making high profile purchases to make them feel legit.
> 
> Like surely a multimillionaire wouldn't spend ridiculous amounts of money on something worthless. Even if most people's first thought after winning the lottery would be to like commission a replica of Nelson's Column made out of chocolate.
> 
> ETA: NFTs are still being sold as proof of ownership. Which isn't something they inherently are.
> 
> Would anybody here like to invest in my new NFT project, SnakeOilCoin?


Did many people fall for the scam, though? I honestly don't know the numbers here, but my main impression is that it was pretty much just high value NFTs that were pretty clearly money laundering and then the occasional celebrity or other wealthy people jumping in on it because it's fun and money is less real to them than to other people.

----------


## Keltest

> NFTs, as in _not the existence thereof_, are being sold as exactly what they are. There are no misrepresentations as to their use. This is where you seem to have the problem. They're an instrument. They are not themselves a fraud. If you play a game of three card monte, the person playing you is the scammer, three card monte is the scam, and neither of those facts make the playing cards a scam. They're an instrument used in the scam.
> 
> Again, a scam is a fraud. NFTs are not a fraud. Fraudulent actions using them as instruments are a fraud.


In your analogy, NFTs are three card monte, not card games in general. Speaking generously, Blockchain would be card games in that analogy.

NFTs, as in the "actual" things, are not being sold as exactly what they are, because exactly what they are is nothing, and they are not being sold as nothing.




> Did many people fall for the scam, though? I honestly don't know the numbers here, but my main impression is that it was pretty much just high value NFTs that were pretty clearly money laundering and then the occasional celebrity or other wealthy people jumping in on it because it's fun and money is less real to them than to other people.


Its been fading from public perception lately, but for a while a lot of major companies (Ubisoft, as an example) were promising major inclusion of NFTs in fairly mundane things like video games. Fortunately, there was MAJOR backlash against that which seems to have put it on indefinite hold for a lot of them, but there were a lot of pretty high profile attempts to jump on the fad.

----------


## Amidus Drexel

> NFTs, as in the existence thereof, are being sold (literally and figurately) as addressing a specific need and niche in the economic system. They do not. Ergo, that would seem to qualify as a scam to me, under your definition. That they are useless on their face makes it a somewhat inexplicable scam, and its frankly baffling that so many people have fallen for it, but the fundamental premise of the idea of the NFT is to present value where there is none.
> 
> For that matter, anything that is useless on its face is pretty much definitionally a scam unless they are literally advertised as being useless, in which case I guess its just weird.


I think the missing distinction here is between your stance and Peelee's stance is that Peelee is making a distinction between the item in question (fancy, hard-to-forge receipts with a catchy name) and the act of selling the item in question to ill-informed or delusional purchasers. You don't appear to be making the distinction here (or, if you are, you don't appear to care about it).

My friends and I could set up our own blockchain, mint our own NFTs, and use them for the one practical thing they are capable of doing (being a receipt) without charging any money for the NFT at all. I think you'd be hard-pressed to call that a scam. Is it _worth_ more than a normal receipt? Maybe in the same situations where a digital signature is worth more than a normal one (and even that's a stretch).

From the other side of the argument - low-quality or "useless" products are not inherently scams either. They may be an inefficient purchase for any number of reasons (cost/effort vs. quality being the obvious metric to use), but _in and of themselves_, they are not a scam. It's only the act of advertising them as something they aren't that makes it fraudulent.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I never knew that NFT is a huge debate for many people.

----------


## Keltest

> I think the missing distinction here is between your stance and Peelee's stance is that Peelee is making a distinction between the item in question (fancy, hard-to-forge receipts with a catchy name) and the act of selling the item in question to ill-informed or delusional purchasers. You don't appear to be making the distinction here (or, if you are, you don't appear to care about it).
> 
> My friends and I could set up our own blockchain, mint our own NFTs, and use them for the one practical thing they are capable of doing (being a receipt) without charging any money for the NFT at all. I think you'd be hard-pressed to call that a scam. Is it _worth_ more than a normal receipt? Maybe in the same situations where a digital signature is worth more than a normal one (and even that's a stretch).
> 
> From the other side of the argument - low-quality or "useless" products are not inherently scams either. They may be an inefficient purchase for any number of reasons (cost/effort vs. quality being the obvious metric to use), but _in and of themselves_, they are not a scam. It's only the act of advertising them as something they aren't that makes it fraudulent.


Frankly, I would still call that a scam in two different ways. The first is that even though you personally arent profiting from it, youre still contributing to the usage and normalization of NFTs. In Peelee's cardgame analogy, youre letting them win sometimes, which helps perpetuate the scam overall by disguising the idea that it is a scam.

The second, which is a bit harder to explain, is that you yourself got scammed into participating in the system. Youre out all the resources you used to set up the blockchain now for no extra benefit. As you say, it isnt more useful than any sort of traditional receipt. SOMEBODY is out money, whether you pass that expense along or not.

----------


## Peelee

> I think the missing distinction here is between your stance and Peelee's stance is that Peelee is making a distinction between the item in question (fancy, hard-to-forge receipts with a catchy name) and the act of selling the item in question to ill-informed or delusional purchasers. You don't appear to be making the distinction here (or, if you are, you don't appear to care about it)


YES. Thank you! 



> Frankly, I would still call that a scam in two different ways. The first is that even though you personally arent profiting from it, youre still contributing to the usage and normalization of NFTs.


I very much hope nobody will ever judge you by the criteria you use here.

----------


## Rater202

Can someone tell me when the definition of "prank" changed from "practical joke" to "be an obnoxious annoyance in a public place or commit acts of vandalism and property damage that border on domestic terrorism?"

----------


## Peelee

> Can someone tell me when the definition of "prank" changed from "practical joke" to "be an obnoxious annoyance in a public place or commit acts of vandalism and property damage that border on domestic terrorism?"


When people started to monetize it.

ETA: I'm not entirely comfortable with bandying about terms like "bordering on domestic terrorism" so freely.

----------


## Keltest

> I very much hope nobody will ever judge you by the criteria you use here.


Why not? I fully recognize that my ability to fully extricate myself from practices and businesses that engage in behavior I disapprove of is limited, but I still try to, such as I can, and I encourage others to as well. Its a good standard to hold for yourself.




> ETA: I'm not entirely comfortable with bandying about terms like "bordering on domestic terrorism" so freely.


I agree, but living in a college town where we do suffer actual damage to life, limb and property in the name of a bunch of idiots doing a "prank", in this particular case I think its correct.

----------


## Rater202

Peelee, there are people who think that rigging someone's mailbox to explode when they open it is a "prank."

That's on the border, I think.

Not all modern pranks are like that. That's why there's an "or" in between "be obnoxious" and "commit property damage" but still.

----------


## Peelee

> Why not? I fully recognize that my ability to fully extricate myself from practices and businesses that engage in behavior I disapprove of is limited, but I still try to, such as I can, and I encourage others to as well. Its a good standard to hold for yourself.


I find that laudable. And I still. Absolutely stand by my statement (and also earnestly believe it, I'm not just making a sarcastic quip). And that's about as far as I'm going to take it on this forum. 



> I agree, but living in a college town where we do suffer actual damage to life, limb and property in the name of a bunch of idiots doing a "prank", in this particular case I think its correct.


That's crimes. Not domestic terrorism. 



> Peelee, there are people who think that rigging someone's mailbox to explode when they open it is a "prank."
> 
> That's on the border, I think.
> 
> Not all modern pranks are like that. That's why there's an "or" in between "be obnoxious" and "commit property damage" but still.


See above. Terrorism is big. It requires an attempt to influence a sizeable population by way of their crime (I'm simplifying but I think the point comes across). Referring to other crimes as domestic terrorism dilutes this. Attempted murder is still really bad. You don't need to call it domestic terrorism. That just creates a criminal version of the eupamism treadmill.

ETA: I have rather strong thoughts on domestic terrorism, most of which I cannot go into on here, and all of which played no small part in me going for the federal agent job.

----------


## Rater202

There's a reason why I said "borders on" and not "is."

----------


## Fyraltari

About the NFT discussion, I'm just going to recommend Folding Ideas' excellent 2-hour-long YouTube essay on the subject and move on.




> There's a reason why I said "borders on" and not "is."


"Borders on" implies a distinction in scale, not in nature, though.

----------


## Rater202

> "Borders on" implies a distinction in scale, not in nature, though.


If you're causing extreme property damage in order to impress your friends or get clout on TikTok then the only difference between you and a terrorist is who you're trying to influence.

----------


## Peelee

> If you're causing extreme property damage in order to impress your friends or get clout on TikTok then the only difference between you and a terrorist is who you're trying to influence.


No. You're a criminal, but not a terrorist. There is a vast gulf between the two.

----------


## Qwertystop

Reheating NFTs: technologically, it's extremely impractical for them to have any contents beyond a short text string - so a password or URL or decryption key or similar. Theoretically it might be possible to make the payload something longer, but the work of making any transaction involving such a thing would be enough that you would be unlikely to be able to actually get such a transaction onto the chain without huge fees.

Secondly, the chain is public by nature - so whatever information is in the token would be nominally owned by you, but it would be available to anyone who cared enough to look.

Thirdly, the concept of "ownership", and anything else an NFT might supposedly be useful for, only exists in the context of an authority to enforce the ownership and provide those other features. So the whole "decentralized" thing is basically null; there might be a court that would uphold a claim of ownership based on an NFT but I doubt there's one that *wouldn't* uphold based on a plain old contact or bill of sale or other receipt. For other features, like the transfer of items in a game? The people making the game still need to implement it (both the transfer and whatever the item does), and they could do that anyway, and have done so for many games.

----------


## Peelee

Hey Fyraltari, just in case you havent heard yet..

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2...-heritage-list

----------


## D&D_Fan

RE: Pranks
I think TikTok challenges are much worse. I made a list below of dangerous ones, because there are many.

I divide challenges into 3 categories as based on what harm they cause:

*Spoiler: Chemicals and Biohazards*
Show

The nutmeg challenge can make people hallucinate blue. The tide pod challenge can cause organ failure and brain damage. The Benadryl challenge can prove fatal. The sleepy chicken challenge is a massive dose. The vampire teeth challenge involves gluing fake fangs into your mouth with super glue. Super glue is not supposed to be ingested. The coronavirus challenge involved licking public bathroom stuff, door handles, and supermarket food. Nasty. The energy powder dry scoop challenge involves eating so much energy powder at once some people literally had heart attacks. The frozen honey challenge will just give you diarrhea much like how the sprite and banana challenge makes you vomit. The "male enhancement" cream challenge involves putting certain supplements onto ones face for beauty reasons. It has bad side effects on the blood vessels and veins in the face. The eye challenge involves literally putting bleach or hand sanitizer in or near the eyes to try and change eye color. Eyes don't work that way. You will just hurt your eyes by trying. The hyaluronic acid injection challenge is literally injecting acid under your skin. Sugar waxing can cause burns to the skin when attempted at home.


*Spoiler: Bodily Harm*
Show

The skullbreaker challenge is as awful as it sounds, and can lead to severe head injury. The milk crate challenge requires a level of physicality not everyone has, and when it goes wrong, bones may be broken. The punch a teacher challenge is just literally hitting someone. The throw it in the air challenge is throwing something in the air and trying not to get hit by it. I swear, some of these challenges are just asking for a head injury. The corn cob on a drill challenge caused people to lose both hair and teeth. The Cha-Cha slide challenge is literal reckless driving. The blackout challenge involves not breathing long enough to black out, big problem if you don't start breathing again after the video ends. Scalp popping makes a funny noise or something, but it's hurting your scalp when you do it. Filing down your teeth is permanent tooth damage. The stand up challenge is walking on top of someone's back and shoulders, and a mistake could cause serious damage to that part of the body. The basketball beer challenge is tame compared to some of the others on this list, but it can still end in a bruise if the beer bottle bounces into the face of the person who dropped it. 


*Spoiler: Others: Firehazards, Property Damage, and Psychological Harm*
Show

The penny challenge involves sticking a coin on the prongs of a power cord and plugging it in. The fire mirror challenge is literally setting something on fire, just use a filter for a fire effect instead.
The devious lick challenge. Some kids were stealing sinks and toilets out of the walls, breaking the pipes, and stealing electronics from their schools and other public institution. Some idiots failed the challenge by getting caught and charged.
The verbal abuse challenge. I don't even know why this exists. The Nutella fake poop challenge is also nasty, mean to small children, and rude to adults and the elderly. 


If anything, I think these tiktok challenges are the closest to real terrorism. They prey on the less-than-wise people, but can be incredibly dangerous, more dangerous than even a lot of pranks, I think.

If we speak out against pranks for going too far, we should also lump in challenges as well, they need to stop too.

----------


## LaZodiac

> About the NFT discussion, I'm just going to recommend Folding Ideas' excellent 2-hour-long YouTube essay on the subject and move on.


Damn, beat me too it.




> Can someone tell me when the definition of "prank" changed from "practical joke" to "be an obnoxious annoyance in a public place or commit acts of vandalism and property damage that border on domestic terrorism?"


I blame the show Jackass, honestly. And a little bit of Chris angel ~Mindfreak~. The both of them popularized this idea of inflicting violence upon each other and yourself is Good Content. This has lead to other folk trying to cash in on this; typically this being one of two types of people; 

1: Weirdo freaks like Mr Knoxville and Chris who are perfectly adept and okay with the idea of "I could walk away from this sans a finger" who try and fail to get popular due to a number of different factors.

2: Opportunistic people who will do anything for money except hurt themselves in ways that aren't serious... but have absolutely no moral compunction about who THEY hurt. This leads us to modern folk like "Mr Best I think is his name I don't know" and "that one ****er that went to the Japanese Suicide Forest and filmed a dead body and did lol epic memes about it".

On the whole the first group is concerning (I knew someone in that. His friends had a game where you're obligated at any time to run one of the others over if you see'em on the street in your car, and unsurprisingly this guy is currently in intense care after many many many broken bones and nerves over the years.

The second group are who should hold your ire, and if I could dunk them all into a gravity well to be trapped for eternity I would. Monstrously cruel people.

EDIT: Basically every single one of those Tiktok "challenges" pre-date Tiktok to some degree, and also are extremely Never Happened. I'm sure some people have done them, but they're not nearly as prevalent as they appear.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Hey Fyraltari, just in case you havent heard yet..
> 
> https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2...-heritage-list


I kind of assumed that went with the inclusion of French gastronomy in 2010, but... Neat.

----------


## Rater202

> RE: Pranks
> I think TikTok challenges are much worse. I made a list below of dangerous ones, because there are many.
> 
> I divide challenges into 3 categories as based on what harm they cause:
> 
> *Spoiler: Chemicals and Biohazards*
> Show
> 
> The nutmeg challenge can make people hallucinate blue. The tide pod challenge can cause organ failure and brain damage. The Benadryl challenge can prove fatal. The sleepy chicken challenge is a massive dose. The vampire teeth challenge involves gluing fake fangs into your mouth with super glue. Super glue is not supposed to be ingested. The coronavirus challenge involved licking public bathroom stuff, door handles, and supermarket food. Nasty. The energy powder dry scoop challenge involves eating so much energy powder at once some people literally had heart attacks. The frozen honey challenge will just give you diarrhea much like how the sprite and banana challenge makes you vomit. The "male enhancement" cream challenge involves putting certain supplements onto ones face for beauty reasons. It has bad side effects on the blood vessels and veins in the face. The eye challenge involves literally putting bleach or hand sanitizer in or near the eyes to try and change eye color. Eyes don't work that way. You will just hurt your eyes by trying. The hyaluronic acid injection challenge is literally injecting acid under your skin. Sugar waxing can cause burns to the skin when attempted at home.
> ...


Keep in mind that a number of TikTok challenges aren't actually a thing: The Tide Pod challenge, for example, was a bunch of people making a joke. No one actually ate any Tide Pods until after the news took the jokes out of context.

Same with the recent Nyquil Chicken thing.

For every dumbass thing people do on Tiktok there's one that was made up by people who want to get views by making fun of stupid, self-destructive millenials(ignoring that millenials are all middle age or rapidly approaching it now)

----------


## Form

> About the NFT discussion, I'm just going to recommend Folding Ideas' excellent 2-hour-long YouTube essay on the subject and move on.





> Damn, beat me too it.


I've been wanting to link it, but wasn't sure I could...

----------


## Anonymouswizard

I honestly just assumed that everybody here would have seen Dan Olson's brief forray into the subject by now.

His followup, a quick dive into what he calls 'contrepreneurs' is also great.

He now has that personal aesthetic best described as 'hipster dad', and I am sadly old enough to be uncomfortably turned on.

----------


## D&D_Fan

> Keep in mind that a number of TikTok challenges aren't actually a thing: The Tide Pod challenge, for example, was a bunch of people making a joke. No one actually ate any Tide Pods until after the news took the jokes out of context.
> 
> Same with the recent Nyquil Chicken thing.
> 
> For every dumbass thing people do on Tiktok there's one that was made up by people who want to get views by making fun of stupid, self-destructive millenials(ignoring that millenials are all middle age or rapidly approaching it now)


Some challenges are clearly fake, nobody is actually doing the "drive as fast as you can in the dark with your headlights off challenge" but with TikTok, more people are trying the simple ones like skullbreaker, milk crate, cha-cha slide, nutmeg, etc.. becasuse they think they'll get famous. aAd even if some videos are fake, there will always be children who don't know about it being fake and do it anyway. It's just bad things waiting to happen.

----------


## Peelee

In unrelated news, apparently my friends put up on our discord chat a trailer for the film Cocaine Bear, presumably about Pablo Escobear, the animal that ate an unbearable amount of Cocaine and then acted as one might imagine.

----------


## Keltest

> In unrelated news, apparently my friends put up on our discord chat a trailer for the film Cocaine Bear, presumably about Pablo Escobear, the animal that ate an unbearable amount of Cocaine and then acted as one might imagine.


I saw that that existed. I'm not sure why it exists, but it sure exists.

----------


## Peelee

> I saw that that existed. I'm not sure why it exists, but it sure exists.


It's a fun little story, if a bit crazy and dystopian and not very bear-friendly. But I can't imagine it as a movie. They basically have to build an unrelated plot that happens to feature Pablo Escobear.

----------


## LaZodiac

> It's a fun little story, if a bit crazy and dystopian and not very bear-friendly. But I can't imagine it as a movie. They basically have to build an unrelated plot that happens to feature Pablo Escobear.


Real ****, find a way to figure out how the bear got it, the aftermath of the bearscapades, and have it all narrated by Werner Herzog and we've got Grizzly Man 2: The Cocaining.

*Herzog, in his most delightfully deadpan and gentle voice* "This is the bear that will get high."

----------


## Peelee

> Real ****, find a way to figure out how the bear got it, the aftermath of the bearscapades, and have it all narrated by Werner Herzog and we've got Grizzly Man 2: The Cocaining.
> 
> *Herzog, in his most delightfully deadpan and gentle voice* "This is the bear that will get high."


Oh we know exactly how the bear got it. But I'm 100% down for Werner Herzog to be involved in it.

----------


## Rater202

My mom found a box of assorted pre-cut cubes of cookie dough for making Christmas cookies.

Ironically, sugar cookies have the least sugar.

----------


## Peelee

Today I learned about casu martzu cheese, the most dangerous cheese in the world. And I kinda regret learning about it but it was pretty interesting.

Rater, as the biggest cheese afficianado I'm aware of on these board, if you ever have the chance to have this cheese, I strongly recommend against.

----------


## Rater202

> Today I learned about casu martzu cheese, the most dangerous cheese in the world. And I kinda regret learning about it but it was pretty interesting.
> 
> Rater, as the biggest cheese afficianado I'm aware of on these board, if you ever have the chance to have this cheese, I strongly recommend against.


Peelee, mia amiko, I won't eat hotdogs, mayonnaise, or meat off the bone.

Do you _seriously_ think I'm gonna eat live maggots?

----------


## Fyraltari

> Peelee, mia amiko, I won't eat hotdogs, mayonnaise, or meat off the bone.
> 
> Do you _seriously_ think I'm gonna eat live maggots?


As a form of pre-emptive revenge, I think you might.

----------


## Rater202

> As a form of pre-emptive revenge, I think you might.


Would you care to clarify this?

----------


## Peelee

> Peelee, mia amiko, I won't eat hotdogs, mayonnaise, or meat off the bone.


Wait really? Even Hebrew National? Them's good hot dogs. And mayonnaise is (arguably) a mother sauce all its own, and is delightful in general. Especially for grilled cheeses. And as for meat on the bone, even putting aside how that tends to make meats taste better, that means you don't eat ribs? *Ribs*, man! Smoked low and slow for fourteen hours until they're so tender that the meat just falls off the bone, rubbed with the finest of sauces, and you're telling me this culinary creation of pure joy is a bridge too far?!

I think I might need my fainting couch.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Would you care to clarify this?


Maggots will eat you in the end, probably.

----------


## Rater202

> Wait really? Even Hebrew National? Them's good hot dogs. And mayonnaise is (arguably) a mother sauce all its own, and is delightful in general. Especially for grilled cheeses. And as for meat on the bone, even putting aside how that tends to make meats taste better, that means you don't eat ribs? *Ribs*, man! Smoked low and slow for fourteen hours until they're so tender that the meat just falls off the bone, rubbed with the finest of sauces, and you're telling me this culinary creation of pure joy is a bridge too far?!
> 
> I think I might need my fainting couch.


Let m tell you about the time I tried sushi.

Was a simple one, one of those cuts of tuna or salmon on a bed of sticky rice(don't remember which) and it was absolutely desliscous.

Physically could not make myself eat it. It tasted fine, but something about the texture... I literally tried to force myself to swallow it, I could not.

If something does not smell right, does not taste right, does not look right... I can't eat it.

Hot dogs? The smell. Mayonaise, texture and appearance. Both absolutely _disgust_ me.

Meat on the bone... I don't actually know why, all I know is I can't.

I think it's got something to do with the autism but I'm not 100% sure.

----------


## Peelee

> Let m tell you about the time I tried sushi.
> 
> Was a simple one, one of those cuts of tuna or salmon on a bed of sticky rice(don't remember which) and it was absolutely desliscous.
> 
> Physically could not make myself eat it. It tasted fine, but something about the texture... I literally tried to force myself to swallow it, I could not.
> 
> If something does not smell right, does not taste right, does not look right... I can't eat it.
> 
> Hot dogs? The smell. Mayonaise, texture and appearance. Both absolutely _disgust_ me.
> ...


You can't even eat _sushi_?! What a horrid thought.

Also,if it makes any difference, what you had was a sashimi. Many sushis have cooked fish, if the cured fish texture was the issue (can you eat smoked salmon? If not, it was the almost certainly the texture) you could probably still eat other types of rolls.

----------


## Mystic Muse

I hated sushi, then liked it, and now something about the kind I like makes my stomach wail in agony.

----------


## enderlord99

Peelee, why did you add a letter T into the name of the maggot-cheese?

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I love sushi. I especially love eels.  :Smile:

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Today I learned about casu martzu cheese, the most dangerous cheese in the world. And I kinda regret learning about it but it was pretty interesting.


Scurries off to Google... I think I have a new addition to my next cheese board!

Also sushi is amazing. Now it's been brought up I'm going to spend the entire day hankering for nigiri.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Peelee, why did you add a letter T into the name of the maggot-cheese?


Both spellings seem to be in use.

----------


## enderlord99

> Both spellings seem to be in use.


Huh.  Today I learned.

----------


## Rater202

> Scurries off to Google... I think I have a new addition to my next cheese board!


...Live. Maggots.

In. The. Cheese.

*On The-****ing-Purposes!*

Why the hell would you put that abominable crime against cheese in your body?

----------


## Metastachydium

> ...Live. Maggots.
> 
> In. The. Cheese.
> 
> *On The-****ing-Purposes!*


Right? Were I not a FLOWER, I think the thought itself could act as some kind of powerful emetive for me.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> ...Live. Maggots.


Good source of protein.




> In. The. Cheese.


Yep.




> *On The-****ing-Purposes!*


Like I'd eat cheese with accidentally placed larvae.




> Why the hell would you put that abominable crime against cheese in your body?


They're in there for a reason.

As for me personally, I might either refrigerate or bag the cheese before consumption. I'm not sure I want to go through the hassle of holding my hand above my sandwich.

----------


## Amidus Drexel

> ...Live. Maggots.
> 
> In. The. Cheese.
> 
> *On The-****ing-Purposes!*
> 
> Why the hell would you put that abominable crime against cheese in your body?


For the protein, presumably.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Form

> In unrelated news, apparently my friends put up on our discord chat a trailer for the film Cocaine Bear, presumably about Pablo Escobear, the animal that ate an unbearable amount of Cocaine and then acted as 
> one might imagine.


... The Care Bear who partied too hard?




> ...Live. Maggots.
> 
> In. The. Cheese.
> 
> *On The-****ing-Purposes!*
> 
> Why the hell would you put that abominable crime against cheese in your body?


It's apparently the best way to eat it, if not the only safe way to eat it, barring refrigeration. Honestly, the maggots aren't the worst thing about it. I think it has a special exemption from EU food laws because it counts as cultural heritage or something like that. So that you can have some nice rotten, maggot cheese with your baguette.

----------


## Aedilred

Casu marzu is on the list of food (like brains) that I would give a go if I could be assured it was safe. Run-of-the-mill food poisoning is one thing, but I don't fancy having eggs laid inside me by cheese flies, personally, just as I'm not thrilled about the prospect of getting CJD.

Since casu marzu is illegal I doubt it's going to come up, though, just as I'm not often given the chance to eat brain.

----------


## Peelee

> I think it has a special exemption from EU food laws because it counts as cultural heritage or something like that.


It is not and is illegal to purchase in the EU. They are trying to get it certified as cultural but have yet to be successful in doing so. 



> Casu marzu is on the list of food (like brains) that I would give a go if I could be assured it was safe. Run-of-the-mill food poisoning is one thing, but I don't fancy having eggs laid inside me by cheese flies, personally, just as I'm not thrilled about the prospect of getting CJD.


An alternate method of eating it is to put it into a paper bag and let the maggots die. They are jumping maggots and so apparently one can tell when they are all dead in a similar to to telling when the popcorn is done cooking.

----------


## Keltest

I hate everything about this cheese.

----------


## Peelee

> I hate everything about this cheese.


Pft. We haven't even talked about some of the things (though they've been touched on). As briefly mentioned by others, the cheese goes past fermentation into full-on decomposition. It's rotting. The maggots are jumping maggots, so when you eat the cheese with live maggots you typically hold your hand over the cheese to prevent them from jumping onto your face. The maggots are also integral to the cheese making process as they eat and digest the cheese, which is what gives it its paste-like texture - it is soft to the point of being easily spreadable. And to make it, you just start with the base cheese and leave it out until maggots get into it. Once it is thoroughly infested, you cap it and store it in a cool, dry area for several months before it is ready to eat.

There. _Now_ you hate everything about this cheese.

----------


## Rater202

> Pft. We haven't even talked about some of the things (though they've been touched on). As briefly mentioned by others, the cheese goes past fermentation into full-on decomposition. It's rotting. The maggots are jumping maggots, so when you eat the cheese with live maggots you typically hold your hand over the cheese to prevent them from jumping onto your face. The maggots are also integral to the cheese making process as they eat and digest the cheese, which is what gives it its paste-like texture - it is soft to the point of being easily spreadable. And to make it, you just start with the base cheese and leave it out until maggots get into it. Once it is thoroughly infested, you cap it and store it in a cool, dry area for several months before it is ready to eat.
> 
> There. _Now_ you hate everything about this cheese.


At that point can it even be *considered* cheese? You're basically eating bug **** at that point.

If I ever get my hands on a time machine I'm gonna go back and prevent the creation of this monstrosity. The world will be better for having never had it.

----------


## Peelee

> At that point can it even be *considered* cheese?


Yes, apparently.



> You're basically eating bug **** at that point.


Eh. Bee vomit is pretty tasty. Yes, I know, and no, I don't care.

----------


## Rater202

Artistic Opinion:

Once you get passed technical stuff and matters of subjectivity, what breaks down a good song from other songs is content.

Music is ultimately a form of communication, so the best songs are the ones that convey a message or emotion or else that tell a story.

Which is not to say that the song itself has to be coherant: I Am the Walrus is just a bunch of gibberish, but it was written becuase the Beetles wanted to **** with people who were over-analyzing the lyrics to their songs ad you can detect that essence of playfulness in it.

If there's no story, no message, and no feeling to it... It's just sound. Not necessarily noise, not necessarily an _unpleasant_ sound, but not something that's likely to stick in the public consciousness long term, unless it's _very_ catchy or _very_ well done in a technical sense.

----------


## Peelee

> Artistic Opinion:
> 
> Once you get passed technical stuff and matters of subjectivity, what breaks down a good song from other songs is content.
> 
> Music is ultimately a form of communication, so the best songs are the ones that convey a message or emotion or else that tell a story.
> 
> Which is not to say that the song itself has to be coherant: I Am the Walrus is just a bunch of gibberish, but it was written becuase the Beetles wanted to **** with people who were over-analyzing the lyrics to their songs ad you can detect that essence of playfulness in it.
> 
> If there's no story, no message, and no feeling to it... It's just sound. Not necessarily noise, not necessarily an _unpleasant_ sound, but not something that's likely to stick in the public consciousness long term, unless it's _very_ catchy or _very_ well done in a technical sense.


Eh, I disagree. Music is an art, not a communication. Its so subjective because everyone has a different takeaway. Most music is devoid of lyrics. Instrumentals can still convey a story, but that's not the purpose of music. That's just one use of it.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Eh, I disagree. Music is an art, not a communication. Its so subjective because everyone has a different takeaway. Most music is devoid of lyrics. Instrumentals can still convey a story, but that's not the purpose of music. That's just one use of it.


But art is a form of communication. Not necessarily of ideas, like language, but of feelings and emotions.

When Rater speaks of the music piece's "content", I don't think he necessarily means the lyrics.

----------


## D&D_Fan

When it comes to casu marzu, if you don't want to eat too many maggots, you should place the cheese into a sealed bag, and then the maggots will suffocate and jump out of the cheese, alternatively, you can use a refrigerator to kill them. If you eat the cheese when the maggots have died inside it, then it's unsafe, but if they evacuate the cheese first, it is safer.

Then again, the maggots are a novelty and delicacy, I don't know why anyone would want to avoid them. :Small Tongue:

----------


## Rater202

> But art is a form of communication. Not necessarily of ideas, like language, but of feelings and emotions.
> 
> When Rater speaks of the music piece's "content", I don't think he necessarily means the lyrics.


Yeah. Story, message, _or_ emotion.

For my music appreciation final in college, I did an essay on the importance of the stalking theme from _Halloween_, a song that has no lyrics but is basically designed from the most basic levels to steadily increase your sense of anxiety as you listen to it with particular focus on the final scene of the orignal film where Michael has vanished after falling out of the window: Remove the music and it just looks like Myers wandered off to die somewhere but with the music playing over the scene it gives the impression that maybe he really _is_ some invincible Bogeyman with nothing but malevolence in his soul and that he could well come back for another go.

----------


## Peelee

> But art is a form of communication. Not necessarily of ideas, like language, but of feelings and emotions.
> 
> When Rater speaks of the music piece's "content", I don't think he necessarily means the lyrics.


I still disagree. Art is about appreciation. It does not need to communicate anything at all. Art is, essentially, creation. It does not need a message, it does not need to express feelings or emotions. Those can all be gleaned from it, depending on the person and how they interpret it, but it's not necessary for art to exist.

----------


## Fyraltari

> I still disagree. Art is about appreciation. It does not need to communicate anything at all. Art is, essentially, creation. It does not need a message, it does not need to express feelings or emotions. Those can all be gleaned from it, depending on the person and how they interpret it, but it's not necessary for art to exist.


Are we talking about art as in "craft" or as in "fine art"? Because I would agree in the former meaning, but not in the latter.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

I'm honestly not sure how you can create art without trying to communicate something. It might be something as simple as 'the Prince Regent isn't fat' or 'look how ****ing beautiful this sunset is', but that's still an idea.

Part of the fun of appreciating art is breaking it down and trying to work out what the artist was trying to communicate. Of course you can certainly pull unintended messages out, but as brain reading technology hasn't developed yet nobody can know what the actual intended message was (unless the artist comes out and says it, and even then we can get into arguments about memory).

I've listened to You're So Vain many times, and it took like two weeks of fairly constant listening to come to the realisation that it's talking about men caring more about themselves than their partners. It's also very important that the song is talking about *men* and not *a man*, the man in each verse is being used as an example but the song is not about them, and they're dropped for a different example at the end of the chorus.

It's why I'm not overly fond of radio edits of songs like **** You and Don't Marry Her, substitutions for the profanity can completely change the meaning of the song (I mean, it doesn't in Don't Marry Her, but it's less clear).

----------


## LaZodiac

> I'm honestly not sure how you can create art without trying to communicate something. It might be something as simple as 'the Prince Regent isn't fat' or 'look how ****ing beautiful this sunset is', but that's still an idea.
> 
> Part of the fun of appreciating art is breaking it down and trying to work out what the artist was trying to communicate. Of course you can certainly pull unintended messages out, but as brain reading technology hasn't developed yet nobody can know what the actual intended message was (unless the artist comes out and says it, and even then we can get into arguments about memory).
> 
> I've listened to You're So Vain many times, and it took like two weeks of fairly constant listening to come to the realisation that it's talking about men caring more about themselves than their partners. It's also very important that the song is talking about *men* and not *a man*, the man in each verse is being used as an example but the song is not about them, and they're dropped for a different example at the end of the chorus.
> 
> It's why I'm not overly fond of radio edits of songs like **** You and Don't Marry Her, substitutions for the profanity can completely change the meaning of the song (I mean, it doesn't in Don't Marry Her, but it's less clear).


Yeah, this, 100%. If you're not engaging with the media you partake in on at least some level, I'm curious what exactly you're getting out of it.

It's why, as much as people may be against it, I do find value in the MCU. There's intent in them, and you can read it

To clarify; this isn't to say you can't just turn your brain off, relax, and watch something without thinking. But that if there is no reaction at all, beyond even the slightest "I liked it", then what did you even watch or read it for? If your response at the end of something is "that was a story I experienced" then something has gone wrong somewhere.

----------


## Peelee

> I'm honestly not sure how you can create art without trying to communicate something.


Fun. I can play basketball for no communication whatsoever. Bob can watch me play and call that playing art and get some meaning out of it. That does not mean that I was communicating anything. I was bored. I had fun. Someone else looked at it and said "art!". It may not be to you. It is to that person. 



> Yeah, this, 100%. If you're not engaging with the media you partake in


All media is art but not all art is media

----------


## Fyraltari

> Fun. I can play basketball for no communication whatsoever. Bob can watch me play and call that playing art and get some meaning out of it. That does not mean that I was communicating anything. I was bored. I had fun. Someone else looked at it and said "art!". It may not be to you. It is to that person.


But that's art as in "craft", not as in "fine art".

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Fun. I can play basketball for no communication whatsoever


Last time I checked sport was not an art.

Wait, figure skating.

Last time I checked most sports were not an art.

Wait, rugby.

Last time I checked some sports were not an art.

Wait, football.

Last time I checked football was not an art.

----------


## Rater202

> It's why, as much as people may be against it, I do find value in the MCU. There's intent in them, and you can read it


My only problem with the MCU is that it makes weird lore changes that complicate matters when someone who mostly knows the movies tries to get into the comics.

Like, Peter Parker in the MCU is closer to Miles Morales than Comic Peter and his supporting cast was altered to matchNed Leeds in particular is Ganke in all but name. You could replace him with Miles and literally, nothing would change, or, given that Iron Man took the mentor role, replace him with Iron Heart with minimal changes.

And using the infinity stones to tie together certain disparate concepts in the comics into something more streamlined worked... But which stone was responsible for which thing was a weird call. The Space Stone kind of works for the Cosmic Cube analog, especially since the Tesseract isn't anywhere near as potent as the comics version, but the Power Stone would have made more sense for both the inspiration for Arc Reactor technology and Carol's powers, the reality stone would have made more sense for Visions density manipulation and awakening Wanda's chaos magic, and the Eye of Aggamotto did not need to be reduced to a container of the time stone, Strange could have just... _Had_ the time stone and the Eye could have remained an Eye.

Other than that there's no real problem with the movies. They're good movies.

----------


## Keltest

> Last time I checked sport was not an art.
> 
> Wait, figure skating.
> 
> Last time I checked most sports were not an art.
> 
> Wait, rugby.
> 
> Last time I checked some sports were not an art.
> ...


American football maybe, but Association Football from my understanding involves an entire theater production.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> American football maybe, but Association Football from my understanding involves an entire theater production.


Only when you get hot by the opposing team's hair.

Also you say that American Football doesn't involve a theatre production, but I've heard about those halftime shows organised by the Superb Owl.

----------


## Peelee

> Last time I checked sport was not an art.


I say the same thing about Andy Warhol, and yet. Beauty, and art, is in the eye of the beholder.



> My only problem with the MCU is that it makes weird lore changes that complicate matters when someone who mostly knows the movies tries to get into the comics..


Is that something only the comics are allowed to do?  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Fyraltari

> My only problem with the MCU is that it makes weird lore changes that complicate matters when someone who mostly knows the movies tries to get into the comics.


They are indeed adaptations.




> Other than that there's no real problem with the movies. They're good movies.


Meh.

----------


## Rater202

> Is that something only the comics are allowed to do?


It's a matter of degrees, really.

You don't have to understand that characters like Spider-Man and the Hulk are "magic accessed through science"t to get into the comics, but like, MCU Peter is almost a completely different character.

This isn't a problem with the MCU exclusively, mind you. The X-Men Movies and other adaptions of them tend to White-Wash Xavier a bit.

Charles is a good man who means well, genuinely loves all of mankind, and sees the best in all but the most evil of people. Charles also has a tendency for arrogance that borders on narcissism at his worst moments, a lot of skeletons in his closet, and he was the one who first proposed that mutants were the next step in human evolution, not Erik.

The disagreement between Charles and Erik isn't about whether or not mutants are superior. They both more or less agree on that subject.

The fallout came because Charles believes that that superiority comes with a moral obligation to help ordinary humans and that if mutants prove their worth to baseline humans that humans will leave mutants alone and make a place for them while Magneto believes that mutants will always be hated and feared for the ways that they are differant from humans and thus mutants will only be able to live in peace when humans are cowed.

----------


## LaZodiac

I should clarify I brought up the MCU since people consider them pointless media garbage and I contest that they do have value in them, that's all.

----------


## Rater202

> I should clarify I brought up the MCU since people consider them pointless media garbage and I contest that they do have value in them, that's all.


...I have never seen anyone make that criticism of the MCU.

There are people who jump down my throat for the criticisms I have.

----------


## halfeye

I'm not convinced that music is about communication, there are two records that I think of in this connection, the superb "Telestar" by the Tornados, and the appalling "Mouldy old dough" by Lieutenant Pigeon. I think they were both number one hits. There is no sense in the lyrics of either, the first is musical, the second more or less isn't. I don't think communication is part of the appeal of either.

----------


## Fyraltari

> ...I have never seen anyone make that criticism of the MCU.


Would you describe yourself as more or less likely to hang out (including on the Internet) with people who enjoy superhero comic books and and related media than with people who do not?

Because I assure you "the MCU is the cinematographic equivalent of junk food" is a pretty common take.

----------


## LaZodiac

> ...I have never seen anyone make that criticism of the MCU.
> 
> There are people who jump down my throat for the criticisms I have.


You're the only person I've ever seen with complaints of that stripe, and just about everyone I know is riding a Disney hate-train a mile long. And by all means hate Disney, but don't let your reasonable dislike of a company diminish the art people ARE putting into these films.




> I'm not convinced that music is about communication, there are two records that I think of in this connection, the superb "Telestar" by the Tornados, and the appalling "Mouldy old dough" by Lieutenant Pigeon. I think they were both number one hits. There is no sense in the lyrics of either, the first is musical, the second more or less isn't. I don't think communication is part of the appeal of either.


I'd have to listen to those to be sure, but I imagine there's more there than you'd expect. There is always a sense; even the Beetle's most famous nonsense songs were made with the vibe of "let's make something nonsensical", which is in and of itself communicating a point.

For many of them, the point was that they hated Ringo Starr, but I digress.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> You're the only person I've ever seen with complaints of that stripe, and just about everyone I know is riding a Disney hate-train a mile long. And by all means hate Disney, but don't let your reasonable dislike of a company diminish the art people ARE putting into these films.


Indeed, I like some of the stuff Disney puts out, and I wish I could see Star Wars Visions.

But I'm not paying for a freaking subscription to Disney Plus, it has made a lot of terrible theme parks and I'm thankful Walt never realized his dream of making an actual "city of the future", because it would just be a company town under his reportedly control-freak thumb.

----------


## Rater202

Pop-Culture Trivia: In the 1983 television special _Don't Eat the Pictures_, the cast of_ Sesame Street_ get trapped overnight in a museum. Most of the special is just disconnected skits tied together by the setting, but there's a running plot line of Big Bird and Snuffy befriending the ghost of a young Egyptian prince who has been cursed to be unable to enter the afterlife until he solves the riddle posed by a demon. He's been stranded on the earth, alone, separated from all of his loved ones for well over 4300 years.

Over the course of a single night, Big Bird helps the boy solve the riddle and defeat the demon, and then when the Egyptian God of the Underworld denies the boy entry into the afterlife _anyway_ because his heart is too heavy Big Bird rips into him with such intensity that the God reconsiders.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Pop-Culture Trivia: In the 1983 television special _Don't Eat the Pictures_, the cast of_ Sesame Street_ get trapped overnight in a museum. Most of the special is just disconnected skits tied together by the setting, but there's a running plot line of Big Bird and Snuffy befriending the ghost of a young Egyptian prince who has been cursed to be unable to enter the afterlife until he solves the riddle posed by a demon. He's been stranded on the earth, alone, separated from all of his loved ones for well over 4300 years.
> 
> Over the course of a single night, Big Bird helps the boy solve the riddle and defeat the demon, and then when the Egyptian God of the Underworld denies the boy entry into the afterlife _anyway_ because his heart is too heavy Big Bird rips into him with such intensity that the God reconsiders.


My poisoned mind read this and immediately summoned up the image of Big Bird being the host of Pharaoh Atem instead of Yugi.

----------


## Rater202

> My poisoned mind read this and immediately summoned up the image of Big Bird being the host of Pharaoh Atem instead of Yugi.


God damn it, that mental image is gonna be haunting me all night.

----------


## Form

> Over the course of a single night, Big Bird helps the boy solve the riddle and defeat the demon, and then when the Egyptian God of the Underworld denies the boy entry into the afterlife _anyway_ because his heart is too heavy Big Bird rips into him with such intensity that the God reconsiders.


Ah yes, of course. Big Bird. Well known for his boundless rage against the heavens, his willingness to cast the gods down and topple their thrones. I admire his blasphemy, if only for its mad ambition. I wonder how much more hardcore Sesame Street truly is.

----------


## Peelee

> Ah yes, of course. Big Bird. Well known for his boundless rage against the heavens, his willingness to cast the gods down and topple their thrones. I admire his blasphemy, if only for its mad ambition. I wonder how much more hardcore Sesame Street truly is.


Are you saying that you _don't_ think a character from a children's show aimed at preschoolers and kindergarteners would get into an epic verbal smackdown with a primal force of nature itself? Bah! I suppose you think that Big Bird just gave a mildly stern talking-to. Next thing you know I'll hear people claim that the Count is not a blood-soaked sociopath that has turned the entire bario into his sexual slaves.

----------


## Aedilred

> I'd have to listen to those to be sure, but I imagine there's more there than you'd expect. There is always a sense; even the Beetle's most famous nonsense songs were made with the vibe of "let's make something nonsensical", which is in and of itself communicating a point.
> 
> For many of them, the point was that they hated Ringo Starr, but I digress.


And yet, I always had the impression that Ringo, within the band, was the least disliked of the members.
(Taking them as a four-piece. I'm presuming they liked Pete less than Ringo, and I don't know how George felt about Stu, although I gather Stu and Paul had some issues.)

----------


## LaZodiac

> And yet, I always had the impression that Ringo, within the band, was the least disliked of the members.
> (Taking them as a four-piece. I'm presuming they liked Pete less than Ringo, and I don't know how George felt about Stu, although I gather Stu and Paul had some issues.)


I always forget who it was that was disliked, just I have the memory of Maxwell's Silver Hammer being made specifically to spite that person over Octopus's Garden.

----------


## Aedilred

> I always forget who it was that was disliked, just I have the memory of Maxwell's Silver Hammer being made specifically to spite that person over Octopus's Garden.


I hadn't heard that story, although both those songs were written when the band was breaking apart. By that point, John and Paul were going in increasingly different directions. John wanted to push the experimental envelope, producing stuff like _Revolution 9_, while Paul was doing straightforward melodious cod-nursery-rhymes like _Ob-La-Di_ and _Maxwell_ ("granny music", as John called it). The other three (who wrote or assisted with writing _Octopus_) hated _Maxwell_. I don't think either song was written specifically to spite anyone, but I imagine Paul wrote _Maxwell_ knowing John would hate it.

During the _Abbey Road_ recordings, to my understanding, John and Paul pretty much hated each other, Paul and George had fallen out, and Ringo was pretty much sitting around sadly chilling, knowing the band was breaking up and unable to do anything about it.

----------


## Peelee

I just noticed that factotum last logged in at the end of October.

Godspeed, sir.

----------


## Fyraltari

> I just noticed that factotum last logged in at the end of October.
> 
> Godspeed, sir.


Well, I was already sad today, anyway.

----------


## LaZodiac

Few things are as sad as the unfortunate reality of some online relationships.

Sometimes that little light just isn't going to turn on again, and you'll only notice when it's far to late to reach out.

----------


## Jasdoif

> Would you describe yourself as more or less likely to hang out (including on the Internet) with people who enjoy superhero comic books and and related media than with people who do not?
> 
> Because I assure you "the MCU is the cinematographic equivalent of junk food" is a pretty common take.


Indeed, that's a pretty common take among the people I know who _used_ to thoroughly enjoy the MCU.  They all agree that the MCU was excellent, though having a few hiccups, until _Endgame_ dropped the ball on the writing...opinions diverge from there, most notably on whether _Endgame_ itself is good despite that, but the general consensus is that the ball continued dropping, penetrating the planet's crust and revealing a layer of excreta.


(If anyone's like me, and wants to get a sense of what everyone's talking about without having the motivation to actually watch a big bunch of movies or shows, this thorough treatment of Endgame, with some background on the MCU up to that point, is well worth the two hours)

----------


## Bartmanhomer

By the power of Hlal the Laughing Dragon Goddess, this isn't cute anymore. So anyway my pen pal made a post on the internet forum saying that she got COVID! I post a comment saying that my friend and his whole family got COVID a few days ago. I hope she feels better. Also in related news, can we all admit that the pandemic isn't fake? I mean seriously this isn't funny anymore. People are starting to get sick once again.😫😫😫😫😫

----------


## Anonymouswizard

I don't think there's a single person in this thread who thinks of the pandemic as fake or promotes the idea. I don't even hear such stuff in meatspace anymore, although I do occasionally have to hear 'COVID can't melt steel beams' level conspiracy theory anti-vaccine rubbish. Of which the only proof ever offered is videos on YouTube, along with claims that 'top scientists have been shut up' and that COVID isn't really that harmful.

Now here's the thing, I know somebody who used to do actual medical research, and now does astrophysics research. At an actual university. I suspect if top scientists were actually being shut up I'd have heard it through the grapevine by now. As it is I'll trust the people with the training to understand the peer reviewed biological papers when they say that the risk of a blood clot is vastly smaller than that of COVID death.


I've got a contact lens arriving in a month, so I'm thinking of applying to start an Open University masters in computer science. Maybe once it's finished I'll see if I can go from there to studying for a PhD, maybe I'll just use it to help me change careers.

----------


## enderlord99

I don't know for sure, but I heard the clot risk only applies at all if it's administered incorrectly.

----------


## Rater202

Comic Book Trivia: In keeping with their status as artificially created beings designed for a specific purpose, Marvel's Eternals tend to refer to themselves with machine and computer terminology.

For example, an Eternal's inborn psychic defenses are referred to as a firewall, Eternal bodies are described as intuitive, and a telepath puppeting an eternal is compared to playing a videogame.

----------


## Peelee

> By the power of Hlal the Laughing Dragon Goddess, this isn't cute anymore. So anyway my pen pal made a post on the internet forum saying that she got COVID! I post a comment saying that my friend and his whole family got COVID a few days ago. I hope she feels better. Also in related news, can we all admit that the pandemic isn't fake? I mean seriously this isn't funny anymore. People are starting to get sick once again.😫😫😫😫😫


When was getting COVID cute?

----------


## Metastachydium

Yeah. The bigger issue 'round my parts is that nobody seems to remember it's a thing anymore. Granted, Europe does have, khm, other stuff to attend to right now.

----------


## Peelee

> Yeah. The bigger issue 'round my parts is that nobody seems to remember it's a thing anymore. Granted, Europe does have, khm, other stuff to attend to right now.


Ya know, I never knew you were European. And I can't even do my standard "hello, fellow EU citizen!" because I don't know if that's accurate.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> When was getting COVID cute?


I was being melodramatic.  :Sigh:

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> ...I have never seen anyone make that criticism of the MCU.


{scrubbed}

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> I don't think there's a single person in this thread who thinks of the pandemic as fake or promotes the idea. I don't even hear such stuff in meatspace anymore, although I do occasionally have to hear 'COVID can't melt steel beams' level conspiracy theory anti-vaccine rubbish. Of which the only proof ever offered is videos on YouTube, along with claims that 'top scientists have been shut up' and that COVID isn't really that harmful.
> 
> Now here's the thing, I know somebody who used to do actual medical research, and now does astrophysics research. At an actual university. I suspect if top scientists were actually being shut up I'd have heard it through the grapevine by now. As it is I'll trust the people with the training to understand the peer reviewed biological papers when they say that the risk of a blood clot is vastly smaller than that of COVID death.
> 
> 
> I've got a contact lens arriving in a month, so I'm thinking of applying to start an Open University masters in computer science. Maybe once it's finished I'll see if I can go from there to studying for a PhD, maybe I'll just use it to help me change careers.


Well, I'm glad that everyone is very reasonable about this subject. Anyway, I'm happy that I have a great day today. Just to let everyone know, I weigh 184 pounds now. I'm still exercising and working out. I got muscles like the Pokemon, Machamp.  :Smile:

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> Well, I'm glad that everyone is very reasonable about this subject. Anyway, I'm happy that I have a great day today. Just to let everyone know, I weigh 184 pounds now. I'm still exercising and working out. I got muscles like the Pokemon, Machamp.


That's excellent! But have you reached the stage in your training where you grow two additional arms?  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> That's excellent! But have you reached the stage in your training where you grow two additional arms?


Yes.  :Wink:

----------


## Metastachydium

> Ya know, I never knew you were European. And I can't even do my standard "hello, fellow EU citizen!" because I don't know if that's accurate.


_And_ I'm not going to tell! _[Fit of psychotic laughter.]_

----------


## Peelee

> _And_ I'm not going to tell! _[Fit of psychotic laughter.]_


That's ok, I'll just assume you're a cross between Roman and Romanian. Romanish, if you will.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

It occurred to me earlier today, my reaction to a lot of the more recent Warhammer 40k plot developments are in essence the same as the memetic reaction to the Star Wars prequels. I guess this means I should probably give the developments another look, even if I'll likely still prefer M41 to M42.

Just a thought that made me giggle. (Also I finally get good eyesight soon, might celebrate with some Sisters of Battle.)

----------


## Fyraltari

> That's ok, I'll just assume you're a cross between Roman and Romanian. Romanish, if you will.


Ho do the Romani fit into this?



> It occurred to me earlier today, my reaction to a lot of the more recent Warhammer 40k plot developments are in essence the same as the memetic reaction to the Star Wars prequels. I guess this means I should probably give the developments another look, even if I'll likely still prefer M41 to M42.
> 
> Just a thought that made me giggle. (Also I finally get good eyesight soon, might celebrate with some Sisters of Battle.)


Any thought on ol' Bale Eye croaking?

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Any thought on ol' Bale Eye croaking?


Yarrick's dead? Huh. Honestly never had a particular attachment to him, but it's annoying at a time where the Space Marines are getting more powerful.

Also like, I only just seriously got back into 40k (originally because my ex was as well), so I've not actually read the new novels. But taking a step back I can see how the lore changes appeal to the kids the game is aimed at. I don't particularly like them, but I do remember being 14 and thinking that Space Marines are cool.

Of course now I'm 28 and seriously considering painting a Soriatas army. Probably in light grey or blue rather than black, but still the cool ladies with guns. Although atm I'm mostly waiting on my new contact lens, then I need to finish my Guardsmen and then paint like two dozen cultists in the hopes of running a Wrath & Glory game.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Yarrick's dead? Huh. Honestly never had a particular attachment to him, but it's annoying at a time where the Space Marines are getting more powerful.


Yeah, a page of the Imperial Guard's codex has gone around on the internet. It shows his skull on an altar and an Imperial litany literally chanting his praises (the none-redacted ones at least) and stating that he died but not making clear how. Angron's new model has a skull necklace, one of wich has an artificial left eye, so lots of people think that's what happened, and are hoping for an Angron vs Ghazkhull fight down the line.




> Also like, I only just seriously got back into 40k (originally because my ex was as well), so I've not actually read the new novels. But taking a step back I can see how the lore changes appeal to the kids the game is aimed at. I don't particularly like them, but I do remember being 14 and thinking that Space Marines are cool.


I've necer played and don't intend to (cocaine sounds more affordable) so my engagement with the franchise basically ends with Alfabusa' TTS serie and a couple of books.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Yeah, a page of the Imperial Guard's codex has gone around on the internet. It shows his skull on an altar and an Imperial litany literally chanting his praises (the none-redacted ones at least) and stating that he died but not making clear how. Angron's new model has a skull necklace, one of wich has an artificial left eye, so lots of people think that's what happened, and are hoping for an Angron vs Ghazkhull fight down the line.


What the ****?

Marneus Calgar would not have been killed off without a story, and Yarrick is effectively the Guard's version of Calgar (Creedis Gulliman). But Yarrick gets killed off in passing, not even in a final dramatic duel with Ghazkhull?

If Angron has killed him I think he's signed his death warrant. Ghazkhull will utterly curbstomp him for denying the franchise's greatest rivalry its proper orky conclusion.




> I've necer played and don't intend to (cocaine sounds more affordable) so my engagement with the franchise basically ends with Alfabusa' TTS serie and a couple of books.


Back when I originally started the minis were actually reasonably priced, but that was a decade and a half ago. They've slowly increased since then*, to the point that the only reason I'm getting them is nostalgia. From what I can tell the actual wargame's become a horrible mess, but as I'm willing to run RPGs in the setting having a variety of actual figures will be useful.

On the flip side painting is fun. If you can get minis from a more reasonably priced range I recommend it. I'm intentionally painting slowly to save that little bit of money (although it's on hold until I get my lens and some feldgrau).

* Even taking inflation into account

----------


## Bartmanhomer

So anyway, I haven't been focusing on my online dating search for quite a while because I was focusing on writing my Degrassi stories and I'm on Degrassi Discord Server where I told them about my original characters and my Degrassi stories that I published on Wattpad and they like it.  :Smile:

----------


## Metastachydium

> That's ok, I'll just assume you're a cross between Roman and Romanian.


Eheu! Cur edepol id existimes?




> Romanish, if you will.


_Curque_ id erit tibi faciendum?! Ei! Dolor est mihi nomen! _[Gemitus.]_




> How do the Romani fit into this?


Their own language is also Indo-European and some of their groups throughout Eastern Europe apparently speak an archaic dialect of Romanian?

----------


## enderlord99

Is this one of those situations where I'm allowed to link the rules or one of those situations where I'm not allowed to link the rules?

EDIT:  ...Not that anyone has broken them, or anything.  I didn't mean to imply that.  Please don't ban me.

----------


## D&D_Fan

Went to a book store, and in the used books section, they had a few WH40k codexes. They had Chaos Knights for 20 bucks, and I checked the price online, and that store had it for less than half price or maybe almost 1/3rd price (online prices are 39-54 dollars or so), and it's not even a big book, it was only like, 72 pages. I see what you guys mean, this stuff's expensive, and that's just the book, the miniature sets are hundreds of dollars.

----------


## Mystic Muse

> Went to a book store, and in the used books section, they had a few WH40k codexes. They had Chaos Knights for 20 bucks, and I checked the price online, and that store had it for less than half price or maybe almost 1/3rd price (online prices are 39-54 dollars or so), and it's not even a big book, it was only like, 72 pages. I see what you guys mean, this stuff's expensive, and that's just the book, the miniature sets are hundreds of dollars.


Those are most likely codexes for prior editions to boot. So they're functionally worthless unless you have a very strange area or just want the fluff.

----------


## Ionathus

We went cross-country skiing this weekend! First time this season; feels good to be back on the trails. I was a little worried about my skill level (just started last year) but all went well and I didn't even fall down once. I love winter so this is a big milestone of the changing seasons.

Decorated our christmas tree yesterday, too. Break out the eggnog.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Those are most likely codexes for prior editions to boot. So they're functionally worthless unless you have a very strange area or just want the fluff.


You're acting like the fluff isn't the  best part of those books.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Their own language is also Indo-European and some of their groups throughout Eastern Europe apparently speak an archaic dialect of Romanian?


I know, I was keeping Peelee's joke going.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

So anyway today I was at the store minding my own business when there was a serious fight between a homeless man and one of the employees who work at the store. The employee was stopping the homeless man from stealing items. I move away far away as possible. The homeless man give the employee a bloody nose and he ran out of the store.  :Eek:

----------


## Mystic Muse

Bartmanhomer, kind of a random question. 

Do you have a particular diet or workout routine you follow? 

Been wanting to get in shape and it's hard.

----------


## Peelee

> So anyway today I was at the store minding my own business when there was a serious fight between a homeless man and one of the employees who work at the store. The employee was stopping the homeless man from stealing items. I move away far away as possible. The homeless man give the employee a bloody nose and he ran out of the store.


Employee shoulda called the cops and left it at that. For, just, _so many_ reasons. 



> Bartmanhomer, kind of a random question. 
> 
> Do you have a particular diet or workout routine you follow? 
> 
> Been wanting to get in shape and it's hard.


My personal trainer says that you gain muscle in the gym and lose weight in the kitchen.

----------


## Mystic Muse

> My personal trainer says that you gain muscle in the gym and lose weight in the kitchen.


I'm trying. I'm eating better and less, (at least I think), and still just not making much progress. 

As far as exercise goes, it's freaking cold right now qhich makes me not want to head to the gym, and I live in a third floor apartment, so some of the better exercises I would have available are not available. 

Still gonna try to figured out a way to jump rope consistently, and keep up mild home exercises (squats, lunges, using my one dumbbell for some weight lifting).

----------


## Peelee

> I'm trying. I'm eating better and less, (at least I think), and still just not making much progress. 
> 
> As far as exercise goes, it's freaking cold right now qhich makes me not want to head to the gym, and I live in a third floor apartment, so some of the better exercises I would have available are not available. 
> 
> Still gonna try to figured out a way to jump rope consistently, and keep up mild home exercises (squats, lunges, using my one dumbbell for some weight lifting).


Big breakfast and smaller dinner were also his recommendations. The agency I'm going for agrees, but they're less concerned with weight loss and more concerned with general fitness.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Bartmanhomer, kind of a random question. 
> 
> Do you have a particular diet or workout routine you follow? 
> 
> Been wanting to get in shape and it's hard.


Well here's my exercise routine:

Day 1: Push-Ups, Squats, Upper Body and Stretches for 30 minutes.

Day 2: Push-Ups, Squats, Lower Body and Stretches for 30 minutes.

Day 3: Same thing for Day 1 for 30 minutes.

Day 4: Break Day.

Day 5: Same thing for Day 2 for 30 minutes.

And the cycle all over again. I hope this helps.  :Smile:

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> Employee shoulda called the cops and left it at that. For, just, _so many_ reasons.


Ironically, got to experience some of that (employees and others calling the police) this weekend. It was a very surreal experience for me, although I will decline to post the details. (No, it did not involve cops being called on me.)

----------


## Keltest

> Ironically, got to experience some of that (employees and others calling the police) this weekend. It was a very surreal experience for me, although I will decline to post the details. (No, it did not involve cops being called on me.)


Ive been on the opposite end, witnessing cops called on an employee. If the store has good security cameras, its usually fine. But people have the capacity to be absolutely awful over trivialities, and I really wish I could just defenestrate some of them.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> Ive been on the opposite end, witnessing cops called on an employee. If the store has good security cameras, its usually fine. But people have the capacity to be absolutely awful over trivialities, and I really wish I could just defenestrate some of them.


Yeah, the spurious alternative is appalling. I will confirm that this was not a case of people calling the police for groundless reasons.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

Another fun fact about me: A few years ago I used to be overweight about 245 lbs but I lost weight and to this day I'm 184 lbs now.  :Smile:

----------


## Rater202

If we're sharing fun facts: I was diagnosed with autism because I was part of a study of autistic children... In the control group.

They realized right quick that I wasn't where I was supposed to be.

Then the study moved to a differant university a few states away so nothing ultimately came of it on my end.

----------


## D&D_Fan

my own super combat training workout 9000

*Spoiler: warning: very advanced and strenuous and cool*
Show

 daunting warmup:
20 pushups or wall pushups, whichever you can do
20 squats
walk or bike at least a half mile

brutal powerful hand to foot training:
20 roundhouse kicks right leg
20 roundhouse kicks left leg
10 front kicks right leg
10 front kicks left leg
10 side kicks right leg
10 side kicks left leg
20 kick blocks right arm
20 kick blocks left arm
20 hooks right arm
20 hooks left arm
20 hook blocks right arm
20 hook blocks left arm
20 jabs right arm
20 jab blocks right arm
20 jabs left arm
20 jab blocks left arm
10 leopard punch right arm
10 leopard punch left arm
10 haymakers right arm
10 haymakers left arm
10 backfists right arm
10 backfists left arm
10 lunge punches right arm
10 lunge punches left arm
10 uppercuts right arm
10 uppercuts left arm
10 falls and recoveries
5 rolls to the right
5 rolls to the left
5 somersaults
5 jumps to the right and 5 to the left, do this twice
5 jumps up, 5 ducks down
5 jumps back

epic deadly super weapon training: (use the correct hands, the ones you'll actually use)
10 stabs
10 stab parries
10 side strikes
10 side strike parries
10 blade lunges
read safety manual and familiarize yourself with basic gun/bow safety
shoot from standing 20 times
shoot from kneeling 20 times
shoot from prone position 20 times
you will have to reload during the exercise, but practice reloading another 2 or 3 times as well
duck behind cover 25 times
shoot from behind cover 20 times
10 pistol whips/stock strikes if applicable, you can't really do this with a bow
throw an item directly at something 20 times
throw an item over a wall 20 times
roll an item across the ground 20 times
jump on the floor 5 times

cool cooldown:
do jumping jacks or something
lie on the floor
cry
drink some water
take a nap

ok that's enough training, I don't know how useful it would be in real combat, but it is a workout anyway I think, and it's definitely doable


the appeal of this is that it's exercise but it's also cool

update: for some clarification, this isn't a very good workout in actuality, it doesn't really have enough core stuff, and as fighting training it's not that great either, it's just meant to be mock-bad##s but in an actual fight there are some skills missing in this workout, like getting out of grabs and other skills
you can try it, but it will really only be a workout for your arms and legs, and also some endurance, but like I said, not a lot of core exercise

*Spoiler: epic improvements to imrprove things*
Show

if you want to improve it, just add:
 20 situps
2 minutes of plank
20 bicycle crunch
and 10 times escape headlock
10 times escape arm grab right arm
10 times escape arm grab left arm
10 times escape leg grab right leg
10 times escape leg grab left leg
20 times catch thrown object (improves coordination)


drink water

then it will be more balanced and useful I think

----------


## Form

Back when I exercised almost every day I followed a set of youtube workout videos. There's a bunch of them out there in varying intensity. 

... Then after about half a year I stopped doing it because it was kind of making me miserable at that point. Building muscle is hard.




> Another fun fact about me: A few years ago I used to be overweight about 245 lbs but I lost weight and to this day I'm 184 lbs now.


A little under 30kg of weight loss. That is an impressive amount.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> A little under 30kg of weight loss. That is an impressive amount.


Thank you. After losing so much weight, I feel so much better and I'm continuing to work out and eat healthy foods to this day. Of course, I do eat junk food now and then but not that much.  :Smile:

----------


## BisectedBrioche

I need to get back into using Ring Fit

----------


## Rater202

Comic Book Trivia: The Joker once framed himself for a murder committed by someone else, in a context that got him sentenced to death, while making sure that Batman knew the truth but wouldn't be able to prove it.

His goal in this was to see whether Batman would let him die knowing it would be a miscarriage of justice or find the real killer and prove his "innocence" even though it would mean that he would go on to commit more crimes in the future. By the Joker's logic, either would be a compromise of batman's morals.

Naturally, Bruce does find the real killer, but he doens't see the contradiction: No matter what the Joker's done, it wouldn't be just for him to die for someone else's crime and if the Joker is executed for the murder than the real killer evades justice.

He also points out that, by saving the Joker's life, the Joker owes him when the clown taunts him about it.

----------


## Fyraltari

> He also points out that, by saving the Joker's life, the Joker owes him when the clown taunts him about it.


Since when does good ol' Joe Ker care about that?

----------


## Rater202

> Since when does good ol' Joe Ker care about that?


The Joker is almost pathologically obsessed with "beating" Batman.

If he owes Batman his life, that's something that Batman has over him.

In practical matters it's worthless... But that knowledge will always be in the back of his head

----------


## Form

> Comic Book Trivia: The Joker once framed himself for a murder committed by someone else, *in a context that got him sentenced to death*, while making sure that Batman knew the truth but wouldn't be able to prove it.


The Joker hasn't done any murders himself that would get him sentenced to death? I thought the Joker was supposed to be a particularly heinous arch criminal of sorts, so I find it kind of odd that his own crimes apparently don't get him sentenced to death? Or does he get the death penalty all the time, but breaks out every time?

----------


## Peelee

> or find the real killer and prove his "innocence" even though it would mean that he would go on to commit more crimes in the future.


Unless this is some alternate universe where it's the first time the Joker has been remanded to state custody, then no, he doesn't get to go free regardless of what Batman finds. Whether the Joker can escape or not is irrelevant since if that compromised Batman's morality then any time he captures Joker and he isn't out to death his morality is compromised. We know this is not the case.

That comic sounds like an excellent case for the writers to not write about legal systems.

----------


## Rater202

> Unless this is some alternate universe where it's the first time the Joker has been remanded to state custody, then no, he doesn't get to go free regardless of what Batman finds.


It has been well established that the Joker can easily escape from captivity. The logic is that if the Joker isn't executed he'll eventually escape.

Edit "You're the reason I'm not dead, therefore you bear responsibility for anything I do in the future" is the Joker's argument.

----------


## Peelee

> "You're the reason I'm not dead, therefore you bear responsibility for anything I do in the future" is the Joker's argument.


Cool. Then Batman is morally compromised every time he captures the Joker and this is a stupid scheme with absolutely no payoff.

----------


## Keltest

> Cool. Then Batman is morally compromised every time he captures the Joker and this is a stupid scheme with absolutely no payoff.


Eh, I can see some payoff in "You proactively saved my life" as opposed to "you did not interfere one way or the other and I lived" which would work on certain people like Superman. Probably not Batman though, his principles are based as much on fear of himself as a firm sense of justice or whatever.

----------


## Peelee

> Eh, I can see some payoff in "You proactively saved my life" as opposed to "you did not interfere one way or the other and I lived" which would work on certain people like Superman. Probably not Batman though, his principles are based as much on fear of himself as a firm sense of justice or whatever.


Batman proactively saves the Joker not infrequently. This scheme puts him at risk of death to get Batman to do something he already does. Again, no payoff here.

ETA: offhand, The Dark Knight film, Arkaham Asylum game, Arkaham Origins game, Arkaham City game.

----------


## Rater202

> Cool. Then Batman is morally compromised every time he captures the Joker and this is a stupid scheme with absolutely no payoff.


It's almost like it was cooked up by a mentally ill, narcissistic sociopath who chronically fails to understand that the whole rest of the world doesn't think as he does.

----------


## Peelee

> It's almost like it was cooked up by a mentally ill, narcissistic sociopath who chronically fails to understand that the whole rest of the world doesn't think as he does.


It's almost as if it was cooked up by supposedly competent writers trying to write a mentally ill sociopath but who instead deliver a story that doesn't make sense.

----------


## Fyraltari

> If he owes Batman his life, that's something that Batman has over him.


Since when does the Joker care about what he owes people?




> In practical matters it's worthless... But that knowledge will always be in the back of his head


He already owes Batman his life as the Joker by way of chemical bath, this is very odd.

Also, what Peelee said.



> ETA: offhand, The Dark Knight film, Arkaham Asylum game, Arkaham Origins game, Arkaham City game.


Don't know about any "Arkaham" game but in _Batman: Arkham Asylum_, Batman does not save Joker's life since it isn't in any danger.
He doesn't in _Arkham: City_ either, but he does say that he would have. Ironically, the reason he couldn't is precisely because the Joker didn't believe he would.

----------


## Peelee

> Don't know about any "Arkaham" game but in _Batman: Arkham Asylum_, Batman does not save Joker's life since it isn't in any danger.
> He doesn't in _Arkham: City_ either, but he does say that he would have. Ironically, the reason he couldn't is precisely because the Joker didn't believe he would.


1.) cmon man, knocking me for my phones autocorrect?
2.) Right, I nisremembered AA.
3.) AC's actual effort and result I see as irrelevant/semantic, as it was very clear and inarguable how Batman would have acted. And I was trying to avoid spoilers and didn't think of any better way at the time.

----------


## Rater202

As an aside: The Joker has on multiple occasions tried to get Batman to kill him. Because if Batman breaks his one rule, then the Joker wins. Going back to the plan, if Batman knows that the Joker isn't guilty of the crime he's going to be executed for then in The Joker's mind that makes Batman guilty of murdering him.

----------


## Fyraltari

> 1.) cmon man, knocking me for my phones autocorrect?


Why is Arakham in your autocorrect?



> 2.) Right, I nisremembered AA.


Funnily, that last punch really ought to have killed him.



> 3.) AC's actual effort and result I see as irrelevant/semantic, as it was very clear and inarguable how Batman would have acted. And I was trying to avoid spoilers and didn't think of any better way at the time.


I don't know, the fact that Batman just, stands there pondering it for a hot minute, implies that he really might have not and may have say that purely to mess with Joker.
Also, in a DLC for _Knight_, the player is straight-up offered the choice whether or not to save another villain and letting the man die doesn't result in a game-over or anything, meaning that Arkhamverse Batman may ultimately decide that he's fine with letting the worst of the worst die.

And since we're on the subject,
Pop-culture Trivia: while the Joker's name is left untranslated in French*, the same isn't true of his (arguable) Marvel counterpart, the Green Goblin. His name in French? _Le Bouffon Vert_, which one might translate as "The Green Joker".

*Probably because that card is also called "_un joker_" in French.

----------


## Peelee

> Why is Arakham in your autocorrect?


An excellent question for another day I have no idea whatsoever. 



> I don't know, the fact that Batman just, stands there pondering it for a hot minute, implies that he really might have not and may have say that purely to mess with Joker.
> Also, in a DLC for _Knight_, the player is straight-up offered the choice whether or not to save another villain and letting the man die doesn't result in a game-over or anything, meaning that Arkhamverse Batman may ultimately decide that he's fine with letting the worst of the worst die.
> 
> And since we're on the subject,
> Pop-culture Trivia: while the Joker's name is left untranslated in French*, the same isn't true of his (arguable) Marvel counterpart, the Green Goblin. His name in French? _Le Bouffon Vert_, which one might translate as "The Green Joker".
> 
> *Probably because that card is also called "_un joker_" in French.


I don't recall the exact minute of that scene but I don't recall doubting for a second Batman would have.

Also, what DLC for Knight was that? I generally enjoyed that game but really hated the "you have a car so a ton of things are now car-based even though it makes no sense narratively" parts.



> As an aside: The Joker has on multiple occasions tried to get Batman to kill him. Because if Batman breaks his one rule, then the Joker wins. Going back to the plan, if Batman knows that the Joker isn't guilty of the crime he's going to be executed for then in The Joker's mind that makes Batman guilty of murdering him.


What? No it doesn't. Not in any reasonable legal or ethical sense. "in Joker's mind," maybe, but why would Batman give two ****s about what the Joker considers valid?

----------


## Rater202

> the same isn't true of his (arguable) Marvel counterpart, the Green Goblin.


Eh, depends which Goblin.

Edit: Peelee, the Batman franchise is a character-driven narrative. The various neuroses and motivations of the character are more important than objective legalities.

If Batman breaks his One Rule, it would break him. The Joker knows this, so if he makes Batman break that rule, he wins. and if it costs him his life, that's just part of the game.

Batman, meanwhile, has a very strongly defined sense of right and wrong. It wouldn't just be the Joker who believed that Batman was a murderer if he let someone die for someone else's crime.

----------


## LaZodiac

And this is why I'm, more or less, tired of the Joker as a character, and why the Harley and Ivy show is the best piece of Batman media since Lego Batman.

To elaborate: the scale and scope of the Joker needs to stay small because the longer he exists, the more prolific he becomes, stretches the credulity of the work to far. He is a character that absorbs a lot of really bad writing, and after a certain point just Stops Being Interesting, and within the context of the story he basically only is allowed to continue because Comics Don't End Ever. Status Quo is god, so this guy just, will never stop in any way.

----------


## Peelee

> If Batman breaks his One Rule, it would break him. The Joker knows this, so if he makes Batman break that rule, he wins. and if it costs him his life, that's just part of the game.


I don't get what that has to do with anything I said. Why should Batman care about whether or not an, as you put it, mentally ill, narcissistic sociopath thinks Batman broke Batemans rule that Batman made for himself? Only Batman gets to decide that.

----------


## Rater202

> And this is why I'm, more or less, tired of the Joker as a character, and why the Harley and Ivy show is the best piece of Batman media since Lego Batman.


Totally, valid. Harley gets actual character development while the Joker is trapped in his own neuroses.

...She was also a complete accident. She was made up for an episode of Batman the Animated series, for a scene that was ultimately cut. They decided to keep the generic minion design though and... Yeah.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I don't get what that has to do with anything I said. Why should Batman care about whether or not an, as you put it, mentally ill, narcissistic sociopath thinks Batman broke Batemans rule that Batman made for himself? Only Batman gets to decide that.


The premise is that Joker is aware of Batman's one rule, and that it's a thing Batman cannot and will not break. Flatly, it's just a desire to crush his spirit in some way, going all the way back to the Killing Joke.




> Totally, valid. Harley gets actual character development while the Joker is trapped in his own neuroses.
> 
> ...She was also a complete accident. She was made up for an episode of Batman the Animated series, for a scene that was ultimately cut. They decided to keep the generic minion design though and... Yeah.


I'm well aware of her origin, yeah.

Honestly the way they've played Joker in the Harley and Ivy show is great, because it's a show that has relentlessly told the status quo to eat pant. Characters grow and change and evolve and you know there isn't going to be some sort of retcon waiting around the corner to **** everything up because we Need More Money.

----------


## Peelee

> The premise is that Joker is aware of Batman's one rule, and that it's a thing Batman cannot and will not break. Flatly, it's just a desire to crush his spirit in some way, going all the way back to the Killing Joke.


Yeah, but knowing about the rule doesn't mean he knows exactly how batman applies it (eg if he may be unable to free joker form being executed counts as "murdering" joker, which again, is entirely unreasonable).

----------


## Rater202

> I don't get what that has to do with anything I said. Why should Batman care about whether or not an, as you put it, mentally ill, narcissistic sociopath thinks Batman broke Batemans rule that Batman made for himself? Only Batman gets to decide that.


1: Batman's strongly encoded sense of right and wrong means that chances are, he'd consider it a violation if he let somoene die for a crime they did not commit.

2: Strictly speaking, it doens't.

But when talking about the Joker's motivations, what he believes will happen is more important than objective fact.

He's delusional. His perception of reality being off from objective fact is kind of th epoint.

@Zodi

I've never actually sat down and watched Harly Quinn but I've seen the "where's my electric car" scene and that is just... Perfect.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Yeah, but knowing about the rule doesn't mean he knows exactly how batman applies it (eg if he may be unable to free joker form being executed counts as "murdering" joker, which again, is entirely unreasonable).


The premise is that the Joker does know how he applies it.

Taking a step back; it is entirely within the realm of possibility for someone to be told "hey, world's greatest detective, I know I'm evil, but I didn't do this crime. I'm going to be killed, please save me" and then feel bad because they know they got a murderer off the hook. The Joker is someone who, flatly, deserves to die, but the miscarriage of justice is still Important, so it is reasonable to assume Batman could be negatively affected by this. This is an entirely reasonable thing; sometimes you are defending someone who did the crime without any doubt, but the police work was still sloppy so you're gonna fight tooth and nail to ensure things are done right. It's the Correct thing to do, regardless of any morality involved.

This is not ENTIRELY comparable to Batman putting him in a leak-walled mental facility that he gets out of every day, or the prison that is equally like a sieve for murderers. It's not Batman's fault he can escape jail, that is fundamentally a L for Arkham. 

The difference between these two is that, Batman does not actively keep the Joker in jail, just puts him there, whereas in Joker's scheme, Batman is actively preventing him from being killed.

(Personally I think this is a bit too Lawful Stupid for a vigilante, regardless of how pure of heart they are. We got Capone on tax fraud, we can kill the Joker for a crime he didn't commit, this is fair.)

@Rater: I'd suggest watching it, it's fundamentally all as good as that scene is.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> The Joker hasn't done any murders himself that would get him sentenced to death? I thought the Joker was supposed to be a particularly heinous arch criminal of sorts, so I find it kind of odd that his own crimes apparently don't get him sentenced to death? Or does he get the death penalty all the time, but breaks out every time?


Eh, life imprisonment is a fine sentence to give to such a person.

I mean, Joker operates in a country which has the death penalty for his crimes. So he probably should have been sentenced to death at some point, and I'd totally read a 'Joker heads to the gallows' story. But due to where I live I certainly don't find it odd, and considering DC had a British Batman even before the entire Batman international or Chinese Knockoff Batman stuff I'm sure that Broadmoor has a special cell for whoever Knight's arch nemesis is.

----------


## Peelee

> 1: Batman's strongly encoded sense of right and wrong means that chances are, he'd consider it a violation if *he let* somoene die for a crime they did not commit.


Bolding mine.

Batman is not all-powerul. The plan relies on Batman, who is neither a lawyer nor an agent of the state, to be able to stop an execution. This entirely ignores the third, likely option of "he is not able". And that considers that this is even in Batman's code, which is ridiculous, since by that logic he would consider it a violation if he captured a homicidal maniac known to be able to escape from the asylum to be out into the asylum where he would escape and kill more people. Every death by Joker would be a violation of Batman's creed.

Again. It's a poor story idea.



> Eh, life imprisonment is a fine sentence to give to such a person.
> 
> I mean, Joker operates in a country which has the death penalty for his crimes.


Irrelevant unless he's being prosecuted federal. The state needs to have the death penalty for state prosecutions to enact it.

/semantics.

----------


## Jasdoif

> Totally, valid. Harley gets actual character development while the Joker is trapped in his own neuroses.
> 
> ...She was also a complete accident. She was made up for an episode of Batman the Animated series, for a scene that was ultimately cut. They decided to keep the generic minion design though and... Yeah.


I feel like you're unduly downplaying Arleen Sorkin here.  How many other people have taken a voice they did for a dream sequence in an episode of a soap opera like _Days of our Lives_, and transferred it to a character in superhero fiction they would voice personally for two decades?

----------


## LaZodiac

> Bolding mine.
> 
> Batman is not all-powerul. The plan relies on Batman, who is neither a lawyer nor an agent of the state, to be able to stop an execution. This entirely ignores the third, likely option of "he is not able". And that considers that this is even in Batman's code, which is ridiculous, since by that logic he would consider it a violation if he captured a homicidal maniac known to be able to escape from the asylum to be out into the asylum where he would escape and kill more people. Every death by Joker would be a violation of Batman's creed.
> 
> Again. It's a poor story idea.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant unless he's being prosecuted federal. The state needs to have the death penalty for state prosecutions to enact it.
> 
> /semantics.


As I said earlier, the onus is kinda on Arkham there for not just, strapping this guy to a table. Or putting a bullet in his head.




> I feel like you're unduly downplaying Arleen Sorkin here.  How many other people have taken a voice they did for a dream sequence in an episode of a soap opera like _Days of our Lives_, and transferred it to a character in superhero fiction they would voice personally for two decades?


I'd have to run the numbers but I'd imagine ever so slightly more than you'd think.

----------


## Rater202

> Bolding mine.
> 
> Batman is not all-powerul. The plan relies on Batman, who is neither a lawyer nor an agent of the state, to be able to stop an execution. This entirely ignores the third, likely option of "he is not able". And that considers that this is even in Batman's code, which is ridiculous, since by that logic he would consider it a violation if he captured a homicidal maniac known to be able to escape from the asylum to be out into the asylum where he would escape and kill more people. Every death by Joker would be a violation of Batman's creed.


Batman stopped the execution by following the bread crumbs to find the real killer.

Which is *entirely* within his power, as the World's Greatest Detective, to do.

I mean, I can't think of a single case where "objective proof that person in question was falsely convicted" wouldn't at the bare minimum get a stay of execution.

And the logic is "it is within your power to prevent someone from being falsely executed. Will you?"

----------


## Fyraltari

Usually, whenever the Joker's suicide-by-Batman impulse come up, he puts more work into it. Like killing a Robin or placing a bomb in an orphanage wired to explode if he's heart is still beating by midnight or something.

The notion that he would "win" if Batman doesn't save him from a situation *that he deliberately put himself in* is kind of weird. What would Batman's one rule force him to save him if he jumped from a bridge too?

Also, back to what I said, why would Joker be bothered by Batman saving his life when that was one of his two acceptable outcomes, anyway? In practice all that happened is that Joker tampered with an investigation (that Batman maybe would have looked into anyway) and made it harder by adding a time factor. Which I guess fits the character in a "he's a petty ****" kind of way, but is much more low stakes than what you described, Rater.



> [S]I don't recall the exact minute of that scene but I don't recall doubting for a second Batman would have.


Yeah, well, you know... That's just, like, your interpretation, man.




> Also, what DLC for Knight was that? I generally enjoyed that game but really hated the "you have a car so a ton of things are now car-based even though it makes no sense narratively" parts.


League of Assassins. Haven't played the game myself, cause I play on PC.




> Eh, depends which Goblin.


The Green one. Funnily, because of that, all the various goblins, be they hob or knight or whatever end up being called _bouffon_, regardless of how serious they are.

Then again, they dress up in halloween costumes to attack people on hoverboards, so seriousness probably doesn't play a big part.

Also, Rater, I'm going to support the opinion that you should watch _Harley Quinn_ at your earliest convenience, it's a riot through and through.

----------


## Rater202

> The Green one.


There have been four Green Goblins. Five if you count the short-lived meat-robot Osborn made that one time.

Whether or not the Green Goblin can be considered a Joker counterpart depends on which Green Goblin you're talking about.

Norman is closer to a Lex Luthor type. Harry could be interpreted as a Joker analog but he was ironically maybe a little _too_ crazy. The Third Goblin was just some random guy who stole some stuff and got killed because he had no idea what he was doing, and Phil Urich was ironically a hero as the Green Goblin.

For what it's worth part, when Marvel and DC collaborated in the 90s Joker was compared and contrasted against The Red Skull, Carnage, and Sabretooth.

----------


## Peelee

> Batman stopped the execution by following the bread crumbs to find the real killer.
> 
> Which is *entirely* within his power, as the World's Greatest Detective, to do.
> 
> I mean, I can't think of a single case where "objective proof that person in question was falsely convicted" wouldn't at the bare minimum get a stay of execution.
> 
> And the logic is "it is within your power to prevent someone from being falsely executed. Will you?"


First, finding the person who did it is not the same as getting a convict released. The two are quite far apart. Batman's not a lawyer. He can find the person that did it, sure. Can he get the conviction overturned? That's a whole 'nother question entirely. And not in the purview of detectives.

Second, "objective proof" isn't what you think it is. The entire point of trials is that "objective proof" may not actually be objective nor proof, and even if it is, circumstances may change things. If Joker was convicted, then there was a very strong case against him. Reasonable doubt in court is a remarkably high bar to clear, intentionally so. Lawyers are pretty hesitant to put it to a degree of accuracy, but if pressed, they'll usually peg it around 95-98% minimum certainty that the accused is guilty. Joker apparently met that threshold.

Third, courts dont prove innocence. You can't plead innocent. The jury will never say "we find the defendant innocent". Courts prove guilt. Joker was found guilty. Batman found some other guy who did it? Great! That doesn't prove the Joker innocent. For all they know, Joker was still involved and the prosecution just got some details on their theory of the case wrong. But it doesn't "prove him innocent" because you literally can't do that. It also doesn't prove the other guy did it, because we have that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, where even if you know for a fact that the other guy did it, legally your knowledge is completely worthless. The only thing that matters is the verdict. And guess what, its significantly harder to get convicted of killing Bob when someone else was already convicted of killing Bob. The evidence against Joker? That can, and will, be used by the defense to cast doubt on whether the real guy did the crime. And it was strong enough to convince a jury once already. It doesn't even have to convince the whole jury this time. Just one.

Fourth, death sentences are famously more expensive than life sentences because they carry a mandatory amount of extra legal processes, such as appeals. Because, ya know, it's death. There's no "oopsie" button to let them go in the unlikely event they do get the conviction vacated. Batman has a decade to do his stuff. Maybe two. He has one ironclad rule, and that rule ain't "let a omnicidal maniac out of jail if process wasn't served correctly". Every day Joker is in prison without breaking out is a day the people of Gotham are safe for him. Sure, Even if Batman subscribed to the frankly ridiculous idea that the Joker getting himself on death row unfairly means Batman killed him, he can damn sure take his time with delivering the evidence (which has no chain of custody and will be tossed out by the court leaving Joker to die because, again, his plan is incredibly stupid, but that's the case with a lot of Batman stuff so we'll ignore that).

Fifth, remember points two and three, where there's really strong evidence against the Joker? Let's pretend, for the moment, that Batman gets all the evidence needed to convict the real one, and also presents it to the authorities in a shockingly timely fashion (let's pretend that the Gotham judicial system is a complete ****ing kangaroo court and the death penalty gets enacted a couple weeks after sentencing why not - we already have a man in a Halloween costume punching clowns in 1980's New York City where the police apparently have never been issued guns despite Halloween costume supervillains who basically act as the world's worst form of rent control), AND ALSO the other guy gets convicted! This is literally the best possible scenario for the Joker. So he goes free, right? *No!* He wins the judicial lottery and gets a retrial! Where all of that aforementioned string evidence can now be used against him again! It was already strong enough once, so that's going to suck for him. And before you can point out that someone else being convicted means Joker's defense can use that evidence against Joker, don't forget that there is a newly convicted murderer looking at the death penalty and will just be itching to try to make a deal to lessen his sentence. And hey, if only he could implicate someone else as an accomplice. Someone who the police would love off the street, who the DA would love to have a meaningful conviction for, who the mayor would love to ride the "we got him!" wave for re-election. And hey, as it happens, that guy was already convicted of this exact thing, so the accomplice claim is shockingly strong! Do you think the guy who is now going to have his own head on the chopping block would choose to not swap places with the Joker when it presents itself as a golden opportunity? The murderer won't have an issue with telling a lie to save his own ass, and while that's the line defense lawyers always trot out in such cases, it'll probably be just a wee bit more effective when the defendant it's being used against is the Joker. Convicts cutting deals for testimony relies in whether the jury believes the defense or the witness, and the Joker has pretty abysmal credibility to any jury he'd get. It would be fitting for Joker since this plan is basically acting like a clown for no good reason.

