|
|
Post by Intelligence on Jul 9, 2014 15:18:31 GMT
I'm pretty sure she does care. Also, Annie and Smitty, why don't just you change the policy so gender changes don't occur?  |
|
gary
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by gary on Jul 9, 2014 15:33:55 GMT
I'm pretty sure she does care. Also, Annie and Smitty, why don't just you change the policy so gender changes don't occur? We have no idea why the sex changes occur. But I'm positive it's nothing Annie can change. There's no reason why she'd have that power. The way Smitty says it he makes it sound more like an unintentional side effect of the technology but even if it is a deliberate policy for some reason that would be the headmaster and coyote who made it, annie and smitty wouldn't, and shouldn't, have the power to make policy of that level. |
|
|
|
Post by Intelligence on Jul 9, 2014 15:38:36 GMT
gary Then they can just convince Coyote to change it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Jul 9, 2014 15:46:44 GMT
gary Then they can just convince Coyote to change it. 'convince Coyote' and 'change' do not coexist in a sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor on Jul 9, 2014 16:54:53 GMT
Could be some natural effect if the magic used. It seems oddly catch-all for an intentional policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by csj on Jul 9, 2014 20:41:50 GMT
What is preventing Annie from communing etherically with yonder jackelope?
Far more interesting question, doncha think?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Jul 9, 2014 20:59:11 GMT
What is preventing Annie from communing etherically with yonder jackelope? Language barrier? I don't remember Annie having any etheric abilities that would allow her to speak bunnyrabbitish. |
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Jul 9, 2014 21:38:36 GMT
gary Then they can just convince Coyote to change it. 'convince Coyote' and 'change' do not coexist in a sentence. I just changed my opinion that it's possible to convince coyote to do anything without it backfiring in some way. I wonder why Green's name is a secret? I suppose if a name can be given by any non-fairy creature, than a fairy's 'childhood' can be arbitrarily long or short. Also, Green does seem to be far more mature than Red or Blue. I wonder if names have a biological/magical basis or are purely a social construct. Maybe it's because her best friend is an animal instead of another fairy? It could be positive influence from the rabbit's part. Lightice, I'd appreciate it if you would correctly attribute the quote to me to avoid confusion. (The error was no doubt caused by the fact that I quoted Dédalo in my post. Not a big deal.) |
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Jul 9, 2014 21:49:42 GMT
Lightice, I'd appreciate it if you would correctly attribute the quote to me to avoid confusion. (The error was no doubt caused by the fact that I quoted Dédalo in my post. Not a big deal.) Sorry, that was a problem with my post-editing when I removed unnecessary additional quotes. I accidentally deleted the wrong username. It's now fixed. |
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Jul 9, 2014 21:50:21 GMT
Lightice, I'd appreciate it if you would correctly attribute the quote to me to avoid confusion. (The error was no doubt caused by the fact that I quoted Dédalo in my post. Not a big deal.) Sorry, that was a problem with my post-editing when I removed unnecessary additional quotes. I accidentally deleted the wrong username. It's now fixed. Yup, that's what I figured. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Jul 9, 2014 21:57:16 GMT
Sorry, that was a problem with my post-editing when I removed unnecessary additional quotes. I accidentally deleted the wrong username. It's now fixed. Yup, that's what I figured. Thanks! Sorry to accidentally take credit for your ideas, haha  |
|
|
|
Post by ctso74 on Jul 9, 2014 22:02:21 GMT
Just what I always dreaded, Gunnerkrigg Court has turned into a trans-rabbitist gospel. The rabbit singularity is coming. R+? Are there Neo-Luddite tortoises? Though, this page does bring to mind the saying, "Beyond the walls of the city, there exists only beasts and gods." Maybe, the bunny is seeking a third option, and is taking a proactionary approach to her progress. Right on, I say! Color me Extropian. |
|
|
|
Post by descoladavirus on Jul 10, 2014 4:32:08 GMT
What is preventing Annie from communing etherically with yonder jackelope? Language barrier? I don't remember Annie having any etheric abilities that would allow her to speak bunnyrabbitish. Paz could be of great help to Annie in her duties as the forest medium. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Jul 10, 2014 15:00:01 GMT
Okay, I feel there is a (really really small) possibility that the rabbit doesn't really want to become human, and it's all just Green making it all up. Like, say, a human child would project feelings into an inanimate object like a doll and treat them as a real person. I can't be the only one who feels that way... can I? Well... she is a fairy... crazy hijinks are always a possibility. P.S.: It really bothers me when people use the term "animal" as if humans weren't animals, as if humans were somehow special. I wish people didn't do that. For the fairies and suchlike it's probably "an unimportant part". I mean, unlike most of the people explicitly separating humans from animals in our world, who tend to act as if they were species-confused fungal shapeshifters. Which undoubtedly is a pure coincidence. Because the Slorin are a pure product of imagination and do not exist. Honest. |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 10, 2014 16:00:32 GMT