But wait, there's more! Let's pretend that everything magically works out for Joker. Other dude gets convicted and out of an irrational spate of conscience cannot bring himself to lie and rope the Joker in to save his own life (or get him less prison time). Joker gets a retrial and gets acquitted. Miracle of miracles, he fought the law and he won! Justice! Free at last, free at last, than-oh, wait, he's still got all those other convictions and is still a ward of the state, which means he's not going free. And hey, he's now been declared mentally fit! And for people committed to mental asylums by the legal system, the criteria for release doesn't tend to be "is now declared sane", it tends to be "is no longer a danger to themselves or others". Nobody would claim that, so surprise, he gets to stay remanded to state custody! Except oops, he's now been found mentally fit, we can't toss him into an asylum. He wasn't fit to stand trial before, so we have all those cases backlogged against him that can now suddenly be enacted! Murder doesn't have a statute of limitations in most places, so while the trial must be speedy, they can wait as long as they like to actually press the charges against you. The floodgates are now open, and he's not in Arkham anymore. So, right back to death row for him.

This is a stupid plan.

----------


## Mystic Muse

As someone who binged all 3 seasons of the Harley Quinn show, it's worth the watch.

----------


## Peelee

> I'm going to support the opinion that you should watch _Harley Quinn_ at your earliest convenience, it's a riot through and through.





> As someone who binged all 3 seasons of the Harley Quinn show, it's worth the watch.


What's it on?

----------


## Fyraltari

> Batman's not a lawyer.


Wouldn't surprise me if he was. Dude is an everything.



> Because, ya know, it's death. There's no "oopsie" button to let them go in the unlikely event they do get the conviction vacated.


It's the DC universe. There are several.



> let's pretend that the Gotham judicial system is a complete ****ing kangaroo court


Pretend?

----------


## Mystic Muse

> What's it on?


HBO Max, Youtube Premium, and Amazon Premium from a short googling.

----------


## Peelee

> Wouldn't surprise me if he was. Dude is an everything.


Can't be. Bruce Wayne could but that'd take away from his cover. Batman would be background checked and fingerprinted, among other things, which he'd refuse to do and would not be allowed to be an officer if the court. 

Also batman going to law school would be amusing. I want a return of Silver Age DC with that storyline.



> It's the DC universe. There are several.


Eh, for Batman its just the Lazarus pits. DC tends to just reboot the universe more often than bringing people back and Marvel just brings people back more often than rebooting the universe. 



> Pretend?


Fair. 



> HBO Max, Youtube Premium, and Amazon Premium from a short googling.


Huzzah for the last option!

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Meanwhile I'm here trying to work which, if any, streaming service has Galavant in this backwards isle. Because Spotify shunted the soundtrack anlt me and darn it now I'm hooked.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Can't be. Bruce Wayne could but that'd take away from his cover. Batman would be background checked and fingerprinted, among other things, which he'd refuse to do and would not be allowed to be an officer if the court.


Batman has other aliases. Now, I'm sure there's a provision somewhere that says that enrolling under a fake name voids it or whatever, but Batman isn't exactly the most law-abiding of law enforcers.




> Eh, for Batman its just the Lazarus pits. DC tends to just reboot the universe more often than bringing people back and Marvel just brings people back more often than rebooting the universe.


You know Jason Todd? He didn't come back thanks to the Lazarus pits (that's only in the movie) he came back because Superboy punched reality. This not a metaphor.
Also, Batman has a colleague who goes by Deadman for a reason.

Seriously though, DC has had so many dead characters come back to life, they had a whole zombie apocalypse event about that which ended with the claim they would cut it from there on. They did not.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Meanwhile I'm here trying to work which, if any, streaming service has Galavant in this backwards isle. Because Spotify shunted the soundtrack anlt me and darn it now I'm hooked.


There are... other, alternatives to streaming services.

But it will involve a bit of sneaking, sneaking, hush hush hush~

----------


## Peelee

> Batman has other aliases. Now, I'm sure there's a provision somewhere that says that enrolling under a fake name voids it or whatever, but Batman isn't exactly the most law-abiding of law enforcers.


He can train as a ninja out of where he'd be recognized. But he's got to apply for the bar where he wants to practice. And then show up in court as that person.



> You know Jason Todd? He didn't come back thanks to the Lazarus pits (that's only in the movie) he came back because Superboy punched reality. This not a metaphor.
> Also, Batman has a colleague who goes by Deadman for a reason.
> 
> Seriously though, DC has had so many dead characters come back to life, they had a whole zombie apocalypse event about that which ended with the claim they would cut it from there on. They did not.


I didn't say DC didn't do it. I said they reboot their universe more. They can still do it a lot.




> There are... other, alternatives to streaming services.
> 
> But it will involve a bit of sneaking, sneaking, hush hush hush~


I assume you mean legally sharing accounts among friends.

----------


## Keltest

> He can train as a ninja out of where he'd be recognized. But he's got to apply for the bar where he wants to practice. And then show up in court as that person.


Only if you assume that he wants to practice law in the technical legal sense instead of have a solid understanding of the legal system, which is not implausible for batman, and not totally out there for some flavors of Bruce Wayne either.

And frankly, Batman could well be recognized as a lawyer in Gotham. I believe some dragon earlier commented on the shambles of their legal system.

----------


## LaZodiac

> He can train as a ninja out of where he'd be recognized. But he's got to apply for the bar where he wants to practice. And then show up in court as that person.
> 
> I didn't say DC didn't do it. I said they reboot their universe more. They can still do it a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you mean legally sharing accounts among friends.


Yeah, of course! I'm a scoundrel, not a criminal.

----------


## Fyraltari

> He can train as a ninja out of where he'd be recognized. But he's got to apply for the bar where he wants to practice. And then show up in court as that person.


I'm not seeing an issue? He's a mobster in Gotham as "Matches Malone", he can be Batt Burdock, attorney at maw too if he wants.

Edit:
*Spoiler: Also*
Show




Semi-remated, I have restarted to watch _Better Call Saul_.




> I didn't say DC didn't do it. I said they reboot their universe more. They can still do it a lot.


More than Marvel, or more than they resurrect characters. Because one of those isn't true.






> I assume you mean legally sharing accounts among friends.


*Awkwardly pushes bottle of rum out of sight*

----------


## Keltest

Apropos of nothing, I'd play the crap out of a Batman Ace Attorney game.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Apropos of nothing, I'd play the crap out of a Batman Ace Attorney game.


There needs to be more games that emphasis that side of him, honestly. Too much bat themed punch-man, not enough bat-themed Columbo level detective work.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> There are... other, alternatives to streaming asservices.
> 
> But it will involve a bit of sneaking, sneaking, hush hush hush~


Sneaking, I believe that's the one done in Fortissimo.




> I assume you mean legally sharing accounts among friends.


Yeah, I'm with family over Christmas, which means I'll be able to access everything for a short while. Enough to binge a series of an ordinary show, or a third of an American season.

ETA: now I want Law and Order: Justice League. Darn the lot of you to heck!

----------


## Lord Raziere

> There needs to be more games that emphasis that side of him, honestly. Too much bat themed punch-man, not enough bat-themed Columbo level detective work.


Heh, I can see it being something the Miles Edgeworth games, where Batman goes around crime scenes arguing with people over who is and isn't innocent and solving crimes with pure logic while inwardly snarking about the people he comes across, his personality fits.

in fact are we sure there isn't a potential alternate universe where Phoenix Wright is Superman and Miles Edgeworth is Batman? because that would make a lot of sense.

----------


## Rater202

For what it's worth, in the DC Universe it's a matter of federal law that costumed vigilantes don't have to unmask themselves or do anything that would compromise their secret identities in order to give testimony and the evidence they collect is admissible in court.

This is mostly to justify narrative conceit but it's there.

Also "it won't stick" is one of Batman's arguments for why he doens't make exceptions to his No Killing Rule.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Heh, I can see it being something the Miles Edgeworth games, where Batman goes around crime scenes arguing with people over who is and isn't innocent and solving crimes with pure logic while inwardly snarking about the people he comes across, his personality fits.
> 
> in fact are we sure there isn't a potential alternate universe where Phoenix Wright is Superman and Miles Edgeworth is Batman? because that would make a lot of sense.


Yeah, the style of gameplay Edgeworth's games has fits Batman a lot more.

Now I'm thinking of Superman doing Phoenix's animations and they fit really really well.




> For what it's worth, in the DC Universe it's a matter of federal law that costumed vigilantes don't have to unmask themselves or do anything that would compromise their secret identities in order to give testimony and the evidence they collect is admissible in court.
> 
> This is mostly to justify narrative conceit but it's there.
> 
> Also "it won't stick" is one of Batman's arguments for why he doens't make exceptions to his No Killing Rule.


That's reasonable in a setting with super heroes.

I am a bit sad that Batman is, at least somewhat, aware of his place in the universe as a man composed of infinite suffering.

----------


## Rater202

> That's reasonable in a setting with super heroes.


Yeah, any superhero setting that exists long enough is going to have all kinds of weird legal quirks get mentioned over time as writers feel the need to justify the conceits of the setting.

and sometimes they're baked in: The Parahumans Series(Worm and Ward) have laws on the books that restrict what a parahuman can and cannot do with their powers when it comes to making money.

Something about powers makes it unfair to non-powered competitors in certain fields.

...Which means that a lot of parahumans end up being superheroes or supervillains for lack of options. A member of the local branch of the government-sponsored team int he first story was going to be a baseball player but his powers mean he can't be a pro athlete even though they aren't directly useful for sports.

----------


## Peelee

> For what it's worth, in the DC Universe it's a matter of federal law that costumed vigilantes don't have to unmask themselves or do anything that would compromise their secret identities in order to give testimony and the evidence they collect is admissible in court.
> 
> This is mostly to justify narrative conceit but it's there.


That is insane overreach and is terrifying to imagine.

----------


## Rater202

> That is insane overreach and is terrifying to imagine.


It's that or let supervillains all walk for lack of admissible evidence.

----------


## Peelee

> It's that or let supervillains all walk for lack of admissible evidence.


Testimony is evidence (testimony is actually the foundation of all evidence!). Superhero could testify without their identity being compromised, and without tossing out that pesky "unreasonable search and seizure" thing entirely.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Superheroes tend to work a lot better if they're actual government agents. Probably not literally supercops, although they should definitely be a thing too. You can even play with some of the same secret identity tropes!

But yeah, it's just another one of the reasons I don't like superheroes. My one serious attempt to come up with a superhero story ended up seriously nerfing the power level before taking a hard turn into urban fantasy. Then I tried writing more of a pulp hero, which actually mostly went okay but ended up sliding into a more serious SF angle. I think I might just not like the power level and tendency to ignore extralegality of supers.

----------


## Keltest

> Superheroes tend to work a lot better if they're actual government agents. Probably not literally supercops, although they should definitely be a thing too. You can even play with some of the same secret identity tropes!
> 
> But yeah, it's just another one of the reasons I don't like superheroes. My one serious attempt to come up with a superhero story ended up seriously nerfing the power level before taking a hard turn into urban fantasy. Then I tried writing more of a pulp hero, which actually mostly went okay but ended up sliding into a more serious SF angle. I think I might just not like the power level and tendency to ignore extralegality of supers.


Eh, people ignore the extralegality because our laws are based on regular mortal people and are meant to only apply to them. In a world with supers they would be fundamentally different, in ways that would be hard to grok.

----------


## Rater202

> Superheroes tend to work a lot better if they're actual government agents. Probably not literally supercops, although they should definitely be a thing too. You can even play with some of the same secret identity tropes!
> 
> But yeah, it's just another one of the reasons I don't like superheroes. My one serious attempt to come up with a superhero story ended up seriously nerfing the power level before taking a hard turn into urban fantasy. Then I tried writing more of a pulp hero, which actually mostly went okay but ended up sliding into a more serious SF angle. I think I might just not like the power level and tendency to ignore extralegality of supers.


Superhero is a very broad genre, friend. "pulp hero hard scifi" and "low power urban fantasy" are valid for the genre.

Marvel's best comics over the last couple of years were _horror_ comics.

And Keltest has the right of it: Our laws are arbitrary constructs made by and for ordinary humans. Once extraordinary humans, sapient non-humans, and other entities that the laws weren't meant to account for are in play the laws either change or become irrelevant.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Superhero is a very broad genre, friend. "pulp hero hard scifi" and "low power urban fantasy" are valid for the genre.


If it ain't got superpowered crime fighting it ain't a superhero. If Marvel's best comics recently have been horror and they don't feature superpowered crime fighting, then well their best comics haven't been superhero comics.

Otherwise you might as well call Thunderbirds a superhero show.

I mean Purification kind of touches on the superhero genre, but it's lost pretty much all the actual key superhero elements. Sure there's people with powers who fight each other, but it's less Justice League and more Unknown Armies. As to AI, well it's still a pulp story, but it's drawing from different pulp genres now.

----------


## Rater202

> If it ain't got superpowered crime fighting it ain't a superhero. If Marvel's best comics recently have been horror and they don't feature superpowered crime fighting, then well their best comics haven't been superhero comics.


 Superman isn't fighting crime when he stops an asteroid from crashing into the earth or talks a suicidal person of a ledge.

Spider-Man isn't fighting crime when he visits a kid with terminal cancer in the hospital or digs into his own traumatic past to convince an abused child to tell someone who can help them.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> Superman isn't fighting crime when he stops an asteroid from crashing into the earth or talks a suicidal person of a ledge.
> 
> Spider-Man isn't fighting crime when he visits a kid with terminal cancer in the hospital or digs into his own traumatic past to convince an abused child to tell someone who can help them.


I like the potential reading here that when the inverse is true, these characters _are_ fighting crime, like if _Spider-man_ stopped an asteroid it'd count as fighting crime.

(It would count as a lifetime achievement for him, at least!)

----------


## Rater202

> (It would count as a lifetime achievement for him, at least!)


You'd think so, but no.

Spidey's got some _major_ accomplishments under his belt. He's saved the world more than once.

----------


## Peelee

> Our laws are arbitrary constructs


I don't think arbitrary means what you think it means.

----------


## Rater202

> I don't think arbitrary means what you think it means.


Maybe, but do you have a way of saying "they are things that we made up and that are subject to change, not immutable facts of reality" that wouldn't be too wordy?

----------


## TaiLiu

> Maybe, but do you have a way of saying "they are things that we made up and that are subject to change, not immutable facts of reality" that wouldn't be too wordy?


Maybe "Laws are socially constructed"?

----------


## Peelee

> Maybe, but do you have a way of saying "they are things that we made up and that are subject to change, not immutable facts of reality" that wouldn't be too wordy?


The solution to that isn't to use words that mean something completely different. Laws aren't random.

----------


## Amidus Drexel

> The solution to that isn't to use words that mean something completely different. Laws aren't random.


Since we're debating semantics - as a mathematician, I like to keep a distinction between "arbitrary" and "random", but I'll concede that the two are used somewhat interchangeably out in the real world.  :Small Tongue: 




> Maybe, but do you have a way of saying "they are things that we made up and that are subject to change, not immutable facts of reality" that wouldn't be too wordy?


I'm partial to "social construct" for such things, and that seems to be in semi-common usage these days.

----------


## Peelee

> Since we're debating semantics - as a mathematician, I like to keep a distinction between "arbitrary" and "random", but I'll concede that the two are used somewhat interchangeably out in the real world.


Well sure. The solution isn't to use words that are completely different. Only slightly different is probably fine.  :Small Wink: 


Also, nya.

----------


## Rater202

> The solution to that isn't to use words that mean something completely different. Laws aren't random.





> ar·bi·trar·y
> /ˈärbəˌtrerē/
> adjective
> based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.


I was leaning more to the whim side than tehe random side there

While some things like "don't kill people and don't steal other people's stuff" are common sense, a lot of laws are what they are just because someone decided they should be that way and managed to convince others.

For example Jaywalking is a crime because the automotive industry's lobbyists managed to convince lawmakers that pedestrians should no longer be allowed to use streets. That law was based entirely on the whims of people who wanted the public to buy more cars and existed solely to encourage such things when first instituted.

----------


## Peelee

> I was leaning more to the whim side than tehe random side there
> 
> While some things like "don't kill people and don't steal other people's stuff" are common sense, a lot of laws are what they are just because someone decided they should be that way and managed to convince others.
> 
> For example Jaywalking is a crime because the automotive industry's lobbyists managed to convince lawmakers that pedestrians should no longer be allowed to use streets. That law was based entirely on the whims of people who wanted the public to buy more cars and existed solely to encourage such things when first instituted.


"Concerted effort of a lobbying organization" is also not arbitrary. You could call it a bad basis, or corrupt, or any number of things, but not arbitrary. Personal whims are not what you think they are.

----------


## Rater202

> "Concerted effort of a lobbying organization" is also not arbitrary. You could call it a bad basis, or corrupt, or any number of things, but not arbitrary. Personal whims are not what you think they are.


It started as a whim, Peelee. It started as an idea by people who wanted more people to buy cars and came up with a scheme to force the issue.

Even if that example doesn't qualify, there are plenty of examples I could cite. I went with jaywalking because I felt it would be non-controversial and wouldn't run the risk of breaking the "no politics" rule.

----------


## Peelee

> It started as a whim, Peelee.


Dude, that's really not how things work. Someone having an idea doesn't make literally everything that follows it arbitrary. A CEO firing programmers based on how many lines of code they wrote is arbitrary. A CEO who implements a performance-based bonus scale paid out monthly is not arbitrary. Both started out as one person having an idea, but that's irrelevant to whether what follows was arbitrary.

Laws, even ****ty laws like jaywalking, are not arbitrary. They exist for a clearly defined, easily-explainable reason that is not "because the guy in charge said so". And calling "laws" in general arbitrary? I'm going to assume the absolute best case scenario and say that you are just massively incorrect.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Dude, that's really not how things work. Someone having an idea doesn't make literally everything that follows it arbitrary. A CEO firing programmers based on how many lines of code they wrote is arbitrary. A CEO who implements a performance-based bonus scale paid out monthly is not arbitrary. Both started out as one person having an idea, but that's irrelevant to whether what follows was arbitrary.
> 
> Laws, even ****ty laws like jaywalking, are not arbitrary. They exist for a clearly defined, easily-explainable reason that is not "because the guy in charge said so". And calling "laws" in general arbitrary? I'm going to assume the absolute best case scenario and say that you are just massively incorrect.


All the reasoning in the world for why jaywalking is a crime doesn't actually stop the fact that "it was something the automotive lobby wanted done for a petty, profit motivated reason" from also being true.

The reasons were made by their lawyers, paid with the understanding that they are to say anything convincing to get this end point. This is what Rater means by arbitrary- the clearly defined, easily explainable reasons are predicated on corrupt, bad basis reasons, motivated by a desire to encourage further purchases of vehicles. Whether or not you think that makes it arbitrary or a whim or not is a matter of opinion.

I personally don't actually agree with Rater here- I don't think **** motives make the decisions arbitrary! I'm just saying I get what Rater is coming from.

In Alberta there (may or may not be in the code anymore) was a law that if you were released from jail, you were to be given a horse and escorted to edge of town. While this certainly had a reasonable explanation way back when, nowadays it is just silly. This has nothing to do with the conversation I just think it's a fun addition while we're talking about weird law stuff.

----------


## enderlord99

Artificial.  The term is "artificial" Rater.

It's also redundant with the word "constructs"

Not every sentence needs an adjective.

----------


## Peelee

> All the reasoning in the world for why jaywalking is a crime doesn't actually stop the fact that "it was something the automotive lobby wanted done for a petty, profit motivated reason" from also being true.


I never said it wasn't true. I was pointing out that that was the reasoning for it. But that doesn't make it a personal whim. That just makes it bad policy. As you seem to agree with later in your post. 




> The reasons were made by their lawyers, paid with the understanding that they are to say anything convincing to get this end point. This is what Rater means by arbitrary- the clearly defined, easily explainable reasons are predicated on corrupt, bad basis reasons, motivated by a desire to encourage further purchases of vehicles. Whether or not you think that makes it arbitrary or a whim or not is a matter of opinion.


Im far from one to hammer on the bell of prescriptivism, but the purpose of language is to communicate. Using "arbitrary" when one means "corrupt" is not an effective way of communicating, and in this case makes things even worse, since the original claim was that laws, generally, are arbitrary.

And with the way Rater responded to me when I originally objected, it seemed clear to me that he meant "social construct" and not "corrupt".



> Artificial.  The term is "artificial" Rater.
> 
> It's also redundant with the word "constructs"
> 
> Not every sentence needs an adjective.


That also works but social construct conveys the meaning well IMO.

----------


## Jasdoif

> Someone having an idea doesn't make literally everything that follows it arbitrary.


To give an(other) example on this....


The Index of the Giant's Comments thread signifies changed entries with a pineapple emoji.  This was done on a whim (I thought it'd be a good idea to distinguish new entries from updated entries), and using a pineapple was arbitrary (it didn't matter _what_ symbol was used, so I picked a fruit from the then-current OOTS comic discussion thread).

The implementation, however, is wholly deliberate:


> ```
>             try:
>                 thisOriginalVersion=thisEntry.attrib.get("originalVersion")
>             except NameError:
>                 # Fallback; if we can't tell, assume it's new
>                 thisOriginalVersion=self.currentVersion
>             if thisOriginalVersion==self.currentVersion:
>                 thisIsChange=False
>             else:
> ...





> ```
> {%- if entry.isChange -%}🍍{%- endif -%}
> ```



The idea was a whim with an arbitrary component, certainly; but the _reification_ of that idea into a system required specific and methodical alterations, which are hardly whimsical.

----------


## LaZodiac

> To give an(other) example on this....
> 
> 
> The Index of the Giant's Comments thread signifies changed entries with a pineapple emoji.  This was done on a whim (I thought it'd be a good idea to distinguish new entries from updated entries), and using a pineapple was arbitrary (it didn't matter _what_ symbol was used, so I picked a fruit from the then-current OOTS comic discussion thread).
> 
> The implementation, however, is wholly deliberate:
> The idea was a whim with an arbitrary component, certainly; but the _reification_ of that idea into a system required specific and methodical alterations, which are hardly whimsical.


I was, mostly, trying to get that sort of vibe across, so thanks.

At any rate; man I work in a law firm could y'all maybe stop litigating legal procedure for five minutes? I get enough of this at work lol.

----------


## Peelee

> I was, mostly, trying to get that sort of vibe across, so thanks.
> 
> At any rate; man I work in a law firm could y'all maybe stop litigating legal procedure for five minutes? I get enough of this at work lol.


We could always switch from criminal law to, say, land management law, though I don't think you would find such monotony a marked improvement.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Rater202

So my aunt is suing the current company that's providing caretakers for my disabled cousin. We still don't know who is stealing his food and silverware but she has video evidence of him being taken out of his house in the middle of the night and people from the company who are unrelated to his case being in his house when he's not.

Instead of defending themselves, they're spreading rumors that she's a lawsuit-happy Karen suing them for no reason to try and intimidate her into dropping it on the grounds that no other companies will take her if she has a reputation for suing.

Joke's on them: she's already successfully sued two other companies that were mistreating him with no lo long-term consequences.

----------


## Keltest

> So my aunt is suing the current company that's providing caretakers for my disabled cousin. We still don't know who is stealing his food and silverware but she has video evidence of him being taken out of his house in the middle of the night and people from the company who are unrelated to his case being in his house when he's not.
> 
> Instead of defending themselves, they're spreading rumors that she's a lawsuit-happy Karen suing them for no reason to try and intimidate her into dropping it on the grounds that no other companies will take her if she has a reputation for suing.
> 
> Joke's on them: she's already successfully sued two other companies that were mistreating him with no lo long-term consequences.


That seems like a bad plan on their part. If she wins, then the fact that she, you know, won, indicates they were indeed doing something wrong and that she was right to sue.

Having said that, if she has now found three different groups that were all abusing her son and or criminally abusing the access she gave them, one wonders that maybe she shouldnt be the one to pick the fourth company.

----------


## tomandtish

> So my aunt is suing the current company that's providing caretakers for my disabled cousin. We still don't know who is stealing his food and silverware but she has video evidence of him being taken out of his house in the middle of the night and people from the company who are unrelated to his case being in his house when he's not.
> 
> Instead of defending themselves, they're spreading rumors that she's a lawsuit-happy Karen suing them for no reason to try and intimidate her into dropping it on the grounds that no other companies will take her if she has a reputation for suing.
> 
> Joke's on them: she's already successfully sued two other companies that were mistreating him with no lo long-term consequences.


If she's in the USA, nearly every state has agencies that license/regulate home health companies (and those providing similar services). Good idea to make sure it's reported to them as well, since enough valid complaints results in licensure loss.

----------


## Rater202

> That seems like a bad plan on their part. If she wins, then the fact that she, you know, won, indicates they were indeed doing something wrong and that she was right to sue.
> 
> Having said that, if she has now found three different groups that were all abusing her son and or criminally abusing the access she gave them, one wonders that maybe she shouldnt be the one to pick the fourth company.


She's been through 13 and only needed to sue 3 so...

----------


## Keltest

> She's been through 13 and only needed to sue 3 so...


That... is not the endorsement you seem to think it is.

----------


## Peelee

> Instead of defending themselves, they're spreading rumors that she's a lawsuit-happy Karen suing them for no reason to try and intimidate her into dropping it on the grounds that no other companies will take her if she has a reputation for suing.


That's probably good news - it likely means that they either have not consulted their lawyer yet, or are ignoring their lawyer's advice. Either one means they are not making good decisions for their case, and past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior.



> If she's in the USA, nearly every state has agencies that license/regulate home health companies (and those providing similar services). Good idea to make sure it's reported to them as well, since enough valid complaints results in licensure loss.


Also she should ask to lawyer about maybe filing a HIPAA complaint, if they haven't already discussed it - why do unrelated people know the address, much less go into the house?

Of course, the best advise for any case is always going to be "listen to your lawyer". No point paying them if you don't heed what they say, after all.

----------


## Rater202

> That... is not the endorsement you seem to think it is.


The problem isn't her. The problem is that the regulating agency for the state we live in doesn't do crap to enforce the laws and regulations.

This means that there's no way to know for sure who is or isn't a good company.

Most of the changeovers were because there was a change in management, someone wanting to play politics instead of doing their job, or on one occasion because an employee that mistreated my cousin at one company was hired by a later one and they kept him on and tried to put him in my cousin's staff even after being made aware of the circumstances.

----------


## LaZodiac

> We could always switch from criminal law to, say, land management law, though I don't think you would find such monotony a marked improvement.


Man I used to do land stuff at my last firm too, but after two and a half weeks of litigation and new systems I don't remember ****. I specialized in corporate though so that's not that big a surprise.

@Rater: I hope they rip every bloody cent from these people.

----------


## Peelee

> That... is not the endorsement you seem to think it is.


I gotta say, you're correct if things were ideal, but I gotta go with Rater here. Home health care and assisted living health care, especially for seniors and people with disabilities, is a complete **** show. At least in America. If you have anyone who might need it, hope as hard as you can that you'll never need to put them in with one of those places. There are good ones. There are great ones. But man oh man are there just a _ton_ of really bad ones, and that's not a lottery I would want to play.

----------


## Rater202

Recent experimentation on my part has provided evidence that a grilld peanut butter and jelly sandwich is a good option if someone wants a warm meal but is also craving something on the sweeter side.

Whole wheat, creamy peanut butter, sugar-free blackberry preserves, and butter as the frying medium.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Recent experimentation on my part has provided evidence that a grilld peanut butter and jelly sandwich is a good option if someone wants a warm meal but is also craving something on the sweeter side.
> 
> Whole wheat, creamy peanut butter, sugar-free blackberry preserves, and butter as the frying medium.


That is a fascinating though, but one I've never entertained before... hmm. Does it actually hold together well?

----------


## Rater202

> That is a fascinating though, but one I've never entertained before... hmm. Does it actually hold together well?


About as well as a grilled cheese but I only used a thin layer of each.

----------


## D&D_Fan

Sandwich Concept:

The PB&J Supreme or the PB&J&J&B&M&PC

Top Bread Slice
Grape Jelly
Bacon
Peanut Butter
Bread Slice
Potato Chips
Peanut Butter
Bread Slice
Sliced Banana
Bacon
Peanut Butter
Bread Slice
Marshmallow Fluff
Peanut Butter
Bottom Bread Slice

When you bite into it, you taste sweet and savory and salty and sweet and savory and sweet.

I'm sure Elvis Presley would love it.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Sandwich Concept:
> 
> The PB&J Supreme or the PB&J&J&B&M&PC
> 
> Top Bread Slice
> Grape Jelly
> Bacon
> Peanut Butter
> Bread Slice
> ...



He had one of those weird snake jaws?

----------


## Peelee

Elvis Presley also loved drugs. So probably.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

Hello everyone. So anyway I uninstalled my eHarmony app because it wasn't the right dating app for me which require extra money for paying to message other people and I'm thinking of trying Match.com.

----------


## Mystic Muse

> Hello everyone. So anyway I uninstalled my eHarmony app because it wasn't the right dating app for me which require extra money for paying to message other people and I'm thinking of trying Match.com.


Good luck. My mom attempted dating through Match.com and got...no good matches at all. Think she never made it through more than one date. If it got to the point of a date at all.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Good luck. My mom attempted dating through Match.com and got...no good matches at. Think she never made it through more than one date. If it got to the point of a date at all.


Thank you for your support, Mystic Muse. In all honesty, the dating world is so difficult these days.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Good luck. My mom attempted dating through Match.com and got...no good matches at all. Think she never made it through more than one date. If it got to the point of a date at all.


Ouch. My mum's also not had amazing success from dating apps, but she at least has had a relationship or two.

Now she mostly moans abou her kids being near universally poly but still not producing grandkids. But like anybody's going to give me a baby when I'm likely to drop it  :Small Tongue: 




> Thank you for your support, Mystic Muse. In all honesty, the dating world is so difficult these days.


Honestly it's always been difficult, if anything it's now easier to find dates than ever (source: I've been on some) but you also run into a lot more unsuitable partners. It doesn't help that a lot of people swipe without reading the profile (and at least some dating apps are set up to encourage it).

Don't get me wrong, I love dating apps. They have their risks but so does flirting with strangers in a bar. At least with dating apps nothing gets wet!

----------


## LaZodiac

> Ouch. My mum's also not had amazing success from dating apps, but she at least has had a relationship or two.
> 
> Now she mostly moans abou her kids being near universally poly but still not producing grandkids. But like anybody's going to give me a baby when I'm likely to drop it 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly it's always been difficult, if anything it's now easier to find dates than ever (source: I've been on some) but you also run into a lot more unsuitable partners. It doesn't help that a lot of people swipe without reading the profile (and at least some dating apps are set up to encourage it).
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love dating apps. They have their risks but so does flirting with strangers in a bar. At least with dating apps nothing gets wet!


Do people really DO that? If I'm at the bar and presumably have a drink, that's something I'm paying for with my money. Do people really throw their drinks at other folk?

Just something I've always wondered.

======

After a brief hiatus as I get situated at my new job, it's finally here! Chapter 8 of Mist and Fire! Saila and Noble continue their adventure, heading towards Cheating Snake pass. What will they find there, I wonder... *read here to find out!*

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Do people really DO that? If I'm at the bar and presumably have a drink, that's something I'm paying for with my money. Do people really throw their drinks at other folk?
> 
> Just something I've always wondered.


No clue. I suspect it's not common but possibly does happen for the real Chads ********s.

Although I'll also admit I wrote that, went 'hehe vaginas be wet' and my brain refused to process anymore rational thoughts.

----------


## Peelee

Eh, online dating is just another avenue. I don't think they're inherently worse unless they have both free and pay models and it basically works out to pay-to-win algorithms.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Eh, online dating is just another avenue. I don't think they're inherently worse unless they have both free and pay models and it basically works out to pay-to-win algorithms.


...

Excuse me, I need to build a dating app so I can add in microtransactions and loot boxes.

----------


## LaZodiac

> ...
> 
> Excuse me, I need to build a dating app so I can add in microtransactions and loot boxes.


What is speed dating but not quickly going through a gacha pull?

----------


## Rater202

Comic Book Trivia: The Mighty Thor once lost a fight against a perfectly ordinary lobster.

To my knowledge, we don't see the fight, but he was _trying_ to cook it, and apparently, it got away from him. In his own words "the beast defeated me."

----------


## 2D8HP

> Ouch. My mum's also not had amazing success from dating apps, but she at least has had a relationship or two.
> 
> Now she mostly moans abou her kids being near universally poly but still not producing grandkids. But like anybody's going to give me a baby when I'm likely to drop it 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly it's always been difficult, if anything it's now easier to find dates than ever (source: I've been on some) but you also run into a lot more unsuitable partners. It doesn't help that a lot of people swipe without reading the profile (and at least some dating apps are set up to encourage it).
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love dating apps. They have their risks but so does flirting with strangers in a bar. At least with dating apps nothing gets wet!





> Do people really DO that? If I'm at the bar and presumably have a drink, that's something I'm paying for with my money. Do people really throw their drinks at other folk?
> 
> Just something I've always wondered.
> 
> ======
> 
> After a brief hiatus as I get situated at my new job, it's finally here! Chapter 8 of Mist and Fire! Saila and Noble continue their adventure, heading towards Cheating Snake pass. What will they find there, I wonder... *read here to find out!*



Could be a generational thing, Ive had strangers (men) buy me drinks (they bought everyone else in the bar drinks too), and Ive had strangers (women) strike up conversations with me (Ive noticed that this happens when Im the youngest looking guy in a bar mostly  full of old men, in bars full of young men this only happens when Im reading a book thats cover catches her interest, and she has a guy in tow).

As for dating apps, Ive never tried them, my (nearly my age) roommate has in the past and shes gotten dates where shes been kissed that way, but shes never found anyone that they both wanted something long lasting, I think she tried Match, OkCupid, and Plenty of Fish (IIRC).

I do follow a psychologist/blogger that recently met her now second husband on OkCupid just a few years ago, she said they became an item very quickly.

----------


## D&D_Fan

The only dating app I can recommend is "Coffee meets Bagel" because my cousin found his wife through it. I don't do much online dating myself. I don't really do any dating myself.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

So anyway, today I install the Match.com dating app and I sign up for it but unfortunately, it is just like eHarmony, they want me to pay extra money just to message someone. I said screw this, I'm out of here. I'm taking a break from the dating app community.

----------


## Rater202

Nothing makes me feel older than when youtube recommends nostalgia videos for shows that were on the air when I was in high school.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

So anyway I finish writing my Degrassi stories and I'm starting to write my D&D story again which I haven't written since August of this year.

*Spoiler: Just In Case Anyone Is Curious On What My D&D Story About*
Show

It's about Io's 11 dragon deity children waging war with each other

----------


## oxybe

So on a whim I decided to buy some GFuel. A few guys I follow online drink the stuff/are sponsored and while no man is completely infallible to the lure of lucre, I'd usually trust these guys regarding products they recommend/sponsor.

And I gotta say... I like it so far.

Sugar-free, with an amount of caffeine similar to a can of Rockstar Energy and way WAY better taste. I got the combo Diablo-themed shaker cup and "Health Potion" flavour mix (blueberry, plum & grape for those interested). 

As someone who works nights and often drinks one or two energy drinks a night as to not fall asleep, a zero-sugar energy drink that doesn't taste like **** is VASTLY appreciated. plus, even with the price conversion from US to CAD and shipping, it's still cheaper then redbull, rockstar or similar energy drinks.

----------


## BisectedBrioche

Good news: I finished the wig for my character and wore it for a game last night

Bad news: It squeezed my head and gave me a serious headache, which has never been an issue before.

I don't know if I'm doing the headband too tight (I've been using one for months with other wigs without any issues), the wig's cap is just tighter, it's something to do with the cold I'm recovering from or what, but it's a little worrying.

----------


## Rater202

So a while back I realized that the diabetes means I'll never-probably get to try a cherpumple.

Which kind of sucks.

For those who don't know, it's a three-layer cake stuffed with pie. It's simple enough to make You make it from boxed cake mix and pre-made pies, just put the pie, sans tin, into a cake pan surrounded by cake mix to make the layers and back per instructions.

If I recall correctly it's a layer of yellow cake with cherry pie in it, a layer of white cake with pumpkin pie in it and a layer of spice cake with apple pie in it.

----------


## Form

> So a while back I realized that the diabetes means I'll never-probably get to try a cherpumple.
> 
> Which kind of sucks.
> 
> For those who don't know, it's a three-layer cake stuffed with pie. It's simple enough to make You make it from boxed cake mix and pre-made pies, just put the pie, sans tin, into a cake pan surrounded by cake mix to make the layers and back per instructions.
> 
> If I recall correctly it's a layer of yellow cake with cherry pie in it, a layer of white cake with pumpkin pie in it and a layer of spice cake with apple pie in it.


Erh, what glorious madness is this!? I'd never even considered wrapping a pie in a cake, much less doing so with several _different_ ones and then stacking them. Kind of feels like we're breaking the ten commandments of food or something.

----------


## Fyraltari

> So a while back I realized that the diabetes means I'll never-probably get to try a cherpumple.
> 
> Which kind of sucks.
> 
> For those who don't know, it's a three-layer cake stuffed with pie. It's simple enough to make You make it from boxed cake mix and pre-made pies, just put the pie, sans tin, into a cake pan surrounded by cake mix to make the layers and back per instructions.
> 
> If I recall correctly it's a layer of yellow cake with cherry pie in it, a layer of white cake with pumpkin pie in it and a layer of spice cake with apple pie in it.


Tell me you're from the USA without telling me you're from the USA.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> So on a whim I decided to buy some GFuel. A few guys I follow online drink the stuff/are sponsored and while no man is completely infallible to the lure of lucre, I'd usually trust these guys regarding products they recommend/sponsor.
> 
> And I gotta say... I like it so far.
> 
> Sugar-free, with an amount of caffeine similar to a can of Rockstar Energy and way WAY better taste. I got the combo Diablo-themed shaker cup and "Health Potion" flavour mix (blueberry, plum & grape for those interested). 
> 
> As someone who works nights and often drinks one or two energy drinks a night as to not fall asleep, a zero-sugar energy drink that doesn't taste like **** is VASTLY appreciated. plus, even with the price conversion from US to CAD and shipping, it's still cheaper then redbull, rockstar or similar energy drinks.


I drink zero-sugar energy drinks sometimes.  :Smile:

----------


## Rater202

> Erh, what glorious madness is this!? I'd never even considered wrapping a pie in a cake, much less doing so with several _different_ ones and then stacking them. Kind of feels like we're breaking the ten commandments of food or something.





> Tell me you're from the USA without telling me you're from the USA.


As the story goes it was invented by pop-culture humorist Charles Pheonix to save on paper plates: All six deserts would end up on offer at holiday get-togethers and he noticed that his relations tended to get a slice of all six sooner or later.

Also, double checking I got the recipe wrong: It's apple in spice, pumpkin in yellow, and cherry in chocolate.

----------


## Form

> As the story goes it was invented by pop-culture humorist Charles Pheonix to save on paper plates: All six deserts would end up on offer at holiday get-togethers and he noticed that his relations tended to get a slice of all six sooner or later.
> 
> Also, double checking I got the recipe wrong: It's apple in spice, pumpkin in yellow, and cherry in chocolate.


From that story I'm guessing the intent is not so much for people to eat them all at the same time, but to get a slice of each in one go and then eat them one by one. I'd think the flavors clash too much if you were to put it all in your mouth at the same time. If he didn't simply make this as a joke.

Also, interesting choice to not reuse washable ceramic plates to save on paper plates, but instead to create a bigger, more sugary dessert for 1 plate.

----------


## halfeye

> From that story I'm guessing the intent is not so much for people to eat them all at the same time, but to get a slice of each in one go and then eat them one by one. I'd think the flavors clash too much if you were to put it all in your mouth at the same time. If he didn't simply make this as a joke.
> 
> Also, interesting choice to not reuse washable ceramic plates to save on paper plates, but instead to create a bigger, more sugary dessert for 1 plate.


Washable ceramic plates can be one use only if people throw them.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Washable ceramic plates can be one use only if people throw them.


Well don't put custard pies on them!


Also, no matter how much pie you put in your cake, it will still be inferior to the mighty Battenberg (that's 4+ sticks of cake stuck together with jam and wrapped in marzipan. It is clearly the best cake).

----------


## Peelee

> Tell me you're from the USA without telling me you're from the USA.


That makes me want to leave the USA.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> That makes me want to leave the USA.


I thought you'd already fled to Austria?  :Small Tongue:

----------


## LaZodiac

> From that story I'm guessing the intent is not so much for people to eat them all at the same time, but to get a slice of each in one go and then eat them one by one. I'd think the flavors clash too much if you were to put it all in your mouth at the same time. If he didn't simply make this as a joke.
> 
> Also, interesting choice to not reuse washable ceramic plates to save on paper plates, but instead to create a bigger, more sugary dessert for 1 plate.


Wouldn't be American if the answer to "solve this waste solution" was "made something extravagantly stupid that does not in any way solve the actual problem, just this immediate instance."

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Tell me you're from the USA without telling me you're from the USA.


Once I walked 4.6 miles to my local theater to watch the first Deadpool movie using my iphone to navigate. I will pronounced "Z" as "Zee" until my dying breath and fight for my right to say it that way, seeing the other way as just adding an "Ed" on the end which is a name not a part of a letter or saying "said" with a z, and it just as nonsensical as pronouncing "C" as "Ced", and I once hated Thanksgiving before my tastes growing less picky and my family all moving away made all the social pressure to try the food disappear so I can be more comfortable.

----------


## Peelee

> Once I walked


Ok, so not from the US right off the bat.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Ok, so not from the US right off the bat.


Oh I didn't know the people in Birmingham all were born floating off the ground without legs, must've some real spooky magic you did to pull off eternal levitation.  :Small Tongue:  But contrary to the little bubble you live in, the rest of the USA has legs.

----------


## Fyraltari

> I will pronounced "Z" as "Zee" until my dying breath and fight for my right to say it that way, seeing the other way as just adding an "Ed" on the end which is a name not a part of a letter or saying "said" with a z, and it just as nonsensical as pronouncing "C" as "Ced"


You realize the alphabet is entirely arbitrary, right? I mean, you Anglos just one day up and decided to pronounce "E" "i" and "I" "ay" and it's not like anyone took you to court.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Rater202

I wish I had no legs and just floated everywhere.

I have had _so many_ leg and foot injuries you guys it's not even funny. I swear to god that I lost a pint of blood out of a cut on my foot one time.

Then there's the blood clot in the one.

And whatever the hell is wrong with my various joints...

These things are a liability, man.

----------


## Aedilred

> I will pronounced "Z" as "Zee" until my dying breath and fight for my right to say it that way, seeing the other way as just adding an "Ed" on the end which is a name not a part of a letter or saying "said" with a z, and it just as nonsensical as pronouncing "C" as "Ced"


Strictly speaking, it's Americans (or the dialect community from which the American pronunciation derives) that dropped the "ed" and then added an "ee", since the "et/ed" had always been there since the letter was invented.

----------


## enderlord99

> pronouncing "C" as "Ced"


do you mean as "said" or as "kedd"

EDIT:  or perhaps "tchedd"

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> You realize the alphabet is entirely arbitrary, right? I mean, you Anglos just one day up and decided to pronounce "E" "i" and "I" "ay" and it's not like anyone took you to court.


That's why we shift the vowels every so often. We wouldn't want the language to get stale, after all.




> Oh I didn't know the people in Birmingham all were born floating off the ground without legs, must've some real spooky magic you did to pull off eternal levitation.  But contrary to the little bubble you live in, the rest of the USA has legs.


Of course you all have legs. That's how you push down on the accelerators.

----------


## Rater202

So... A thing that's been bugging me... Marvel recently confirmed the implications that Mystique was Sherlock Holmes.

...But, in accordance with Irene's claims that Doyle took artistic liberties, Irene was closer to Watson in her actual role than to the literary Irene Adler.

But the thing is... The same source that originally confirmed that Sherlock Holmes was a real person on Earth 616 also confirmed that Watson was real and that he was involved in the incident that inspired the Hounds of The Baskervilles.

So now I'm wondering... If Irene was Watson, then who was the _actual_ Watson and how does he fit into all of this? This kept me up last night.

And there's no answer and there probably isn't going to be an answer.

----------


## Keltest

> So... A thing that's been bugging me... Marvel recently confirmed the implications that Mystique was Sherlock Holmes.
> 
> ...But, in accordance with Irene's claims that Doyle took artistic liberties, Irene was closer to Watson in her actual role than to the literary Irene Adler.
> 
> But the thing is... The same source that originally confirmed that Sherlock Holmes was a real person on Earth 616 also confirmed that Watson was real and that he was involved in the incident that inspired the Hounds of The Baskervilles.
> 
> So now I'm wondering... If Irene was Watson, then who was the _actual_ Watson and how does he fit into all of this? This kept me up last night.
> 
> And there's no answer and there probably isn't going to be an answer.


Why are you assuming there IS an "actual" Watson?

----------


## Rater202

> Why are you assuming there IS an "actual" Watson?


...Because the existence of an actual Watson was explicitly confirmed previously and has not been explicitly retconned? Was that not clear from this bit?


> But the thing is... The same source that originally confirmed that Sherlock Holmes was a real person on Earth 616 also confirmed that Watson was real and that he was involved in the incident that inspired the Hounds of The Baskervilles.

----------


## Keltest

> ...Because the existence of an actual Watson was explicitly confirmed previously and has not been explicitly retconned? Was that not clear from this bit?


If Irene was Watson, that sounds like a pretty explicit retcon to me.

----------


## Fyraltari

> So... A thing that's been bugging me... Marvel recently confirmed the implications that Mystique was Sherlock Holmes.
> 
> ...But, in accordance with Irene's claims that Doyle took artistic liberties, Irene was closer to Watson in her actual role than to the literary Irene Adler.
> 
> But the thing is... The same source that originally confirmed that Sherlock Holmes was a real person on Earth 616 also confirmed that Watson was real and that he was involved in the incident that inspired the Hounds of The Baskervilles.
> 
> So now I'm wondering... If Irene was Watson, then who was the _actual_ Watson and how does he fit into all of this? This kept me up last night.
> 
> And there's no answer and there probably isn't going to be an answer.


A close friend of both who had their agreement to take credit for Adler's involvement in the cases (leaving you to choose which bits were actually him) in the books he wrote because Victorian England wouldn't be very keen on a *_gasp_* *woman* taking part in criminal investigations?

----------


## Peelee

The more i hear about Marvel the more I'm convinced it's an elaborate ruse of taking bad internet fanfic and declaring it canon.

----------


## Rater202

> The more i hear about Marvel the more I'm convinced it's an elaborate ruse of taking bad internet fanfic and declaring it canon.


Loki, after becoming king of Jotunnheim, created a magical snowman to rule in his place so he could go _not_ be king of Jotunnheim.

His name is Frösti.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Loki, after becoming king of Jotunnheim, created a magical snowman to rule in his place so he could go _not_ be king of Jotunnheim.
> 
> His name is Frösti.


Which I believe would be pronounced "froow-sti" as an aside.

----------


## theangelJean

> After a brief hiatus as I get situated at my new job, it's finally here! Chapter 8 of Mist and Fire! Saila and Noble continue their adventure, heading towards Cheating Snake pass. What will they find there, I wonder... *read here to find out!*


Yay, you're still going! Can't wait to find out what happens next.

Will catch up on the rest of the thread in a bit :)

----------


## Fyraltari

> The more i hear about Marvel the more I'm convinced it's an elaborate ruse of taking bad internet fanfic and declaring it canon.


Big talk from a _Star Wars_ super-fan.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Yay, you're still going! Can't wait to find out what happens next.
> 
> Will catch up on the rest of the thread in a bit :)


Yeah! I just had some delays due to personal stuff like getting settled at my new job and finding time to write and stuff. I hope you enjoy!




> Big talk from a _Star Wars_ super-fan.


Everyone's just bringing the knives out today I see.

----------


## Rater202

> Everyone's just bringing the knives out today I see.


That's not a knife.

_This_ is a knife!
*Spoiler*
Show

----------


## Mystic Muse

> That's not a knife.
> 
> _This_ is a knife!
> *Spoiler*
> Show


That's a spoon.

----------


## Rater202

> That's a spoon.


All right, all right, you win. I see you've played knifey-spoony before.

----------


## BisectedBrioche

> That's a spoon.


I see you've played kniefey spooney before!

----------


## enderlord99

I posted a link to my own Twitter account, because my header and pinned tweet are both spife-themed, but then I realized that I say a lot of political stuff there and thus shouldn't link to it from here.  I have deleted the post, accordingly; you can still find my twitter via google if you're curious (but why would you be)

----------


## Peelee

> Big talk from a _Star Wars_ super-fan.


I cheered quite heartily when Disney hit the canon reset button.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> I cheered quite heartily when Disney hit the canon reset button.


Amateurs. A real science fiction series would just ignore anything written more than two years ago.

----------


## Coppercloud

> That's a spoon.


That's no spoon. It's a space station. Sorry.

----------


## Peelee

> Amateurs. A real science fiction series would just ignore anything written more than two years ago.


The sequel trilogy had each movie ignore the previous movie, so there's that.

----------


## Rater202

So apparently there's _A Christmas Story_ brand Christmas fudge. With a picture of Ralphie and a speech balloon saying "Oh fudge."

Nothing says "Happy Holidays" like Merch for a scene from a movie that aged like milk.

Edit, missing words.

----------


## enderlord99

"Aged like milk" in the sense that it has become cheesy?

...

I actually haven't seen that movie (at least as far as I remember)

----------


## Mystic Muse

> "Aged like milk" in the sense that it has become cheesy?
> 
> ...
> 
> I actually haven't seen that movie (at least as far as I remember)


I believe it's more in the sense of how certain alcohols are best when you age them for years and years. 

Whereas if you do the same with milk you just end up with rot, because it spoils quickly.

----------


## enderlord99

> I believe it's more in the sense of how certain alcohols are best when you age them for years and years. 
> 
> Whereas if you do the same with milk you just end up with rot, because it spoils quickly.


I figured, but I still don't know what happened that made the movie terrible now.  I thought it was a classic!

EDIT:  Oh...

----------


## Peelee

Yeah that movie hasn't really aged poorly.

----------


## enderlord99

> Yeah that movie hasn't really aged poorly.


Rater and Mystic both said it aged poorly, implying that it was well known to have done so.  Now you're saying it hasn't.

I'm confused as to what the consensus is supposed to be here.

----------


## Peelee

> Rater and Mystic both said it aged poorly, implying that it was well known to have done so.  Now you're saying it hasn't.
> 
> I'm confused as to what the consensus is supposed to be here.


People can disagree.

Also, it didn't read to me as if Mystic said it aged poorly, but I may have misunderstood.

----------


## Mystic Muse

Never seen it, was just weighing in on the "Aged Like Milk" saying.

----------


## LaZodiac

I recently saw (as in, today) Thor: Love and Thunder, and it was pretty good.

Rater I summon you: infodump about Ghor and his cool daughter that is now Thor's daughter please. I want to more know and you're better than a fandom wiki.

----------


## Rater202

Regarding aged poorly... Mostly everything in the movie.

The general consensus on it I can see is that if you think it's nostalgic you notice the timeless stuff, if you don't have nostalgia for the movie the stuff that didn't age well ruins it.

...My stepfather just thinks it's boring.


> I recently saw (as in, today) Thor: Love and Thunder, and it was pretty good.
> 
> Rater I summon you: infodump about Ghor and his cool daughter that is now Thor's daughter please. I want to more know and you're better than a fandom wiki.


Gorr is pretty much _exactly_ as he is in the movie, except he's a bit less human looking
*Spoiler*
Show




Though he uh... Wasn't as... Gorr in the comics had long since lost any sympathy one might have for him. According to the Watchers he was factually correct about the nature of most gods, but even then he was going too far.

His backstory was a bit more tragic, however: as a child when famine brought his family down to the last scrap of food they had, his mother sacrificed it on an altar in the hope of divine intervention and was immediately killed by a wild predator.

Much later in life his wife died in a cave in right after stating that of course, the gods hadn't abandoned them(the famine had been ongoing for several years at this point.)

Then years later still when his son died of starvation he caught flack for wanting to bury him instead of hanging him up in the trees so that the gods could take his soul to the heavens. By this point Gorr had become an atheist and just wanted to give his son a proper send-off instead of leaving him to be eaten by scavengers.

He said this, The rest of his community beat the absolute crap out of him and left him for dead. The only reason they didn't cannibalize him(I cannot overstate how long this famine had been going on) was that the priest said that eating heretic would taint them.

Shortly after this, he found a black-armored god seemingly dead on the ground, a gold-armored god laying down injured and begging for help, but Gorr was so pissed off that he grabbed the black armored God's weapon and killed the Gold Armored God.

And then for the next billion years or so proceeded to just keep butchering alive anything even remotely resembling a God.

His sword, All-Black, is a Symbiote in the comics. The first Symbiote, in fact. Forged from a piece of the shadow of Knull, Primordial Elder God of The Void, using the power of a murdered Celestial as his forge flame.

Ionically, it's implied that the reason that Gorr's homeworld fell to crap and their Gods abandoned them was because Knull was hunting them down and murdering them, and that all-black was subtly manipulating Gorr to encourage his misothesim: Knull hates all other Gods for daring to taint the primal void with life and light.

Love is a complete fabrication and only exists in the MCU.

----------


## LaZodiac

> His sword, All-Black, is a Symbiote in the comics. The first Symbiote, in fact. Forged from a piece of the shadow of Knull, Primordial Elder God of The Void, using the power of a murdered Celestial as his forge flame.


This may be the most stupid (affectionate) thing I've heard in the entirety of your truly fascinating infodumps thank you Rater.

Also what Love isn't like, a pre-existing character?... rad. Any idea on who she might become, beyond just Taiki Waititi's OC?

----------


## Rater202

> This may be the most stupid (affectionate) thing I've heard in the entirety of your truly fascinating infodumps thank you Rater.


Oh I have not even scratched the surface of how stupid(affectionate) comics can get.

For example, the spider that bit Peter Parker and Cindy Moon... Became a Hulk. She calls herself Goddess and her powers are being fully sapient, being able to understand human language, and getting bigger every time she eats something alive.

She has a taste for human flesh... but only eats criminals.

If you're like a carjacker or a mugger in AMrvel New York, you don't just have to worry about Spider-Man, Daredevil, or the punisher... You also have to worry about a house spider the size of a compact car eating you alive.




> Also what Love isn't like, a pre-existing character?... rad. Any idea on who she might become, beyond just Taiki Waititi's OC?


I've seen some people speculate that she might be the MCU version of Singularity, who is _basically_ a childish mini-Eternity.
*Spoiler: From the wiki, a picture of Singularity and Kamala Khan*
Show




Personally, I think she was just an excuse to put Chris Hemsworth's kid in a Thor movie.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Oh I have not even scratched the surface of how stupid(affectionate) comics can get.
> 
> For example, the spider that bit Peter Parker and Cindy Moon... Became a Hulk. She calls herself Goddess and her powers are being fully sapient, being able to understand human language, and getting bigger every time she eats something alive.
> 
> She has a taste for human flesh... but only eats criminals.
> 
> If you're like a carjacker or a mugger in AMrvel New York, you don't just have to worry about Spider-Man, Daredevil, or the punisher... You also have to worry about a house spider the size of a compact car eating you alive.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm genuinely baffled at why petty crime still exists in a world with super heroes.

Honestly given how they showed her reflection in the water being a mini Eternity, I could see it! And oh, she's actually Hemsworth's kid? That's adorable honestly.

*looks at that comic page* oh no I want them to kiss so bad I hope they're good friends.

----------


## theangelJean

> Love is a complete fabrication and only exists in the MCU.





> Also what Love isn't like, a pre-existing character?... rad. Any idea on who she might become, beyond just Taiki Waititi's OC?


Yay for default capitalisation at the beginning of sentences! Was really confused until I read LaZodiac's post. 

I mean, love is also a complete fabrication (or rather, a social construct) but it definitely exists outside the MCU.

----------


## Peelee

> Regarding aged poorly... Mostly everything in the movie.


....no? It's a movie depicting a family in the 40s. How things were in the 40's is different than how things were today, but that doesn't mean a movie depicting it aged poorly.

----------


## LaZodiac

> ....no? It's a movie depicting a family in the 40s. How things were in the 40's is different than how things were today, but that doesn't mean a movie depicting it aged poorly.


"That sorta stuff was common place back then" is not the defense against something aging poorly I think you're looking for, Peelee. Like the idea that the main conceit of the film is "our hero wants a gun for christmas", that's something that some people think has aged pretty poorly! It may have been common back then, but that doesn't actually change anything.

----------


## Rater202

> *looks at that comic page* oh no I want them to kiss so bad I hope they're good friends.


...I'm gonna be honest I don't think Singularity has a concept of romance or sexuality.

Anyway, they get on okay but unless they hung out off-screen they only met the one time and even that was an accidentKamala's molecular structure is desynched from Time and Space.

Long-Time C-List Spider-Man Villain the Shocker, who is normally just a crook with a gimmick, decided that he wanted to try being a "real" Big Shot Supervillain a try... But being that he's the only Spider-Man villain with common sense, he packed up his stuff and moved to Jersey city.

Because Jersey only has Ms. Marvel as a superhero and her entire rogues gallery are Z-Listers with small-time motivations and/or weird neuroses. He figured that he had a pretty good shot at being her Nemesis(Though he was also willing to make a face-turn and be her anti-hero counterpart.)

He was using a device that fitted with space-time and it was making Kamala's powers go haywire and she eventually ended up in between realities for a bit.

More than once.

At one point she accidentally ended up back in time and briefly met one of her Inhuman ancestors before Singularity found her and put her back where she was supposed to be.


> ....no? It's a movie depicting a family in the 40s. How things were in the 40's is different than how things were today, but that doesn't mean a movie depicting it aged poorly.


The way it was framed, however?

At the time the movie was made washing your kid's mouth out with soap wasn't considered any bigger of a deal than it was in the 40s. Nowadays it's widely considered child abuse.

A film in the same time period but made today would frame a similar scene *very* differently.

----------


## Peelee

> "That sorta stuff was common place back then" is not the defense against something aging poorly I think you're looking for, Peelee. Like the idea that the main conceit of the film is "our hero wants a gun for christmas", that's something that some people think has aged pretty poorly! It may have been common back then, but that doesn't actually change anything.


A.) What, exactly, has aged poorly? Rater said "everything". Most of thr movie is about risk fault like in the 40s. That's not adding poorly. That's being accurate. If you want to say it's aged badly then say what's aged badly. Shouldnt be difficult.
2.) Not a gun. A BB gun. A gun is a lethal weapon. A bb gun is nonlethal. There a vast gulf here and saying "gun" without the modifier gives an incredibly different idea of what's happening in the story, and I think we should avoid that.
III.) How has the BB gun aged poorly? The movie explicitly and repeatedly warns the main character of the dangers of the BB gun and when he gets it he experiences said danger, but not as bad as he imagines it is at the time. How is this aging poorly? It's hardly glorifying the BB gun anywhere except in the main characters head. Literally everyone else disagrees with him.

----------


## Rater202

Look, Peelee, in case you miss my edit...

I watch the Movie, and I see a child whose desires are dismissed with a pithy remark about an improbable danger instead and of anyone giving a reasonable explanation for why a bb gun isn't an appropriate toy for someone his age.

I see violent bullying being depicted as just a natural part of childhood and a child just losing his **** and beating the crap out of someone... Well, he didn't get punished for it , which is reasonable, but he also didn't... Like, no that would not just be a one-and-done thing once he's done crying.

I see a child being humiliated after receiving a completly inappropriate gift for no real reason. There was no reason whatsoever to make Raplphia actually wear the bunny jammies.

I see a child receiving a dangerous and arguably abusive punishment for something that wasn't a big deal, incidentally also a moment of parental hypocrisy given that the father curses like a sailor where the whole family can hear... And when Ralphis accidentally says his friend's name instead of his father while panicking, we _hear his friend being beaten over the phone_ so even if you don't count mouth-soaping as child abuse there is in fact child abuse in the movie. Both of these are presented as normal punishments.

The father getting Ralphie the BB gun is a good moment for him... But he immediately botches it by not providing any supervision whatsoever when Ralphie goes out to play with it, which leads directly into the otherwise improbable chance of Ralphie (nearly) shooting his eye out.

And at the very end, I see racist caricatures of Chinese people.

All of that was normal in the 40s. All of that was more or less normal when it was made.

Attitudes towards all of that have changed significantly. a Film in the same time period, made today, that included those elements would frame them differently.

That is what makes it age poorly.

Despite it getting shoved down my throat at least once a year in Elementary School, I have no nostalgia for the film. I watch it and all I see are things that make me uncomfortable, because they are not considered okay, either being treated as normal or played for laughs.

----------


## Fyraltari

> I'm genuinely baffled at why petty crime still exists in a world with super heroes.


In general that makes sense, but Marvel's New York seems to have more supervigilantes than actual police.




> Yay for default capitalisation at the beginning of sentences! Was really confused until I read LaZodiac's post.


Me too. 




> love is also a complete fabrication (or rather, a social construct)


Uh, no? Love exists regardless of society, it's an instinct. It's present in every mammal species and many more besides.

----------


## Rater202

> In general that makes sense, but Marvel's New York seems to have more supervigilantes than actual police.


Well that and half the time the actual police are on the take

At any given point in time you can just assume that the entire NYPD are on Wison Fisks's Payroll.

Sometimes literally: He somehow managed to con his way into being Mayor of New York after Secret Empire.


> Uh, no? Love exists regardless of society, it's an instinct. It's present in every mammal species and many more besides.


Love is a social construct based on the values placed on interpersonal relationships and the interpretations of baser feelings like affection or lust. These values are placed by bot societies and individuals.

It inherently means differant things to differant people.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Love is a social construct based on the values placed on interpersonal relationships and the interpretations of baser feelings like affection or lust. These values are placed by bot societies and individuals.
> 
> It inherently means differant things to differant people.


That's not what a social construct is. Social constructs are things that exist because society create them like money, law or class. Emotions and feelings are brain chemistry, they would exist without society. Society influences them, sure, but it does not construct them.

----------


## Rater202

> That's not what a social construct is. Social constructs are things that exist because society create them like money, law or class. Emotions and feelings are brain chemistry, they would exist without society. Society influences them, sure, but it does not construct them.


That assumes that love is an emotion in and of itself.

What humans typically think of as "love" is one of several complex interactions between emotions and environmental factors.

The happiness you feel in the presence of another? Is that combination of that emotion and that external stimulus love? Or is love the combination lust and affection you feel for your romantic partner?

I've even seen people who seem to legitimately believe that you can't love someone unless you also hate them.

----------


## Fyraltari

> That assumes that love is an emotion in and of itself.


I cannot find a proper English translation to the word _sentiment_. 




> What humans typically think of as "love" is one of several complex interactions between emotions and environmental factors.


That does not make it a social construct. 




> The happiness you feel in the presence of another? Is that combination of that emotion and that external stimulus love? Or is love the combination lust and affection you feel for your romantic partner?


Love is the desire for another's well-being. I have no lust for my relatives or (most of) my friends but I love them still.




> I've even seen people who seem to legitimately believe that you can't love someone unless you also hate them.


These people are terribly confused and I would worry about them.

----------


## Rater202

> I cannot find a proper English translation to the word _sentiment_.


If you mean what I think you mean, then it's the same word in english.




> does not make it a social construct.


 Doens't it? A bunch of people got together and decided that "love" referred to something. Other people decided that it meant something else when they go together. Individual people have their own interpretations of those decisions.




> is the desire for another's well-being.


One definition among dozens. That's the arbitrary value you assign to the word "love," based on your own feelings about what the word means. Other people would use it for happiness in the presence of others, others for infatuation, others for less savory things.

----------


## Fyraltari

> If you mean what I think you mean, then it's the same word in english.


after looking it up on Merriam-webster, not quite. A _sentiment_ is a long-lasting state arising from several factors, like hatred or happiness.




> Doens't it? A bunch of people got together and decided that "love" referred to something. Other people decided that it meant something else when they go together. Individual people have their own interpretations of those decisions.


That's a function of language. It has noting to do with social constructs. A social construct is something that is a product of society. Again, think money, class, fashion. It does not mean "some people use this word to describe this brain state, other this one".

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Love in the emotional sense is definitely a real thing, although you could argue that the classification of different kinds of love and/or conflation of several separate feelings. We also have a tendency asa society to confuse attraction and obsession for love, and not everybody agrees on the exact qualities of love and if certain varieties are exclusive or not.

That's not getting on to other animals. Or robots, for that matter.

----------


## enderlord99

Love, the emotion, is real and not a social construct.

"Love" the word is a social construct, like all words.

----------


## Peelee

> Look, Peelee, in case you miss my edit...
> 
> I watch the Movie, and I see a child whose desires are dismissed with a pithy remark about an improbable danger instead and of anyone giving a reasonable explanation for why a bb gun isn't an appropriate toy for someone his age.


So everyone tells him. It'd dangerous but nobody says it in wording you personally approve of. That's not aging poorly. That's your own issues, man. 



> I see violent bullying being depicted as just a natural part of childhood and a child just losing his **** and beating the crap out of someone... Well, he didn't get punished for it , which is reasonable, but he also didn't... Like, no that would not just be a one-and-done thing once he's done crying.


Bullying is not being depicted as a natural part of childhood. This one is also your own issues, dude. From everything I can tell you seem to have a massive blindspot with bullying due to your own personal experiences.

And, even if it did portray bullying as a natural part of childhood (it doesn't), that doesn't age the movie poorly. That just makes the movie incorrect. 



> I see a child being humiliated after receiving a completly inappropriate gift for no real reason. There was no reason whatsoever to make Ralphie actually wear the bunny jammies.


Dude. Your barometer for this is _way_ off. Even the link enderlord shared didn't put this in the "aged badly" category. Again, this is part of your own personal issues. 



> I see a child receiving a dangerous and arguably abusive punishment for something that wasn't a big deal, incidentally also a moment of parental hypocrisy given that the father curses like a sailor where the whole family can hear... And when Ralphis accidentally says his friend's name instead of his father while panicking, we _hear his friend being beaten over the phone_ so even if you don't count mouth-soaping as child abuse there is in fact child abuse in the movie. Both of these are presented as normal punishments.


The washing mouth out with soap is presented as normal, and again, the movie is set in the 40s, where that _was_ a normal punishment. I do not understand your objection to that - it's a period movie showing something that was done in that period. That's literally how period movies work, man. Do you see Gladiator and think "how dare they wear togas!"? 

Also, the beating the other child received is _not_ shown as normal. Ralphie didn't expect him to be beaten and clearly shows guilt over it. Ralphie's mother is clearly uncomfortable hearing it but being unable/unwilling to do anything about it is also fairly appropriate for her character in her time. 



> The father getting Ralphie the BB gun is a good moment for him... But he immediately botches it by not providing any supervision whatsoever when Ralphie goes out to play with it, which leads directly into the otherwise improbable chance of Ralphie (nearly) shooting his eye out.


Bad parenting isn't aging poorly. 



> And at the very end, I see racist caricatures of Chinese people.


This is the best argument you've made, but I simply disagree with this one. I see Asian characters portrayed by Asian actors singing with a stereotypical mispronunciation due to linguistic issues that actually exist in most southeast Asian languages. These people are corrected by a more fluent Asian character also played by an Asian actor. And they are doing this in an attempt to make the family feel comfortable, since they are in the service industry. It makes plenty of sense in the context it's presented in. 

Also, of note, you do realize that the movie is based on semi-autobiographical stories, meaning that some to many of the things you're complaining about probably actually happened (albeit less dramatized)? Like, the Chinese restaurant story is most likely to have actually happened as presented, IMO.

Most of your complaints are not the movie aging poorly but just reasons you don't like the movie. The one actual issue you pointed out that could be aging poorly is the most likely scene to have happened exactly as presented with little to no dramatization added in for effect.

ETA: Also, social constructs are not what you think they are.

----------


## enderlord99

> ETA: Also, social constructs are not what you think they are.


At least he didn't call love "arbitrary"

----------


## LaZodiac

> A.) What, exactly, has aged poorly? Rater said "everything". Most of thr movie is about risk fault like in the 40s. That's not adding poorly. That's being accurate. If you want to say it's aged badly then say what's aged badly. Shouldnt be difficult.
> 2.) Not a gun. A BB gun. A gun is a lethal weapon. A bb gun is nonlethal. There a vast gulf here and saying "gun" without the modifier gives an incredibly different idea of what's happening in the story, and I think we should avoid that.
> III.) How has the BB gun aged poorly? The movie explicitly and repeatedly warns the main character of the dangers of the BB gun and when he gets it he experiences said danger, but not as bad as he imagines it is at the time. How is this aging poorly? It's hardly glorifying the BB gun anywhere except in the main characters head. Literally everyone else disagrees with him.


I'll admit I forgot it wasn't a real hunting rifle but dismissing BB guns as not being dangerous is still kinda wrong.

Look man, I haven't watched the movie, I was just going off the article that was posted. I don't really care that much, and if I wanted to pick out an example from a movie that HAS aged pretty poorly I would have; a good example being Rush Hour, which has... not, aged well at all, even though (as you said for this one) all of the stuff that hasn't aged well was normal back then. That's what I was getting at. The crux of my issue with that statement was that.

I also just kinda feel like a modern Christmas movie would not be predicated on the idea of the main character wanting a pretend gun, but that's kind of irrelevant.

Anyway my thoughts on the current conversation de jour is that I love my girlfriends.

----------


## Peelee

> I'll admit I forgot it wasn't a real hunting rifle but dismissing BB guns as not being dangerous is still kinda wrong.


I agree, but I'm confused as to who was dismissing BB guns as not being dangerous. I called them non-lethal, and pointed out how every character who knew Ralphie wanted it told him it was dangerous and then when he got it he immediately hurt himself with it, sooooooo........

Also, to your earlier statement about something being accepted at the time not being a good excuse which I thought I addressed but apparently didn't? It is a good excuse when its a period movie. It was made in the 80s and set in the 40s. Portraying things as they were at the time is in fact a good excuse for period movies.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I agree, but I'm confused as to who was dismissing BB guns as not being dangerous. I called them non-lethal, and pointed out how every character who knew Ralphie wanted it told him it was dangerous and then when he got it he immediately hurt himself with it, sooooooo........
> 
> Also, to your earlier statement about something being accepted at the time not being a good excuse which I thought I addressed but apparently didn't? It is a good excuse when its a period movie. It was made in the 80s and set in the 40s. Portraying things as they were at the time is in fact a good excuse for period movies.


I just woke up and am not fully cognizant. My read of non-lethal read as "non-dangerous" because it can't actually kill someone- when a BB gun absolutely still can do that.

I straight up just didn't see you addressing that. Anyway while it being accurate in a period piece is true, I don't think that precludes it from aging poorly, though. There are aspects of the craft and creation process that make it bad. If a period piece featured a racist thing, even if it was accurate, it could still be said to be a sign the movie has aged poorly, because we kinda just don't do that anymore if we ca help it. We don't just have an out-in-out dude in black face, for example, in our films, and if we DID do that for historical accuracy, it'd probably be filmed a lot different from a movie in the period that actually does use that stuff would- and accurate or not, people would understandably be like "hey don't ****ing do this???".

----------


## Peelee

> I just woke up and am not fully cognizant. My read of non-lethal read as "non-dangerous" because it can't actually kill someone- when a BB gun absolutely still can do that.


So can punching someone wrong. But let me rephrase. Say I have a gun on me. If someone shoots at me with a gun, I'm probably going to shoot back and try to kill them (probably because this precludes me trying to get the hell away). This is largely seen as a reasonable response by most people and governments. If someone shoots at me with a BB gun, I will _absolutely not_ shoot back and try to kill them. Doing so would be largely seen as a grossly disproportionate response and likely psychotic by most people and governments. 

There's the difference between lethal and nonlethal. Lethal actions can get lethal response. Nonlethal actions should not get lethal response. 



> I straight up just didn't see you addressing that.


We're both groggy. I thought I did and didn't, and I'm guessing when I said that you got the impression that I did.

Carnival of errors all around.  :Small Wink: 



> Anyway while it being accurate in a period piece is true, I don't think that precludes it from aging poorly, though. There are aspects of the craft and creation process that make it bad. If a period piece featured a racist thing, even if it was accurate, it could still be said to be a sign the movie has aged poorly, because we kinda just don't do that anymore if we ca help it. We don't just have an out-in-out dude in black face, for example, in our films, and if we DID do that for historical accuracy, it'd probably be filmed a lot different from a movie in the period that actually does use that stuff would- and accurate or not, people would understandably be like "hey don't ****ing do this???".


I agree with you here, but as I laid out in my reply to Rater's objections, virtually nothing in the movie has aged poorly. The biggest point in contention is the Chinese restaurant scene, which I disagree has aged poorly. It's a far cry from Breakfast at Tiffany's Mr. Yunioshi.

----------


## Rater202

Peelee, I believe I said that it's the way all of that was framed that made it age poorly.

A movie made now but taking place in the same time period wouldn't have framed most of those scenes the same way.

...Also, for the record, Chinese _isn't_ one of the languages that has the "l-to-r" issue. Chinese has the initial L phonemes so the staff of the Chinese restaurant should have had no problem pronouncing "Fa la la la la" unless they're meant to be people from another Asian country merely posing as Chinese which is problematic for another reason entirely.

Even ignoring that, the joke is "foreign people talk funny" and if the film were remade today even i that scene was straight from the autobiographical parts I imagine it would be omitted.

----------


## Jasdoif

> The biggest point in contention is the Chinese restaurant scene, which I disagree has aged poorly.


Indeed.  Bo Ling and his sons provided the solution to the Parkers' Christmas dinner crisis, through something as thoroughly normal as running a dining establishment.  The undertone of the scene is that you don't have to perfectly align with your fellow humans to support them; and to that end, the lack of mastery over English phenomes _augments_ the scene.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Indeed.  Bo Ling and his sons provided the solution to the Parkers' Christmas dinner crisis, through something as thoroughly normal as running a dining establishment.  The undertone of the scene is that you don't have to perfectly align with your fellow humans to support them; and to that end, the lack of mastery over English phenomes _augments_ the scene.


I don't really think them leaning on racist tropes to augment the "they don't really do Christmas but they are doing this to support this family" vibe is something that'd be done nowadays.

Also yeah Rater is right about Cantonese not actually having that linguistic quirk. That would not have been a thing.

----------


## Peelee

> Peelee, I believe I said that it's the way all of that was framed that made it age poorly.
> 
> A movie made now but taking place in the same time period wouldn't have framed most of those scenes the same way.
> 
> ...Also, for the record, Chinese _isn't_ one of the languages that has the "l-to-r" issue. Chinese has the initial L phonemes so the staff of the Chinese restaurant should have had no problem pronouncing "Fa la la la la" unless they're meant to be people from another Asian country merely posing as Chinese which is problematic for another reason entirely.
> 
> Even ignoring that, the joke is "foreign people talk funny" and if the film were remade today even i that scene was straight from the autobiographical parts I imagine it would be omitted.


A.) the framing is not an issue in any of these. As I already described, most of the actual issues (eg the mother beating her child, the bullying) are not held up as norms of the day that are accepted but as aberrant behavior that makes others uncomfortable.
2.) I constantly see "you couldn't do that today!" bandied about and somehow nothing ever seems to actually back it up except for the procliamer's confidence that they are correct. Despite that such shows/movies/etc are still shown with little to no censorship or objections today.
III.) I made sure to look into it before posting the first time to make sure, but Chinese languages *do* have l/r issues. Not exactly as shown, it would be more accurately reversed, but still. See spoiler below.

And the joke is not that "foreign people talk funny". The joke is that the family wants to have a traditional Christmas but everything went wrong and they are getting the exact opposite of a traditional Christmas. Even the goose is served with the head still on.  Their actual experience is being comically different from their goal (and even then, they're enjoying it and embracing the absurdity), while they're still getting a family Christmas meal with people who are doing their best to help make it a good experience for them. _That_ is the joke. If you understood the joke as "foreign people talk funny," that says more about you than the film.

Also, thanks to this discussion, I just learned there is a 2022 version of A Christmas Story that I am hearing very good things about. Gonna see about checking that out soon.

*Spoiler: Interesting linguistic information. Not mine, quoted.* 
Show

As I understand, in at least some major dialects of Chinese (maybe all, I don't know), the /l/ and /r/ sounds exist but are prosodically restricted. The /l/ can only appear syllable-initially while the /r/ appears syllable-finally. This means that a Chinese speaker would have more trouble with an /l/ sound at the end of a word and also with an /r/ sound at the beginning of a word. This means that a speaker should be able to pronounce the /l/ in "ladder" but have difficulty with "red". This agrees with Jon Purdy's examples of yimier for "email" and luōqièsītè for "Rochester".

Korean has the opposite going on; that is, their /l/ and /r/ are in allophonic variation such that /r/ shows up syllable-initially and /l/ syllable-finally, meaning they would have more trouble saying the /l/-sound in "ladder" than in "feel".

In both cases, it would not be trivial for a native speaker of these languages to distinguish the differences between English /l/ and /r/.

It may seem strange that a language would have no difficulty pronouncing a sound in one position in the syllable but extreme difficulty pronouncing the sound elsewhere. However, in English, we have similarly restricted consonants. For example, the consonant /ŋ/ (the "ng" sound in "hanger"  yes it is only one sound, unlike "finger" which has the sequence [ŋɡ]) is only produced syllable-finally in English. But, in many other languages, words commonly begin with /ŋ/ (e.g. Swahili). So the difficulty you would have pronouncing "ngapi" (/ŋapi/) is the same type of difficulty Chinese and Korean speakers run into with /r/ and /l/ in certain places.

In Japanese, there is only one sound that appears in all positions within the syllable. Their /r/ sound is something between /l/ and /r/, and so every English /l/ sound comes out sounding like something "r"-ish


Tl;dr for that : "... It would not be trivial for a native speaker of these languages to distinguish the differences between English /l/ and /r/."

ETA: 


> Indeed.  Bo Ling and his sons provided the solution to the Parkers' Christmas dinner crisis, through something as thoroughly normal as running a dining establishment.  The undertone of the scene is that you don't have to perfectly align with your fellow humans to support them; and to that end, the lack of mastery over English phenomes _augments_ the scene.


I envy your ability to be concise.

----------


## 2D8HP

According to my father A Christmas Story was pretty accurate about what the 1940s were like as a child.

----------


## LaZodiac

The one thing I do miss from my old job was having so much more free time to write. An hour for lunch and writing is just not enough- I get into the vibe and then it's time for continue working!

Of course, I do also have a lot of not work to do, so maybe I can afford to write more than I think. After all if I'm just sitting here waiting for work, I should do something right?

----------


## Form

> The one thing I do miss from my old job was having so much more free time to write. An hour for lunch and writing is just not enough- I get into the vibe and then it's time for continue working!
> 
> Of course, I do also have a lot of not work to do, so maybe I can afford to write more than I think. After all if I'm just sitting here waiting for work, I should do something right?


I dunno, if you're on the clock, then wouldn't you be expected to keep yourself busy whilst on the job? Even if it's just work related self study?

----------


## Peelee

> The one thing I do miss from my old job was having so much more free time to write. An hour for lunch and writing is just not enough- I get into the vibe and then it's time for continue working!
> 
> Of course, I do also have a lot of not work to do, so maybe I can afford to write more than I think. After all if I'm just sitting here waiting for work, I should do something right?


So long as your employer doesn't retain the rights to anything you created while on the clock for them. Probably not terribly likely doing sdmin in a legal office, but then again, lawyers do tend to know the law and might put in provisions like that just in case.

I assume you already know if that's the case or not, though.

----------


## Metastachydium

> In Japanese, there is only one sound that appears in all positions within the syllable. Their /r/ sound is something between /l/ and /r/, and so every English /l/ sound comes out sounding like something "r"-ish


If memory serves, it's really a tap. It's only the place of articulation (~alveolar) that coincides; the manner is quite distinct from that of both our boring old phonemes, and, in fact, perhaps _somewhat_ closer to /r/.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I dunno, if you're on the clock, then wouldn't you be expected to keep yourself busy whilst on the job? Even if it's just work related self study?


I work in a law firm and am still in training on some of the stuff we're using and I'm to be doing. If there is nothing available for me to learn on I don't really have work to do. I've watched all the tutorial videos available.




> So long as your employer doesn't retain the rights to anything you created while on the clock for them. Probably not terribly likely doing sdmin in a legal office, but then again, lawyers do tend to know the law and might put in provisions like that just in case.
> 
> I assume you already know if that's the case or not, though.


I live in a country that is nominally sane so all written work is automatically under copyright of the writer regardless of place of writing also what the actual **** who ever thought that??? That may be one of the most needlessly evil and completely bull**** things I've ever read.

----------


## Fyraltari

> So long as your employer doesn't retain the rights to anything you created while on the clock for them.


Is that a thing?

Why would that be a thing?

----------


## Keltest

> I live in a country that is nominally sane so all written work is automatically under copyright of the writer regardless of place of writing also what the actual **** who ever thought that??? That may be one of the most needlessly evil and completely bull**** things I've ever read.


There is some legitimate reasoning to it. One, it means that you cant create a program/spreadsheet/whatever for use at work, have it become essential, then quit and take it with you. Two, it incentivizes you to work on work stuff.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Is that a thing?
> 
> Why would that be a thing?


It is a thing!




> There is some legitimate reasoning to it. One, it means that you cant create a program/spreadsheet/whatever for use at work, have it become essential, then quit and take it with you. Two, it incentivizes you to work on work stuff.


That is not legitimate that is dumb! If you make a spreadsheet or a program for work that becomes vital everyone is gonna have a copy of it because digital things aren't real they're made of math! You can't take it with you! If you do some creative writing on your break and your job says "this is ours now" you should destroy them for their idiocy!

----------


## Peelee

> If memory serves, it's really a tap. It's only the place of articulation (~alveolar) that coincides; the manner is quite distinct from that of both our boring old phonemes, and, in fact, perhaps _somewhat_ closer to /r/.


Regardless, though, we can agree (at least, you and I, I believe) that the point of the accents wasn't to mock immigrants but rather to reinforce that the family is out of their comfort zone in every way while the people in the Chinese restaurant are still going above and beyond to give them a Christmas dinner they can appreciate. And it's a great scene! The restaurant is empty except for them and the restaurant workers seem to earnestly be invested in making it an enjoyable experience for Ralphie's family, and even though it's pretty much the opposite of what they had planned and wanted, the family is clearly having fun. The story of the movie is that Ralphie wants a BB gun for Christmas but it's about what it's like to be a kid, with the good and the bad, and the Chinese restaurant scene is a hell of a memory that will stay with those kids for the rest of their lives. The old man isn't being a hard ass for once, the mom is free of her normal inhibitions and is screaming with shock and laughter at the absurdity of it all, the kids are having the time of their lives, it's a really heartwarming scene and is one of the most famous scenes in the movie. It's not inherently problematic.



> digital things aren't real


Ya know, for someone who wants to write and publish, you seem to care remarkably little for intellectual property rights.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Regardless, though, we can agree (at least, you and I, I believe) that the point of the accents wasn't to mock immigrants but rather to reinforce that the family is out of their comfort zone in every way while the people in the Chinese restaurant are still going above and beyond to give them a Christmas dinner they can appreciate. And it's a great scene! The restaurant is empty except for them and the restaurant workers seem to earnestly be invested in making it an enjoyable experience for Ralphie's family, and even though it's pretty much the opposite of what they had planned and wanted, the family is clearly having fun. The story of the movie is that Ralphie wants a BB gun for Christmas but it's about what it's like to be a kid, with the good and the bad, and the Chinese restaurant scene is a hell of a memory that will stay with those kids for the rest of their lives. The old man isn't being a hard ass for once, the mom is free of her normal inhibitions and is screaming with shock and laughter at the absurdity of it all, the kids are having the time of their lives, it's a really heartwarming scene and is one of the most famous scenes in the movie. It's not inherently problematic.


It can be for both things.

The restaurant is called Bo Ling because the sign used to say Bowling. There is obviously some degree of racialized humour here- it being a fitting element of the story doesn't change that. It being a racist joke doesn't stop it from also perfectly fitting what the movie did it for either of course, but these two things can both exist at the same time and be true!

It has problematic elements, but exists for a reason.




> Ya know, for someone who wants to write and publish, you seem to care remarkably little for intellectual property rights.


That's not what I meant Peelee and I feel like you know that and are just being a tease.

I mean that a program or a spreadsheet made as part of your work infrastructure is inherently part of that work infrastructure. You cannot remove it when you leave in the sense that everyone has access to that data! I'm not saying you're not allowed to, and that you don't have ownership of the program you made (the spreadsheet is less so because that's not even a relevant thing it's just a file you made with a work tool) but you can't actually remove it from everyone. It's part of the system.

Feel free to correct otherwise, but honestly this comment seems a little sharper than it needs to be. Have I done something to piss you off or what?

----------


## Keltest

> That is not legitimate that is dumb! If you make a spreadsheet or a program for work that becomes vital everyone is gonna have a copy of it because digital things aren't real they're made of math! You can't take it with you! If you do some creative writing on your break and your job says "this is ours now" you should destroy them for their idiocy!


There are many amusing anecdotes from people who have quit their jobs after being mistreated, and they took their personal projects, which they owned, with them when they left because it was theirs and they could legally stop the business from using it after they left. But by extension there are also cases where somebody gets fired or something for legitimate reasons, and they will take stuff they worked on and sabotage the business when they leave.


Its a mixed bag.

----------


## Rater202

> That is not legitimate that is dumb! If you make a spreadsheet or a program for work that becomes vital everyone is gonna have a copy of it because digital things aren't real they're made of math! You can't take it with you! If you do some creative writing on your break and your job says "this is ours now" you should destroy them for their idiocy!


Unfortunately, in real life you're not allowed to inflict violence on cartoonishly evil or corrupt people.

----------


## LaZodiac

> There are many amusing anecdotes from people who have quit their jobs after being mistreated, and they took their personal projects, which they owned, with them when they left because it was theirs and they could legally stop the business from using it after they left. But by extension there are also cases where somebody gets fired or something for legitimate reasons, and they will take stuff they worked on and sabotage the business when they leave.
> 
> 
> Its a mixed bag.


I mean the operative term here is personal. If Rob McLastname is a programming at CVS and makes something that improves their ****ty database system, that's not a personal project. That's a work project. If you feel the need to try and take that from them then all power to you, but I don't think there's any precedent there. If it was like, a little Pong-game they made, then that's not relevant to work and would of course be treated as personal property.

And yeah people can absolutely do that.




> Unfortunately, in real life you're not allowed to inflict violence on cartoonishly evil or corrupt people.


With respect I was exaggerating.

----------


## Keltest

> I mean the operative term here is personal. If Rob McLastname is a programming at CVS and makes something that improves their ****ty database system, that's not a personal project. That's a work project. If you feel the need to try and take that from them then all power to you, but I don't think there's any precedent there. If it was like, a little Pong-game they made, then that's not relevant to work and would of course be treated as personal property.
> 
> And yeah people can absolutely do that.


Im unclear on how one would distinguish the two in the eyes of the law.


ETA: Ok, thats not quite true, I could think of a few ways, but given that you probably shouldnt be coding Pong games while on the clock, Im not entirely sympathetic to that position anyway.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Im unclear on how one would distinguish the two in the eyes of the law.
> 
> 
> ETA: Ok, thats not quite true, I could think of a few ways, but given that you probably shouldnt be coding Pong games while on the clock, Im not entirely sympathetic to that position anyway.


If you did it on break that'd be fine. And like, if you literally have no work to do what else are you supposed to do, argue with people online on a forum you like? Or are they gonna claim that too, do you think?

As for actually specifying it; you would need to judge the relevancy to the work. If you program or write something that have no immediate relevancy to work, and is creative in some way, it's yours. End of discussion. If it's relevant to work, and creative in some way, it depends but also since it is a program you made yourself of your own volition you're absolutely within the realm to take a copy with you!

I want to specify this is all in good humour this is a fun conversation.

----------


## Fyraltari

> There is some legitimate reasoning to it. One, it means that you cant create a program/spreadsheet/whatever for use at work, have it become essential, then quit and take it with you. Two, it incentivizes you to work on work stuff.


It would make some sense for something you create for your employer to belong them (depending on context of course). But Zodi was talking about writing unrelated to her work it doesn't affect her employer.
It would also probably be rather difficult to prove that Zodi this specific thing while at work too.



> Ya know, for someone who wants to write and publish, you seem to care remarkably little for intellectual property rights.


As someone trying to find work as a publisher, I have very mixed opinions about intellectual property rights.

Edit:



> given that you probably shouldnt be coding Pong games while on the clock, Im not entirely sympathetic to that position anyway.


As long as the work is done, who cares.
*Spoiler:  Also, Zodi at work*
Show


https://xkcd.com/303/

----------


## Peelee

> That's not what I meant Peelee and I feel like you know that and are just being a tease.


Let me rephrase. Or, at least, boldface some bits.



> If you do some creative writing *on your break* and your job says "this is ours now" you should destroy them for their idiocy!





> So long as your employer doesn't retain the rights to anything you created *while on the clock for them*.


That being said, I didn't intend my comment to be harsh, but I did intend it to be pointed. IP often deals with intangible, digital matters. If you write a book on a computer instead of a typewriter it is no less real. And if you write an algorithm instead of a book that is also no less real. These things still hold value and by diminishing one you diminish them all. 



> Unfortunately, in real life you're not allowed to inflict violence on cartoonishly evil or corrupt people.


Might I recommend no longer wishing to inflict violence on people? Justice does not require violence. And in real life you _are_ allowed to enact justice if you pursue it properly.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Justice does not require violence.


The Justice system disagrees with you. Laws are backed by the (implicit) threat of violence.

----------


## Keltest

> The Justice system disagrees with you. Laws are backed by the (implicit) threat of violence.


Laws are backed by the implicit threat of force. It doesnt have to be violent force.

----------


## Peelee

> The Justice system disagrees with you. Laws are backed by the (implicit) threat of violence.


That's fair. Justice does not require violence to be enacted, I should have said.

----------


## Rater202

> Might I recommend no longer wishing to inflict violence on people? Justice does not require violence.


I mean, that really depends on what kind of injustice youre talking about, don't it? Sometimes violence _is_ a valid solution to a problem. 


> And in real life you _are_ allowed to enact justice if you pursue it properly.


Not when the injustice in question was perfectly legal.

Need I remind you of the time the bank had my family evicted from our house, that we had consistently made mortgage payments, on time, for several years, over a legal technicality? We tried to fight that in court and all it got us were more fees.

If a corporate policy is that the boss man owns the pet project you make when you're in-between asks or on break and the local laws says they're allowed to do that you're screwed. Try to fight it in court and you'll lose, go vigilante on them and then in the eyes of the law you're the criminal and you're even more screwed.

----------


## LaZodiac

> It would make some sense for something you create for your employer to belong them (depending on context of course). But Zodi was talking about writing unrelated to her work it doesn't affect her employer.
> It would also probably be rather difficult to prove that Zodi this specific thing while at work too.
> 
> As someone trying to find work as a publisher, I have very mixed opinions about intellectual property rights.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> As long as the work is done, who cares.
> *Spoiler:  Also, Zodi at work*
> ...


Yeah, that too. I know some companies install monitors on your computer, but beyond that you can't substantively prove what if any was actually done at work or at home, especially if you've the habit of rallying it from your home computer to your work one like I do with my writing files.

My version of that comic would most realistically be "look my billing lawyer is in court", I think. Very funny though, love that ****.

*@Peelee:* Thank you for the clarification.

To clarify my point on the biting remark; I do not mean to imply that it is less real. I do all my writing digitally as well. I mean that, physically, you can't really remove a program or a vital spreadsheet of information from your work place, because those are programs. I could easily scrub this computer of my writing and it'll be like it was never there, but if you've made a spreadsheet and shared it with people and it's become a foundation of the workplace... you legitimately cannot remove it. You'd need to like, get a court backed document that says all copies of it are to be purged from the system and even then it's likely to not actually be lost because everyone is using it so everyone has a copy or instance of it. Also spreadsheets are... not that big a deal? They're information holding things for graphs and stuff, I don't think anyone will care if your hand crafted Excel Spreadsheet to keep track of your work hours is used by other folk.

That is what I mean. I care a LOT about Intellectual Property (when the war against AI creators happens I will be Doom-guying my way through the robots, to turn a phrase) and would never, ever dismiss something like that as insubstantial due to it being digital.

In the case of a program, if you made it on your own time, it's almost certainly well within your right to get that above mentioned court backed document. If you made it on order FROM your employeer, you made it For Them. It's still yours and you can still take your code with you, but you can't very well stop them from using it.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Laws are backed by the implicit threat of force. It doesnt have to be violent force. Nobody is going to come and beat you up for failing to register for the draft, but they can darn well make your life miserable in other ways if you fail to do so.


Don't pay your fines for long enough and you'll be sent to jail.



> That's fair. Justice does not require violence to be enacted, I should have said.


Fair enough.

----------


## Keltest

> Don't pay your fines for long enough and you'll be sent to jail.


Which doesnt have to be violent unless you escalate it to violence.

----------


## Jasdoif

> The restaurant is called Bo Ling because the sign used to say Bowling. There is obviously some degree of racialized humour here- it being a fitting element of the story doesn't change that. It being a racist joke doesn't stop it from also perfectly fitting what the movie did it for either of course, but these two things can both exist at the same time and be true!


Relevant story:


> For years now there have been rumors swirling around the internet that the establishment used to be a bowling alley before the restaurant moved in, but thats inaccurate.
> 
> The inspiration for this fun little Easter egg came from the real life experience of assistant director Ken Goch. According to the official site AChristmasStoryHouse.com, when Goch was a child, his mother had actually mistaken a bowling alley with a burnt out W for a Chinese restaurant when trying to find a place for the family to eat. Luckily for them, there happened to be a restaurant attached to the bowling alley, so the Gochs were still able to eat  while also enjoying a good laugh.


Now I guess this is kind of a non sequitur, but I'm curious: If, in-universe, Bo Ling acquired a bowling sign specifically _because_ of its parallels with his name, would you find the situation better/worse/equivalent?

----------


## Peelee

> Not when the injustice in question was perfectly legal.


Sure it is. You work to make that injustice illegal. Just because it's not handed to you on a silver platter doesn't mean you aren't able to do it.

Also, yeah, violence is sometimes needed. But man, you fantasize about it. I straight up don't trust people who fantasize about violence to be able to tell when it's needed. 



> Which doesnt have to be violent unless you escalate it to violence.


Not really. You just need to keep refusing and it'll go to violence eventually.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Which doesnt have to be violent unless you escalate it to violence.


I said "(implicit) threat of violence". If the police couldn't beat people up for refusing to walk into the jailhouse, no-one would. If the wardens couldn't tackle people to the ground for trying to leave the jailhouse, people would leave the jailhouse.

Also, not all violence is physical. Incarceration is a pretty heavy form of mental and social violence.

----------


## Rater202

> Sure it is. You work to make that injustice illegal. Just because it's not handed to you on a silver platter doesn't mean you aren't able to do it.


Laws don't apply post ex facto.

If I successfully get the laws changes so that employers aren't allowed to steal the intellectual property of their employees that means that it won't happen in the future without consequences but my former employer sill owns the property they stole from me. I haven't received justice, I've simply prevented it from happening to others in the future.

I've still done a net good, most likely I personally will never receive actually justice and thus never receive closure.



> Also, yeah, violence is sometimes needed. But man, you fantasize about it. I straight up don't trust people who fantasize about violence to be able to tell when it's needed.


Imagine that for several years you're in a situation where other people are allowed to harass you, sexually or otherwise, inflict violence on you, steal your possessions, drive you to the point of an emotional breakdown, and face absolutely no consequences for it even when it happens in plain view of the people who are supposed stop it.

Now imagine that if you complain about it, raise your voice at all, or lay a hand on someone in self-defense you get punished, often disproportionately, while the instigators continue to get off scot-free.

You never get closure for any of it. The only way to make it stop is to be the weird kid that everyone is afraid to pick on, and that does nothing at all to heal the wounds that are already there.

You've been out of there for over a decade but you still have the occasional nightmare about being back in that situation.

You see where I'm coming from?

I don't fantasize about violence. I fantasize about living in a world where if someone wrongs me, I can do something about it without getting in more trouble than the person who started it.

Or, preferably, where the implicit threat of me doing something about it stops it from happening in the first place.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Relevant story:Now I guess this is kind of a non sequitur, but I'm curious: If, in-universe, Bo Ling acquired a bowling sign specifically _because_ of its parallels with his name, would you find the situation better/worse/equivalent?


Neat, did not know that.

Some thoughts on that; Firstly I don't even know if Bo Ling is a reasonable Chinese name I'd have to ask- if it's a name that strikes as fake then it's bad straight out. It's cute if someone is actually called Bo Ling, sees that, and does it in real life, that's cool! If a fictional person called that does it, within the context of the fiction that's a cute, funny little thing- I personally believe the Watsonian explanation for in-story elements should be valued more than they are- but I can't deny the outside context that a writer still decided that, and may or may not have had negative intentions with that. 

Doylist thinking may be reductive in a lot of ways, but fully dismissing it is foolhardy.

----------


## Peelee

> Laws don't apply post ex facto.


Yes, that is indeed how justice works.



> If I successfully get the laws changes so that employers aren't allowed to steal the intellectual property of their employees


They're not stealing it. They're paying the employee for it.



> I've still done a net good, most likely I personally will never receive actually justice and thus never receive closure.


Justice isn't about you getting personal closure. I feel like this may be a fundamental crux of any disagreements we have here. 



> Imagine that .......
> *[snip]*
> You see where I'm coming from?


Yes. You're coming from a place where justice means you personally get closure. That is not the case, and that is not justice.



> I don't fantasize about violence.


You may not see it that way, but I do. 



> I fantasize about living in a world where if someone wrongs me, I can do something about it without getting in more trouble than the person who started it. Or, preferably, where the implicit threat of me doing something about it stops it from happening in the first place.


You can. It seems to me that you dislike that you're not allowed to be a vigilante.

----------


## Rater202

> Justice isn't about you getting personal closure.


 If the victim never receives closure, if the malefactor has not faced consequences, then justice has not happened.




> You can.


With respect, every single experiance where I've faced injustice says otherwise. In, and I say this without a hint of hyperbole, exactly 0% of the cases where I or someone I care about has been wronged but went to the effort to get redress have we ever received compensation for damages rendered, nor has the malefactor received any consequence or been made to take responsibility.

My best case scenario is not being punished for the crime of being a victim.

I don't think we live in the same world, Peelee. I think our life experiences are too differant to see eye to eye on this topic.

----------


## Peelee

> If the victim never receives closure, if the malefactor has not faced consequences, then justice has not happened.


Yep, fundamental crux of disagreement.



> I don't think we live in the same world, Peelee. I think our life experiences are too differant to see eye to eye on this topic.


Yeah, I really don't think it's a "life experiences" thing.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Yep, fundamental crux of disagreement.
> 
> Yeah, I really don't think it's a "life experiences" thing.


It is definitely a life experience thing, at least from my perspective.

Peelee you are (with all respect) a seemingly perfectly normal mid to high class citizen who works in a government job where you are given fitness plans to better ensure your mental and physical health. Rater is (with all respect) a diabetic low-to-middle-class person of indeterminate job status, who if asked would probably call himself a shut-in.

You do not live in the same world, and likely do not have the same life experiences. This is going to lead to differences in opinions, inevitably.

I say this as someone who WAS a low-to-middle-class person shut-in with severe depression and anxiety who has only just recently elevated to "still below the poverty line according to the math, even though I have a cushy government-adjacent job and more than happy with my life and able to afford everything I'd want or need". People have different experiences and those experiences influence their lives, and the way you two fight like oil and fire on the surface of the water is the clearest indication one can gather that you two are just, so completely divorced from each other's realities.

I don't know your life Peelee, I don't know the path that brought you up to where you are right now, but I do know Rater's. He's made it very clear what it's been like. I truly do not think you two are compatible on that front. Maybe I'm wrong, and you've gone through everything exactly like he did and only zagged instead of zigged. But that's what it looks like to me.

----------


## Peelee

> It is definitely a life experience thing, at least from my perspective.
> 
> Peelee you are (with all respect) a seemingly perfectly normal mid to high class citizen who works in a government job where you are given fitness plans to better ensure your mental and physical health.


I do not currently work in a government job, I currently have the cheapest tier personal trainer plan at my gym because that is all I can afford, I have absolutely zero mental health coverage on my quite bad medical insurance. I am working towards getting the government job, which is in the criminal justice arena and cows with legal instruction and lawyers on hand to advise at any given notice. I am also interested in justice, specifically criminal justice, and as an aside, I'm currently reading Three Felonies a Day. 

And all that aside, I reject the idea that the concept of justice is so fluid as to change depending on one's life experience. And regardless of the field, I would wager that if you asked the lawyers in your firm if they thought that, they would have some rather interesting things to say on it as well.

If anything, Rater's life experience is a perfect example of why we don't let the victims decide what is just.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Also, yeah, violence is sometimes needed. But man, you fantasize about it. I straight up don't trust people who fantasize about violence to be able to tell when it's needed.


Violence is a tool, one not to be wielded lightly and only when all others venues have been explored. To some people, violence is an end in itself and that is very dangerous, but the use of violence in a careful focused way  can do tremendous good. Those who say that violence should never be used are probably talking from a position of privilege, often without realising it. Butbeware those whose first recourse is violence.




> I don't fantasize about violence


Dude, you kinda do. I don't judge you for it either way, but you kinda do.



> Yes, that is indeed how justice works.


Without a couple of notable exceptions.




> They're not stealing it. They're paying the employee for it.


Just like there are "legal" and "moral" there are "justice" and "justice". The law, like all things, has flaws. Pretty much everyone recognizes this. Some may say that the overall the law is just with a few things to iron out here and there, others would say that most of it is unjust and it is in need of a serious overhaul.
Paying for something usually means it can't be called "theft" in a legal sense, but in many contexts, the "seller" has little choice but to accept, and for a much lower price than what they'd want. This is also, informally, perhaps morally, sometime politically, referred to as "theft".




> Justice isn't about you getting personal closure.


Debatable.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I do not currently work in a government job, I currently have the cheapest tier personal trainer plan at my gym because that is all I can afford, I have absolutely zero mental health coverage on my quite bad medical insurance. I am working towards getting the government job, which is in the criminal justice arena and cows with legal instruction and lawyers on hand to advise at any given notice. I am also interested in justice, specifically criminal justice, and as an aside, I'm currently reading Three Felonies a Day. 
> 
> And all that aside, I reject the idea that the concept of justice is so fluid as to change depending on one's life experience. And regardless of the field, I would wager that if you asked the lawyers in your firm if they thought that, they would have some rather interesting things to say on it as well.
> 
> If anything, Rater's life experience is a perfect example of why we don't let the victims decide what is just.


Fair, I forgot where along in the process you are. Also neat book I'll give it a read.

I can 100% guarantee without hesitation that if I were to ask, they would actually say that yes, someone's experiences are going to influence their idea of justice. I work in Litigation and Child Protection, there are parents out there who are convinced they are Correct and Good and that losing the children they abuse is a miscarriage of Justice because their experiences tell them they are in the right. There are people, rightly or not, who believe such-and-such thing about justice due to their experiences, and the results do not always jive with how they feel and how they believe.

This isn't odd, weird, or uncommon; if you've had to steal for your bread every day, you're more likely to not think theft of food is a crime. If you've dined on caviar all your life, and been told how evil and cruel people are for stealing food, you're very likely going to think theft of food is a crime. That's an exaggeration, but you get where I'm coming from yes?

Please note I am not speaking in absolute. For every person stealing ham slices because they don't make enough money and have no regrets because **** big business, there's a Jean Valjean who thinks I Committed A Crime And Thus Are To Be Damned To Hell whenever they steal half a slice of bread for their starving baby. People are varied and nuanced and, importantly, are shaped by the events of their lives.

----------


## Keltest

> Fair, I forgot where along in the process you are. Also neat book I'll give it a read.
> 
> I can 100% guarantee without hesitation that if I were to ask, they would actually say that yes, someone's experiences are going to influence their idea of justice. I work in Litigation and Child Protection, there are parents out there who are convinced they are Correct and Good and that losing the children they abuse is a miscarriage of Justice because their experiences tell them they are in the right. There are people, rightly or not, who believe such-and-such thing about justice due to their experiences, and the results do not always jive with how they feel and how they believe.
> 
> This isn't odd, weird, or uncommon; if you've had to steal for your bread every day, you're more likely to not think theft of food is a crime. If you've dined on caviar all your life, and been told how evil and cruel people are for stealing food, you're very likely going to think theft of food is a crime. That's an exaggeration, but you get where I'm coming from yes?
> 
> Please note I am not speaking in absolute. For every person stealing ham slices because they don't make enough money and have no regrets because **** big business, there's a Jean Valjean who thinks I Committed A Crime And Thus Are To Be Damned To Hell whenever they steal half a slice of bread for their starving baby. People are varied and nuanced and, importantly, are shaped by the events of their lives.


I mean, the big thing here is that youre discounting the idea that somebody can just be wrong. Just because somebody thinks something is unjust doesnt mean its correct.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I mean, the big thing here is that youre discounting the idea that somebody can just be wrong. Just because somebody thinks something is unjust doesnt mean its correct.


Irrelevant to the discussion. This is not about Someone Being Wrong, this is about Someone's Opinion On Justice.

Peelee's premise is that Rater's extreme views on punishment are absurd. Rater's argument is that his life experiences have influenced his beliefs, and thus are reasonable to him. Peelee's counter is that this is not a thing that actually happens, and that your experiences do not influence your beliefs.

The fact that someone can say "I don't think it's a crime to murder someone" and be, factually, wrong, is not actually a relevant point of discussion here. The fact that someone can say that is in fact the point; someone's life experience leading them to believe that would prove Peelee wrong and Rater right.

----------


## Keltest

> Irrelevant to the discussion. This is not about Someone Being Wrong, this is about Someone's Opinion On Justice.
> 
> Peelee's premise is that Rater's extreme views on punishment are absurd. Rater's argument is that his life experiences have influenced his beliefs, and thus are reasonable to him. Peelee's counter is that this is not a thing that actually happens, and that your experiences do not influence your beliefs.
> 
> The fact that someone can say "I don't think it's a crime to murder someone" and be, factually, wrong, is not actually a relevant point of discussion here. The fact that someone can say that is in fact the point; someone's life experience leading them to believe that would prove Peelee wrong and Rater right.


I think youre misunderstanding what Peelee is saying.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Fair, I forgot where along in the process you are. Also neat book I'll give it a read.
> 
> I can 100% guarantee without hesitation that if I were to ask, they would actually say that yes, someone's experiences are going to influence their idea of justice. I work in Litigation and Child Protection, there are parents out there who are convinced they are Correct and Good and that losing the children they abuse is a miscarriage of Justice because their experiences tell them they are in the right. There are people, rightly or not, who believe such-and-such thing about justice due to their experiences, and the results do not always jive with how they feel and how they believe.
> 
> This isn't odd, weird, or uncommon; if you've had to steal for your bread every day, you're more likely to not think theft of food is a crime. If you've dined on caviar all your life, and been told how evil and cruel people are for stealing food, you're very likely going to think theft of food is a crime. That's an exaggeration, but you get where I'm coming from yes?
> 
> Please note I am not speaking in absolute. For every person stealing ham slices because they don't make enough money and have no regrets because **** big business, there's a Jean Valjean who thinks I Committed A Crime And Thus Are To Be Damned To Hell whenever they steal half a slice of bread for their starving baby. People are varied and nuanced and, importantly, are shaped by the events of their lives.


While I agree with what your are saying, I feel compelled to point out that Jean Valjean is the guy the who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving nephews and nieces (one of whom was a baby) and spent almost two decades in prison because of that.

You probably were thinking of Javert, although I doubt the notion of a hell ever mattered to the man.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I think youre misunderstanding what Peelee is saying.


How so? Rater said that his experiences have given him his perspective on justice, and that they've lived such different lives they're not capable of seeing eye to eye. Peelee disagrees with this notion, and said, quote, "I reject the idea that the concept of justice is so fluid as to change depending on one's life experience"

That seems pretty concisely "I don't think your experiences influence your belief on justice."

I can see where you're coming from mind; he could be saying that justice is a standard that is always unchanging, regardless of people's opinions about it... but if that's what he was trying to say, I don't think he got it across very well. He is free to clarify of course. 




> While I agree with what your are saying, I feel compelled to point out that Jean Valjean is the guy the who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving nephews and nieces (one of whom was a baby) and spent almost two decades in prison because of that.
> 
> You probably were thinking of Javert, although I doubt the notion of a hell ever mattered to the man.


In my defense I forgot if Jean Valjean felt guilt at what he did. I know he stole from the priest and confessed to his guilt and it's been two decades since I last read it so I may have forgotten.

----------


## Keltest

> How so? Rater said that his experiences have given him his perspective on justice, and that they've lived such different lives they're not capable of seeing eye to eye. Peelee disagrees with this notion, and said, quote, "I reject the idea that the concept of justice is so fluid as to change depending on one's life experience"
> 
> That seems pretty concisely "I don't think your experiences influence your belief on justice."
> 
> I can see where you're coming from mind; he could be saying that justice is a standard that is always unchanging, regardless of people's opinions about it... but if that's what he was trying to say, I don't think he got it across very well. He is free to clarify of course.


I thought it was pretty clear. "I dont think Justice changes with your opinion." is a reasonable paraphrase.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I thought it was pretty clear. "I dont think Justice changes with your opinion." is a reasonable paraphrase.


Well as said, given this entire branch of the discussion started from Rater saying they will never see eye to eye due to their experiences, and Peelee thinking that's not true, he should have made that a bit clearer.

And also, flatly, the idea that justice doesn't bend to opinion is a flawed one, I think? But that's not really the conversation at hand.

----------


## Peelee

> Fair, I forgot where along in the process you are. Also neat book I'll give it a read.
> 
> I can 100% guarantee without hesitation that if I were to ask, they would actually say that yes, someone's experiences are going to influence their idea of justice. I work in Litigation and Child Protection, there are parents out there who are convinced they are Correct and Good and that losing the children they abuse is a miscarriage of Justice because their experiences tell them they are in the right. There are people, rightly or not, who believe such-and-such thing about justice due to their experiences, and the results do not always jive with how they feel and how they believe.
> 
> This isn't odd, weird, or uncommon; if you've had to steal for your bread every day, you're more likely to not think theft of food is a crime. If you've dined on caviar all your life, and been told how evil and cruel people are for stealing food, you're very likely going to think theft of food is a crime. That's an exaggeration, but you get where I'm coming from yes?
> 
> Please note I am not speaking in absolute. For every person stealing ham slices because they don't make enough money and have no regrets because **** big business, there's a Jean Valjean who thinks I Committed A Crime And Thus Are To Be Damned To Hell whenever they steal half a slice of bread for their starving baby. People are varied and nuanced and, importantly, are shaped by the events of their lives.


A neat companion.book is Punishment Without Crime, which focuses on the misdemeanor system at state and lower levels while Three Felonies a Day focuses on felonies at the federal level. Also, both are very US-centric. And I don't blame you for not keeping up with my job status. I had gotten in but was bounced out of the program on a temporary medical issue, and I'm working to get back in now.

Anyway. Sure, someone's idea of justice will be influenced by their experience, but I thought it was clear that Rater and I were discussing implementation and application of justice, which cannot be influenced by personal experience to truly be just.



> Well as said, given this entire branch of the discussion started from Rater saying they will never see eye to eye due to their experiences, and Peelee thinking that's not true, he should have made that a bit clearer.


?

I believe I explicitly said that I have a fundamental disagreement with Rater, if I didn't use the exact phrase "will not see eye to eye". I thought I was fairly clear.



> I thought it was pretty clear. "I dont think Justice changes with your opinion." is a reasonable paraphrase.


Perfectly put.

----------


## Rater202

I wasn't talking about implementation.

I believe that justice has not been served unless and until the malefactor receives consequences for their actions or otherwise takes responsibility and the victim receives closure.

Preventing further injustice is good, but preventing injustice is not the same as serving justice.

----------


## LaZodiac

> A neat companion.book is Punishment Without Crime, which focuses on the misdemeanor system at state and lower levels while Three Felonies a Day focuses on felonies at the federal level. Also, both are very US-centric. And I don't blame you for not keeping up with my job status. I had gotten in but was bounced out of the program on a temporary medical issue, and I'm working to get back in now.
> 
> Anyway. Sure, someone's idea of justice will be influenced by their experience, but I thought it was clear that Rater and I were discussing implementation and application of justice, which cannot be influenced by personal experience to truly be just.
> 
> ?
> 
> I believe I explicitly said that I have a fundamental disagreement with Rater, if I didn't use the exact phrase "will not see eye to eye". I thought I was fairly clear.


It was not clear at all, personally. All you said was "Yeah, I really don't think it's a "life experiences" thing", which given Rater's initial point that you were disagreeing with (and how our conversation above went, and the above quoted "justice is not fluid" line) did not ever really read to me as "I think justice is an immutable thing outside of personal experience".

Regardless, the issue has been cleared up. I still think you're wrong in either case, but that's just a difference of opinion. At this point this conversation has exceeded "Rater feels like he's kinda getting dog piled and I like him and mostly agree so I'll step in a bit" and has gone to "I'm really just picking Peelee's brain" so we can probably call it for now, till the next innocuous opinion causes everyone to set themselves on fire again.

----------


## Peelee

> I wasn't talking about implementation.
> 
> I believe that justice has not been served unless and until the malefactor receives consequences for their actions or otherwise takes responsibility and the victim receives closure.


And that's fine.

Pretty much the entirety of legal theory and virtually every legal community there is disagrees with you, though.

----------


## Rater202

Question:

A sapient organism is referred to as the "alpha" version of its species... But it does not appear to be older, hold a position of authority, be stronger or more powerful, or be larger than other members of its species.

Nor does the concept of "alpha male" apply, if there was any validity to such things, as the organism does not typically reproduce sexually. They do sometimes form pair bonds but typically only for companionship.

What would you assume "alpha" is referring to?

----------


## Keltest

> Question:
> 
> A sapient organism is referred to as the "alpha" version of its species... But it does not appear to be older, hold a position of authority, be stronger or more powerful, or be larger than other members of its species.
> 
> Nor does the concept of "alpha male" apply, if there was any validity to such things, as the organism does not typically reproduce sexually. They do sometimes form pair bonds but typically only for companionship.
> 
> What would you assume "alpha" is referring to?


That it is older and just doesnt show its age? Because thats about the only interpretation youve allowed that isnt just misusing the word entirely.

----------


## Qwertystop

Designed species, individual is a surviving instance of an unfinished early version.

----------


## DavidSh

> Question:
> 
> A sapient organism is referred to as the "alpha" version of its species... But it does not appear to be older, hold a position of authority, be stronger or more powerful, or be larger than other members of its species.
> 
> Nor does the concept of "alpha male" apply, if there was any validity to such things, as the organism does not typically reproduce sexually. They do sometimes form pair bonds but typically only for companionship.
> 
> What would you assume "alpha" is referring to?


That the organism is from an early version of its species, not even a version ready for release to testers, let alone a general release version.  This would seem to contradict "does not appear to be older", but an instance of an alpha version could be created even after the general release, for unknown reasons.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> What would you assume "alpha" is referring to?


The ignorance of the person calling it that.  :Small Cool:

----------


## LaZodiac

> Question:
> 
> A sapient organism is referred to as the "alpha" version of its species... But it does not appear to be older, hold a position of authority, be stronger or more powerful, or be larger than other members of its species.
> 
> Nor does the concept of "alpha male" apply, if there was any validity to such things, as the organism does not typically reproduce sexually. They do sometimes form pair bonds but typically only for companionship.
> 
> What would you assume "alpha" is referring to?


The first of its kind, which does not necessarily evoke any actual importance or strength. Optional if they're an artificial species or not.

----------


## Aedilred

> While I agree with what your are saying, I feel compelled to point out that Jean Valjean is the guy the who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving nephews and nieces (one of whom was a baby) and spent almost two decades in prison because of that.


Five years for what he did, the rest because he tried to run. Yes, 24601.



> You probably were thinking of Javert, although I doubt the notion of a hell ever mattered to the man.


Been a long time since I read it, but from what I remember Javert was deeply religious, to the point it was the foundation of his being and the reason he disintegrated when he couldn't fit Valjean into his worldview. This aspect of his character is just about visible in the musical, though not very overt, but downplayed or abandoned altogether in some adaptations (such as the TV version with Dominic West). 

It's hard to get into that within the scope of forum rules, however.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Been a long time since I read it, but from what I remember Javert was deeply religious, to the point it was the foundation of his being and the reason he disintegrated when he couldn't fit Valjean into his worldview. This aspect of his character is just about visible in the musical, though not very overt, but downplayed or abandoned altogether in some adaptations (such as the TV version with Dominic West). 
> 
> It's hard to get into that within the scope of forum rules, however.


No, Javert's worldview is the result of him being the child of criminals (born in prison even) meaning that pretty much everyone assumed he would turn to crime too, since it was "in his blood" (it's also hinted at that he's at least half Romani) and overcorrecting. 

Valjean is the one coming at it from a religious perspective as a result of his encounter with the bishop.

----------


## halfeye

> Is that a thing?
> 
> Why would that be a thing?


I don't remember where it was a thing (USA? EU?), or what the thing in question was, but there was somebody invented something in their spare time, and their work claimed it, because their bosses claimed they used their work skills in the production and they had a no-compete clause in their contract. This was at least ten years ago, maybe twenty, when no-compete clauses were new, and people probably look harder at no-compete clauses before signing contracts these days.

----------


## theangelJean

> Question:
> 
> A sapient organism is referred to as the "alpha" version of its species... But it does not appear to be older, hold a position of authority, be stronger or more powerful, or be larger than other members of its species.
> 
> Nor does the concept of "alpha male" apply, if there was any validity to such things, as the organism does not typically reproduce sexually. They do sometimes form pair bonds but typically only for companionship.
> 
> What would you assume "alpha" is referring to?





> The ignorance of the person calling it that.


This, except I would assume my own ignorance rather than that of those using the term.

"Alpha" is currently used to denote a prime position in some kind of hierarchy. Sapient organisms who don't typically reproduce sexually ... means a fictional species, right? You've ruled out a bunch of the hierarchies humans use to categorise ourselves, so if members of this species were using the term "alpha" as if it meant something, I would assume there was something else going on I wasn't privy to. 

Either that or it's an entirely anthropocentric term, in which case it might be as simple as the order of first contact with humans. Which is basically the same as Lord Raziere's answer.

If you were talking about a non-sapient organism then there would be a small possibility you were talking about a non-fictional species. In which case "alpha" might denote the order of "discovery" by humans. Same thing.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Question:
> 
> A sapient organism is referred to as the "alpha" version of its species... But it does not appear to be older, hold a position of authority, be stronger or more powerful, or be larger than other members of its species.
> 
> Nor does the concept of "alpha male" apply, if there was any validity to such things, as the organism does not typically reproduce sexually. They do sometimes form pair bonds but typically only for companionship.
> 
> What would you assume "alpha" is referring to?


Their name.
Edit: Or some other form of title, honorific or form of adress.

----------


## Form

> Question:
> 
> A sapient organism is referred to as the "alpha" version of its species... But it does not appear to be older, hold a position of authority, be stronger or more powerful, or be larger than other members of its species.
> 
> Nor does the concept of "alpha male" apply, if there was any validity to such things, as the organism does not typically reproduce sexually. They do sometimes form pair bonds but typically only for companionship.
> 
> What would you assume "alpha" is referring to?


First individual or type of its species that has been encountered and placed in some kind of categorization system. It's the first one encountered, so it gets the first letter out of the box.

You could codify even more information in the serial number you assign to the creature depending on what you deem would be useful to know at a glance or for processing large batches of information of course, if you were so inclined.

----------


## BisectedBrioche

I'm also inclined towards "the first on some sort of list".

----------


## Peelee

> Question:
> 
> A sapient organism is referred to as the "alpha" version of its species... But it does not appear to be older, hold a position of authority, be stronger or more powerful, or be larger than other members of its species.
> 
> Nor does the concept of "alpha male" apply, if there was any validity to such things, as the organism does not typically reproduce sexually. They do sometimes form pair bonds but typically only for companionship.
> 
> What would you assume "alpha" is referring to?


What's the context? What is this from? We can probably use that to better figure out the meaning.

----------


## D&D_Fan

Dominance hierarchies do exist, and the alpha is typically given to mean to most dominant for any reason. Birds have it, primates have it, canids have it, seals have it, fish have it, hyaenas have it, etc... Even insects have similar systems. Primates are more varied as a large group. Some species of primates have male dominant hierarchies, some have female dominant ones, some have a more egalitarian system entirely. I think dominance hierarchy is less psuedoscientific than some people think, but it's not well understood, and it isn't as absolute as some proponents say it is either.

Generally if you see some grindset crypto enthusiast gym rat talking about being a "sigma male" like John Wick. They don't understand how it works at all. And they never watched John Wick either. It's not an issue of pure strength, it's about working well with others too. Nobody likes a despot, not even in the animal kingdom. Animals can turn on each other and contest one another. A good alpha animal will be able to maintain cohesion of their pack. I think because of the social responsibility aspect, John Wick would actually be an "alpha" were humans to have such distinctions. Which we don't really have.

Human systems are just more complex than strength or looks, we have incorporated all sorts of other things like wealth, race, religion, nationality, education, experience, all of that is added into selection processes. It's just a much more advanced system, and you can't just replace it with a great ape or wolf pack system because it's "cooler"

----------


## Rater202

> What's the context? What is this from? We can probably use that to better figure out the meaning.


I'm making another Jumpchain document.

For large settings, there can be documents covering specific aspects, and I'm doing one for the last few years worth of Marvel Comics focusing primarily but not exclusively on what's been going down with the X-Men.

I want to include a Scenario based on the recent Judgement Day Event, where the Progenitor, a Celestial that died on Earth 4 billion years ago while the planet was still molten and that's why all the weird stuff happens here, is brought back to life by the Eternals Makkari and Ajack in order to give the Eternals a new purpose.

...It proceeded to go as wrong as it possibly could.

When we were introduced to the concept of the Progenitor, Loki, when translating for other Celestials, refers to it as an "Alpha Celestial" but doens't really give any further context for what that means. It wasn't the Leader, or the Strongest, it wasn't noticeably larger than the others of the Celestial Host it was part of..., can't be the "Alpha Male" because the one time in the entire history of the species they've only reproduced sexually the one time, which was the product of an experiment and killed the "mother."

If I'm going to make such a scenario, I need to have a good idea of what the hell the Progenitor actually is. It might sound negotiable, but if a chain has gone on long enough the Jumper in question could well be on the level of a Celestial themselves so they'd have options that weren't available in the anon version of the story.

Figuring out what "Alpha Celestial" means is an importan step.

----------


## Peelee

> When we were introduced to the concept of the Progenitor, Loki, when translating for other Celestials, refers to it as an "Alpha Celestial" but doens't really give any further context for what that means. It wasn't the Leader, or the Strongest, it wasn't noticeably larger than the others of the Celestial Host it was part of


Ok, so distilling the relevant part here, I'd say that being called both the Alpha Celestial and the Progenitor means it was the first. You said earlier there was no indication of it being older, but I'd imagine that being called "the progenitor" and "the alpha celestial" are indications that it's older. Or whatever word Marvel wants to use if they want to play weird time games. Doesn't matter. Simplifying to the point a child could understand, thats probably just the first celestial.

----------


## Rater202

> Ok, so distilling the relevant part here, I'd say that being called both the Alpha Celestial and the Progenitor means it was the first. You said earlier there was no indication of it being older, but I'd imagine that being called "the progenitor" and "the alpha celestial" are indications that it's older. Or whatever word Marvel wants to use if they want to play weird time games. Doesn't matter. Simplifying to the point a child could understand, thats probably just the first celestial.


Oh, I knew I forgot something.

A Celestial's name or title refers to how it relates to mortals, not its position in the Celestial Hierarchy.

The Progenitor is called that because it's the ultimate source of life on Earth in the Marvel Universe. It died on Earth and its blood, bile, and vomit saturated the planet's molten mass, giving rise to the first simple organisms on the planet*.

All organisms on or born from the Earth carry a small touch of the Progentiro's cosmic power... But also a touch of the essence of the disease that killed it.

So it being "The Progenitor" is separate from it being an Alpha Celestial.

The _actual_ progenitor of the Celestials is the First Firmament, also known as the First Cosmos, essentially a sentient universe. For context, the current iteration of the Multiverse is either the Seventh or the Eighth Cosmos depending on how you count.

----------


## tyckspoon

> Ok, so distilling the relevant part here, I'd say that being called both the Alpha Celestial and the Progenitor means it was the first. You said earlier there was no indication of it being older, but I'd imagine that being called "the progenitor" and "the alpha celestial" are indications that it's older. Or whatever word Marvel wants to use if they want to play weird time games. Doesn't matter. Simplifying to the point a child could understand, thats probably just the first celestial.


Might be 'the first one we are aware of' or 'the first one that did something that interfered with events on Earth.' A cursory search doesn't indicate anything attaching further importance to the 'alpha' designation, so it may well just be a random word the writer threw in there to make it sound more important/mysterious than the current day crop of Celestials - the Progenitor doesn't really seem to be unusual among Celestials for anything other than the method of its death.

----------


## Peelee

> Oh, I knew I forgot something.
> 
> A Celestial's name or title refers to how it relates to mortals, not its position in the Celestial Hierarchy.
> 
> The Progenitor is called that because it's the ultimate source of life on Earth in the Marvel Universe


Again, only relevant portions kept. Ok, so the mortals call it the progenitor and the celestial call it the alpha celestial. So, sounds like that's basically one and the same, and is just their title for the one that created life on Earth (and whatever else they did)

----------


## Fyraltari

Could it be arbitrary classification? "Alpha" doesn't have to denote seniority. Alpha radioactive decay isn't "prior" to the Beta and Gamma ones.

----------


## Rater202

> Again, only relevant portions kept. Ok, so the mortals call it the progenitor and the celestial call it the alpha celestial. So, sounds like that's basically one and the same, and is just their title for the one that created life on Earth (and whatever else they did)


Creating life on planets is kind of the Celestial's _thing_, though. The only thing special about Earth is that it wasn't on purpose.

Also "an" alpha Celestial. When I first said "the alpha version of the species" I was referring to the state of being that, not trying to imply there was only the one.

----------


## Peelee

> Creating life on planets is kind of the Celestial's _thing_, though. The only thing special about Earth is that it wasn't on purpose.
> 
> Also "an" alpha Celestial. When I first said "the alpha version of the species" I was referring to the state of being that, not trying to imply there was only the one.


Ok. So with a little quick and dirty research, I could be wrong here but it seems like the only time he's called Alpha Celestial is by Loki, and they never explain it and never revisit it. So until and unless they do, it doesn't really matter. You're doing a fanfic so it can be whatever you want or you could ignore it like they do. Dealers choice.

----------


## halfeye

> Ok. So with a little quick and dirty research, I could be wrong here but it seems like the only time he's called Alpha Celestial is by Loki,


Which Loki is that? Isn't Loki often a liar?

----------


## Peelee

> Which Loki is that? Isn't Loki often a liar?


In Marvel, I don't know, but even if he is that's the automatic answer and i assumed Rater was asking for "assuming aloki isn't lying."

----------


## Rater202

> Which Loki is that? Isn't Loki often a liar?


Loki hasn't been outright evil for a while now and is more often than not a force for good as of late.

In this case, he was _pretending_ to side with some Celestials who were driven insane by a mutant strain of the same disease that killed the Progenitor but was actually playing a long con that not only cured them, but got the Avengers to reform after having previously broken up.

----------


## LaZodiac

My personal pet theory on this, having read everyone's conversation, is that since Loki is translating it... whatever the actual word is, it's not ACTUALLY Alpha, it's just the most fitting name he could think of.

Progenitor means "creator" means "has created things, existed before those things", and in this universe it's a well known thing that Omega is a term ascribed to the end of all things, so the counterpart to the end of all things is the beginning of all things, so Alpha. I can see him going down that chain of thought. It's just not a wholly accurate translation. it's the Progenitor, roughly, in the Celestial language, because it is capable of progenitoring things, and Loki read that as a more direct Creator then just "someone who creates".

----------


## Peelee

> Loki hasn't been outright evil for a while now and is more often than not a force for good as of late.
> 
> In this case, he was _pretending_ to side with some Celestials who were driven insane by a mutant strain of the same disease that killed the Progenitor but was actually playing a long con that not only cured them, but got the Avengers to reform after having previously broken up.


Talking about being good or evil doesn't really address whether someone is a liar. I assume from context that he's probably not lying, but you didn't really touch on it.

----------


## Rater202

> Talking about being good or evil doesn't really address whether someone is a liar. I assume from context that he's probably not lying, but you didn't really touch on it.


Sorry, brain slip.

The thing about being a God of Lies is that you have to be a good liar.

A good lia'rs lies are believable.

No one will believe your lies if all you ever do is lie.

Loki is the God of Lies because he tells the right lies a the right time for the right reason. Which in practice means he very rarely tells actual lies.

Which, incidentally, was his campaign platform that time he ran for president.

In general, he tends to go with fast-talking and omitting key facts rather than outright untruths.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Question:
> 
> A sapient organism is referred to as the "alpha" version of its species... But it does not appear to be older, hold a position of authority, be stronger or more powerful, or be larger than other members of its species.
> 
> Nor does the concept of "alpha male" apply, if there was any validity to such things, as the organism does not typically reproduce sexually. They do sometimes form pair bonds but typically only for companionship.
> 
> What would you assume "alpha" is referring to?





> My personal pet theory on this, having read everyone's conversation, is that since Loki is translating it... whatever the actual word is, it's not ACTUALLY Alpha, it's just the most fitting name he could think of.


I'd go the opposite direction, actually. It _is_ the actual word. And it's also a false friend. Think about it: a decidedly non-human being translates stuff for decidedly non-human beings. Why should we assume a word the former spouts out is the name of some Greek letter? Maybe it's just some weird alien word for 'carrying weird alien hemorrhagic fever' or something.

----------


## Rater202

> I'd go the opposite direction, actually. It _is_ the actual word. And it's also a false friend. Think about it: a decidedly non-human being translates stuff for decidedly non-human beings. Why should we assume a word the former spouts out is the name of some Greek letter? Maybe it's just some weird alien word for 'carrying weird alien hemorrhagic fever' or something.


The "weird alien hemorrhagic fever" is called Horde.

----------


## Metastachydium

> The "weird alien hemorrhagic fever" is called Horde.


My mistake (I should have known that's already a thing)! But you get the idea.

----------


## Rater202

Is anyone else fed up with stories or anecdotes about downright dystopian situations being presented as uplifting human interest stories?

A story about a child getting a job to pay for their friends' school lunches or someone finally getting their dream job after being ghosted for 700 job interviews in a row is not a heartwarming tale, it's proof that there's something fundamentally wrong in this world.

----------


## FinnLassie

*rises from the snow*

THREE DAYS, NON-STOP!

*grumbles and goes to bed*

----------


## Peelee

> *rises from the snow*
> 
> THREE DAYS, NON-STOP!
> 
> *grumbles and goes to bed*


Man, yesterday and today the temperature didn't even get above 20°C. Its downright inhumane, I tells ya!

----------


## theangelJean

> Is anyone else fed up with stories or anecdotes about downright dystopian situations being presented as uplifting human interest stories?
> 
> A story about a child getting a job to pay for their friends' school lunches or someone finally getting their dream job after being ghosted for 700 job interviews in a row is not a heartwarming tale, it's proof that there's something fundamentally wrong in this world.


Absolutely. I like the classification "glurge" from the Snopes website*. It's supposed to make you feel better, because it's "success in the face of adversity", but I think in practice it makes people feel better because there's always someone worse off than them. Plus it turns out most of these anecdotes are probably complete fiction.

And for me personally, I already know that the large majority of the world's population is worse off than me; it doesn't make me feel better, because *it's not fair*. If I were capable of doing the job I trained for, I would be out there fixing it. As it is, I do what I can.

*Last I checked, the Snopes website was all but buried under uncontrolled ads, so I stopped visiting. Wonder if that's changed.

----------


## Rater202

> And for me personally, I already know that the large majority of the world's population is worse off than me; it doesn't make me feel better, because *it's not fair*. If I were capable of doing the job I trained for, I would be out there fixing it. As it is, I do what I can.


My stance in life is that my life sucks, but about half the world population from what I've seen are in situations that are just as bad or else far worse.

This does nothing to make me hate my life less, it just makes me think that the world is broken.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Absolutely. I like the classification "glurge" from the Snopes website*. It's supposed to make you feel better, because it's "success in the face of adversity", but I think in practice it makes people feel better because there's always someone worse off than them. Plus it turns out most of these anecdotes are probably complete fiction.
> 
> And for me personally, I already know that the large majority of the world's population is worse off than me; it doesn't make me feel better, because *it's not fair*. If I were capable of doing the job I trained for, I would be out there fixing it. As it is, I do what I can.
> 
> *Last I checked, the Snopes website was all but buried under uncontrolled ads, so I stopped visiting. Wonder if that's changed.


I'd say less glurge and more "propaganda attempting to pass off a broken society as actually good".

The examples of these stories that I have checked and ARE true are always the most dystopian **** imaginable, spun in the "oh see how good things are!" way possible. Is it good that a kid paid for all of his school's lunch debt (a monstrous thing to even exist) with a lemonade stand? Yes. Is it is exceptionally ****ed that he was in a situation where _he had to do this in the first place?_ Without a doubt!!

----------


## Peelee

> Absolutely. I like the classification "glurge" from the Snopes website*. It's supposed to make you feel better, because it's "success in the face of adversity", but I think in practice it makes people feel better because there's always someone worse off than them. Plus it turns out most of these anecdotes are probably complete fiction.


A Twitter user put it best: "Every heartwarming human interest story in America is like 'he raised $20,000 to keep 200 orphans from being crushed in the orphan-crushing machine' and then never asks why an orphan-crushing machine exists or why you'd need to pay to prevent it from being used."

There were a few more descriptive bits after that but I think the initial part gets the message across perfectly.

----------


## Rater202

I have tried Turkish delight. I probably shouldn't have but I've been curious about it ever since I read _The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe_ in middle school and I figured I was unlikely to get another opportunity and my blood sugar is pretty consistently under control.

Mixed bag. Not gonna say I liked it, not gonna say I didn't either. Certainly has an interesting flavor. Glad I did it once.

...Almost had a heart attack when I checked the nutrition facts until I saw that that was for 4 pieces.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Manga canon has Ruby's backstory be that a Salamance clawed his head open while he was saving Sapphire.
> 
> It's part of why he wears the doofy hat, and why he prefers Pokemon Contests to battling.


*Spoiler: Chapter 252*
Show

So I finally caught up to where this happens: chapter 252. It turns out that it didn't quite happen like that. (At least not in the English translation.) He had a head wound, but nothing that broke the skull or would require hospitalization. He also wasn't traumatized by the battle or anythingit was Sapphire's response to his aggression that compelled him to battle privately.

He also wore the doofy hat during this salamance encounter, so I guess we have to conclude that Ruby has poor taste in hats. It is kinda a weird hat. I wonder why the game-makers decided on it.





> Is anyone else fed up with stories or anecdotes about downright dystopian situations being presented as uplifting human interest stories?
> 
> A story about a child getting a job to pay for their friends' school lunches or someone finally getting their dream job after being ghosted for 700 job interviews in a row is not a heartwarming tale, it's proof that there's something fundamentally wrong in this world.


No, mostly because I'm not really exposed to these kinds of stories. I agree that they're dismal, though.

----------


## LaZodiac

> *Spoiler: Chapter 252*
> Show
> 
> So I finally caught up to where this happens: chapter 252. It turns out that it didn't quite happen like that. (At least not in the English translation.) He had a head wound, but nothing that broke the skull or would require hospitalization. He also wasn't traumatized by the battle or anythingit was Sapphire's response to his aggression that compelled him to battle privately.
> 
> He also wore the doofy hat during this salamance encounter, so I guess we have to conclude that Ruby has poor taste in hats. It is kinda a weird hat. I wonder why the game-makers decided on it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, mostly because I'm not really exposed to these kinds of stories. I agree that they're dismal, though.


To be fair to me, I never said it broke the skull or required hospitalization, just that his head got clawed open. A head wound is necessarily the head being opened up.

I'll cop to just forgetting that Sapphire's fear was the more direct reason for him preferring Contests over battles though. I remembered "the event caused this" but not what specifically within said event.

I'd also argue the hat is a good hat because it is doofy, but to each their own with regards to style, of course.

----------


## TaiLiu

> To be fair to me, I never said it broke the skull or required hospitalization, just that his head got clawed open. A head wound is necessarily the head being opened up.
> 
> I'll cop to just forgetting that Sapphire's fear was the more direct reason for him preferring Contests over battles though. I remembered "the event caused this" but not what specifically within said event.
> 
> I'd also argue the hat is a good hat because it is doofy, but to each their own with regards to style, of course.


Yes, you're right re: his injury. I guess the mental imagery in my head was much more serious, which shaped my response when I finally reached chapter 252. I was all prepared for, like, blood and gore and an open skull.

It really is an unusual hat. Sapphire initially confuses it for hair, which makes me wonder about its properties. Like a furry sporty nightcap.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Man, yesterday and today the temperature didn't even get above 20°C. Its downright inhumane, I tells ya!


Oh no, I hope the scorching summer heat subsides soon. Until then get yourself a cold brewed coffee and collapse with your favourite book.

----------


## Peelee

> Oh no, I hope the scorching summer heat subsides soon. Until then get yourself a cold brewed coffee and collapse with your favourite book.


The scorching summer heat subsided back in September. I'm now lamenting the loss of a fine balmy fall day.

Also I don't drink hot coffee, and I doubt it would be improved any served cold.

----------


## Keltest

> The scorching summer heat subsided back in September. I'm now lamenting the loss of a fine balmy fall day.
> 
> Also I don't drink hot coffee, and I doubt it would be improved any served cold.


Meanwhile here in PA, its 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

----------


## Peelee

> Meanwhile here in PA, its 20 degrees Fahrenheit.


My deepest sympathies to you in your frozen hellscape of the north. Assuming you are even still alive to receive them.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> The scorching summer heat subsided back in September. I'm now lamenting the loss of a fine balmy fall day.


Bah, you wouldn't know an autumn day if it diluted your tea!  :Small Tongue: 




> Also I don't drink hot coffee, and I doubt it would be improved any served cold.


That's a shame, I like my hot coffee. It's given me some of the best experiences I've had.

Sadly nobody's ever interested in coming back to mine for it.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Yes, you're right re: his injury. I guess the mental imagery in my head was much more serious, which shaped my response when I finally reached chapter 252. I was all prepared for, like, blood and gore and an open skull.
> 
> It really is an unusual hat. Sapphire initially confuses it for hair, which makes me wonder about its properties. Like a furry sporty nightcap.


In fairness, *this* is a LOT of blood for Pokemon... and in the RSE era, the scars *looked like this*, so they looked a lot deeper than they were to me at the time.

An adorable, furry, sporty nightcap. Perfect! I feel like the "mistaken for hair" thing is definitely inspired by the fact that that's just what happened to this character design in real life.

----------


## Keltest

> My deepest sympathies to you in your frozen hellscape of the north. Assuming you are even still alive to receive them.


Pah, my ancestors come from a long series of frozen hellscapes. Scottland, Greenland, Norway, Germany. If anything, PA is too hot.

----------


## Peelee

> Bah, you wouldn't know an autumn day if it diluted your tea!


1.) I often like my tea diluted. With lemonade. Nectar of the gods, I tells ya! 
B.) Your autumn days are my deepest, darkest winters. Keep 'em.

Just in case anyone is unaware or has forgotten, this is further north than this.

(for any Brits out there, that's not the Brummie skyline, despite their desire for it to be).



> Pah, my ancestors come from a long series of frozen hellscapes. Scottland, Greenland, Norway, Germany. If anything, PA is too hot.


I see the cold has done irreversible damage. It is too late for you. Perhaps the youth can still be saved.

----------


## Keltest

> I see the cold has done irreversible damage. It is too late for you. Perhaps the youth can still be saved.


Youre just jealous you cant thrive in arctic conditions and ask for more. What are you going to do if it snows in Alabama? when it happened to Texas, the whole state shut down!

----------


## Peelee

> Youre just jealous you cant thrive in arctic conditions and ask for more. What are you going to do if it snows in Alabama? when it happened to Texas, the whole state shut down!


Yes. We very reasonably shut down. Because it rarely snows here and it's simply not viable to have the systems in place to handle it like Pennsylvania does. What are you going to do when an earthquake strikes Pennsylvania, cower in your non-earthquake-proofed buildings? What's NYC going to do when it has a tornado, those fools don't have tornado shelters everywhere. And don't even get me started on how grossly unprepared people Nebraska are for being slammed by a hurricane.

----------


## Keltest

> Yes. We very reasonably shut down. Because it rarely snows here and it's simply not viable to have the systems in place to handle it like Pennsylvania does. What are you going to do when an earthquake strikes Pennsylvania, cower in your non-earthquake-proofed buildings? What's NYC going to do when it has a tornado, those fools don't have tornado shelters everywhere. And don't even get me started on how grossly unprepared people Nebraska are for being slammed by a hurricane.


Jokes on you, an earthquake HAS hit Pennsylvania. We ignored it because whats it going to do, knock over our mountains?

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> 1.) I often like my tea diluted. With lemonade. Nectar of the gods, I tells ya!


*Sets up torch and pitchfork stand*

----------


## LaZodiac

> Jokes on you, an earthquake HAS hit Pennsylvania. We ignored it because whats it going to do, knock over our mountains?


I mean I feel like it could, right?

Also apropos of nothing the weather today is a rather gentle -15 Celcius. If it weren't for the wind being able to slice through all the meat and bone of my head to touch the brain directly I wouldn't even need a hat.

----------


## Peelee

> Jokes on you, an earthquake HAS hit Pennsylvania. We ignored it because whats it going to do, knock over our mountains?


I actually googled to make sure that they were possible but rare and have hit, albeit uncommonly. Except for the hurricane.



> I mean I feel like it could, right?
> 
> Also apropos of nothing the weather today is a rather gentle -15 Celcius. If it weren't for the wind being able to slice through all the meat and bone of my head to touch the brain directly I wouldn't even need a hat.


I think your idea of "rather gentle" is closer to my idea of "being stabbed with a knife".

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Yes. We very reasonably shut down. Because it rarely snows here and it's simply not viable to have the systems in place to handle it like Pennsylvania does. What are you going to do when an earthquake strikes Pennsylvania, cower in your non-earthquake-proofed buildings? What's NYC going to do when it has a tornado, those fools don't have tornado shelters everywhere. And don't even get me started on how grossly unprepared people Nebraska are for being slammed by a hurricane.


Ah excuse me but I live in NYC and what you said about the lack of tornado shelters is true. NYC rarely has a tornado.

----------


## Keltest

> Ah excuse me but I live in NYC and what you said about the lack of tornado shelters is true. NYC rarely has a tornado.


Isnt half of NYC basically built on a series of little islands?

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Isnt half of NYC basically built on a series of little islands?


Yes.  :Smile:

----------


## Peelee

> *Sets up torch and pitchfork stand*


You fear what you do not understand. Have an Arnold Palmer sometime, ideally while reading a book on a sandy beach, or while laying in a hammock on a lazy summer day. 



> Ah excuse me but I live in NYC and what you said about the lack of tornado shelters is true. NYC rarely has a tornado.


Yes, that was the point.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

This year is almost over. I feel like that I was living in January 2022. Wow, how time flies quickly.  :Smile:

----------


## LaZodiac

> I actually googled to make sure that they were possible but rare and have hit, albeit uncommonly. Except for the hurricane.
> 
> 
> I think your idea of "rather gentle" is closer to my idea of "being stabbed with a knife".


Look it's fine the knife weather isn't until deep January, this is the easy stuff. And we invented knife resistant jackets for this exact reason!

Though it does pain me to give up my leather jacket for a big poofy jacket, I was actually just dying because awful, awful doors ripped TWO holes in the aforementioned jacket, and as a result reduced the amount of time it could serve me in the winter from "enough" to "you will immediately become frozen solid if it's not about -15".

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> You fear what you do not understand. Have an Arnold Palmer sometime, ideally while reading a book on a sandy beach, or while laying in a hammock on a lazy summer day.


Reading a book _outside_? I think you misunderstand one of the key features of English weather.

----------


## Keltest

> Reading a book _outside_? I think you misunderstand one of the key features of English weather.


Hey, my town gets more rain than london annually and I still get to do that sometimes.

----------


## Peelee

> Look it's fine the knife weather isn't until deep January, this is the easy stuff. And we invented knife resistant jackets for this exact reason!
> 
> Though it does pain me to give up my leather jacket for a big poofy jacket, I was actually just dying because awful, awful doors ripped TWO holes in the aforementioned jacket, and as a result reduced the amount of time it could serve me in the winter from "enough" to "you will immediately become frozen solid if it's not about -15".


The closer you get to the equator, the more horrifying this sounds. 



> Reading a book _outside_? I think you misunderstand one of the key features of English weather.


Well, yeah, I figured that's why you guys love to go to the beaches in Spain.

----------


## Keltest

> The closer you get to the equator, the more horrifying this sounds.


We have dubious plans to ship my buddy from Texas up here for a week or something for D&D and in-person meetups, and we have to be pretty careful in the timing or he's going to end up with a lot of heavy winter clothing that he will use once or twice a year, at best.

----------


## LaZodiac

> The closer you get to the equator, the more horrifying this sounds.


While this is true, the real scary stuff hits no matter what your average temperature is. Like how my eyelids freeze together due to condensation on the eyelashes, ending up linking them together in an easy to remove but still impactful experience.

----------


## Peelee

> While this is true, the real scary stuff hits no matter what your average temperature is. Like how my eyelids freeze together due to condensation on the eyelashes, ending up linking them together in an easy to remove but still impactful experience.


Note to self, *never visit northern Canada*.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Note to self, *never visit northern Canada*.


Ah but think of the benefits! If you've got a warm drink just put it outside and it'll get colder than any fridge could manage!

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Ah but think of the benefits! If you've got a warm drink just put it outside and it'll get colder than any fridge could manage!


I take it that Canadians have stopped drinking hot chocolate?  :Small Tongue:

----------


## LaZodiac

> I take it that Canadians have stopped drinking hot chocolate?


Oh no we still drink hot chocolate! Just don't... bring it outside. That'll make it chocolate milk again.

----------


## Rater202

Note to self: parody superhero series whose villain is a mad scientist trying to create a race of perfect humans by breeding Canadians with Australians.

----------


## Fyraltari

> While this is true, the real scary stuff hits no matter what your average temperature is. Like how my eyelids freeze together due to condensation on the eyelashes, ending up linking them together in an easy to remove but still impactful experience.


People settled this land when the edge of technology was carved bone.

Why?

----------


## Form

> People settled this land when the edge of technology was carved bone.
> 
> Why?


Maple syrup. Its psychic call reached out across the globe and beckoned people towards it.

----------


## Peelee

> Ah but think of the benefits! If you've got a warm drink just put it outside and it'll get colder than any fridge could manage!


Notwithstanding that if I have a warm drink I want it to stay warm, you clearly underestimate fridges. 



> People settled this land when the edge of technology was carved bone.
> 
> Why?


Hubris. Same reason they settled in Phoenix.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Oh no we still drink hot chocolate! Just don't... bring it outside. That'll make it chocolate milk again.


Hopefully it's more colourful than the strawberry milk.

Although I must say, it sounds like a more comfortable place to live than Alabama (banjo on knee or no).

----------


## Peelee

> Although I must say, it sounds like a more comfortable place to live than Alabama (banjo on knee or no).


Banjos are out in the boonies. I live in the civilized part of Alabama.

Also, I personally know at least one British immigrant and several German and Austrian immigrants, so at least some Europeans are sane enough to come to a different conclusion.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Banjos are out in the boonies. I live in the civilized part of Alabama.
> 
> Also, I personally know at least one British immigrant and several German and Austrian immigrants, so at least some Europeans are sane enough to come to a different conclusion.


Well that's the last time I reference a song at you!

I can put on more layers of clothing than I can (legally) take off  :Small Tongue:  *insert Cool Runnings clip*

----------


## Rater202

Marvel alls humans with an active X-Gene(mutants) "_Homo sapiens superior_." A lot of effort over the years has gone into explaining and justifying why this one genetic complex gets them classified as a distinct subspecies and... Honestly, it _kind_ of makes sense when you line it all up.

DC is even worse about it: they call all humans with an active Meta gene(Metahumans)"_Homo meta._" to my knowledge it actually _is_ just one gene and no explanation has been given for why they're considered a discrete species in their own right.

Amalgam Comics, which was a collaboratory event by both companies that combined the two worlds into oneso for example, Farm Boy Clark Kent volunteered for Professor Erskine's experiments, being injected with a Serum derived from the cells of an alien child that was found dead in a crashed pod which transformed him into the Godlike Super-Soldier3combined mutants and metahumans as a concept, giving us Meta-Mutants.

If Mutants are Homo s. superior and Metahumans are Homo meta then... What would the Latin name for Meta-Mutants be? Because "Homo metasuperior" is the only thing that comes to mind and that's a bit too.. Not only is it a mouthful but while my Latin is rusty I _think_ it's redundant.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

I vote _homo armento cacas_.

----------


## Fyraltari

> If Mutants are Homo s. superior and Metahumans are Homo meta then... What would the Latin name for Meta-Mutants be? Because "Homo metasuperior" is the only thing that comes to mind and that's a bit too.. Not only is it a mouthful but while my Latin is rusty I _think_ it's redundant.


_Homo coprotaurus_. Real answer is whoever discovers the species gets to name them however they damn please, that's the rule. That's why there's a species of butterflies with _hitleris_ in the name and we can't do squat about that.

_Superior_ means "greater", _meta_ means "beyond". It's not redundant, but it's awkward, mainly because _Homo meta_ is a stupid name.

----------


## LaZodiac

> People settled this land when the edge of technology was carved bone.
> 
> Why?


The long and short of it is that some people stayed there during the great migration cause "eh it's good enough", and some people were forced there because of war, and some people saw the delightfully gentle and unbothered seal and went "that ****er's gonna be delicious" and by all accounts they were right (haven't had seal myself but I've heard good things). Likewise with whales and ****- them's good eating, them's MANY eatings, and the winter means the food'll keep really easy!

Also while it is true they used bone and stone tools... those tools are pretty good actually? And their winter clothing technology was through the roof, few things are warmer than a genuine Inuit parka, made of real ass fur and hand made for people, by people, not stitched together by a robot that doesn't understand what cold is because -10 C's gives it a conniption fit.




> Notwithstanding that if I have a warm drink I want it to stay warm, you clearly underestimate fridges. 
> 
> Hubris. Same reason they settled in Phoenix.


I'm not underestimating fridges by any stretch but typically most fridges don't get to -50 right?




> Hopefully it's more colourful than the strawberry milk.
> 
> Although I must say, it sounds like a more comfortable place to live than Alabama (banjo on knee or no).


I'm... not sure what you mean both are fairly colourful? Brown may not be traditionally pretty but it's a colour. Strawberry milk tends to be a nice smoot pink, too!

----------


## Rater202

> _Homo meta_ is a stupid name.


Yeah. Marvel puts actual thought into their weird biology crap.

DC most certainly does _not_.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Yeah. Marvel puts actual thought into their weird biology crap.

----------


## DavidSh

Are Metahumans reproductively isolated from the other humans?  (orthohumans?)  Can they cross-breed?  Do they, in the wild?  In my state of ignorance of all things Detective Comics, I would rather call them a cultivar, than a separate species.

(I was going to write "all things DC", but I have some familiarity with the District of Columbia, and with Direct Current.)

----------


## Fyraltari

> Are Metahumans reproductively isolated from the other humans?


It's superhero comics, everybody is boinking everybody else.

Which, given that they're all absurdly attractive people going through extreme high-stress situations daily while wearing very form-fitting clothing, is probably the least unrealistic thing about the genre.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> I'm... not sure what you mean both are fairly colourful? Brown may not be traditionally pretty but it's a colour. Strawberry milk tends to be a nice smoot pink, too!


I remember a couple of years ago you getting white strawberry milk.

I can imagine few things more depressing.

EDIT: curse you Fyraltari, you have caused me to be annoyed at the lack of a like button!

----------


## Jasdoif

> Real answer is whoever discovers the species gets to name them however they damn please, that's the rule.


Handily explains _neobuthus factorio_.

----------


## Rater202

> 


1: Comparatively speaking. They actually use names that make sense and try to provide explanations beyond "it's just this one single gene thats reasonable for literally every kind of superpower that doens't come from technology or aliens."

2: It tends to make sense in context, when you have all the information available.

Marvel makes an effort, DC does not.

About the worst thing MArvel did in terms of weird Biology was giving Inhumans the species name _Inhomo supremis_ and 1: Given that they were previously called _Homo sapiens inhumanis_ and the Inhomo supremis name came during a period of time when, IRL, a certain executive who hated the X-Men were trying to push them as an alternative and 2: People in universe were kissing the Inhumans' collective asses because of executive mandates that was almost certainly a politically motivated decision rather than something meant to be scientifically accurate.

...although, considering that thousands of years of eugenics and genetically engineering have rendered the Inhumans incompatible with other human species in a genetic sense, and that Inhumans are all part extraterrestrial* by default, even classifying them as a seperate genius might be valid.

----------


## Peelee

> Well that's the last time I reference a song at you!
> 
> I can put on more layers of clothing than I can (legally) take off  *insert Cool Runnings clip*


I just saw Cool Runnings again over Thanksgiving and I gotta say, that's jumped pretty damned high in my "favorite movies" list. Primarily because of the relationships they all have with each other. It's almost a shame that the main lead has the weakest arc of them all. 



> 


Yeah I gotta go with this.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Yeah. Marvel puts actual thought into their weird biology crap.
> 
> DC most certainly does _not_.


Its probably because of Marvel that they don't bother. they're both superhero universes so anything and everything is possible and they both have the same general concepts in varying amounts, but because Marvel has an entire series devoted to X-men being a minority metaphor and an extensive storyline and backstory related to that, DC probably can't go to near that space without looking like they're copying wholesale, so they just put a "yeah its there if want/need to do something with this, but we're not going to focus on it" and call it a day. 

this is probably the same reason why, after many many attempts, Marvel has largely given up on trying to make a Superman clone and Superman clones they do have, they don't really give top billing. the  irony of course is that 90% of both universes occur in New York for Marvel, Metropolis or Gotham for DC so really if near carbon copy counterparts existed in either universe they could simply be in different cities and we'd probably never know.

(and there is an argument to be made that if we didn't have decades of pop-cultural osmosis knowledge about them, no one would ever guess that a Superman series and a Batman series takes place in the same universe either)

----------


## Rater202

> ....and? Nobody said they did. Like, imagine the following dialogue:


...that post was in response to someone pointing out that DC gave meta-humans a stupid weird science name.

....And the post is deleted.

----------


## halfeye

> I'm not underestimating fridges by any stretch but typically most fridges don't get to -50 right?


In the UK that would be because the part that goes below 0C is the freezer compartment, and the unit that doesn't have a part that's higher temperature than 0C is called a Freezer. It may be that that's the same in Canada and the USA, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure that laboratory freezers can go down to liquid helium.

----------


## Peelee

> ...that post was in response to someone pointing out that DC gave meta-humans a stupid weird science name.
> 
> ....And the post is deleted.


Yeah, it feels like I've been arguing with you a lot lately and I didn't want you to feel like I'm picking on you. 




> I'm not underestimating fridges by any stretch but typically most fridges don't get to -50 right?


Most, sure, but you said _any_.  :Small Amused: 

Putting aside that barring supercooling, drinks can only be chilled to 0.

----------


## Rater202

> It's superhero comics, everybody is boinking everybody else.
> 
> Which, given that they're all absurdly attractive people going through extreme high-stress situations daily while wearing very form-fitting clothing, is probably the least unrealistic thing about the genre.


That's true for most superhero media but... DC tends to shy away from it.

Like, they will _imply_ for example that Lois and Clark have a very healthy bedroom life with say, a panel of them going behind closed doors and then a series of panels of that door with props implying that several hours pass between each panel... But then they ban an adaption from establishing that Bruce Wayne is a generous lover with Selenia Kyle because it might damage the Batman image.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard
> 
> 
> *insert Cool Runnings clip*
> 
> 
> I just saw Cool Runnings again over Thanksgiving and I gotta say, that's jumped pretty damned high in my "favorite movies" list. Primarily because of the relationships they all have with each other. It's almost a shame that the main lead has the weakest arc of them all.


Oh man, that movie was a big part of my childhood. "Je suis fort ! Je suis fier ! Et je n'aime pas qu'on me marche sur les pieds !"

Now, _that_ is a movie that hasn't aged gracefully.

----------


## Metastachydium

> 1: Comparatively speaking. They actually use names that make sense and try to provide explanations beyond "it's just this one single gene thats reasonable for literally every kind of superpower that doens't come from technology or aliens."
> 
> 2: It tends to make sense in context, when you have all the information available.
> 
> Marvel makes an effort, DC does not.
> 
> About the worst thing MArvel did in terms of weird Biology was giving Inhumans the species name _Inhomo supremis_ and 1: Given that they were previously called _Homo sapiens inhumanis_


Rater. Mr. Lee is right insofar as getting piled up on even in internet discussions is probably the last thing you need in your life but That kind of just provoked a _freaking allergic reaction_ in me. We've been through this, man. Neither of those names makes any kind of sense and both contain painfully incorrect word forms; if there's anything using _*inhumanis_ and _*supremis_ proves is that Marvel people can't be bothered to check a _dictionary_, let alone a biology textbook. And then we didn't even touch upon _Homo mermanus_ that is so _bad_ at evry possible level that my mind simply blocked it out the last time you brought it up to preserve my sanity.

Look, I don't mean to take your fun away from you or mock it or anything. Heck, the level of expertise you have in all matters Marvel (and some matters non-Marvel) is nothomg if not impressive. But I have to draw the line at praising Marvel "science" for all the "thought" put into it.

----------


## Rater202

> But I have to draw the line at praising Marvel "science" for all the "thought" put into it.


"Comparatively" is the keyword.

They make an effort to have things make sense, if only in context.

Compare this to DC whose science, *in general*, boils down to "math is magic" or say, Image where there's a species from another planet that is almost identical to humans but is also made of a completely differant kind of atom.

Aso, for what it's worth "Inhumanis"  was an error on my part. Officially it was spelled inhumanus before the name change.

Edit: Also "praise" is kind of a strong word.

----------


## Jasdoif

> Neither of those names makes any kind of sense and both contain painfully incorrect word forms; if there's anything using _*inhumanis_ and _*supremis_ proves is that Marvel people can't be bothered to check a _dictionary_, let alone a biology textbook. And then we didn't even touch upon _Homo mermanus_ that is so _bad_ at evry possible level that my mind simply blocked it out the last time you brought it up to preserve my sanity.


I would describe the writing approach as "perfunctory illusion": it isn't about "science", it's about wanting the evoke the connotations associated _with_ science; and this is accomplished by creating a facade of "science" with the minimum of effort feasible, and hoping the audience performs the mental leap for free.

It's similar to how reboots use a facade of the original material to evoke nostalgia.

----------


## Peelee

> Oh man, that movie was a big part of my childhood. "Je suis fort ! Je suis fier ! Et je n'aime pas qu'on me marche sur les pieds !"
> 
> Now, _that_ is a movie that hasn't aged gracefully.


Really? What's wrong with Cool Runnings?

----------


## Fyraltari

> Really? What's wrong with Cool Runnings?


Sanka is kind of a walking stereotype.

----------


## Rater202

> I would describe the writing approach as "perfunctory illusion": it isn't about "science", it's about wanting the evoke the connotations associated _with_ science; and this is accomplished by creating a facade of "science" with the minimum of effort feasible, and hoping the audience performs the mental leap for free.
> 
> It's similar to how reboots use a facade of the original material to evoke nostalgia.


I never said they did a good job.

Just that they make an effort.

Making an effort to keep the in-universe science consistent and at least somewhat reasonable is kind of a big deal in this comics industry. Most companies just use techno-babble handwaves that are completly differant every time they come up or a single one-off explanation that _might_ have made sense the first time it was brought up but then gets applied to things that... No.

----------


## Peelee

> Sanka is kind of a walking stereotype.


Sanka is a single character. He's a goofball. Everyone else in the show range between normal and serious. If most or hell, even several characters were portrayed like him, sure, I'd agree with you. But one single character? Nah, man. That's just a diverse array of personalities.

Especially since even among the other Jamaicans he's treated as a goofball and not indicative of anything other than that.

----------


## Jasdoif

> I never said they did a good job.....Making an effort to keep the in-universe science consistent and at least somewhat reasonable is kind of a big deal in this comics industry.


Which "this comics industry" are you referring to?  I mean...you're unwilling to say Marvel did a good job, but _are_ willing to say they do it better than DC; those are pretty big superhero comics names, so I imagine you're either talking about a subset where those are excluded or a superset where they aren't as big in comparison.

----------


## Rater202

> Which "this comics industry" are you referring to?


That was a typo.

Should say "*the* comics industry."

----------


## Jasdoif

> That was a typo.
> 
> Should say "*the* comics industry."


I see...in that case, could you explain what "kind of a big deal" is supposed to mean?  'cause it seems to me that, with as big as Marvel and DC are, at least _one_ of them should be good at doing what's "kind of a big deal" in the industry they're a part of.

----------


## Rater202

> I see...in that case, could you explain what "kind of a big deal" is supposed to mean?  'cause it seems to me that, with as big as Marvel and DC are, at least _one_ of them should be good at doing what's "kind of a big deal" in the industry they're a part of.


I believe I already said that most companies don't even try to make sense or keep consistent, they just use handwaves.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I remember a couple of years ago you getting white strawberry milk.
> 
> I can imagine few things more depressing.
> 
> EDIT: curse you Fyraltari, you have caused me to be annoyed at the lack of a like button!


I'm legitimately still annoyed by this by the way!! But yeah that was just a specific brand.




> In the UK that would be because the part that goes below 0C is the freezer compartment, and the unit that doesn't have a part that's higher temperature than 0C is called a Freezer. It may be that that's the same in Canada and the USA, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure that laboratory freezers can go down to liquid helium.


That's true, and yeah okay I meant most for household use fridges and freezers.




> Yeah, it feels like I've been arguing with you a lot lately and I didn't want you to feel like I'm picking on you. 
> 
> 
> 
> Most, sure, but you said _any_. 
> 
> Putting aside that barring supercooling, drinks can only be chilled to 0.


Yes yes, yes yes Peelee. Mea culpa's all around for using too general wording  :Small Wink:

----------


## Jasdoif

> I believe I already said that most companies don't even try to make sense or keep consistent, they just use handwaves.


Ah....You didn't mean it was kind of a big deal *for* the comics industry, just that you find to be Marvel an outlier *in* the comics industry.

----------


## Peelee

> I'm legitimately still annoyed by this by the way!! But yeah that was just a specific brand.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, and yeah okay I meant most for household use fridges and freezers.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes yes, yes yes Peelee. Mea culpa's all around for using too general wording


Fun fact! One of the coldest known areas of the universe is about 250 miles above the surface of the Earth.

----------


## Fyraltari

> EDIT: curse you Fyraltari, you have caused me to be annoyed at the lack of a like button!


Tell me which post ib particular and I'll pretend you've given it a like.



> Fun fact! One of the coldest known areas of the universe is about 250 miles above the surface of the Earth.


Isn't all interstellar space at basically the absolute zero?

Edit: unless I'm missing something interplanetary space is among the hottest areas of the universe.

----------


## Peelee

> Isn't all interstellar space at basically the absolute zero?


Not really. Space is generally around 3K. Which is incredibly hotter than the coldest known areas, percentage-wise if not actual-energy-wise.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Not really. Space is generally around 3K. Which is incredibly hotter than the coldest known areas, percentage-wise if not actual-energy-wise.


So, what's going on at 400km of elevation?

----------


## Peelee

> So, what's going on at 400km of elevation?


The international space station, mostly.

To be fair here, I said "one of". The actual coldest known areas are on-planet. I think we've gotten to something like 30 trillionths of a degree above - 273.15C, which is quite frankly pretty insane. Although the more insane part is that, IIRC, they achieve this in part by dropping down a tower.

----------


## 2D8HP

Usually shrouded in fog, but on a sunny day:
*Spoiler: five minute walk from my new home*
Show



Fifteen minute walk back.

I can hear the waves when I open a window or step outside.

Cold enough to ice up my cars windshield in the morning now, never happened in my previous home in San Francisco_ Lankhmar_

----------


## Rater202

That feel when you accidentally type "transfomr" and your spellcheck thinks you meant "transfer" instead of "transform."

----------


## LaZodiac

> Fun fact! One of the coldest known areas of the universe is about 250 miles above the surface of the Earth.


I'm well aware of this.

Now then; I've gotten into gunpla oh no please look at my mobile suit I built! You can *see it here* and *also here!*

----------


## Peelee

> That feel when you accidentally type "transfomr" and your spellcheck thinks you meant "transfer" instead of "transform."


Mild annoyance?

----------


## Rater202

> Mild annoyance?


Bewilderment.

----------


## tyckspoon

> I'm well aware of this.
> 
> Now then; I've gotten into gunpla oh no please look at my mobile suit I built! You can *see it here* and *also here!*


Dig the action pose grapnel-gunning down your shelves. I assume there will shortly be a horde of tiny and less tiny giant robot figurines executing epic combat throughout all of your living space.

----------


## Rater202

And now, Zodi, we just need full-imersion VR to be invented so you can pilot that thing and fight in tournaments...

...I don't know why I'm surprised that there's an entire subfranchise about people building model Gundams and then scanning them into computers so they can pilot them in full-immersion VR games.

I first found out about Gundam Build Dive and my immediate first instinct was "okay, there's gotta be some ******* who shows up to competitive play with a show-accurate model of Turn X or Grand Master Gundam and just ruins everyone else's fun."

----------


## LaZodiac

> Dig the action pose grapnel-gunning down your shelves. I assume there will shortly be a horde of tiny and less tiny giant robot figurines executing epic combat throughout all of your living space.


Thanks! I'm genuinely curious how long it'll stay since the magnetic wire (PVC wire) doesn't hold in the deploy area as well as you'd think. But, it's pretty rad so I like it!

I've actually also already made a Zaku II in the same area, which *you can see here*.

I will definitely build some more- I've got Hamon Karn's Quebeley coming for Christmas actually- but that'll probably be it until some of the Witch from Mercury models become more available in the west, because I only really wanna build something I've got an affinity towards.




> And now, Zodi, we just need full-imersion VR to be invented so you can pilot that thing and fight in tournaments...
> 
> ...I don't know why I'm surprised that there's an entire subfranchise about people building model Gundams and then scanning them into computers so they can pilot them in full-immersion VR games.
> 
> I first found out about Gundam Build Dive and my immediate first instinct was "okay, there's gotta be some ******* who shows up to competitive play with a show-accurate model of Turn X or Grand Master Gundam and just ruins everyone else's fun."


Actually if I recall trying to go show accurate makes you weaker since it's limiting your customization options a lot and not making it your own. 

Also Build Diver is great. A large part of Gundam is just dedicated to selling the cool model kits, so making a show specifically ABOUT the model kits and the fun you can have with them is pretty genius a move. The fact that, the first one at least, has a number of really good Gundam series in jokes is great. One of the characters is just actually Ramba Ral straight up, but as a local dad instead of a local dad who happens to be a fighter in the military.

----------


## enderlord99

> Bewilderment.


It suggested a more-common word that ended in the same letter the typo ended in?  Wow{!}

It's not like it suggested something (hopefully) rare, like "bloodletting"

----------


## Rater202

> Actually if I recall trying to go show accurate makes you weaker since it's limiting your customization options a lot and not making it your own.


I assume that would be the case in most regards, but Grand Master Gundam is an oversized techno-organic monstrosity composited from the best parts of four of the most dangerous mobile suits in its native series and powered by a reactor that was designed to support an entire space colony.

...In fact, even if GM Gundam models aren't available it probably wouldn't be too hard to make a custom version if there are parts available for Grand, Master, Rising Sword, and Walter models.

Every part of Turn X can detach and fight independently and it incorporates a weapon of mass destruction that can and has reset the entire solar system to the stone age more than once.

If the game can model show accurate versions of those two then... Well, realistically they'd be banned from competitive play but that doesn't happen in gaming anime for some reason.

Edit: Unrelated, I've got to say that Choo-Choo Charles is a very refreshing take on the horror genre.

1: It plays the ridiculous premise for bathos.

2: "hey, there's his horrible flesh-eating monster of probably supernatural origin and we're fixin' to hunt it down and kill it. You want in?" is an actual motivation to both go to the place and not piss off as soon as the monster shows up.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I assume that would be the case in most regards, but Grand Master Gundam is an oversized techno-organic monstrosity composited from the best parts of four of the most dangerous mobile suits in its native series and powered by a reactor that was designed to support an entire space colony.
> 
> ...In fact, even if GM Gundam models aren't available it probably wouldn't be too hard to make a custom version if there are parts available for Grand, Master, Rising Sword, and Walter models.
> 
> Every part of Turn X can detach and fight independently and it incorporates a weapon of mass destruction that can and has reset the entire solar system to the stone age more than once.
> 
> If the game can model show accurate versions of those two then... Well, realistically they'd be banned from competitive play but that doesn't happen in gaming anime for some reason.


The fun thing is that since the whole gunpla fighting thing is a game, they can balance it so that stuff like this is banned, or not as powerful as they would be in canon.

Like that's a really cool show accurate Turn X you've got there, unfortunately for you, Mr Ral's Gouf Custom that has six 35mm machine guns are going to shoot all of those pieces to bits.

----------


## Rater202

> The fun thing is that since the whole gunpla fighting thing is a game, they can balance it so that stuff like this is banned, or not as powerful as they would be in canon.
> 
> Like that's a really cool show accurate Turn X you've got there, unfortunately for you, Mr Ral's Gouf Custom that has six 35mm machine guns are going to shoot all of those pieces to bits.


Fair enough.

I'm watching Matpat play Choochoo Charles right now though and...

Like I said, it's refreshing. There's this demon spider thing that fused with a steam engine, and your body is from the island where this happened, his son is still stuck there on the mostly abandoned island with the man-eating demon train, but he has a plan to kill it and asks you if you want in.

His selling point is that if you help kill it you can mount the corpse and display it in your museum. Because apparently, the player runs a museum.

you're just driving an old steam engine with a machine gun strapped to the back around the island, collecting scrap and weapons and stuff you can use to repair and upgrade the train with the ultimate goal of murdering the hell out of the monster terrorizing the island... So you can display it as a trophy.

Normally I'm opposed to trophy hunting but that's a very fresh take for horror game.

----------


## TaiLiu

> In fairness, *this* is a LOT of blood for Pokemon... and in the RSE era, the scars *looked like this*, so they looked a lot deeper than they were to me at the time.
> 
> An adorable, furry, sporty nightcap. Perfect! I feel like the "mistaken for hair" thing is definitely inspired by the fact that that's just what happened to this character design in real life.


Thinking about it, I guess there really isn't that much blood, huh? Lots of scratches and injuries but they rarely seem to ooze. And I haven't gotten up to the chapter with the scar, but I'm excited to get there.

Yeah. I used to think it was hair, too. The newer art makes it more obvious, but the old art is ambiguous.




> Now then; I've gotten into gunpla oh no please look at my mobile suit I built! You can *see it here* and *also here!*


I like the first one with the sword.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> That feel when you accidentally type "transfomr" and your spellcheck thinks you meant "transfer" instead of "transform."


I feel, like, "spelling correctors were so much better in my day"... The best one was the spellcheck for the old DEC Word Processer (Yes, WSYWIG word processing on a VT100 terminal on a mainframe (well, minicomputer...)!), which came up with 12 possible spellings for my surname, including "lasagne".

----------


## LaZodiac

New chapter of *Mist and Fire* today, for those who are reading. Chapter 9: Saila experiences a nightmare, and wakes to something... floral.

*You can read it here!*

----------


## FinnLassie

> Man, yesterday and today the temperature didn't even get above 20°C. Its downright inhumane, I tells ya!


20°C? That's like, 35°C away from what I'm experiencing!

----------


## Peelee

> 20°C? That's like, 35°C away from what I'm experiencing!


I assume the Finnish people are some form of snow golems.

----------


## Keltest

Welp, a car got stuck in the snow in front of my house. They got it out real quick, but this snowstorm is no joke either.

----------


## Fyraltari

> I assume the Finnish people are some form of snow golems.


You ever heard of the White Death? 'coz you may be on to something.

----------


## Peelee

> You ever heard of the White Death? 'coz you may be on to something.


Heard of, yes. Seen? No. Though neither did the Russians.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I want a big powerful blizzard in NYC right now. I love the snow.  :Smile:

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> I want a big powerful blizzard in NYC right now. I love the snow.


No you don't. You want a slow buildup that doesn't involve a storm.

There's been snow in London since Sunday evening. It was nice to start with, but there's been a lack of later snowfall and a lot of what hasn't melted has compacted into ice.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> No you don't. You want a slow buildup that doesn't involve a storm.
> 
> There's been snow in London since Sunday evening. It was nice to start with, but there's been a lack of later snowfall and a lot of what hasn't melted has compacted into ice.


Yes, I do. I want a blizzard. I'm a huge fan of blizzards  :Smile:

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Yes, I do. I want a blizzard. I'm a huge fan of blizzards


I dunno, have you seen Diablo Immortal?

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> I dunno, have you seen Diablo Immortal?


Good one. I see what you did here. You were making a joke.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rater202

A few years ago I read an article by an economist. He looked at Superman's feats in the Christopher Reeve movies and came up with ways that he could have used them to raise money, making the argument that he could have done much more good in the world by raising large sums of money quickly and then using it to fund charities or the like than he does just flying around fighting crime.

Examples were lifting private or corporate satellites into orbit for slightly less than what various space programs chargeessentially most of the cost is the novelty of having Superman do it and the price of his time rather than the cost of getting the satellite of theres well as running a courier service and putting on performances where he demonstrates his powers for an audience.

And of course the classic "manufacture diamonds from coal" trick.

But I was never able to find it again.

----------


## Lord Raziere

eh there is that SMBC comic where Superman goes a few steps beyond that and just starts pulling a lever up and down to generate energy for the entire world until everyone comes up with infinite energy, he then ends up being nothing but a greeter for his own museum that no one cares about and considered a relic. superheroes are heroes because they do things that are well, heroic not because they are efficient improvers of society.

----------


## Fyraltari

> A few years ago I read an article by an economist. He looked at Superman's feats in the Christopher Reeve movies and came up with ways that he could have used them to raise money, making the argument that he could have done much more good in the world by raising large sums of money quickly and then using it to fund charities or the like than he does just flying around fighting crime.
> 
> Examples were lifting private or corporate satellites into orbit for slightly less than what various space programs chargeessentially most of the cost is the novelty of having Superman do it and the price of his time rather than the cost of getting the satellite of theres well as running a courier service and putting on performances where he demonstrates his powers for an audience.
> 
> And of course the classic "manufacture diamonds from coal" trick.
> 
> But I was never able to find it again.


Because, as we all know, the problem with the current state of the world is that not enough wealth is created.

Making more money ought to fix it!

Economists, I swear.

----------


## Form

> A few years ago I read an article by an economist. He looked at Superman's feats in the Christopher Reeve movies and came up with ways that he could have used them to raise money, making the argument that he could have done much more good in the world by raising large sums of money quickly and then using it to fund charities or the like than he does just flying around fighting crime.
> 
> Examples were lifting private or corporate satellites into orbit for slightly less than what various space programs chargeessentially most of the cost is the novelty of having Superman do it and the price of his time rather than the cost of getting the satellite of theres well as running a courier service and putting on performances where he demonstrates his powers for an audience.
> 
> And of course the classic "manufacture diamonds from coal" trick.
> 
> But I was never able to find it again.


Sure, but even as someone who isn't into the superhero genre I can tell that's not what superhero media are about. Aside from that, superman turning a crank is rather boring compared to superman squaring off against various supervillains. I'm not sure what point those kind of articles are trying to make.




> Because, as we all know, the problem with the current state of the world is that not enough wealth is created.
> 
> Making more money ought to fix it!
> 
> Economists, I swear.


And there's that too. I'm sure the corporation whose satellite gets lifted into orbit by superman will be very happy. It's a great deal for them. I'm not sure about everybody else though.

----------


## Fyraltari

> And there's that too. I'm sure the corporation whose satellite gets lifted into orbit by superman will be very happy. It's a great deal for them. I'm not sure about everybody else though.


Mind, the notion of Superman personnally havig installed Lex Luthor's Kryptonite-powered orbital death rays is very funny to me.

----------


## Peelee

> eh there is that SMBC comic where Superman goes a few steps beyond that and just starts pulling a lever up and down to generate energy for the entire world until everyone comes up with infinite energy, he then ends up being nothing but a greeter for his own museum that no one cares about and considered a relic. superheroes are heroes because they do things that are well, heroic not because they are efficient improvers of society.


Well dang, I was all set to link it and you come in and toss it out we ahead of me! 



> Because, as we all know, the problem with the current state of the world is that not enough wealth is created.
> 
> Making more money ought to fix it!
> 
> Economists, I swear.