For the fairies and suchlike it's probably "an unimportant part". I mean, unlike most of the people explicitly separating humans from animals in our world, who tend to act as if they were species-confused fungal shapeshifters. Which undoubtedly is a pure coincidence. Because the Slorin are a pure product of imagination and do not exist. Honest. That wasn't really a comment on the comic. It was just a generic statement. There is more than one person in this thread who used "animal" when they really mean "non-human animal"; most people do that all the time. They probably don't even realize they are doing it, and that's not a big deal, but it still bothers me. In the comic, Smitty says "When a fairy becomes human [...], but when any other animal goes through the change...". He's clearly including fairies in the "animals" category; it's safe to assume he includes humans too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 17:28:48 GMT
The omission of redundant adjectives is a mark of good style, I think, not stupidity. Of course, most other people are stupid regardless, or at least oblivious of the adventures of Australopithecus as they fancy their state of mind distinct from a fruit-fly's, since unlike them, I have read multiple award-winning works of science-fiction.
If humans weren't special compared to other animals, I'd find it hard to believe that so many different Forest animals would all desire to become human.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Jul 10, 2014 19:22:11 GMT
Lapine. Pshaw you'd think no one here's read Watership Down. |
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Jul 10, 2014 22:31:06 GMT
|
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 10, 2014 23:04:39 GMT
The omission of redundant adjectives is a mark of good style, I think, not stupidity. Of course, most other people are stupid regardless, or at least oblivious of the adventures of Australopithecus as they fancy their state of mind distinct from a fruit-fly's, since unlike them, I have read multiple award-winning works of science-fiction. If humans weren't special compared to other animals, I'd find it hard to believe that so many different Forest animals would all desire to become human. My comment on people talking about animals as if humans weren't animals was not about the comic, as I've already said. And the "non-human" part in "non-human animals" isn't redundant. It serves a purpose, it tells that humans are animals. It is precisely the opposite of using "animals" to separate humans from other animals. That's all, not gonna talk any more about this subject. Anyway, in the comic the humans can be as special as Tom wants them to be. If he wants humans to be as powerful as gods, if not more, that's fine; I have no problem with that. It's a work of fiction, after all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 3:18:40 GMT
Let me have a brief final word as well: My comment on people talking about animals as if humans weren't animals was not about the comic, as I've already said. The last sentence of my post did indeed refer to the comic directly. The rest works both ways, though. Well, I felt provoked because you seem to think rather little of "most people" (that's me, I'm most people) if you assume they don't know this. People in this thread have been talking about how humans define themselves as prominently distinct from other animals. Putting "non-human" before every subsequent mention of "animals" distracts from the focal point of the argument, without adding anything that the discussed topic doesn't imply. Therefore, it can be cut. I understand you probably have good reasons for your stance regarding the specialty of human nature. But, for instance, mine is different. If I came across as kind of a dick here, and I suspect so, I'm sorry - I should have been much less sardonic. The "award-winning science-fiction novels" remark was meant to point out how the correct assertion that humans are animals, when grounded in science and scepticism, must also highlight how humans are very peculiar animals for their advancement in science, as well as for writing philosophical novels about curiously attractive androids. ---- A side thought: Anyway, in the comic the humans can be as special as Tom wants them to be. If he wants humans to be as powerful as gods, if not more, that's fine; I have no problem with that. It's a work of fiction, after all. In this comic, human imagination appears to determine the nature and powers of their gods; at the same time, divine beings such as Coyote show powers that far exceed human capabilities, if only in specialized fields, according to their characterization. The creation surpasses the creator, but is still bound to it, much in the same way that humans are bound to their previous stages of evolution. |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Jul 11, 2014 4:55:27 GMT
Actually, I have just a little more say.
The thing is that when people talk about animals like that, they generally are purposefully implying humans are somehow superior than other animals; yeah, they may know that humans are animals, but you can tell by their discourse that they feel like they are different kinds of creatures, that they are better than animals, and that is what bothers me. That may not be the intent of most people here in this thread, but you can see that intent in a couple of comments.