Yep. At least SMBC had Superman help impoverished and starving people and bring prosperity to all instead of just save corporations some money. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Wienersmith is one of the great philosophers of our time.

----------


## Form

> Mind, the notion of Superman personnally havig installed Lex Luthor's Kryptonite-powered orbital death rays is very funny to me.


...

Lex Luthor wrote that article! Of course!

----------


## Fyraltari

> Well dang, I was all set to link it and you come in and toss it out we ahead of me!


This was my reaction also.

----------


## Rater202

Think of it this way: Rocket launches put about 1000 tons of soot into the atmosphere per year

Every satellite that Clark lifts is a net decrease in how much atmospheric pollution is produced per year because it's one less reason for a rocket launch.

It also costs tens of millions of dollars to launch a satellite into space, but Clark can offer anything he wants for his services since all it costs him is time. Barring governments deliberately passing discriminatory laws meant to keep him form offering his services in their controlled territory, Clark could easily make himself the "go-to" guy for satellite launches by just offering his satellite lifting services for the lowest price on the market.

The lowest price I can find for launching a satellite after a google search is about 11 million per ton... If Clark offers his services for a plat five million per satellite, then everyone with a satellite is going to seek him out and, assuming that there are no unreasonable or discriminatory laws or regulations blocking him from doing this, as long as his taxes are paid and filed correctly that's going to be several million a pop.

Several million a pop that he could then use to fund research into clean energy. Or treatment of various diseases. Or fund farms in impoverished nations.

Since it's a private service he's offering, he's also under no obligation to use it to lift up a supervillain's orbital death ray or a spy satellite.

----------


## Peelee

> Think of it this way: Rocket launches put about 1000 tons of soot into the atmosphere per year
> 
> Every satellite that Clark lifts is a net decrease in how much atmospheric pollution is produced per year because it's one less reason for a rocket launch.
> 
> It also costs tens of millions of dollars to launch a satellite into space, but Clark can offer anything he wants for his services since all it costs him is time. Barring governments deliberately passing discriminatory laws meant to keep him form offering his services in their controlled territory, Clark could easily make himself the "go-to" guy for satellite launches by just offering his satellite lifting services for the lowest price on the market.
> 
> The lowest price I can find for launching a satellite after a google search is about 11 million per ton... If Clark offers his services for a plat five million per satellite, then everyone with a satellite is going to seek him out and, assuming that there are no unreasonable or discriminatory laws or regulations blocking him from doing this, as long as his taxes are paid and filed correctly that's going to be several million a pop.
> 
> Several million a pop that he could then use to fund research into clean energy. Or treatment of various diseases. Or fund farms in impoverished nations.
> ...


Dude, nobody is saying this isn't a feasible thing for him to do. But several million is a pittance to the improvements you're talking about. Notwithstanding that it's not the stories they want to tell. Like the Spider-Man villain who could cure cancer, but he wants to turn people into dinosaurs. That's not an actual character motivation that's the writers blatantly telling you, the reader, "yes, we know, but this is a story about turning people into dinosaurs".

----------


## Fyraltari

> Several million a pop that he could then use to fund research into clean energy. Or treatment of various diseases. Or fund farms in impoverished nations.


Again, these problems don't exist because of a lack of money. They won't be solved by Bernard Arnault or any other billionaire throwing a few millions at them.

----------


## Rater202

> Dude, nobody is saying this isn't a feasible thing for him to do. But several million is a pittance to the improvements you're talking about. Notwithstanding that it's not the stories they want to tell. Like the Spider-Man villain who could cure cancer, but he wants to turn people into dinosaurs. That's not an actual character motivation that's the writers blatantly telling you, the reader, "yes, we know, but this is a story about turning people into dinosaurs".


1: not talking about narratives here. Was just sharing that I read such an article.

2: Several million *per pop* here were 95 sattelite launches in 2019. If Clark could get even half of the yearly satellite launches, which he would if he's the cheapest, then that would be several million being funded into those efforts _several times a year_ And that's if he's doing it at half the cost, he could just slightly undersell the next cheapest price. More importantly, it would be several million dollars a pop that would otherwise not be going to such efforts and every little bit helps.

3; You kind of did say it wasn't feasible when you said "at least" the SMBC version had him taking supplies to impoverished nations. At least that's how it came across.

4: That's a bad example because after defeating him, Spider-Man and the class he was teaching salvaged Sauron's tech and the kids repurposed it to make cancer treatments as their science fair project a few issues later.

The narrative actually did include using the super science to cure cancer.


> Again, these problems don't exist because of a lack of money. They won't be solved by Bernard Arnault or any other billionaire throwing a few millions at them.


No, but it certainly can't hurt.

and honestly, I don't think I'm allowed to spell out how Clark could use the several million a pop he'd be making to employ more long-term solutions.

----------


## Peelee

> 1: not talking about narratives here. Was just sharing that I read such an article.
> 
> 2: Several million *per pop* here were 95 sattelite launches in 2019. If Clark could get even half of the yearly satellite launches, which he would if he's the cheapest, then that would be several million being funded into those efforts _several times a year_ And that's if he's doing it at half the cost, he could just slightly undersell the next cheapest price. More importantly, it would be several million dollars a pop that would otherwise not be going to such efforts and every little bit helps.


Ok dude. Let me try to re-explain. Imagine for a second that you have a thousand dollars. Now imagine your friend has a million dollars. Imagine the disparity there. The sheer level of difference in this wealth gap. Now imagine that instead of one thousand, you have several thousand. Five thousand, why not. And your friend has five million. Sure, you got an extra few thousand, but your friend got an extra few million, and your extra few thousand are absolute peanuts compared to that.

Ok, now know that the percent difference between a thousand and a million is the same as the percent difference between a million and a billion. Your proposed solution involves Superman saving several million dollars to help solve problems that at beast cost several billion dollars to even start to address. And that's ignoring that he's saving this money mostly for corporations, which are not known for their global-hunger-solving largess. But hey, he's also saving governments that money! Of course, the US government budgets operates on the scale of _trillions_. Let's go back to that metaphor, you and your friend having money. Your friend still has a million dollars. Except you don't have a thousand dollars. You now have one dollar. Scale it up like before, your friend has five million dollars and you have five dollars.

Yes, your idea would save millions. And I just want you to know the full effect I mean I say that on global problem scale that you are talking about, millions ain't ****. It's peanuts. Its a huge amount to us. Its a shockingly small amount to major corporations and governments.

In the "get superman to save money to solve global problems" scenario, you're having Superman work for metaphorical minimum wage.

Also, this ignores that arguably his efforts with satellites would be better spent collecting and eliminating orbital debris, and ignores that many satellites would still privately launched by numerous entities, and that this would end up taking up a large chunk of Superman's time, and that most of the savings would be going to corporations who would not use the money to help people but instead to increase the value of their own company, and probably several other issues I haven't thought of because I came up with all of these problems with your proposal off the top of my head and I'm sure people who actually deal with logistics would be able to have significantly more to say.

But even ignoring all that, which is a hell of a lot to ignore the economics of your proposal are not what you think they are. A million dollars is life changing to you or me. It's pocket change for major world governments.

----------


## Mystic Muse

Yeah, if we're talking about Superman having metric heckloads of money,  it would be way more efficient on every level for hik to like, grab resource rich asteroids from space and sell them. 

Or he could. I don't know. Ask for a Bat Credit Card.

----------


## Rater202

> Yeah, if we're talking about Superman having metric heckloads of money,  it would be way more efficient on every level for hik to like, grab resource rich asteroids from space and sell them. 
> 
> Or he could. I don't know. Ask for a Bat Credit Card.


Bruce is already putting as much money as he can into public good, services, and trying to find solutions to systemic issues as he can. Giving Clark money to do more on his behalf would put him beyond the rate where he can do so sustainably and the sudden loss of aid in the near future would counteract the good in the short term.

It's the same reason why Clark spends half his day as Clark: He could save more people if he was superman full time, but if he doesn't take the time to be normal he'll break under the pressure so in the long run he does more good this way.

Clark using his powers to make moneyand, for the record, satellites were only one of several suggestions in the articleit's about taking money that would have gone to something else, and giving it to people who aren't getting it.

A million dollars is pocket change to a government, but a million dollars worth of non-perishable food getting donated to various food banks is going to save lives.

----------


## Peelee

> Bruce is already putting as much money as he can into public good, services, and trying to find solutions to systemic issues as he can. Giving Clark money to do more on his behalf would put him beyond the rate where he can do so sustainably and the sudden loss of aid in the near future would counteract the good in the short term.
> 
> It's the same reason why Clark spends half his day as Clark: He could save more people if he was superman full time, but if he doesn't take the time to be normal he'll break under the pressure so in the long run he does more good this way.
> 
> Clark using his powers to make moneyand, for the record, satellites were only one of several suggestions in the articleit's about taking money that would have gone to something else, and giving it to people who aren't getting it.
> 
> A million dollars is pocket change to a government, but a million dollars worth of non-perishable food getting donated to various food banks is going to save lives.


Dude. Again. This is a _trivial_ amount for the power that Superman has. Yes, an extra million dollars going to a food bank would be amazing. No, that is not in any way an efficient use of Superman's time if you want to consider actual economic impact of his abilities. He could make a deal for a billion dollars to fly a small base to Mars, for example. The entire Moon program cost about a quarter of a trillion dollars, adjusted for inflation. That's one hell of a bargain. A billion there, a billion to bring them back whenever, and you have orders of magnitude the amount of money for not much extra work. And that's still solely focusing on the "lift stuff into space" category, which is one minor subset of what he's capable of.

The economist presented possible solutions for Superman to save companies money. You presented a solution for solving global problems. These are nowhere near the same scale, and I'm trying my best to get you to realize this.

----------


## Rater202

> Dude. Again. This is a _trivial_ amount for the power that Superman has. Yes, an extra million dollars going to a food bank would be amazing. No, that is not in any way an efficient use of Superman's time if you want to consider actual economic impact of his abilities. He could make a deal for a billion dollars to fly a small base to Mars, for example. The entire Moon program cost about a quarter of a trillion dollars, adjusted for inflation. That's one hell of a bargain. A billion there, a billion to bring them back whenever, and you have orders of magnitude the amount of money for not much extra work. And that's still solely focusing on the "lift stuff into space" category, which is one minor subset of what he's capable of.
> 
> The economist presented possible solutions for Superman to save companies money. You presented a solution for solving global problems. These are nowhere near the same scale, and I'm trying my best to get you to realize this.


I feel like there's been a fundemental miscomunucation.

1: The article was talking about _Reeve_ superman.

So the Mars base thing is a _bit_ beyond his power

2: The Economist was listing way to *Clark to do more good than just fighting criminals.*

Step 1: Perform various tasks and services that people spend millions of dollars, on that would be trivially easy for Clark, put on performances for paying crowds, work ans an international courier, ect.

Step 2: Acquire a buttload of money.

Step 3: Invent the money in various ways to help with problems like starvation, poverty, and disease, thus saving more people than he would just from fighting criminals.

It's not like we're talking about solving these existential issues forever just by lifting a few satellites. That was one of like a dozen things he could be doing with his time.

More efficient is not perfectly efficient.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Okay, moving onto a lighter topic.

People falling to Chaos isn't generally funny, and that includes the Tau (in the very rare* canon instances it's happened, they're more resistant than the orks**). But remember how regimented the Tau lifestyle is, even with at least some freedom in switching castes. Now imagine what happens if a Tau falls to Slaanesh. The results can be hilariously mundane. Behold, the heretic has found a new hedonistic passion that'll drive them to excess, stamp collecting!

Most probably get sent from re-education once they start refusing to set their alarm clocks.

* As in 'like one book'.
** Actually had a discussion with a friend on this, because she thinks they're effective immune to it. We ended up basically deciding there's no definitive canon because the Imperial Guard have lost Heavy Weapons Teams, Veterans, and Conscripts.

----------


## Peelee

> I feel like there's been a fundemental miscomunucation.
> 
> 1: The article was talking about _Reeve_ superman.
> 
> So the Mars base thing is a _bit_ beyond his power


Beyond the power of Reeves Superman, who can breathe in space/does not need to breathe, and can fly around the world hundreds of times in a second?

Imean, if you can convince yourself of that, I poebably can't convince you otherwise. 



> The Economist was listing way to *Clark to do more good than just fighting criminals.*


Assuming you means Superman, Reeve Superman stopped nuclear weapons from killing tens of millions of people and the entire US western seaboard sinking into the ocean. And that was just the first movie. I do not think saving a corporation a couple million dollars is "more good". The economist clearly does.

----------


## Rater202

> Assuming you means Superman, Reeve Superman stopped nuclear weapons from killing tens of millions of people and the entire US western seaboard sinking into the ocean. And that was just the first movie. I do not think saving a corporation a couple million dollars is "more good". The economist clearly does.


1: If I recall, the Article was explicitly excluding "big things."

It was talking about his day-to-day, not stuff like someone trying to nuke something or aliens trying to conquer the Earth. 

I can't remember the details but as I recall the economist was quite explicit about leaving enough time in Clark's schedule to deal with any major crisis that turned up on a given day.

2: You're focusing on the wrong part. TIs not about Clark saving money for corporations. TIs' about Clark earning money that would otherwise *not* go toward helping people and making it so that it *does* go toward helping people.

And honestly? The Flat 5 million per satellite was my suggestion. If I recall, the article said that Clark should just charge what the exact lowest price that it normally costs to launch a satellite and count on the novelty of Superman being the one to do it to make the difference.

----------


## Peelee

> 1: If I recall, the Article was explicitly excluding "big things."
> 
> It was talking about his day-to-day, not stuff like someone trying to nuke something or aliens trying to conquer the Earth. 
> 
> I can't remember the details but as I recall the economist was quite explicit about leaving enough time in Clark's schedule to deal with any major crisis that turned up on a given day.
> 
> 2: You're focusing on the wrong part. TIs not about Clark saving money for corporations. TIs' about Clark earning money that would otherwise *not* go toward helping people and making it so that it *does* go toward helping people.
> 
> And honestly? The Flat 5 million per satellite was my suggestion. If I recall, the article said that Clark should just charge what the exact lowest price that it normally costs to launch a satellite and count on the novelty of Superman being the one to do it to make the difference.


Ok. So Reeve Superman, but not actually dealing with any of the stuff Reeve Superman dealt with, and how to do more good, but ignoring things that do more good than the "how to do more good" ideas. 

Seems like it's so incredibly specific so as to be useless as a thought experiment.

----------


## Rater202

Changing subject.

There's this clip from The Simpsons.

The joke is, obviously, that the Springfield PD is utterly incompetent but...

I think the bit with the Mummy undermines that.

Like, I'm not sure if this is the intent, you can't really see flying bullets in the scene so this is speculatory, but the way the scene is framed and with the way it's lurching I _think_  that it's not that they're missing it's that the bullets aren't hurting it.

I'm pretty sure that panic is the appropriate response in that situation.

----------


## Lord Raziere

I mean thing is, a competent cop would be able to deal with a mummy even if it is immune to bullets. 

like, its slow moving for one, and unless the mummy has some supernatural thing that makes it a bad idea to touch (doubtful) there is nothing saying its any stronger than a regular human. so just getting into a tussle and putting handcuffs on the mummy then taking them to a holding cell until they figure out what to do with it should solve the problem as far as they are concerned.

if however they can't touch the mummy, they can still set up a cordon, a zone where people can travel so that others don't touch it and simply figure out a way to keep that mummy contained inside it until other people can grab the thing for studying it in a contained environment so they know how to deal with it in the future.

and if its immune to bullets, stronger than any human and has some supernatural disease that kills you if you touch it or something like that, then a competent cop as soon as they observe all this stuff would probably simply call for evacuation of the area then the military so THEY can deal with it and see if it can't be blown up with like some explosives and by then its out of their hands.

(This is assuming of course that the mummy is real, and not the simpler more probable explanation that they are shooting at someone dressed as a mummy on halloween, both missing horribly and both believing it is real and being afraid of mummies, which makes far more sense with their incompetence and the joke.)

----------


## Rater202

> (This is assuming of course that the mummy is real, and not the simpler more probable explanation that they are shooting at someone dressed as a mummy on halloween, both missing horribly and both believing it is real and being afraid of mummies, which makes far more sense with their incompetence and the joke.)


One of the running jokes in the Simpsons, albeit not one that you see all that often, is people being completely casual about the existence of supernatural creatures.

Like, in one episode the family visits China Town and thinks its Chinese new year or something because there's a dragon marching through the streets... Then animal control shows up, tranqs it, and make comments about how people get dragons as pets when they're babies but abandon them when they're not cute anymore.

The leprechaun that tells Ralph to burn things is a minor recurring character... This clashes with an earlier episode that established that Leprechauns were extinct, mind you but that's nowhere near the worst continuity error in _The Simpsons._.

So I'm inclined to assume it was an actual Mummy.

----------


## enderlord99

Neutrino detector!  Are the police in The Simpsons being competent?

----------


## TaiLiu

> Neutrino detector!  Are the police in The Simpsons being competent?


This comic is unfair to frequentist statisticians but is unfortunately accurate when it comes to many scientists reasoning about their results.

----------


## Form

> Okay, moving onto a lighter topic.
> 
> People falling to Chaos isn't generally funny, and that includes the Tau (in the very rare* canon instances it's happened, they're more resistant than the orks**). But remember how regimented the Tau lifestyle is, even with at least some freedom in switching castes. Now imagine what happens if a Tau falls to Slaanesh. The results can be hilariously mundane. Behold, the heretic has found a new hedonistic passion that'll drive them to excess, stamp collecting!


Are they at least _naughty_ stamps?




> Most probably get sent from re-education once they start refusing to set their alarm clocks.


Sleeping in does sound very befitting of Slaanesh.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Are they at least _naughty_ stamps?


Like the Tau regulate porn.

No seriously, they probably don't. At least for the relatively unextreme varieties.This is more to do with Slaanesh being the god of pleasure and that the Tau probably don't have many of our hobbies.




> Sleeping in does sound very befitting of Slaanesh.


Slaanesh cults just can't keep to a schedule, why did you think it took so long for Abaddon to launch a real successor to the Horus Heresy? It took him 9,000 years just to get the Emperor's Children to respond, let alone turn up.

----------


## enderlord99

Imagine a tiny, spinning ball... except it's not round, doesn't rotate, and is the size of the universe.  Also there are a bunch of them.  Yes, I _am_ watching youtube videos allegedly about quantum physics without properly understanding!  How could you tell{?}

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> Yes, I _am_ watching youtube videos allegedly about quantum physics without properly understanding!  How could you tell{?}


I understand that this is the correct way to understand quantum physics...

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Darn you Nintendo, remove the swear filters from your games! I'm running out of rude terms for ladybits and haven't even named Link!

----------


## theangelJean

> Darn you Nintendo, remove the swear filters from your games! I'm running out of rude terms for ladybits and haven't even named Link!


You haven't exhausted the list of rude terms for non-lady bits (or non-sexual bits), so you're clearly not trying hard enough :p

(No, I don't actually understand the reference or the point you're making... just thought I'd put that there anyway.)

----------


## LaZodiac

> Darn you Nintendo, remove the swear filters from your games! I'm running out of rude terms for ladybits and haven't even named Link!


... what are you doing where that's a relevant problem?

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> You haven't exhausted the list of rude terms for non-lady bits (or non-sexual bits), so you're clearly not trying hard enough :p


Most of those are censored as well  :Small Tongue: 




> ... what are you doing where that's a relevant problem?


Playing Skyward Sword. Like, you can't see an enter your name feature and not abuse it.

When I get P5 I'll probably name the MC Fukami Harder.

----------


## enderlord99

> Like, you can't see an enter your name feature and not abuse it.


Maybe _you_ can't, but I'm built different.

----------


## Rater202

Last night we had to get the digital scale out to check the weight of a ham because it was too heavy for the food scale.

Then since we had the scale out we all checked our weight(my weight loss continues at a stable rate) and then just for the hell of it I weighed the cats.

The big one was 13.4 lbs. The small one was too light to set off the scale.

----------


## Peelee

> The small one was too light to set off the scale.


Pick up the cat, step on the scale, weigh yourself + cat. Put cat down, step on scale, weigh yourself. Fig. A - Fig. B = cat's weight.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Pick up the cat, step on the scale, weigh yourself + cat. Put cat down, step on scale, weigh yourself. Fig. A - Fig. B = cat's weight.


Assuming the cat hasn't recently been to the seaside, they do tend to hunt dolphins

----------


## enderlord99

What is "Fig. A - Fig." and why do bees equal cats{?}

----------


## Keltest

> What is "Fig. A - Fig." and why do bees equal cats{?}


It's when your fig goes on a diet.

If bees = fish, and cats eat fish, then clearly cats are made of bees.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

So, cats are bee holders?

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> So, cats are bee holders?


Well their eyes contain beauty.

----------


## Rater202

Hey, Peelee? Would you mind if I sent you something to make a ruling on?

The Jumpchain document I'm working on is at the point where I'm comfortable letting people see it... I don't _think_ there's anything in this one that breaks forum rules, but there are a couple of things that I felt were obligatory to include based on the source material that _might_ be a bit over the line.

I don't know if anyone is actually interested in such a things but it's something I put work into and would like to show off.

----------


## Peelee

> Hey, Peelee? Would you mind if I sent you something to make a ruling on?
> 
> The Jumpchain document I'm working on is at the point where I'm comfortable letting people see it... I don't _think_ there's anything in this one that breaks forum rules, but there are a couple of things that I felt were obligatory to include that _might_ be a bit over the line.


Go for it. I've never infracted anyone for PMing me something asking if it was rules appropriate, even when it was not. Haven't known any other mods to do so either.

----------


## enderlord99

In the phrase "gnashing of teeth" how do you pronounce the "gn"?

Personally, I generally pronounce it as just a regular "n" but sometimes I instead pronounce it the same as the "ng" at the end of the same word (which is to say, "ŋ") and now that I'm typing this out and thinking about it, it seems way more dramatic to start the phrase with a phoneme that I'd otherwise never start any word with at all, so I think I'll make a conscious effort to switch to that pronunciation should the need to pick one ever again arise.

----------


## Rater202

> In the phrase "gnashing of teeth" how do you pronounce the "gn"?
> 
> Personally, I generally pronounce it as just a regular "n" but sometimes I instead pronounce it the same as the "ng" at the end of the same word (which is to say, "ŋ") and now that I'm typing this out and thinking about it, it seems way more dramatic to start the phrase with a phoneme that I'd otherwise never start any word with at all, so I think I'll make a conscious effort to switch to that pronunciation should the need to pick one ever again arise.


I usually go with a very soft and very fast "juh" leading directly into the "na" so it's a more guttural "N" sound.

So not a silent G, but not necessarily noticeable either.

----------


## enderlord99

> I usually go with a very soft and very fast "juh" leading directly into...





> a very soft and very fast "juh"





> "juh"





> j


...I can't even replicate that, without sounding either very goofy or like I'm saying "shnashing" which, in turn, also sounds kinda goofy.  I'm sorry, but I can't accept a pronunciation of "gnashing" which starts with a soft g.  There's nothing soft about it.

----------


## Peelee

> In the phrase "gnashing of teeth" how do you pronounce the "gn"?


Silent     G.

----------


## Rater202

Okay, Peelee ruled that th bits I thought might be problematic were okay, so if anyone wants to take a look at what I've been working on lately it's here.

Not sure if anyone is gonna be interested in it and it's kind of on the long side, but...

It's still a WIP. Some stuff I want to add, some things I should probably reword, and I'm not happy with the name of one of the perks but... Yeah.

----------


## Lord Raziere

okay looking it over, since I'm probably the only person here who has looked at any jumpchain other than this one:
lots of free traits at the beginning, thats very kind compared to most jumpchains, but if you want to be that kind to people, go ahead. its not as if these things are designed to be balanced at all. 

pretty sure this is one of the longer jumpchains I've read at 63 pages. 

hah! that drawback pointing out that being locked out of other jump powers on your first go being basically free points is so right. I had this realization recently before this myself.

but yeah, this seems on par with the more detailed and longer jumpchain documents out there and knowing you Rater, you know your stuff when it comes to Marvel and are very internally consistent, so I have no doubt your making all this accurate.

----------


## Rater202

> okay looking it over, since I'm probably the only person here who has looked at any jumpchain other than this one:
> lots of free traits at the beginning, thats very kind compared to most jumpchains, but if you want to be that kind to people, go ahead. its not as if these things are designed to be balanced at all.


 Different jump makers have different design goals.

One of mine is that you don't have to jump through hoops to come to the setting.

All the freebies are either standard parts of being a major character in a superhero world, basic survival necessities, or things that you need for surviving this jump specifically.


> pretty sure this is one of the longer jumpchains I've read at 63 pages.


It was 72 but then I changed the font.

But it's not the longest. The longest I've seen is the DC Comics Collab, which was trying to be comprehensive for the whole setting. It's over a hundred pages long and divided into so many sections that...

I did a blt for it once. ONCE. Never again.

----------


## oxybe

So I'm gonna vent for a moment.

Am I just objectively terrible at asking for feedback on... on well anything?

Earlier today I posted on reddit an idea for an alternative mechanic on a game I might run in the near-ish future, looking for constructive feedback and the responses were 4/5 "no, that's dumb, use the original/MY houserule instead" and 1/5 was "if it works for your group go for it!". No one actually addressed what i posted and broke down what worked or didn't, just told me to not try or give me the most vapid of unhelpful platitudes.

So I deleted the thread and probably won't post in that section of the internet again. I'll mine it for ideas, but screw asking for feedback.

And this isn't just a "Reddit is being a trashfire again". This has happened to me on other subreddits and other forum sites, including this one, over the course of many years where I'm starting to see no reason to ask for feedback on anything, post opinions or start threads because all feedback I seem get is either: the thread is ignored, "you're doing it wrong/git gud" or "if it works for you then whatever".

Nothing constructive or actually helpful. It's frustrating because as much as I want to talk shop and discuss design it always gets shot down, but after a while of going "it's not me, it's you" to often maybe it really is _me_ that's the problem. 

Again, just venting and not really looking for help or advice.

----------


## Lord Raziere

oh yeah I feel ya on the "if it works for you then whatever" feedback, thats always frustrating for anything because they're clearly trying to be chill, but thats like, not what _anyone_ needs when evaluating something. because it might as well be saying nothing. and the other kind of feedback just sucks in general.

----------


## theangelJean

> So I'm gonna vent for a moment.
> 
> Am I just objectively terrible at asking for feedback on... on well anything?
> 
> Earlier today I posted on reddit an idea for an alternative mechanic on a game I might run in the near-ish future, looking for constructive feedback and the responses were 4/5 "no, that's dumb, use the original/MY houserule instead" and 1/5 was "if it works for your group go for it!". No one actually addressed what i posted and broke down what worked or didn't, just told me to not try or give me the most vapid of unhelpful platitudes.
> 
> So I deleted the thread and probably won't post in that section of the internet again. I'll mine it for ideas, but screw asking for feedback.
> 
> And this isn't just a "Reddit is being a trashfire again". This has happened to me on other subreddits and other forum sites, including this one, over the course of many years where I'm starting to see no reason to ask for feedback on anything, post opinions or start threads because all feedback I seem get is either: the thread is ignored, "you're doing it wrong/git gud" or "if it works for you then whatever".
> ...


Okay, but ...

You are looking for someone to engage with your topic in a certain way. You want them to consider your idea carefully, and think about its positive and negative possibilities.

However, you are posting on the internet. This is at once the best way to get your topic out there, and a terrible way to get feedback.

As you've discovered, it's terrible because there are too many people who won't engage with your topic in the way you want.  But they post something anyway because they want to participate in the conversation. 

Does that mean nobody ever will engage with your topic "properly"? Does that mean you'll never get your answer? Or at least, not in the timeframe you are looking for?

The fun thing about the internet is that it's a popularity contest. Which means that the people participating in the conversation are actually helping. You want the people who will engage with you to see it, but they won't see it if nobody posts in the thread and it disappears.

I am trying not to give advice (something I struggle with). I haven't said anything about the way you constructed your post, because I don't think it is particularly relevant - I don't believe you're doing it wrong, or anything like that. I will just finish by saying that posting on the internet is not the worst way to get feedback. The absolute worst way is to not have the discussion. Because when the person comes along who might be in the right frame of mind to engage constructively, it won't be there.

----------


## enderlord99

Is "strange matter" basically equivalent to "prions, but infecting the universe itself"

I think it is, but I'm not sure

----------


## Rater202

Is there a word that is a synonym for "enhanced" or "empowered" that starts with a "D" sound?

Ideally a the D sound from the beginning of a word like "Defender" or "Defiled."


> Is "strange matter" basically equivalent to "prions, but infecting the universe itself"
> 
> I think it is, but I'm not sure


...I don't _think_ so... But that's a pretty good "lies to children" if nothing else.

----------


## Jasdoif

> Is there a word that is a synonym for "enhanced" or "empowered" that starts with a "D" sound?
> 
> Ideally a the D sound from the beginning of a word like "Defender" or "Defiled."


Definitely Definitive?  Deiform?  Deregulated?

----------


## Rater202

> Deiform?


 *googles*

_Perfect_. Thank you.

----------


## D&D_Fan

The strange matter hypothesis is that strange matter is inherently more stable than regular matter.

Regular matter is metastable. It's only stable locally.

The concept is that when regular matter comes into contact with strange matter, it will start a chain reaction to become strange matter, since strange matter is the more stable regular state now by comparison and all things degenerate into it.

----------


## LaZodiac

The receptionist at work is sick so I have taken over her desk for the time being. I don't mind doing ninja work but please god no I was just getting into the groove not again.

----------


## Peelee

> The receptionist at work is sick so I have taken over her desk for the time being. I don't mind doing ninja work but please god no I was just getting into the groove not again.


"Ninja work" has made me significantly more intrigued into exactly what aspects of law your lawyers practice.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> The receptionist at work is sick so I have taken over her desk for the time being. I don't mind doing ninja work but please god no I was just getting into the groove not again.


The receptionist is not an easy job but it can be fun as long as you remain professional. There are some times that there are difficult callers you need to deal with and handle professionally. Trust me I know. But good luck with being the receptionist.  :Smile:

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> "Ninja work" has made me significantly more intrigued into exactly what aspects of law your lawyers practice.


No, clearly it's the secretaries who are ninjas. Zodi's probably just nervous because she hasn't practiced her magic powers in a while.

Do American law firms not hire highly skilled killers in seemingly menial positions? You guys really need to get with the times.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

This reminds me of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.  :Smile:

----------


## LaZodiac

> "Ninja work" has made me significantly more intrigued into exactly what aspects of law your lawyers practice.


The receptionist is the mundane face of the law office, the first person everyone sees but the least assuming. They keep everything flowing from behind the scenes while not even looking like they're working. They have magic powers and without them, things would start to fall apart at the foundations.

I have a great respect for service workers, more so than any lawyer, even the good ones. Truth.




> The receptionist is not an easy job but it can be fun as long as you remain professional. There are some times that there are difficult callers you need to deal with and handle professionally. Trust me I know. But good luck with being the receptionist.


Don't speak to me about the old magic for I was there when it was written. This was like 50% of my job at my old firm I got this.




> No, clearly it's the secretaries who are ninjas. Zodi's probably just nervous because she hasn't practiced her magic powers in a while.
> 
> Do American law firms not hire highly skilled killers in seemingly menial positions? You guys really need to get with the times.


Secretaries are personal receptionists and thus do count under the purview of office ninja, yeah. And yeah after a month of working as a full on litigation legal assistant, I'm a bit out of practice on my ninja arts- never mind the fact that muscle memory makes me almost say the wrong firm name on the phone calls I get.

----------


## enderlord99

> The strange matter hypothesis is that strange matter is inherently more stable than regular matter.
> 
> Regular matter is metastable. It's only stable locally.
> 
> The concept is that when regular matter comes into contact with strange matter, it will start a chain reaction to become strange matter, since strange matter is the more stable regular state now by comparison and all things degenerate into it.


Yeah.  Prions are _also_ more stable than normal stuff and convince that stuff to turn into more prions because of that.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Don't speak to me about the old magic for I was there when it was written. This was like 50% of my job at my old firm I got this.


My apologies then. It looks like you have everything covered.

----------


## Peelee

> The receptionist is the mundane face of the law office, the first person everyone sees but the least assuming. They keep everything flowing from behind the scenes while not even looking like they're working. They have magic powers and without them, things would start to fall apart at the foundations.


Not much different than medical. 



> I have a great respect for service workers, more so than any lawyer, even the good ones. Truth.


Eh, criminal defense lawyers preserve the bedrock of freedom.* Especially public defenders.

*even the slimy ones.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Not much different than medical. 
> 
> Eh, criminal defense lawyers preserve the bedrock of freedom.* Especially public defenders.
> 
> *even the slimy ones.


Yup, nurses are also ninjas, they're just more prone to be evil. The Uchiha of the office assistant world, one could say.

While that's true, there would be no bedrock of freedom for them to defend if the lower ranks didn't do their do. And no lawyer I know would tackle any case without the backing assistance of their assistants.

----------


## Peelee

> Yup, nurses


I meant administrative staff. Nurses are also professional occupations requiring degrees (of varying degree, but I'm assuming you mean RNs, which require at least a Bachelor's). 



> While that's true, there would be no bedrock of freedom for them to defend if the lower ranks didn't do their do.


Yes, the professions need their administrators and the administrative staff need their professionals.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I meant administrative staff. Nurses are also professional occupations requiring degrees (of varying degree, but I'm assuming you mean RNs, which require at least a Bachelor's). 
> 
> Yes, the professions need their administrators and the administrative staff need their professionals.


Yeah.

Yup! Wasn't denying it. This world has a startling amount of symbiosis within the way it works, and one of these days people are going to remember that.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

So anyway I heard that Elon Musk is going to ban other social media sites from Twitter for the sake of 'competition'. This idea is so stupid. Screw Elon Musk.  :Mad:

----------


## Peelee

> So anyway I heard that Elon Musk is going to ban other social media sites from Twitter for the sake of 'competition'. This idea is so stupid. Screw Elon Musk.


The ban was on linking to other social media sites, went into effect yesterday, and has already been rescinded hours earlier this morning.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> The ban was on linking to other social media sites, went into effect yesterday, and has already been rescinded hours earlier this morning.


Well, that's good news but it was still a crappy move to attempt this stunt on Elon's part.  :Smile:   :Mad:

----------


## Rater202

Assuming that you have access to any and every modern amenity and convenience you could want, what time period would you want to spend the rest of your life in?

----------


## LaZodiac

> Assuming that you have access to any and every modern amenity and convenience you could want, what time period would you want to spend the rest of your life in?


This one all my friends are here.

Flippant answer aside; the time I live in now is perfect for me, truthfully. The stuff in the past, I already know what happens, so I don't really benefit much from living there, and most of what I'm looking forward to is in the future anyway.

----------


## DataNinja

> The receptionist at work is sick so I have taken over her desk for the time being. I don't mind doing ninja work but please god no I was just getting into the groove not again.


I have immense respect for anyone who can handle public-facing positions. Especially where I work at (a particularly, uh, _emotionally-charged_ government office). 

(In unrelated news, oh god, it's snowing, and I really hope the power goes out. The only other person with the accesses and know-how to do the procedures of _my_ particular job is my boss, who is on her vacation right now, and I don't want to know how things would look like if neither of us were there.)

----------


## Peelee

> Assuming that you have access to any and every modern amenity and convenience you could want, what time period would you want to spend the rest of your life in?


Time period? My friend, you're asking the wrong question. If I could have access to any and every modern amenity, the question is not "what time period?". The question is "which small Caribbean island should I live on?".

Time period is irrelevant on the beach.

----------


## Rater202

> Time period? My friend, you're asking the wrong question. If I could have access to any and every modern amenity, the question is not "what time period?". The question is "which small Caribbean island should I live on?".
> 
> Time period is irrelevant on the beach.


...The one least likely to be attacked by pirates and/or tropical storms?

----------


## Peelee

> ...The one least likely to be attacked by pirates and/or tropical storms?


Modern amenities would presumably include hurricane shelters, generators, and modern weaponry. You did specify "all".

----------


## Rater202

> Modern amenities would presumably include hurricane shelters, generators, and modern weaponry. You did specify "all".


Just because you can deal with it, that doesn't mean you want to deal with it on a regular basis.

----------


## oxybe

In all honesty, regarding what time period, this one would be my answer.

As much of a social recluse as I am, I still leave the house once or twice a week for D&D and socializing with friends.

Beyond that I'm probably going to have HUGE culture shock no matter what time period I go back to. The life of modern day introverted east-coast Canada tech support guy isn't really compatible with say... 1600's rural France? Outside of the language barrier of my modern Acadian French to my ancestral French of 400 years ago, I'd still be without my support system of friends and family. 

All modern amenities and conveniences would do is keep me alive during my temporal isolation.

I don't really see a Yankee in King Arthur's Court type scenario occurring.

----------


## Peelee

> Just because you can deal with it, that doesn't mean you want to deal with it on a regular basis.


I think you have an unrealistic idea of how often pirates would be raiding small, virtually uninhabited islands off the Caribbean even in their heyday, much less throughout all of recorded history. And weather's gonna weather regardless of when you are.

----------


## Rater202

> I think you have an unrealistic idea of how often pirates would be raiding small, virtually uninhabited islands off the Caribbean even in their heyday, much less throughout all of recorded history.


 Pirates target wealth.

Infinite modern ammenities=absurd wealth.


> And weather's gonna weather regardless of when you are.


Yeah, bit you said that "which island" was more important than "when" for you.

So I assume you'd try to pick the one with the best ratio of beach-weather versus storm-shelter weather.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Pirates target wealth.
> 
> Infinite modern ammenities=absurd wealth.


Okay.

How they gonna find it with all that modern equipment they do not have?

----------


## Peelee

> Okay.
> 
> How they gonna find it with all that modern equipment they do not have?


Also, how are they going to know about it to start with? Or what any of it is? 

Also, Rater, I don't know how to tell you this, but pirates were hardly unique in their zeal of wishing wealth and being violent to get it. Asking that for my tropical island regardless of time (especially when Caribbean pirates have a very narrow window to be active in) seems an odd choice - I'd imagine you would like to have "how will you deal with whatever greedy people trying to get your stuff" be in the general post if this is such a pressing concern.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Assuming that you have access to any and every modern amenity and convenience you could want, what time period would you want to spend the rest of your life in?


Assuming 'this one' is out, and I'm allowed to bring a couple of people with me on this TARDIS trip.

Jaunt a century or two into the future. Most of the things I don't like about this year are just going to get worse if I go back, so might as well take a punt on the future. Plus if it does turn out to be worse that time machine is even more likely to still be around.

That's not even getting into 'if I go back too far I probably can't get the eye tests I need'.

If I'm not allowed to bring people, well the answer is '**** that'. I've got friends, and I am not abandoning my partners. Some things are worth more than infinite indoor plumbing

----------


## oxybe

> Also, how are they going to know about it to start with? Or what any of it is? 
> 
> Also, Rater, I don't know how to tell you this, but pirates were hardly unique in their zeal of wishing wealth and being violent to get it. Asking that for my tropical island regardless of time (especially when Caribbean pirates have a very narrow window to be active in) seems an odd choice - I'd imagine you would like to have "how will you deal with whatever greedy people trying to get your stuff" be in the general post if this is such a pressing concern.


Pirates are basically just moist highwaymen. 

Unless they have a letter of marque.

Then they're highwaymen with state-sponsored moistness.

----------


## 2D8HP

> Assuming that you have access to any and every modern amenity and convenience you could want, what time period would you want to spend the rest of your life in?



With sufficient wealth almost all significant modern amenities (air conditioning, automobiles, movies, phonographs, radio) that Im aware of were already available in the 1920s, otherwise most of my favorite musicians were still alive and performing in the 1990s, and I have a special fondness for British motor vehicles of the 1960s, this is actually a hard question!

 It would be nice to skip ahead and collect a pension, but if I dont work more in the next ten years that pension would be meager, plus Id miss out on watching the six year old grew up.

Visiting the past when more were still alive and healthy is tempting but Id still be the old man I am now and would probably feel out of place.

----------


## DataNinja

Hmm, welp. Hit by a lot of snow here, and trapped inside. We got about 25cm here (or 10ish inches to you Americans). At least the power didn't go out this time.

Yes, Zodi, I know, that's not a lot to you, but it is here!  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I love nostalgia for reminiscing.

In non-related news, I got writer's block. I just can't think of what to write next for a story. Why me?  :Sigh:

----------


## LaZodiac

> Hmm, welp. Hit by a lot of snow here, and trapped inside. We got about 25cm here (or 10ish inches to you Americans). At least the power didn't go out this time.
> 
> Yes, Zodi, I know, that's not a lot to you, but it is here!


Thank goodness the power didn't go out, especially in those conditions! You might need to put on a blanket  :Small Tongue: 

Jokes aside, 25cm isn't insubstantial... though yeah for us we got that in about a day this year. We've blown past our averages almost immediately.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Jokes aside, 25cm isn't insubstantial...


To you maybe, but here, we're boarding the _Snowpiercer_ as soon as it goes past 10.

----------


## Rater202

> To you maybe, but here, we're boarding the _Snowpiercer_ as soon as it goes past 10.


...Hope you're prepared for prion diseases.

----------


## LaZodiac

> To you maybe, but here, we're boarding the _Snowpiercer_ as soon as it goes past 10.


May have used too many negatives there; I'm sayin 25 centimeters is actually a decent chunk. Not super big, but still!

----------


## Fyraltari

> ...Hope you're prepared for prion diseases.


Literally the least of the worries onboard. Pray the Great Loco!



> May have used too many negatives there; I'm sayin 25 centimeters is actually a decent chunk. Not super big, but still!


My eyes just glazed over the "in" part of "insubtantial", sorry.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Literally the least of the worries onboard. Pray the Great Loco!
> 
> My eyes just glazed over the "in" part of "insubtantial", sorry.


Perfectly fair, no harm done.

Honestly had to check first to make sure I HAD put that "in" in there, five hours of thumbing through litigation docs will do that to a girl's eyes.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> In non-related news, I got writer's block. I just can't think of what to write next for a story. Why me?


Don't worry, it happens to everybody not called Issac Asimov.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Don't worry, it happens to everybody not called Issac Asimov.


I mean, of course, I was going to continue writing my unfinished Pathfinder story but I scrapped my continuation to finish writing that story.  :Frown:

----------


## Fyraltari

> Don't worry, it happens to everybody not called Issac Asimov.





> Isaac Asimov had writer's block, once. It was the worst ten minutes of his life.


1234567890

----------


## Rater202

The difference between children and adults.

Children hate getting clothes for Christmas.

Adults are hoping to get clothes for Christmas.

...And as far as I can tell that's the only difference. I still like most of the same stuff I did when I was a kid and while my opinions on certain issues have changed that's more from exposure to new ideas, not greater maturity.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> The difference between children and adults.
> 
> Children hate getting clothes for Christmas.
> 
> Adults are hoping to get clothes for Christmas.


Ha! If I get clothes I'll be trading them for coffee at the first opportunity.

Also define 'children'. Because there's certain things (most) adults can do that (depending on cutoff point) children can't. Like reach the top shelf.

Also, as a kid I would never have been able to drop £50 on an RPG book. So there's a certain ability of control that comes with adulthood.


... But yes I get your major point. There are a handful of mundane things that as a kid would have made me go 'urgh' but I like as an adult. Like organising a room.

----------


## Keltest

> The difference between children and adults.
> 
> Children hate getting clothes for Christmas.
> 
> Adults are hoping to get clothes for Christmas.
> 
> ...And as far as I can tell that's the only difference. I still like most of the same stuff I did when I was a kid and while my opinions on certain issues have changed that's more from exposure to new ideas, not greater maturity.


Adulthood is a myth. We're all just children who have become self conscious about it.

----------


## DataNinja

> Thank goodness the power didn't go out, especially in those conditions! You might need to put on a blanket 
> 
> Jokes aside, 25cm isn't insubstantial... though yeah for us we got that in about a day this year. We've blown past our averages almost immediately.


So, uh, after it all stopped, we actually went out and measured it. We got *38* cm here. (15 inches.) Dear god, how?

----------


## Rater202

> So, uh, after it all stopped, we actually went out and measured it. We got *38* cm here. (15 inches.) Dear god, how?


We're set to get 2 ft around here. 60.96 cm.

Gonna have a white Christmas for the first time in a long while.

----------


## Lord Raziere

*checks outside window*

yeah I don't have measurements, but uh....definite snow at my place as well. not as high as it has been sometimes, but its certainly a layer and it hasn't melted yet.

----------


## Rater202

Is it weird that I really wish that certain bits of ongoing media would explain certain things?

The Arcade-based Card Fighter (Super) Dragon Ball Heroes, for ti's avatar characters, has a series of upgrades pushing them up into a more powerful version of that character which usually involves some kind of transformation or spiritual evolutionSaiyan Avatars climb the ranks of stronger super Saiyan forms, Namekians fuse with other NAmekians and obtain higher forms of consciousness, Frieza Race go through those transformations, and so on and so forth.

...There's no explanation for how it works for the Androids. The Berserker is based on Cell so it goes through a series of stages based on his evolution, but the hero and elite are cyborgs like 17 and 18.

I can infer what the first tier of evolution is... _Maybe_ the third, if we assume they both have the same one though I'd have to double-check check publishing history... And then nothing.

And that _shouldn't_ bother me, but it _does_

----------


## LaZodiac

> So, uh, after it all stopped, we actually went out and measured it. We got *38* cm here. (15 inches.) Dear god, how?


Yeah that's not surprising, like I said we're blowing past our records this year, and I'm imagining you are too!




> Is it weird that I really wish that certain bits of ongoing media would explain certain things?
> 
> The Arcade-based Card Fighter (Super) Dragon Ball Heroes, for ti's avatar characters, has a series of upgrades pushing them up into a more powerful version of that character which usually involves some kind of transformation or spiritual evolutionSaiyan Avatars climb the ranks of stronger super Saiyan forms, Namekians fuse with other NAmekians and obtain higher forms of consciousness, Frieza Race go through those transformations, and so on and so forth.
> 
> ...There's no explanation for how it works for the Androids. The Berserker is based on Cell so it goes through a series of stages based on his evolution, but the hero and elite are cyborgs like 17 and 18.
> 
> I can infer what the first tier of evolution is... _Maybe_ the third, if we assume they both have the same one though I'd have to double-check check publishing history... And then nothing.
> 
> And that _shouldn't_ bother me, but it _does_


My guess is that like, some of them are upgraded with hell materials like Super 17, yeah?

======

*ANYWAY IMPORTANT UPDATE OF THINGS!*

Qwertystop is sick with the plague and is minimizing all activity to improve healing. This means she's gonna be away from the computer. It's for her health and important and everyone better give her well wishes!

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Is it weird that I really wish that certain bits of ongoing media would explain certain things?
> 
> The Arcade-based Card Fighter (Super) Dragon Ball Heroes, for ti's avatar characters, has a series of upgrades pushing them up into a more powerful version of that character which usually involves some kind of transformation or spiritual evolutionSaiyan Avatars climb the ranks of stronger super Saiyan forms, Namekians fuse with other NAmekians and obtain higher forms of consciousness, Frieza Race go through those transformations, and so on and so forth.
> 
> ...There's no explanation for how it works for the Androids. The Berserker is based on Cell so it goes through a series of stages based on his evolution, but the hero and elite are cyborgs like 17 and 18.
> 
> I can infer what the first tier of evolution is... _Maybe_ the third, if we assume they both have the same one though I'd have to double-check check publishing history... And then nothing.
> 
> And that _shouldn't_ bother me, but it _does_


No, wishing things to be explained more seems pretty normal for geeks like us. Its just how some peoples brains work: some people want to know even its irrational.

Its a card game, I'd pass it off as nothing explainable and say its card game mechanics and just relax and move on. But I try to discipline my mind to not think in ways I don't like or don't find useful/interesting. maybe you have a different solution, but I'd recommend that if you know it shouldn't bother you but it does, that you force your mind to focus on something else. You'll probably forget something dumb and stupid like this sooner or later. 

@ Zodi: 
Okay, wish you well Qwerty and Merry Christmas. Sending get well spirit bomb energy.

----------


## oxybe

> Is it weird that I really wish that certain bits of ongoing media would explain certain things?
> 
> The Arcade-based Card Fighter (Super) Dragon Ball Heroes, for ti's avatar characters, has a series of upgrades pushing them up into a more powerful version of that character which usually involves some kind of transformation or spiritual evolutionSaiyan Avatars climb the ranks of stronger super Saiyan forms, Namekians fuse with other NAmekians and obtain higher forms of consciousness, Frieza Race go through those transformations, and so on and so forth.
> 
> ...There's no explanation for how it works for the Androids. The Berserker is based on Cell so it goes through a series of stages based on his evolution, but the hero and elite are cyborgs like 17 and 18.
> 
> I can infer what the first tier of evolution is... _Maybe_ the third, if we assume they both have the same one though I'd have to double-check check publishing history... And then nothing.
> 
> And that _shouldn't_ bother me, but it _does_


Can't really talk about the card fighter lore, as that's outside my Dragonball wheelhouse, but for andoids in cannon dragonball? 

-Biomechs like Cell simply transform
-Pure androids like #16, #19, Gero's mechanical body or Arale (from Dr.Slump, which does take place in the dragonball world as they crossed over in both OG Dragonball and Super) simply get mechanical upgrades.
-Cyborgs like #17 & #18 are likely just constantly adapting to the Infinite Energy Engine Gero tossed into them to passively power up. 

I can't see #18 as having done any serious training outside of a light spar with Krillin, and none of the every 3-year world martial arts tournament shlubs she mows through the rankings until she throws the fight for a Hercule payoff will cause her to break a sweat... but she still managed to pretty easily deflect a beamstruggle kamehameha between Krillin and God Blue Goku when she saw that a tired Krillin was gonna get hit. 

And unless #17 (the guy who won the Tournament of Power by helping Frieza and Goku take out Jiren) has his own gravity training chamber, I doubt the poachers on the reserve give him enough of a strenuous workout to get him to final 4 in a multi-universe free-for-all.

I'm sure they could get upgrades too if they wanted to. The infinity engine and the self-destruct bomb are proof that their modified human bodies can take new parts and adapt to them. but IMO any "evolutions" would be that: adapting to the infinity engine or just getting better parts installed.

----------


## Form

<.< >.> <.<

It's as if someone far away is draining some of my energy juices.




> @ Zodi: 
> Okay, wish you well Qwerty and Merry Christmas. Sending get well spirit bomb energy.


Oh. Well, it's for a good cause, so that's ok. Get well soon, Qwerty.

----------


## Rater202

> My guess is that like, some of them are upgraded with hell materials like Super 17, yeah?


Yeah, that's what I assume is one of them.

Like it can be a bit hard to see on the model but the second stage for both the Hero and the Elite have diodes in their hands similar to the ones used by 19, 20, and Super 17 so I figure that the upgrade is just "they merged with a Hellfighter version of themselves to become the super version of themself"

But there are four tiers of upgrade past that and it ceases to be clear what's going on from there. There aren't even context clues in their appearance and my best guesses for what the third tier is aere impossible to verify because I can't find dates for what was added to the game when.

Complicating the issue is that they clearly don't have the diodes anymore by their "god" tier upgrade, so... HAve they had them removed in favor of something els... Or have they evolved beyond the need for them?


> *ANYWAY IMPORTANT UPDATE OF THINGS!*
> 
> Qwertystop is sick with the plague and is minimizing all activity to improve healing. This means she's gonna be away from the computer. It's for her health and important and everyone better give her well wishes!


Well wishes for qwerty



> And unless #17 (the guy who won the Tournament of Power by helping Frieza and Goku take out Jiren) has his own gravity training chamber, I doubt the poachers on the reserve give him enough of a strenuous workout to get him to final 4 in a multi-universe free-for-all.


According to a bonus chapter in the manga version of the Tournament of Power arc, the Cell juniors survived and regenerated from Gohan blowing them up and the reason Android 17 is so much stronger is that he rounded them up and domesticated them.

Just, wrangling rambunctious immortal children with godlike power is what made him get so much stronger.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> According to a bonus chapter in the manga version of the Tournament of Power arc, the Cell juniors survived and regenerated from Gohan blowing them up and the reason Android 17 is so much stronger is that he rounded them up and domesticated them.
> 
> Just, wrangling rambunctious immortal children with godlike power is what made him get so much stronger.


Honestly, going "no Gohan didn't actually kill a bunch of kids and those kids went on to behave and help 17 get stronger" is probably one of the best uses of a retcon/filling in details whichever you want to call it, because it makes 17 getting stronger make more sense, show that the original cell was the exception in terms of evil and that he made his own choices, and that 17 is chill enough to not blame them for what Cell did.

----------


## Mystic Muse

> Honestly, going "no Gohan didn't actually kill a bunch of kids and those kids went on to behave and help 17 get stronger" is probably one of the best uses of a retcon/filling in details whichever you want to call it, because it makes 17 getting stronger make more sense, show that the original cell was the exception in terms of evil and that he made his own choices, and that 17 is chill enough to not blame them for what Cell did.


Yeah, I'm with you on this one. 

Guess Vegeta Junior Junior will be an upstanding member of society. 

Should be a given since we're in a few Discord chats together, but well wishes for Qwerty!

----------


## Rater202

We already knew that Cell made his own choices: He had no programmed objectives beyond absorbing the androids, and even then he describes actually doing it to obtain his perfect form as being more his own drive for self-improvement, inherited from Goku, Vegeta, and Piccolo, pushing him to it rather than some irresistible compulsion.

Everything else was something he decided to do of his own accord flat out.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

How would you feel if you tell kids that Santa Claus is a space alien who lives on the planet, Hoth?  :Smile:

----------


## Mystic Muse

> How would you feel if you tell kids that Santa Claus is a space alien who lives on the planet, Hoth?


Like I'm adding extra details to a lie for no particular gain.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Like I'm adding extra details to a lie for no particular gain.


Well, it is better than saying that Santa Claus isn't real.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Peelee

> Well, it is better than saying that Santa Claus isn't real.


Why are those the only choices?

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Why are those the only choices?


Because parents tell their children just to keep their spirits up for Christmas. I mean if parents tell their kids that Santa Claus isn't real by acting like the Grinch and/or Scrooge by ruining the kid's childhood then that's the parent's fault for making that choice.

----------


## oxybe

> According to a bonus chapter in the manga version of the Tournament of Power arc, the Cell juniors survived and regenerated from Gohan blowing them up and the reason Android 17 is so much stronger is that he rounded them up and domesticated them.
> 
> Just, wrangling rambunctious immortal children with godlike power is what made him get so much stronger.


I must have missed that chapter in the manga because I find that concept perfectly _hilarious_. 

Largely because it means that those Cell Jrs in current cannon are now 16, around the same age as Goten and Trunks in the manga's post-timeskip, and Toyotaro (at least in the current chapter) has shown he's not afraid of being a bit goofy when low stakes are involved. 

If they age at a normal human rate, rather then just stay as smol Perfect Cells, there is now a small army of _teenaged_ Perfect Cells living on an island in the middle of nowhere and I want to see a chapter of them being bored teens and going off into, and exploring, the Dragon World, followed by EVERYONE panicking at the return of Cell only there is now like, 7 of him (but not really). 

Bonus points if 17, Goten and Trunks just never got around to telling anyone about them (which is a very Dragonball thing to do) since encountering them during that chapter, further confusing the Z Fighters.

----------


## Peelee

> Because parents tell their children just to keep their spirits up for Christmas. I mean if parents tell their kids that Santa Claus isn't real by acting like the Grinch and/or Scrooge by ruining the kid's childhood then that's the parent's fault for making that choice.


You didn't answer my question. You just diverged into a completely unrelated judgment. Why are the only two choices "saying Santa is a space alien from Hoth" or "saying Santa isn't real"?

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> You didn't answer my question. You just diverged into a completely unrelated judgment. Why are the only two choices "saying Santa is a space alien from Hoth" or "saying Santa isn't real"?


Because it is more believable that way.

----------


## Peelee

> Because it is more believable that way.


It's not. It's significantly less believable, even for a child. Excepting maybe very small children.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> It's not. It's significantly less believable, even for a child. Excepting maybe very small children.


How do you know? Children will believe just about everything on this planet.

----------


## Peelee

> How do you know? Children will believe just about everything on this planet.


Because as Mystic Muse already said, you're adding extra details to a lie for no benefit. Not only that, but these extra details are from a completely separate work of fiction, which famously has "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away" as quite literally the first thing you know about that world.

Everything about the extra details make it harder to believe.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Because as Mystic Muse already said, you're adding extra details to a lie for no benefit. Not only that, but these extra details are from a completely separate work of fiction, which famously has "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away" as quite literally the first thing you know about that world.
> 
> Everything about the extra details make it harder to believe.


You got a point there.

----------


## enderlord99

There's a difference between "this child believes everything I say because he's gullible and stupid" like many people assume and "this child pretends to agree with my nonsense because I tried to convince him three or more times in a row and he just wanted me to shut up, and he figured out that if I thought he 'fell for it' then maybe I wouldn't continue stating the same boring lie"

...

I was the child.  People still claim I "used to believe" what they said.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> There's a difference between "this child believes everything I say because he's gullible and stupid" as many people assume and "this child pretends to agree with my nonsense because I tried to convince him three or more times in a row and he just wanted me to shut up, and he figured out that if I thought he 'fell for it then maybe I wouldn't continue stating the same boring lie"
> 
> ...
> 
> I was the child.  People still claim I "used to believe" what they said.


I see your point. I was a child back then as well. I use to read the National Enquirer when I was a child. I read this interesting article about a man who went on a job interview that he was interviewed by a supervisor. The supervisor turns out to be space aliens who suck his brain and he was still alive. He told the National Enquirer about his story and he remember every detail in the interview. I believe it because I was a little kid back then and I didn't know any better but it turns out that the story was fake.

----------


## Mystic Muse

Adults also frequently underestimate both the actual and emotional intelligence of children. 

There's also a lot to be said for not confinuing the lie of Santa Claus. Particularly when some Christmas traditions surrounding him are a bit screwed up when you think about them (Elf on the shelf, him watching all the time, things like that).

----------


## LaZodiac

> I must have missed that chapter in the manga because I find that concept perfectly _hilarious_. 
> 
> Largely because it means that those Cell Jrs in current cannon are now 16, around the same age as Goten and Trunks in the manga's post-timeskip, and Toyotaro (at least in the current chapter) has shown he's not afraid of being a bit goofy when low stakes are involved. 
> 
> If they age at a normal human rate, rather then just stay as smol Perfect Cells, there is now a small army of _teenaged_ Perfect Cells living on an island in the middle of nowhere and I want to see a chapter of them being bored teens and going off into, and exploring, the Dragon World, followed by EVERYONE panicking at the return of Cell only there is now like, 7 of him (but not really). 
> 
> Bonus points if 17, Goten and Trunks just never got around to telling anyone about them (which is a very Dragonball thing to do) since encountering them during that chapter, further confusing the Z Fighters.


Fun additional thought; they've all modified themselves a bit as they grew since, they're probably all unique beings at this point, so not everyone realizes they're Cell baby's, like how only a handful of people realize Piccolo is a dead ringer for the Demon King.

This can also be an excuse to have "cell style android" playable in a Xenoverse style game.




> I see your point. I was a child back then as well. I use to read the National Enquirer when I was a child. I read this interesting article about a man who went on a job interview that he was interviewed by a supervisor. The supervisor turns out to be space aliens who suck his brain and he was still alive. He told the National Enquirer about his story and he remember every detail in the interview. I believe it because I was a little kid back then and I didn't know any better but it turns out that the story was fake.


You probably shouldn't have been reading that as a kid, at that formative age.

EDIT @Celeste Elf on the Shelf as a modern, still relatively new tradition for Christmas, is so ****ing dystopic. Please willingly subject yourselves to the idea that being monitored at all times is good, is one of those vibes that immediately skeeves me out. Destroy the elf and be free.

(that said Christmas has always kinda had this problem, to as far back as Santa being red because Coke wanted to make an ad campaign.)

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> You probably shouldn't have been reading that as a kid, at that formative age.


I mean it wasn't like I was reading a Playboy magazine or anything like that but I see your point.

----------


## Peelee

> Adults also frequently underestimate both the actual and emotional intelligence of children. 
> 
> There's also a lot to be said for not confinuing the lie of Santa Claus. Particularly when some Christmas traditions surrounding him are a bit screwed up when you think about them (Elf on the shelf, him watching all the time, things like that).


The flip side of this is Santa is really fun for kids. I've never done Elf on the Shelf (and largely don't understand it. Those two things are probably related), and we don't trek the little guy Santa is always watching. He's just a really cool guy that brings presents on Christmas. Which my child has informed me absolutely _must_ be at night.

Also we do a really cool Austrian tradition on December 6th where we leave the shoes outside.

----------


## DataNinja

> Also we do a really cool Austrian tradition on December 6th where we leave the shoes outside.


Note to self: Good time to get new shoes.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Rater202

> This can also be an excuse to have "cell style android" playable in a Xenoverse style game.


You don't even need that, the Android Berserker on Dragon ball Heroes predates the reveal that the Cell Juniors are still alive by several years.
*Spoiler*
Show









All of their tiers of power, sans the final one which has no cosmetic difference.

----------


## Mystic Muse

> The flip side of this is Santa is really fun for kids. I've never done Elf on the Shelf (and largely don't understand it. Those two things are probably related), and we don't trek the little guy Santa is always watching. He's just a really cool guy that brings presents on Christmas. Which my child has informed me absolutely _must_ be at night.
> 
> Also we do a really cool Austrian tradition on December 6th where we leave the shoes outside.


This is true. 

There's not really a one size fits all solution. Santa's super important for some families, and that's fine. He's also not relevant at all to some families, and that's also fine. 

The important part is knowing what works for your kid, and not doing something that will cause them distress.

----------


## Rater202

My stance on Santa Claus and related things is the same as Pratchet's.


> All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
> Really? As if it was some kind of pink pill? No. Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
> "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little"
> Yes. As practice. You have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
> "So we can believe the big ones?"''
> Yes. Justice. Mercy. Duty. That sort of thing.
> "They're not the same at all!"
> You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet
> Death waved a hand.
> ...


~_Hogfather_, Terry Pratchet.

----------


## LaZodiac

> You don't even need that, the Android Berserker on Dragon ball Heroes predates the reveal that the Cell Juniors are still alive by several years.
> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Every single one of the Red Ribbon Android girls (Except for number 5) are my favorite I love them. I think the first one is my favorite because there's something exceptionally spunky about the look. Three is my least favorite of the good ones, though it's still quite good.

I could take or leave the Cells and the cyborgs though, none of them quite do it for me.

(also having looked at this I can now say that for the Cyborg androids, they lean in on Baby from GT for the later design things. That grey little hair flip is absolutely Baby's jam).

----------


## Peelee

> My stance on Santa Claus and related things is the same as Pratchet's.~_Hogfather_, Terry Pratchet.


I generally like Pratchett but calling justice and mercy fantasies aren't his best jokes.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I generally like Pratchett but calling justice and mercy fantasies aren't his best jokes.


I mean... like Death says. Grind the universe down and show me one iota of justice and mercy as real, tangible things that exist and can be quantified. Life is not fair, nor is it just- which means we must act to make it so.

This does not in any way say justice and fantasy is BAD, and that it does not EXIST, in a spiritual, metaphorical way. Justice and mercy does not PHYSICALLY exist- you have to choose to be just, you have to choose to show mercy, every day. You have to believe in it, and live it, or the raw edges of reality will be all that is left.

Now of course one could argue that the before mentioned acting to make it so means justice and so on and so forth do exist in reality... but that's kind of the point he's making, with his writing. We make this stuff real, because in a scientific sense these things are not real. It's the human spirit that makes it a real.

----------


## Rater202

> Every single one of the Red Ribbon Android girls (Except for number 5) are my favorite I love them. I think the first one is my favorite because there's something exceptionally spunky about the look. Three is my least favorite of the good ones, though it's still quite good.
> 
> I could take or leave the Cells and the cyborgs though, none of them quite do it for me.
> 
> (also having looked at this I can now say that for the Cyborg androids, they lean in on Baby from GT for the later design things. That grey little hair flip is absolutely Baby's jam).


They're all the same girl at different stages in her development.

In game she's just "Android Elite" but in supplementary materials, she's referred to as Nicoper Toyotaro, she's officially Android 25.

The boy, Nim, is android 26, while the Cell type is called "Genome."

As far as I can tell Nico and Nim are both Infinite Energy model cyborg types, and based on the diode in Nim's hand after his "class-up" their first upgrade seems to be that they got the super 17 treatment but after that... Nim's facial markings in his third tier, his "Super Class Up.." There's a mission in heroes where Super 17 used his machine mutant traits to absorb Android 16 and Super Perfect Cell, which made him look like this.
*Spoiler*
Show




He's got those facial markings that are the same as the facial markings that Cell has, but black... Nim has that marking along his jaw and chin that are similar to cell's "chinstrap" so that's by best guess for what the third tier is, just... Some kind of upgrade based on Super 17 after he absorbed Cell but Nico not having face markings makes me hesitant.

Nico, Nim, and Genome are also the name of a set of three siblings who use the Androids as Avatars in a manga based on the game, and "human" Nim is also in the story mode of the console release.

----------


## Peelee

> I mean... like Death says. Grind the universe down and show me one iota of justice and mercy as real, tangible things that exist and can be quantified.


And that's bull****. Just because you can't touch it doesn't make it any less real. Grind the universe down and show me one iota of consent. But consent is a pretty damn real thing. Or ask a parent who ha sheld their newborn baby in their arms if love doesn't exist because if you distill the universe to its constituent parts there are no atoms of love.

It's a bad take. And hey, Pratchett was only human, he can't be right all the time. But he didn't have to commit being wrong to pen and paper.

----------


## tyckspoon

> Every single one of the Red Ribbon Android girls (Except for number 5) are my favorite I love them. I think the first one is my favorite because there's something exceptionally spunky about the look. Three is my least favorite of the good ones, though it's still quite good.
> 
> I could take or leave the Cells and the cyborgs though, none of them quite do it for me.
> 
> (also having looked at this I can now say that for the Cyborg androids, they lean in on Baby from GT for the later design things. That grey little hair flip is absolutely Baby's jam).


The Cell variety stage 3 has kind of an ugly-cute thing going for me; I get a kind of 'Stop calling me cute, I am FEARSOME and POWERFUL' vibe. I think it's the chibi proportions with the very small face combined with the proportionally oversized carapace pieces - it gives the impression of a child trying to pull off wearing an oversized suit of armor. Wouldn't be my pick for a player character design, but it's pretty evocative.

----------


## enderlord99

> Adults also frequently underestimate both the actual and emotional intelligence of children.


That's what I was implying.

----------


## Fyraltari

> (that said Christmas has always kinda had this problem, to as far back as Santa being red because Coke wanted to make an ad campaign.)


Not true. Coca-Cola started using Santa Claus as a mascot in 1931 but there are drawings of him wearing red as early as 1866 and with his modern look from 1896 onwards.

Also, the hell is "Elf on a shelf"?

----------


## Form

Don't worry about Santa, NORAD will be keeping a close eye on him to make sure he's not up to any funny business. I mean, more than usual. 




> I generally like Pratchett but calling justice and mercy fantasies aren't his best jokes.


I don't think the exchange between Death and Susan is intended as a (cynical) joke, so much as it is Death expressing a measure of admiration for humanity and wonder. 




> Also, the hell is "Elf on a shelf"?


I hadn't heard of this until very recently either. Apparently it's an essential part of Santa's surveillance apparatus. Watching you. Judging you. Always.

----------


## Rater202

> Also, the hell is "Elf on a shelf"?


A little doll that parents are supposed to hide in various places around the house in the lead-up to Christmas with the story that he's santas "spy" keeping an eye on children for bad behavior.

Personally, I find the whole thing to be _very_ offputting. Not only does the doll just _look_ creepy with his dead eyes... But having it be mundane surveillance via spy makes the whole "he sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake" thing *considerably* more sinister than the traditional "magical omniscient" version.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> Not true. Coca-Cola started using Santa Claus as a mascot in 1931 but there are drawings of him wearing red as early as 1866 and with his modern look from 1896 onwards.
> 
> Also, the hell is "Elf on a shelf"?


Beat me to it, on both counts: I knew about the Coca-Cola company (that question was actually in this year's Office Christmas Quiz - I won't put the question here as it may infringe the rules, but the Coca-Cola company was the trap answer), but I've never heard of an elf on a shelf.

----------


## Lacco

> I don't think the exchange between Death and Susan is intended as a (cynical) joke, so much as it is Death expressing a measure of admiration for humanity and wonder.


I also understood it as "humanity is crazy awesome because they invented these concepts that do not naturally exist in universe". May be due to local translation.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Well, it is better than saying that Santa Claus isn't real.


Is it? Setting aside everything else, honesty is generally considered good.

Now I'm not going to tell people not to have their kids leave out sherry and a mince pie for the larger gentlemen from Lapland, although we could do with him not being charged with flying under the influence again. I have nothing against the traditions, but if I ever have kids I'll tell them the truth if they ask directly (no, he doesn't exist, but the traditions are a bit of fun).

I mean, Christmas isn't Christmas without a satsuma in a sock. It would be like midsummer without an apple tossing competition!

Okay, I don't think the apple tossing is an actual thing, but considering this country I wouldn't be shocked if it's a tradition somewhere.

----------


## Rater202

> leave out sherry and a mince pie for the larger gentlemen from Lapland,[/color]


Nah nah in hah, you leave him cold beer and pickled eggs.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Nah nah in hah, you leave him cold beer and pickled eggs.


Let's be honest, it's your parent's favourite alcohol and sweet treat. But sherry and a mince pie is what would be considered normal here.

Also, cold beer? Only if we're talking cellar temperature, not ice cold. Can't be having your beer too cold or it'll mask the flavour.

----------


## Rater202

> Can't be having your beer too cold or it'll mask the flavour.


I'm pretty sure that that's considered a selling point in some circles.

Not that I'd know. I don't touch the stuff. I've tried a few different kinds of alcohol and everything I've tasted has either tasted like piss or cough syrup.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Is it? Setting aside everything else, honesty is generally considered good.
> 
> Now I'm not going to tell people not to have their kids leave out sherry and a mince pie for the larger gentlemen from Lapland, although we could do with him not being charged with flying under the influence again. I have nothing against the traditions, but if I ever have kids I'll tell them the truth if they ask directly (no, he doesn't exist, but the traditions are a bit of fun).
> 
> I mean, Christmas isn't Christmas without a satsuma in a sock. It would be like a midsummer without an apple-tossing competition!
> 
> Okay, I don't think the apple tossing is an actual thing, but considering this country I wouldn't be shocked if it's a tradition somewhere.


I would agree with you but if I have kids, I would tell them that Santa Claus exists. They will find out when they get older about Santa doesn't exist. But I'm not going to be a Grinch and tell my kids that Santa doesn't exist but that's just me.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> I'm pretty sure that that's considered a selling point in some circles.
> 
> Not that I'd know. I don't touch the stuff. I've tried a few different kinds of alcohol and everything I've tasted has either tasted like piss or cough syrup.


Yeah, among drinkers of cheap lager. Which, I remind you, is generally indistinguishable from carbonated sheep's piss  :Small Tongue: 




> I would agree with you but if I have kids, I would tell them that Santa Claus exists. They will find out when they get older about Santa doesn't exist. But I'm not going to be a Grinch and tell my kids that Santa doesn't exist but that's just me.


Is telling them that Santa doesn't exist being a Grinch? As I said, the traditions are fun, and they don't inherently rely on having faith in any particular figure. Even if I don't tell any prospective kids about Father Christmas they'll get the idea from somewhere* and playing along will be fun. But if they directly ask then I'll tell them the truth, because it's the respectful thing to do and because I'd rather nurture an inquisitive child.

I mean, do I plan to present Father Christmas as the bringer of the feast? I'm already trying to work out good ways to hide a goose. But yes, I will be happy to admit it's just a bit of theatre.

* Especially as adoption is likely to involved, there's a nontrivial chance we'll have an older kid

----------


## Peelee

> Is it? sherry and a mince pie


Y'all are weird.



> if I ever have kids I'll tell them the truth if they ask directly (no, he doesn't exist, but the traditions are a bit of fun).


Don't be so sure. Actually having kids changes things in ways you don't expect. I'm not saying you absolutely would... I'm just saying don't be so sure. 




> I mean, Christmas isn't Christmas without a satsuma in a sock.


Orange in a shoe. Austrians are weird.  :Small Wink: 



> I'm pretty sure that that's considered a selling point in some circles.
> 
> Not that I'd know. I don't touch the stuff. I've tried a few different kinds of alcohol and everything I've tasted has either tasted like piss or cough syrup.


I'd recommend tequila sunrise with half a half the amount of alcohol called for (highball is typical glassware for it but this varies) or a nice eiswein. Both heavily utilize fruit sugars, though, so I'm not sure how either would work with diabetes. But dollars to doughnuts you'd like em. I rarely drink for the same reason you don't and those are my favorites when I do. Also for tequila sunrise no bottom-shelf stuff, pure agave tequila is what you want. It's not much more expensive, even Jose Cuervo variants have it, and it doesn't have that biting aftertaste lesser tequilas bring out. Cocktails tend to hide that aspect but still. 



> Yeah, among drinkers of cheap lager. Which, I remind you, is generally indistinguishable from carbonated sheep's piss


Ahh, the British and incredibly strong opinions on beer. Is there a more traditional combo? 



> because I'd rather nurture an inquisitive child.


 Believing in Santa in youth and.l being an inquisitive child are not mutually exclusive.

All that being said, Fred Rogers also did not like the idea of lying about Santa and I generally defer to his wisdom, but I think it's OK to respectfully and mildly disagree with Mr. Rogers every once in a while.

----------


## LaZodiac

> And that's bull****. Just because you can't touch it doesn't make it any less real. Grind the universe down and show me one iota of consent. But consent is a pretty damn real thing. Or ask a parent who ha sheld their newborn baby in their arms if love doesn't exist because if you distill the universe to its constituent parts there are no atoms of love.
> 
> It's a bad take. And hey, Pratchett was only human, he can't be right all the time. But he didn't have to commit being wrong to pen and paper.


With respect I feel you have misunderstood what he was going for here.

You are getting hung up on the "it doesn't exist for real" part. The whole intent of the quote is saying "this does not exist as a physically real thing, so humans must make it real, and that is beautiful".




> The Cell variety stage 3 has kind of an ugly-cute thing going for me; I get a kind of 'Stop calling me cute, I am FEARSOME and POWERFUL' vibe. I think it's the chibi proportions with the very small face combined with the proportionally oversized carapace pieces - it gives the impression of a child trying to pull off wearing an oversized suit of armor. Wouldn't be my pick for a player character design, but it's pretty evocative.


Honestly yeah, agreed on that front.




> Not true. Coca-Cola started using Santa Claus as a mascot in 1931 but there are drawings of him wearing red as early as 1866 and with his modern look from 1896 onwards.
> 
> Also, the hell is "Elf on a shelf"?


Ah, fair. I forgot that bit.




> I also understood it as "humanity is crazy awesome because they invented these concepts that do not naturally exist in universe". May be due to local translation.


Yeah, this. That's clearly the intense of what he's saying with this piece. It is a beautiful, true thing that humanity has willed these things that have no naturalistic reality into the world.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Is telling them that Santa doesn't exist being a Grinch? As I said, the traditions are fun, and they don't inherently rely on having faith in any particular figure. Even if I don't tell any prospective kids about Father Christmas they'll get the idea from somewhere* and playing along will be fun. But if they directly ask then I'll tell them the truth, because it's the respectful thing to do and because I'd rather nurture an inquisitive child.
> 
> I mean, do I plan to present Father Christmas as the bringer of the feast? I'm already trying to work out good ways to hide a goose. But yes, I will be happy to admit it's just a bit of theatre.
> 
> * Especially as adoption is likely to involve, there's a nontrivial chance we'll have an older kid


Since you put it that way, No not really. I love traditional holidays myself. It always brings nostalgic vibes to me.  :Smile:

----------


## Rater202

So today I learned that if the instructions on a turkey burger say to oil both sides of the patty and the pan before frying, they don't mean with popcorn oil.

I decided to experiment and... I've used soybean oil for pan-frying stuff before and it didn't pop like this.

No one got hurt and the food, while burnt, was still edible, but I'm gonna have to wipe down that stove once it cools.

----------


## LaZodiac

> So today I learned that if the instructions on a turkey burger say to oil both sides of the patty and the pan before frying, they don't mean with popcorn oil.
> 
> I decided to experiment and... I've used soybean oil for pan-frying stuff before and it didn't pop like this.
> 
> No one got hurt and the food, while burnt, was still edible, but I'm gonna have to wipe down that stove once it cools.


Oh jeez! I'm glad no one was hurt. Suppose that's why it's called popcorn oil, eh?

Also; I got $100 from my work in the form of a gift certificate for the local book store. Throw recommendations at me, preferably good ones.

----------


## Peelee

> With respect I feel you have misunderstood what he was going for here.
> 
> You are getting hung up on the "it doesn't exist for real" part. The whole intent of the quote is saying "this does not exist as a physically real thing, so humans must make it real, and that is beautiful".


They do exist as real things, though. We are far from the only species to experience sadness, love, devotion, trust, gratitude, or heck even grudges. It's not a human thing. It's a sufficiently advanced life thing. Acting like such things aren't real because you can't physically touch them or isolate an atom of them isn't much different than people not knowing radio waves are real in the 1600s. And acting like such things are exclusively the domain of humans and out of reach of anything less is hubris. Hardly uncommon among humans, historically, but hubris nonetheless.

----------


## Fyraltari

> They do exist as real things, though. We are far from the only species to experience sadness, love, devotion, trust, gratitude, or heck even grudges. It's not a human thing. It's a sufficiently advanced life thing. Acting like such things aren't real because you can't physically touch them or isolate an atom of them isn't much different than people not knowing radio waves are real in the 1600s. And acting like such things are exclusively the domain of humans and out of reach of anything less is hubris. Hardly uncommon among humans, historically, but hubris nonetheless.


This isn't what the book is saying, though. It isn't about "sadness, love, devotion, trust, gratitude, or heck even grudges". Here's the passage:



> Susan: All right. I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable.
> Death: *Really? As if it was some kind of pink pill? No. Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.*
> Susan: Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little
> Death: *Yes. As practice. You have to start out learning to believe the little lies.*
> Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
> Death: *Yes. Justice. Mercy. Duty. That sort of thing.*
> Susan: They're not the same at all!
> Death: *You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet And yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.*
> Susan: Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
> ...

----------


## Peelee

> This isn't what the book is saying, though. It isn't about "sadness, love, devotion, trust, gratitude, or heck even grudges".


A distinction without a difference.

----------


## LaZodiac

> They do exist as real things, though. We are far from the only species to experience sadness, love, devotion, trust, gratitude, or heck even grudges. It's not a human thing. It's a sufficiently advanced life thing. Acting like such things aren't real because you can't physically touch them or isolate an atom of them isn't much different than people not knowing radio waves are real in the 1600s. And acting like such things are exclusively the domain of humans and out of reach of anything less is hubris. Hardly uncommon among humans, historically, but hubris nonetheless.


Animals are living beings like humans so of course they have the capacity for this sorta stuff, just like us. But there's no cosmic ideal of justice, no living embodiment of love or mercy or gratitude. It's all ideas and feelings that we have, that we put our hearts into, that we believe in. That's what he means- thus the answer to the sun not rising tomorrow. That's literally the entire point of the book!

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Peelee.

----------


## Form

> They do exist as real things, though. We are far from the only species to experience sadness, love, devotion, trust, gratitude, or heck even grudges. It's not a human thing. It's a sufficiently advanced life thing. Acting like such things aren't real because you can't physically touch them or isolate an atom of them isn't much different than people not knowing radio waves are real in the 1600s. And acting like such things are exclusively the domain of humans and out of reach of anything less is hubris. Hardly uncommon among humans, historically, but hubris nonetheless.


You can quantify radio waves and give an unambiguous definition of them. You cannot do the same with love, mercy or duty. The latter things may be real, but they're not a fundamental property of the physical universe the way things like matter, radiation and spacetime are.




> Oh jeez! I'm glad no one was hurt. Suppose that's why it's called popcorn oil, eh?
> 
> Also; I got $100 from my work in the form of a gift certificate for the local book store. Throw recommendations at me, preferably good ones.


I've extolled the virtues of _Blindsight_ by Peter Watts a bunch times by now, so allow me to reiterate that it is an excellent book and worth considering if you're looking for some hard sci-fi horror.

_Perdido Street Station_ by China Mieville is an interesting blend of fantasy elements with horror in an industrial and dystopian society. 

_Frankenstein_ by Mary Shelley is a solid classic. I'd recommend paying close attention to the parallels between Frankenstein and his monster if you select this book to read.

_All quiet on the western front_ by Erich Maria Remarque is another solid classic that'll take you through all the horrors of WW1 from the perspective of a German soldier. 

I'm currently working my way through _The grapes of wrath_ by John Steinbeck about a family of farmers losing their land during the great depression and going west in pursuit of work to build a new life. I feel this one's also worth your attention.

----------


## Peelee

> Animals are living beings like humans so of course they have the capacity for this sorta stuff, just like us. But there's no cosmic ideal of justice, no living embodiment of love or mercy or gratitude. It's all ideas and feelings that we have, that we put our hearts into, that we believe in. That's what he means- thus the answer to the sun not rising tomorrow. That's literally the entire point of the book!
> 
> I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Peelee.


Yeah, I reject that. Sure, there's no "cosmic ideal of justice". There's also no "cosmic ideal" of planets either. The more sufficiently advanced life, the more we discover that they also develop emotions. Even lesser advanced life has social constructs that vary wildly across species. I'm sorry, but if the point of the book is "arent humans special for things that don't actually exist if it weren't for humans" then it's a bad point.

----------


## Fyraltari

> A distinction without a difference.


No? Duty, justice and mercy (not as sure for the last one) are human concepts. Dogs and tigers don't have a notion of justice, just "me and mine have what we need and are safe". What you listed are mostly emotions, not the same things at all.

And the point of the passage isn't that they aren't real, it's that they are real because people *make* them be so. Justice only exists in any form because enough people believe that it should and try to ensure that it does.

----------


## Peelee

> No? Duty, justice and mercy (not as sure for the last one) are human concepts.


Because humans are the only ones currently around with high enough faculties for them. Again, sufficiently advanced is key. If we hadn't killed off the Cro Magnons or Neanderthals, do you think they would be without a sense of mercy or justice today? Is abstract thought forever out of reach of any other beings, historical or alien? Are we the most unique creatures in the galaxy that ever did or ever will exist? The Supreme universal apex?

I am not as confident as Pratchett and apparently you in this.

----------


## Fyraltari

Edit: Also, the point of the book isn't "aren't humans special". The point of the book is that fairy tales play a role is the socialization and mental development of children and shouldn't be disregarded as nonsense stuff or pointless lies. Well, it's one of the points, there are others, like how children aren't as innocent or naive as adults tend to perceive them, how fairy tales have evolved over the centuries alongside society, and exploring the strain put on the relationship of a lonely hardworking man and his granddaughter by the untimely deaths of her parents. Among other things.




> Because humans are the only ones currently around with high enough faculties for them. Again, sufficiently advanced is key. If we hadn't killed off the Cro Magnons or Neanderthals, do you think they would be without a sense of mercy or justice today? Is abstract thought forever out of reach of any other beings, historical or alien? Are we the most unique creatures in the galaxy that ever did or ever will exist? The Supreme universal apex?
> 
> I am not as confident as Pratchett and apparently you in this.


A) Cro-Magnon is _Homo Sapiens_.
B) Neanderthals were humans.

But much more importantly:
*Humans aren't even the only people on the Disc.* You think the author jsut forgot that? It's got dwarves and trolls and goblins and Nac Mac Feegles and gnomes and gnolls and orcs and lots of other sorts of people.
Never once in the entire Discworld canon is the claim made that humans matter more than the rest.
And you know who reads this book? Humans do. This passage does't mention trolls because it won't be read by any.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I've extolled the virtues of _Blindsight_ by Peter Watts a bunch times by now, so allow me to reiterate that it is an excellent book and worth considering if you're looking for some hard sci-fi horror.
> 
> _Perdido Street Station_ by China Mieville is an interesting blend of fantasy elements with horror in an industrial and dystopian society. 
> 
> _Frankenstein_ by Mary Shelley is a solid classic. I'd recommend paying close attention to the parallels between Frankenstein and his monster if you select this book to read.
> 
> _All quiet on the western front_ by Erich Maria Remarque is another solid classic that'll take you through all the horrors of WW1 from the perspective of a German soldier. 
> 
> I'm currently working my way through _The grapes of wrath_ by John Steinbeck about a family of farmers losing their land during the great depression and going west in pursuit of work to build a new life. I feel this one's also worth your attention.


I'll give some of these a look.




> Yeah, I reject that. Sure, there's no "cosmic ideal of justice". There's also no "cosmic ideal" of planets either. The more sufficiently advanced life, the more we discover that they also develop emotions. Even lesser advanced life has social constructs that vary wildly across species. I'm sorry, but if the point of the book is "arent humans special for things that don't actually exist if it weren't for humans" then it's a bad point.


As Fyraltari has made clear already, you're missing the forest for the trees.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Peelee.

----------


## Rater202

Also, we didn't kill off the neanderthals.

My understanding is that the current theory is that they died out because they liked breeding with us more than they liked breeding with each other.

Like, most people have detectable amounts of neanderthal in their genome. Red hair is believed to be a neanderthal trait.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Also, we didn't kill off the neanderthals.
> 
> My understanding is that the current theory is that they died out because they liked breeding with us more than they liked breeding with each other.
> 
> Like, most people have detectable amounts of neanderthal in their genome. Red hair is believed to be a neanderthal trait.


I've always heard that the issue was that they were more solitary life-styled, whereas the pre-humans as we know today were more directly pack animals.

----------


## Peelee

> Edit: Also, the point of the book isn't "aren't humans special". The point of the book is that fairy tales play a role is the socialization and mental development of children and shouldn't be disregarded as nonsense stuff or pointless lies.


Cool. I agree. I also don't see the point in equivocation that to justice or duty or ethics or emotions (the latter two not being named but not being substantively different than what he does name). 



> And you know who reads this book? Humans do.


Cool. All the more reason to not preach human supremacy, which can easily jump to, say, sub-group supremacy. As has happened innumerable times in the past and is still happening in the present.

There are more things in heaven and earth, dear Horatio, Fyraltari, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

----------


## enderlord99

> Cool. All the more reason to not preach human supremacy


you mean like he wasn't doing, but which you read into it anyway?

----------


## Rater202

> I've always heard that the issue was that they were more solitary life-styled, whereas the pre-humans as we know today were more directly pack animals.


That too.

Basically a bunch of little things...

Like, they lived in smaller groups, weren't as social, thought we were more attractive than each other, and I think we discovered certain tools first?

From what I know they were about as smart as we were at the time, while also being slightly superior in a physical sense on average. We "won" that "conflict" basically by random chance and dumb luck.

----------


## LaZodiac

> That too.
> 
> Basically a bunch of little things...
> 
> Like, they lived in smaller groups, weren't as social, thought we were more attractive than each other, and I think we discovered certain tools first?
> 
> From what I know they were about as smart as we were at the time, while also being slightly superior in a physical sense on average. We "won" that "conflict" basically by random chance and dumb luck.


I mean we won that contest because individual strength is good for an individual, but communal strength is good for the community. The extra strength made them useful for the group-havers and thus easy to integrate into their society, but their more solitude focused lifestyle meant they were assimilated as a result. Doesn't matter how individually strong they are, if they prefer being alone or with us, then they're with us, and so it goes.

This isn't so much luck and chance as it is a natural outcome.

----------


## Peelee

> you mean like he wasn't doing, but which you read into it anyway?


Eh, either it's preaching human supremacy and aren't we special for coming up with abstract concepts, or it's saying that abstract concepts are no different than fairy tales we tell each other to deal with life. I don't much care which one you prefer to read it as, I disagree with either interpretation.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Cool. I agree. I also don't see the point in equivocation that to justice or duty


Try reading the book. You'll have a great time. No seriously, it's agreat book.



> or ethics or emotions (the latter two not being named but not being substantively different than what he does name).


Yes they are. You are complaining about something that you yourself injected in the book.




> Cool. All the more reason to not preach human supremacy, which can easily jump to, say, sub-group supremacy.


Holy Brutha, this is a level of misreading of the text equal to "Luke Skywalker is a terrorist".
The villain in another book of the series, _Small Gods_ is first shown as villainous by his causal abuse of a tortoise. The whole point of another, _Snuff_ is that goblins may look unappealing and have gross customs by human standards but their personhoods are just as important as humans and their perspective on the world just as valid. There's a whole overarching theme throughout the entire 40+ novel that humans are small next to the universe that our perspective is limited and that for these reasons we should treasure every chance we get to learn and discover, that we should all treat each other with empathy regardless of differences.

The notion that _Discworld_ preaches human supremacy is just so... incongruous.




> There are more things in heaven and earth, dear Horatio, Fyraltari, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


Aye, for exampl, I really like the bit in the first Death book where death takes his apprentice, Mort, under the Disc to see the light of the sun hit the eternal waterfalls making the biggest rainbow ever. When Mort asks who knows it does that, Death replies "You, me, the gods."

----------


## enderlord99

> Eh, either it's preaching human supremacy and aren't we special for coming up with abstract concepts, or it's saying that abstract concepts are no different than fairy tales we tell each other to deal with life. I don't much care which one you prefer to read it as, I disagree with either interpretation.


It's something much closer to the latter, but really it's just saying that fairy-tales (and fiction in general) are important.



> Holy Brutha, this is a level of misreading of the text equal to "Luke Skywalker is a terrorist".


It's a level of misreading _beyond_ "Luke Skywalker is a terrorist"

----------


## Aedilred

On the Pratchett thing:

There's a school of thought in (possibly pop) anthropology that talks about humans as "the storytelling ape" and that's the kind of thing Pratchett is getting at. Coming up with fantasies, abstracts, things which don't measurably exist, and then treating them in such a way that they acquire importance, even necessity, is, in this view, the very essence of what makes us human.

For context, the "big bad" of the book, and arguably of the whole Discworld series, is a collection of beings which consider that perfect order is the only acceptable state and that anything that varies from this, anything which is not empirically distillable or predictable or measurable, is an error that needs to be eliminated. As a result, they hate (to the extent they are capable of emotion) all life, but humanity in particular, for its insistence on behaving irrationally and believing in things which aren't real. 

Another interesting point: in the book, it's never entirely clear to what extent the Hogfather actually exists. On one level, he does, obviously. We meet him. He has a house and a physical sleigh and pigs which pull it. But it's also very clear that despite the manifest existence of the Hogfather, the distribution of presents to children is controlled by their parents, little match girls still die in the snow without his intervention, and people stop believing in him when they reach a certain age because he apparently doesn't exist. He doesn't seem to actually _do_ anything (of course, hilarity ensues when Death, standing in for him, _does_ do things the Hogfather is meant to do). 

Death's final conversation with Susan is really just making explicit the underlying message of the book. If the Hogfather dies, nothing actually happens; nothing actually changes. But something important is nevertheless lost, because he is given importance by the belief humans have in him, and that's a symbol of not just what's good about humanity but what's _everything_ about _humanity_. This is of course something of a secular approach to the issue, and others may object to the idea that mercy, justice, etc. only exist because humans believe in them. I don't think it can be argued that these abstract concepts are not measurable, since they are by definition abstract, but I know some prefer to posit a different basis for them. But that's a topic largely unsuitable for the forum thanks to the Rules. 

Nevertheless the overall message is one of hope. It's not about human supremacy, just an expression of wonder at the power and importance of the human imagination - something actually fairly prevalent in children's books. Most of Dahl has that sort of thing at its heart, and you can fast-forward a few years to the last line Dumbledore ever says in Harry Potter: "of course it's all in your head, but why on earth should that mean it isn't real?" What perhaps makes _Hogfather_ unusual is that it's a children's moral in a book not specifically targetted as children... which is again part of the point, I think, as the book also alludes to - the power of imagination and therefore the maximum capacity for humanity is at its peak in childhood, and it's worthwhile for adults not to lose touch with it completely. 


It's not about human supremacy. I think it's very hard to find a reading of the text (and I should note that this whole debate is around merely one short excerpt from it, which appears to be the only part of it that Peelee has ever read) that supports that interpretation. And human supremacy is something which is so repeatedly and consistently rejected by the Discworld novels, especially in the later books, that we can be confident, I think, that that's not the intention.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Also, we didn't kill off the neanderthals.
> 
> My understanding is that the current theory is that they died out because they liked breeding with us more than they liked breeding with each other.
> 
> Like, most people have detectable amounts of neanderthal in their genome. Red hair is believed to be a neanderthal trait.


You mean I'm more neanderthal than most people? Sweet. 

and boy, I'm not much of a fan of Pratchett (I find his books not particularly funny or entertaining, they're middling to me, or annoying for being like Monty Python: overquoted and not really being my style of humor) but yeah, that seems to be misread.

----------


## halfeye

> Also; I got $100 from my work in the form of a gift certificate for the local book store. Throw recommendations at me, preferably good ones.


"The Mountain People" by Colin Turnbull is very sad, but important.

"Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter is complicated, but fun if you can follow it.

"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins is often wildly misunderstood, particularly by those who haven't read it.

----------


## LaZodiac

> "The Mountain People" by Colin Turnbull is very sad, but important.
> 
> "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter is complicated, but fun if you can follow it.
> 
> "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins is often wildly misunderstood, particularly by those who haven't read it.


The first one has issues with its anthropological truth, and I'd sooner gnaw my own leg off than so much as touch Dawkin's body of work, but that second one seems neat.

Ultimately though I'm looking more for entertainment and not enrichment- though books I can use as research for my own writing are also certainly an option!

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I have a day off of work today, chilling at home and watching TV.

----------


## Peelee

> Yes they are.


If you would like to make a case as to why they're not functionally identical for the purpose of the point Pratchett is making, I'm all ears, but so far your "nuh uh" has failed to convince me. 


> Try reading the book. You'll have a great time. No seriously, it's agreat book.


Yeah, I've heard. I tried Reaper Man and took a while to get through it because I just couldn't get into it. That had more to do with the overall plot (which I couldn't discern much of. Like, it was definitely a series of events, I'll say that). I also have Guards! Guards!, which I haven't read yet. Everything else I've seen by Pratchet, whether adaptation or short clips of text I've greatly enjoyed and largely agreed with. I'm hoping there's a hell of a lot more context to that clip because I'm sorry but even with everything everyone has said so far, no matter how I interpret it, it sounds like a crock of ****. Started out as a good point about fairy tales and then stepped too far and fell off a cliff like Wile E. Coyote. 



> Oh jeez! I'm glad no one was hurt. Suppose that's why it's called popcorn oil, eh?
> 
> Also; I got $100 from my work in the form of a gift certificate for the local book store. Throw recommendations at me, preferably good ones.


I hear Terry Pratchet is good.  :Small Wink: 

Also, if you have any interest in the hellscape of the American legal system, Punishment Without Crime is amazing. Cannot recommend Three Felonies A Day. I can barely convince myself to finish it at this point. Only bringing these up because I'm currently in the middle of TFAD.

Also, always recommend my favorite book ever, Jurassic Park. If you've never read, it is _drastically_ different from the movie. Among other things, Crichton deliberately overcrowded the character list to have a sizeable kill count, and who lives and who dies has no bearing whatsoever to the movie. Anyone and everyone is fair game. The biggest thing I like the movie over the novel for is giving Lex something to do - she's pretty much just dead weight in the novel. Which does serve a purpose, she is a hindrance to Grant, but it's much better when she's able to participate as the movie has her do.

----------


## Rater202

you know what's missing in most of those Ghost hunting shows?

A dedicated skeptic. A real one, not some strawman who's framed as being a token dissenting opinion and clearly considered wrong.

Someone whose job to to look over what they find for mundane explanations would give such shows much more credibilityfrom what I've seen I don't think any of the big-name shows like that are deliberately faking anything, but...

And, you know, if the skeptic *can't* come up with a plausible explanation for something then that gives a specific instance further credibility.

----------


## LaZodiac

> If you would like to make a case as to why they're not functionally identical for the purpose of the point Pratchett is making, I'm all ears, but so far your "nuh uh" has failed to convince me. 
> Yeah, I've heard. I tried Reaper Man and took a while to get through it because I just couldn't get into it. That had more to do with the overall plot (which I couldn't discern much of. Like, it was definitely a series of events, I'll say that). I also have Guards! Guards!, which I haven't read yet. Everything else I've seen by Pratchet, whether adaptation or short clips of text I've greatly enjoyed and largely agreed with. I'm hoping there's a hell of a lot more context to that clip because I'm sorry but even with everything everyone has said so far, no matter how I interpret it, it sounds like a crock of ****. Started out as a good point about fairy tales and then stepped too far and fell off a cliff like Wile E. Coyote. 
> 
> I hear Terry Pratchet is good. 
> 
> Also, if you have any interest in the hellscape of the American legal system, Punishment Without Crime is amazing. Cannot recommend Three Felonies A Day. I can barely convince myself to finish it at this point. Only bringing these up because I'm currently in the middle of TFAD.
> 
> Also, always recommend my favorite book ever, Jurassic Park. If you've never read, it is _drastically_ different from the movie. Among other things, Crichton deliberately overcrowded the character list to have a sizeable kill count, and who lives and who dies has no bearing whatsoever to the movie. Anyone and everyone is fair game. The biggest thing I like the movie over the novel for is giving Lex something to do - she's pretty much just dead weight in the novel. Which does serve a purpose, she is a hindrance to Grant, but it's much better when she's able to participate as the movie has her do.


Unsure on if I should buy a Discworld novel since I've just about read all the ones I think I'm interested in. I've heard nothing but good things about the Nightwatch books but I am unsure it is my vibe.

I'll say flatly that there is a total disconnect here, with regards to the Hogfather's messaging. It is saying "abstract concepts are no different than fairy tales we tell each other to deal with life... THEREFOR it is good that we tell them, and live them with our actions, because that is a way we can make the world better. We speak these things into reality by believing in them, and trying to act as though they are tangibly real". The idea is that, while justice is not a part of the Natural Law, it is a part of our choices, and we can choose to make it real through application.

Everything after the "therefor" noted above, is what you're missing. And if this thorough explanation doesn't click it with you, then... man I don't know. If you don't get it you don't get it.

Reaper Man is incredible, but I imagine it's a hard book to get into without the context of the other Death novels.

As said I'm looking more for entertainment than enrichment. I have actually read Jurassic Park already, so while it is a great recommendation it's just not one I'll be getting. Oops!

EDIT

Unfortunately Rater, that would probably take the fun out of it, since every episode would end with a rather conclusive "yeah that's just not actually a ghost at all".

----------


## Peelee

> I'll say flatly that there is a total disconnect here, with regards to the Hogfather's messaging. It is saying "abstract concepts are no different than fairy tales we tell each other to deal with life... THEREFOR it is good that we tell them, and live them with our actions, because that is a way we can make the world better. We speak these things into reality by believing in them, and trying to act as though they are tangibly real". The idea is that, while justice is not a part of the Natural Law, it is a part of our choices, and we can choose to make it real through application.
> 
> Everything after the "therefor" noted above, is what you're missing.


Not "missing". I'll tell you right now, I simply don't give a **** about anything said after "therefor", because I fundamentally reject what is said before "therefor". By the time I get _to_ "therefor" it's lost me as an audience.

----------


## enderlord99

> you know what's missing in most of those Ghost hunting shows?
> 
> A dedicated skeptic. A real one, not some strawman who's framed as being a token dissenting opinion and clearly considered wrong.
> 
> Someone whose job to to look over what they find for mundane explanations would give such shows much more credibilityfrom what I've seen I don't think any of the big-name shows like that are deliberately faking anything, but...
> 
> And, you know, if the skeptic *can't* come up with a plausible explanation for something then that gives a specific instance further credibility.


Just one?  Why not have _most of the team_ know from the beginning that it's not a real ghost, and try to figure out what it actually is.

There should be a cartoon like that.  Maybe one with a talking dog for a mascot.  :Small Wink:  The ":small wink:" is there to imply this is facetious but not truly sarcastic.  I already know Scooby Doo is a real series.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Not "missing". I'll tell you right now, I simply don't give a **** about anything said after "therefor", because I fundamentally reject what is said before "therefor". By the time I get _to_ "therefor" it's lost me as an audience.


Okay, that's fair. I'm glad we've established it is not the book that is wrong, then, which was the confusion the rest of us seemed to be having.

That all being said; I hope you're having a lovely evening everyone.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Careful!  That's a mod you're talking to; if he feels insulted, you'll never recover.


Don't worry. Peelee is cool. She's safe.  :Smile:

----------


## enderlord99

> Don't worry. Peelee is cool. She's safe.


{scrubbed}

----------


## Peelee

> Okay, that's fair. I'm glad we've established it is not the book that is wrong, then, which was the confusion the rest of us seemed to be having.
> 
> That all being said; I hope you're having a lovely evening everyone.


Delightful! 



> Careful!  That's a mod you're talking to; if he feels insulted, you'll never recover.


Funny, I don't recall seeing "don't dunk on the mods" in the rules.

----------


## enderlord99

> Funny, I don't recall seeing "don't dunk on the mods" in the rules.


{scrubbed}

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> {scrub the post, scrub the quote}


What are you talking about? All the moderators are very friendly and cool with everybody in this forum. Sure there are times of disagreement between the moderators and members but they work out with each other.  :Confused:

----------


## Keltest

> Funny, I don't recall seeing "don't dunk on the mods" in the rules.


I was going to post an actual serious response to this, but after I failed to spell "reasonable" in the same exact way five times in a row, I figured I should stop.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I never have any serious issues with the moderators in this forum. Sure, there are times that I disagree with their decision but nothing major from my time for being a member of this forum.

----------


## DataNinja

> Also; I got $100 from my work in the form of a gift certificate for the local book store. Throw recommendations at me, preferably good ones.


I dunno what your local bookstore has in stock, since sci-fi isn't always the most filled out section, but I can throw the latest few books I got on the recommendation pile:

Ann Leckie's Imperial Radch trilogy (_Ancillary Justice_, _Ancillary Sword_, and _Ancillary Mercy_). First books in ages that I devoured fast, and then immediately started again afterwards. Definitely shot up to some of my favorites of all time.

Probably less likely to be found, but one that also felt really neat was Neon Yang's _The Genesis of Misery_. Joan of Arc, in space, with mechs, in a very gender-diverse universe. Took a bit to get used to, but was pretty refreshing afterwards.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I dunno what your local bookstore has in stock, since sci-fi isn't always the most filled out section, but I can throw the latest few books I got on the recommendation pile:
> 
> Ann Leckie's Imperial Radch trilogy (_Ancillary Justice_, _Ancillary Sword_, and _Ancillary Mercy_). First books in ages that I devoured fast, and then immediately started again afterwards. Definitely shot up to some of my favorites of all time.
> 
> Probably less likely to be found, but one that also felt really neat was Neon Yang's _The Genesis of Misery_. Joan of Arc, in space, with mechs, in a very gender-diverse universe. Took a bit to get used to, but was pretty refreshing afterwards.


That first one seems neat, maybe? I'll consider it.

Everything I'm reading about Genesis of Misery suggests I should give it a wide berth. Too many similar vibes and comparisons to other series that set off my brain worms. Think you can sell me on it?

----------


## enderlord99

I'm gonna recommend _Dust_ by Joan Francis Turner.

The main character is a slightly-psychic zombie gangster.  The "gangster" part started shortly after the "zombie" part, both in backstory.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I'm gonna recommend _Dust_ by Joan Francis Turner.
> 
> The main character is a slightly-psychic zombie gangster.  The "gangster" part started shortly after the "zombie" part, both in backstory.


Neat. Vaguely reminds me of Warm Bodies, that goof ass zombie Romeo and Juliet story.

----------


## DataNinja

> Everything I'm reading about Genesis of Misery suggests I should give it a wide berth. Too many similar vibes and comparisons to other series that set off my brain worms. Think you can sell me on it?


Tbh, it's a very particular flavour, so if you're not getting vibes you like from it, I can't say that you'd necessarily be wrong to pass it up. Because there _is_, upon reflection, definitely a lot that could probably set off brainworms. (Starting from the baseline of the fact that the protagonist is, fundamentally, not a very good person.) Not sure what parts in particular might end up giving you sticking points, but I'd rather err on the side of _not_ pushing someone into it.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

I've heard good things about Summer in a Pioneer Tie, a Russian queer romance book, but sadly I don't think it's been translated. Otherwise I'm all out of book recommendations.

----------


## Peelee

Sci fi nor-style detective whodunit, _The Icarus Hunt_. I'm a sucker for that one. The interesting thing about it is its done in first person, so you're inside the head of the main character/"detective" who has to "solve the case" (parentheses will become apparent if you read the book, it's a bit more complex than that), so you have access to everything he thinks and nothing anyone else thinks. I thought it was pretty clever, especially the twist.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I always find mystery stories/tv shows/movies a bit complex for me. It's very entertaining, don't get me wrong.  :Smile:

----------


## LaZodiac

> Tbh, it's a very particular flavour, so if you're not getting vibes you like from it, I can't say that you'd necessarily be wrong to pass it up. Because there _is_, upon reflection, definitely a lot that could probably set off brainworms. (Starting from the baseline of the fact that the protagonist is, fundamentally, not a very good person.) Not sure what parts in particular might end up giving you sticking points, but I'd rather err on the side of _not_ pushing someone into it.


I don't mind if a protagonist is a bad person, persay, but there are times where it pushes beyond the pale of "okay this person is clearly deranged but the plot knows this" and straight into "the protagonist is a psychopath and the series is saying Good Yes This Is Good We Want This".

Being based on Joan of Arc is a potential interesting draw, but I'm wary.




> Book thief by Zusak was pretty interesting to read, finished it yesterday :D


Looks... interesting? Unsure.




> I've heard good things about Summer in a Pioneer Tie, a Russian queer romance book, but sadly I don't think it's been translated. Otherwise I'm all out of book recommendations.


Eh, the age gap feels too much for my tastes, even accounting for the fact that I can't read Russian.




> Sci fi nor-style detective whodunit, _The Icarus Hunt_. I'm a sucker for that one. The interesting thing about it is its done in first person, so you're inside the head of the main character/"detective" who has to "solve the case" (parentheses will become apparent if you read the book, it's a bit more complex than that), so you have access to everything he thinks and nothing anyone else thinks. I thought it was pretty clever, especially the twist.


While this may just be my experience, that's... fundamentally most mystery novels? Also you're kinda burying the lede here by not mentioning it's a Tim Zahn science fiction book, haha!

----------


## Peelee

> While this may just be my experience, that's... fundamentally most mystery novels? Also you're kinda burying the lede here by not mentioning it's a Tim Zahn science fiction book, haha!


Ah. Don't read much mystery, and the first person POV also makes it an interesting reread afterwards once you actually know everything (possibly also a staple of mystery novels,  but I suspect slightly different for this one).

And yeah, it's my favorite Zahn book.

----------


## DataNinja

> I don't mind if a protagonist is a bad person, persay, but there are times where it pushes beyond the pale of "okay this person is clearly deranged but the plot knows this" and straight into "the protagonist is a psychopath and the series is saying Good Yes This Is Good We Want This".
> 
> Being based on Joan of Arc is a potential interesting draw, but I'm wary.


I definitely never felt like the book was saying "yes, this is good." (Though, granted, I may also be terrible at reading into things.) There are a _lot_ of problems that could have been avoided, had the protagonist not tried to... single-mindedly protagonist their way through everything.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Ah. Don't read much mystery, and the first person POV also makes it an interesting reread afterwards once you actually know everything (possibly also a staple of mystery novels,  but I suspect slightly different for this one).
> 
> And yeah, it's my favorite Zahn book.


Yeah any good mystery (really any book with plot but I digress...) is going to have second read-through bonuses like that. It shows that the thing is well written, or at the very least the author has some idea about how to make events happen in sequence.

Of course even the worst book is going to give that vibe. Knowing this story ends with the abused slave MC killing herself out of True, Angsty Love to save her abuser, slave master, and love interest is going to paint every aspect of the book leading up to it in a way different light.

I'll give it a thought, though just from the blurb I think I've figured out what the twist is.




> I definitely never felt like the book was saying "yes, this is good." (Though, granted, I may also be terrible at reading into things.) There are a _lot_ of problems that could have been avoided, had the protagonist not tried to... single-mindedly protagonist their way through everything.


It's gonna depend on the execution I'd imagine, but yeah I'll probably pass on Get In The Robot Joan. Not that I don't trust your assurances, just the vibes are off on this one.

----------


## DataNinja

> It's gonna depend on the execution I'd imagine, but yeah I'll probably pass on Get In The Robot Joan. Not that I don't trust your assurances, just the vibes are off on this one.


Nah, no need to explain yourself. If you don't like the vibes, it's definitely better to pass. I have no vested interest in you reading any particular books, don't worry.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Peelee

> Yeah any good mystery (really any book with plot but I digress...) is going to have second read-through bonuses like that. It shows that the thing is well written, or at the very least the author has some idea about how to make events happen in sequence.
> 
> Of course even the worst book is going to give that vibe. Knowing this story ends with the abused slave MC killing herself out of True, Angsty Love to save her abuser, slave master, and love interest is going to paint every aspect of the book leading up to it in a way different light.
> 
> I'll give it a thought, though just from the blurb I think I've figured out what the twist is.


I'm intrigued, because I betcha haven't.  :Small Amused:

----------


## Fyraltari

If we're recommanding Sci-Fi, I suggest _A Memory Called Empire_, by Arkady Martine.
In the space future, a young woman is sent to represent her home space-station to the neighbouring Empire (think of a cross between Byzantium and the Aztec, IN SPACE), after her predecessor died. Her mission is to do whatever she can to avoid the empire deciding to annex them. To help her, she's got the memory back-up of her predecessor in a brain implant. But it's fifteen years out-of-date and may have been sabotaged. So she ends up having to navigate court intrigue in the imperial capital while it's increasingly clear that her predecessor was doing stuff he wasn't supposed to do and that she's being used as a pawn for a completely different plot back home. And during all that the people from the Empire treats her as a filfthy barbarian when she's extremely fond of the Empire's culture even though it's subsuming her own.

So basically it's a political thriller dealing with culture clash/assimilation and imperialism. Also, a lot of the characters are gay or bi and nobody cares.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I'm intrigued, because I betcha haven't.


We'll see if I get it, then.




> If we're recommanding Sci-Fi, I suggest _A Memory Called Empire_, by Arkady Martine.
> In the space future, a young woman is sent to represent her home space-station to the neighbouring Empire (think of a cross between Byzantium and the Aztec, IN SPACE), after her predecessor died. Her mission is to do whatever she can to avoid the empire deciding to annex them. To help her, she's got the memory back-up of her predecessor in a brain implant. But it's fifteen years out-of-date and may have been sabotaged. So she ends up having to navigate court intrigue in the imperial capital while it's increasingly clear that her predecessor was doing stuff he wasn't supposed to do and that she's being used as a pawn for a completely different plot back home. And during all that the people from the Empire treats her as a filfthy barbarian when she's extremely fond of the Empire's culture even though it's subsuming her own.
> 
> So basically it's a political thriller dealing with culture clash/assimilation and imperialism. Also, a lot of the characters are gay or bi and nobody cares.


Sounds potentially interesting from your description! And thanks for leading with what it's about, I like having some amount of detail if I go into a thing.

----------


## Peelee

> We'll see if I get it, then.


Like, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what you're thinking of. I will say there are a couple of "twists", some more readily obvious than others, but _the_ twist is pretty damned impressive, all things considered. It's not impossible to guess, but I never saw it coming.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Like, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what you're thinking of. I will say there are a couple of "twists", some more readily obvious than others, but _the_ twist is pretty damned impressive, all things considered. It's not impossible to guess, but I never saw it coming.


What do you think I'm thinking of? Cause I'm genuinely curious, since you feel pretty confident in your read of me.

----------


## Peelee

> What do you think I'm thinking of? Cause I'm genuinely curious, since you feel pretty confident in your read of me.


Keep in mind I do not know what blurb you read and am working off the assumption it's the amazon description.
*Spoiler*
Show

I think you're theorizing that the cargo is a hyperdrive or teleporter of some kind that will help them escape.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Keep in mind I do not know what blurb you read and am working off the assumption it's the amazon description.
> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> I think you're theorizing that the cargo is a hyperdrive or teleporter of some kind that will help them escape.


Oh no that's not what I'm thinking at all.

----------


## Peelee

> Oh no that's not what I'm thinking at all.


Well, tell!

----------


## LaZodiac

> Well, tell!


*Spoiler*
Show

They're bait for a military operation of some sort or another.

----------


## Peelee

> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> They're bait for a military operation of some sort or another.


I think you'd be surprised.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I think you'd be surprised.


Well the fun thing is, whether I'm right or not, I will be surprised, so you're not wrong there.

------

Book report time!

So, I went to the store. I bought three books so far- I've still got 36 money left on the certificate that I will make use of later. Here is what I got.

The Art of War. Partly out of research needs, partly out of curiosity's sake. I had a number of editions to choose from, one of which was made by a "martial artist" who wanted to cut away the symbolism and flowery writing to focus on the nitty gritty war fightin', and the printing for that made it look like a PUA pamphlet, and I ALMOST bought it out of the sheer novelty of having the Most Wrong Thing Ever Printed.

Frankenstein, the 1818 original text as published by Broadview, because I do need to read more of the classics. I'm familiar with most of The Classics through a childhood book-storm of buying every Illustrated Classics adaptation, which are woefully inadequate but not teasers to better, fully works.

And since it was the only modern YA Adjacent book that I was recommended available, I picked up Ancillary Justice.

----------


## Peelee

> Well the fun thing is, whether I'm right or not, I will be surprised, so you're not wrong there.


Ha! Fair point.



> And since it was the only modern YA Adjacent book that I was recommended available, I picked up Ancillary Justice.


Speaking of YA, _Lost Stars_ is still by far the best current canon Star Wars book out and its still weird because its basically a YA Romeo and Juliet in space. But its really good.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Ha! Fair point.
> 
> Speaking of YA, _Lost Stars_ is still by far the best current canon Star Wars book out and its still weird because its basically a YA Romeo and Juliet in space. But its really good.


Thank you for the recommendation! Not sure I'll check it out because I don't really care about Star Wars, and it's likely not stand alone, but still may give it a look.

Also while I am still looking for recommendations because, as said, I have 36 money left; please stop recommending science fantasy YA novels unless they're Exceptionally Good. I have enough of these. Stop it.

----------


## Peelee

> Thank you for the recommendation! Not sure I'll check it out because I don't really care about Star Wars, and it's likely not stand alone, but still may give it a look.
> 
> Also while I am still looking for recommendations because, as said, I have 36 money left; please stop recommending science fantasy YA novels unless they're Exceptionally Good. I have enough of these. Stop it.


It is 100% standalone, actually. So long as you've seen the original movie you're set for exposition. And it's amazon review breakdown is as follows:
5 star - 80%
4 star - 14%
3 star - 4%
2 star - 1%
1 star - 1%

Over 3,000 reviews. I'll let you decide whether that's exceptionally good or not.

----------


## DataNinja

> Also while I am still looking for recommendations because, as said, I have 36 money left; please stop recommending science fantasy YA novels unless they're Exceptionally Good. I have enough of these. Stop it.


Oops. I'm contributing to the problem.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> The Art of War. Partly out of research needs, partly out of curiosity's sake. I had a number of editions to choose from, one of which was made by a "martial artist" who wanted to cut away the symbolism and flowery writing to focus on the nitty gritty war fightin', and the printing for that made it look like a PUA pamphlet, and I ALMOST bought it out of the sheer novelty of having the Most Wrong Thing Ever Printed.
> 
> Frankenstein, the 1818 original text as published by Broadview, because I do need to read more of the classics. I'm familiar with most of The Classics through a childhood book-storm of buying every Illustrated Classics adaptation, which are woefully inadequate but not teasers to better, fully works.


If you are going for the classics, may I suggest one of the adaptations of Journey to the West (Specifically the abridged versions, unless you really want the full 4-volume goodness...)? My personal favourite is the one by Arthur Whaley, but there are others.

(Failing that, I reccomend the summaries done by Overly Sarcastic Productions...)

----------


## LaZodiac

> It is 100% standalone, actually. So long as you've seen the original movie you're set for exposition. And it's amazon review breakdown is as follows:
> 5 star - 80%
> 4 star - 14%
> 3 star - 4%
> 2 star - 1%
> 1 star - 1%
> 
> Over 3,000 reviews. I'll let you decide whether that's exceptionally good or not.


One of the worst books I've ever read has nearly 90 000 reviews and 48% consider it 5 stars. The only purpose of a review is to make it clear that something exists and to gather a vibe- which is why more people should review my book if they've bought and read it, but ultimately they aren't indicators of if a thing is good or not.

All of this to say that; I'm sure it is good, but I need something more substantive than "it reviews well".

Of course that's not to say reviews can't be substantive. It's just that for me, reviews are... different in some ephemeral way from seeing someone I know and interact with rambling about it. I'm more likely to believe that person's words than the words of a publicly posted review.




> Oops. I'm contributing to the problem.


You're actively not I just said it right now!




> If you are going for the classics, may I suggest one of the adaptations of Journey to the West (Specifically the abridged versions, unless you really want the full 4-volume goodness...)? My personal favourite is the one by Arthur Whaley, but there are others.
> 
> (Failing that, I reccomend the summaries done by Overly Sarcastic Productions...)


I do love Journey to the West, and love those videos, so it's always been on my reading list.

----------


## Peelee

> One of the worst books I've ever read has nearly 90 000 reviews and 48% consider it 5 stars. The only purpose of a review is to make it clear that something exists and to gather a vibe


I agree, so let me rephrase. 95% of the reviews are positive and it has generally good vibes.

Also, beat new canon Star Wars novel to date, no reason to be this good, one of the best Star Wars novels in any canon, yadda yadda yadda.

Its also in manga form, if that has any bonus selling points for you.

----------


## Lord Raziere

Bleh.

Was all prepared to make significant progress on Mass Effect 3 today this morning. but then the weather was like NOPE! power outage. Lose a whole day.

Reread Way of Kings for like, eight hours straight instead, as per my usual plan for blackouts. which y'know good book but I was hoping to do the ME3 thing today. I started like, in the middle of it to from reading it from a previous blackout this year and it STILL isn't finished. Good reason I pick Stormlight Archive as my blackout read, those are the only tomes that can withstand my reading speed for such long periods of time.

----------


## Amidus Drexel

> Also while I am still looking for recommendations because, as said, I have 36 money left; please stop recommending science fantasy YA novels unless they're Exceptionally Good. I have enough of these. Stop it.


Have you read _Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency_, by Douglas Adams? It's a favorite of mine. Ostensibly it's a mystery, but the detective work is really not the point of the book (not that Dirk ever does a particularly good job). If you _have_ read it (and liked it), I recommend the sequel, _The Long, Dark Tea-Time of the Soul_.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Have you read _Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency_, by Douglas Adams? It's a favorite of mine. Ostensibly it's a mystery, but the detective work is really not the point of the book (not that Dirk ever does a particularly good job). If you _have_ read it (and liked it), I recommend the sequel, _The Long, Dark Tea-Time of the Soul_.


I've read both, actually. I didn't really enjoy them that much at the time, just kinda bounced off'em.

----------


## DataNinja

> I've read both, actually. I didn't really enjoy them that much at the time, just kinda bounced off'em.


Understandable. I know I didn't really vibe with them until my second read through, when I could appreciate the, ah, holistic-ness more. Even so, I know I need to be in a particular headspace to do that. They're... _distinct_ books.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Also; I got $100 from my work in the form of a gift certificate for the local book store. Throw recommendations at me, preferably good ones.


For some historical psychiatric fiction, maybe try _I Never Promised You a Rose Garden_. Very different from sci-fi books.




> Because humans are the only ones currently around with high enough faculties for them.





> There's a school of thought in (possibly pop) anthropology that talks about humans as "the storytelling ape" and that's the kind of thing Pratchett is getting at. Coming up with fantasies, abstracts, things which don't measurably exist, and then treating them in such a way that they acquire importance, even necessity, is, in this view, the very essence of what makes us human.


I'm (partly) with Peelee on this one, at least regarding the famous excerpt. Things like justice and mercy aren't fictions.

----------


## enderlord99

Earlier this year, I discovered that being on IV fluids makes it so that it takes several minutes to realize you don't feel thirsty anymore.

I don't know why I remembered that just now.

----------


## LaZodiac

> For some historical psychiatric fiction, maybe try _I Never Promised You a Rose Garden_. Very different from sci-fi books.
> 
> I'm (partly) with Peelee on this one, at least regarding the famous excerpt. Things like justice and mercy aren't fictions.


Interesting, but not really my jam I think.

Justice isn't fiction but it's also not tangibly real and these two thoughts can be held together.

----------


## enderlord99

Justice is as real as any other emergent phenomenon.

----------


## theangelJean

Spent last night hooked up to monitors in hospital, being pumped full of fluids. Turns out that the treatment for this particular complication of the plague is ... Basically more of the same supportive therapy you do, when you don't qualify for antivirals. Over the counter pain relief, an over the counter anti-inflammatory, a more specific anti-inflammatory, something to protect my stomach from the NSAID. Anyway, I'm late to the book recommendations!

I will always always recommend the Wayfarers series by Becky Chambers, but I'm not sure if you've already read all of it, LaZodiac? If so, I guess this is for everyone else. Fantasy space opera of the kind of inclusive society I wish we lived in, played out on the scale of a small community in each novel, all set in the same universe but otherwise only tangentially connected. Not really young adult, I guess there are some minor "will they or won't they" themes in the first book, but it's actually more like "oh, they do? Isn't that nice" in a very non-cliche way. Less coming-of-age and more growing into a family. Maybe the wishful thinking is strong here, but I think of it as a detailed exploration of the ideas around inclusion and societal tribal biases - kind of an answer to the people saying "you want us to accept _Them_? Society would fall apart!" with the gentle rebuke "No, it would just look like This. Look, it's awesome. Get with the program." If I have one criticism of the setup, it's that she starts off by using "aliens" for some of the usual outsider groups. But by the fourth book, she fixes that by making everyone a non-human, with humans being one of the outsider groups who don't even get a point of view character.

Anyway, that's the sell, here's a quick summary of each novel: 
_A Long Way To A Small, Angry Planet_: A young woman joins the crew of the Wayfarer, a wormhole-tunnelling ship, as they accept a large commissioned job. Extremely mild hijinks ensue.

_A Closed and Common Orbit_: Circumstances have forced a ship AI into an illegal humanoid chassis. It helps that one of the humans helping her to adjust was, herself, raised from childhood by an AI.

_Record of a Spaceborn Few_: The community of Exodans - refugees from Earth on the generation ships - were accepted into Galactic society a century ago, although they have suffered a serious tragedy since then. How do people who grew up elsewhere in the Galaxy find a place on the generation ships, now that they have a new orbit?

_The Galaxy, and the Ground Within_: Three travellers are delayed at the Five-Hop One-Stop, cut off by a planet-wide event, with only each other, the host of the establishment and her child for company. This one is my favourite, partly because it's "dealing with enforced isolation" in the form of basically a hug, partly because they're all adults each with their own mature outlook. I do tend to love series finale novels that wrap up all the storylines, and this one absolutely does not do that, because they're all stand alone stories. It's completely worth it.

Her other novel, Completely separate from the Wayfarers series, don't strongly recommend because it's ****ing bleak: _To Be Taught If Fortunate_. Does feature poly relationships done right. If you're going to send four people on a potentially one-way exploration trip lasting years centuries, why _wouldn't_ you select a stable polycule. But once they've explored, should they make the return journey?

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Have you read _Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency_, by Douglas Adams?


Don't you means Shada?


As for classics, Frankenstein is good, Dracula is good, Wuthering Heights is boring, and the less said about Tess of the d'Urbevilles the better. Just be aware that most classics are from the time where those in the profession of writing would develop a tendency, and it is a nasty tendency, to unnecessarily increase the magnitude of letter constructions within their literary creations in order to ensure that the magnitude of their positively inclined bank transfer attained as impressively grand a monetary total as they could achieve.

----------


## Peelee

> Interesting, but not really my jam I think.
> 
> Justice isn't fiction but it's also not tangibly real and these two thoughts can be held together.


I find "tangibly real" to be a useless criteria.

----------


## Form

> Spent last night hooked up to monitors in hospital, being pumped full of fluids. Turns out that the treatment for this particular complication of the plague is ... Basically more of the same supportive therapy you do, when you don't qualify for antivirals. Over the counter pain relief, an over the counter anti-inflammatory, a more specific anti-inflammatory, something to protect my stomach from the NSAID. Anyway, I'm late to the book recommendations!


That sounds like an intensive treatment. I hope you'll come out of all that alright.




> I find "tangibly real" to be a useless criteria.


Out of curiosity, do you believe there exists a Platonic ideal (or something similar if not quite that) of concepts like justice, mercy etc.? Because if you're working from that as a premise then I'd have a much better understanding of where you're coming from.

----------


## Peelee

> Out of curiosity, do you believe there exists a Platonic ideal (or something similar if not quite that) of concepts like justice, mercy etc.? Because if you're working from that as a premise then I'd have a much better understanding of where you're coming from.


For abstracts, yes. The ideas of justice, mercy, etc appear throughout all cultures and history even if application and implementation might vary, so it is readily apparent to me that they are naturally occurring concepts. And we see other forms of abstract concepts in highly intelligent animals that lack our sense of sapience, with the higher intelligence usually correlating to more abstract concepts being formed, so it is readily apparent to me that this is not a human-centric issue and just because we're at the top of the mountain doesn't mean we're the only ones who could ever get to the top of the mountain and that's what makes us human. That's fully backwards. We're not human because we're on top of the mountain, we got to the top of the mountain because we are human.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> Originally Posted by Fyraltari
> 
> 
> Not true. Coca-Cola started using Santa Claus as a mascot in 1931 but there are drawings of him wearing red as early as 1866 and with his modern look from 1896 onwards.
> 
> Also, the hell is "Elf on a shelf"?
> 
> 
> Beat me to it, on both counts: I knew about the Coca-Cola company (that question was actually in this year's Office Christmas Quiz - I won't put the question here as it may infringe the rules, but the Coca-Cola company was the trap answer), but I've never heard of an elf on a shelf.


For those who are interested, Blue from Overly Sarcastic Productions has just done a video on the subject: History-Makers: Saint Nicholas to Santa Claus. He doesn't go as far as the Coca-Cola company, though.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Spent last night hooked up to monitors in hospital, being pumped full of fluids. Turns out that the treatment for this particular complication of the plague is ... Basically more of the same supportive therapy you do, when you don't qualify for antivirals. Over the counter pain relief, an over the counter anti-inflammatory, a more specific anti-inflammatory, something to protect my stomach from the NSAID. Anyway, I'm late to the book recommendations!
> 
> I will always always recommend the Wayfarers series by Becky Chambers, but I'm not sure if you've already read all of it, LaZodiac?


Oh jeez, I hope you feel better soon. I'll do my best to finish more Mist and Fire so I can do my part to make this less frustrating to exist through.

I haven't read the Wayfarers before, and Qwerty actually recommended picking those up as well, so they're definitely on the list. Also thank you for your descriptions of each, that's what I wanna see in being sold on media.




> As for classics, Frankenstein is good, Dracula is good, Wuthering Heights is boring, and the less said about Tess of the d'Urbevilles the better. Just be aware that most classics are from the time where those in the profession of writing would develop a tendency, and it is a nasty tendency, to unnecessarily increase the magnitude of letter constructions within their literary creations in order to ensure that the magnitude of their positively inclined bank transfer attained as impressively grand a monetary total as they could achieve.


Look I've read Les Mis and a unabridged issue of Moby ****. I'm well aware of the loquacious nature of classic literature and its occasional decision to pay by the word- know that I love it, because how else would I have ever learned how sewers work, and that Quaker women invented the sex toy because of how prolific their men were in whaling?




> I find "tangibly real" to be a useless criteria.


And I, personally, disagree. I think natural law is bunk and there is no platonic ideal of goodness in the world, and that is why every time we do good, it is something worth celebrating.

The world is not beautiful; therefor, it is.




> For abstracts, yes. The ideas of justice, mercy, etc appear throughout all cultures and history even if application and implementation might vary, so it is readily apparent to me that they are naturally occurring concepts. And we see other forms of abstract concepts in highly intelligent animals that lack our sense of sapience, with the higher intelligence usually correlating to more abstract concepts being formed, so it is readily apparent to me that this is not a human-centric issue and just because we're at the top of the mountain doesn't mean we're the only ones who could ever get to the top of the mountain and that's what makes us human. That's fully backwards. We're not human because we're on top of the mountain, we got to the top of the mountain because we are human.


Eh, it is arguable that some of this leans too much into humanizing animals. Do dogs share food because of an innate sense of moral propriety, or is it because pack animals have an inbuilt understanding that Everyone Eats or No One Eats? Is there even a reasonable difference between the two, at the very core of it all- after all, humans are as slaves to their impulses and brain chemicals as any other beast. It is our higher learning and understanding of the self that makes us what we are, and in that understanding we can apply terms like just or kind or cruel to each other, since this higher learning implies some step beyond the baseness of "do x because neurons zapped in y way". It's the fundamental truth that humans have animal-urges like any animal, we just believe right or wrong that we're able to act outside of them, and that animals can't.

I'm of mixed opinion on this personally. I think animals are more mentally adept than people give them credit for, and to say they're not equal or close to humans is foolish... but also do understand that yes, animals are structured differently. A cat can have no sense of right or wrong, as the joke goes, because right and wrong are human concepts. The cat does not know our laws and our structure. They know only that the walking ape gives them food, and does not eat them, and does pet them (sometimes too much, and thus is deserving of fang and claw), so they are Good and Safe and must be ignored at all times because that's how cats show respect.

That all being said I still also believe abstract concepts like justice, mercy, and etc, are all just that; abstract concepts that we put into the world through our higher learning and our ability to act beyond our lizard brains. You're more than welcome to disagree, I just think it's funny that you believe humans aren't special, but also prescribe to Natural Law, which says very much that we are.

In summary... well, I said it above.

The world is not beautiful; therefor, it is.




> For those who are interested, Blue from Overly Sarcastic Productions has just done a video on the subject: History-Makers: Saint Nicholas to Santa Claus. He doesn't go as far as the Coca-Cola company, though.


I haven't watched this yet but I hope they mention that during the big schism Saint Nick grabbed another philosopher by the beard and slammed him in the face, because this is the funniest mental image imaginable.

----------


## Fyraltari

The book I r eally would like to recommend would be the excellent _La Horde du Contrevent_ by Alain Damasio, unfortunately it has so far only been translated into Italian making it inaccessible for 95% of y'all.



> A little doll that parents are supposed to hide in various places around the house in the lead-up to Christmas with the story that he's santas "spy" keeping an eye on children for bad behavior.
> 
> Personally, I find the whole thing to be _very_ offputting. Not only does the doll just _look_ creepy with his dead eyes... But having it be mundane surveillance via spy makes the whole "he sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake" thing *considerably* more sinister than the traditional "magical omniscient" version.


Well, that's casually terrifying.

----------


## Form

> Look I've read Les Mis and a unabridged issue of Moby ****. I'm well aware of the loquacious nature of classic literature and its occasional decision to pay by the word- know that I love it, because how else would I have ever learned how sewers work, and that Quaker women invented the sex toy because of how prolific their men were in whaling?


I was disappointed by Herman Melville's The Whale (Ha! Alternate title, take that censorship filter!). I was expecting an epic, self destructive vengeance quest instead of a slew of uninteresting marine facts, unnecessary verbosity and whatnot.

If anyone knows of a book that is actually about an epic, self destructive vengeance quest then please tell me. Or about some other kind of self destructive spiral into madness. Melville's book was unsatisfactory in that regard.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I was disappointed by Herman Melville's The Whale (Ha! Alternate title, take that censorship filter!). I was expecting an epic, self destructive vengeance quest instead of a slew of uninteresting marine facts, unnecessary verbosity and whatnot.
> 
> If anyone knows of a book that is actually about an epic, self destructive vengeance quest then please tell me. Or about some other kind of self destructive spiral into madness. Melville's book was unsatisfactory in that regard.


In defense of Melville, it IS that story... it's just that it's not from the perspective OF that character. It's from the perspective of a whale nerd who is like "wow the captain sure is standoffish at times" and that's about it.

That said I do... will, have a book that is like that! In the future!... the far future, once I finish writing it. It's part of my knight-era stories for Cursed World, and for a variety of reasons I'm not sure they can come out yet.

----------


## Peelee

> And I, personally, disagree.


Aristotle, I am fond of saying, was probably one of the smartest people who was wrong about absolutely everything. I am nowhere near as smart as Aristotle. But I do have the benefit of knowing that we have millennia about dismissing things because we could not measure them and then discovering that hey, those things are real and just because we were unable to measure them didn't make them less real, it just made us haughty and egotistical because if it's not tangible to _us_ then it can't _possibly_ be real.

We're special and unique and so we understand everything and if we cant understand something then it must not be real because if it was we would be able to understand it immediately because we're special and unique.

Except in all the ways we're finding out we're not, of course.

True knowledge is knowing how little we know.



> I was disappointed by Herman Melville's The Whale (Ha! Alternate title, take that censorship filter!). I was expecting an epic, self destructive vengeance quest instead of a slew of uninteresting marine facts, unnecessary verbosity and whatnot.
> 
> If anyone knows of a book that is actually about an epic, self destructive vengeance quest then please tell me. Or about some other kind of self destructive spiral into madness. Melville's book was unsatisfactory in that regard.


A.) You can say Moby Dick :Small Wink: 
2.) I actually could recommend a book - the novelization of _The Wrath of Kahn_. Also if I actually think about it I could probably give another recommendation.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Aristotle, I am fond of saying, was probably one of the smartest people who was wrong about absolutely everything. I am nowhere near as smart as Aristotle. But I do have the benefit of knowing that we have millennia about dismissing things because we could not measure them and then discovering that hey, those things are real and just because we were unable to measure them didn't make them less real, it just made us haughty and egotistical because if it's not tangible to _us_ then it can't _possibly_ be real.
> 
> We're special and unique and so we understand everything and if we cant understand something then it must not be real because if it was we would be able to understand it immediately because we're special and unique.
> 
> Except in all the ways we're finding out we're not, of course.
> 
> True knowledge is knowing how little we know.


I like how you dismissed everything I said and instead chose to insult me when I'm just having a conversation.

I am not egotistical or haughty, and I'm not someone who thinks humanity is unique or special. Stop putting words in my mouth.

----------


## Rater202

Seasonally Appropriate Pop Culture Trivia: Western Superhero settings tend to depict Santa Clause as not only real, but as superhuman within their own context for such things.

DC depicts him as having heat vision and as personally invading Apokolips every year in order to deliver Darkseid's coal in person.

Marvel is deliberately inconsistent on his backstoryone story showed him as being the result of a bunch of similar but unrelated legends and stories being cross-referenced and literally taking on a life of their own, a Christmas special from the 90s depicted him as "the most powerful mutant on record," and Doctor Doom once speculated that he was a former Sorcerer Supreme.

----------


## Peelee

> I like how you dismissed everything I said and instead chose to insult me when I'm just having a conversation.
> 
> I am not egotistical or haughty, and I'm not someone who thinks humanity is unique or special. Stop putting words in my mouth.


I never insulted you and the vast majority of what you wrote that I snipped away is addressed in the link by people with credentials and studies backing them up. The only difference between us and other animals is we achieved enlightenment first, to the best of our knowledge. That's it. Give a cat enough brainpower and it almost certainly will determine right from wrong a d have a justice system with ethics and 

If someone espouses haughty beliefs then I'm going to point out that those beliefs are haughty. If you dislike that, well, there's not much I can do about that.

----------


## Manga Shoggoth

> I haven't watched this yet but I hope they mention that during the big schism Saint Nick grabbed another philosopher by the beard and slammed him in the face, because this is the funniest mental image imaginable.


If you want funny mental images, OSP is a very good site to go to. They can go from the sublime to the ridiculous in a matter of seconds. Red tends to cover literature and philosophy; Blue architecture and history.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I never insulted you and the vast majority of what you wrote that I snipped away is addressed in the link by people with credentials and studies backing them up. The only difference between us and other animals is we achieved enlightenment first, to the best of our knowledge. That's it. Give a cat enough brainpower and it almost certainly will determine right from wrong a d have a justice system with ethics and 
> 
> If someone espouses haughty beliefs then I'm going to point out that those beliefs are haughty. If you dislike that, well, there's not much I can do about that.


*THOSE AREN'T MY BELIEFS!* Nothing I said was human-superior at all! I don't know how the **** you got that from what I said, but by all means continue to call me a haughty ignorant. Yes, absolutely, a cat with human level consciousness would know what right or wrong is, I NEVER SAID IT WOULDN'T! All I had the seeming _gall_ to say is that we're not sure there is a difference between naturalistic impulses and higher level thinking, and that I personal believe that things like justice, morality, and so on are not naturalistic things, but things we as LIVING BEINGS (NOT excluding animals, which I NEVER did, I'm not a human supremacist I have no idea where the **** you got this from) are able to put into the world.

I am frankly insulted that you've taken such an unsavoury, unflattering read of what I thought was a rather concisely written bit of philosophy. By all means, please tell me what I said that has made you decide to characterize me as too ignorant to "know what I don't know". In what way is any of this HAUGHTY and CONCEITED? And don't think for a second that you didn't do that; the implication of what you said regarding Aristotle and the comparison you're making to him and modern time is that "he didn't know what he didn't know" and thus had the "haughty, egotistical" notion that humanity was special- and you're then attributing that to me. You are, clear as day, saying I am that level of ignorant.

On that matter, YOUR belief, as you've gone on at length, that there is such a tangible thing as these higher end concepts are a natural law- which is something Aristotle himself thought BY THE WAY- and I don't know if you know this or not, but Natural Law is a FULLY HUMAN-CENTRIC PHILOSOPHICAL FORM OF THOUGHT! It is the belief that there these higher end concepts are a factual, tangible aspect of reality and that humans (and humans alone) are the conduit with which they are accessed. THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE ACCUSING ME OF! It has roots in religion based study that notes that Reason is the divine gift that elevates humanity to the step that it is, and therefor things that come from Reason, ie justice, morality, etc, are natural parts of the world that are unique gifts to man kind.

I have not, once, in this entire series of conversations, characterized this stuff as uniquely human. You're the one who has presented your belief of Lex Naturalis, and for reasons beyond my understanding decided that my disagreement means I somehow think humans are better than animals, when that is literally the core of the thing you yourself believe. I do not understand how or why this has happened. Even putting aside all that; nothing I've said precludes the fact that animals CAN ALSO HAVE CONCEPTS LIKE THIS! I never denied that! You're acting like I have!

Bluntly, this entire situation has caused me EXTREME distress. Your words are hurtful (specifically, your implication that I am ignorant for not "knowing what I don't know" and calling my haughty) and regardless of intention or not you have insulted. Unless you apologize this is the last time I'm ever so much as engaging you in pleasantries until you sincerely apologize.

With all the respect I can muster; you are someone who I do think of as intelligent, and while I disagree with a lot of your arguments, I would never say anything as ****ing insulting as what you've just done to me. I understand that you must probably hate me, for whatever reason- maybe I defended Rater too many times, or maybe you think I'm stupid, or whatever the case may be. Whatever your grievance is with me, feel free to tell me.

But know that I don't hate you.

----------


## Peelee

> *THOSE AREN'T MY BELIEFS!*





> I think natural law is bunk and there is no platonic ideal of goodness in the world, and that is why every time we do good, it is something worth celebrating.
> 
> The world is not beautiful; therefor, it is.


Sounds like that's what you believe to me.

If any creature with sufficient intelligence will develop a sense of right and wrong, of justice and mercy and revenge and everything else, then those things are real. There's no mass delusion that every being will The world is beautiful and only needs a sufficiently advanced intelligence to realize it. "it's not beautiful and that's why it is" is self-aggrandizement because the only reason to reconcile that is if we're just so special that nothing else could appreciate beauty like we can, nothing else could develop justice, nothing else could have a sense of right and wrong. We're not the only ones possible. We're just the only ones we know of that crossed that line. And it's not even the finish line, it's a milestone.

----------


## enderlord99

...Can we just move on?

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I love the cold weather in NYC right now.  :Smile:

----------


## Mystic Muse

Yeah, can we please drop this and stop distressing my girlfriend?

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Sounds like that's what you believe to me.
> 
> If any creature with sufficient intelligence will develop a sense of right and wrong, of justice and mercy and revenge and everything else, then those things are real. There's no mass delusion that every being will The world is beautiful and only needs a sufficiently advanced intelligence to realize it. "it's not beautiful and that's why it is" is self-aggrandizement because the only reason to reconcile that is if we're just so special that nothing else could appreciate beauty like we can, nothing else could develop justice, nothing else could have a sense of right and wrong. We're not the only ones possible. We're just the only ones we know of that crossed that line. And it's not even the finish line, it's a milestone.


Okay. You have a position which you explained.

That is not, however, an apology. She has said that is not what she believes, please respect that. Explanation is not apology, Peelee. Nor is what it "sounds like" counts as what they really believe, just you what you think, which matters squat to an apology or want people want out of an apology.

----------


## Rater202

...Does anyone have a time machine? I'd kind of like to go back in time and stop myself from bringing up _Hogfather_.

----------


## Form

> Sounds like that's what you believe to me.
> 
> If any creature with sufficient intelligence will develop a sense of right and wrong, of justice and mercy and revenge and everything else, then those things are real. There's no mass delusion that every being will The world is beautiful and only needs a sufficiently advanced intelligence to realize it. "it's not beautiful and that's why it is" is self-aggrandizement because the only reason to reconcile that is if we're just so special that nothing else could appreciate beauty like we can, nothing else could develop justice, nothing else could have a sense of right and wrong. We're not the only ones possible. We're just the only ones we know of that crossed that line. And it's not even the finish line, it's a milestone.


Please don't answer this, but do think about it: Regardless of the original discussion, do you really think that doubling down right now is the right course of action? That that makes things better?

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> ...Does anyone have a time machine? I'd kind of like to go back in time and stop myself from bringing up _Hogfather_.


Time machines are very rare these days.  :Smile:

----------


## theangelJean

> That sounds like an intensive treatment. I hope you'll come out of all that alright.


The fun thing is, after the initial kerfuffle, it's really not an intensive treatment at all. 

It was actually pretty scary to start with, while they were trying to work out if I'd actually had a heart attack - it felt very much like it, and one of the blood results pointed that way, but I have no risk factors or family history. Turns out it was viral inflammation of the heart muscle, but I spent the night being monitored in case I did have a heart attack, plus two of the meds they gave me dropped my blood pressure and they spent the rest of the night giving me fluids to bring it back up. 

In the middle of the night the pain changed slightly, and one of the doctors they called said "what kind of pain relief are you giving her? Have you tried paracetamol/acetaminophen and ibuprofen? Why not?" (Two of the simplest pain relief/fever medications, available here at any supermarket.) So they gave me those and all the heart symptoms basically went away. The rest of the day was waiting for confirmation and paperwork.

In the end, I got to go home yesterday with directions to take paracetamol and ibuprofen plus a heart tablet and an anti-ulcer tablet, rest and drink lots of water, and come back if anything changes. And it amuses me that the official government recommendation in my country for getting through the Current Plague at home (which was the cause of all this) are to take paracetamol and ibuprofen and/or throat lozenges as needed, rest and drink lots of water, and get help if you have any worrying symptoms. Which is exactly what my husband and I were already doing for the last week and a half.




> Oh jeez, I hope you feel better soon. I'll do my best to finish more Mist and Fire so I can do my part to make this less frustrating to exist through.


Like I said above, it's no longer an ordeal, but more Mist and Fire is always something to look forward to! 




> I haven't read the Wayfarers before, and Qwerty actually recommended picking those up as well, so they're definitely on the list. Also thank you for your descriptions of each, that's what I wanna see in being sold on media.


Yay! My wall of text was worth something for once! Here, have another one (above).

Also hugs to you, LaZodiac, and hugs to Peelee, and everyone else. It's the holiday period, everyone is under a lot of stress. The philosophical discussion you are all having is interesting, but you're all talking past each other while disagreeing only on semantics, because this is exactly the wrong time of year to be having it. Maybe give it a month, maybe even two?

And I get to relax at home because we get Christmas Day hours before everyone else (hours, I tell you!) and we can't go do our usual very low-key family visit, for fear of spreading the plague. So have a good one, and have a bunch of virtual hugs for those who want and/or need them.

----------


## Metastachydium

> I love the cold weather in NYC right now.





> Time machines are very rare these days.


Your attempts at deescalation, if such is your intention, are noted, but I don't think you're helping.




> ...Can we just move on?


I'm afraid that wouldn't be wise before this (as in, the tension between Zodi and Mr. Lee, not the Pratchett discussion that should have died pages ago) gets sorted out.




> Bluntly, this entire situation has caused me EXTREME distress. Your words are hurtful (specifically, your implication that I am ignorant for not "knowing what I don't know" and calling my haughty) and regardless of intention or not you have insulted





> Sounds like that's what you believe to me.


Hey, folks. I don't really want to get involved in this affair, but things took a really ugly turn. My own views on the matters discussed might be closer to Peelee's, but that's irrelevant right now. Further, I think the implication that Peelee's position is somehow something other than Peelee's position and instead something he deems incorrect or that this is an expression of his hatred towards Rater is unfair  which could be pertinent, but 

The thing is, Mr. Lee, you don't, _at all_, seem to be in any kind of distress due to that. Whereas Zodi, well, she _is_ and quite explicitly at that. While I'm aware that I might not be the right person to say this, given that I have an unfortunate tendency to get _vehement_ whilw discussing matters more often than it is healthy, disregarding that is very emphatically not the right call. I strongly hope that nobody's here to upset other posters and winning an argument, however important what one argues might be for them, is still a poor excuse for making others miserable. Not that there appears to be much that could need saying and wasn't yet voiced anyhow. You don't have to concede a point you don't want to concede, and I'm absolutely certain "Zodi is hubristic and dumb" was ever an idea you wished to propose in the first place. And if you didn't, telling her that much or, heck, even apologizing for making her upset, if that's what it takes to clean up this mess and, most importantly, make all those involve feel _not_ upset, that shouldn't be a huge deal.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Your attempts at de-escalation, if such is your intention, are noted, but I don't think you're helping.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that wouldn't be wise before this (as in, the tension between Zodi and Mr. Lee, not the Pratchett discussion that should have died pages ago) gets sorted out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In all honesty. I don't want to get involved in the drama. I don't know what went down between Zodi and Peelee. I just feel best to change topics and not get involved in the situation. I'm being neutral here.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Earlier this year, I discovered that being on IV fluids makes it so that it takes several minutes to realize you don't feel thirsty anymore.
> 
> I don't know why I remembered that just now.





> Spent last night hooked up to monitors in hospital, being pumped full of fluids. Turns out that the treatment for this particular complication of the plague is ... Basically more of the same supportive therapy you do, when you don't qualify for antivirals. Over the counter pain relief, an over the counter anti-inflammatory, a more specific anti-inflammatory, something to protect my stomach from the NSAID.


Hope you two had/have a good recovery. Being in a hospital sucks.




> Interesting, but not really my jam I think.


Oh, okay. If you wanna buy a comic, maybe try _The Pervert_. Stars a trans woman. I read it a few years back and liked it. Not sure if your bookstore will have it, though.




> Justice isn't fiction but it's also not tangibly real and these two thoughts can be held together.


I think that's a good way of putting it. Maybe it's something like a university... Obviously universities exist, but it wouldn't be right to point to a building or a student or a faculty member and say, "That's the university!" And of course the university is more than just its parts.




> Justice is as real as any other emergent phenomenon.


Oo, that's an account that I don't think I've seen before. What does justice emerge from?




> For abstracts, yes. The ideas of justice, mercy, etc appear throughout all cultures and history even if application and implementation might vary, so it is readily apparent to me that they are naturally occurring concepts


I guess we agree on less than I thought. Not a Platonist at all. I think you're the first I've met.




> Aristotle, I am fond of saying, was probably one of the smartest people who was wrong about absolutely everything. I am nowhere near as smart as Aristotle.


I don't think that's quite fair to Aristotle. His logic still holds up (and held up for thousands of years) even if we've moved past it. And that's kinda how most scholarship worksyou write to be proven wrong by those after you.




> ...Does anyone have a time machine? I'd kind of like to go back in time and stop myself from bringing up _Hogfather_.


If it helps, I don't think you can take responsibility for other people's actions.




> Time machines are very rare these days.


Clocks? They're everywhere. There's even one in my computer right now!  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Keltest

Traveling in time is easy. We're all doing it. It's steering that's the hard part.

----------


## Rater202

> If it helps, I don't think you can take responsibility for other people's actions.


People _say_ that but in my experience enforcement of it is rather selective.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Traveling in time is easy. We're all doing it. It's steering that's the hard part.


Oo! New topic. Is (interesting) time travel logically possible? I remember reading an argument that you can never travel back before your time machine was invented. Cuz if you could you'd get a paradox.




> People _say_ that but in my experience enforcement of it is rather selective.


Yeah. I think that's more of those actions that you can't control or take responsibility for.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Keltest

> Oo! New topic. Is (interesting) time travel logically possible? I remember reading an argument that you can never travel back before your time machine was invented. Cuz if you could you'd get a paradox.
> 
> 
> Yeah. I think that's more of those actions that you can't control or take responsibility for.


Wild take: yes you can, but the personal consequences might be severe, just like moving in other dimensions might mean moving into the path of a car.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Oh, okay. If you wanna buy a comic, maybe try _The Pervert_. Stars a trans woman. I read it a few years back and liked it. Not sure if your bookstore will have it, though.


You're gonna need to tell me more than "it stars a trans woman" cause that describes... a lot, and the name is not enticing.

And thank you everyone for the well wishes. I'm at my folks, doin' good. I wish you all a merry Christmas, a happy holidays, and a bountiful Sainte Nuit.

Regarding the conversation at hand: if time travel is possible it logistically can likely only be one way. That's probably not AS interesting as it cooould be, but still.

----------


## Peelee

> Please don't answer this, but do think about it: Regardless of the original discussion, do you really think that doubling down right now is the right course of action? That that makes things better?


That's an excellent point and I could have used that widsom earlier.



> Further, I think the implication that Peelee's position is somehow something other than Peelee's position and instead something he deems incorrect or that this is an expression of his hatred towards Rater is unfair  which could be pertinent, but.


For the record, I don't hate Rater at all. I disagree with him quite a bit, possibly more than anyone else (at least in this thread. I can think of at least a few people I disagree with significantly more elsewhere, and I don't hate them either), but I do not in any way hate him. Hell, I like him a good bit. 



> I don't think that's quite fair to Aristotle. His logic still holds up (and held up for thousands of years) even if we've moved past it. And that's kinda how most scholarship worksyou write to be proven wrong by those after you.


Really? I phrase it the way I do specifically to be as fair as possible to him. His logic was unimpeachable, and only arrived at the incorrect conclusions he did due to not having an enormous amount of information that others did later on when they proved most of his theories incorrect. That's why I say he was the smartest man (excellent reasoning abilities and theories that lasted hundreds to well over a thousand years) who was wrong about absolutely everything (embellishment for humor but based on enough factuality that most of his theories have been proven otherwise).

He had no giants to stand on* to see as far as others. That doesn't mean his eyesight wasn't amazing.

*you know I don't mean it that way.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Keltest

For my part, the people I argue with the most here are some of my favorite people. I appreciate strongly held ideas even when I disagree, and if I didn't like them otherwise I would just ignore them. I just don't talk to people I actively dislike if I can avoid it.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Oo! New topic. Is (interesting) time travel logically possible? I remember reading an argument that you can never travel back before your time machine was invented. Cuz if you could you'd get a paradox.


Eh. Assuming multidirectional time travel is possible I've heard that this only holds true for certain types of time machines. Basically, can the machine move it's exit, or can it just take you to it's exit at a prior point in time.

I believe it's brought up in such discussions because the most feasible time travel machines involve creating a wormhole and then moving one end at relativistic speeds to get time dilation effects. Once you bring the two ends of the wormhole back together you can enter one to go forwards or backwards in time by a set amount.

The bigger issue with time travel is that it tends to disregard conservation of energy. Plus causality, which is kind of important for the universe to work, it's really just full of problems.


Anyway, some breaking news: Dover Police have recently detained an older gentleman trying to enter the UK without a Visa or valid passport. The man was accompanied by six reindeer and a number of suspicious packages that have been confiscated for further investigation.

When asked for more details on this story a police officer replied 'would anybody like a satsuma?'

----------


## Rater202

While still noticeably overweight, I have gotten to the point where I can trace a finger from my collar to my belly and feel the bones and musculature of my ribs all the way down.

I think I have officially downgraded from "dayum" to "fluffy."

----------


## TaiLiu

> Wild take: yes you can, but the personal consequences might be severe, just like moving in other dimensions might mean moving into the path of a car.


That is a wild take! I actually dunno what it means.




> You're gonna need to tell me more than "it stars a trans woman" cause that describes... a lot, and the name is not enticing.


Yeah, I guess I'm trying too hard not to spoil it. More detailed while keeping it spoiler-free: it's a collection of vignettes about living a life shaped by transmisogyny and whorephobia. (Hence the name.) It's not a comfortable read + it doesn't have a clear narrative but I really like its core.




> Regarding the conversation at hand: if time travel is possible it logistically can likely only be one way. That's probably not AS interesting as it cooould be, but still.


Yeah, I've seen that argument, too. You can travel forward but not back.




> Really? I phrase it the way I do specifically to be as fair as possible to him. His logic was unimpeachable, and only arrived at the incorrect conclusions he did due to not having an enormous amount of information that others did later on when they proved most of his theories incorrect. That's why I say he was the smartest man (excellent reasoning abilities and theories that lasted hundreds to well over a thousand years) who was wrong about absolutely everything (embellishment for humor but based on enough factuality that most of his theories have been proven otherwise).
> 
> He had no giants to stand on* to see as far as others. That doesn't mean his eyesight wasn't amazing.
> 
> *you know I don't mean it that way.


Huh? No, I mean his work on logic, not his work on natural philosophy. Maybe you're right about why he got things wrong, though: logic doesn't rely on data the way science does, so he was able to get things right the first time.

I didn't mention it, but I also think his _Nicomachean Ethics_ gets things roughly right, too.




> Eh. Assuming multidirectional time travel is possible I've heard that this only holds true for certain types of time machines. Basically, can the machine move it's exit, or can it just take you to it's exit at a prior point in time.
> 
> I believe it's brought up in such discussions because the most feasible time travel machines involve creating a wormhole and then moving one end at relativistic speeds to get time dilation effects. Once you bring the two ends of the wormhole back together you can enter one to go forwards or backwards in time by a set amount.
> 
> The bigger issue with time travel is that it tends to disregard conservation of energy. Plus causality, which is kind of important for the universe to work, it's really just full of problems.


I think that's why logically consistent time travel can't let you travel back before the time machine, right? For causal reasons.

----------


## halfeye

With regard to the discussion that went on, I take a third side entirely.

I am a cultural relativist. I believe that justice and ethics depend on the particular culture you are talking about, there can be unjust or unethical laws, but they are only really judgeable from within a particular culture. Or another culture can say that the first is unethical by the second's rules, and that's fair enough, but there is no universal rule that the first is breaking.

Platonic ideals are right out of the window, there is nothing universal and static like that. What is a chair? there's one perfect chair that all others depend on? when does a sofa become a bed? it's clearly in between, the idea of the perfect chair that includes all other chairs is IMO silly. Or horses, is a zebra a horse? what about a camel (I've read that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, that's a joke against committees, but it does bring the camel into consideration)? Horses evolved from something else, if there was ever a perfect horse, it probably died centuries ago, or will be born centuries from now. In a billion years, without human interference, there will be no horses, the idea of a platonic ideal of a horse is also not very clever.

----------


## TaiLiu

> With regard to the discussion that went on, I take a third side entirely.
> 
> I am a cultural relativist. I believe that justice and ethics depend on the particular culture you are talking about, there can be unjust or unethical laws, but they are only really judgeable from within a particular culture. Or another culture can say that the first is unethical by the second's rules, and that's fair enough, but there is no universal rule that the first is breaking.
> 
> Platonic ideals are right out of the window, there is nothing universal and static like that. What is a chair? there's one perfect chair that all others depend on? when does a sofa become a bed? it's clearly in between, the idea of the perfect chair that includes all other chairs is IMO silly. Or horses, is a zebra a horse? what about a camel (I've read that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, that's a joke against committees, but it does bring the camel into consideration)? Horses evolved from something else, if there was ever a perfect horse, it probably died centuries ago, or will be born centuries from now. In a billion years, without human interference, there will be no horses, the idea of a platonic ideal of a horse is also not very clever.


I'm not so sure there are only three sides. I agree with Peelee only on a few things, for example. I'm not a Platonist. And I'm sure that there are disagreements among the others, too.

Do you mind if I ask you why you're a cultural relativist? I think that's a difficult position to uphold cuz you're forced to assent to what I consider to be pretty unsavory ethical positions. Is racism wrong? "Well, it depends on the culture" doesn't seem like the right response to me, and it's why I abandoned (my naïve form of) cultural relativism.

----------


## halfeye

> I'm not so sure there are only three sides. I agree with Peelee only on a few things, for example. I'm not a Platonist. And I'm sure that there are disagreements among the others, too.
> 
> Do you mind if I ask you why you're a cultural relativist? I think that's a difficult position to uphold cuz you're forced to assent to what I consider to be pretty unsavory ethical positions. Is racism wrong? "Well, it depends on the culture" doesn't seem like the right response to me, and it's why I abandoned (my naïve form of) cultural relativism.


I would say that racism is wrong, from the POV of the culture I am part of, so I oppose it. You are never not part of a culture, you may be able to influence it, for most of us only very slightly, but mostly it's a sea we float in.

There are facts, such as the speed of light, and culture doesn't influence those. I think the full strength Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Sapir was a sensible guy, Whorf was not always) is incorrect, Language does not rule reality, and culture doesn't either.

----------


## Rater202

Backtracking a bit.
*Spoiler*
Show




Here we have the Elf on a Shelf.

Note his cold dead eyes. This is the kind of doll that comes to life and murders you in the middle of the night.

And wat I want to know is where the hell did they come from? Like, as far as I know they were just *there* one year like a decade ago with everyone doing it and saying it was a Christmas Tradition.

----------


## Form

> Backtracking a bit.
> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have the Elf on a Shelf.
> 
> ...


I, for one, would like to declare my complete loyalty to the Klaus regime and say I absolutely do not fear the Elf on a Shelf and its noble mission of safeguarding the populace from Christmas dissenters. Ha ha. *tugs collar as a bead of sweat drips down*

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Snow is falling
All-around
Children playing
Having fun
Tis the season
For love and understanding
Merry Christmas
Everyone

----------


## Keltest

> Backtracking a bit.
> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have the Elf on a Shelf.
> 
> ...


I seem to recall a very, very determined effort by the company that made them to normalize that horror when they were new.

I had assumed it hadn't worked, since until now I had never actually heard of anyone who did it unironically.

----------


## Qwertystop

> Backtracking a bit.
> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have the Elf on a Shelf.
> 
> ...


To my understanding, it was originally a children's book in like 2004 that had "a christmas tradition" as its literal subtitle (maybe the author's family's own tradition?) and gradually got picked up by newsies looking for 
soft stories for the season to fill airtime until eventually they got in the Macy's parade and the subtitle made it *seem* like it had a bigger history so people started going in on it.

----------


## Beeftank

I never did elf on a shelf.  Santa has a magic snowball that lets him observe when children have been good or bad, he wouldnt need to have an elf do his spying for him.  Its bogus

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> I never did elf on a shelf.  Santa has a magic snowball that lets him observe when children have been good or bad, he wouldnt need to have an elf do his spying for him.  Its bogus


I mean, he's from Lapland, he can just tap into the EU's surveillance network these days and skip all the magic.

----------


## HalfTangible

Merry Christmas
is chrismas
hapy cribmus
merry chrysler

Haul so far:
-Pentiment on Steam (thank you Zodi)
-Psalm 91 throw blanket
-d20 shaped dice bag with a dice set and a d20 the size of my palm
-Spellbook cards for Xanathar's guide to everything
-underarmor shirt
-green doggy shirt
-Christmas hoody
-Two dragon shirts
-And a disappointed sigh button

----------


## Bartmanhomer

My older brother gives me new boots and clothes on Christmas Eve.  :Smile:

----------


## Rater202

Got Marvel Anatomy: A Scientific Study of The Superhuman.

The book about the biology of various Marvel characters.

It's divided up by the nature of their powers: science-enhanced, tech-enhanced, cosmic powers, aliens, animal-powers, magic-enhanced, a whole chapter on just mutants, and the last chapter covers Atlanteans, as guardians, and Inhumans under the "enhanced species" title.

...not gonna lie though, it's a lot bigger than I thought it would be and looking at the index I have to wonder why they needed to include both Wolverines, Daken, and Scout. They've all got basically the same powers.

Also, the Skrull entry is in the introductory chapter for some reason.

Edit: got my answer: The Book is framed as a dossier that T'Challa had put together in order to help people tell the difference between skrull imposters and the superhumans they're most likely to try and imitate.

----------


## Metastachydium

> For the record, I don't hate Rater at all. I disagree with him quite a bit, possibly more than anyone else (at least in this thread. I can think of at least a few people I disagree with significantly more elsewhere, and I don't hate them either), but I do not in any way hate him.


Nor did I mean to imply you do. Quite on the contrary, in fact.




> Huh? No, I mean his work on logic, not his work on natural philosophy. Maybe you're right about why he got things wrong, though: logic doesn't rely on data the way science does, so he was able to get things right the first time.
> 
> I didn't mention it, but I also think his _Nicomachean Ethics_ gets things roughly right, too.


Agreed regarding Aristotelian logic; the _Nichomachean Ethics_, on the other hand It gets really cringey at times.




> Platonic ideals are right out of the window, there is nothing universal and static like that. What is a chair? there's one perfect chair that all others depend on? when does a sofa become a bed? it's clearly in between, the idea of the perfect chair that includes all other chairs is IMO silly. Or horses, is a zebra a horse? what about a camel (I've read that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, that's a joke against committees, but it does bring the camel into consideration)? Horses evolved from something else, if there was ever a perfect horse, it probably died centuries ago, or will be born centuries from now. In a billion years, without human interference, there will be no horses, the idea of a platonic ideal of a horse is also not very clever.


This is an oversimplification that misses the gist of Platonic ontology/onto-epistemology, if you ask me. There is nothing outlandish about _ideas_. They are hypothetical ontological constants that operate much like _concepts_ do (even allowing for concepts not being neccessarily universal, let alone unchanging over time). The _concept_ of _chair_ is not a physical, tangible chair that is perfect in some way, but rather a generic, abstract set of traits coalescing into, so to say, a mental image that helps us recognize physical (or virtual) instances of chairs and understand verbal references to such instances. 

As for beds and sofas, that is a matter of _prototypicality_ (cf. Rosch). The words _bed_ and _sofa_ are meaningful insofar as they have referents, and semantically distinct insofar as these referents are distinct. Whether one recognizes a physical or virtual piece of furniture (or, heck, e.g. a natural formation) as a _bed_ or a _sofa_ is a function of what mental prototype (itself based on a concept and coloured by cultural/individual knowledge) the particular object (physical or virtual) is compared to. Such prototypes often show surprisingly little variance across large populations.




> There are facts, such as the speed of light, and culture doesn't influence those.


Well, without language, which is usually a function of culture, numbers or units of measurement, which always are, the speed of light (in any given medium) is impossible to express, and could as well not be a constant or even a thing so far as anyone can tell. Direct, unhindered and unmediated access to facts is certainly not a given.




> I never did elf on a shelf.  Santa has a magic snowball that lets him observe when children have been good or bad, he wouldnt need to have an elf do his spying for him.





> I mean, he's from Lapland, he can just tap into the EU's surveillance network these days and skip all the magic.


When I was small and young, I believed (for that's what I was told) that he enlists the aid of little sparrows who flitter around to check on people (and don't provide a constant surveillance; at most, they peek in through the window when they are thereabouts anyhow). I liked little sparrows more, rather than less, due to that association.

----------


## Mystic Muse

I got Zodi this commission too, but it was earlier in the year because I was expecting Twitter to implode and me to lose contact with the artist. 

https://sta.sh/017sxipflmm3

I got 

-$20 gift card to a local gaming store I like
-Basing materials for minis (snow and 'blended turf')
-Sand colored primer
-100 card sleeves
-A playstation 5

----------


## Peelee

> WPlatonic ideals are right out of the window, there is nothing universal and static like that. What is a chair? there's one perfect chair that all others depend on? when does a sofa become a bed? it's clearly in between, the idea of the perfect chair that includes all other chairs is IMO silly.


Platonic realism is perhaps a better way to put it. There is no ideal form of a chair but we can readily identify a chair as a discrete object. A stereotypical chair is a chair. A stool is a chair. A horse is not a chair though it can be sat upon. If a different culture has a style of chair different from a anything you've seen and you come across it you can still readily identify it as a chair. There is no "perfect" chair but you can still readily identify a chair as a chair.

This is similar with justice. There is no "perfect ideal" of justice just as there is no "perfect ideal" of a chair. This does not make justice any less real. 



> Backtracking a bit.
> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have the Elf on a Shelf.
> 
> Note his cold dead eyes. This is the kind of doll that comes to life and murders you in the middle of the night.


Lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a shark's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'. Til it's eyes roll over white and you hear that terrible high-pitched screaming.

----------


## DataNinja

> I got Zodi this commission too, but it was earlier in the year because I was expecting Twitter to implode and me to lose contact with the artist. 
> 
> https://sta.sh/017sxipflmm3


Oh, that's incredibly cute and good.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Oh, that's incredibly cute and good.


It really is! I love the vibe it gives off, the sort of swagger and confidence that may or may not be unearned. The colours are also great!

On the note of commissioned art; *here is one of me I got done!* It's very good!

----------


## Mystic Muse

Also, good news, my friend survived Whamageddon.

----------


## Rater202

> Edit: got my answer: The Book is framed as a dossier that T'Challa had put together in order to help people tell the difference between skrull imposters and the superhumans they're most likely to try and imitate.


So, random trivia: Despite his powers being in part a divine blessing, T'Challa is reluctant to acknowledge divine or infernal sources of power as an explanation for how powers work for _other people_ until he's eliminated every scientific explanation, including speculating that the Asgardians are either humanlike aliens or an ancient offshoot of humanity and that the Ghost Rider's penance stare is mere telepathy

His information about Logan is surprisingly accurate and up to date In comparison, his information about Laura is outdated and inaccurate.

Apparently, the recipe for Spider-Man's web fluid, which has alluded to even the likes of Reed Richards, is incredibly straightforward once you actually know it.

----------


## TaiLiu

> I would say that racism is wrong, from the POV of the culture I am part of, so I oppose it. You are never not part of a culture, you may be able to influence it, for most of us only very slightly, but mostly it's a sea we float in.
> 
> There are facts, such as the speed of light, and culture doesn't influence those. I think the full strength Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Sapir was a sensible guy, Whorf was not always) is incorrect, Language does not rule reality, and culture doesn't either.


See, that doesn't seem right to me. If someone's from a culture where racism is encouraged and considered correct, that makes racism right for them. And what about intra-culture disagreement? What about contrasting viewpoints from the different cultures that you're a part of? It seems like you need answers for all these things.




> \Agreed regarding Aristotelian logic; the _Nichomachean Ethics_, on the other hand It gets really cringey at times.


What's wrong with the _Ethics_? It's been a while, so maybe I've forgotten the cringey parts.

----------


## enderlord99

*Spoiler: My positions on some stuff, as an existentialist*
Show




> See, that doesn't seem right to me. If someone's from a culture where racism is encouraged and considered correct, that makes racism right for them.


Yes.  If someone's cultural perspective considers racism correct, then racism is correct according to that cultural perspective.

From my perspective, and many others (presumably, most of all those towards which the racism is directed) that means their perspective is wrong.



> And what about intra-culture disagreement?


For the definition of "culture" that is implicit in this discussion, all inter-cultural disagreement is still intra-*sub*cultural disagreement.


> What about contrasting viewpoints from the different cultures that you're a part of?


It's up to the individual to pick (or even not pick) a stance.


> It seems like you need answers for all these things.


Needing is one thing...

----------


## 2D8HP

> Adults also frequently underestimate both the actual and emotional intelligence of children. 
> []



Based on my memories of childhood and my life experience as a parent Id say the exact opposite is more common; children are too oftenmade to endure what they should be spared until theyre much more mature; Ill flat out say it: we in Generation-X were made to act like adults far too early, subsequent generations were raised better.




> Is it? Setting aside everything else, honesty is generally considered good.
> []



Eh, especially after reading the book _Useful Delusions: The Power & Paradox of the Self-Deceiving Brain_, Im more inclined to regard honesty as cruel.




> []it's one of the points, there are others, like how children aren't as innocent or naive as adults tend to perceive them[]



I disagree vehemently, children should be shielded from reality *far* longer then they often are, the impulse to drag them into adulthood early is cruel.




> I []Give a cat enough brainpower and it almost certainly will determine right from wrong and have a justice system with ethics []



The idea of an even more intelligent cat is frightening to me!




> Snow is falling
> All-around
> Children playing
> Having fun
> Tis the season
> For love and understanding
> Merry Christmas
> Everyone



Thank you, and to you as well!

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Children are very perceptive, even if they don't always have the life experience to properly contextualise it. It's one of the reasons it's probably better for your kids that you and your wife split up.

That said, shielding kids from adulthood and dragging them into it kicking and screaming aren't the right answers. I'm not a personal believer in a comforting lie being better than an uncomfortable truth, because not knowing the uncomfortable truth can be actively dangerous. But that doesn't mean we should thrust the world upon children before they are ready. Nurture them, be there when they're ready so that they'll get bruised by the world instead of stabbed, and so on and so forth.

----------


## Metastachydium

> What's wrong with the _Ethics_? It's been a while, so maybe I've forgotten the cringey parts.


Well, I kind of want to forget the bit where he describes institutionalized forms of pederasty as an asymmetrical variant of friendship where one party pays with pleasure for the benefits the other offers, for instance, but it's there.




> The idea of an even more intelligent cat is frightening to me!


Well, they aren't all that clever, except perhaps in terms of EQ, but yeah, I'd have things stay that way.

----------


## Peelee

> Also, good news, my friend survived Whamageddon.


If this couple with a creepy age difference has their say (they won't), then your friend will survive all WHAMageddons forever. And that started me down a rabbit hole of "the more I find out about George Michael the more I like the guy".

Also, apropos of nothing, but I de-amped your link in the quote block. :Small Wink:

----------


## TaiLiu

> *Spoiler: My positions on some stuff, as an existentialist*
> Show
> 
> Yes.  If someone's cultural perspective considers racism correct, then racism is correct according to that cultural perspective.
> 
> From my perspective, and many others (presumably, most of all those towards which the racism is directed) that means their perspective is wrong.
> For the definition of "culture" that is implicit in this discussion, all inter-cultural disagreement is still intra-*sub*cultural disagreement.It's up to the individual to pick (or even not pick) a stance.Needing is one thing...


*Spoiler*
Show


Well, yes, of course. Trivially so. By definition. I agree. That's just a description of moral differences between different cultures, which is cool and interesting but isn't what I'm disagreeing with. What I disagree with is the idea that moral facts are bound to particular cultures. I think "racism is wrong" is true regardless of culture.

But it seems like... you do, too? So it's unclear to me exactly what's relative about your position.  :Small Tongue:  It seems like your position either dissolves into moral realism or moral nihilism: either you think "racism is wrong" is a universal that can be applied everywhere (as you're doing) or you think that there are no moral facts (and "racism is wrong" is just an opinion).

As an aside, I'm not quite sure what your response has to do with existentialism.






> Well, I kind of want to forget the bit where he describes institutionalized forms of pederasty as an asymmetrical variant of friendship where one party pays with pleasure for the benefits the other offers, for instance, but it's there.


Do you remember where you read that? I opened my copy of the _Ethics_ (Sachs, 2002) and couldn't find anything about that. This was the closest thing. Between 1148b and 1149a, emphasis mine:

These are animal-like conditions, but others come from diseases (and in some people from insanity, as with the person who sacrificed and ate his mother, or the one who ate the liver of his fellow slave), and still others resemble diseases or come from habits, such a plucking out one's hair or gnawing on one's nails, or even on charcoal or dirt, _or sex acts between males_, for these result in some cases from nature, but in others from habit, as with people who have been abused since childhood.
I found this webpage that cites a 1908 translation that uses the term "pederasty," but the webpage also says that "the use of a general term such as 'pederasty' in translation here is downright misleading." But that may not be what you're referring to.

----------


## halfeye

> I'm not so sure there are only three sides.


Sure, I didn't mean there are only three, just that there are more than two.




> Platonic realism is perhaps a better way to put it. There is no ideal form of a chair but we can readily identify a chair as a discrete object. A stereotypical chair is a chair. A stool is a chair. A horse is not a chair though it can be sat upon. If a different culture has a style of chair different from a anything you've seen and you come across it you can still readily identify it as a chair. There is no "perfect" chair but you can still readily identify a chair as a chair.


I think what I want to say is that there's not a hard line between "is a chair" and "is not a chair", it's not like a Venn diagram, the edge sort of fades away and goes out of focus. It's not that the boundary is a fractal, it's that there isn't an edge as such, there's just a region away from the middle where it goes out of focus and fuzzy, but if you focus on that region then the centre goes out of focus, and if you switch back to the centre then the edges go back out of focus. I think that's sort of it.




> See, that doesn't seem right to me. If someone's from a culture where racism is encouraged and considered correct, that makes racism right for them. And what about intra-culture disagreement? What about contrasting viewpoints from the different cultures that you're a part of? It seems like you need answers for all these things.


There have been cultures where odious things have been culturally accepted, yes that makes those things right within that culture, but only within that or similar cultures. People can theoretically be extracted from the culture they were originally in, it will be rough and might not work. Cultures have fought wars to many deaths over such things. Sometimes wars have been fought for multiple or even trivial reasons. If a person is in multiple cultures I presume they would be in a quandry if those cultures disagreed about things.

Whether there is a universal standard of "good" or "just" is a debate that tends to bring up multiple topics that are forbidden on these forums.

----------


## Fyraltari

So, halfeye, do you think there is anything with the culture you belong to that should change?

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Well Christmas has come and gone and nobody has been willing to support this girl's addiction to 500+ page RPG tomes. Okay, for some of them it's an issue of money, and my partners would have but they got me a Swiitch about a month ago.

Oh yeah, anybody got some Swiitch game recommendations? I've already got:
PokémonShin Megami Tensei VShin Megami Tensei III: NocturneDiablo 3Saint's Row the ThirdSaint's Row: French President EditionLimboInsideDevil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening: Special Edition: HD: Style Switch EditionThe Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

So yeah, anything good, especially RPG-ish, is recommend. I'm keeping an eye on Dragon Quest XI, but I'm not sure what else is worthwhile. Especially if it's worth picking up Legend of Zelda: Breakage of the Weapon*, there's one mechanic there I'm not really a fan of.

* I've been told to not complain because 'it's better than flogging your old sword at every town', but that was never a thing in prior games.

----------


## BisectedBrioche

> Well Christmas has come and gone and nobody has been willing to support this girl's addiction to 500+ page RPG tomes. Okay, for some of them it's an issue of money, and my partners would have but they got me a Swiitch about a month ago.
> 
> Oh yeah, anybody got some Swiitch game recommendations? I've already got:
> PokémonShin Megami Tensei VShin Megami Tensei III: NocturneDiablo 3Saint's Row the ThirdSaint's Row: French President EditionLimboInsideDevil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening: Special Edition: HD: Style Switch EditionThe Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
> 
> So yeah, anything good, especially RPG-ish, is recommend. I'm keeping an eye on Dragon Quest XI, but I'm not sure what else is worthwhile. Especially if it's worth picking up Legend of Zelda: Breakage of the Weapon*, there's one mechanic there I'm not really a fan of.
> 
> * I've been told to not complain because 'it's better than flogging your old sword at every town', but that was never a thing in prior games.


I can recommend Pikmin 3 and Link to the Past remake (especially the latter if you like Zelda but not weapon durability mechanics).

----------


## Peelee

> I can recommend Pikmin 3 and Link to the Past remake (especially the latter if you like Zelda but not weapon durability mechanics).


Link to the Past is one of the best Zeldas ever but I can't find much googling a switch remake save for a YouTube video and speculation from at least a year ago. Can you give more info?

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> I can recommend Pikmin 3 and Link to the Past remake (especially the latter if you like Zelda but not weapon durability mechanics).


I played the ALttP remake on 3DS, and I'm giving the remake of Link's Awakening another year because I've played the original relatively recently.