If that's not your intention, and you just omit words for the sake of simplicity, then that's fine. It's not hard to tell the difference from context.
And no, I do not think little of most people, sorry if I gave that impression. I may disagree with someone on the matter of humans being special compared to other animals, but I will never think less of them because of that. That would be stupid.
Yeah, humans are very peculiar creatures. But so are all the other animals. So are all the other living creatures. A human is different from a chimpanzee in the same way a chimpanzee is different from a gorilla, (actually, no, a human is less different from a chimpanzee than a gorilla is), and they're all equally different from a spider, or a tree, or whatever. Every creature is equally unique, equally special (as paradoxical as that may sound).
I simply do not see how scientific advance should be more noteworthy than photosynthesis, or architecture more than beehives.
Anyway, the whole point of putting that comment in a postscript in a small font size was to not draw much attention to it. I guess I have failed at it. Miserably. It might have been better to not say anything at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jul 11, 2014 5:28:23 GMT
The thing is that when people talk about animals like that, they generally are purposefully implying humans are somehow superior than other animals; yeah, they may know that humans are animals, but you can tell by their discourse that they feel like they are different kinds of creatures, that they are better than animals, and that is what bothers me. That may not be the intent of most people here in this thread, but you can see that intent in a couple of comments. I think we are a different kind of creature and that it is almost always in my best interest to value the life of a fellow human over that of, say, a wolf. However, I expect the wolf to be of a different opinion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 6:09:11 GMT
Actually, I have just a little more say. Haha, that's fine by me. I've studied Law for a single semester and can assure you that there is at least one difference between humans and other animals: only the former can be party to a civil lawsuit in Germany. This may make them superior, or it may not. There are species of butterflies that can be distinguished from their close relatives only by the shape or size of their genitalia. I don't share the view that all species are equally special, which would render taxonomy useless and make evolution impossible, but I agree that every living being is unique and objectively invaluable. I've still squashed a few flies and midges in my life, though... I guess that I must rehabilitate myself. As a kid, I had a habit of building sandcastles on the shores of the Baltic Sea and watching ladybugs crawl over them. Other than that, I read books about elephants and, strangely enough, Central European mushrooms. This still puzzles and amuses me today. Let me tell you all about Gyromitra esculenta. It looks like a fat brain on a stick. Also, despite the moniker "esculenta", the thing actually has a good chance of killing your guts (and you) when eaten, because stomach acid turns one of its components into goddamn rocket fuel ( really). Some Finns go ahead, cook, and devour it anyway. It's bonkers. Understanding the mechanics of photosynthesis constitutes a scientific advance. Photosynthesis is analogous to breathing: an involuntary process of complicated beauty. The pursuit of science always demands a force of will, a mixture of curiosity and determination (I propose that we argue Schopenhauer and friends at a later time). Indeed, beehives are architecture, though the shapes of beehives are arguably less diverse and thoroughly designed than human buildings around the world. Bees didn't construct Angkor Wat or the Pyramids; they can't afford to do so. A greater degree of freedom, allowing one to choose certain limitations without immediate concerns for survival, constitutes a crucial part of human identity, in my opinion. I would be pretty interested, now that you mentioned it, in a documentary detailing how swarms of bees go about the construction of their hives under different environmental conditions. Do you happen to know of one? |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Jul 11, 2014 8:44:11 GMT
I've studied Law for a single semester and can assure you that there is at least one difference between humans and other animals: only the former can be party to a civil lawsuit in Germany. This may make them superior, or it may not. And as far as I know even that is a recent development, animals used to be tried in the same way as humans throughout history. At the moment I'm reading Nature's Nether Regions, by Menno Schilthuizen, a great book that deals with the evolution of genitalia, and (sexual) evolution in general. |
|
|
|
Post by eyemyself on Jul 11, 2014 15:16:25 GMT
gary Then they can just convince Coyote to change it. What makes you think Coyote has the power to change it? Or that he'd agree to if he did? As far as we know the rules around the process have been in place for hundreds of years and if Coyote has had the power to influence them he's seen no reason to do so before now. It's entirely possible that the way things are suits his long term plans just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by bshanks on Jul 12, 2014 5:53:19 GMT
The merest suggestion that someone thinks that humans are more than animals is exactly the sort of thing that tends to cause..um..diplomatic disputes between the Forest and the Court (especially if Ysengrin should hear about it).
|
|