I do wish there was a version of Wind Waker or Twilight Princess for the Swiitch, but guess I'll have to see if I can snag a GameCube or WiiU.

----------


## LaZodiac

Brioche you mean the Link's Awakening remake, which is very quite good.

Anyway now that the holiday season is, mostly, concluded, it's time to throw out my loot list, as is the tradition~

Lovely picture of Verde (w/ knife), from Robin
Mega! Zodi picture commission, from Celeste
Outer Wilds, Vampire Survivors (plus DLC) from M
Gnosia, from Deme
FF12 Zodiac Age, from HT
Tunic, from Jeff
The Case of the Golden Idol, from Dyo
Darksiders 2, Xenon Valkryie, A Year of Springs from Coidzor

From family;
Red cardigan, cookies-n-creme cardigan
Like five or six leggings of various primary colours
Really nice dark blue skirt
Black dress belt
HG Quebeley gunpla kit
Really lovely purple purse
REALLY FANCY rose-gold necklace of my name and birth flower
Sonic Frontiers
Nope
Everything Everywhere All At Once
$50 Dollar Walmart Gift Card
$50 Dollar Subway Gift Card
$100 Dollar Reitmans Gift Card

Unwanted gift received anyway: stomach flu so epically devastating that when the cramps kick in I cannot physically move without pain, and also cannot NOT move without pain.

----------


## Lord Raziere

So far all I got for christmas was a bunch of smooth milk chocolate truffles. very delicious. but I'm gonna get some books I want soon. 

I watched Dragon Age Absolution on Christmas. not the best show, but I liked it. Its what I expect from Dragon Age.

also listened to Epithet Erased: Prison of Plastic the day after and that was a very good story.

----------


## Form

My parents have been going through some old stuff, some of which used to belong to me as a kid, to clear out their house a bit. One of these items is a cat plush. Naturally, this one I took this one back with me after visiting them for Christmas, so I've got an extra plushie on my shelves now. I think I'll call her Mittsie.

Plushies are nice. :3

----------


## BisectedBrioche

> Link to the Past is one of the best Zeldas ever but I can't find much googling a switch remake save for a YouTube video and speculation from at least a year ago. Can you give more info?





> I played the ALttP remake on 3DS, and I'm giving the remake of Link's Awakening another year because I've played the original relatively recently.
> 
> I do wish there was a version of Wind Waker or Twilight Princess for the Swiitch, but guess I'll have to see if I can snag a GameCube or WiiU.


Brain Fart. I meant Link's Awakening. -.-

A Link Between Worlds is fantastic if you have a 3DS, though.

I mean, it's worth playing a few of the SNES classics if you feel like getting online anyway (I've heard good things about Splatoon 3, but I haven't played it myself so I can't give a direct rec).

----------


## LaZodiac

> Brain Fart. I meant Link's Awakening. -.-
> 
> A Link Between Worlds is fantastic if you have a 3DS, though.
> 
> I mean, it's worth playing a few of the SNES classics if you feel like getting online anyway (I've heard good things about Splatoon 3, but I haven't played it myself so I can't give a direct rec).


Strong agreement on all of these; and would personally recommend Splatoon 3. I've played it myself, and it's VERY good both in terms of multiplayer AND single player content.

======

As a (somewhat late) Christmas gift to all y'all; *Chapter 10* of Mist and Fire! Saila delves further into the situation she's in, and discovers... something pretty nasty.

*You can read it right here*! Also content warning body horror.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Do you remember where you read that? I opened my copy of the _Ethics_


No-no, the way I remember it, there's nothing as direct as that involved; the issue was presented as euphemistically as ever in such works. It must have been in book 8 or 9, but on a quick perusal of Rackham's 1934 version, I can't seem to find the passage, although the components (the tripartite distinction between friendships of utility, pleasure and virtue; heterogeneous forms where the parties involved have differing motivations; age as an aspect) are all there. Maybe my memory's not like it used to be (it's been, like, four years or so since I last read the thing).

----------


## Rater202

Grilled mozzarella on seeded Italian, fried in canola spray.

Had to cut the mozz a off a brick sp there was a bit of spillage, but it mostly just resulted in a cheese cookie so not too bad.

Rather milder than a typical grilled cheese, but worked well with the Italian bread and was plenty gooey in a way that held its consistency.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Grilled mozzarella on seeded Italian, fried in canola spray.
> 
> Had to cut the mozz a off a brick sp there was a bit of spillage, but it mostly just resulted in a cheese cookie so not too bad.
> 
> Rather milder than a typical grilled cheese, but worked well with the Italian bread and was plenty gooey in a way that held its consistency.


God, that sounds exceptional.

----------


## DavidSh

> Well Christmas has come and gone and nobody has been willing to support this girl's addiction to 500+ page RPG tomes. Okay, for some of them it's an issue of money, and my partners would have but they got me a Swiitch about a month ago.
> 
> Oh yeah, anybody got some Swiitch game recommendations?
> ...
> 
> So yeah, anything good, especially RPG-ish, is recommend. I'm keeping an eye on Dragon Quest XI, but I'm not sure what else is worthwhile. Especially if it's worth picking up Legend of Zelda: Breakage of the Weapon*, there's one mechanic there I'm not really a fan of.


I see that _Gust_'s Atelier series games are now coming out on the Switch.  I've played a lot of the earlier games (not the ones only released in Japanese), and I found them enjoyable.  Very, _very_, *very* heavy on item crafting.  There's combat too, but it helps to have crafted a weapon of mass destruction or two at the later stages.  I haven't played many of the games that have been released on the Switch, though, so maybe they have wandered into strange directions now.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Sure, I didn't mean there are only three, just that there are more than two.
> 
> There have been cultures where odious things have been culturally accepted, yes that makes those things right within that culture, but only within that or similar cultures. People can theoretically be extracted from the culture they were originally in, it will be rough and might not work. Cultures have fought wars to many deaths over such things. Sometimes wars have been fought for multiple or even trivial reasons. If a person is in multiple cultures I presume they would be in a quandry if those cultures disagreed about things.
> 
> Whether there is a universal standard of "good" or "just" is a debate that tends to bring up multiple topics that are forbidden on these forums.


Oh, I see.

That's a self-consistent account of moral relativism. To me, that's a _reductio ad absurdum_, and I would conclude that moral relativism can't be true. But I guess we all have different accounts of what is and isn't absurd.  :Small Smile: 




> So, halfeye, do you think there is anything with the culture you belong to that should change?


Yeah, that's a good question. You'd need to account for intra-cultural change, too.




> No-no, the way I remember it, there's nothing as direct as that involved; the issue was presented as euphemistically as ever in such works. It must have been in book 8 or 9, but on a quick perusal of Rackham's 1934 version, I can't seem to find the passage, although the components (the tripartite distinction between friendships of utility, pleasure and virtue; heterogeneous forms where the parties involved have differing motivations; age as an aspect) are all there. Maybe my memory's not like it used to be (it's been, like, four years or so since I last read the thing).


Oh, I see. I trolled through the sections on friendships between unequals, too, but couldn't find anything. All I got was that the superior friend should get most of the love... which I guess could be an incredibly obscure way of referring to pederasty. But I don't think so.

I read my copy over half a decade ago, so you've read it more recently than me. Maybe there's a translation difference that accounts for our different reads?

----------


## Fyraltari

> Yeah, that's a good question. You'd need to account for intra-cultural change, too.


Well, it's more that being a cultural relativist makes criticism of one's own culture impossible. If culture defines what is right and what is wrong, then everything of that culture is right. No one who ever or will ever act or advocate for cultural changes in any direction can be a cultural relativist.

As a cultural relativist, you can't fight for a better tomorrow *or* long for the good old days since the present culture is what's right. By your own belief system nothing can be wrong with the current situation.

And I have a hard time believing anyone thinks like that.

----------


## Aedilred

> Well, it's more that being a cultural relativist makes criticism of one's own culture impossible. If culture defines what is right and what is wrong, then everything of that culture is right. No one who ever or will ever act or advocate for cultural changes in any direction can be a cultural relativist.
> 
> As a cultural relativist, you can't fight for a better tomorrow *or* long for the good old days since the present culture is what's right. By your own belief system nothing can be wrong with the current situation.


Well, if you take relativism as being absolutist in its approach to itself, sure.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Well, if you take relativism as being absolutist in its approach to itself, sure.


Maybe, but even if not, on what basis may a cultural relativist criticize their own culture?

----------


## Qwertystop

> Maybe, but even if not, on what basis may a cultural relativist criticize their own culture?


Culture is not a thing that exists independent of the people who are members of that culture; two people can agree that they are part of the same culture, yet disagree on the details or relative importance of particular aspects of it. Thus, each may feel themselves to be an exemplar if their shared culture, and the other to be in need of improvement - or even feel that their culture is actualized poorly in the majority of the population which claims membership in it.

----------


## enderlord99

Existentialism is the belief that morality only exists within a framework, that people are capable of choosing their own framework, and that the extent to which a given framework is "correct" can only be judged by way of another such framework (or, trivially, itself)

Cultural relativism, as I understand it, is just existentialism applied to groups instead of (or as well as) individuals.

----------


## theangelJean

> Strong agreement on all of these; and would personally recommend Splatoon 3. I've played it myself, and it's VERY good both in terms of multiplayer AND single player content.
> 
> ======
> 
> As a (somewhat late) Christmas gift to all y'all; *Chapter 10* of Mist and Fire! Saila delves further into the situation she's in, and discovers... something pretty nasty.
> 
> *You can read it right here*! Also content warning body horror.


Yay more Mist and Fire! And good timing too - I'm back in hospital with heart failure and maybe pneumonia. Pain relief didn't fix everything, apparently.

Very strange to have heart failure as a fit 40yo. Last time I walked into the hospital, bit breathless, thinking maybe I have a pneumonia, I get told I have a heart condition. This time I got my husband to call the ambulance, I felt like I was drowning. Then they tell me I have a fever, so I'm worried they're going to diagnose me with bronchitis or something. At least I wasn't wrong about the water on my lungs.

Mist and Fire continues to be awesome. The mystery is building nicely. If

*Spoiler*
Show

 Ophelia turns out to be the Man with a smile in his eyes aka Noble's brother
 though, then there's going to need to be some more 'splaining from Noble as to how he didn't recognise the power set.

----------


## halfeye

> Well, it's more that being a cultural relativist makes criticism of one's own culture impossible. If culture defines what is right and what is wrong, then everything of that culture is right. No one who ever or will ever act or advocate for cultural changes in any direction can be a cultural relativist.
> 
> As a cultural relativist, you can't fight for a better tomorrow *or* long for the good old days since the present culture is what's right. By your own belief system nothing can be wrong with the current situation.
> 
> And I have a hard time believing anyone thinks like that.


This is me after a day's thought, not some position I've read somewhere: A culture is a system of beliefs (or is that controversial?) therefore, by Godel's Theorem it is internally inconsistent, so a member of it can criticise one aspect of it from the direction of another aspect. There can be subcultures that differ too. I am not saying cultures are monolithic, that seems very implausible to me.

Racism is mistaken rather than wrong, there are no monolithic races, never have been and it will take a longer period of isolation than is likely on the Earth before there will be.

----------


## BisectedBrioche

> Existentialism is the belief that morality only exists within a framework, that people are capable of choosing their own framework, and that the extent to which a given framework is "correct" can only be judged by way of another such framework (or, trivially, itself)
> 
> Cultural relativism, as I understand it, is just existentialism applied to groups instead of (or as well as) individuals.


Existentialism is the belief that the universe is cold, and lacks any inherent value or meaning, but meaning can be created by free will, and that has value and meaning. It holds that you're responsible for your own actions, which would actually put it at odds with cultural relativism (which ultimately boils down to the idea that believing you're doing the right thing trumps any other consideration).

That said, they're different tools from different fields; existentialism is a philosophy, and cultural relativism is more of a heuristic from anthropology. The now obvious point of "people live in cultures other than your own, and might value different things (and that's OK)" (which has certainly been wisdom for millennia, but was codified into academia in the 20th century). Trying to compare them's a little like trying to argue how a spanner fits into software programming.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Yay more Mist and Fire! And good timing too - I'm back in hospital with heart failure and maybe pneumonia. Pain relief didn't fix everything, apparently.
> 
> Very strange to have heart failure as a fit 40yo. Last time I walked into the hospital, bit breathless, thinking maybe I have a pneumonia, I get told I have a heart condition. This time I got my husband to call the ambulance, I felt like I was drowning. Then they tell me I have a fever, so I'm worried they're going to diagnose me with bronchitis or something. At least I wasn't wrong about the water on my lungs.
> 
> Mist and Fire continues to be awesome. The mystery is building nicely. If
> 
> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> ...


Oh no! I hope you feel better soon Jean! Sending energy your way to get through this. It sucks to be put through something like this, but at least it was caught early, it seems?

As for Mist and Fire: I'm glad you're liking it! *Spoiler*
Show

And wow, that's a fascinating theory that I had not considered anyone coming up with!

----------


## TaiLiu

> Yay more Mist and Fire! And good timing too - I'm back in hospital with heart failure and maybe pneumonia. Pain relief didn't fix everything, apparently.


That sucks. I'm sorry. Hope you're able to get the care that you need.




> Well, it's more that being a cultural relativist makes criticism of one's own culture impossible. If culture defines what is right and what is wrong, then everything of that culture is right. No one who ever or will ever act or advocate for cultural changes in any direction can be a cultural relativist.
> 
> As a cultural relativist, you can't fight for a better tomorrow *or* long for the good old days since the present culture is what's right. By your own belief system nothing can be wrong with the current situation.
> 
> And I have a hard time believing anyone thinks like that.


Oh, I see.




> Existentialism is the belief that morality only exists within a framework, that people are capable of choosing their own framework, and that the extent to which a given framework is "correct" can only be judged by way of another such framework (or, trivially, itself)
> 
> Cultural relativism, as I understand it, is just existentialism applied to groups instead of (or as well as) individuals.


Oh, I see. That's not a variant of existentialism that I was familiar with before.




> This is me after a day's thought, not some position I've read somewhere: A culture is a system of beliefs (or is that controversial?) therefore, by Godel's Theorem it is internally inconsistent, so a member of it can criticise one aspect of it from the direction of another aspect. There can be subcultures that differ too. I am not saying cultures are monolithic, that seems very implausible to me.
> 
> Racism is mistaken rather than wrong, there are no monolithic races, never have been and it will take a longer period of isolation than is likely on the Earth before there will be.


Politely: I'm not sure Gödel's incompleteness theorems (or maybe you're referring to his completeness theorem instead) has anything to do with beliefs. I don't understand this argument.




> Existentialism is the belief that the universe is cold, and lacks any inherent value or meaning, but meaning can be created by free will, and that has value and meaning. It holds that you're responsible for your own actions, which would actually put it at odds with cultural relativism (which ultimately boils down to the idea that believing you're doing).
> 
> That said, they're different tools from different fields; existentialism is a philosophy, and cultural relativism is more of a heuristic from anthropology. The now obvious point of "people live in cultures other than your own, and might value different things (and that's OK)" (which has certainly been wisdom for millennia, but was codified into academia in the 20th century). Trying to compare them's a little like trying to argue how a spanner fits into software programming.


Yeah, something like this is a more familiar account of existentialism.

No, (cultural) moral relativism is a philosophical position, and there are professional philosophers who defend it. Moral realism is the more popular position, though. And existentialist writers did in fact tackle ethics, like de Beauvoir's _The Ethics of Ambiguity_, though I'm not especially familiar with that work.

----------


## Rater202

I've noticed that broken or pulled-out teeth have been a recurring theme in my dreams lately.

----------


## Peelee

> I've noticed that broken or pulled-out teeth have been a recurring theme in my dreams lately.


Well that's terrifying.

----------


## Rater202

> Well that's terrifying.


Most recently I was wandering around Bikini Bottom in the middle of the night, my tooth suddenly shattered, but it didn't break clean so I had to reach in and pull it out with my fingers.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I've noticed that broken or pulled-out teeth have been a recurring theme in my dreams lately.


Oh jeez! That's uh, definitely grounds for distressing. I hope you have more pleasant dreams soon.

----------


## Peelee

> Most recently I was wandering around Bikini Bottom in the middle of the night, my tooth suddenly shattered, but it didn't break clean so I had to reach in and pull it out with my fingers.


I would like to unsubscribe from Dreamfacts.

For reals, though, I hope those go away soon.

----------


## Rater202

The weird thing is is that it's more annoying than terrifying.

No blood or no pain, it's just "okay, now what the **** am I gonna do?" And then I wake up and it's like "okay... That was a thing."

----------


## Peelee

So apparently Bill Cosby plans to do a comedy tour. And, for a brief but beautiful moment, all hecklers everywhere have the chance to actually be heroic in their command of the disrupting arts.

----------


## Fyraltari

> So apparently Bill Cosby plans to do a comedy tour. And, for a brief but beautiful moment, all hecklers everywhere have the chance to actually be heroic in their command of the disrupting arts.


Isn't that guy a convicted rapist? Is anyone willing to host him?

----------


## theangelJean

> I've noticed that broken or pulled-out teeth have been a recurring theme in my dreams lately.





> Most recently I was wandering around Bikini Bottom in the middle of the night, my tooth suddenly shattered, but it didn't break clean so I had to reach in and pull it out with my fingers.


You get those too? It's weird the kinds of things that we get in anxiety dreams. Although the fact that my dental hygiene isn't the best probably also plays a role in mine. 

My weirdest is probably the "sewing needles hiding all through the carpet, time to put them back in the box, oh look they're everywhere" one, wonder how common that is. 




> So apparently Bill Cosby plans to do a comedy tour. And, for a brief but beautiful moment, all hecklers everywhere have the chance to actually be heroic in their command of the disrupting arts.


Problem is, you'd have to buy a ticket to be a heckler, wouldn't you? That's the whole point of a "tour" from the point of view of the "talent".

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> So apparently Bill Cosby plans to do a comedy tour. And, for a brief but beautiful moment, all hecklers everywhere have the chance to actually be heroic in their command of the disrupting arts.


He's a comic?

It might say more about my relative yoof or being an ocean away, but I only know of him as an official sexual scumbag. So the only reason I'd want to buy a ticket would be if it came with unlimited custard pies.

Really it would be easier to wait until he's doing an open air gig, get a small plane, and empty a tank of ambrosia as you fly overhead

----------


## Peelee

> Isn't that guy a convicted rapist? Is anyone willing to host him?


Yes, but the conviction was overturned. Legally he's more or less free, court of public opinion on him has severely soured though. And yes, it may not even get off the ground. But it may.



> Problem is, you'd have to buy a ticket to be a heckler, wouldn't you? That's the whole point of a "tour" from the point of view of the "talent".


You would, barring sneaking in, but performers like attention or they wouldn't be performers. Sure, they like money too, but most of them won't take a bag of cash just to be dumped on all night.



> He's a comic?


A very famous and talented one, too. The Cosby Show was groundbreaking for showcasing a successful black family as a normal thing - Cliff Huxtable was a doctor, and Clair Huxtable was a lawyer. For a pretty large part of recent history Bill Cosby was called "America's Dad". So, ya know, the bigger they are the harder they fall.

The show holds up pretty well even though the actor is evil.

----------


## LaZodiac

> He's a comic?
> 
> It might say more about my relative yoof or being an ocean away, but I only know of him as an official sexual scumbag. So the only reason I'd want to buy a ticket would be if it came with unlimited custard pies.
> 
> Really it would be easier to wait until he's doing an open air gig, get a small plane, and empty a tank of ambrosia as you fly overhead


It's kind of like the same situation with Robin Williams, where it's like... they are (or were) so prolific in what they became famous for that you forget they had a career before that. Also, while I won't get to deep into the spicy details, the reason his conviction was thrown out was on such a stupid technicality (and truthfully infuriating) that it is firmly a case of "by all rights you are a convicted felon, you just wormed out of it like the scum you are".

======

Anyway hey! One benefit of being sick, more time to write. So here's Chapter 11 of Mist and Fire! Saila and Noble have reunited, and it looks like they can put their troubles behind them....

*You can read it all here!* Content warning: Body horror.

----------


## Peelee

I wouldn't call blatant violation of due process rights "a stupid technicality". Dude was promised nonprosecution in exchange for testifying in civil court almost twenty years ago. I'd call that a bad deal by a bad prosecutor that shouldn't have been made and ultimately allowed a rapist to delay prosecution by well over a decade and then later not serve his full sentence. It's certainly infuriating. But I certainly wouldn't call one of the bedrocks of modern jurisprudence "a stupid technicality".

----------


## Keltest

> I wouldn't call blatant violation of due process rights "a stupid technicality". Dude was promised nonprosecution in exchange for testifying in civil court almost twenty years ago. I'd call that a bad deal by a bad prosecutor that shouldn't have been made and ultimately allowed a rapist to delay prosecution by well over a decade and then later not serve his full sentence. It's certainly infuriating. But I certainly wouldn't call one of the bedrocks of modern jurisprudence "a stupid technicality".


Hear hear. As much as I will be one of the first people in line to crack a joke about lawyers, I will absolutely die on the hill that the loudest voice in our justice system should be the one asking "are you sure?"

----------


## Peelee

> Hear hear. As much as I will be one of the first people in line to crack a joke about lawyers, I will absolutely die on the hill that the loudest voice in our justice system should be the one asking "are you sure?"


I stopped reading Three Felonies A Day for the moment because I think it's not presenting its case very well at all (and the poor intersection of the author bringing up Richard Scrushy and me being from Birmignham), but in the foreward it had an excellent line - the most fervent scrutiny and defense of justice should be for the guilty, because once that goes away, then a state would be able to enact laws making people guilty of whatever they want with virtual impunity. Better phrased, but still.

----------


## Rater202

So I'm watching Zodi's latest Paper Mario stream and the thought occurs to me...

How many times has Mario been accused of a major crime and then assumed to be guilty based on flimsy evidence that borders on non-existant despite the fact that he quite blatantly just got there?

----------


## LaZodiac

> Hear hear. As much as I will be one of the first people in line to crack a joke about lawyers, I will absolutely die on the hill that the loudest voice in our justice system should be the one asking "are you sure?"


Maybe there's just some legal precedent I'm not aware of, but one lawyer saying "oh we won't prosecute you for this one if you testify" and another lawyer, a handful of years later, prosecuting you for the thing that first lawyer said he wouldn't do himself... does not make sense to me. The law doesn't function on a lawyer saying "don't worry you can't be charged for this crime, no take-backsies", especially when the court did find him guilty, and found him to still be a threat to others.

By all means, do elaborate on what the actual legality of this is, because I find this utterly bull****. No one would ever be in jail if you could just pull this stunt, and the rarity of it happening suggests some degree of special lenience that wouldn't be extended if he wasn't super famous.




> So I'm watching Zodi's latest Paper Mario stream and the thought occurs to me...
> 
> How many times has Mario been accused of a major crime and then assumed to be guilty based on flimsy evidence that borders on non-existant despite the fact that he quite blatantly just got there?


Shockingly both more and less than one would expect! The only ones I can think of off the top of my head is Paper Mario, Sunshine, and Superstar Saga (if I recall people believed he may have crossed the border illegally).

----------


## Peelee

> The law doesn't function on a lawyer saying "don't worry you can't be charged for this crime, no take-backsies"


It does function that way. You have literally just broad-stroke described how prosecutorial immunity works. I find it strange that you do not know this with your background in working for legal offices. 



> By all means, do elaborate on what the actual legality of this is, because I find this utterly bull****. No one would ever be in jail if you could just pull this stunt, and the rarity of it happening suggests some degree of special lenience that wouldn't be extended if he wasn't super famous.


The legality is based on pretty basic contract law, not dissimilar to plea bargains as an example. And, not dissimilar to plea bargains, either side could violate the contract, with repercussions. If, say, a defendent violates a contract, then anything the defendent said or did that they would otherwise not have can usually be used against them. If the state violates the contract, then in addition to their credibility going down (and more people less likely willing to enter into agreements with them, as such agreements can not be trusted to be enforced), but also anything that the other party said or did that they would otherwise not have (eg waiving their rights against self-incrimination) would become incredibly problematic, especially if such things weren't to be used against the aforementioned party but against someone else.

Or, more simply, the state promising someone they won't be in trouble if they help the state then saying "psych!" and putting them in trouble anyway is generally seen as a **** move and the judicial system typically frowns on it. Cosby getting his conviction overturned is the judicial system frowning on it.

Again, bad prosecutor made a bad deal. It happens. It sucks, and this isn't even the most egregious case where it sucks, but it happens and Cosby's conviction being vacated is the justice system playing out like its supposed to. The state agreed to not prosecute him for that state crime. The state screwed up. If it's also a federal crime then the feds can still prosecute him regardless, but that's a whole 'nother thing.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Derek Bentley was also, technically, the law working as it was supposed to. That doesn't meant it didn't reach an idiotic conclusion that should never have happened.

At the same time we can't go 'that shouldn't have been legal, it can't stand', even if we could change the law to stop such things from happening. My opinions on a lot of the legal system and related ideas are not board appropriate in the slightest, but at the end of the day you can't patch a system to make it never give a stupid result, and I hope that people do what the law could not and force him to perform to eternally empty venues.

----------


## Peelee

> Derek Bentley was also, technically, the law working as it was supposed to. That doesn't meant it didn't reach an idiotic conclusion that should never have happened.
> 
> At the same time we can't go 'that shouldn't have been legal, it can't stand', even if we could change the law to stop such things from happening. My opinions on a lot of the legal system and related ideas are not board appropriate in the slightest, but at the end of the day you can't patch a system to make it never give a stupid result, and I hope that people do what the law could not and force him to perform to eternally empty venues.


Given that Bentley's conviction was overturned, I would argue that the Brits agree it was not, in fact, the law working as it was supposed to. Regardless, though, that stands an an excellent case for why I think legal systems should err on the side of caution and have high bars to convicting and maintaining convictions. With that system sometimes the guilty will slip through. Better than the alternative.

Assuming, of course, a completely perfect system is not a viable third alternative.

----------


## Rater202

Great Example of the law being funky: I think that there's a gaping flaw in the concept of double jeopardy, the legal concept where you can't be tried more than once for the same discrete act of crime.

That being that it's entirely possible that someone could be acquitted but then further evidence that proves that the did in fact commit the crime turns up later. In such a case there can be no justice or closure by legal means.

I cannot think of a single way to amend the law to account for that that wouldn't _immediately_ be used and abused by every corrupt cop, judge, or prosecutor and a good number of well-meaning but ignorant ones to completely undermine the purposes by which double jeopardy was created in the first place.

----------


## Keltest

> Given that Bentley's conviction was overturned, I would argue that the Brits agree it was not, in fact, the law working as it was supposed to. Regardless, though, that stands an an excellent case for why I think legal systems should err on the side of caution and have high bars to convicting and maintaining convictions. With that system sometimes the guilty will slip through. Better than the alternative.
> 
> Assuming, of course, a completely perfect system is not a viable third alternative.


As a rule of thumb, a perfect system would require perfect inputs, and if we were capable of that we wouldn't need the system in the first place.

I much prefer a system whose imperfections ate lenient on the guilty rather than harsh on the innocent.




> Great Example of the law being funky: I think that there's a gaping flaw in the concept of double jeopardy, the legal concept where you can't be tried more than once for the same discrete act of crime.
> 
> That being that it's entirely possible that someone could be acquitted but then further evidence that proves that the did in fact commit the crime turns up later. In such a case there can be no justice or closure by legal means.
> 
> I cannot think of a single way to amend the law to account for that that wouldn't _immediately_ be used and abused by every corrupt cop, judge, or prosecutor and a good number of well-meaning but ignorant ones to completely undermine the purposes by which double jeopardy was created in the first place.


Double Jeopardy is in place in part specifically to encourage diligence in prosecution and evidence gathering.

----------


## Peelee

> Double Jeopardy is in place in part specifically to encourage diligence in prosecution and evidence gathering.


Exactly. The primary purpose is to curb the state from trying until they get a conviction, and it has a rather delightful immediate side effect of getting the state to make sure they have their ducks in a row before proceeding because once that train starts it dont stop til the ride is up. In practice, most US states have varying degrees of actually keeping to that and the US federal government is the most conservative in bringing charges - they're notious for not bringing to trial unless they are massively overwhelmingly certain they can secure a conviction. On a related note the feds also have a staggeringly high conviction rate and an enormous amount of plea deals struck (for obvious reason). That's not to say that they only ever charge guilty people, but if they charge you, they damned sure have enough evidence to make a compelling case against you.


> I cannot think of a single way to amend the law to account for that that wouldn't _immediately_ be used and abused by every corrupt cop, judge, or prosecutor and a good number of well-meaning but ignorant ones to completely undermine the purposes by which double jeopardy was created in the first place.


Neither can the vast body of American legal scholars for the last two hundred years (at least. Likely far more than that), so you're in good company!

----------


## Rater202

> Double Jeopardy is in place in part specifically to encourage diligence in prosecution and evidence gathering.


I know that, but crapstorms happen. Sometimes a key piece of evidence goes missing before it can be officially submitted for the record and sometimes something that should have made the case a slam dunk doesn't turn up until it's too late.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Oh, I see. I trolled through the sections on friendships between unequals, too, but couldn't find anything. All I got was that the superior friend should get most of the love... which I guess could be an incredibly obscure way of referring to pederasty. But I don't think so.
> 
> I read my copy over half a decade ago, so you've read it more recently than me. Maybe there's a translation difference that accounts for our different reads?


That's eminently possible. Or, perhaps, the conditions of storage have an impact upon the shelf life (i.e. my memories are only _nominally_ fresher); until such time as I can find an actual passage so much as hinting at the thing, I'll silently retract my previous accusation. At any rate, even if he didn't produce an apology of the practice or not in the _N. Ethics_, Aristotle was still a product of his age (which is, needless to say, not something I could fairly hold against him)  v. his monarchist bootlicking in the same overall section  and I kind of question the validity of the aforecited tripartite classification as well. It's pretty alright, but "friendship of utility" ascribes a value to a type of relationship I don't think it possesses, whereas "friendship of virtue" Well, I might be a base, bad, morally bankrupt flower, but I'm not sure I ever had a friendship based on mutual admiration of flawless moral character.

----------


## Peelee

> I know that, but crapstorms happen. Sometimes a key piece of evidence goes missing before it can be officially submitted for the record and sometimes something that should have made the case a slam dunk doesn't turn up until it's too late.


Cases like that are incredibly rare, though. And mistrials also exist, which dismiss a case but without prejudice.

----------


## Keltest

> I know that, but crapstorms happen. Sometimes a key piece of evidence goes missing before it can be officially submitted for the record and sometimes something that should have made the case a slam dunk doesn't turn up until it's too late.


Frankly, if you go around losing key pieces of evidence before you submit them, I don't want you prosecuting a case anyway, because you're clearly incompetent.

----------


## Rater202

> Cases like that are incredibly rare, though. And mistrials also exist, which dismiss a case but without prejudice.


I'm aware of this.

All I said was that it was a flaw that I couldn't think of a way to fix without making the whole concept pointless.

Double Jeopardy is important and people who manage to abuse it to evade justice are rare. But rare is not impossible.

----------


## Keltest

> I'm aware of this.
> 
> All I said was that it was a flaw that I couldn't think of a way to fix without making the whole concept pointless.
> 
> Double Jeopardy is important and people who manage to abuse it to evade justice are rare. But rare is not impossible.


Commonly, months or more go by between charges being announced and a trial. If, in that time, the piece of evidence that magically shifts the balance disappears, that's not a draw in the system, that's just human failure. Be careful to watch for that distinction.

----------


## Peelee

> I'm aware of this.
> 
> All I said was that it was a flaw that I couldn't think of a way to fix without making the whole concept pointless.
> 
> Double Jeopardy is important and people who manage to abuse it to evade justice are rare. But rare is not impossible.


Ehhhhhhh, id be very wary of saying people use double jeopardy to evade justice. Like, maybe if they actively interfere with the trial, like do witness tampering or bribe jurors or blackmail jurists or stuff like that. Most of the time, though, it's on the state. Defense lawyers don't try to prove their client innocent - even if the client is innocent, that's an enormous task and may not even be possible to prove. And clients can have done the thing they're charged with. A defense lawyers job is to make the state prove their case. If the state can't do that, then they can't prove the defendant guilty and the trial is over. And, like Keltest said, that's a big factor of why double jeopardy exists - the state should be pretty damned sure it can convict before it pulls the trigger on bringing the charges. That's how it _should_ be.

----------


## Rater202

I think I'm finally used to not night-snacking.

I rarely feel hungry in the middle of the night unless I stay up until like five in the morning and I'm merely hungry in the morning, not ravenous.

It only took the better part of 3/4ths of a year.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I think I'm finally used to not night-snacking.
> 
> I rarely feel hungry in the middle of the night unless I stay up until like five in the morning and I'm merely hungry in the morning, not ravenous.
> 
> It only took the better part of 3/4ths of a year.


Hey, every step forward is progress.

Also you probably shouldn't stay up till five in the morning, if you can avoid that.

----------


## Rater202

> Also you probably shouldn't stay up till five in the morning, if you can avoid that.


Look, my circadian rhythm is all kinds of ****ed. Sometimes I'm just not tired until the early hours of the morning and I can't sleep if I'm not tired.

Used to think I had chronic acute insomnia but it turns out that's something else and a lot more serious.

----------


## theangelJean

> Look, my circadian rhythm is all kinds of ****ed. Sometimes I'm just not tired until the early hours of the morning and I can't sleep if I'm not tired.
> 
> Used to think I had chronic acute insomnia but it turns out that's something else and a lot more serious.


I hear you.

I have struggled with sleep procrastination for a while. I get stuck in a book or a pointless game or on here or some wiki walk (like that place that will ruin your life). Hubby will occasionally wake up, and make one of our signals to remind me that it's bedtime. At some point it will eventually work and I come to bed/turn off the device and lie down, but it might be 1am, 3am or 5am.

I recently worked out the pattern of what usually happens next: I lie there for a few minutes, then become aware that I actually need something - bathroom, water, meditation, to write a reminder - and _then_ I can sleep. Why can't I check this out myself instead of distracting myself? I have ADHD and by bedtime the meds have worn off and I have zero executive function left. (I am currently off them as they can exacerbate heart disease.)

*Spoiler: I had an epiphany the night before last which made me mourn for my childhood.*
Show


The night before last, I was up til 1am playing the new Doctor Who idle game and reading my favourite book for comfort.

A night nurse I didn't particularly like popped in and asked why I wasn't asleep. It was 1am! Was I hungry? Was I thirsty? Was I in pain? Was I feeling sick? Was I worried about something? (No to the first four, I wasn't willing to admit to the fifth). After she left and I lay down and shut my eyes, I realised firstly that I needed to relieve myself, and later that there was a light on that wasn't usually there, and I was able to turn it off.

And I also realised that at 40 years old, up until this one night nurse, I have almost never had anyone ever prompt me to even check if I need something, that is stopping me from sleeping. My husband kisses me and reminds me that it's bedtime. My father would obsess and rage over how to get through the message that I needed to sleep and I shouldn't be doing whatever it was I was doing and why didn't I understand what was important. My mother, on the rare occasion she was the one to wake up, would be utterly confused. (I actually suspect they both have different types of ADHD or trauma-related executive function deficits.) They did what they could, but nobody ever knew to ask me to think about whether *I* might need something. So I've never developed the habit of asking that question to myself.

I did thank the nurse, in between my bathroom break and realising there was an unexpected light. And I cried for the childhood routine nobody ever knew I needed. It took two rounds of my usual meditation soundtrack before I could let go and sleep after that.

And then yesterday I got to the section of _Galaxy_ where the concept of the sights, smells and atmosphere of home was brought up, and I was immediately transported to Hong Kong, where I've never lived, but which I visited as a child several times and once as an adult. And I remembered that last time I was there, my grandmother had walked out to find me doing the exact same thing. And she had asked me what I needed, and given me a couple of examples to start off with. And that my first ever memory of Hong Kong is of being a very small child, and my late grandfather finding me on the balcony early in the morning as I had woken up early, and asking me the very same thing. I cried some more. 


Anyway. Next time you look at the clock. Ask yourself, or think of me asking you even though you don't know me. Is there something you need, that's stopping you from sleeping? You might not be actually hungry, and maybe your brain sometimes tells you that food is the answer, but are you actually thirsty? Is there a bodily function that needs attention? Are you in pain? Are you feeling sick? Are you lonely? Is something worrying you? Do you need to feel like you got something done? 

Then see if that helps you sleep.

----------


## Rater202

> *Spoiler: I had an epiphany the night before last which made me mourn for my childhood.*
> Show
> 
> 
> The night before last, I was up til 1am playing the new Doctor Who idle game and reading my favourite book for comfort.
> 
> A night nurse I didn't particularly like popped in and asked why I wasn't asleep. It was 1am! Was I hungry? Was I thirsty? Was I in pain? Was I feeling sick? Was I worried about something? (No to the first four, I wasn't willing to admit to the fifth). After she left and I lay down and shut my eyes, I realised firstly that I needed to relieve myself, and later that there was a light on that wasn't usually there, and I was able to turn it off.
> 
> And I also realised that at 40 years old, up until this one night nurse, I have almost never had anyone ever prompt me to even check if I need something, that is stopping me from sleeping. My husband kisses me and reminds me that it's bedtime. My father would obsess and rage over how to get through the message that I needed to sleep and I shouldn't be doing whatever it was I was doing and why didn't I understand what was important. My mother, on the rare occasion she was the one to wake up, would be utterly confused. (I actually suspect they both have different types of ADHD or trauma-related executive function deficits.) They did what they could, but nobody ever knew to ask me to think about whether *I* might need something. So I've never developed the habit of asking that question to myself.
> ...


Jeeze, tear out my heart why don't ya?

In my case it's not usually a matter of need... It's just... I'm not tired.

I've found that trying to take naps in the afternoon regulates it somewhat. For some reason it's easier to fall asleep in the day than at night and if I nap then I'm more likely to get to sleep at a decent time that night. If nothing else, staying up till five won't mean I'll sleep till noon if I took a nap the day before.

----------


## theangelJean

> Jeeze, tear out my heart why don't ya?


Sorry. I probably should have put that bit in PWA.




> In my case it's not usually a matter of need... It's just... I'm not tired.


See, that's exactly how I feel at the time. I'm not sleepy, I'm reading. Or playing. Or browsing. And when I do make an effort to sleep, I can't, because I need something. And yes, "my mind is racing and I need to calm down and put these thoughts down/away for tomorrow" is a need. One I am all too accustomed to feeling, hence the guided meditation soundtrack.




> I've found that trying to take naps in the afternoon regulates it somewhat. For some reason it's easier to fall asleep in the day than at night and if I nap then I'm more likely to get to sleep at a decent time that night. If nothing else, staying up till five won't mean I'll sleep till noon if I took a nap the day before.


It's odd how that works, isn't it? There's a parenting adage, "sleep begets sleep". It certainly applied to my kid.

Anyway I should take my own advice and turn in at the respectable hour of 10:40pm. Will comment on the Mist and Fire tomorrow Zodi, but for now, yay! And thank you.

----------


## LaZodiac

That is honestly a genuinely heartwarming and heartrending story, Jean. I hope nothing but for the best for you and yours.

----------


## Metastachydium

> I


Hey. I just realized I haven't told you yet to get better and make sure your heart behaves (I'll assume you can't just use osmotic pressure instead), so get better and make sure your heart behaves!




> Anyway. Next time you look at the clock. Ask yourself, or think of me asking you even though you don't know me. Is there something you need, that's stopping you from sleeping? You might not be actually hungry, and maybe your brain sometimes tells you that food is the answer, but are you actually thirsty? Is there a bodily function that needs attention? Are you in pain? Are you feeling sick? Are you lonely? Is something worrying you? Do you need to feel like you got something done?


Sadly, it's mostly "I've got an underlying medical condition" for me.

----------


## Rater202

So I'm Covid Posiitve.

I haven't left the house since the pandemic started except for doctor's appointments and I social distanced and wore a mask every time, got all my shots, and yet...

Mom also had it, so I probably got it from her(no clue how she got it either) but my uncle was here on Christmas Eve and also tested positive sometime after and I distinctly recall him coughing in the kitchen. He covered his mouth, but...

So far my symptoms have been relatively mild... By which I mean I wasn't able to tell the difference between it and my normal yearly sinus infection. Apparently the strain my mom has, per the doctor she went to when she got sick, is a more recent strain that's not as bad as the earlier ones so small blessings.

Honestly, I'm more pissed off than anything else.

Edit: And coming from someone who knows: The test is worse than having soda up your sinuses.

----------


## LaZodiac

> So I'm Covid Posiitve.
> 
> I haven't left the house since the pandemic started except for doctor's appointments and I social distanced and wore a mask every time, got all my shots, and yet...
> 
> Mom also had it, so I probably got it from her(no clue how she got it either) but my uncle was here on Christmas Eve and also tested positive sometime after and I distinctly recall him coughing in the kitchen. He covered his mouth, but...
> 
> So far my symptoms have been relatively mild... By which I mean I wasn't able to tell the difference between it and my normal yearly sinus infection. Apparently the strain my mom has, per the doctor she went to when she got sick, is a more recent strain that's not as bad as the earlier ones so small blessings.
> 
> Honestly, I'm more pissed off than anything else.
> ...


Blegh, that sucks. Feel better soon Rater.

And GOD, yeah, the test is... distressing.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

First gen tests felt like I couldn't breath with a swan in. Then the narrower swabs came in and it was so ticklish I preferred the first gen swabs. The mouth swan didn't change much, it still makes me feel like I'm going to through up.

And plague severity varies a lot by person and strain. I got started on Alpha and didn't even notice, even now I don't get anything worse than 'bad cold' (but I'm vaccinated and get a lot of exposure). I think the current plan is just 'wait for a less dangerous variant to become dominant, then treat it as seasonal flu'.

But I hope it's not long until you shake the lurgy.

----------


## Rater202

Okay, enough sick-bitching.

New Topic: Favorite Songs?

Mine is, currently, Cosmic I from Psychonauts 2.

I don't know why, but something about Jack Black singing a psychedelic rock opera ballad about the transcendental euphoria that comes from having a full suite of properly functioning senses and the joy of his memories returning after spending 20 years in total sensory deprivation makes me feel happy

Edit: Epiphany, it probably has something to do with my fear of memory loss and death of personality. Black's character in the game experienced that in totality but then made a complete recovery and the song is celebrating that.

----------


## theangelJean

> That is honestly a genuinely heartwarming and heartrending story, Jean. I hope nothing but for the best for you and yours.


Thanks for the well-wishes! As for the personal account, I almost went back and labelled it with a content warning for glurge, but it's kind of the opposite - I come from a place of such immense privilege. And I did actually have a place where I felt loved and cared for unconditionally in my childhood... Just not for very long, but it apparently made an impression.

I was going to ask how you can write when you're sick, but apparently I also make lots of words when I'm sick :P just nowhere near the same level. I am loving the action in Mist and Fire, and still intrigued as to who these characters are to each other.
*Spoiler: Ophelia*
Show

I didn't really think that Ophelia would be Noble's brother, as there were obvious inconsistencies that would have needed explaining - how Noble didn't recognise the external signs and power set of the one person he'd been searching for, being the main one - but I felt like I had to check my assumptions and not dismiss the possibility, you know? To be honest I would have been disappointed if she was, because you already have an awesome trans character and having such a cliche twist to the central mystery would have just spoiled it; I'm glad to have been wrong there. 

To explain where the theory came from, up to that point, the only thing we knew about Knave was that he had that smile in his eyes and that he was able to influence the minds of others to the point where they started growing one too. And in Chapter 10 we get the sudden reveal that Ophelia has that smile, and Saila is feeling somehow affected. Now that's not a criticism - the fact that it looks like that on first reading, but in actuality there's more to it, is so much fun. Can't wait to find out what you have planned.




> Hey. I just realized I haven't told you yet to get better and make sure your heart behaves (I'll assume you can't just use osmotic pressure instead), so get better and make sure your heart behaves!


Thanks Meta! Unfortunately I can't use osmotic pressure for respiration (although I do predominantly use it for learning, I feel like osmotic pressure got me through med school.) So I'll try and get my heart to behave, like you said!




> Sadly, it's mostly "I've got an underlying medical condition" for me.


Aww. That's always a tough one. I'm lucky my needs are actually easy enough to attend to. (Yes, I do end sentences with prepositions! Descriptive linguistics for me rather than prescriptive, all the way.)

Linguistic musing for you: over the past couple of years I have been noticing the number of machines around me that have a "Plant ID" number. First it was lifts, then cherry pickers, cranes, and most recently, of all things, bouncing castles. All these mechanical things trying to claim kinship with you, by virtue of their reliance on being firmly attached to the ground!

So of course the first thing that came to mind when you mentioned a medical condition preventing you from sleeping was to wonder if it also meant you were similarly stuck to one spot. Here's hoping not.




> So I'm Covid Posiitve.
> 
> I haven't left the house since the pandemic started except for doctor's appointments and I social distanced and wore a mask every time, got all my shots, and yet...
> 
> Mom also had it, so I probably got it from her(no clue how she got it either) but my uncle was here on Christmas Eve and also tested positive sometime after and I distinctly recall him coughing in the kitchen. He covered his mouth, but...
> 
> So far my symptoms have been relatively mild... By which I mean I wasn't able to tell the difference between it and my normal yearly sinus infection. Apparently the strain my mom has, per the doctor she went to when she got sick, is a more recent strain that's not as bad as the earlier ones so small blessings.
> 
> Honestly, I'm more pissed off than anything else.
> ...


Bummer! I hope your symptoms continue to be mild. And please make sure you get plenty of rest! Don't be tempted to go back to exercise too soon - from painful personal experience, as useful as it is having a routine, giving yourself a heart condition far outweighs the benefits.

And I'd forgotten how bad the test is the first few times. My daughter was somehow allergic to one brand of hand sanitiser, so when we started going back to a particular appointment, it seemed like we were always having to get her tested afterwards; and I've been testing every week for choir since May (and singing in a surgical mask, yay). Sad to say, you do get used to it.

----------


## Metastachydium

> (although I do predominantly use it for learning, I feel like osmotic pressure got me through med school.)


Well, that's about the second best use for the mechanism in question and as such, I approve of it!




> I'm lucky my needs are actually easy enough to attend to.


And may it stay that way!




> Yes, I do end sentences with prepositions!


Why, that's a habit I certaunly wouldn't have you give up on.




> Linguistic musing for you: over the past couple of years I have been noticing the number of machines around me that have a "Plant ID" number. First it was lifts, then cherry pickers, cranes, and most recently, of all things, bouncing castles. All these mechanical things trying to claim kinship with you, by virtue of their reliance on being firmly attached to the ground!
> 
> So of course the first thing that came to mind when you mentioned a medical condition preventing you from sleeping was to wonder if it also meant you were similarly stuck to one spot. Here's hoping not.


Rest assured that while I do have a plant ID, it's mostly just a document I use to prove I'm me. I can move just fine (even when that's hard to observe in real time).

----------


## LaZodiac

> Okay, enough sick-bitching.
> 
> New Topic: Favorite Songs?
> 
> Mine is, currently, Cosmic I from Psychonauts 2.
> 
> I don't know why, but something about Jack Black singing a psychedelic rock opera ballad about the transcendental euphoria that comes from having a full suite of properly functioning senses and the joy of his memories returning after spending 20 years in total sensory deprivation makes me feel happy
> 
> Edit: Epiphany, it probably has something to do with my fear of memory loss and death of personality. Black's character in the game experienced that in totality but then made a complete recovery and the song is celebrating that.


My favorite songs always evoke strong character emotions. The current one on my mind is Aviator's Into The Black, which is a song that strongly hits the creative buttons for one of my characters.

This isn't quite as meaningful as yours, but still!




> Thanks for the well-wishes! As for the personal account, I almost went back and labelled it with a content warning for glurge, but it's kind of the opposite - I come from a place of such immense privilege. And I did actually have a place where I felt loved and cared for unconditionally in my childhood... Just not for very long, but it apparently made an impression.
> 
> I was going to ask how you can write when you're sick, but apparently I also make lots of words when I'm sick :P just nowhere near the same level. I am loving the action in Mist and Fire, and still intrigued as to who these characters are to each other.
> *Spoiler: Ophelia*
> Show
> 
> I didn't really think that Ophelia would be Noble's brother, as there were obvious inconsistencies that would have needed explaining - how Noble didn't recognise the external signs and power set of the one person he'd been searching for, being the main one - but I felt like I had to check my assumptions and not dismiss the possibility, you know? To be honest I would have been disappointed if she was, because you already have an awesome trans character and having such a cliche twist to the central mystery would have just spoiled it; I'm glad to have been wrong there. 
> 
> To explain where the theory came from, up to that point, the only thing we knew about Knave was that he had that smile in his eyes and that he was able to influence the minds of others to the point where they started growing one too. And in Chapter 10 we get the sudden reveal that Ophelia has that smile, and Saila is feeling somehow affected. Now that's not a criticism - the fact that it looks like that on first reading, but in actuality there's more to it, is so much fun. Can't wait to find out what you have planned.


The things that really affect us are what leave the deepest impression, in my experience.

I'm feeling better now! Much less stomach cramp, no longer feeling the worst pain I've ever felt in my life! I'm really grateful to hear you are enjoying Mist and Fire!

*Spoiler: Mist and Fire*
Show

Yeah, I figured that was where the theory grew root from- and it's a sign of you paying close attention, which is always something I love to hear!

----------


## Peelee

> Okay, enough sick-bitching.
> 
> New Topic: Favorite Songs?
> 
> Mine is, currently, Cosmic I from Psychonauts 2.
> 
> I don't know why, but something about Jack Black singing a psychedelic rock opera ballad about the transcendental euphoria that comes from having a full suite of properly functioning senses and the joy of his memories returning after spending 20 years in total sensory deprivation makes me feel happy
> 
> Edit: Epiphany, it probably has something to do with my fear of memory loss and death of personality. Black's character in the game experienced that in totality but then made a complete recovery and the song is celebrating that.


Ooh, good question. None of the contenders for my favorite song are by any of my favorite bands (NWOBHM and 90s alt rock bands, primarily. Iron Maiden takes the top spot). 

I'd say it's a toss up between What A Wonderful World and Diamonds and Rust. Diamonds and Rust is just the most elegant "**** you" song I've ever heard, and Joan Baez absolutely puts you in her position and paints one of the most vivid pictures I've heard a songwriter present. I can actually imagine that winters' day in New York. And Judas Priest was able to take it and make it pretty universal, which is impressive for such a personalized song. But the original version is the best version.

And What A Wonderful World because it's just appreciating life, and it's a wonderful reminder to do something that I think I don't do enough. Pretty radical departure from Diamonds and Rust, but it's just so beautiful. 



> Thanks Yes, I do end sentences with prepositions! Descriptive linguistics for me rather than prescriptive, all the way.


Even for prescriptive linguistics, that "rule" is wrong, and only introduced to start with because of a grammarian who wanted English to be Latin because Latin is all cool and classical and so surely English must use Latin rules despite it being Germanic.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Even for prescriptive linguistics, that "rule" is wrong, and only introduced to start with because of a grammarian who wanted English to be Latin because Latin is all cool and classical and so surely English must use Latin rules despite it being Germanic.


Reminds me of something I learned recently. The Frecnh word for waterlily is _nénuphar_. Recently people complained about the alternative spelling of _nénufar_, the usual spiel about dumbing down spelling and all that.

But it turns out that the ph spelling is due to the Académie thinking it came from Greek (from the word for for nymphs) in the 30's, but it turns out the word come from Arabic and therefore has no reason to be spelled with a p at all.

----------


## TaiLiu

> That's eminently possible. Or, perhaps, the conditions of storage have an impact upon the shelf life (i.e. my memories are only _nominally_ fresher); until such time as I can find an actual passage so much as hinting at the thing, I'll silently retract my previous accusation. At any rate, even if he didn't produce an apology of the practice or not in the _N. Ethics_, Aristotle was still a product of his age (which is, needless to say, not something I could fairly hold against him)  v. his monarchist bootlicking in the same overall section  and I kind of question the validity of the aforecited tripartite classification as well. It's pretty alright, but "friendship of utility" ascribes a value to a type of relationship I don't think it possesses, whereas "friendship of virtue" Well, I might be a base, bad, morally bankrupt flower, but I'm not sure I ever had a friendship based on mutual admiration of flawless moral character.


Oh, yeah, I agree. It's a cool look at a very different mindset from a different time and place. (His _Physics_ is wild, too.) I wonder how we'll look to our descendants two thousands years from now.




> Look, my circadian rhythm is all kinds of ****ed. Sometimes I'm just not tired until the early hours of the morning and I can't sleep if I'm not tired.
> 
> Used to think I had chronic acute insomnia but it turns out that's something else and a lot more serious.





> I recently worked out the pattern of what usually happens next: I lie there for a few minutes, then become aware that I actually need something - bathroom, water, meditation, to write a reminder - and _then_ I can sleep. Why can't I check this out myself instead of distracting myself? I have ADHD and by bedtime the meds have worn off and I have zero executive function left. (I am currently off them as they can exacerbate heart disease.)





> Sadly, it's mostly "I've got an underlying medical condition" for me.


Oddly glad to hear that others have a similar problem, and very glad that one of you figured it out. It makes everyday life very difficult.




> *Spoiler: I had an epiphany the night before last which made me mourn for my childhood.*
> Show
> 
> 
> The night before last, I was up til 1am playing the new Doctor Who idle game and reading my favourite book for comfort.
> 
> A night nurse I didn't particularly like popped in and asked why I wasn't asleep. It was 1am! Was I hungry? Was I thirsty? Was I in pain? Was I feeling sick? Was I worried about something? (No to the first four, I wasn't willing to admit to the fifth). After she left and I lay down and shut my eyes, I realised firstly that I needed to relieve myself, and later that there was a light on that wasn't usually there, and I was able to turn it off.
> 
> And I also realised that at 40 years old, up until this one night nurse, I have almost never had anyone ever prompt me to even check if I need something, that is stopping me from sleeping. My husband kisses me and reminds me that it's bedtime. My father would obsess and rage over how to get through the message that I needed to sleep and I shouldn't be doing whatever it was I was doing and why didn't I understand what was important. My mother, on the rare occasion she was the one to wake up, would be utterly confused. (I actually suspect they both have different types of ADHD or trauma-related executive function deficits.) They did what they could, but nobody ever knew to ask me to think about whether *I* might need something. So I've never developed the habit of asking that question to myself.
> ...


*Spoiler*
Show

Hoping you can get your emotional needs met now that you know them.  :Small Smile: 





> So I'm Covid Posiitve.
> 
> I haven't left the house since the pandemic started except for doctor's appointments and I social distanced and wore a mask every time, got all my shots, and yet...
> 
> Mom also had it, so I probably got it from her(no clue how she got it either) but my uncle was here on Christmas Eve and also tested positive sometime after and I distinctly recall him coughing in the kitchen. He covered his mouth, but...
> 
> So far my symptoms have been relatively mild... By which I mean I wasn't able to tell the difference between it and my normal yearly sinus infection. Apparently the strain my mom has, per the doctor she went to when she got sick, is a more recent strain that's not as bad as the earlier ones so small blessings.
> 
> Honestly, I'm more pissed off than anything else.
> ...


Feel better soon! I've been less cautious than you and I've never caught it... Just sheer luck, I guess. My teacher's caught it twice. I wonder who hasn't caught it at this point.

----------


## Peelee

> Feel better soon! I've been less cautious than you and I've never caught it... Just sheer luck, I guess. My teacher's caught it twice. I wonder who hasn't caught it at this point.


One of my friends literally _just_ caught it for the first time a few days ago. So, there was him. Until recently.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Okay, enough sick-bitching.
> 
> New Topic: Favorite Songs?


Oh thats complicated, I have lots of music I listen to. Different ones for different moods and settings. 

Though I tend to like fast, actiony, kind of music that really gets me pumped in general purely to get lost in. But for like working on something like writing I put on lofi mix videos to listen to, helps me focus on the work as a chill background thing. though I'll put on specific songs when thinking about specific characters and how they feel and such.

but you expect an at least, semi-limited and non-vague answer so I'll limit myself to answering what my favorite songs are for my three main characters for the roleplays I currently have:
*Spoiler: Silly roleplay character self-indulgence*
Show

Jade Refera-Commander Shepard By Miracle of Sound
Kimiko Ishikawa-Spider8reath
Ensara-THE HERO!! (One Punch Man Opening Theme)

Or at least the songs that summarize and get across these characters the best. Ensara is admittedly kind of hard given what she is and is more about she is in a similar position to someone like Saitama, and has a similar motivation for doing what she does.

----------


## Rater202

> *Spoiler: Silly roleplay character self-indulgence*
> Show
> 
> Jade Refera-Commander Shepard By Miracle of Sound
> Kimiko Ishikawa-Spider8reath
> Ensara-THE HERO!! (One Punch Man Opening Theme)
> 
> Or at least the songs that summarize and get across these characters the best. Ensara is admittedly kind of hard given what she is and is more about she is in a similar position to someone like Saitama, and has a similar motivation for doing what she does.


Ah, if that's how we're doing it.
*Spoiler*
Show

Senko: YYZ. I know that I've been using Crazy Train as a leitmotif but I think it's well-established that she's a drummer.
Menko: Without Me. Just an extension of the fact that she looks like a princess but is anything but.
Ten: Do You Believe In Magic. Have you seen me the Pyro?
Alexandra: Also Sprach Zurathrustra. Alexandra is arguably a version of me whose choices when she thought something was just a game came back to bite her when it actually happened and 40 years of puberty combined with those same 40years being stuck in a usuper-powered zombie acpalypse with a number of major villains who weren't infected going out of their way to pick fights with her as enphasized whatever Neizchean philisophical tendencies she may have inherted from me.

...Since I'm bringing that up, all cards on the table: I don't agree with everything Neitzche wrote and I don't consider myself an Ubermensch. I just think he made some good points.

----------


## Amidus Drexel

> New Topic: Favorite Songs?


Ah, it's so hard to pick a favorite, so I'll just say what I'm listening to as I post this - Shadows, by King Buffalo. I've been listening to a lot of modern psych and doom lately, and King Buffalo has been a good listen.

----------


## TaiLiu

> One of my friends literally _just_ caught it for the first time a few days ago. So, there was him. Until recently.


Hope your friend feels better soon!

----------


## Peelee

> Hope your friend feels better soon!


So far he's only got a sore throat, and even that much didn't appear until today. But I appreciate the thought!

----------


## TaiLiu

> So far he's only got a sore throat, and even that much didn't appear until today. But I appreciate the thought!


 :Small Smile:

----------


## Rater202

Part of me thinks that wilderness bathing, which is when you go on a hike through the woods or the like, slowly taking in all the sights and sounds and smells, the taste of the air, the feel of the sun on your skin or wind in your hair and meditating on the whole of it, would be very fulfilling...

...But knowing my luck I'd stumble across a carcass or a pile of dung or run into a predator. Or get swarmed by bugs.

----------


## Peelee

> Part of me thinks that wilderness bathing, which is when you go on a hike through the woods or the like, slowly taking in all the sights and sounds and smells, the taste of the air, the feel of the sun on your skin or wind in your hair and meditating on the whole of it, would be very fulfilling...
> 
> ...But knowing my luck I'd stumble across a carcass or a pile of dung or run into a predator. Or get swarmed by bugs.


Don't be your own worst enemy, man. Even Aesop's wolf didn't convince himself the grapes were sour until after he tried to eat them.

----------


## Rater202

> Don't be your own worst enemy, man. Even Aesop's wolf didn't convince himself the grapes were sour until after he tried to eat them.


Fair enough.

Either way there's not that much wilderness near here...

Okay, that's a lie. There's what's legally a nature preserve right across the street from my house but it's not exactly good for this kind of thing. No path.

Was kind of magical that one time I was waiting for my share ride just after the sun was well into its rise and a whole family of deer came galloping out, cut through the neighbor's yard, hopped the fence, and took off for the other treeline in the distance though.

(I don't know the legal status of the other treeline.)

There's a proper nature preserve within driving distance of my old university, and we actually just spontaneously drove out there and took a hike in one of the classes I had with my favorite professor, but that's two cities away.

----------


## Peelee

> Fair enough.
> 
> Either way there's not that much wilderness near here...
> 
> Okay, that's a lie. There's what's legally a nature preserve right across the street from my house but it's not exactly good for this kind of thing. No path.
> 
> Was kind of magical that one time I was waiting for my share ride just after the sun was well into its rise and a whole family of deer came galloping out, cut through the neighbor's yard, hopped the fence, and took off for the other treeline in the distance though.
> 
> (I don't know the legal status of the other treeline.)
> ...


Ah, that stinks. There's a lot that I hate about Alabama (generally, I love Birmingham but dislike Alabama), but one amazing thing about living here is we have the fifth greatest biodiversity of any state in the country, and achieve that despite being half the size of the next smallest state in the top 5. It's an amazing place to explore nature. There's certainly no shortage of state parks around here. It's sad to hear you don't get to enjoy similar conditions.

Also, on the "things that I do enjoy about Alabama" list, it got to 20°C today. A fine Alabama December day, I say! Glad the days of the deep freeze are behind us for the rest of the year.

----------


## Rater202

> Ah, that stinks. There's a lot that I hate about Alabama (generally, I love Birmingham but dislike Alabama), but one amazing thing about living here is we have the fifth greatest biodiversity of any state in the country, and achieve that despite being half the size of the next smallest state in the top 5. It's an amazing place to explore nature. There's certainly no shortage of state parks around here. It's sad to hear you don't get to enjoy similar conditions.
> 
> Also, on the "things that I do enjoy about Alabama" list, it got to 20°C today. A fine Alabama December day, I say! Glad the days of the deep freeze are behind us for the rest of the year.


Trust me, if I ever get to the point of financial security and physical wellness that I can just explore the country it's on the list.

... Might have to be more than one trip. I'm a creature of the middle ground. If I were one of the Miser Brothers I'd be the beige one who no one ever visits and the other two automatically assume took the others side in the arguments.

Not sure I could handle Alabama long enough to hit them al in one go.

----------


## Keltest

PA on the other hand is great for hiking, scenic or otherwise. Fresh air, beautiful views, mountains that arent too tall and valleys that arent too deep, water features, and if you go in the spring or fall the weather is glorious for it. And in the early spring, you can even smell the farmers boiling maple syrup.

----------


## enderlord99

> Existentialism is the belief that the universe is cold, and lacks any inherent value or meaning, but meaning can be created by free will, and that has value and meaning.


Yes. Value exists only where someone _decides_ to value something.  I agree. I don't see how that's different from what I'd said, except perhaps in tone.


> It holds that you're responsible for your own actions


I don't see how that conclusion is inevitable from the premise, though I do agree with it.


> which would actually put it at odds with cultural relativism (which ultimately boils down to the idea that believing you're doing the right thing trumps any other consideration)


I guess I don't understand cultural relativism.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Part of me thinks that wilderness bathing, which is when you go on a hike through the woods or the like, slowly taking in all the sights and sounds and smells, the taste of the air, the feel of the sun on your skin or wind in your hair and meditating on the whole of it, would be very fulfilling...


And here I was thinking it was another term for skinny dipping in wild waters.

Although TBF it does sound very relaxing. I know a native of the Yorkshire Moors, maybe I should ask her about going hiking.


Anyway, I finally have everything I need to set up my Spectrum+3, including a period joystick*, so I'll be setting it up and testing out the floppy drive when I get home. If it is busted the same friend who set me up with the right bits will help me fix it, we're expecting the belt to have perished, head to be out of alignment, and pot to need calibration. If it is busted there's still lots of things I can do, like

 10 PRINT "SOMETHING RUDE"
 20 GOTO 10

* I plan to also get myself one of the Monster Joystick kits and an adaptor, but it's nice to have something from the time as well. I got my girlfriend one and apart from sending us the wrong nuts they're great.

----------


## Rater202

> And here I was thinking it was another term for skinny dipping in wild waters


I thought that too at first, but no. Also, I misremembered: The term is actually "forest bathing."

It's a translation of a Japanese term which means that there's a touch of subtext that doesn't come across in literal translations: Not bathing in the forest, but bathing(immersing) yourself in the forest

----------


## enderlord99

Good news: If you google "how many bones in a giraffe skeleton" there is no longer a big popup with "7"

Anyway, apparently it's "around 170"

----------


## 2D8HP

> []
> New Topic: Favorite Songs?



1979s Up the Junction by Squeeze

----------


## Peelee

> Good news: If you google "how many bones in a giraffe skeleton" there is no longer a big popup with "7"
> 
> Anyway, apparently it's "around 170"


So at least 7, then.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

Happy 2023 GITP family!  :Smile:

----------


## enderlord99

> So at least 7, then.


A giraffe has exactly 7 bones in its neck and around 160 bones elsewhere.

----------


## Mystic Muse

Happy New Year everybody. 

My favorite song is probably either "Come Join the Murder." By White Buffalo and the Forest Rangers, "The Last Stand" by Sabaton, or "A Thousand Eyes" by Aviators and Miracle of Sound.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Happy new year!

Favourite song? That changes quite a bit. It's currently probably Unfairy Tales by Battle Beast.

----------


## LaZodiac

Happy new year everyone!

Sincerely, and from the bottom of my heart, I hope this new year treats you all well.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

Hey everyone. I'm back in the dating app community. I install the Bumble dating app and I hope I get better luck finding a woman for me.  :Smile:

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Hey everyone. I'm back in the dating app community. I install the Bumble dating app and I hope I get better luck finding a woman for me.


If you're ever in England I know some beautiful women, but sadly they're probably too young for you  :Small Wink: 

Wishing you luck though. Bumble has the potential to be more reliable than something like Tinder or OkCupid, but also the potential to be significantly more depressing (especially when you get a lot of mutual likes but no messages). I think it might also be more geared towards hookups than relationships, but let's be honest that statement applies to a bar.

Anyway, my number one tip for success internet dating: offer to move off the app within a day. Text messages, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, carrier pigeon, Cybiko, email, if they're willing to talk outside the app it's more likely to succeed. Also meet up with them in a public place and don't feel like you have to go back to theirs for coffee on the first date, but that comes later.

Internet dating can be soul crushing. It can also lead to amazing friendships with catgirls, and I think we can all agree that that's the real reason we do it ~mao~

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> If you're ever in England I know some beautiful women, but sadly they're probably too young for you 
> 
> Wishing you luck though. Bumble has the potential to be more reliable than something like Tinder or OkCupid, but also the potential to be significantly more depressing (especially when you get a lot of mutual likes but no messages). I think it might also be more geared towards hookups than relationships, but let's be honest that statement applies to a bar.
> 
> Anyway, my number one tip for success internet dating: offer to move off the app within a day. Text messages, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, carrier pigeon, Cybiko, email, if they're willing to talk outside the app it's more likely to succeed. Also meet up with them in a public place and don't feel like you have to go back to theirs for coffee on the first date, but that comes later.
> 
> Internet dating can be soul crushing. It can also lead to amazing friendships with catgirls, and I think we can all agree that that's the real reason we do it ~mao~


Thank you for the support, Anon. I always want to travel to other countries. I heard that the U.K. is a very exhilarating place.  :Smile:

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Thank you for the support, Anon. I always want to travel to other countries. I heard that the U.K. is a very exhilarating place.


Of by exhilarate you mean 'grey, wet, cold, and thinks a slice of ham is a sandwich filling' you're right!

I recommend France instead, most of England is already trying to shag them anyway

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Of by exhilarate you mean 'grey, wet, cold, and thinks a slice of ham is a sandwich filling' you're right!
> 
> I recommend France instead, most of England is already trying to shag them anyway


French is beautiful as well. I also always want to go to Australia when I was a little boy.  :Smile:

----------


## 2D8HP

On December 29th I think tme and my roommate saved our friends life together, the series of events that led to that is so implausible that I wont repeat it here (plus their privacy) but Im more inclined now to think of my roommate and I as a really good team.

Oh, and the happiest of new years to you all, may your subsequent days be filled with joy!

----------


## DataNinja

> Internet dating can be soul crushing. It can also lead to amazing friendships with catgirls, and I think we can all agree that that's the real reason we do it ~mao~


I have never known a cat to be able to sustain a friendship. They're more of a take-and-take sort of personality. So I wouldn't want to add that to a person.  :Small Amused:

----------


## theangelJean

Hi all! For being a few hours ahead, I have this annoying tendency to end up a few days behind the conversation... anyway I've been back home for a couple of days, taking it easy and doing reasonably well. 




> Okay, enough sick-bitching.
> 
> New Topic: Favorite Songs?
> 
> Mine is, currently, Cosmic I from Psychonauts 2.
> 
> I don't know why, but something about Jack Black singing a psychedelic rock opera ballad about the transcendental euphoria that comes from having a full suite of properly functioning senses and the joy of his memories returning after spending 20 years in total sensory deprivation makes me feel happy
> 
> Edit: Epiphany, it probably has something to do with my fear of memory loss and death of personality. Black's character in the game experienced that in totality but then made a complete recovery and the song is celebrating that.


I believe that music is at its best when encapsulating an emotion, or the change in emotions that comes with a story. So when you find a song that really captures the feeling you are having, or tells a story that addresses that feeling, it's worth listening the **** out of it.

I got ninja'd by this topic as I was editing my story of, umm, realisation of loss of something I never had. But I tend to find it impossible to choose a favourite anyway (ADHD and priority order don't mix well. I can't even choose a song for Jean the elf cleric, and I've played her on and off for over twenty years.) I tend to surround myself with music - up until three weeks ago my current occupation could best have been described as "choral singer". As such, I have a constant soundtrack of "whatever my brain is trying to memorise at this moment whether that's useful or not" ... And right now I am barred from singing until cleared by the cardiologist. So it's taken me a while to get back to this one.

So "what's currently in my head" when the question first came out was Matilda the Musical. Quite fond of it, especially the London cast recording, especially the songs "Loud" for the excellent performance on that album, and "When I Grow Up" for the nostalgia factor. (Do they still tell kids their eyes will go square?) Haven't seen the Netflix movie yet, looking forward to that. 

But since then, kid has found the Villains Lair series on YouTube by Pattycake Productions. And I'm really liking their song "Tough Love". The production values on the music video aren't the best, the lip-sync is kind of not great, and if you listen to the audio track alone it's kind of hard to tell which character is singing, as they haven't quite nailed the characters' accents and individual voices. But the "how not to do parenting" aspect of the song really gets me. Not that my parents were anything like that, especially not my mother. I just like it.

Rest of the things I am late responding to:




> Rest assured that while I do have a plant ID, it's mostly just a document I use to prove I'm me. I can move just fine (even when that's hard to observe in real time).


Hey! Dancing with the sun and moon *is* real time! (Maybe I just run on tree time?)




> I'm feeling better now! Much less stomach cramp, no longer feeling the worst pain I've ever felt in my life! I'm really grateful to hear you are enjoying Mist and Fire!


I'm glad to hear you're feeling better. Forgot to put in my own well-wishes, hope you continue to improve!




> Even for prescriptive linguistics, that "rule" is wrong, and only introduced to start with because of a grammarian who wanted English to be Latin because Latin is all cool and classical and so surely English must use Latin rules despite it being Germanic.


Yeah, I think I came across that fact a few years ago. Part of what made me realise my lean towards descriptive and away from prescriptive tendencies. So yes, the rule is stupid with no basis in its own language, but I don't write the rules or abide by them strictly, so I don't care :P

My favourite linguistics source is currently Dr Geoff Lindsey's YouTube channel. He certainly has opinions on English As She Is Spoke, but it is definitely not "you're speaking it wrong" but instead "ESL teachers are teaching it wrong, to sound more like an English native speaker, teach it this way". His video "Why these English phonetic symbols are all WRONG" is linguistics as pure scientific method: question, hypothesis, control, comparative analysis, testing against evidence, it's all there. Highly recommend.




> Oddly glad to hear that others have a similar problem, and very glad that one of you figured it out. It makes everyday life very difficult.


Figured it would help at least someone to know you're not alone. I've worked out my pattern, hoping others might be a step closer to working out their own.




> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> Hoping you can get your emotional needs met now that you know them.


Thanks very much!




> Feel better soon! I've been less cautious than you and I've never caught it... Just sheer luck, I guess. My teacher's caught it twice. I wonder who hasn't caught it at this point.


My mum hasn't had it yet, and I'm really hoping it to keep it that way. She's 70 and just got through bladder cancer, and her mum is still alive at 98, so I'm hoping to have her around for a lot longer. It does limit how much time she can spend with the kid, who always seems to have a cold (don't know if the kid gave us Covid or we avoided giving it to her, she never tested positive but we didn't continually test her). We're lucky enough to have boosters available and she would be eligible for antivirals if she did get it, but I'd still be much happier if she didn't.




> Part of me thinks that wilderness bathing, which is when you go on a hike through the woods or the like, slowly taking in all the sights and sounds and smells, the taste of the air, the feel of the sun on your skin or wind in your hair and meditating on the whole of it, would be very fulfilling...
> 
> ...But knowing my luck I'd stumble across a carcass or a pile of dung or run into a predator. Or get swarmed by bugs.





> Don't be your own worst enemy, man. Even Aesop's wolf didn't convince himself the grapes were sour until after he tried to eat them.


Agree with the dragon here. It sounds awesome. Probably not for right now - hope you're doing okay - but if you ever do get the chance, I'd say go for it. And wear bug spray, sniff the air and watch your step, some things are preventable!

We're lucky enough to live in the richer part of Sydney, where small patches of wilderness next to the rivers and creeks have been carefully conserved, and marked with walking tracks. When the kid was a baby and portable, I could walk fifteen minutes from home with her on my front, go through a gate to a patch of National Park, and do an hour or a couple of hours' walk through the "bush", down to the water and back up to another gate. I'm not sure how much the land is affected by this particular footprint, but at least it provides an incentive for conservation.




> On December 29th I think tme and my roommate saved our friends life together, the series of events that led to that is so implausible that I wont repeat it here (plus their privacy) but Im more inclined now to think of my roommate and I as a really good team.


Won't pry into the details, but I'm glad you were able to help, and also to make that connection with your roommate.




> Oh, and the happiest of new years to you all, may your subsequent days be filled with joy!


Happy New Year to all!

----------


## halfeye

> New Topic: Favorite Songs?


Stairway to Heaven.

The lyrics are not that important to me, I know there are people who hate them, I don't love them but they're okay to me.

The thing that matters to me is that the music just keeps building up for the whole of the song, until it ends in the final fade.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

So when are we allowed to start referring to 2D8HP's roommate as his girlfriend?  :Small Tongue:  Yeah, I know,when they're officially dating, but it feels inevitable at this point.


Anyway, I get to rejoin the world of the sited in less than two weeks! It's going to take time to get used to putting a lens in and taking them out, but I'll probably be able to get back to reading as a hobby! So.... Any good SF or fantasy novels come out in the last two to three years? Gayness is a big plus, but I suppose I can struggle through a cis-het romance for a good book  :Small Wink:

----------


## Rater202

> Any good SF or fantasy m veld come out in the last two to three years?


Cursed World: Initial Sparks.

Zodi's work is amazing, reading it made me feel like I did when I was a kid reading the new Harry Potter for the first time.

----------


## Peelee

> made me feel like I did when I was a kid reading the new Harry Potter for the first time.


Apropos of absolutely nothing, but I never really liked Harry Potter all that much when I first read them and wondered what everyone was on about with them. For years and years I would either not voice this at all or voice it expecting major pushback from pretty much anyone who heard. But these days? Vindication feels nice.  :Small Wink:

----------


## LaZodiac

> Cursed World: Initial Sparks.
> 
> Zodi's work is amazing, reading it made me feel like I did when I was a kid reading the new Harry Potter for the first time.


Aw shucks, thanks Rater!




> Anyway, I get to rejoin the world of the sited in less than two weeks! It's going to take time to get used to putting a lens in and taking them out, but I'll probably be able to get back to reading as a hobby! So.... Any good SF or fantasy novels come out in the last two to three years? Gayness is a big plus, but I suppose I can struggle through a cis-het romance for a good book


My own suggestion would actually be the Mortal Engine series, which is really quite good! Massive, tiered, motorized cities that devour each other, rad as hell cyborg skeletons, a kinda messed up (cishet) romance, and fun explorations of post-apocalypse and how we pick ourselves back up after them.

The ending of the three book series made me cry a lot!

----------


## DataNinja

> The ending of the three book series made me cry a lot!


Gosh dang it, Zodi, I've been crying enough lately as it is. I didn't need to be reminded of _that_!  :Small Tongue: 

(Will confirm, though, series is good. And the prequel novels have, IIRC, since it's been a bit of time since I've read it, some non-hetero romance.)

----------


## LaZodiac

> Gosh dang it, Zodi, I've been crying enough lately as it is. I didn't need to be reminded of _that_! 
> 
> (Will confirm, though, series is good. And the prequel novels have, IIRC, since it's been a bit of time since I've read it, some non-hetero romance.)


Ooop I'm sorry!

And ooh, I'll keep that in mind. Been meaning to pick those up.

----------


## DataNinja

> And ooh, I'll keep that in mind. Been meaning to pick those up.


I didn't find them _as_ good, and they haven't stuck as much in my mind, but I don't have anything egregiously wrong with them coming to mind. ...granted, it's been almost a decade since I read them.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> My own suggestion would actually be the Mortal Engine series, which is really quite good! Massive, tiered, motorized cities that devour each other, rad as hell cyborg skeletons, a kinda messed up (cishet) romance, and fun explorations of post-apocalypse and how we pick ourselves back up after them.
> 
> The ending of the three book series made me cry a lot!


Huh, childhood memories fail me. I was certain that the series was called Infernal Devices. At least Hester does have half her face missing...

----------


## BisectedBrioche

So, my project for the last couple of months has been making some acrylic teeth to cosplay my tiefling rogue, and as of yesterday, it's complete! ...and I look pretty cute with them, if I don't say so myself.

Now that I've done it, it feels a bit jarring; it's probably the first time since I was in formal education since I learnt to do something new from scratch. I'm really proud of myself, but...I wonder if there's a word for "I've gone from 'I'd love to try that someday' to 'huh, that worked?'".

----------


## LaZodiac

> Huh, childhood memories fail me. I was certain that the series was called Infernal Devices. At least Hester does have half her face missing...


Nope, that's a completely different yet similar series, it seems!

And yup! Hester is genuinely very scared, in every way a person can be. I still think she's beautiful though (and wildly effective at what she does in a way that feels realistic).

If I may get on my sandbox a bit *Spoiler: Mortal Engine spoilers I think like only Durkoala and Dataninja will be able to read this?*
Show

the fact that good ole Tom dies thinking "she's still very ugly due to her scars but I do love her and have found her beauty" still kinda gets me. It's a really romantic moment that shows they really do care about each other, and it's so good... but the "she's still very ugly" part will always sit like a splinter in an otherwise really perfect moment because god damnit! She's not beautiful in-spite of the scars! She's beautiful period!!! 

This is like, one of my only genuine complaints of the series, and I know it's a tiny little nitpick, but having Tom realize that Hester probably festered the way she did because the guy she loves couldn't get past the fact that she's got a nasty scar and love her for who she is at the end, without any caveats, would have destroyed me emotionally and would have made it just a bit better, imho. I also wish Tom had just... you know, loved her for her from the beginning, but I get why he didn't and have accepted it. Just... I really liked them together, and wished Tom could have gotten over that last hurdle and maybe been the support she needed- or more so, at any rate.

People familiar with my own writing will probably recognize- or be able to recognize and thus predict- that me zigging where this series zagged with Rei and Chloe is going to be A Thing. Rei does not love Chloe in-spite of her scars. She does not find her beautiful despite her injuries. She loves her, in that unconditional way, acknowledging those aspects exist AND finding her beautiful. If that makes sense anyway.





> So, my project for the last couple of months has been making some acrylic teeth to cosplay my tiefling rogue, and as of yesterday, it's complete! ...and I look pretty cute with them, if I don't say so myself.
> 
> Now that I've done it, it feels a bit jarring; it's probably the first time since I was in formal education since I learnt to do something new from scratch. I'm really proud of myself, but...I wonder if there's a word for "I've gone from 'I'd love to try that someday' to 'huh, that worked?'".


Ooh, excellent. I like how they've got little intentional imperfections that make them feel more like real teeth!

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> So, my project for the last couple of months has been making some acrylic teeth to cosplay my tiefling rogue, and as of yesterday, it's complete! ...and I look pretty cute with them, if I don't say so myself.
> 
> Now that I've done it, it feels a bit jarring; it's probably the first time since I was in formal education since I learnt to do something new from scratch. I'm really proud of myself, but...I wonder if there's a word for "I've gone from 'I'd love to try that someday' to 'huh, that worked?'".


You made yourself British teeth. Why on earth would you want to copy THOSE?  :Small Tongue:  Okay, they're healthier and better looking than creep American test, I have a slight slit at the front I'm quite proud of.




> Nope, that's a completely different yet similar series, it seems!


It's the name of the third book, which confuses me.




> And yup! Hester is genuinely very scared, in every way a person can be. I still think she's beautiful though (and wildly effective at what she does in a way that feels realistic).


Yeah, I hated it when the movie trailers came out and they'd toned down her scars. It sends a message that women are only allowed to be conventually pretty.

I also hated it when I realised how much Zuko's scars were toned down in the Avatar film. That was worse because I know somebody IRL who does have similar burn scars (not over the eye, but still really bad).

----------


## Peelee

> I also hated it when I realised how much Zuko's scars were toned down in the Avatar film. That was worse because I know somebody IRL who does have similar burn scars (not over the eye, but still really bad).


I feel like if we're going to discuss poor decisions in The Last Airbender film, we're going to be here a good long while.

----------


## BisectedBrioche

> Ooh, excellent. I like how they've got little intentional imperfections that make them feel more like real teeth!


Yes...totally deliberate. ¬_¬




> You made yourself British teeth. Why on earth would you want to copy THOSE?  Okay, they're healthier and better looking than creep American test, I have a slight slit at the front I'm quite proud of..


Oh no, these are just how my normal teeth look, just pointed.  :Small Wink: 

In all honesty, when I make my next set, I'm probably going for a more yellow shade of acrylic, just to match my natural tooth colour better.

----------


## LaZodiac

> It's the name of the third book, which confuses me.
> 
> Yeah, I hated it when the movie trailers came out and they'd toned down her scars. It sends a message that women are only allowed to be conventually pretty.
> 
> I also hated it when I realised how much Zuko's scars were toned down in the Avatar film. That was worse because I know somebody IRL who does have similar burn scars (not over the eye, but still really bad).


Fair, fair.

I... like, the best I can say for that is "at least she HAD a scar"... and I completely forgot Zuko in that film HAD a scar, jeez...

That's another thing I can promise; if any kind of animated adaptation happens to my work, the scars won't be "lightened up" for the waifu crowd. 




> Yes...totally deliberate. ¬_¬
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, these are just how my normal teeth look, just pointed. 
> 
> In all honesty, when I make my next set, I'm probably going for a more yellow shade of acrylic, just to match my natural tooth colour better.


To clarify, because I realized that was a REALLY backhanded compliment just a little too late; I think they look really god, and they've got aspects that make them feel like real teeth (they're not perfectly jagged sharp, they have the natural roundness that comes with wear and tear that happens on teeth etc) and that makes them feel like they aren't machine made but Living, as teeth would be. They're very good!

----------


## Mystic Muse

Since I am not shackled to studying for any upcoming certification exams, tonight I will be properly starting training for the half-marathon in May.

----------


## Peelee

> Since I am not shackled to studying for any upcoming certification exams, tonight I will be properly starting training for the half-marathon in May.


Jeeeeeeeeez. Even halved that ain't no joke. Good luck!

----------


## TaiLiu

> Hey everyone. I'm back in the dating app community. I install the Bumble dating app and I hope I get better luck finding a woman for me.


Good luck!




> On December 29th I think tme and my roommate saved our friends life together, the series of events that led to that is so implausible that I wont repeat it here (plus their privacy) but Im more inclined now to think of my roommate and I as a really good team.


Oh, wow, that must've been real scary. Glad your friend is alive.




> My mum hasn't had it yet, and I'm really hoping it to keep it that way. She's 70 and just got through bladder cancer, and her mum is still alive at 98, so I'm hoping to have her around for a lot longer. It does limit how much time she can spend with the kid, who always seems to have a cold (don't know if the kid gave us Covid or we avoided giving it to her, she never tested positive but we didn't continually test her). We're lucky enough to have boosters available and she would be eligible for antivirals if she did get it, but I'd still be much happier if she didn't.


Oh, wow, that's impressive. Best of luck to your mom and grandma.




> Apropos of absolutely nothing, but I never really liked Harry Potter all that much when I first read them and wondered what everyone was on about with them. For years and years I would either not voice this at all or voice it expecting major pushback from pretty much anyone who heard. But these days? Vindication feels nice.


Yeah, I read the first book and was unimpressed. The author coming out as a TERF has changed _Harry Potter_ from being a massive cultural phenomenon to being a massive cultural phenomenon but some people think it shouldn't be.

----------


## BisectedBrioche

> To clarify, because I realized that was a REALLY backhanded compliment just a little too late; I think they look really god, and they've got aspects that make them feel like real teeth (they're not perfectly jagged sharp, they have the natural roundness that comes with wear and tear that happens on teeth etc) and that makes them feel like they aren't machine made but Living, as teeth would be. They're very good!


It's OK, I got what you meant, FWIW, I had trouble getting them to look symmetrical and came to the same conclusion.

I wanted to go for needle-like teeth, but my two middle teeth are a bit large; with the next one, I think I'll outright ignore my incisors and see if I can straight up cover them.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

I enjoyed the TERF books when they came out, but I'd soured on them by the time I was 20. Part of that was having read a lot more fantasy than other people and finding the world building a bit lacking, part is that the prose was never actually that good. I can't deny it's impact, and if it wasn't for the TERFness I'd still recommend it for kids in the intended age range, but as it is I'll likely my theoretical children other books and maybe let them borrow Philosopher's Scone from the local library. I think The Dark Is Rising is meant to be a good series.

Like, there's worlds I'd much rather explore. Some of them are even trans friendly! In my own work I'm really struggling with just how obvious I should make it that my MC is trans, it's an incidental detail but she doesn't feel right as a cis girl.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Like, there's worlds I'd much rather explore. Some of them are even trans friendly! In my own work I'm really struggling with just how obvious I should make it that my MC is trans, it's an incidental detail but she doesn't feel right as a cis girl.


I like how Jemisin does it. In _The Fifth Season_ there's a trans boy and a trans woman and she refers their genitals during appropriate moments, like bathing. I thought that was a clever way of getting trans characters in a fantasy world without an explicit notion of transness.

----------


## Mystic Muse

3 miles in on treadmill tonight, and using the training plan as a checklist to keep myself motivated. 

Tomorrow is cross training. Exercise bike probably? Haven't decided.

----------


## Form

> Like, there's worlds I'd much rather explore. Some of them are even trans friendly! In my own work I'm really struggling with just how obvious I should make it that my MC is trans, it's an incidental detail but she doesn't feel right as a cis girl.


Maybe you don't. Maybe you just design the character that way and let it come up naturally if and when it's relevant. If your work features trans issues then it'll come up naturally and if not it will be more subtle, but that's probably a better approach then trying to force in scenes just for the sake of showing that a character is trans.

An example that comes to mind is the Kerfuffle character (who is absolutely adorable) in the My Little Pony Rainbow Roadtrip special. Kerfuffle has a prosthetic leg and it's clearly visible in several scenes, but the film does not draw any attention to it. No pony comments on it and there are no scenes that place any sort of emphasis on her leg. It's treated as something entirely ordinary. It's simply part of her character design, no different from her cutie mark or the color of her mane or coat. The same principle might apply to your work too.

----------


## theangelJean

> I enjoyed the TERF books when they came out, but I'd soured on them by the time I was 20. Part of that was having read a lot more fantasy than other people and finding the world building a bit lacking, part is that the prose was never actually that good. I can't deny it's impact, and if it wasn't for the TERFness I'd still recommend it for kids in the intended age range, but as it is I'll likely my theoretical children other books and maybe let them borrow Philosopher's Scone from the local library. I think The Dark Is Rising is meant to be a good series.
> 
> Like, there's worlds I'd much rather explore. Some of them are even trans friendly! In my own work I'm really struggling with just how obvious I should make it that my MC is trans, it's an incidental detail but she doesn't feel right as a cis girl.





> Maybe you don't. Maybe you just design the character that way and let it come up naturally if and when it's relevant. If your work features trans issues then it'll come up naturally and if not it will be more subtle, but that's probably a better approach then trying to force in scenes just for the sake of showing that a character is trans.
> 
> An example that comes to mind is the Kerfuffle character (who is absolutely adorable) in the My Little Pony Rainbow Roadtrip special. Kerfuffle has a prosthetic leg and it's clearly visible in several scenes, but the film does not draw any attention to it. No pony comments on it and there are no scenes that place any sort of emphasis on her leg. It's treated as something entirely ordinary. It's simply part of her character design, no different from her cutie mark or the color of her mane or coat. The same principle might apply to your work too.


Yup! We need all kinds of stories about and featuring trans characters. Like, in Zodi's Mist and Fire, being trans is a Issue for the main character and her ongoing experiences reflect that. But if it's not plot-relevant for your character, well, think about how many sentences a novel typically spends describing a female character's appearance. I don't know the context for your work, but if it is truly of very little consequence, you could just mention it there and let the reader get to know know that aspect of her.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Yup! We need all kinds of stories about and featuring trans characters. Like, in Zodi's Mist and Fire, being trans is a Issue for the main character and her ongoing experiences reflect that. But if it's not plot-relevant for your character, well, think about how many sentences a novel typically spends describing a female character's appearance. I don't know the context for your work, but if it is truly of very little consequence, you could just mention it there and let the reader get to know know that aspect of her.


Depending on the novel, anywhere between half a page and six hundred pages  :Small Tongue: 

Like, it's only going to matter if I want delve into things we probably shouldn't talk about on this board, due to being set in modern Britain. But yeah, that's a lot of heavy stuff I don't want to dig into, and I fully believe that having main characters who just happen to be [trait] is as important to diversity as having stories revolve around said trait.

Like, if this was a visual medium I'd mess about with face shapes and give her a trans flag in her bedroom. But it's much harder to have such details in prose without drawing attention to them. On the other end, I am definitely planning to avoid any explicit mention of genitalia, partially because they're a big part of trans fetishization partially because they don't matter even if I end up incorporating a sex scene.

Like, it's treading the line between subtle hints and outright saying it. I could definitely contrive a reason for it to come up, or have her girlfriend mention it, but it would feel forced. Probably the best way to do it is work in a mention of her getting T-blockers or taking E.

----------


## Peelee

> 3 miles in on treadmill tonight, and using the training plan as a checklist to keep myself motivated.


Assuming a ten minute mile, that's nearly a 5k in half an hour. Go MM!

----------


## Fyraltari

> I enjoyed the TERF books when they came out, but I'd soured on them by the time I was 20. Part of that was having read a lot more fantasy than other people and finding the world building a bit lacking, part is that the prose was never actually that good. I can't deny it's impact, and if it wasn't for the TERFness I'd still recommend it for kids in the intended age range, but as it is I'll likely my theoretical children other books and maybe let them borrow Philosopher's Scone from the local library. I think The Dark Is Rising is meant to be a good series.
> 
> Like, there's worlds I'd much rather explore. Some of them are even trans friendly! In my own work I'm really struggling with just how obvious I should make it that my MC is trans, it's an incidental detail but she doesn't feel right as a cis girl.


Yeah, I really liked them as a kind, but growing up, I gradually got over them. Mostly because of the shoddy worldbuilding and the whole House Elves situation. Only saw some of the movies. Rowling recent... breakdown was the final nail for me.

----------


## Peelee

> Yeah, I really liked them as a kind, but growing up, I gradually got over them. Mostly because of the shoddy worldbuilding and the whole House Elves situation. Only saw some of the movies. Rowling recent... breakdown was the final nail for me.


Dont forget lazy writing! Snape was obviously protective of the main character in the initial book, protecting him from literal Wizard Hitler, and the rest still try to play up "oh no is Snape still evil how could Doodledrake be so foolish to trust him?!?" stretching and padding the series. House points are a major focus in the first story and then never brought up again - not relegated to the background, literally never mentioned ever again, I guess they just disbanded that system after the first book where the head of the system unilaterally decided on who he wanted to win regardless of the point system and just rigged it in full view of the entire school system. That'd actually make sense, though, so I doubt it was dissolved. And let's not forget how the entire fourth story's plot is 100% based on a plot hole - there are supposed to be three contenders, and there are four, one school is double represented. It's blatantly clear from the moment this happens it's due to cheating, it's clearly cheating, there's everything but a giant rainbow neon sign above the goblet saying "this scenario can only happen via cheating", and then at the end, hey, we find out it was done by cheating! What a twist! And even better, cheating apparently doesn't matter at all! You're still apparently bound by all the rules even though it was cheated? Imean, if you can cheat to start with, why can't you just cheat further? Or just have him "participate" and take maybe one step onto the field and then sit down and not do anything, because cheating to get him in aside, he's not even eligible due to the age requirements! And, as you mentioned, the whole we have this chattel slavery system but they like it so it's totally cool!" thing was uncomfortable. 

And so on and so on. They're just not very good. And that was before the author openly jumped into the looney bin.

----------


## Mystic Muse

> Assuming a ten minute mile, that's nearly a 5k in half an hour. Go MM!


Just starting, so closer to a 20 minute mile. Will be aiming for better down the line when I'm in better shape. 

Even that was a bit taxing on my ankles so not pushing it. Decided I will probably do Yoga for my cross-training days.

----------


## Peelee

> Just starting, so closer to a 20 minute mile. Will be aiming for better down the line when I'm in better shape. 
> 
> Even that was a bit taxing on my ankles so not pushing it. Decided I will probably do Yoga for my cross-training days.


So a bit longer but hey, a 5k is a 5k. (I don't care about the 0.1mile extra). Plus, being on a treadmill for an hour regardless is still rockin' it.

Also, fun fact! You're about hitting the minimum fitness requirement for the fed job I'm going for!

----------


## LaZodiac

> Depending on the novel, anywhere between half a page and six hundred pages 
> 
> Like, it's only going to matter if I want delve into things we probably shouldn't talk about on this board, due to being set in modern Britain. But yeah, that's a lot of heavy stuff I don't want to dig into, and I fully believe that having main characters who just happen to be [trait] is as important to diversity as having stories revolve around said trait.
> 
> Like, if this was a visual medium I'd mess about with face shapes and give her a trans flag in her bedroom. But it's much harder to have such details in prose without drawing attention to them. On the other end, I am definitely planning to avoid any explicit mention of genitalia, partially because they're a big part of trans fetishization partially because they don't matter even if I end up incorporating a sex scene.
> 
> Like, it's treading the line between subtle hints and outright saying it. I could definitely contrive a reason for it to come up, or have her girlfriend mention it, but it would feel forced. Probably the best way to do it is work in a mention of her getting T-blockers or taking E.


Yeah, I agree with that. Just write her as a trans girl and the vibes'll get through. It'll come up in a direct sense when it comes up, and worst case scenario you get some readers who are surprised when they realize it, which is always fun.

The mention of taking Estrodial absolutely works for this. Just, daily routine of wake up, meds, teeth, breakfast and so on. That'll be all you kinda need, honestly.

----------


## Rater202

I can't help but think that, in real life, the story told by the Pina Colada song would end with the relationship getting worse.

Like, if a couple has literally everything in common but doesn't know that they have everything in common then they are really, _really_ bad at communicating.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I can't help but think that, in real life, the story told by the Pina Colada song would end with the relationship getting worse.
> 
> Like, if a couple has literally everything in common but doesn't know that they have everything in common then they are really, _really_ bad at communicating.


I'll admit I sorta figured Pina Colada was not a relationship song so much as it was a want ad. "Yo hit me up if..." and then the song happens.

Upon looking u the lyrics it appears that I've literally only ever heard half of this song, and that it is in fact a want ad, and I only ever heard that part. Huh.

----------


## Rater202

> I'll admit I sorta figured Pina Colada was not a relationship song so much as it was a want ad. "Yo hit me up if..." and then the song happens.
> 
> Upon looking u the lyrics it appears that I've literally only ever heard half of this song, and that it is in fact a want ad, and I only ever heard that part. Huh.


It's about a man in a failing marriage who responds to the personal ad of a woman who seems Taylor made for him, they agree to meet in public, and it turns out its his wife who was just as unsatisfied with the marriage as he was.

It ends with them reconciling over their newfound shared interests but... How the hell do you get married when you know absolutely nothing about each other?

I just can't help but think that, realistically it would have ended badly.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Yeah, I agree with that. Just write her as a trans girl and the vibes'll get through. It'll come up in a direct sense when it comes up, and worst case scenario you get some readers who are surprised when they realize it, which is always fun.


Do I have to do the reveal before it becomes surprise fantasy erotica?  :Small Tongue: 

Okay, that's not decided yet. But it might happen.

I'll definitely take your advice,and also run it past some ladies to make sure it feels real.




> The mention of taking Estrodial absolutely works for this. Just, daily routine of wake up, meds, teeth, breakfast and so on. That'll be all you kinda need, honestly.


I'll definitely have it there if there's a natural way to incorporate it. Like, I'm not going to include her morning routine just to let people know she's trans, but I can probably move conversations to interrupt it.

It'll be at least a third of the book away from where I am, but that's not a bad thing.

----------


## LaZodiac

> It's about a man in a failing marriage who responds to the personal ad of a woman who seems Taylor made for him, they agree to meet in public, and it turns out its his wife who was just as unsatisfied with the marriage as he was.
> 
> It ends with them reconciling over their newfound shared interests but... How the hell do you get married when you know absolutely nothing about each other?
> 
> I just can't help but think that, realistically it would have ended badly.


I like to believe they knew they liked that, but due to the pressures of life fell out of doing it and thought each other did not like it anymore. The realization that the person you love is still that person, but life has pulled them (and you) down a bit.

Wishful thinking, sure, but still! The fact that this little incident wasn't taken badly ("you were going to cheat on me??" "You did it first!!") implies that all this did was remind them of their joy.

Realistically yeah it might have ended badly- but it might not have too!




> Do I have to do the reveal before it becomes surprise fantasy erotica? 
> 
> Okay, that's not decided yet. But it might happen.
> 
> I'll definitely take your advice,and also run it past some ladies to make sure it feels real.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll definitely have it there if there's a natural way to incorporate it. Like, I'm not going to include her morning routine just to let people know she's trans, but I can probably move conversations to interrupt it.
> ...


I don't think it should _become_ surprise fantasy erotica! If that sort of thing is involved it shouldn't be a surprise- keep it a tasteful fade to black. That's not to say there can't be nudity or stuff that leans horny for lack of a better term (my own writing has that at times, just look at poor Saila) but going too far into it can often just be uncomfortable if not, like, probably prepared for. A recent book someone recommended here has full on trans-girl jacking it scenes and boy if I had read that book and ran into it apropos of nothing, I'd have pitched that ****er against a wall in surprise and disgust.

Cause like you said; this **** can get fetishy quick and we'd Best Avoid That, peresonally.

Just to clarify for the judge and jury: I'm not a prude. I'm not against having more adult **** in books. To each their own! I just think it needs to be approached elegantly and with care... even if the event itself is decidedly not, if that's what you're going for.

----------


## Rater202

That feel when you're having a discussion with someone, have a disagreement... And then the comic that comes out the next day says you're _both_ wrong.

----------


## LaZodiac

> That feel when you're having a discussion with someone, have a disagreement... And then the comic that comes out the next day says you're _both_ wrong.


Lol that's just funny. Few things are funnier (and better at reminding one to maybe relax a bit) than theorizing something with someone, coming to different conclusions, getting wildly heated about it... and both ending up being wrong. Really puts it into perspective.

Also from like, the most basic osmosis possible, I'm gonna guess this is about... the Fantastic Four, yeah?

----------


## Rater202

> Lol that's just funny. Few things are funnier (and better at reminding one to maybe relax a bit) than theorizing something with someone, coming to different conclusions, getting wildly heated about it... and both ending up being wrong. Really puts it into perspective.
> 
> Also from like, the most basic osmosis possible, I'm gonna guess this is about... the Fantastic Four, yeah?


No.

*Spoiler: This could get long*
Show

So the most recent seriess of The Eternals ended with two major reveals.

1: The origin of the "Deviant Syndrome" that makes Thanos a "Mutant Eternal" is that the process by which he and his brother Eros were created involved literally grafting Deviant DNA to them, making them Eternal-Deviant Hybrids.

2: The purpose by which the Deviants were created by the Celestials was to absorb the "Celestial Nerofluid" left behind by the Celstial that died here, rapidly mutate until they reached a stable form, then breed with baseline humanity to introduce cosmic potential to be activated later.

Upon learning this last bit, Druig, having become Prime Eternal but his position being shakey, decides that a quick genocide would solidify his position and has The MAchine That Is Earth scan the planet for populations of deviant decended humans that could reasonably be considered Deviants and Krakoa lit right up, so he declared War.

...And then the Deviants showed up to help the mutants. All of them. Every DEviant on Earth. Walked right through Krakoa's gates... Without an invitation or an escort, which means that Krakoa can't tell the difference between Deviants and Mutants.

...And honestly, the Deivnat reveal makes  whole hell of a lot of sense for more reasons than I can go into here.

The end of this storyline concluded with the more minor reveal that when the celestials created the MAchine That Is Earth, they made it the actual planet and not just a network of machine in part by studying Okkara, a small Living continent. Okkara of course, being the progenitor for Krakoa and it's counterpart Arakko.

a person on another forum had a problem with the "Deviant Theory" reveal because Krakoa has been consistently referred to as a "mutant island" so if Okkara existed when the Celestial got here that must mean that mutants predate Deviants. to which I countered that I didn't think the islands were _that_ kind of mutant.

Enter The Mauraders. Mauraders is a comic starring Kae Pryde and her pirate crew, and the current volume covers the mystery of Threshold, the lost "first generation" of Mutants... From two billion years ago. Which raises the question of how there could be mutants eons before their were primates, le alone befoe the Celstial experiments that created.

The answer, from the begining , was obviously time travel and there've been hints eer since that no, this is not a naturally occurring society, but this week's comic established that Threshold was created by Stryfe.

Stryfe is a clone of Cable, created by Apocalypse, in a possible future. He basically arranged for Threshold to be created in order to created himself in the distant past and then raze history to he ground and rewrite it from the beginning, with the other mutants(and a minority of humans) being created as a byproduct.

Anyway, one of the Thresholders was a mutant named Grove, who has the power that, when she's injured, plant and fungal matter grows back to fix it.

After getting so royally ****ed up that her entire body was replaced with plant matter, she decides that she's changed enough that she needs a new name and renames herself... Okkara.

So, Okkara *is* _that_ kind of mutant... But doesn't contradict the Deviant theory, since she's only there to be studied by the Celestials because of a time-loop.

(now, that wasn't the only reason the other guy had a problem with the "Deviant Theory") but that's immaterial.

----------


## LaZodiac

> No.
> 
> *Spoiler: This could get long*
> Show
> 
> So the most recent seriess of The Eternals ended with two major reveals.
> 
> 1: The origin of the "Deviant Syndrome" that makes Thanos a "Mutant Eternal" is that the process by which he and his brother Eros were created involved literally grafting Deviant DNA to them, making them Eternal-Deviant Hybrids.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this gift Rater this is incredibly wild a read from beginning to end.

----------


## Fyraltari

> No.
> 
> *Spoiler: This could get long*
> Show
> 
> So the most recent seriess of The Eternals ended with two major reveals.
> 
> 1: The origin of the "Deviant Syndrome" that makes Thanos a "Mutant Eternal" is that the process by which he and his brother Eros were created involved literally grafting Deviant DNA to them, making them Eternal-Deviant Hybrids.
> 
> ...


*Spoiler: Right...*
Show

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> I don't think it should _become_ surprise fantasy erotica! If that sort of thing is involved it shouldn't be a surprise- keep it a tasteful fade to black. That's not to say there can't be nudity or stuff that leans horny for lack of a better term (my own writing has that at times, just look at poor Saila) but going too far into it can often just be uncomfortable if not, like, probably prepared for. A recent book someone recommended here has full on trans-girl jacking it scenes and boy if I had read that book and ran into it apropos of nothing, I'd have pitched that ****er against a wall in surprise and disgust.
> 
> Cause like you said; this **** can get fetishy quick and we'd Best Avoid That, peresonally.
> 
> Just to clarify for the judge and jury: I'm not a prude. I'm not against having more adult **** in books. To each their own! I just think it needs to be approached elegantly and with care... even if the event itself is decidedly not, if that's what you're going for.


I mean, it can probably be built up to reasonably without being telegraphed before you buy the book, but as I say, I'm not convinced I want to actually go erotica (at least here).

I mean, those areas might get mentioned at some point, but I'm planning to avoid actions and ideally gloss over such things in a sentence. From a purely personal morals perspective I'm more than fine with including detailed nudity, but I'm very aware of the trans fetishism issue (and I'm not exactly completely innocent of it myself).

----------


## Bartmanhomer

Speaking of writing. I've been writing so many stories myself. Mostly Degrassi stories and so many people love my stories so much.  :Smile:

----------


## Peelee

> Okay, enough sick-bitching.
> 
> New Topic: Favorite Songs?
> 
> Mine is, currently, Cosmic I from Psychonauts 2.
> 
> I don't know why, but something about Jack Black singing a psychedelic rock opera ballad about the transcendental euphoria that comes from having a full suite of properly functioning senses and the joy of his memories returning after spending 20 years in total sensory deprivation makes me feel happy
> 
> Edit: Epiphany, it probably has something to do with my fear of memory loss and death of personality. Black's character in the game experienced that in totality but then made a complete recovery and the song is celebrating that.


Since I just heard it again, I'm also going to toss in ABBA's Fernando. ABBA was always tossing out absolute bangers but that's always been my favorite, especially with Tha joyous/triumphant sounding chorus, and the lyrics are perfect. Putting it up as one of my favorite songs period because it's also taken a personal meaning to me, I've discovered.

----------


## HalfTangible

Pretty much everything by Sabaton is a banger, but I often cite Dreadnought and Christmas Truce as my two favorites.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Speaking of writing. I've been writing so many stories myself. Mostly Degrassi stories and so many people love my stories so much.


Congrats on your stories! Lots of writers here, which is pretty cool.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Congrats on your stories! Lots of writers here, which is pretty cool.


Thank you. I did create original characters for my Degrassi stories which have been inspired by D&D Dragon Deity Pantheon, other pop culture TV shows, stories, and books.  :Smile:

----------


## Mystic Muse

> Pretty much everything by Sabaton is a banger, but I often cite Dreadnought and Christmas Truce as my two favorites.


Both very good choices. Love the chorus in Dreadnought, and the entirety of Christmas Truce.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Thank you. I did create original characters for my Degrassi stories which have been inspired by D&D Dragon Deity Pantheon, other pop culture TV shows, stories, and books.


I just looked up "Degrassi." Apparently it's a TV show but for some reason I assumed you were writing fanfiction about Neil deGrasse Tyson.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> I just looked up "Degrassi." It's a TV show but for some reason, I assumed you were writing fanfiction about Neil deGrasse Tyson.


It's a Canadian Teen Drama TV show and I can tell if you're joking.  :Smile:  If you're interested, you can read one of my Degrassi stories that I wrote and finished recently. https://www.wattpad.com/story/329749...ssclmmrvwR3m9U

----------


## TaiLiu

> It's a Canadian Teen Drama TV show and I can tell if you're joking.  If you're interested, you can read one of my Degrassi stories that I wrote and finished recently. https://www.wattpad.com/story/329749...ssclmmrvwR3m9U


Can, or can't?  :Small Tongue: 

Thanks! I read the first two chapters. I'm not sure it's a story for me, but 27 chapters is impressive. I'd like to write more but I'm quite lazy.

Also, your name is on your account and people may be able to track you. Maybe you don't mind, but figured I should give you a friendly heads up.  :Small Smile:

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> Can, or can't? 
> 
> Thanks! I read the first two chapters. I'm not sure it's a story for me, but 27 chapters are impressive. I'd like to write more but I'm quite lazy.
> 
> Also, your name is on your account and people may be able to track you. Maybe you don't mind, but figured I should give you a friendly heads-up.


Thanks for the heads up.  :Smile:

----------


## Mystic Muse

2 miles in 34 minutes, and learned 55 is going to be my starting weight for bench pressing in the future. 

I want to eventually get to a consistent speed of 4.5 miles an hour (Finish the mini in ~3 hours, but I'll be glad if I get it done within the time limit of 4), and be able to bench more than my weight. 

Research says that you can go up roughly 10-15 pounds per month on weight until you hit your wall, so theoretically I will hit my benching goal sometime next year.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

> 2 miles in 34 minutes, and learned 55 is going to be my starting weight for bench pressing in the future. 
> 
> I want to eventually get to a consistent speed of 4.5 miles an hour (Finish the mini in ~3 hours, but I'll be glad if I get it done within the time limit of 4), and be able to bench more than my weight. 
> 
> Research says that you can go up roughly 10-15 pounds per month on weight until you hit your wall, so theoretically I will hit my benching goal sometime next year.


You can do it. You have the power to achieve your goal.  :Smile:

----------


## LaZodiac

> 2 miles in 34 minutes, and learned 55 is going to be my starting weight for bench pressing in the future. 
> 
> I want to eventually get to a consistent speed of 4.5 miles an hour (Finish the mini in ~3 hours, but I'll be glad if I get it done within the time limit of 4), and be able to bench more than my weight. 
> 
> Research says that you can go up roughly 10-15 pounds per month on weight until you hit your wall, so theoretically I will hit my benching goal sometime next year.


Such a powerful girlfriend...

======

Chapter 12 of Mist and Fire! Saila wakes in the aftermath of the terrible fight, and has to make some touch decisions...

*You can read it all here!*

----------


## Mystic Muse

> Such a powerful girlfriend...


I'm just barely getting started, wait until I stick with it and make some progress before being impressed.  :Small Tongue: 

Tonight is more yoga. Tomorrow I'm doing elliptical instead of treadmill, because I want to give my legs a bit of an impact break, and I won't hit the three mile benchmark on Arc Trainer before running out of water.

----------


## Rater202

A few years ago I showed the entirety of Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, the original web series, to my grandmother.

She thought it was cute.

----------


## 2D8HP

> Oh, wow, that must've been real scary. Glad your friend is alive.



It was TaiLiu, and thank you, we had an old firefighter tell us You two did good that night; I also found that my Fox umbrella was worth every penny.

Our friend is now in a special hospital treatment program and were hoping hell get the car he needs.

----------


## Aedilred

> Okay, enough sick-bitching.
> 
> New Topic: Favorite Songs?


Identifying a single favourite song is tricky, and it changes over time of course, but I'm reasonably confident in identifying Elton John's _Funeral for a Friend_/_Love Lies Bleeding_ as one of my all-time faves. Mostly for the instrumental, with _Someone Saved My Life Tonight_ probably being my favourite of his sung-through numbers. 

Among ABBA songs, _Gimme Gimme Gimme_.

----------


## Peelee

> Identifying a single favourite song is tricky, and it changes over time of course, but I'm reasonably confident in identifying Elton John's _Funeral for a Friend_/_Love Lies Bleeding_ as one of my all-time faves. Mostly for the instrumental, with _Someone Saved My Life Tonight_ probably being my favourite of his sung-through numbers. 
> 
> Among ABBA songs, _Gimme Gimme Gimme_.


"Among ABBA songs" could easily be its own separate category.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> "Among ABBA songs" could easily be its own separate category.


_♪The history book on the shelf
Is almost repeating itself...♪_

----------


## TaiLiu

> It was TaiLiu, and thank you, we had an old firefighter tell us You two did good that night; I also found that my Fox umbrella was worth every penny.
> 
> Our friend is now in a special hospital treatment program and were hoping hell get the car he needs.


Glad you got the kudos you deserve. Best of luck to your friend.  :Small Smile:

----------


## LaZodiac

Oh hey folks, I've got something... wildly cool to show you! Due to my first artist kinda vanishing, and my desire to have a consistent artist for each book cover, I've finally bitten the bullet and the new and improved version of my book Initial Sparks is going to get new art to go along side it!

*Please look at it with your eyeballs!*

----------


## Lord Raziere

its awesome. now I can say I'll be one of the few to have the pre-art change version. this would mean something if I brought an actual book, but it doesn't. this art style is clearly sharper and well-defined while the first was more like painting more blendy. I think it gets across the same feel quite fine though.

also, I am currently on a jumpchain kick trying to figure out the best perk to take of a Nobilis jump and I blame Rater for this.

----------


## Rater202

> Oh hey folks, I've got something... wildly cool to show you! Due to my first artist kinda vanishing, and my desire to have a consistent artist for each book cover, I've finally bitten the bullet and the new and improved version of my book Initial Sparks is going to get new art to go along side it!
> 
> *Please look at it with your eyeballs!*


Oh, that looks nice.

@Raz: Sorry. I'd help you but I haven't looked at any Nobilis Jumps.

----------


## theangelJean

> Oh hey folks, I've got something... wildly cool to show you! Due to my first artist kinda vanishing, and my desire to have a consistent artist for each book cover, I've finally bitten the bullet and the new and improved version of my book Initial Sparks is going to get new art to go along side it!
> 
> *Please look at it with your eyeballs!*


Did you get Lucy Lyall? Please tell me you got Lucy Lyall!

I guess more than one artist can draw in a particular style... I backed her book _Spare Keys for Strange Doors_ and then promptly forgot about it until last month - finally sent in my address and received the book during my second admission. Wonder if it's available in stores.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Did you get Lucy Lyall? Please tell me you got Lucy Lyall!
> 
> I guess more than one artist can draw in a particular style... I backed her book _Spare Keys for Strange Doors_ and then promptly forgot about it until last month - finally sent in my address and received the book during my second admission. Wonder if it's available in stores.


Nope, this is an artist I know called Johan! You can find his work here, and also can commission him, which you should!

----------


## Lord Raziere

> @Raz: Sorry. I'd help you but I haven't looked at any Nobilis Jumps.


Eh, thats okay, they're mostly different flavors of godhood anyways. like its easy to pick perks for some lower powered jumpchain because you know what this or that does, its when you start picking Fate/stay stuff or whatever that it starts getting hard because the decisions about the powers gets a bit abstract and harder to understand. because if you go to like, a Fallout New Vegas jump, the perks you can get are things like a vending machine that gives you unlimited nuka-cola or something and while that isn't terribly useful and probably needs some rad resistance to enjoy to the fullest, its a nice benefit to just theoretically have whenever.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Oh hey folks, I've got something... wildly cool to show you! Due to my first artist kinda vanishing, and my desire to have a consistent artist for each book cover, I've finally bitten the bullet and the new and improved version of my book Initial Sparks is going to get new art to go along side it!
> 
> *Please look at it with your eyeballs!*


Oh, very nice! I like this cover better than the old cover.

----------


## Rater202

> Eh, thats okay, they're mostly different flavors of godhood anyways. like its easy to pick perks for some lower powered jumpchain because you know what this or that does, its when you start picking Fate/stay stuff or whatever that it starts getting hard because the decisions about the powers gets a bit abstract and harder to understand. because if you go to like, a Fallout New Vegas jump, the perks you can get are things like a vending machine that gives you unlimited nuka-cola or something and while that isn't terribly useful and probably needs some rad resistance to enjoy to the fullest, its a nice benefit to just theoretically have whenever.


Generally speaking, if I'm looking for stuff like that I tend to go for a setting where I already have an idea of how what's there works.

Like, if I want my Jumper to be a deity I usually head for either a Marvel Jump that lets you be an Asgardian or an Exalted Jump(my preference is Keychain of Creation.)

There is a Naruto Jump based entirely around being a member of the Otsutsuki Clan, however, which is fun if you want a mixture of traditional biggatons coupled with a more esoteric form of divinity rather than relying on conceptual authority.

There are also number of cultivation jumps, but... Most of the cultivation _systems_ are things I don't care for. The one I do care for, meanwhile, requires you to jump through some hoops in prep work in order to get the most out of it without a risk of getting screwed over by arbitrary cosmic judgments and being able to use one aspect of the cultivation system when it would actually be useful to you.

Like the "you've been both Link and Zelda at least once and might have also been Ganondorf and went to at least one other Cultivation setting and ignored the actual cultivation just to grab a perk" hoops.

----------


## Lord Raziere

I mean that sounds like to me that I should figure out how to get a Nobilis group together so I can play it so I can know how Nobilis works better more than anything else. 

and yeah I think I found the KoC jump. too bad there isn't any more up to date Exalted jumps, a 3e Exalted jump doc would be interesting.

----------


## Rater202

Freshly shredded cheddar and roast beef on soft rye, fried with canola spray.

Not quite meaty or cheesy but very savory, with the distinct flavor of the rye as an aftertaste.

Pairs well with jalapeno Triscuits.

----------


## Metastachydium

> *Please look at it with your eyeballs!*





> *with your eyeballs*





> *your eyeballs*





> *eyeballs*


Why do you want me to _not_ look at it?

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Well my laptop's hinge has broken, so I guess it's time to get a new one.

Considering I've had this one for like half a decade it's probably time to upgrade.

----------


## Mystic Muse

> Why do you want me to _not_ look at it?


I see two eyeballs in your avatar.

----------


## enderlord99

> I see two eyeballs in your avatar.


He drew those with marker, IIRC.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Why do you want me to _not_ look at it?


My apologies, please engage with the visual medium however flowers do so. I don't know the specifics- presumably some sort of floral resonance.

Also god I just realized that you probably had a BIG ole shock if you've been reading Mist and Fire...

----------


## Fyraltari

> My apologies, please engage with the visual medium however flowers do so. I don't know the specifics- presumably some sort of floral resonance.
> 
> Also god I just realized that you probably had a BIG ole shock if you've been reading Mist and Fire...


Well, when you think about it, Meta's been continuously flashing us, so the two of you are probably even.

----------


## Rater202

Comic Book Trivia: Following the death of his wife, Wilson Fisk spent a great deal of time and money, hiring the best cooks and food scientists he could find, the try and recreate his wife's pancake recipe to no avail.

Years later, while having a meeting with Norman Osborn over breakfast, the pancakes that Osborn made were exactly the same as those his wife made.

Turns out it was just the recipe on the back of a box of Bisquick.

The takeaway here is that... Osborn cooked breakfast instead of having The Help do it. And he used relatively cheap instant mix to do it.

That is... Really weird for someone who is defined as being a rich and corrupt businessman.

----------


## Keltest

> Comic Book Trivia: Following the death of his wife, Wilson Fisk spent a great deal of time and money, hiring the best cooks and food scientists he could find, the try and recreate his wife's pancake recipe to no avail.
> 
> Years later, while having a meeting with Norman Osborn over breakfast, the pancakes that Osborn made were exactly the same as those his wife made.
> 
> Turns out it was just the recipe on the back of a box of Bisquick.
> 
> The takeaway here is that... Osborn cooked breakfast instead of having The Help do it. And he used relatively cheap instant mix to do it.
> 
> That is... Really weird for someone who is defined as being a rich and corrupt businessman.


Some people just like baking and doing things for themselves.


Besides, being corrupt means sometimes the Help doesnt get to know about your meeting with criminal masterminds.

----------


## Peelee

> Comic Book Trivia: Following the death of his wife, Wilson Fisk spent a great deal of time and money, hiring the best cooks and food scientists he could find, the try and recreate his wife's pancake recipe to no avail.
> 
> Years later, while having a meeting with Norman Osborn over breakfast, the pancakes that Osborn made were exactly the same as those his wife made.
> 
> Turns out it was just the recipe on the back of a box of Bisquick.
> 
> The takeaway here is that... Osborn cooked breakfast instead of having The Help do it. And he used relatively cheap instant mix to do it.
> 
> That is... Really weird for someone who is defined as being a rich and corrupt businessman.


Or it just means that General Mills paid for product placement. Now excuse me while I fight Thanos with these delicious Hostess Cupcakes!

ETA: 


> Besides, being corrupt means sometimes the Help doesnt get to know about your meeting with criminal masterminds.


Dont want anyone taking notes on a criminal conspiracy, do we?  :Small Wink:

----------


## Anonymouswizard

I can totally see Norman Osborn as the kind of person who enjoys cooking. I can also see him as the kind of person who doesn't care about breakfast foods (I half expect his normal breakfast to be Weetabix with mixed fruit and semi-skimmed milk). I mean, he probably doesn't cook every one of his meals, but I can see him doing the secret business lunches and the weekly Sunday roast.

----------


## Rater202

> Or it just means that General Mills paid for product placement. Now excuse me while I fight Thanos with these delicious Hostess Cupcakes!
> :


Are you insane? Against a cosmic threat like Thanos you're gonna need Hostess_ Fruit Pies._

...Okay, not gonna lie... You might be able to defeat Thanos by giving him snacks. Thanos is canonically self-sabotaging, for all of his narcissism and sociopathy deep down he doesn't believe that he deserves to win and always ends up doing something dumb that costs him victory because of that.

He also periodically abandons villainy to do something else. He was a farmer for a while.

So like.. Offering him a Hostess Fruit Pie might actually make him either decide to walk away from his plan and/or he'd eat it on the spot and take his time savoring it that you'd be able to take him down with a sucker punch.

----------


## Peelee

> Weetabix


This name will never stop being hilarious.



> Are you insane? Against a cosmic threat like Thanos you're gonna need Hostess_ Fruit Pies._
> 
> ...Okay, not gonna lie... You might be able to defeat Thanos by giving him snacks. Thanos is canonically self-sabotaging, for all of his narcissism and sociopathy deep down he doesn't believe that he deserves to win and always ends up doing something dumb that costs him victory because of that.
> 
> He also periodically abandons villainy to do something else. He was a farmer for a while.
> 
> So like.. Offering him a Hostess Fruit Pie might actually make him either decide to walk away from his plan and/or he'd eat it on the spot and take his time savoring it that you'd be able to take him down with a sucker punch.


Aha! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is Never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: Hostess Fruit Pies have been used to stymie villains for so long they prepare their own Fruit Pie supply, but this leaves them vulnerable to the mighty Hostess Cupcake!

For reals, though, I'm guessing it was an attempt to slightly humanize two villains, which I actually like.

----------


## Rater202

> For reals, though, I'm guessing it was an attempt to slightly humanize two villains, which I actually like.


..Marvel _does_ seem to use cooking food and cooking as a means of adding characterization quite often.

Loki for example has a habit of learning any bit of earth cooking that catches his fancy since... There's not much variety in Asgardian cooking.

In comparison, Earth has "so many breakfast meats."

Wolverine, meanwhile, bakes.
*Spoiler*
Show

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Wolverine, meanwhile, bakes.


So that's what he's the best at! We finally have an answer to the question!

----------


## Peelee

I love that he bakes in costume. Practical attire? That was the fevered dream of a madman the second yellow spandex came into the equation!

Also, Triple-J continues to be the best part of the Marvel universe.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Well my laptop's hinge has broken, so I guess it's time to get a new one.
> 
> Considering I've had this one for like half a decade it's probably time to upgrade.


What kind of laptop are you planning to get?

----------


## BisectedBrioche

> This name will never stop being hilarious.


Just because it's a funny word (it's absolutely a very British sounding product name; the transatlantic cousin of Something-O's, almost), or is there some sort of innuendo in US English?




> Aha! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is Never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: Hostess Fruit Pies have been used to stymie villains for so long they prepare their own Fruit Pie supply, but this leaves them vulnerable to the mighty Hostess Cupcake!
> 
> For reals, though, I'm guessing it was an attempt to slightly humanize two villains, which I actually like.


Without any context beyond what Rater provided, that sounds like a fantastic bit of characterisation. It ties into Fisk's tragic backstory, and it's got a subtle moral of "money can't buy you everything".

...would anyone else love to see a miniseries about a top chef contracted to recreate a supervillain's late wife's pancake recipe, or is that just me?




> So that's what he's the best at! We finally have an answer to the question!


RIP to the rest of the X-Men; what he does ain't nice!

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> What kind of laptop are you planning to get?


I'm basically looking at a bare bones office laptop. 8 gigs of RAM, an Intel i3 or i5 processor, and a 256 or 512 GB SSD.

----------


## Peelee

> Just because it's a funny word (it's absolutely a very British sounding product name; the transatlantic cousin of Something-O's, almost), or is there some sort of innuendo in US English?


It just sounds weirdly industrial to me.

----------


## Metastachydium

> I see two eyeballs in your avatar.


Looks can be deceiving!




> He drew those with marker, IIRC.


I've been called a great artist before. (Sue me!)




> My apologies, please engage with the visual medium however flowers do so. I don't know the specifics- presumably some sort of floral resonance.


Thank you! The new cover's lovely (it also looks a lot like the old cover, but that's probably intentional)! (Oh, and herbaceous plants have it easy. Most of the green bits are fully photoreceptive!)




> Also god I just realized that you probably had a BIG ole shock if you've been reading Mist and Fire...


When you introduced it first as prominently featuring firebreathing, I decided to bid my time. Later, you prefaced an update with something about floral surprises which made me happy so I tried to follow the link repeatedly, but it didn't work. Since your more regular readers didn't complain, I figured it's probably a me problem and with sadness in my heart, I gave up. Are you saying that was the right idea?




> Well, when you think about it, Meta's been continuously flashing us, so the two of you are probably even.


Hey, now! I resent that. You're just jealous because I'm pretty and I won't get arrested for making sure the world _knows_ that.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Thank you! The new cover's lovely (it also looks a lot like the old cover, but that's probably intentional)! (Oh, and herbaceous plants have it easy. Most of the green bits are fully photoreceptive!)
> 
> 
> 
> When you introduced it first as prominently featuring firebreathing, I decided to bid my time. Later, you prefaced an update with something about floral surprises which made me happy so I tried to follow the link repeatedly, but it didn't work. Since your more regular readers didn't complain, I figured it's probably a me problem and with sadness in my heart, I gave up. Are you saying that was the right idea?


Very intentional! Glad you like it. And ah, right, photoreceptors!

It's definitely a you problem, the link... should work. *If it's not working for anyone else please advise so I can fix this, I want everyone to read my work!*

Naw, don't give up on reading it! I just realized that the body-horror stuff might hit a different-yet-similar level of "oh god why" for you as opposed to the other, more meat-based readers. I'm curious of what your reaction will be...

----------


## Metastachydium

> It's definitely a you problem, the link... should work. *If it's not working for anyone else please advise so I can fix this, I want everyone to read my work!*


It's here, for the record. And now that I think of it, it doesn't really look like an url either. I'm confused.




> Naw, don't give up on reading it! I just realized that the body-horror stuff might hit a different-yet-similar level of "oh god why" for you as opposed to the other, more meat-based readers. I'm curious of what your reaction will be...


Ah, I see! Now I _must_ read it, then. (Fair warning, though: I'm quite far behind and real slow these days.)

----------


## LaZodiac

> It's here, for the record. And now that I think of it, it doesn't really look like an url either. I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see! Now I _must_ read it, then. (Fair warning, though: I'm quite far behind and real slow these days.)


Wild, how that was the one time I borked the link up.

Well, for convenience sake, *here is the link now!* Please give it a read if you'd like, and next time someone tell me when something is broken like that!

And no rush, Metastachydium. I hope you enjoy!

----------


## Rater202

You'd think after the fifth time the Enterprise Crew got in trouble because they encountered a planet whose culture included things like "you're not allowed to get mad when we kidnap your children to raise as breeding stock" or "we're allowed to execute you for this minor offense and you're disrespecting our culture if you refuse" that the Prime Directive would be amended to include an "Exceptions regarding the defense of yourself, fellow Starfleet operatives, or Federation Civilians" clause.

----------


## Peelee

> You'd think after the fifth time the Enterprise Crew got in trouble because they encountered a planet whose culture included things like "you're not allowed to get mad when we kidnap your children to raise as breeding stock" or "we're allowed to execute you for this minor offense and you're disrespecting our culture if you refuse" that the Prime Directive would be amended to include an "Exceptions regarding the defense of yourself, fellow Starfleet operatives, or Federation Civilians" clause.


Oh! I can answer this one!

The Prime Directive mostly involves pre-warp cultures, letting them develop their societies naturally until they are ready to make contact with offworlders. Once that barrier has been passed its basically like international relations - the Enterprise (and other ships, Starfleet personell, etc etc) can visit or make contact or what have you without any Prime Directive issues - if they couldnt, that would make trade, federation joining pitches, war, basically any possible contact with any non-federation entities a complete non-starter. But they still have to obey "the law of the land", or however they want to phrase that in space, for whatever area they're in, and would expect full reciprocity in return. Just like how current international relations are. If you go to the Nation of Peeleelandia where buying apples is a crime punishable by a year in prison then you best stick to citrus while you're there. And even though honor duels are perfectly normal in Peeleelandia it's still called "murder" in the States.

----------


## LaZodiac

> You'd think after the fifth time the Enterprise Crew got in trouble because they encountered a planet whose culture included things like "you're not allowed to get mad when we kidnap your children to raise as breeding stock" or "we're allowed to execute you for this minor offense and you're disrespecting our culture if you refuse" that the Prime Directive would be amended to include an "Exceptions regarding the defense of yourself, fellow Starfleet operatives, or Federation Civilians" clause.


The Prime Directive as portrayed by Picard himself may seem like a hard-fast rule, but the truth is that it's really always been a sort of idealized guideline with room for interpretation. Picard realizing that at the end of one of the episodes cited here is kinda the point of that episode (though some people hate that episode because they think it is "moralistic strawmanning" and "pro-colonialism" for saying their culture is Wrong for... executing people for any crime they commit.

My own personal opinions on that episode is that while following the law of the land you're in is reasonable, it also requires being advised as to the laws OF those land. Will Wheaton's a tiny little baby child from another planet he doesn't know what your rules are, and being killed outright for it is absurd.

So while it is true Trek has always had... problems, sometimes people are just Bad At Reading.

----------


## Peelee

> The Prime Directive as portrayed by Picard himself may seem like a hard-fast rule, but the truth is that it's really always been a sort of idealized guideline with room for interpretation. Picard realizing that at the end of one of the episodes cited here is kinda the point of that episode (though some people hate that episode because they think it is "moralistic strawmanning" and "pro-colonialism" for saying their culture is Wrong for... executing people for any crime they commit.
> 
> So while it is true Trek has always had... problems, sometimes people are just Bad At Reading.


That too. If the last resort is to just yank the Federation citizen away by force or more advanced technology, then the Enterprise is probably perfectly capable of that. It'll burn bridges with that society, of course, which may be no love lost for Starfleet if they're that ridiculous.

----------


## Rater202

> Oh! I can answer this one!
> 
> The Prime Directive mostly involves pre-warp cultures, letting them develop their societies naturally until they are ready to make contact with offworlders. Once that barrier has been passed its basically like international relations - the Enterprise (and other ships, Starfleet personell, etc etc) can visit or make contact or what have you without any Prime Directive issues - if they couldnt, that would make trade, federation joining pitches, war, basically any possible contact with any non-federation entities a complete non-starter. But they still have to obey "the law of the land", or however they want to phrase that in space, for whatever area they're in, and would expect full reciprocity in return. Just like how current international relations are. If you go to the Nation of Peeleelandia where buying apples is a crime punishable by a year in prison then you best stick to citrus while you're there. And even though honor duels are perfectly normal in Peeleelandia it's still called "murder" in the States.


Yeah, but then isn't the onus on the culture to ensure that visitors are aware of the law?

If your first contact scenario with another culture doesn't include telling them that your culture executes people for jaywalking it's kind of your fault when they lay sanctions on you for executing a tourist who got caught jaywalking.

Especially if it happens during the first contact scenario.

And likewise, if you had no way of knowing what the law was then you can't reasonably be expected to abide by it. Like obviously things like "don't steal, rape, or murder" are just common sense but if looking a noblewoman in the eyes is punishable by five decades of hard labor you should be entirely within your rights to defend yourself when people try to bring you in for it if nobody told you about that.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Why would they tell the federation that they execute people for jaywalking. They've only just met these aliens, how are they supposed to know what perfectly sensible things they'll take offence to. Like imagine if the my eat water dwelling creatures, despite how ridiculous it sounds.

----------


## Peelee

> Yeah, but then isn't the onus on the culture to ensure that visitors are aware of the law?
> 
> If your first contact scenario with another culture doesn't include telling them that your culture executes people for jaywalking it's kind of your fault when they lay sanctions on you for executing a tourist who got caught jaywalking.
> 
> Especially if it happens during the first contact scenario.
> 
> And likewise, if you had no way of knowing what the law was then you can't reasonably be expected to abide by it. Like obviously things like "don't steal, rape, or murder" are just common sense but if looking a noblewoman in the eyes is punishable by five decades of hard labor you should be entirely within your rights to defend yourself when people try to bring you in for it if nobody told you about that.


If you don't want to read a lot of reasoning, you can skip to the bottom.

Ideally yes, but Star Trek, despite what is popularly claimed, isn't really hard sci-fi, and we don't really have real-world analogies of discovering new societies that are roughly equivalent of modern societies to gauge this from. Generally there is a "ignorance of the law is no excuse" rule in pretty much every society, but the ethics of this are murky - even the US Federal government doesn't know how many laws it has, and expecting any given citizen to know them all is a high burden, even if we don't put them 50 feet up on the ceiling. You are perfectly capable of looking up laws any time, especially with the massive power of the internet, it it's still an absolutely crazy task. Even lawyers aren't expected to do this, they specialize and even subspecialize because there's just too much law for any one person to be reasonably well versed in. The flip side of this is that many, probably most, criminal laws have mens rea, the "criminal mind" element. You have to know it's illegal or know you're braking a law to be culpable. This can be hard to prove, but it's helpful in, say, defending yourself that you bought a fish that was illegal to buy in a different country and is thus illegal to buy here even though that sounds ridiculous and you've never heard of it before now. And also it's pretty hard to argue that no, your honor, I didn't know that stabbing that dude was illegal. The Star Trek episodes do usually have the offender do something that they should reasonably know is not allowed, and it's just the scale of the punishment that isn't known, which isn't a defense (I'm mostly thinking of a Wesley being sentenced to death for stepping on the flowers or breaking that small glass container in the field, whatever he did, that was a death sentence). You still know you shouldn't do it even if you don't know the punishment for it. Of course, with that staggering degree of punishment being levied across the board, one would indeed think that would be introduced early on.

But mostly it's just that a lot of that stuff is boring and the writers want to entertain and not go into hypothetical deep-dive logistics of interplanetary law, so they don't bother with that.


ETA: 


> Why would they tell the federation that they execute people for jaywalking. They've only just met these aliens, how are they supposed to know what perfectly sensible things they'll take offence to. Like imagine if the my eat water dwelling creatures, despite how ridiculous it sounds.


Also this, very much so. Our laws are basically our society saying "look, this is a reasonable standard". If you shoot someone, you know that person is going to be gravely injured or die, so it's reasonable to say "you can't do that". If you shoot a gun blindly and someone gets hit, you didn't know you were going to hit anyone but you did know that a gun is a powerful weapon and that bullets keep going after they leave the barrel, so it's reasonable to say "intent follows the bullet, you also can't do that." And so on and so on. And then lawyers argue about how reasonable it was ("she shot him because he was trying to stab her, that's reasonable!"). This is a _very_ rough breakdown but it's good enough to get to the core of why we have laws to start with. It's what we find reasonable vs unreasonable.

If a society finds reasonable, say, simulating missile attacks via computer and vaporizing people who would have died to preserve their infrastructure, then it might not occur to them to say, "hey, aliens! This totally reasonable thing that we just take for granted, just checking, you should know that!" Thatd be like the Federation greeting other species and saying "now do be aware, we have a fairly big hang-up about killing people. Big no-no for us". It may seem so self-evident as to be obvious.

Also I'm cheating a bit, in that episode the people did warn Kirk et al quite extensively against coming down and staying down.

----------


## Rater202

> If a society finds reasonable, say, simulating missile attacks via computer and vaporizing people who would have died to preserve their infrastructure, then it might not occur to them to say, "hey, aliens! This totally reasonable thing that we just take for granted, just checking, you should know that!" Thatd be like the Federation greeting other species and saying "now do be aware, we have a fairly big hang-up about killing people. Big no-no for us". It may seem so self-evident as to be obvious.
> 
> Also, I'm cheating a bit, in that episode the people did warn Kirk et al quite extensively against coming down and staying down.


Didn't that episode point out that the entire logic behind that was faulty and end with Kirk breaking the machines that simulated the missile strikes so that the involved nations would be forced to either negotiate an actual peace or fight a war that would damage their infrastructure until one side just can't fight anymore, either of which he considers preferable to a self-perpetuating cycle of pointless deaths under the logic that eventually the fighting and death would end whereas it most certainly would not under circumstances of the simulated war?

----------


## Peelee

> Didn't that episode point out that the entire logic behind that was faulty and end with Kirk breaking the machines that simulated the missile strikes so that the involved nations would be forced to either negotiate an actual peace or fight a war that would damage their infrastructure until one side just can't fight anymore, either of which he considers preferable to a self-perpetuating cycle of pointless deaths under the logic that eventually the fighting and death would end whereas it most certainly would not under circumstances of the simulated war?


I love TOS but it had a shockingly lot of episodes effectively be "hello aliens! We have come to teach you our peaceful ways, BY FORCE!"

----------


## Fyraltari

This is simply the problem of the culture clash. The solution isn't exactly fresh news: the visitor ought to make an effort to learn and abide by the laws and customs of the land, and the host ought to explain them as much as possible and forgive unintentional faux-pas.

In other words "When Rome, do as the Roman do" and "Forgive them, they are foreigners who do not know our ways".

----------


## Rater202

> I love TOS but it had a shockingly lot of episodes effectively be "hello aliens! We have come to teach you our peaceful ways, BY FORCE!"


I don't really think he was wrong in that case.

He was right on the money that this form of government-mandated mass suicide would basically never endyou don't lose a war from loss of lives, you lose it from loss of territory and infrastructure.

This prevents that while also still killing people, making it literally all the worst aspects of war while removing the loss conditions and, if I recall, didn't they... Manage to rig the system to simulate an attack on the enterprise? Which suggests that the simulations aren't even fairly weighted.

It would basically just keep going until everyone was dead. 

Granted, I'm of the opinion that cultural relativism is only a valid argument when the culture isn't stupid or cartoonishly evil and this society was both.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Granted, I'm of the opinion that cultural relativism is only a valid argument when the culture isn't stupid or cartoonishly evil and this society was both.


Agreed?

It sounds like Kirk made the right call here. "lets simulate war than vaporize our citizens without losing the territory" sounds like something a politician came up with without telling anyone, because if you tell me that anyone would honestly want their day to be interrupted by mandatory death just so their nation doesn't lose the buildings and land, I'm gonna slam hard on the "press X to doubt" button.

----------


## Coppercloud

> Granted, I'm of the opinion that cultural relativism is only a valid argument when the culture isn't stupid or cartoonishly evil [...].


That's 98% of cultures, you elitist!

----------


## Rater202

> Agreed?
> 
> It sounds like Kirk made the right call here. "lets simulate war than vaporize our citizens without losing the territory" sounds like something a politician came up with without telling anyone, because if you tell me that anyone would honestly want their day to be interrupted by mandatory death just so their nation doesn't lose the buildings and land, I'm gonna slam hard on the "press X to doubt" button.


There's also the problem of... at any time one side could just... Not do that without telling the other side and then in a generation launch a real attack by surprise and drown the other side with superior numbers.

The whole thing basically ran on the honor system which... Isn't exactly a wise choice when you hate each other.

----------


## Peelee

> I don't really think he was wrong in that case.
> 
> He was right on the money that this form of government-mandated mass suicide would basically never endyou don't lose a war from loss of lives, you lose it from loss of territory and infrastructure.
> 
> This prevents that while also still killing people, making it literally all the worst aspects of war while removing the loss conditions and, if I recall, didn't they... Manage to rig the system to simulate an attack on the enterprise? Which suggests that the simulations aren't even fairly weighted.
> 
> It would basically just keep going until everyone was dead. 
> 
> Granted, I'm of the opinion that cultural relativism is only a valid argument when the culture isn't stupid or cartoonishly evil and this society was both.


*Spoiler*
Show



However, Kirk isn't really the one to step in there. Like, even above the Prime Directive, Starfleet has a "not my clowns, not my circus" approach to external systems' problems unless they've been specifically requested to step in. Which, in this case, is the opposite. They were asked to butt out.



> There's also the problem of... at any time one side could just... Not do that without telling the other side and then in a generation launch a real attack by surprise and drown the other side with superior numbers.
> 
> The whole thing basically ran on the honor system which... Isn't exactly a wise choice when you hate each other.


Yeah, but that's an easy fix. One line of dialogue. "Thank god we invented the, you know, whatever device  All counts from the disintigrator chambers are, of course, verified".

----------


## Lord Raziere

well with that fix, the other problem with that system arises is what do you when the two powers simulate killing the leaders of the nation?

because its not like one or both leaders of these nations are going to just say "oh your simulation killed us, guess its off to the disintegration chambers for our entire administration" like, no leader is going to accept that, because thats just a good way for the other side to just swoop in while they're leaderless and all the verifications are going to unmanned screens and the rest of the nation is either disintegrating themselves in some other attack or having to get new leaders. so basically the leaders will never die in this set up, and the rich will probably just bribe the government to get out of being disintegrated anyways, so really all this system benefits is the rich and powerful.

----------


## Peelee

> well with that fix, the other problem with that system arises is what do you when the two powers simulate killing the leaders of the nation?
> 
> because its not like one or both leaders of these nations are going to just say "oh your simulation killed us, guess its off to the disintegration chambers for our entire administration" like, no leader is going to accept that, because thats just a good way for the other side to just swoop in while they're leaderless and all the verifications are going to unmanned screens and the rest of the nation is either disintegrating themselves in some other attack or having to get new leaders. so basically the leaders will never die in this set up, and the rich will probably just bribe the government to get out of being disintegrated anyways, so really all this system benefits is the rich and powerful.


The episode itself had the leader of one of the factions be up for disintegration. He was right by Kirk and Co. when the enemy "hit" the capital city. And his growing concern with being uncompliant up until it was too late implies either the verifications were unable to be fooled or they were unimpeachible regarding the honor system. Doesn't much matter, both roads lead to the same destination.

----------


## Rater202

Double checking, the Enterprise only interfered because they were ordered to by the Federation's Ambassador to the planet.

They escorted the Ambassador to the planet, after several days of radio silence the planet said to go away, then they got a message from the Ambassador telling them to get their butts to the planet.

The presence of a Federation diplomat on the planet is more than sufficient reason to get involved if only to safely evacuate said Ambassador.

The planet in question loses any and all right to complain about interference when they hold the landing party hostage and demand that the rest of the crew submit to execution despite being uninvolved parties and even if their cultural tradition of simulated war superseded the Enterprise Crew's right to life, the fact that they launched a *real* attack against the Enterprise when they don't comply costs them any and all moral high ground

By all means, this was basically _multiple_ unprovoked acts of war. Hostage-taking, attempted execution of diplomats and personnel, an unprovoked attack on a Federation ship...

This is basically _exactly_ why the Federation need "self-defense" clauses in their policies in interacting with non-Fedration cultures.

and then at the end of the episode, it turns out that actual peace negotiations are going pretty well which suggests that there was literally no point to this pretend war with real consequences by the time the episode rolled around. The actual conflict this was over was five centuries before the events of this episode, so like... They could have negotiated peace centuries ago. They just chose not to.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> The episode itself had the leader of one of the factions be up for disintegration. He was right by Kirk and Co. when the enemy "hit" the capital city. And his growing concern with being uncompliant up until it was too late implies either the verifications were unable to be fooled or they were unimpeachible regarding the honor system. Doesn't much matter, both roads lead to the same destination.


Mm. doesn't matter if the verifications can't be fooled, your forgetting the humanoid element. technology only works for the purposes we want it to work for. if that leader was worried they were a foolish and dumb about politics. a smart politician would simply refuse to comply, raise a big stink about needing someone to communicate the verification to the rest of the nation and therefore lobby to always be the verifier, thus the politicians would always be the ones excepted from actually dying or the system falls apart as they refuse to let it work. thus the system would only destroy the common person. the rich either bribe people with money to be excepted as well, everyone overlooks this so the managers of the big industries can keep on making money and providing them services. the idea that a powerful person would actually go along with themselves dying in that set up is laughable, and Star Trek is naive for thinking that such selfish concerns can just be subtracted from the equation just like that.

----------


## Peelee

> Double checking, the Enterprise only interfered because they were ordered to by the Federation's Ambassador to the planet.
> 
> They escorted the Ambassador to the planet, after several days of radio silence the planet said to go away, then they got a message from the Ambassador telling them to get their butts to the planet.
> 
> The presence of a Federation diplomat on the planet is more than sufficient reason to get involved if only to safely evacuate said Ambassador.


Ambassador Fox was on ship for the majority of the episode. And typically, when opening negotiations, if one side says "we don't want to talk to you, go away", one should not continue to press on. Regardless of the rest of the episode, Ambassador Fox is shown to be stubborn to a fault, naive, and outright stupid. 



> Mm. doesn't matter if the verifications can't be fooled, your forgetting the humanoid element. technology only works for the purposes we want it to work for. if that leader was worried they were a foolish and dumb about politics. a smart politician would simply refuse to comply, raise a big stink about needing someone to communicate the verification to the rest of the nation and therefore lobby to always be the verifier, thus the politicians would always be the ones excepted from actually dying or the system falls apart as they refuse to let it work. thus the system would only destroy the common person. the rich either bribe people with money to be excepted as well, everyone overlooks this so the managers of the big industries can keep on making money and providing them services. the idea that a powerful person would actually go along with themselves dying in that set up is laughable, and Star Trek is naive for thinking that such selfish concerns can just be subtracted from the equation just like that.


Ok, but the society seems built that if a politician said "wait no not me" then that politician would be carried away and out into the disintigrator by the military. Like, slice it however you want to, this is a society where someone who has been killed via simulated war will kill themselves regardless of their position. They'd been doing it for 500 years. One El Presidente saying "ehhhhh I don't feel like it" isn't going to cut it.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Ok, but the society seems built that if a politician said "wait no not me" then that politician would be carried away and out into the disintigrator by the military. Like, slice it however you want to, this is a society where someone who has been killed via simulated war will kill themselves regardless of their position. They'd been doing it for 500 years. One El Presidente saying "ehhhhh I don't feel like it" isn't going to cut it.


Ah, so the military are true holders of power and the exception, got it.  :Small Amused:

----------


## Peelee

> Ah, so the military are true holders of power and the exception, got it.


At the end of the day, the grunts with the guns are the basis of state power. Always have been. Politicians power ultimately stems from them. And what they giveth they can taketh away.

Notwithstanding that even in the ST universe this is academic because nobody on the planet was trying to avoid the disintegration chambers no matter how much you claim its silly.

----------


## TaiLiu

> I'm basically looking at a bare bones office laptop. 8 gigs of RAM, an Intel i3 or i5 processor, and a 256 or 512 GB SSD.


Cool cool! Hope your next laptop will last you half a decade, too.  :Small Smile:

----------


## Rater202

> At the end of the day, the grunts with the guns are the basis of state power. Always have been. Politicians power ultimately stems from them. And what they giveth they can taketh away.
> 
> Notwithstanding that even in the ST universe this is academic because nobody on the planet was trying to avoid the disintegration chambers no matter how much you claim its silly.


I mean, not that we see anyway.

I imagine that there were a _lot_ of people marched into the chambers at gunpoint when this idiocy started centuries ago.

----------


## Peelee

> I mean, not that we see anyway.
> 
> I imagine that there were a _lot_ of people marched into the chambers at gunpoint when this idiocy started centuries ago.


Oh, sure. I don't doubt that at all. But we're looking at centuries later.

----------


## LaZodiac

Due in part Celeste needing a reference for a commission, and in part because I just wanted to draw her, I have arted up one of the gods (well, more a demi-god since she's not one of the three creators) in my setting.

*Say hello to Painter!* Born of Mask, the Father of Beasts, and his left-over pants, her tails are forever stained with colour. She wields the Black Ink Spear, a minor artifact that can draw on reality (among other things), shrink to the size of a regular paint brush, and also just stab you to death. I hope you all like the art!

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Oh, sure. I don't doubt that at all. But we're looking at centuries later.


So that episode of Star Trek is just bad writing that ignores basic survival instincts, got it.

Edit @ LaZodiac: oh hey your setting has an actual god with a form? most settings I know of just keep their gods as vague out of the picture as possible. I'll be interested to see where you go with that.

----------


## Peelee

> So that episode of Star Trek is just bad writing that ignores basic survival instincts, got it.


I've got some bad news for you about a lot of episodes of Star Trek.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Rater202

> So Star Trek is just bad writing that ignores basic survival instincts, got it.


1: This was in the 60s so... Television writing wasn't necessarily the best.

2: Roddenberry was an optimist. As much as the episode was a warning about what happens if war becomes too impersonal, it would be on-brand to assume that of course a whole bunch of people would lay down their lives if they genuinely believed that it would save more lives in the long term.

Note that all of the stuff that was made when Roddenberry was alive was just full of the protagonists giving grandiose speeches about the inherent goodness of humans and ways that advanced technology, for all the risks, could create massive improvements in quality of life.

Like, goddamn, the Federation is a post-scarcity society. I think it was even established at one point that nobody *has* to work, whatever job you have is a job that you _wanted_ to do.

...Which does raise the issue of why there are waiters and such. I mean, if that's what you find fulfillment in then more power to you but you couldn't have aimed a _little_ higher?

All the dark and cynical **** came long after the man died.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> I've got some bad news for you about a lot of episodes of Star Trek.


Suits me, less things to watch so I can focus on whats good. There is a lot of pop-culture out there Peelee, I gotta narrow it down as much as I can.

----------


## LaZodiac

> @ LaZodiac: oh hey your setting has an actual god with a form? most settings I know of just keep their gods as vague out of the picture as possible. I'll be interested to see where you go with that.


Yeah! The three gods of the world had physical forms and origins... and all three of them have died far before Rei's time. 

Creo Argentum, the Creator of Humans, Gardener of Life. Kamen-no-Okitsune, The Masked Fox, Father of Beasts and Painter of Animals. Demon-Emperor Setra, the Smith, Forger of Demons and Monsters.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Yeah! The three gods of the world had physical forms and origins... and all three of them have died far before Rei's time. 
> 
> Creo Argentum, the Creator of Humans, Gardener of Life. Kamen-no-Okitsune, The Masked Fox, Father of Beasts and Painter of Animals. Demon-Emperor Setra, the Smith, Forger of Demons and Monsters.


Hm. three, but each with very different naming schemes. Speculation: are they just names given to them by the local cultures, or did the gods tell them their names?

----------


## LaZodiac

> Hm. three, but each with very different naming schemes. Speculation: are they just names given to them by the local cultures, or did the gods tell them their names?


To a degree! The gods have names for themselves (Kamen thinks of himself as a father, Creo sees herself as a God, and Setra seems himself as an Emperor, and their actual names are intrinsic to their souls) but basically every other name was given to them by people.

----------


## theangelJean

> Due in part Celeste needing a reference for a commission, and in part because I just wanted to draw her, I have arted up one of the gods (well, more a demi-god since she's not one of the three creators) in my setting.
> 
> *Say hello to Painter!* Born of Mask, the Father of Beasts, and his left-over pants, her tails are forever stained with colour. She wields the Black Ink Spear, a minor artifact that can draw on reality (among other things), shrink to the size of a regular paint brush, and also just stab you to death. I hope you all like the art!





> Yeah! The three gods of the world had physical forms and origins... and all three of them have died far before Rei's time. 
> 
> Creo Argentum, the Creator of Humans, Gardener of Life. Kamen-no-Okitsune, The Masked Fox, Father of Beasts and Painter of Animals. Demon-Emperor Setra, the Smith, Forger of Demons and Monsters.


Umm. Okay, pet peeve. I don't know if you've written her appearance into your works yet but ... Can she please not be blonde/yellow-haired?

I don't know your heritage. Maybe you're of Japanese descent and blonde, I know it does happen. Just, women with stereotypically Western colours in illustrations of Asian-inspired settings and garb is a bugbear of mine. Like, generations of brown-eyed, black-haired people made that aesthetic into an art form, and then so many people will just take it but stick in a red-haired green-eyed woman or give her blonde hair and blue eyes, because that's who they like to draw. As a black-haired, brown-eyed woman, I kind of feel like this erases us from our own aesthetic, you know?

Now if you have a deliberate mix of cultures going, like Creo Argentum has black curls and dark skin, and Demon-Emperor Setra has ... I dunno if I can even make this work. But if you don't, and you hadn't considered how this works, please think about it.

[/rant]

----------


## LaZodiac

> Umm. Okay, pet peeve. I don't know if you've written her appearance into your works yet but ... Can she please not be blonde/yellow-haired?
> 
> I don't know your heritage. Maybe you're of Japanese descent and blonde, I know it does happen. Just, women with stereotypically Western colours in illustrations of Asian-inspired settings and garb is a bugbear of mine. Like, generations of brown-eyed, black-haired people made that aesthetic into an art form, and then so many people will just take it but stick in a red-haired green-eyed woman or give her blonde hair and blue eyes, because that's who they like to draw. As a black-haired, brown-eyed woman, I kind of feel like this erases us from our own aesthetic, you know?
> 
> Now if you have a deliberate mix of cultures going, like Creo Argentum has black curls and dark skin, and Demon-Emperor Setra has ... I dunno if I can even make this work. But if you don't, and you hadn't considered how this works, please think about it.
> 
> [/rant]


Understandable, and trust me I've thought a lot about this- I'm well aware of those problems, and want to avoid them.

If it helps; her eyes are gold too, not blue. And second, she's meant to be a golden fox, a rare sort of red-fox colouration. In my setting, hair and fur for beastmen are the same, so if I wanted that golden fox look I'd need to have her hair be like that too. I had the idea of maybe her hair is ink-streaked like her brush, so it's predominately black but has shades of gold in it, but if that's not good just let me know.

And if you've any other suggestions on how to fix that, I'm all ears! Do tell, I want to make something that is good, and doesn't cause harm, and I've thought a lot about this sorta stuff and felt it might be alright here- but if it's not, help me find a way to make it right.

Also: haven't written her appearance into my works yet.

As an aside I have shown what Creo looks like; as befits her name, she's a glowing silver existence. *You can see her depicted here,* on her divine artifact, the Silver Chalice.

----------


## theangelJean

> Understandable, and trust me I've thought a lot about this- I'm well aware of those problems, and want to avoid them.
> 
> If it helps; her eyes are gold too, not blue. And second, she's meant to be a golden fox, a rare sort of red-fox colouration. In my setting, hair and fur for beastmen are the same, so if I wanted that golden fox look I'd need to have her hair be like that too. I had the idea of maybe her hair is ink-streaked like her brush, so it's predominately black but has shades of gold in it, but if that's not good just let me know.
> 
> And if you've any other suggestions on how to fix that, I'm all ears! Do tell, I want to make something that is good, and doesn't cause harm, and I've thought a lot about this sorta stuff and felt it might be alright here- but if it's not, help me find a way to make it right.
> 
> Also: haven't written her appearance into my works yet.
> 
> As an aside I have shown what Creo looks like; as befits her name, she's a glowing silver existence. *You can see her depicted here,* on her divine artifact, the Silver Chalice.


Yeah, I had a feeling Creo would be silver, it was just an example. If you're going for a deliberate golden fox look, then can her skin at least not be pale pink? I am struggling to find a source for the actual skin colours of non-Arctic foxes, under the fur, but my best guess is that it would be brown, grey or black. It's the sheer Western beauty standard that is the most problematic bit IMO.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Yeah, I had a feeling Creo would be silver, it was just an example. If you're going for a deliberate golden fox look, then can her skin at least not be pale pink? I am struggling to find a source for the actual skin colours of non-Arctic foxes, under the fur, but my best guess is that it would be brown, grey or black. It's the sheer Western beauty standard that is the most problematic bit IMO.


I used a skin tone provided for Asian folk, and beastmen aren't the same colour as an animal on their skin, they come in the general colours one would expect humans to come. I've always been kinda not great at getting the skin-tone looking right though, I'm not actually a good artist by any stretch. My guess is the reason her face may seem paler than is appropriate is because she wears chalk powder on her face to resemble the pure white fox mask that her father has for a face.

That all being said: *I've adjusted the art based on your input*, and honestly find it looks a lot better now. Thank you, I hope this is to your liking!

----------


## theangelJean

> I used a skin tone provided for Asian folk, and beastmen aren't the same colour as an animal on their skin, they come in the general colours one would expect humans to come. I've always been kinda not great at getting the skin-tone looking right though, I'm not actually a good artist by any stretch. My guess is the reason her face may seem paler than is appropriate is because she wears chalk powder on her face to resemble the pure white fox mask that her father has for a face.
> 
> That all being said: *I've adjusted the art based on your input*, and honestly find it looks a lot better now. Thank you, I hope this is to your liking!


I mean, brown and black are perfectly valid skin colours you would expect in a human ... I was thinking about the colouration of a fox's skin as compared to its fur, which would mean you could have a dark-skinned demigod with amber eyes and red-gold, pale-gold or multiple-toned (like actual animal fur) hair, while still following the golden fox theme and, as an extra added bonus, not conforming to a stereotypical ethnic group. But I'm not dark-skinned myself, so I don't know if that comes with its own problems. Black hair is ... A compromise. Thank you for listening, at least.

ETA: Having her not be pale skinned would also avoid having your Demon Emperor have to be the one with dark skin, if you wanted representation. Probably worth asking some people of colour what they think, though.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I mean, brown and black are perfectly valid skin colours you would expect in a human ... I was thinking about the colouration of a fox's skin as compared to its fur, which would mean you could have a dark-skinned demigod with amber eyes and red-gold, pale-gold or multiple-toned (like actual animal fur) hair, while still following the golden fox theme and, as an extra added bonus, not conforming to a stereotypical ethnic group. But I'm not dark-skinned myself, so I don't know if that comes with its own problems. Black hair is ... A compromise. Thank you for listening, at least.


Yeah, they are, I just worded that poorly due to "aah I want to make sure I do right but it's late I should have gone to bed an hour ago oops" brain worms.

Honestly, that description matches Kamen a fair bit- the parts of him that are humanoid are those colours. He's a bit more esoteric since, actual big G God so he's not going to look entirely human (like how Creo has no fee or face, just glowing radiance).

I'm glad you approve- though clearly not fully. That's acceptable, quiets the brain worms, and hopefully doesn't make you think less of me. I always want to do right by people, and I wanna maximize that to the best I can.

Honestly this is something I've kinda had happen with Initial Sparks; beyond the fact that Rei only looks kinda asian (she's mixed, and it's a thing that a lot of people are mixed so certain cultural markers like that can be a bit muddled, which is what you said is okay earlier) there's also the fact that there's... honestly not a lot of people of colour in the first book. Background folk, but the only named character with it is Kestrel. I'd had thoughts about making one of the other main cast members non-white as well, but, well...

Rei is the main lead and based a lot on me- it'd feel weird for her to not be like me.
Verde is a character who learns she enjoys the pain that happens when you fight and has a fearsome temper. You can see how "Rei's black best friend" being like that could cause... problems.
Ella has a variety of character secrets (like her sanguimancy) that would make this... also very awkward.

So we ended up with what we got. I'm doing my best to amend that in Hidden Embers, as an aside, having a more varied cast, and using the fact that Rei did live in the far north as a plot reason for why there weren't as many poc folk as there probably should have been- her town is small, not a lotta people live there.

EDIT: As said above, Kamen is dark skin-tone as well, making Creo the odd one out- though none of the gods are seen as above the other. And yeah, I should probably do that, as the above rambling probably shows! Most POC people I talked to understood where I was coming from on this, and I know I can't really please everyone.

Ultimately, all I really want is to have done right.

----------


## theangelJean

I certainly don't think less of you, as a person or as an author. This is definitely more along the lines of "don't fall into this trap", something you may not have thought of. And I'm glad you are thinking about it and consulting with people.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I certainly don't think less of you, as a person or as an author. This is definitely more along the lines of "don't fall into this trap", something you may not have thought of. And I'm glad you are thinking about it and consulting with people.


Thank you, I really appreciate hearing that.

Like I said; I just wanna do right. I like to think I am; I've got a lot of lgbtaq characters with a lot of nuance and effort put in, I've got more heroic poc characters in Hidden Embers and beyond. Saila's a good example of that, even, she's basically the lead of Mist and Fire and super cool!

I think I'm done rambling about this though. Goodnight, have a lovely sleep- with luck there'll be a new Mist and Fire tomorrow or Wednesday!

----------


## enderlord99

So...

Red Robin replaced their doneness system of "no pink or some pink?" with "well done or some pink?" which sounds like the same thing but isn't.

----------


## LaZodiac

> So...
> 
> Red Robin replaced their doneness system of "no pink or some pink?" with "well done or some pink?" which sounds like the same thing but isn't.


That's... such a weird change, especially since "why even implement a system like this in the first place".

----------


## Peelee

Because rare burgers are one of the greatest delights in this world, and some places will at least cook theirs medium rare on request. There's a restaurant not too far from me that will gladly do rare any time if you ask. Great place.

----------


## Mystic Muse

If there's pink left in the burger, I'm not eating it.  :Small Yuk:

----------


## LaZodiac

> If there's pink left in the burger, I'm not eating it.


Yeah ground beef having some pink in it is a sign of like... not being properly cooked. Turbo risky.

Also I... I thought Enderlord was talking about steak.

----------


## Peelee

> If there's pink left in the burger, I'm not eating it.


That's understandable. I don't judge anyone not eating rare steaks, let alone rare burgers. But it's one of my favorite things.



> Also I... I thought Enderlord was talking about steak.


Red Robin is a hamburger restaurant.

----------


## Rater202

I've been rewatching King of The Hill a lot since it started airing on TV again and I've gotta say...

I don't like Tilly. Hank's mom.

Like, Cotton is the one that we're supposed to hate... But that's clearly on purpose. He's designed to be hateable and hating him is fun. He also have several redeeming qualities that prevent him from being a complete monster, such as his unashamed love of his grandchild and his second son and the fact that he is, in a twisted and backhanded way, proud of Hank even if he refused to admit it.

Tilly... Tilly is just... We're supposed to like her but she comes across... Not well.

Like, there's this whole episode, the Thanksgiving/Focus Group episode, where Tilly wants Hank to stand up to and defend her from Cotton while he does nothing to defend herself.

Now, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not trying to belittle or downplay how bad an emotionally abusive marriage could be. Just because she was able to stand up to Cotton once doesn't mean she has the energy to keep doing it...

But that's not why I bring it up. I bring it up because in one episode from later in the season she makes Hank drive her and her friends to Port Aransas so they can visit a museum of collectible miniatures. The whole trip Tilly's friends belittle and badmouth Hank. Does Tilly defend him? No. In fact, she treats her adult son who she is dependent on in this episode like he's a naughty child whenever he protests their behavior.

In short, Tilly is a hypocrite. She expects certain kinds of emotional support from Hank but refuses to give it in return.

The same episode establishes that Tilly's borderline obsession with these miniatures is because a collection of them is what let her cope with her marriage to Cotton... Except when we see a flashback of her coping... She's not using them to cope with his treatment of her... She's using them as ane excuse to ignore Cotton terrorizing Hank.

In another episode, she and her new boyfriend have sex on the Hills' kitchen table. Not casting moral judgment on that but getting your freak on in other people's property in a place where people eat food isn't very respectful and that kind of disrespect is a bit of a red flag.

In her final appearance, she is revealed to have been cheating on her boyfriend for some time with a new man. When her boyfriend finds out and leaves her, she impulsively marries the new guy, sells her condo, and buys an RV that she doesn't know how to drive. New Boyfriend is nice, didn't know she was with someone else... And both he and Hank think that the RV was a mistake.

The conflict in the episode is Hank feeling overprotective about Tilly and thinking that she's making bad choices with her resenting that, thinking that he's treating her like this because she's old... And Hank just flat-out says that the reason he's overprotective of her is that she's an Idiot... She kind of is, this episode establishes that she makes bad choices on impulse...

But no, Hank was able to use the RV to get his truck out of a ditch and that somehow makes it okay as if one unplanned benefit outweighs the fact that it was a boneheaded decision in the first place.

Tilly, ultimately, isn't much better as a parent or a person than Cotton but unlike Cotton where his bad behavior is shown as bad and various episodes show that for all of his faults, he does have some redeeming qualities Tilly's bad qualities are presented as being "okay" because she was a victim in the past and is "having fun" now.

----------


## tyckspoon

> Yeah ground beef having some pink in it is a sign of like... not being properly cooked. Turbo risky.
> 
> Also I... I thought Enderlord was talking about steak.


I generally ask for Medium, but then any place I'm ordering a burger that even asks how you want it done is typically a place I trust well enough to do it ok; any place I would want well-done is pretty much doing that by default regardless (and probably slopping enough stuff on top of the patty that the meat itself isn't a super big part of the burger's flavor.)

----------


## TaiLiu

> ... poc folk ...
> ... POC people ...


New redundancies unlocked.  :Small Tongue: 




> Because rare burgers are one of the greatest delights in this world, and some places will at least cook theirs medium rare on request. There's a restaurant not too far from me that will gladly do rare any time if you ask. Great place.


Don't think I've ever had a rare burger before. I'm used to school cafeteria "hockey pucks" and, like, McDonald burgers. Wonder how they sterilize the food.

----------


## enderlord99

> If there's pink left in the burger, I'm not eating it.


I agree, yet the only other option they have now is "burnt to ashes" which is almost as bad.

----------


## Peelee

> Don't think I've ever had a rare burger before. I'm used to school cafeteria "hockey pucks" and,like, McDonald burgers. Wonder how they sterilize the food.


Yep. The potential dangers are known so most places willing to offer it usually know what they're doing and have confidence in sourcing their beef. Some places may not, if course. With the place near me, I met the owner once in a completely different context and commented how I loved they offered rare burgers, and he _immediately_ let me know he specifically offers that because he knows exactly how quality his beef is. That guy I trust to make a rare burger.

----------


## Mystic Muse

I'm also a bit strange in that I will eat a rare steak if I trust the cook, but cannot get past a pink burger no matter who's making it for me. Mental block I can't get past. 

Related, for my birthday in a little over a month, getting my favorite burgers (Jalapeno jack), Hawaiian buns, pepperjack Cheese, and good bacon. 

And cooking the burgers in butter and onions.

----------


## Peelee

> I'm also a bit strange in that I will eat a rare steak if I trust the cook, but cannot get past a pink burger no matter who's making it for me. Mental block I can't get past. 
> 
> Related, for my birthday in a little over a month, getting my favorite burgers (Jalapeno jack), Hawaiian buns, pepperjack Cheese, and good bacon. 
> 
> And cooking the burgers in butter and onions.


You have excellent taste in burgers, and I'm envious.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

I mean, I've had raw mince before. It's great with a fresh egg yolk.

Now I've never had a proper rare burger, but I've got close in cooking my own a few times. So I'd be more than willing to try one!

On the other hand I've eaten raw bacon. Do not take food safety advice from me.

----------


## Peelee

> I mean, I've had raw mince before. It's great with a fresh egg yolk.
> 
> Now I've never had a proper rare burger, but I've got close in cooking my own a few times. So I'd be more than willing to try one!
> 
> On the other hand I've eaten raw bacon. Do not take food safety advice from me.


Raw bacon is even safer. It's typically cured. Also raw bacon is _delicious_.

----------


## Rater202

I likes me a nice well-cooked beef patty but toppings vary. Sometimes I want some nice and sharp cheddar, other times I like a mix of mozzarella and mushrooms.

Almost always with some kind of barbecue sauce.

Bacon is a sometimes topping, more from restaurants than making it at home.

I usually use whatever buns we have on hand, but ever since the diabetes diagnosis more and more I've been eating them on toast made from whatever low-sugar bread I have on hand.

I've gotten kind of into Turkey burgers in the time since then, too, but they're a bit more work to cook. I do find that they make for a pretty good patty melt.

----------


## Peelee

> I likes me a nice well-cooked beef patty but toppings vary. Sometimes I want some nice and sharp cheddar, other times I like a mix of mozzarella and mushrooms.


Oh, that reminds me. Cheddar on the raw burger. Best thing. The sharper the better, I want a cheese that will cut me if I look at it wrong.

----------


## Fyraltari

You wanna talk about undercooked meat, you should try some horse tartare first.

That's the _good_ stuff.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Raw bacon is even safer. It's typically cured. Also raw bacon is _delicious_.


Well that explains why I didn't get I'll the time I did it.

Or the other times.




> You wanna talk about undercooked meat, you should try some horse tartare first.
> 
> That's the _good_ stuff.


Can you please send some of that over here?

And the rest of your cuisine while you're at it.

----------


## Rater202

> You wanna talk about undercooked meat, you should try some horse tartare first.
> 
> That's the _good_ stuff.


Horses are friends, not food.

----------


## Mystic Muse

> You have excellent taste in burgers, and I'm envious.


Pretzel buns are my favorite, but they have to be made right, and the only place I know that did them completely correct was this one restaurant more than 8 yesrs ago, and I don't know who their supplier was.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Can you please send some of that over here?
> 
> And the rest of your cuisine while you're at it.


No, I need it to cook.



> Horses are friends, not food.


So are pigs, chickens, sheep and oxen.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I've been rewatching King of The Hill a lot since it started airing on TV again and I've gotta say...
> 
> I don't like Tilly. Hank's mom.


Admittedly it's been awhile since I've seen the show but it feels like we're not supposed to just casually see her as okay and good and Cotton as bad and evil, and more just kinda reckon with the fact that some people in our lives have been hurt, and are deserving of sympathy... and will also hurt us, and that that doesn't necessarily take away the fact that they've gone through some ****. It's this feeling of... you're not obligated to love them, but you can't really hate them either.

It's a complicated thing.




> I generally ask for Medium, but then any place I'm ordering a burger that even asks how you want it done is typically a place I trust well enough to do it ok; any place I would want well-done is pretty much doing that by default regardless (and probably slopping enough stuff on top of the patty that the meat itself isn't a super big part of the burger's flavor.)


Eeh... I wouldn't personally trust "we are willing to do this" as proof positive they can do it. I've known people who are more than willing to do stuff they know less than zero about. Of course it being a food place and thus under some strict regulations probably means it is fine, but... even so, I'm not sure I'd risk it. Ground Beef is a dangerous beast.

Also, I'm gathering from this that Red Robin is a place that sells burgers? I've literally never been to them and thought it was just an Applebee's style place.




> New redundancies unlocked. 
> 
> Don't think I've ever had a rare burger before. I'm used to school cafeteria "hockey pucks" and, like, McDonald burgers. Wonder how they sterilize the food.


As a writer it is my solemn duty to find a new way to make language worse every day  :Small Wink: 

I've had the hockey pucks, and had McDonalds, and maybe it's a Canadian thing but McDonald's burgers are extremely good compared to the meat-discs. When I'm down in the states I might need to just, pick up a burger to compare.




> I'm also a bit strange in that I will eat a rare steak if I trust the cook, but cannot get past a pink burger no matter who's making it for me. Mental block I can't get past. 
> 
> Related, for my birthday in a little over a month, getting my favorite burgers (Jalapeno jack), Hawaiian buns, pepperjack Cheese, and good bacon. 
> 
> And cooking the burgers in butter and onions.


Oh my god that sounds delicious...




> Pretzel buns are my favorite, but they have to be made right, and the only place I know that did them completely correct was this one restaurant more than 8 yesrs ago, and I don't know who their supplier was.


The Black Knight has some wildly good pretzel buns for their super hotdogs, and one day when you can visit we are definitely gettin' some.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> So are pigs, chickens, sheep and oxen.


As my friend says, baa lambs are cute and fluffy and bouncy and really ****ing tasty.

----------


## enderlord99

> Also, I'm gathering from this that Red Robin is a place that sells burgers?


Mostly, yeah.

----------


## Mystic Muse

Celeste's recipe for good homemade burgers when your store only has boring stuff! This is for thicker burgers, not smash burgers. 

*Spoiler: Vague 'recipe'*
Show

Get as much of your favored type of ground beef as you feel like.

Get a block of your favorite cheese, cut into small cubes, mix in with the beef well. 

If you like a bit of spicy, I also enjoy mixing jalapenos into the beef. This is what my favorite burgers have in them, but they also have this seasoning as a coating, and I'm not sure how to make this at home. 

Okay, now that you have everything well mixed in, it's time for *seasoning*

You can do this on an individual patty level, but I tend to put everything in a mixing bowl with the beef and mix thoroughly. 

The mix is seasoned salt (Lowry's is my default), Garlic salt (just a bit goes a long way) and crushed red pepper. 

Make the burgers to the size you desire, cook in a mix of butter and your favorite onions. 

When the burger is done, put it to the side. Take your favorite buns, toast them, and cook them in the juices for about 10 seconds. It's important that they're toasted, otherwise they get soggy.  


This is just what I like, I'm sure there are other seasonings that would work great.

----------


## Rater202

The cats have this weird arrangement.

the big one will eat half of what's in a given bowl and then the little one will come by and finish it.

They do this even if we try to give them separate bowls. Big one will eat half of each and the little one will finish it.

We first noticed this when we got the little one fixed. She wasn't eating much at first and the big one stopped finishing his meals.

Big one was a bit weird of it the whole time little one was recovering. I think he remembered that the last time an animal left the house in a carrier it didn't come home.

----------


## TaiLiu

> Yep. The potential dangers are known so most places willing to offer it usually know what they're doing and have confidence in sourcing their beef. Some places may not, if course. With the place near me, I met the owner once in a completely different context and commented how I loved they offered rare burgers, and he _immediately_ let me know he specifically offers that because he knows exactly how quality his beef is. That guy I trust to make a rare burger.


That makes sense. Hamburgers are just fast food items in my head, but maybe they shouldn't be.




> Horses are friends, not food.


This is very appropriate with your avatar.  :Small Big Grin: 




> I've had the hockey pucks, and had McDonalds, and maybe it's a Canadian thing but McDonald's burgers are extremely good compared to the meat-discs. When I'm down in the states I might need to just, pick up a burger to compare.


Transition from game videos to food reviews.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Form

> You wanna talk about undercooked meat, you should try some *horse* tartare first.
> 
> That's the _good_ stuff.


*narrows eyes*

Incidentally, there's pretty decent horse meat sausage to be had at my local market.

...

What?

----------


## LaZodiac

> Transition from game videos to food reviews.


While I imagine I could be good at this, naw. I've lost many things over the years but "my self respect" is not one of them.




> *narrows eyes*
> 
> Incidentally, there's pretty decent horse meat sausage to be had at my local market.
> 
> ...
> 
> What?


How IS horse as a food, anyway? Like, what does it taste like? What's the texture?

----------


## Form

> How IS horse as a food, anyway? Like, what does it taste like? What's the texture?


The sausage in question is a little smokey, but that might have more to do with that particular sausage than the fact it's from horse. So I guess it tastes like meat? /helpful

I can't really discern anything in particular about it. It tastes a little different, but not in a way that stands out. Texture probably depends mostly on whether you're making a steak out of it or grinding up for something else. Honestly, if you were to give me horse meat and not tell me I wouldn't be able to tell that it's from a horse.

----------


## Fyraltari

> I can't really discern anything in particular about it. It tastes a little different, but not in a way that stands out. Texture probably depends mostly on whether you're making a steak out of it or grinding up for something else. Honestly, if you were to give me horse meat and not tell me I wouldn't be able to tell that it's from a horse.


This famously happened with frozen food giant Findus over here a few years back.

----------


## Peelee

> This famously happened with frozen food giant Findus over here a few years back.


Oh my. Not telling people what they're eating is a pretty big deal. I can imagine there was quite a bit of fallout from that.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Oh my. Not telling people what they're eating is a pretty big deal. I can imagine there was quite a bit of fallout from that.


I'll let you be the judge of that.

Note that EU regulations on the meat trade were not affected.

----------


## LaZodiac

> The sausage in question is a little smokey, but that might have more to do with that particular sausage than the fact it's from horse. So I guess it tastes like meat? /helpful
> 
> I can't really discern anything in particular about it. It tastes a little different, but not in a way that stands out. Texture probably depends mostly on whether you're making a steak out of it or grinding up for something else. Honestly, if you were to give me horse meat and not tell me I wouldn't be able to tell that it's from a horse.


Honestly that's fair. The smoky taste is what interested me the most; I'm always curious about new experiences and if they differ much from regular ones!




> This famously happened with frozen food giant Findus over here a few years back.


Oh god right that did happen. Jesus.

----------


## Rater202

I think that was an episode of _Bob's Burgers_ as well.

Bob gets a new meat supplier who hooks him up with some high-quality "beef" that all of his customers think is delicious at an absurdly low price... And then he finds out that it's untaxed and unregulated horse meat.

Long story short, Hugo, the health inspector who is always looking for even the flimsiest excuse to shut down the restaurant, makes Bob wear a wire to try to catch the meat supplier.

(Notably, for once Bob and Hugo are on the same page. The entire Belcher family is horrified to realize they've been selling unregulated meat that isn't from the animal it's supposed to be from. Bob takes food quality *very seriously*.)

----------


## LaZodiac

> I think that was an episode of _Bob's Burgers_ as well.
> 
> Bob gets a new meat supplier who hooks him up with some high-quality "beef" that all of his customers think is delicious at an absurdly low price... And then he finds out that it's untaxed and unregulated horse meat.
> 
> Long story short, Hugo, the health inspector who is always looking for even the flimsiest excuse to shut down the restaurant, makes Bob wear a wire to try to catch the meat supplier.
> 
> (Notably, for once Bob and Hugo are on the same page. The entire Belcher family is horrified to realize they've been selling unregulated meat that isn't from the animal it's supposed to be from. Bob takes food quality *very seriously*.)


Ah, yes, the perfect path to friendship: finding someone you both hate more than each other.

----------


## Peelee

> I think that was an episode of _Bob's Burgers_ as well.
> 
> Bob gets a new meat supplier who hooks him up with some high-quality "beef" that all of his customers think is delicious at an absurdly low price... And then he finds out that it's untaxed and unregulated horse meat.
> 
> Long story short, Hugo, the health inspector who is always looking for even the flimsiest excuse to shut down the restaurant, makes Bob wear a wire to try to catch the meat supplier.
> 
> (Notably, for once Bob and Hugo are on the same page. The entire Belcher family is horrified to realize they've been selling unregulated meat that isn't from the animal it's supposed to be from. Bob takes food quality *very seriously*.)


A great example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

----------


## Rater202

Of course, the episode does ignore the fact that selling horse meat is illegal in the state that the show takes place on regardless of whether or not you're upfront about it, which means... They didn't need to catch the guy admitting to committing meat fraud, they just needed to prove that the meat was in fact horse meat.

Not sure if that was a research mistake or "the writers ignored it because this was more fun."

----------


## D&D_Fan

honestly, I have never understood people not wanting to eat certain animals over others. It's all meat to be consumed at the end of the day. Cow, pig, iguana, horse, cat, if it's prepared safely why shouldn't it be eaten?

----------


## LaZodiac

> honestly, I have never understood people not wanting to eat certain animals over others. It's all meat to be consumed at the end of the day. Cow, pig, iguana, horse, cat, if it's prepared safely why shouldn't it be eaten?


There's a bunch of reasons why some people find some animals to be off the menu. Many of them are for spiritual reasons, some of it for personal vibes. I'd never eat cat, for instance, because cat is friend-shaped. Practically is also a factor- though I say that knowing people will spend far too much effort to eat rib-bites and chicken wings even though the meat-to-effort on those is astonishingly low.

----------


## Rater202

> honestly, I have never understood people not wanting to eat certain animals over others. It's all meat to be consumed at the end of the day. Cow, pig, iguana, horse, cat, if it's prepared safely why shouldn't it be eaten?


1: People tend to not want to kill or eat things that they have some sentimental attachment to.

Horses, cats, dogs, and so on are work animals or pets for the majority of people in the west, which is to say, not food.

Likewise, there's a difference between a pet rabbit and an eating rabbit that's noticeable just on sight. Apparently, a lot of people with pet rabbits have to deal with people making jokes about eating them and... Not gonna lie, you joke about eating someone's pets and I'm going to assume that you're a low-functioning sociopath and treat you as such.

2: Stepping lightly, for religious or cultural reasons. If you are genuinely faithful and your faith says that this animal is sacred or that one is spiritually unclean then you're obviously not gonna want to eat it.

3; Personal preference: Aligator is apparently delicious but personally I think there's something unnatural about eating an apex predator.

----------


## Peelee

> Of course, the episode does ignore the fact that selling horse meat is illegal in the state that the show takes place on regardless of whether or not you're upfront about it, which means... They didn't need to catch the guy admitting to committing meat fraud, they just needed to prove that the meat was in fact horse meat.
> 
> Not sure if that was a research mistake or "the writers ignored it because this was more fun."


Oh man, that shallow dive into mens rea was super well timed. It's still intent, man. By that logic Bob himself is guilty of doing so, even though he had no idea. For Bob to not be guilt and the horse guy to be guilty he has to know he's selling horse meat. If he was being duped by someone else he'd be in the same boat as Bob.

Don't know if that's something that actually includes intent as an element of the crime, but there's some reasoning if you want for that story.

----------


## LaZodiac

> 1: People tend to not want to kill or eat things that they have some sentimental attachment to.
> 
> Horses, cats, dogs, and so on are work animals or pets for the majority of people in the west, which is to say, not food.
> 
> Likewise, there's a difference between a pet rabbit and an eating rabbit that's noticeable just on sight. Apparently, a lot of people with pet rabbits have to deal with people making jokes about eating them and... Not gonna lie, you joke about eating someone's pets and I'm going to assume that you're a low-functioning sociopath and treat you as such.
> 
> 3; Personal preference: Aligator is apparently delicious but personally I think there's something unnatural about eating an apex predator.


This reminds of Silver Spoon, a manga/anime series about a city kid going to an agricultural college in the boonies. One of the things he has to deal with is the fact that it is very easy for humans to imprint on animals and have them become their silly little friend... and then have to eat them because brother that is An Pig. His solution to this is the wildly brain breaking thought of "I will consider them cherished friends, so that I can ensure that when they do get turned into food, I won't forget to honour their sacrifice" and he develops a sort of habit of seriously hating folk that waste food as a result.

I really love your reasoning for the alligator meat thing by the way. Just looking at this massive reptilian pancake and going "no, you're Not Supposed to be eaten. You are the top link of your foodchain". It's an incredible mental image you've conjured up in my head.

----------


## Rater202

> Oh man, that shallow dive into mens rea was super well timed. It's still intent, man. By that logic Bob himself is guilty of doing so, even though he had no idea. For Bob to not be guilt and the horse guy to be guilty he has to know he's selling horse meat. If he was being duped by someone else he'd be in the same boat as Bob.
> 
> Don't know if that's something that actually includes intent as an element of the crime, but there's some reasoning if you want for that story.


Oh, he knew he was doing it.

The main reason Bob agrees to wear the wire is so that he won't get charged... Though he does point out that his rival across the street, Jimmy Pesto, is also using the same provider and would probably be better for the Sting.

----------


## Form

Pro-tip: Do not name that which you intend to eat.




> 3; Personal preference: Aligator is apparently delicious but personally I think there's something unnatural about eating an apex predator.


Pshaw, *you* are an apex predator. Aligators can apply for the top spot when they invent tool use.

----------


## Peelee

> Oh, he knew he was doing it.
> 
> The main reason Bob agrees to wear the wire is so that he won't get charged... Though he does point out that his rival across the street, Jimmy Pesto, is also using the same provider and would probably be better for the Sting.


I know. That's the point. Bob and Hugo both knew he was doing it, but there's knowing and there's proving. They had to prove he knew he was doing it, ergo wearing the wire.

It sounds like Hugo just lied to Bob to get him to wear the wire. If they could have charged Bob, they could have charged the other guy.



> Pshaw, *you* are an apex predator. Aligators can apply for the top spot when they invent tool use.


Seconded. Heck, we eat dinosaurs. We breed dinosaurs to eat. We even grind them up and shape them back into dinosaurs to amuse our children as they eat them.

Gators are tasty.

It's not nearly as unnatural as sitting in a temperature-controlled well-lit constructed cave talking to others continents away on our stone boxes filled with sand and lightning.

----------


## Rater202

> This reminds of Silver Spoon, a manga/anime series about a city kid going to an agricultural college in the boonies. One of the things he has to deal with is the fact that it is very easy for humans to imprint on animals and have them become their silly little friend... and then have to eat them because brother that is An Pig. His solution to this is the wildly brain breaking thought of "I will consider them cherished friends, so that I can ensure that when they do get turned into food, I won't forget to honour their sacrifice" and he develops a sort of habit of seriously hating folk that waste food as a result.
> 
> I really love your reasoning for the alligator meat thing by the way. Just looking at this massive reptilian pancake and going "no, you're Not Supposed to be eaten. You are the top link of your foodchain". It's an incredible mental image you've conjured up in my head.


Have you ever read The Mermaid Princess's Guilty Meal? That's the sort of logic that gets her started before she just goes full serial killer.

One of her friends gets fished, she goes to the surface to try and find him but it's too late, and she overhears someone saying that a fish won't go to heaven unless someone eats it and... Just to be safe...

And then her friend is delicious.

The whole thing is played for black comedy since she is for all intents and purposes addicted to cannibalism... But it's accompanied by recipes for the things her friends are being made into and that she's later eating.



> Pshaw, *you* are an apex predator. Aligators can apply for the top spot when they invent tool use.


An apex predator is a predatory animal that does not have natural predators of its own.

Alligators do not have natural predators, humans can only hunt them by using tools and tactics which do not exist in and are far removed from nature.

Unless you want to argue that humans are born with boats and guns.


> It sounds like Hugo just lied to Bob to get him to wear the wire. If they could have charged Bob, they could have charged the other guy.


It's not presented that way... Hugo does frame it as an ultimatum and it would be in character for him to try and screw over Bob.

----------


## Peelee

> An apex predator is a predatory animal which does not have natural predators of its own.
> 
> Alligators do not have natural predators, humans can only hunt them by using tools and tactics which do not exist in and are far removed from nature.
> 
> Unless you want to argue that humans are born with boats and guns.


You are drawing a very arbitrary line between "natural" and "unnatural". We are naturally endowed with the ability to craft tools and tactics. If you don't want to eat gators because you feel weird about it, that's cool. You do you. If you don't want to eat them because it's "unnatural"? Everything we do is "unnatural".

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> This famously happened with frozen food giant Findus over here a few years back.


I remember it well.

Particularly I remember thinking 'I'd totally have bought it if it was properly declared horse's.

 :Small Sigh:  the desire to find a horse-friendly butcher continues. Although sadly I'm not sure I could afford it even if I could buy it.


ETA: if Rather doesn't want his gator meat can I have it.

Plus I'm fairly certain a human in proper physical condition could kill an alligator with a thrown object. Which is a totally natural way for us to kill something, considering our insane throwing skills.

----------


## Fyraltari

> 1: People tend to not want to kill or eat things that they have some sentimental attachment to.
> 
> Horses, cats, dogs, and so on are work animals or pets for the majority of people in the west, which is to say, not food.
> 
> Likewise, there's a difference between a pet rabbit and an eating rabbit that's noticeable just on sight. Apparently, a lot of people with pet rabbits have to deal with people making jokes about eating them and... Not gonna lie, you joke about eating someone's pets and I'm going to assume that you're a low-functioning sociopath and treat you as such.


No one's talking about eating somebody's pet though.

But refusing to eat rabbit meat because you own a rabbit pet or knows someone who does while eating pork is a double-standard.
The difference between a pet rabbit and an eating rabbit comes down to the living standards they enjoy, the same is true of chicken or pigs.




> 2: Stepping lightly, for religious or cultural reasons. If you are genuinely faithful and your faith says that this animal is sacred or that one is spiritually unclean then you're obviously not gonna want to eat it.


Yes, but I'm gonna go on a lamb and say that "[x] is friend-shaped" does not express that position.




> 3; Personal preference: Aligator is apparently delicious but personally I think there's something unnatural about eating an apex predator.


That's an appeal to nature. A better argument would be that alligators play an important role in regulating their local ecosystem and should not be disturbed. But meat-eating is pretty bad for the environment regardless of the animal.

Of course ultimately it all comes down to personal preferences. The most correct reason for abstaining from a particular foodstuff (absent dietary requirements) is "I don't want to eat that." Ain't nobody got the right to tell you what to do.

But deciding that some animals shouldn't be eaten because they make good pets is hypocritical.

If one aims to be consistent in one's beliefs and actions, one should either eat no meat or meat from any edible animal.

----------


## Peelee

> It's not presented that way... Hugo does frame it as an ultimatum and it would be in character for him to try and screw over Bob.


Law enforcement is allowed to lie to Bob. Also, if it was in character for him to screw over Bob, why didn't he? He has proof Bob sold horse meat (I'm assuming Bob did or the threat had no weight at all). By Bob's testimony he has proof that thr dealer sold horse meat. Intent isn't an intensifier, it doesn't make the crime worse, it separates "crime" from "not crime" when it's applicable. They have him dead to rights on selling horse meat. They don't need a confession, and they certainly don't need to cut Bob a deal to get a confession. Sure, it's possible that they did anyway for a stronger case, but they already have a strong case _and_ an extra defendent. They don't gain much at all by letting Bob off the hook if intent is not an element. Conversely, if intent _is_ an element, then Bob did nothing wrong and they have no strong evidence that the horse broker did anything wrong. They need that confession and since Bob did nothing wrong they lied to Bob.

Both are possible scenarios. The second is significantly more likely than the first.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Both are possible scenarios. The second is significantly more likely than the first.


That depends, is Hugo usually portrayed as competent?

----------


## LaZodiac

> Have you ever read The Mermaid Princess's Guilty Meal? That's the sort of logic that gets her started before she just goes full serial killer.
> 
> One of her friends gets fished, she goes to the surface to try and find him but it's too late, and she overhears someone saying that a fish won't go to heaven unless someone eats it and... Just to be safe...
> 
> And then her friend is delicious.
> 
> The whole thing is played for black comedy since she is for all intents and purposes addicted to cannibalism... But it's accompanied by recipes for the things her friends are being made into and that she's later eating.


That sounds delightfully disturbing.




> No one's talking about eating somebody's pet though.
> 
> Yes, but I'm gonna go on a lamb and say that "[x] is friend-shaped" does not express that position.
> 
> Of course ultimately it all comes down to personal preferences. The most correct reason for abstaining from a particular foodstuff (absent dietary requirements) is "I don't want to eat that." Ain't nobody got the right to tell you what to do.
> 
> But deciding that some animals shouldn't be eaten because they make good pets is hypocritical.
> 
> If one aims to be consistent in one's beliefs and actions, one should either eat no meat or meat from any edible animal.


One of the examples given was cat. That's an animal that is predominately A Pet. So they kinda are.

Spiritually, though not attached to any actual religious doctrine, I do not believe friends should eat friends. I don't have a practical reason to it, it just doesn't sit right with my vibe.

Yeah, true, it's all down to personal preference- everything else is just what people believe.

It's absolutely not hypocritical to eat some meat and not eat other. You can be consistent in your beliefs and still do that.

----------


## Rater202

> No one's talking about eating somebody's pet though.
> 
> But refusing to eat rabbit meat because you own a rabbit pet or knows someone who does while eating pork is a double-standard.
> The difference between a pet rabbit and an eating rabbit comes down to the living standards they enjoy, the same is true of chicken or pigs.
> 
> 
> Yes, but I'm gonna go on a lamb and say that "[x] is friend-shaped" does not express that position.
> 
> 
> ...


You are aware that literally all of those arguments applies to eaing people, right?



> That depends, is Hugo usually portrayed as competent?


Hugo hates Bob because Bob is married to Linda, who was Hugo's fiance until she left him after meeting Bob... days before the wedding.

Hugo is also an extreme stickler for the various rules and regulations: As he's stated in one episode, he wants to take Bob down *legitimately*. A clear violation of the rules with no room for argument.

It would be in character to screw over Bob by say, blackmailing him into helping him take someone else down... But he wouldn't want to go for the cheap "win" against Bob specifically.

----------


## Peelee

> You are aware that literally all of those arguments applies to eaing people, right?


Cannibalism issues even in other species aside, I would argue that it'd be more environmentally friendly if we ate people. And how do other arguments apply to eating people? 



> Hugo hates Bob because Bob is married to Linda, who was Hugo's fiance until she left him after meeting Bob... days before the wedding.


Linda sounds like a bad person. 



> Hugo is also an extreme stickler for the various rules and regulations: As he's stated in one episode, he wants to take Bob down *legitimately*. A clear violation of the rules with no room for argument.
> 
> It would be in character to screw over Bob by say, blackmailing him into helping him take someone else down... But he wouldn't want to go for the cheap "win" against Bob specifically.


Sounds like prosecuting both Bob and the dealer for selling horsemeat is a legitimate, by-the-book way to take down Bob. If intent is not a factor.

And yet he doesnt.

----------


## Rater202

> Cannibalism issues even in other species aside, I would argue that it'd be more environmentally friendly if we ate people. And how do other arguments apply to eating people?


 Humans are friend shaped. If "friend shaped" is not a valid argument against eating ertain ainials then it is not an argument against eating humans.




> Linda sounds like a bad person.


...I mean, you're _not wrong_, Linda does some really questionable stuff* but the implication is that she was never into Hugo in the first place, the engagement just sort of happened, and that she was having second thoughts before she met Bob.

*for example, in one episode in the first season she turns the Belcher's apartment into a B&B... Which includes forcing the children out of their rooms. Including Louise, who she promised she would not rent the Room of and whose personal space and property being respected is a major issue for her.

And then she gets pissed off when none of the guests want to do any of her activities and ends up holding them, hostage.

It's very telling that Bob just flat-out refuses to punish Lousie for ruining the scheme.

...I've said it before, the first season ins't that good. My recommendation for people interested in the series is to start with The Hauntening, the Halloween episode from Season 6.

----------


## Peelee

> Humans are friend shaped. If "friend shaped" is not a valid argument against eating ertain ainials then it is not an argument against eating humans.


I don't recall anyone saying it was a good argument for eating humans, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.





> I've said it before, the first season ins't that good.


Understandable, a lot of shows have a rough pilot or even first season. They just need to find their stride.

----------


## Fyraltari

> That sounds delightfully disturbing.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the examples given was cat. That's an animal that is predominately A Pet. So they kinda are.


Why would "predominately" matter? What's the cut-off point? 99.9%? 95%? 60%? 50.01%?




> Spiritually, though not attached to any actual religious doctrine, I do not believe friends should eat friends. I don't have a practical reason to it, it just doesn't sit right with my vibe.


Cats aren't your friends. A singular cat may be, but all cats aren't.
Also, another debate entirely, but I'm not overly fond of describing pet ownership as "friendship". Friends don't get to control their friend's reproduction, for example.




> It's absolutely not hypocritical to eat some meat and not eat other. You can be consistent in your beliefs and still do that.


You're (general you) engaging in a double standard, though.



> You are aware that literally all of those arguments applies to eaing people, right?


Cannibalism is a different practice altogether, with its own stew of reasons to stay away from (such as the risk of prion disease or the psychosocial role of funeral rites in a species as fond of abstractions as ours).




> Hugo hates Bob because Bob is married to Linda, who was Hugo's fiance until she left him after meeting Bob... days before the wedding.
> 
> Hugo is also an extreme stickler for the various rules and regulations: As he's stated in one episode, he wants to take Bob down *legitimately*. A clear violation of the rules with no room for argument.
> 
> It would be in character to screw over Bob by say, blackmailing him into helping him take someone else down... But he wouldn't want to go for the cheap "win" against Bob specifically.


Okay so he would know that scenario 1, would be irrealist, right.

----------


## Peelee

Also, Rater, don't look up anything about pigs unless you want to either cut out all pork products or compromise on the whole "don't eat friends" thing. Fair warning.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Why would "predominately" matter? What's the cut-off point? 99.9%? 95%? 60%? 50.01%?
> 
> 
> Cats aren't your friends. A singular cat may be, but all cats aren't.
> Also, another debate entirely, but I'm not overly fond of describing pet ownership as "friendship". Friends don't get to control their friend's reproduction, for example.
> 
> 
> You're (general you) engaging in a double standard, though.
> 
> ...


The number is arbitrary.

Wrong, all cats are my friend, actually. I just haven't had the opportunity to meet every cat yet.
More seriously; I don't believe cats are suitable for eating. I won't begrudge people who do, its their choice, but if I was offered I'd turn it down. Cat is friend.

"Friend's don't control each others procreation" are you sure? Cause I've had friends ask me to help them not obsess over relationships they really shouldn't be in, and fundamentally that's the same thing.

You're going to need to explain to me how it is a double standard, because I just don't see it.

Hilariously related fun fact: the pitch for Bob's Burgers is that they were cannibals.

----------


## Peelee

> "Friend's don't control each others procreation" are you sure? Cause I've had friends ask me to help them not obsess over relationships they really shouldn't be in, and fundamentally that's the same thing.


Oh hey, another thing for me to fundamentally disagree with you on: human relationships are not fundamentally for procreation. This one is really weird because I'd have sworn you'd be on this side of it.

----------


## Fyraltari

> More seriously; I don't believe cats are suitable for eating. I won't begrudge people who do, its their choice, but if I was offered I'd turn it down. Cat is friend.


Well, we're fine then. I'm not the food police, like I said eat and don't eat what you will. But if someone claims that eating a specific animal is wrong because that species is a friend somehow, I'm going to call them out.




> "Friend's don't control each others procreation" are you sure? Cause I've had friends ask me to help them not obsess over relationships they really shouldn't be in, and fundamentally that's the same thing.


Do... Do you really considering "giving relationship advice" and "castrating someone without their consent" (cats cannot consent) to be fundamentally the same thing? Really?

Edit: and to be utterly clear, even if you don't neuter your cat or don't take their litter away, you are still controlling their reproduction since that is 100% your decision, which you may revert at your leisure, and not the cat's. It's hard to be a friend to someone you have that much power over.




> You're going to need to explain to me how it is a double standard, because I just don't see it.


Pigs, chicken and oxen are just as friendly as cats.

----------


## Form

I also wouldn't eat cat, because they're cherished companions in my mind rather than food, but I'm aware that's not a rational reason to not eat them. So if other people eat cat, then alright, I'm in no position to judge them as I'm fine with eating other animals.




> "Friend's don't control each others procreation" are you sure? Cause I've had friends ask me to help them not obsess over relationships they really shouldn't be in, and fundamentally that's the same thing.


Yes, but I'm assuming you're not in a position to get them fixed like someone would a pet. I mean, I hope not. I'd call what you do for them more assistance rather than control.

----------


## Peelee

> Pigs, chicken and oxen are just as friendly as cats.


Pigs especially. One of my best friends chooses to not eat pork because of how pigs are.

----------


## Rater202

> (cats cannot consent) to be fundamentally the same thing? Really?


A brain-dead person can't consent to having their life support turned off.

A child, legally, can't consent to anything: Anything that happens to them happens because their parents allowed it and parents often do things to and for their children that the child doesn't want or allow the same of others.

----------


## Fyraltari

> A brain-dead person can't consent to having their life support turned off.
> 
> A child, legally, can't consent to anything: Anything that happens to them happens because their parents allowed it and parents often do things to and for their children that the child doesn't want or allow the same of others.


Cool. A parent is not their child's friend and you can't make friend with a brain-dead person.

Also, you shouldn't neuter brain-dead people or children either.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> Oh hey, another thing for me to fundamentally disagree with you on: human relationships are not fundamentally for procreation. This one is really weird because I'd have sworn you'd be on this side of it.


As somebody currently in a (romantic) relationship where procreation would have to be outsourced, I couldn't agree more. It is, in fact, potentially problematic to assume so.

Also new laptop has arived! I ended up going referbished, so I have a 1TB* SSD and I think 128Gb of RAM. It's insanely overpowered for what I need it for, but it essentially let me bag a processor upgrade for £30 less.

*not really, it's like 10% short before the OS.

----------


## Metastachydium

> This reminds of Silver Spoon, a manga/anime series about a city kid going to an agricultural college in the boonies. One of the things he has to deal with is the fact that it is very easy for humans to imprint on animals and have them become their silly little friend... and then have to eat them because brother that is An Pig. His solution to this is the wildly brain breaking thought of "I will consider them cherished friends, so that I can ensure that when they do get turned into food, I won't forget to honour their sacrifice" and he develops a sort of habit of seriously hating folk that waste food as a result.


Oh, I've accidentally seen that one! The reason why the pig was fit for, khm, being processed is darkly hilarious in a way.




> An apex predator is a predatory animal that does not have natural predators of its own.
> 
> Alligators do not have natural predators, humans can only hunt them by using tools and tactics which do not exist in and are far removed from nature.
> 
> Unless you want to argue that humans are born with boats and guns.





> You are drawing a very arbitrary line between "natural" and "unnatural". We are naturally endowed with the ability to craft tools and tactics.


Many animals use tools, tactics or both. None of them (that I know of) is innately capable of hunting alligators regardless.




> One of the examples given was cat. That's an animal that is predominately A Pet. So they kinda are.
> 
> Spiritually, though not attached to any actual religious doctrine, I do not believe friends should eat friends. I don't have a practical reason to it, it just doesn't sit right with my vibe.
> 
> Yeah, true, it's all down to personal preference- everything else is just what people believe.
> 
> It's absolutely not hypocritical to eat some meat and not eat other. You can be consistent in your beliefs and still do that.


I find cats a really bad example, and I find the notion of eating them frankly poetic. They are also unreasonably numerous, which helps.




> You are aware that literally all of those arguments applies to eaing people, right?





> Cannibalism issues even in other species aside, I would argue that it'd be more environmentally friendly if we ate people. And how do other arguments apply to eating people?


Preach it, Peelee!




> Cats aren't your friends. A singular cat may be, but all cats aren't.
> Also, another debate entirely, but I'm not overly fond of describing pet ownership as "friendship". Friends don't get to control their friend's reproduction, for example.





> Well, we're fine then. I'm not the food police, like I said eat and don't eat what you will. But if someone claims that eating a specific animal is wrong because that species is a friend somehow, I'm going to call them out.
> 
> 
> Do... Do you really considering "giving relationship advice" and "castrating someone without their consent" (cats cannot consent) to be fundamentally the same thing? Really?
> 
> Edit: and to be utterly clear, even if you don't neuter your cat or don't take their litter away, you are still controlling their reproduction since that is 100% your decision, which you may revert at your leisure, and not the cat's. It's hard to be a friend to someone you have that much power over.





> A brain-dead person can't consent to having their life support turned off.
> 
> A child, legally, can't consent to anything: Anything that happens to them happens because their parents allowed it and parents often do things to and for their children that the child doesn't want or allow the same of others.


Well, there's a reason why mucking about with the genitals of children and brain-dead people is, to put it mildly, frowned upon.





> Pigs, chicken and oxen are just as friendly as cats.





> Pigs especially. One of my best friends chooses to not eat pork because of how pigs are.


I'd argue most of those (pigs, especially) are a lot more so than cats, even.

----------


## Mystic Muse

I was under the impression spaying and neutering pets is mostly about fixing an issue humans created in the first place.

----------


## Metastachydium

> I was under the impression spaying and neutering pets is mostly about fixing an issue humans created in the first place.


Well, I'm under the impression spaying/neutering humans would also be mostly fixing an issue humans created in the first place.

----------


## Peelee

> I was under the impression spaying and neutering pets is mostly about fixing an issue humans created in the first place.


Yep. Overpopulation and introducing foreign predators is a hell of a combination.

----------


## D&D_Fan

You know what they say: "Cannibalism solves world hunger, AND overpopulation"  :Small Smile:

----------


## LaZodiac

> Do... Do you really considering "giving relationship advice" and "castrating someone without their consent" (cats cannot consent) to be fundamentally the same thing? Really?
> 
> Edit: and to be utterly clear, even if you don't neuter your cat or don't take their litter away, you are still controlling their reproduction since that is 100% your decision, which you may revert at your leisure, and not the cat's. It's hard to be a friend to someone you have that much power over.
> 
> Pigs, chicken and oxen are just as friendly as cats.





> Yes, but I'm assuming you're not in a position to get them fixed like someone would a pet. I mean, I hope not. I'd call what you do for them more assistance rather than control.





> As somebody currently in a (romantic) relationship where procreation would have to be outsourced, I couldn't agree more. It is, in fact, potentially problematic to assume so.


*Since I respect most of you I'm going to politely say "It was a joke" and move on, because no sweet lord I do not believe you should be allowed to castrate your friends and certanly don't think "human relationships are only for procreation". It was an attempt at an amusing joke about how someone will say "I'm gonna go sleep with that person who I very clearly should not" and their responsible friends stop them.*

(bolded for emphasis so people are more likely to read it).

@Fryaltari: Just as friendly, sure, but I don't care about them as much as cats.




> Oh, I've accidentally seen that one! The reason why the pig was fit for, khm, being processed is darkly hilarious in a way.
> 
> I'd argue most of those (pigs, especially) are a lot more so than cats, even.


Yeah!

Entire fair. As said to each their own.




> I was under the impression spaying and neutering pets is mostly about fixing an issue humans created in the first place.


Yeah this.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> *Since I respect most of you I'm going to politely say "It was a joke" and move on, because no sweet lord I do not believe you should be allowed to castrate your friends and certanly don't think "human relationships are only for procreation". It was an attempt at an amusing joke about how someone will say "I'm gonna go sleep with that person who I very clearly should not" and their responsible friends stop them.*
> 
> (bolded for emphasis so people are more likely to read it).


In my attempted defence I assumed you were talking about encouraging condom usage and/or not engaging in intercourse when it came to RL humans. There's more than one way to prevent babies, and it makes me somewhat uncomfortable that when it comes to animals we jump to the most permanent.

Although in my view people should be allowed to sleep with whoever they want. Potentially unwanted attachment is going to make things messy, but I see no reason to stop a friend of mine sleeping with whoever. Assuming soberiety, but most of my friends don't get drunk.

----------


## Coppercloud

> Apparently, a lot of people with pet rabbits have to deal with people making jokes about eating them and... Not gonna lie, you joke about eating someone's pets and I'm going to assume that you're a low-functioning sociopath and treat you as such.


Well, it appears that my family's sense of humor is pretty unusual. But I already knew that, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I understand that those particular jokes can be hurtful or offensive, but more importantly they stop being funny once you've heard them a few times (if they ever were), so that's when you've got to find something new. Which often means "finding something else that people thought you wouldn't dare to joke about."




> Well, I'm under the impression spaying/neutering humans would also be mostly fixing an issue humans created in the first place.


But who watches neuters the neuterers?




> You know what they've say: "Cannibalism solves world hunger, AND overpopulation"


If it weren't for prion disease and other issues like toxic substances accumulation, I for one would see no good reason *not* to eat our loved ones (which is not to say I would).

----------


## LaZodiac

> In my attempted defence I assumed you were talking about encouraging condom usage and/or not engaging in intercourse when it came to RL humans. There's more than one way to prevent babies, and it makes me somewhat uncomfortable that when it comes to animals we jump to the most permanent.
> 
> Although in my view people should be allowed to sleep with whoever they want. Potentially unwanted attachment is going to make things messy, but I see no reason to stop a friend of mine sleeping with whoever. Assuming soberiety, but most of my friends don't get drunk.


I was going specifically for cases of drunk friends being stopped by sober friends, or sone good ole fashioned "don't stick your **** on crazy" vibes.

Or like, another man's wife- when they aren't the type to be okay with that, obviously. 

Also the power went out at work lol.

----------


## Rater202

My blood a1c is 5.3, up a little bit, but the doctor is optimistic and wants me to try a slightly lower dose of insulin.

----------


## enderlord99

Someone hid their dog's feces under a leaf so that when someone(I) stepped on it, both got stuck to the shoe and during the attempt to peel it off while thinking it was just a leaf, the victim(I) got some on their(my) thumb.  :Small Mad:

----------


## TaiLiu

> While I imagine I could be good at this, naw. I've lost many things over the years but "my self respect" is not one of them.


This is funny.  :Small Big Grin: 




> honestly, I have never understood people not wanting to eat certain animals over others. It's all meat to be consumed at the end of the day. Cow, pig, iguana, horse, cat, if it's prepared safely why shouldn't it be eaten?


It's probably cultural (and personal) in the end. My meat-eating probably violates my ethics. For consistency's sake, I should be okay with eating many more kinds of meat than I am now, or I should become a vegetarian. So I'm a hypocrite regarding food.




> I find cats a really bad example, and I find the notion of eating them frankly poetic. They are also unreasonably numerous, which helps.


Why poetic? Is it cuz cats are predators?

----------


## LaZodiac

> This is funny. 
> 
> 
> It's probably cultural (and personal) in the end. My meat-eating probably violates my ethics. For consistency's sake, I should be okay with eating many more kinds of meat than I am now, or I should become a vegetarian. So I'm a hypocrite regarding food.
> 
> 
> Why poetic? Is it cuz cats are predators?


I've gotta ask: why _should_ you be more open to it?

----------


## TaiLiu

> I've gotta ask: why _should_ you be more open to it?


I guess the argument looks something like this:

1. If it's okay to eat factory animals, then it's okay to eat pets.
(Because I believe that there's no fundamental moral difference between, say, a cow and a cat.)

2. It's not okay to eat pets.
(Because I'm against humans eating, say, cats.)

3. Therefore, by _modus tollens_, it's not okay to eat factory animals.
(So I shouldn't eat, say, cows.)

I believe the first two premises are correct, so I'm forced to believe the conclusion: that I shouldn't eat factory animals. So I should be something like a vegetarian. If I deny the second premise, then it'd be okay to eat pets. Then I should at least be open to the possibility of eating cats. So that's the dichotomy. For consistency's sake, I shouldn't be okay with eating meat or I should be okay with eating more kinds of meat.

Obviously, if I deny the first premise, then this whole problem goes away. Probably many people would deny the first. But I can't persuade myself that there's a serious difference between the welfare of a cat versus a cow. If I did, that'd make eating meat guilt-free. But I don't.

----------


## LaZodiac

> I guess the argument looks something like this:
> 
> 1. If it's okay to eat factory animals, then it's okay to eat pets.
> (Because I believe that there's no fundamental moral difference between, say, a cow and a cat.)
> 
> 2. It's not okay to eat pets.
> (Because I'm against humans eating, say, cats.)
> 
> 3. Therefore, by _modus tollens_, it's not okay to eat factory animals.
> ...


Yeah that's pretty fair reasoning! I personally disagree with point one, but as we've both said to each their own.

I do feel it is possible to have a consistent belief system, have those two points be true, and still eat meat, however. Logic is not a black and white, mathematical if-then statement. Nothing is forcing you to believe 3 just because one and two are true. 

One thought that comes to mind is "it is not morally correct to eat another living being" functionally means you can't eat anything except synthetically created things, since plants are alive too, ergo limiting yourself is an arbitrary line regardless of the morality of it. Three may be true, but the addition of four means three's truth is not actually relevant.

Another option is that, while you may consider there is no moral difference between the two, there is a functional and mechanical difference- pets are raised as pets and food animals are raised as food, there is a fundamental difference for them in society regardless of the believed morality of it. Morally you may be opposed, but socially this is the norm. This obviously has its problems, and is probably the nastiest.

Thirdly; you can fully and firmly believe that it is a morally unjust thing to do, and also just not care. You can have the belief that eating any animal is cruel because they're living beings, and still eat them because they taste good, it's important for dietary means, and so on, and just Be Okay with the fact that living is, sometimes, an inherently amoral activity. This is the behavior I think, in my past, is the one I would say I have. "Yes I'm aware of the moral issues with eating animals. I do believe it is not a right thing to do. I also don't, personally, mind being a bad person in this instance". 

Nowadays I'm not sure where I personally stand on this- fundamentally there isn't anything wrong with eating animals typically associated with "being a pet", but it doesn't sit right with me personally. I don't foist my own beliefs on others and expect them to do as I do, and if I'm in a place that has different rules (like say, visiting a kosher household) I will respect their rules because I am actively wishing to be part of their place. I don't think I'd ever eat cat, simply by virtue of that personally being a step too far, though.

----------


## enderlord99

The diets (for animals, including humans) that involve the least killing are fruitarianism and melifruitarianism.

(some) Plants, OTOH, have the option of being pure luxivores.

----------


## LaZodiac

> The diets (for animals, including humans) that involve the least killing are fruitarianism and melifruitarianism.
> 
> (some) Plants, OTOH, have the option of being pure luxivores.


I'll also note that if you're trying to live some absurdly strict "absolutely zero harm" diet, you can have all the honey you want because bees consent to sharing their honey, and I think that's really cool.

----------


## enderlord99

> I'll also note that if you're trying to live some absurdly strict "absolutely zero harm" diet, you can have all the honey you want because bees consent to sharing their honey, and I think that's really cool.


Yes.  That's what the "meli" in "melifruitarianism" means.

----------


## Rater202

...Wish I could be sustained entirely by light.

It'd be convenient.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Logic is not a black and white, mathematical if-then statement. Nothing is forcing you to believe 3 just because one and two are true.


What? Yes, it is. What TaiLiu just did is a syllogism that's most famous kind of logical reasoning. It you accept the two premisses you must accept the consclusion, that is literally how logic works.

----------


## Form

This reminds me of the concept of the mellified person. An older individual would subsist on a diet of nothing but honey, die from malnutrition and then be mummified using honey. The result is a honeyed, human confection. I don't know if there are any actual known cases of this, but the concept does exist.

I'll pass on the mellified digits, though, and not just because it's illegal.




> What? Yes, it is. What TaiLiu just did is a syllogism that's most famous kind of logical reasoning. It you accept the two premisses you must accept the consclusion, that is literally how logic works.


Erhm, this feels like one of those things that can quickly spiral out of control simply because people are talking past one another. Just saying that if y'all intend to pursue this line of discussion that's something you might want to keep in mind.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Yes.  That's what the "meli" in "melifruitarianism" means.


In my defense I was very tired and couldn't successfully google search what all those terms meant.




> What? Yes, it is. What TaiLiu just did is a syllogism that's most famous kind of logical reasoning. It you accept the two premisses you must accept the consclusion, that is literally how logic works.


Okay, to clarify my thought process: Accepting something as true doesn't mean you are going to be forced to act that way. In TaiLiu's statement, those two points are true, thus three is true, but that does not in any way actually mean that this information MUST be acted on. People are not machines. And again, with the addition of further information, the logic gets more complex. I'm not refuting the logic, I'm refuting the conclusion derived from that logic.

Anyone onto more important matters.

======

Chapter 13 of Mist and Fire! All the fight, and the sand sea itself, has taken its toll, Saila has collapsed. Is there a way out at the end of this tunnel, or is it a trick of the light?

*You can read it all here!*

----------


## D&D_Fan

One food I actually don't like eating is fish sticks.

Pretty much every food that you eat with unspecified fish meat that is white-colored:

It's shark meat.

And I don't like eating sharks very much.

I also just don't like fish sticks in general.

----------


## Peelee

> One food I actually don't like eating is fish sticks.
> 
> Pretty much every food that you eat with unspecified fish meat that is white-colored:
> 
> It's shark meat.
> 
> And I don't like eating sharks very much.
> 
> I also just don't like fish sticks in general.


I'm gonna need a source on this because I'm like 90% sure most unspecified fish meat is cheap whitefish and not shark.

----------


## D&D_Fan

> I'm gonna need a source on this because I'm like 90% sure most unspecified fish meat is cheap whitefish and not shark.


Whitefish is a code word for "many different fish with white flesh mixed together", it's not one kind of fish, because you know a fish that has white flesh? Sharks. 

Even if it's only 10%, I don't want to eat sharks.

----------


## Peelee

> Whitefish is a code word for "many different fish with white flesh mixed together", it's not one kind of fish, because you know a fish that has white flesh? Sharks. 
> 
> Even if it's only 10%, I don't want to eat sharks.


Sharks are oily fish, not whitefish. Again, I would like a source on your shark claim. "White flesh" is not synonymous with "whitefish". Tuna has white flesh and is one of the most popular oily fish.

----------


## D&D_Fan

Whitefish is used as a name for shark meat according to this list.

My friend told me that shark meat gets eaten all the time and he was probably right lol

----------


## Qwertystop

> Whitefish is a code word for "many different fish with white flesh mixed together", it's not one kind of fish, because you know a fish that has white flesh? Sharks. 
> 
> Even if it's only 10%, I don't want to eat sharks.


No or at least not necessarily. The only time I recall seeing "whitefish" describing food for purchase is as "smoked whitefish", which is generally available as whole fish. While I don't know if the species has another common name, I definitely don't remember seeing different species, or at least not species that appear visually distinct to the layman.

----------


## Metastachydium

> But who watches neuters the neuterers?


The neuterers. The neuterers neuter the neuterers. Crazy, huh?




> If it weren't for prion disease and other issues like toxic substances accumulation, I for one would see no good reason *not* to eat our loved ones (which is not to say I would).


Very true!




> It's probably cultural (and personal) in the end. My meat-eating probably violates my ethics. For consistency's sake, I should be okay with eating many more kinds of meat than I am now, or I should become a vegetarian.


_[Glares.]_




> Why poetic? Is it cuz cats are predators?


Predators, and doing it _wrong_, in fact. Cats, these accursed ecological disasters, are very gleeful surplus killers (and that's not even just a feral/predominantly-freeranging issue). Killing _and_ eating them would show the damn blighters how these things are done!




> ...Wish I could be sustained entirely by light.
> 
> It'd be convenient.


Oh, it's a lovely deal, even when one also needs water pluss  some of those minerals and stuff, like, you know, a _normal_ person who does photosynthesis.




> Mist and Fire!


Oh, I forgot to tell you! I breezed through chapters 9 and 10 in the meantime (I'm a non-linear reader; that's perfectly normal for me and doesn't mean I won't jump back to the beginning later, mind you). I'm not going to say I was shocked per se, but It kind of made me sad and some of my worst fears ended up confirmed. Spilers ahead!

*Spoiler*
Show

So, yes. There were poor planties set on fire (oh, why, Zod, why?). And it was apparently a good thing. _[Makes sad little flower face.]_ You know, I thought WalkingPlantCreature!Renault was, like, super cute, and compensating just fine for Ophelia being creepy throughout. Ditto for Pavan, the overly enthusisatic planty punching things. So, all in all, that they were not really plants but rather creepy, poorly preserved semi-undead monstrosities _using_ plants to make them serve Ophelia's creepy whims was a big, _big_ downer for me.

Oh, and Noble! Calling little flowers that heroically survive and indeed thrive in hostile desert environments "dead things" is pretty bold coming from a glorified robot!


So yeah. I still like _how_ you write: that's some prose that flows quite nicely, but now I'm sad. (Plus, I'm pretty sure I've ranted here before about my dislike of the _whatevermancy_ style of nomenclature for things magical, but given that you cunningly turned it into stuff deriving from an in-universe etymon, I have weaker grounds to complain about that than usual.)




> Whitefish is used as a name for shark meat according to this list.
> 
> My friend told me that shark meat gets eaten all the time and he was probably right lol





> No or at least not necessarily. The only time I recall seeing "whitefish" describing food for purchase is as "smoked whitefish", which is generally available as whole fish. While I don't know if the species has another common name, I definitely don't remember seeing different species, or at least not species that appear visually distinct to the layman.


_Catfish_ (more commonly used to designate a group of freshwater fish with funny mustaches), _tofu shark_ and especially _component of fish&chips_ ("Fish Sticks  100% Component of Fish&Chips!") being on the list also undercuts your point somewhat.

----------


## Peelee

> My friend told me that shark meat gets eaten all the time and he was probably right lol


Cool. I have no reason to trust your friend.



> Whitefish is used as a name for shark meat according to this list.


A source! OK, that works! I'm not a fan of their editorializing but they do but they seem pretty focused on shark conservation so that's good enough. 



> Predators, and doing it _wrong_, in fact. Cats, these accursed ecological disasters, are very gleeful surplus killers (and that's not even just a feral/predominantly-freeranging issue).


Eh, I wouldn't say they're doing it wrong. That's just more human intervention causing the issue. Non-feral cats have their food and water needs completely met by pet owners but still have the hunting instinct as they're still predators, so they still hunt as their internal drives want them to but then don't need to eat their kills for sustenance.

----------


## LaZodiac

> Oh, I forgot to tell you! I breezed through chapters 9 and 10 in the meantime (I'm a non-linear reader; that's perfectly normal for me and doesn't mean I won't jump back to the beginning later, mind you). I'm not going to say I was shocked per se, but It kind of made me sad and some of my worst fears ended up confirmed. Spilers ahead!
> 
> *Spoiler*
> Show
> 
> So, yes. There were poor planties set on fire (oh, why, Zod, why?). And it was apparently a good thing. _[Makes sad little flower face.]_ You know, I thought WalkingPlantCreature!Renault was, like, super cute, and compensating just fine for Ophelia being creepy throughout. Ditto for Pavan, the overly enthusisatic planty punching things. So, all in all, that they were not really plants but rather creepy, poorly preserved semi-undead monstrosities _using_ plants to make them serve Ophelia's creepy whims was a big, _big_ downer for me.
> 
> Oh, and Noble! Calling little flowers that heroically survive and indeed thrive in hostile desert environments "dead things" is pretty bold coming from a glorified robot!
> 
> ...


Oh, nice! I'm glad you enjoyed! *Spoiler: Mist and Fire talk with me*
Show

Though yeah, I wasn't sure how some of that specific stuff would hit with you. Figured the combination of meat and plant together might be a bit unnerving- which it seems to have been! Finding a way to bring a little bit of horror to my writing is something I always enjoy. One of these days I should actually write a straight horror book...

I don't quite recall that rant, but I get the gist of it. And yeah, explaining it universe that way is fun! I love making little details like that, even if they might not all reach the work itself.

If it helps at least, Hidden Embers has a phytomancer in it who actually respects plants, and while I have nothing planned for them for a long time there is someone kicking around in my head who is, at least partly, someone you'd relate to on a meaningful spiritual level.


I'll be honest RE this whole whitefish debate- up here at least, I've always been under the impression it mean amalgamated fish material, like how chicken nuggets are made. I've never heard about the shark thing.

That said I also live in the middle of an ice desert with a great love of fish, so it may just be that some have never seen that, specifically! Qwerty and others who haven't seen this aren't wrong, just... have different experiences.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Eh, I wouldn't say they're doing it wrong. That's just more human intervention causing the issue. Non-feral cats have their food and water needs completely met by pet owners but still have the hunting instinct as they're still predators, so they still hunt as their internal drives want them to but then don't need to eat their kills for sustenance.


If memory serves, the pattern is not significantly different between ferals and non-ferals and they do it _more_ than dogs.

----------


## Peelee

> If memory serves, the pattern is not significantly different between ferals and non-ferals and they do it _more_ than dogs.


Doing it more than dogs shouldn't be surprising, cats are obligate carnivores while dogs aren't, so they'd have to hunt more. The lack of discrepancy between housed and feral is surprising, though.

----------


## Aedilred

> Sharks are oily fish, not whitefish. Again, I would like a source on your shark claim. "White flesh" is not synonymous with "whitefish". Tuna has white flesh and is one of the most popular oily fish.


I don't know about anyone else, but all the tuna I've ever eaten has had red flesh, turning pink when cooked (not that I ever eat cooked tuna).

I believe dogfish, or "rock salmon", was and perhaps still is used as a cheap white fish in some seaside areas. Which is a kind of shark, I guess. Other small sharks probably get gathered as bycatch and may be processed. But the larger sharks are unlikely to make it to your plate without your knowing about it.

Conservation issues aside, you shouldn't eat sharks: they're full of mercury and other nasties.

----------


## Peelee

> I don't know about anyone else, but all the tuna I've ever eaten has had red flesh, turning pink when cooked (not that I ever eat cooked tuna).
> 
> I believe dogfish, or "rock salmon", was and perhaps still is used as a cheap white fish in some seaside areas. Which is a kind of shark, I guess. Other small sharks probably get gathered as bycatch and may be processed. But the larger sharks are unlikely to make it to your plate without your knowing about it.
> 
> Conservation issues aside, you shouldn't eat sharks: they're full of mercury and other nasties.


Tuna can be dyed, as is the case with salmon. This site both provides an image of white tuna meat ("white" not being pure white but then, neither is shark meat) and tells me the "tuna" sashimi I love is actually escolar. Still tasty though.

Also good to know about shark meat. Though conservation alone is a good enough reason for me to not want to eat them, that just furthers the desire.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Oh, nice! I'm glad you enjoyed! *Spoiler: Mist and Fire talk with me*
> Show
> 
> Though yeah, I wasn't sure how some of that specific stuff would hit with you. Figured the combination of meat and plant together might be a bit unnerving- which it seems to have been! Finding a way to bring a little bit of horror to my writing is something I always enjoy. One of these days I should actually write a straight horror book...
> 
> I don't quite recall that rant, but I get the gist of it. And yeah, explaining it universe that way is fun! I love making little details like that, even if they might not all reach the work itself.
> 
> If it helps at least, Hidden Embers has a phytomancer in it who actually respects plants, and while I have nothing planned for them for a long time there is someone kicking around in my head who is, at least partly, someone you'd relate to on a meaningful spiritual level.


*Spoiler: Still not Twin Peaks*
Show


It's not so much unnerving (for me, that is) as depressing, to be honest. And I don't mind the compost bin approach a bit! If anything, artificially preserving a body is more disturbing than letting it decay and feed the friendly little things that turn matter into foodstuff suitable for planties. I just hoped that Pavan and Renault and the others are actual plants and not just humans in a really sorry shape (and that they do not derive their claim to personhood from having been humans previously). Meanwhile, it's a real pity I probably won't ever get around to reading _Hidden Embers_; those someone someones sound promising.






> Also good to know about shark meat. Though conservation alone is a good enough reason for me to not want to eat them, that just furthers the desire.


It's not just sharks, by the way. The higher up a thing is on the foodchain, the more likely it accumulates bad stuff. Being large and predatory, tuna isn't exempt from that either.

----------


## LaZodiac

> *Spoiler: Still not Twin Peaks*
> Show
> 
> 
> It's not so much unnerving (for me, that is) as depressing, to be honest. And I don't mind the compost bin approach a bit! If anything, artificially preserving a body is more disturbing than letting it decay and feed the friendly little things that turn matter into foodstuff suitable for planties. I just hoped that Pavan and Renault and the others are actual plants and not just humans in a really sorry shape (and that they do not derive their claim to personhood from having been humans previously). Meanwhile, it's a real pity I probably won't ever get around to reading _Hidden Embers_; those someone someones sound promising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, you never know! You might get there eventually. And if I get popular enough to have an anime (a personal hope of mine) that'll be much easier than reading.

Yeah, it turns out that predator animals tend not to be very tasty, by virtue of being predators. The stuff they need to do, their diet, it all leads to low quality eatin'.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Hey, you never know! You might get there eventually. And if I get popular enough to have an anime (a personal hope of mine) that'll be much easier than reading.


I'm not really an anime person (or a movie/TV person, for that matter) and even a lot of established Western Hemisphere fantasy stuff is scarce 'round here as far as physical copies are concerned. And pirating your stuff Frankly, that would feel rude.

----------


## Peelee

Yay: 18°C/65°F!

Boo: tornadoes!

----------


## LaZodiac

> I'm not really an anime person (or a movie/TV person, for that matter) and even a lot of established Western Hemisphere fantasy stuff is scarce 'round here as far as physical copies are concerned. And pirating your stuff Frankly, that would feel rude.


That's fair. The book is accessible in digital print as well, and worst case scenario re any distaste for Amazon, there are methods that could be discussed in PM.

----------


## Peelee

> That's fair. The book is accessible in digital print as well, and worst case scenario re any distaste for Amazon, there are methods that could be discussed in PM.


*The Mod on the Silver Mountain:* Do be aware that the Forum Rules apply to all areas of the forum, including PMs.

----------


## enderlord99

> *The Mod on the Silver Mountain:* Do be aware that the Forum Rules apply to all areas of the forum, including PMs.


I'm pretty sure "offering free copies of a book you yourself wrote" is within the rules.

----------


## Peelee

> I'm pretty sure "offering free copies of a book you yourself wrote" is within the rules.


Sure. That was just a gentle reminder against offering other avenues of sale via direct link.

----------


## enderlord99

Did you know that 3!=1+2+3

----------


## LaZodiac

> Did you know that 3!=1+2+3


A fascinating thing, though damn if I can't quite decipher it myself.

Unrelated I had a brain blast right before work ended and I cannot wait to do more writing ahahahahahah!

----------


## Mystic Muse

> A fascinating thing, though damn if I can't quite decipher it myself.


In certain programming languages, the exclamation point is the 'not' operator. 

So, the statement reads as, 3 does not equal 1+2+3

----------


## LaZodiac

> In certain programming languages, the exclamation point is the 'not' operator. 
> 
> So, the statement reads as, 3 does not equal 1+2+3


I did actually know that somehow, I was just trying to divine a more secret meaning. Definitely overthinking things xP

----------


## Aedilred

> Tuna can be dyed, as is the case with salmon. This site both provides an image of white tuna meat ("white" not being pure white but then, neither is shark meat) and tells me the "tuna" sashimi I love is actually escolar. Still tasty though.
> 
> Also good to know about shark meat. Though conservation alone is a good enough reason for me to not want to eat them, that just furthers the desire.


On that link, albacore ("genuine" white tuna) still looks quite pink to me, though not as pink as I'm used to. Most of the tuna we get in the UK is yellowfin, I think, though, so that might look different. 




> It's not just sharks, by the way. The higher up a thing is on the foodchain, the more likely it accumulates bad stuff. Being large and predatory, tuna isn't exempt from that either.


And this is a genuine reason not to eat predators in general (reverting to the previous "why not eat pets?" topic). Not only do they often taste worse (though thisis not universal) but they are more likely to be bad for you. Especially if they're herbivores that have been fed their colleagues: this was one of the things that led to BSE. 

Tuna is safer to eat than shark, but eating too much of it isn't good for you for the same reasons. 





> I guess the argument looks something like this:
> 
> 1. If it's okay to eat factory animals, then it's okay to eat pets.
> (Because I believe that there's no fundamental moral difference between, say, a cow and a cat.)
> 
> 2. It's not okay to eat pets.
> (Because I'm against humans eating, say, cats.)
> 
> 3. Therefore, by _modus tollens_, it's not okay to eat factory animals.
> (So I shouldn't eat, say, cows.)


I think it's important to distinguish at point (1) between _pets_ and _species we tend to think of as pets_. I don't have a moral problem with eating dog per se, but I would have a problem eating _someone's pet dog_, and probably for that matter a dog which had been bred as a pet. I would also have a problem eating someone's pet cow. 

So, yes, I do think there is a moral difference between eating factory animals and eating pets, but not in the way that the logic chain assumes.

(I gather this is a perennial problem for livestock farmers with children, who become attached to the animals, name them, etc. and then slaughtering them becomes so much harder).

And this is one of those things that tends to cause issues with such chains of reasoning, because if you're in (say) the UK, dogs aren't bred for food, so if you want to eat dog, you have to eat someone's pet dog - in practical, if not theoretical, terms, there _is_ a moral difference between eating dog and eating, say, cow. That conditioning is hard to break, even if you subsequently go to a country where dogs are bred for food. 

But then it's not like a lot of meat-eaters - especially Americans, in my experience - are particularly morally consistent on this point anyway and it's not a moral issue so much as one of just general squick: a lot of people won't even eat, say, offal from a cow/sheep/pig, because it's "gross" or what have you.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> In certain programming languages, the exclamation point is the 'not' operator. 
> 
> So, the statement reads as, 3 does not equal 1+2+3


More likely it's a maths joke, ! is the factorial operator. A factorial is where you multiply every integer between 1 and the number in question.

The evidence for this is that 3! is the only point where this joke works. For 2! the result is too high, for 4! and above it's too low, and IIRC you aren't allowed to have a nonpositive factorial. (Look, it's been a while since I did A2 maths, I've forgotten the finer details.)

----------


## enderlord99

> In certain programming languages, the exclamation point is the 'not' operator. 
> 
> So, the statement reads as, 3 does not equal 1+2+3





> More likely it's a maths joke, ! is the factorial operator. A factorial is where you multiply every integer between 1 and the number in question.
> 
> The evidence for this is that 3! is the only point where this joke works. For 2! the result is too high, for 4! and above it's too low, and IIRC you aren't allowed to have a nonpositive factorial. (Look, it's been a while since I did A2 maths, I've forgotten the finer details.)


I had both of these things in mind, actually.

----------


## DavidSh

> More likely it's a maths joke, ! is the factorial operator. A factorial is where you multiply every integer between 1 and the number in question.
> 
> The evidence for this is that 3! is the only point where this joke works. For 2! the result is too high, for 4! and above it's too low, and IIRC you aren't allowed to have a nonpositive factorial. (Look, it's been a while since I did A2 maths, I've forgotten the finer details.)


1! = 1 is also true, but 1 != 1 is false.

Further, it is reasonable to define 0! as 1, treating it as an empty product equal to the multiplicative identity, just like, for example, 20.  This also lets us define common power series more uniformly.

I don't know how you would define n! for n < 0.

----------


## Rater202

Thoughts on Persona 5 now that I've seen reasonably far into it...

I dislike Mika, the "antagonist" of Ann's confidant side quests, more than the Palace rulers.

The Palace Rulers have at least an inciting incident for why they're like this, face consequences for their actions, and it's implied that supernatural occurrences have made them much worse than they otherwise would be.

Mika is just a bitch who sabotages the careers of other models to further herself, is motivated by petty jealousy that others don't have to work as hard to maintain their looks as she does, and faces no consequences other than giving an obviously fake apology.

she's far from the most hateable character in the storythat would be, for me, the people who worked their foster-son to death they liked to live beyond their means and wanted to take him down a peg(his birth parents being wealthy) and then blame a good teacher who cares about her students and does the work to do the job properly for the death because she was tutoring their son and extorting her out of an exorbitant amount of money(thousands of yen a week) causing her to become so overworked and exhausted that she stops being a good teacher until you help her.

But you steal their hearts and force them to make amends. Mika gets off more or less scot-free.

----------


## Lord Raziere

Yeah, it is kind weird how that particular person doesn't get any comeuppance.

especially given how the entire rest of the game is basically one big write up about the modern problems of japanese society. (I can link to videos on persona 5 that explain all the intricate ways how if you doubt me.)

But then Ann's story seems to be oddly handled in general, like they're trying have their cake and eat it too.

----------


## Rater202

> Yeah, it is kind weird how that particular person doesn't get any comeuppance.
> 
> especially given how the entire rest of the game is basically one big write up about the modern problems of japanese society. (I can link to videos on persona 5 that explain all the intricate ways how if you doubt me.)
> 
> But then Ann's story seems to be oddly handled in general, like they're trying have their cake and eat it too.


Like, her Confidant starts out as her wanting to get stronger... The swerves into taking modeling, which she admittedly only does as a hobby, more seriously because this one bitch is jealous.

And Ann decides she likes the bitch because she reminds her of a supervillain from a show she watched as a kid.

Admittedly, Ann's Phantom Thief persona(small P) is modeled on that same Thief, but still. Even if Ann thinks she had a point and forgives her she still screwed over how many other models purely out of envy?

And like... All of the main protagonists are like... The reason they're bad is that they're screwing over people younger and weaker than they are, harming them now and destroying their future prospects, solely to ensure their own comfort and continued success in the present.

Treating them as things to be used ad abused for short-term gain instead of people who deserve to be successful on their own merits.

This is exactly what Mika did to the other models and she doesn't even have a Shadow in Momentos.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> This is exactly what Mika did to the other models and she doesn't even have a Shadow in Momentos.


I'm watched the Ann video for the sociocultural context about Mika:

her arc is about developing mental and emotional discipline in the face of adversity as well her finding positives in things that seem bad- her childhood hero is a villainess, she manages to see positive traits in Mika and such.

like Mika's entire purpose is just to be there to show how prepared and focused another model would be about things and how Ann needs to shape up if she wants to make this a career. I guess they went a little too far in the last bit, didn't think about it too much then decided that Mika was too minor to even get a shadow in Mementos even if they even went back to look at it at all. and that wanted the point to be that Ann had gotten so good she was matching someone who was prepared and playing dirty to be at the top of the modeling game.  which is a bit of a narrative technique where you imply Ann is better than Mika at modeling despite Mika not playing fair, which you can't do if she needs to be fixed in Mementos before rank 10. so Mika's point was there to be an obstacle not an enemy to vanquish and its implied that Ann will just outdo her through fair play sooner or later.

and if you got rank 10 with Ann, your probably thinking about bigger problems in the game at that point.

----------


## Rater202

> I'm watched the Ann video for the sociocultural context about Mika:
> 
> her arc is about developing mental and emotional discipline in the face of adversity as well her finding positives in things that seem bad- her childhood hero is a villainess, she manages to see positive traits in Mika and such.
> 
> like Mika's entire purpose is just to be there to show how prepared and focused another model would be about things and how Ann needs to shape up if she wants to make this a career. I guess they went a little too far in the last bit, didn't think about it too much then decided that Mika was too minor to even get a shadow in Mementos even if they even went back to look at it at all. and that wanted the point to be that Ann had gotten so good she was matching someone who was prepared and playing dirty to be at the top of the modeling game.  which is a bit of a narrative technique where you imply Ann is better than Mika at modeling despite Mika not playing fair, which you can't do if she needs to be fixed in Mementos before rank 10. so Mika's point was there to be an obstacle not an enemy to vanquish and its implied that Ann will just outdo her through fair play sooner or later.
> 
> and if you got rank 10 with Ann, your probably thinking about bigger problems in the game at that point.


Fair enough, but part of taking modeling more seriously is her doing the same kind of dieting and exercising that Mika did.

Mika takes it to extremes with the implications being that she has to keep up but Ann... Is that thin and that pretty with such good skin despite regularly pigging out on sweets. The buffet scene after dealing with Kamoshida had to get like half a dozen slices of cake.

If Ann goes on that kind of diet and exercise when she doesn't need it to maintain her ideal figure then... That's where eating disorders come from.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Fair enough, but part of taking modeling more seriously is her doing the same kind of dieting and exercising that Mika did.
> 
> Mika takes it to extremes with the implications being that she has to keep up but Ann... Is that thin and that pretty with such good skin despite regularly pigging out on sweets. The buffet scene after dealing with Kamoshida had to get like half a dozen slices of cake.
> 
> If Ann goes on that kind of diet and exercise when she doesn't need it to maintain her ideal figure then... That's where eating disorders come from.


Yeeeeeaaaah.

at that point its probable that they had just written it like that and didn't have all the time and resources to go too deep into the topic. Persona 5 Royal seems to be a very large and long game that looks like one big story but is actually like a lot of little stories in a trenchcoat, like its 41 gigabytes, thats two thirds the storage space required for something like Elden Ring, and one third the storage space required for Mass Effect Legendary Edition. so this big gaming storage space.

----------


## TaiLiu

> I do feel it is possible to have a consistent belief system, have those two points be true, and still eat meat, however. Logic is not a black and white, mathematical if-then statement. Nothing is forcing you to believe 3 just because one and two are true.





> What? Yes, it is. What TaiLiu just did is a syllogism that's most famous kind of logical reasoning. It you accept the two premisses you must accept the consclusion, that is literally how logic works.





> Okay, to clarify my thought process: Accepting something as true doesn't mean you are going to be forced to act that way. In TaiLiu's statement, those two points are true, thus three is true, but that does not in any way actually mean that this information MUST be acted on. People are not machines. And again, with the addition of further information, the logic gets more complex. I'm not refuting the logic, I'm refuting the conclusion derived from that logic.


There's something useful from both of you.

Fyraltari is right about logic. Classical logic features the law of excluded middle. By definition, it's very much black-and-white. And if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. In a valid argument, you cannot refute the conclusion without refuting one or more of the premises. Logic is very beautiful that way.

LaZodiac is right about the effects of an argument in practice. We use harsh terms when it comes to logic: "on pain of contradiction," "p forces q," "it necessarily follows." But arguments do not really have this force. Someone can just ignore an argument if they don't like it, regardless of its validity or soundness. Conversely, if someone held a gun to my head, I'm sure that I could be convinced that four-sided triangles exist.




> Yeah that's pretty fair reasoning! I personally disagree with point one, but as we've both said to each their own.
> 
> One thought that comes to mind is "it is not morally correct to eat another living being" functionally means you can't eat anything except synthetically created things, since plants are alive too, ergo limiting yourself is an arbitrary line regardless of the morality of it. Three may be true, but the addition of four means three's truth is not actually relevant.
> 
> Another option is that, while you may consider there is no moral difference between the two, there is a functional and mechanical difference- pets are raised as pets and food animals are raised as food, there is a fundamental difference for them in society regardless of the believed morality of it. Morally you may be opposed, but socially this is the norm. This obviously has its problems, and is probably the nastiest.
> 
> Thirdly; you can fully and firmly believe that it is a morally unjust thing to do, and also just not care. You can have the belief that eating any animal is cruel because they're living beings, and still eat them because they taste good, it's important for dietary means, and so on, and just Be Okay with the fact that living is, sometimes, an inherently amoral activity. This is the behavior I think, in my past, is the one I would say I have. "Yes I'm aware of the moral issues with eating animals. I do believe it is not a right thing to do. I also don't, personally, mind being a bad person in this instance". 
> 
> Nowadays I'm not sure where I personally stand on this- fundamentally there isn't anything wrong with eating animals typically associated with "being a pet", but it doesn't sit right with me personally. I don't foist my own beliefs on others and expect them to do as I do, and if I'm in a place that has different rules (like say, visiting a kosher household) I will respect their rules because I am actively wishing to be part of their place. I don't think I'd ever eat cat, simply by virtue of that personally being a step too far, though.


Yeah, I'm not sure it's possible to believe that eating other living beings is wrong and stay alive for too long.

The third argument (anti-argument?) is probably the strongest. I imagine that's not an unpopular stance amongst people who've bothered mixing their ethics consistently with their dietary choices.




> _[Glares.]_


What? We can't all photosynthesize, y'know.  :Small Tongue: 




> It's not just sharks, by the way. The higher up a thing is on the foodchain, the more likely it accumulates bad stuff. Being large and predatory, tuna isn't exempt from that either.


It must be nice being on the bottom of the food chain. No bad stuff at all. A moral paragon.  :Small Big Grin: 




> I think it's important to distinguish at point (1) between _pets_ and _species we tend to think of as pets_. I don't have a moral problem with eating dog per se, but I would have a problem eating _someone's pet dog_, and probably for that matter a dog which had been bred as a pet. I would also have a problem eating someone's pet cow. 
> 
> So, yes, I do think there is a moral difference between eating factory animals and eating pets, but not in the way that the logic chain assumes.
> 
> (I gather this is a perennial problem for livestock farmers with children, who become attached to the animals, name them, etc. and then slaughtering them becomes so much harder).
> 
> And this is one of those things that tends to cause issues with such chains of reasoning, because if you're in (say) the UK, dogs aren't bred for food, so if you want to eat dog, you have to eat someone's pet dog - in practical, if not theoretical, terms, there _is_ a moral difference between eating dog and eating, say, cow. That conditioning is hard to break, even if you subsequently go to a country where dogs are bred for food. 
> 
> But then it's not like a lot of meat-eaters - especially Americans, in my experience - are particularly morally consistent on this point anyway and it's not a moral issue so much as one of just general squick: a lot of people won't even eat, say, offal from a cow/sheep/pig, because it's "gross" or what have you.


Do you mind clarifying your comment on moral differences and my logic chain? I'm not sure I understand it.

Yeah, even my ethics are probably contradictory. My argument might be some _post hoc_ attempt to make my beliefs self-consistent. The meat I eat does include offal, though, so I have some reason to believe that it's not just squick with me.

----------


## HalfTangible

> A fascinating thing, though damn if I can't quite decipher it myself.
> 
> Unrelated I had a brain blast right before work ended and I cannot wait to do more writing ahahahahahah!





> In certain programming languages, the exclamation point is the 'not' operator. 
> 
> So, the statement reads as, 3 does not equal 1+2+3


3! means 3 factorial. IE multiplying every number between 1 and the number to find the result.

Which for 3! is 3 x 2 x 1 = 6

Which just so happens to _also_ equal 3 + 2 + 1

----------


## Mystic Muse

> 3! means 3 factorial. IE multiplying every number between 1 and the number to find the result.
> 
> Which for 3! is 3 x 2 x 1 = 6
> 
> Which just so happens to _also_ equal 3 + 2 + 1


Ah, my bad. Not familiar with Factorials.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> I had both of these things in mind, actually.


I've proved I'm a pretty face here a couple of times, I thought I'd prove there's more to me  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Aedilred

> Do you mind clarifying your comment on moral differences and my logic chain? I'm not sure I understand it.
> 
> Yeah, even my ethics are probably contradictory. My argument might be some _post hoc_ attempt to make my beliefs self-consistent. The meat I eat does include offal, though, so I have some reason to believe that it's not just squick with me.


I expressed that badly, because if you follow the logic chain and ignore the reasoning in parentheses it follows completely. But the examples used suggest flaws in the reasoning and application of the arguments. Specifically, it's that the reasoning doesn't draw a distinction between animal species commonly treated as companion animals, and actual pet animals. We start off with "factory animals vs pets" and the reasoning given is "cows vs cats", but not all cats are pets, and some cows are pets. 

Of course it also leaves out other reasoning people might have for not eating certain types of animal on ethical grounds (intelligence, inhumane raising conditions, etc.) but that's a different kettle of fish and not really what it's getting at. This mostly applies to wild animals (e.g. dolphins) but I do know a couple of people who won't eat pigs for those reasons but are otherwise meat-eaters. I myself won't eat octopus.

----------


## Metastachydium

> That's fair. The book is accessible in digital print as well, and worst case scenario re any distaste for Amazon, there are methods that could be discussed in PM.





> I'm pretty sure "offering free copies of a book you yourself wrote" is within the rules.





> Sure. That was just a gentle reminder against offering other avenues of sale via direct link.


I've got reservations regarding purchasing stuff online in general (and, in case it looked like that, I'm not intent on wringing free copies of stuff out of anyone, and especially not an author that just made the leap onto the market).




> Conversely, if someone held a gun to my head, I'm sure that I could be convinced that four-sided triangles exist.


Arguably, all triangles in 3D space have five sides if we work with a definition of _side_ that allows for the inclusion of the surface area's "obverse/reverse". (Also, could they really convince you or could they merely convince you to express technically feigned supposrt for the notion for as long as the threat persists?)




> Yeah, I'm not sure it's possible to believe that eating other living beings is wrong and stay alive for too long.
> 
> ()
> 
> What? We can't all photosynthesize, y'know.


Look, while I agree on the first count quite heartily (and would love to see that sentiment voiced more often  with maybe plants being other living beings to the same degree that animals are, perhaps), it's not my fault that your primary means of producing energy to sustain your bodies is subpar and unreliable!




> It must be nice being on the bottom of the food chain. No bad stuff at all. A moral paragon.


A gentle reminder that we do eat most of you in the end  it's just that we prefer to be more refined about it or, rather, we prefer you folks being refined into cleaner components by those funny little saprophages.




> The meat I eat does include offal, though, so I have some reason to believe that it's not just squick with me.


What's squicky about offal? A non-diseased liver is beautiful!

----------


## Keltest

Theoretically, a triangle doesnt exist in 3d space. If its 3d, then its a pyramid, or probably some other shape with a name only a dedicated geometry professor would know off hand.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Theoretically, a triangle doesnt exist in 3d space. If its 3d, then its a pyramid, or probably some other shape with a name only a dedicated geometry professor would know off hand.


I find that notion dubious. If a triangle cannot exist in 3D space, than a tetrahedron or a prism with a triangular base shouldn't exist either, since both have triangles as their faces.

----------


## Peelee

> Theoretically, a triangle doesnt exist in 3d space. If its 3d, then its a pyramid, or probably some other shape with a name only a dedicated geometry professor would know off hand.


I believe the technical term is "funky pyramids". 



> I find that notion dubious. If a triangle cannot exist in 3D space, than a tetrahedron or a prism with a triangular base shouldn't exist either, since both have triangles as their faces.


This is easy to resolve. Define "triangle".

----------


## Metastachydium

> This is easy to resolve. Define "triangle".


Enclosed shape with three vertices?

----------


## Peelee

> Enclosed shape with three vertices?


Behold, a man seven triangles.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Behold, a man seven triangles.


Eh, why not?

----------


## Peelee

> Eh, why not?


Well, if you're not trying for mathematical functionality, that's a valid enough question.

Of course, in that event, so is "why?"  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Metastachydium

> Well, if you're not trying for mathematical functionality, that's a valid enough question.
> 
> Of course, in that event, so is "why?"


It still makes sense, etymologically? And more importantly, I fail to see the relevance of the point. Unless you want to argue that points, lines and planes cannot exist in space, I don't see how triangles don't exist in space; and if they do, why we can't conceive of a colloquial term _side_ that incorporates both edges and faces.

----------


## Keltest

> It still makes sense, etymologically? And more importantly, I fail to see the relevance of the point. Unless you want to argue that points, lines and planes cannot exist in space, I don't see how triangles don't exist in space; and if they do, why we can't conceive of a colloquial term _side_ that incorporates both edges and faces.


In 3d space, important distinction.

----------


## Peelee

> It still makes sense, etymologically? And more importantly, I fail to see the relevance of the point. Unless you want to argue that points, lines and planes cannot exist in space, I don't see how triangles don't exist in space; and if they do, why we can't conceive of a colloquial term _side_ that incorporates both edges and faces.


Reworking concepts to fit etymology seems like an odd exercise since it doesn't necessarily give any useful output. Especially in this case.

A rose by any other name smells as sweet, but redefining what a "rose" is doesn't mean that the flower itself changes.

----------


## Metastachydium

> Reworking concepts to fit etymology seems like an odd exercise since it doesn't necessarily give any useful output. Especially in this case.
> 
> A rose by any other name smells as sweet, but redefining what a "rose" is doesn't mean that the flower itself changes.


Okay. I still fail to see the relevance of the point you're trying to make, however. If a plane can be a subspace (and it _can_), triangles exist in 3D space.

----------


## Peelee

> Okay. I still fail to see the relevance of the point you're trying to make, however. If a plane can be a subspace (and it _can_), triangles exist in 3D space.


A plane is typically defined as a two-deminsonal surface. Triangles are also typically defined as a two-dimensional object. This allows us to work with them as they have functional use.

It seems like you want to conflate a triangle with a triangular shape, but like you, I fail to see the relevance of this. What purpose does redefining the triangle give? Or, in planty terms, redefining the rose doesn't take the thorns off the flower. Why are we doing it?

----------


## Metastachydium

> A plane is typically defined as a two-deminsonal surface. Triangles are also typically defined as a two-dimensional object. This allows us to work with them as they have functional use.


Euclidean space consists of two-dimensional subspaces is my point. And if a plane remains a definite entity as a subspace in 3D, so do triangles on the plane.




> It seems like you want to conflate a triangle with a triangular shape, but like you, I fail to see the relevance of this. What purpose does redefining the triangle give?


None at all. TaiLiu made a joke, I made a counterjoke, you, Sir, made a most excellent counter-counterjoke (please don't hurt me) and now we're nitpicking away for the sake of nitpicking.




> Or, in planty terms, redefining the rose doesn't take the thorns off the flower. Why are we doing it?


Also, roses have prickles, not thorns and they are on the stem rather than the flower.

----------


## Peelee

> TaiLiu made a joke, I made a counterjoke


Well now I'm just sad that you didn't include my counter-counter joke.

----------


## D&D_Fan

I hate triangles. Hexagons are a much better 2-dimensional shape.

.....______
../............\
/................\
\................/
..\_______/

(Hexagon)

----------


## Peelee

> I hate triangles. Hexagons are a much better 2-dimensional shape.
> 
> .....______
> ../............\
> /................\
> \................/
> ..\_______/
> 
> (Hexagon)


Pft. That's just some triangles that formed a gang.

----------


## Rater202

Question for people more verses in Tolkien Lore.

Would it be accurate to state that the Power of the One Ring is functionally greater than the power that Sauron invested to create it?

Like, the act of investing it in physical form made it more potent or focused it or something. Concentrated it, maybe?

Because making the Ring made Sauron weaker and more vulnerable, which is a bad trade for something that's _just_ a Soul Jar. He's got to have had another reason for doing that.

----------


## Mystic Muse

> Question for people more verses in Tolkien Lore.
> 
> Would it be accurate to state that the Power of the One Ring is functionally greater than the power that Sauron invested to create it?
> 
> Like, the act of investing it in physical form made it more potent or focused it or something. Concentrated it, maybe?
> 
> Because making the Ring made Sauron weaker and more vulnerable, which is a bad trade for something that's _just_ a Soul Jar. He's got to have had another reason for doing that.



It keeps his strength set and stable while everything around him is withering and fading in terms of the powers they once possessed.

----------


## Keltest

> Question for people more verses in Tolkien Lore.
> 
> Would it be accurate to state that the Power of the One Ring is functionally greater than the power that Sauron invested to create it?
> 
> Like, the act of investing it in physical form made it more potent or focused it or something. Concentrated it, maybe?
> 
> Because making the Ring made Sauron weaker and more vulnerable, which is a bad trade for something that's _just_ a Soul Jar. He's got to have had another reason for doing that.


In terms of absolute power it was something like a lateral move. But it allowed him power over the other rings in specific ways, and more generally focused the power he put in it, so he could get more practical output out of it.

----------


## Rater202

Pop Culture Trivia: Marvel Comics, the company, exists in the World of Marvel Comics. They publish licensed comics detailing the adventures of various heroes who are real in-universe.

Steve Rogers, back when he had a secret identity, worked there for a while as an artist and ended up drawing his own licensed comics.

Side note: the in-universe comics are apparently so accurate about the events they detail that they've been ruled to be legally admissible as evidence in court. Granted, that was a comedy series but its events are fully canonical.

----------


## tyckspoon

> Question for people more verses in Tolkien Lore.
> 
> Would it be accurate to state that the Power of the One Ring is functionally greater than the power that Sauron invested to create it?
> 
> Like, the act of investing it in physical form made it more potent or focused it or something. Concentrated it, maybe?
> 
> Because making the Ring made Sauron weaker and more vulnerable, which is a bad trade for something that's _just_ a Soul Jar. He's got to have had another reason for doing that.


In Tolkien's universe, investing power into something is a permanent thing - you take a part of yourself and graft it into your creation, and you never get that back. The previous Big Evil of the setting was eventually cast down not just because the forces of Good eventually got their s*** together enough to fight him (they did, sort of, like half the Silimarillion is about how the elves and gods spend all their time squabbling with each other instead of resisting evil), but because he had diminished himself sufficiently in making dragons and orcs and werewolves and all manner of foul minions that his personal power was no longer great enough to easily defeat the champions of Good in direct combat.

What the One Ring does for Sauron is allow him to flex his power at a remove, so that doesn't happen to him. As long as he has the Ring he can do all sorts of Evil Dark Sorcery without having to spend more parts of himself to do so - he will never become less potent than he was when he invested himself into the Ring. The tradeoff is he now requires the Ring to do so - his capability for direct action is greatly diminished if he does not have direct possession of the Ring - and of course that his power is now entangled with the Ring's existence. Should the absolutely unthinkable happen and the Ring somehow be destroyed (or, more thinkable, somebody else of great power comes into possession of it, claims dominion of the Ring, and cuts him off from it) then the huge majority of Sauron's power goes with it, rendering him little more than an ill-tempered voice in the wind.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Question for people more verses in Tolkien Lore.
> 
> Would it be accurate to state that the Power of the One Ring is functionally greater than the power that Sauron invested to create it?
> 
> Like, the act of investing it in physical form made it more potent or focused it or something. Concentrated it, maybe?
> 
> Because making the Ring made Sauron weaker and more vulnerable, which is a bad trade for something that's _just_ a Soul Jar. He's got to have had another reason for doing that.


The Reason Sauron made the Ring a Ring in the first place is that it allowed him to control (and quite possibly draw power from) the other Great Rings (the Three, the Seven and the nine) into which Celebrimbor had poured a lot of the power of the Elves.

This is why the remain Elves leave immediately (well immediately for elves) after Sauron is defeated, with his Ring destroyed, so are theirs and their abilities to stave off the inevitable decline living in Middle-Eart means for them.

Edit: Sauron did not need a "soul jar" really, he was already immortal.

----------


## Rater202

That feel when you notice a bunch of errors after it's too late to fix them.

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Isn't it strictly just Men (and thus also hobbits) who are mortal in Middle-earth? And maybe orcs depending on which origin story you use. Or is the gift of mortality more about the leaving the world to be with Eru Illuvitar?

Okay, I'm not super into Tolkien. This is mostly extrapolating from teenage memories and some YouTube videos (that do mostly agree).

----------


## BisectedBrioche

I miss one day of posts, and you all somehow start talking about non-euclidian geometry for multiple pages, then bring it around to fantasy...

----------


## Fyraltari

> Isn't it strictly just Men (and thus also hobbits) who are mortal in Middle-earth? And maybe orcs depending on which origin story you use. Or is the gift of mortality more about the leaving the world to be with Eru Illuvitar?


That is correct, yes. Why?

----------


## Anonymouswizard

> That is correct, yes. Why?


It makes this weird case where characters are assumed to be immortal unless assumed otherwise.

Which from a storytelling perspective is fine, IIRC a large part of the Silmarillion is Morgoth eventually putting so much of himself into the world that he becomes practically mortal. It also gives more context to Gandalf's return (he was never truly dead, but he'd have been out of the action for a little while). But it's not something that people intrinsically grasp, that such a large number of named characters are actually immortal (even if they have to deal with loss of their bodies and/or fading).

----------


## Fyraltari

> It makes this weird case where characters are assumed to be immortal unless assumed otherwise.
> 
> Which from a storytelling perspective is fine, IIRC a large part of the Silmarillion is Morgoth eventually putting so much of himself into the world that he becomes practically mortal. It also gives more context to Gandalf's return (he was never truly dead, but he'd have been out of the action for a little while). But it's not something that people intrinsically grasp, that such a large number of named characters are actually immortal (even if they have to deal with loss of their bodies and/or fading).


Meh, Morgoth's still technically out there (and depending on the version you go with fated to return to end the world). And physical "death" is still a great blow for an immortal: elves get stuck in the caves of Mandos for ages and Maiar lose a tremenduous amout of power, so much that in most cases, you might as well call them dead. Gandalf came back so quickly solely because Eru willed it so, otherwise, he ought to have been about as dead as Saruman.

Also, nobody's really sure about the dwarves and Ents.

----------


## Rater202

If you can be rendered effectively dead, or degrade over time to the point that you might as well be dead, you're not immortal, except by the strictest and most literal definitions, IE, "not mortal."

Immortality is the ability to live forever. The whole point of living forever is to *live* forever.

You're not doing much living as a disembodied spirit and if you've got the choice between abandoning the mortal world or slowly hollowing out into a shade of yourself then it doesn't matter how much living you fit into your time, it's not gonna last forever.

With what I know of Tolkien's elves, for example, they're not so much "living forever" as they are "not dying."

----------


## Anonymouswizard

Technically speaking the standard use of 'immortal' in modern English is basically just 'ageless'. If you want Rater-brand 'destined to an And I Must Scream fate after heat death when I can't even get the energy to think' immortality it's probably safer to use 'complete/total immortality'.

Really, the biggest issue with Tolkien immortals is the fact that they diminish outside the heavenly realms (although for different reasons depending on species). Remember that in Tolkien's mythos there are still at least a few elves wandering the modern world, but they've become invisible and possibly intangible.

----------


## Fyraltari

> If you can be rendered effectively dead, or degrade over time to the point that you might as well be dead, you're not immortal, except by the strictest and most literal definitions, IE, "not mortal."
> 
> Immortality is the ability to live forever. The whole point of living forever is to *live* forever.
> 
> You're not doing much living as a disembodied spirit and if you've got the choice between abandoning the mortal world or slowly hollowing out into a shade of yourself then it doesn't matter how much living you fit into your time, it's not gonna last forever.
> 
> With what I know of Tolkien's elves, for example, they're not so much "living forever" as they are "not dying."


Elves get to leave the Caves of Mandos in new bodies after some amount of time (depends on the Elf) and then enjoy the Undying Lands with the rest of their people until the End of Days.

When Finrod Felagund gets killed, the narrator informs us that he was such a great dude, he was basically allowed out of the Caves immediately and is now enjoying life with his dad.

Likewise, Glorfindel died in the first Age and then sailed back to Middle-Earth (the absolute madlad) at some point in the Second or early Third and is hanging around Rivendell good as new.

----------


## theangelJean

> Elves get to live the Caves of Mandos in new bodies after some amount of time (depends on the Elf) and then enjoy the Undying Lands with the rest of their people until the End of Days.
> 
> When Finrod Felagund gets killed, the narrator informs us that he was such a great dude, he was basically allowed out of the Caves immediately and is now enjoying life with his dad.
> 
> Likewise, Glorfindel died in the first Age and then sailed back to Middle-Earth (the absolute madlad) at some point in the Second or early Third and is hanging around Rivendell good as new.


So, if these are the elves who got a new lease on life, I wonder if they were the most likely to hang around to the modern day?

----------


## Fyraltari

> So, if these are the elves who got a new lease on life, I wonder if they were the most likely to hang around to the modern day?


Err, no. The Undying Land aren't exactly part of the world (Arda) anymore. The elves who died in Middle-Earth and are let out of the caves are supposed to stay there. And many Elves never left in the first place. The Elves that "made it" to today need to both never have been killed but also never obeyed the command the leave Middle-Earth. However since Middle-Earth is meant to be the inheritance of Men (who are likewise not meant to go to the Undying Lands), magic left it at the end of the Third age/beginning of the Fourth and all stragglers are reduced to lesser and lesser spirits, the stuff of fairy tales at best.

----------


## theangelJean

> Err, no. The Undying Land aren't exactly part of the world (Arda) anymore. The elves who died in Middle-Earth and are let out of the caves are supposed to stay there. And many Elves never left in the first place. The Elves that "made it" to today need to both never have been killed but also never obeyed the command the leave Middle-Earth. However since Middle-Earth is meant to be the inheritance of Men (who are likewise not meant to go to the Undying Lands), magic left it at the end of the Third age/beginning of the Fourth and all stragglers are reduced to lesser and lesser spirits, the stuff of fairy tales at best.


Yeah, I was thinking specifically of the elves you mentioned, who came back to Middle-Earth. Unless there's something about Glorfindel also making the journey to the West, maybe in Tolkien's lore he's still guarding the river crossing at Rivendell somewhere.

----------


## Fyraltari

> Yeah, I was thinking specifically of the elves you mentioned, who came back to Middle-Earth. Unless there's something about Glorfindel also making the journey to the West, maybe in Tolkien's lore he's still guarding the river crossing at Rivendell somewhere.


Well Glorfindel is the only one I know who came back to Middle-Earth after the big Noldor exodus, every other elf seems to have stayed in Aman regardless if they went there by boat or by getting killed.

As for the ones who stayed permanently in ME, I'd assume they're a diverse bunch.

----------


## theangelJean

> Well Glorfindel is the only one I know who came back to Middle-Earth after the big Noldor exodus, every other elf seems to have stayed in Aman regardless if they went there by boat or by getting killed.
> 
> As for the ones who stayed permanently in ME, I'd assume they're a diverse bunch.


Ahh. Not just the heroes? Fair enough.

----------


## Rater202

My stepfather often gets pissy at me and insists that I ate an entire bag of chips when I most certainly did not. Once he mistakenly through out half a bag and then blamed me for there being no chips even.

He also recently started eating my Triscuits. I didn't mind at first because he'd only take a handful but today he filled a bowl with like half a box of them and left me with like two thirds and some crumbs.

Like... I _never_ just leave crumbs in a box or a bag...

When I incredulously showed him what was left he shrugged and said "I didn't eat the whole thing."

...He used to try and ration my food and soda intake but the portions he insisted on weren't enough to be satisfied. After my mom put her foot down and abolished these rules he unilaterally insisted on he poured hot sauce into a bag of my pizza roles.

He also used to steal food off my plate before I started eating in my room.

I was heavy before he was in the picture but looking back he's probably the root cause of most of my issues with food.

----------


## TaiLiu

> My stepfather often gets pissy at me and insists that I ate an entire bag of chips when I most certainly did not. Once he mistakenly through out half a bag and then blamed me for there being no chips even.
> 
> He also recently started eating my Triscuits. I didn't mind at first because he'd only take a handful but today he filled a bowl with like half a box of them and left me with like two thirds and some crumbs.
> 
> Like... I _never_ just leave crumbs in a box or a bag...
> 
> When I incredulously showed him what was left he shrugged and said "I didn't eat the whole thing."
> 
> ...He used to try and ration my food and soda intake but the portions he insisted on weren't enough to be satisfied. After my mom put her foot down and abolished these rules he unilaterally insisted on he poured hot sauce into a bag of my pizza roles.
> ...


Wow. That's awful. I was gonna suggest looking into different forms of dementia or something, but it sounds like he's always been cruel + controlling. I'm sorry you have to deal with that.

----------


## Rater202

> Wow. That's awful. I was gonna suggest looking into different forms of dementia or something, but it sounds like he's always been cruel + controlling. I'm sorry you have to deal with that.


He's bipolar. And refuses to take his meds.

He's usually tolerable but every so often he feels the need to do something like this.

And I'll be honest... He's not the worst. Like, he's the _good_ one in his family.

And my blood relatives aren't exactly much better sometimes.

----------

