(09-01-2013, 06:43 PM)Vinter Wrote: Because you're not adding anything to the discussion, you're fucking derailing it!
This is a discussion about the mating strategies of the miqo'te and their implications on miqo'te society, not a discussion about the validity of a discussion about the mating strategies of the miqo'te.
If you, however, feel that such a discussion would be a productive use of your time, you're perfectly free to start a new thread titled "Is there any point in discussing miqo'te mating strategies?" but that's not what this thread is about.
Actually, at this point, you're de-railing it. By insisting it was de-railed when it has not, in fact, been de-railed.
(09-01-2013, 06:43 PM)Vinter Wrote: I'm shaking in my boots already.
Nobody asked you to be. This was a statement of fact. This is the wrong choice for you.
(09-01-2013, 06:43 PM)Vinter Wrote: We could, but we don't want to. There's a difference.
There are german shepherds with straight backs who are just fine. And there are types of bulldogs that are just fine as well. We specifically breed for these flaws because we find them attractive.
No, dude. We can't. There's no breeder willing to sell his product that would not want his product to be more desirable. Extra health care expenses are not a desirable trait in a product, and leads to a higher turnover in trophy-dogs.
If at all possible, these breeders would have, for pure market interest alone, removed these undesirable traits from their breeds in order to make them more marketable to a broader base of people, so that they could make more money through higher volume of sales.
The dogs that are "just fine" are outbred every now and again to ensure that there's significant genetic drift within the family line. They may not use other breeds of dogs, but they limit inbreeding as much as possible.
Nobody finds respiratory issues "attractive". Nobody finds leaky, diseased anal glands "attractive". You're off base.
(09-01-2013, 06:43 PM)Vinter Wrote: No, fuck that. Uther +1'ed Velkyron's post stating that the thread is pointless. Myxie chimed in saying that some people do think there's a point to it, and backed it up with ratings and PMs. You then start arguing that the opinions of those people are irrelevant, again, implying that there's no point to this discussion. But apparently it has value to the people who rated it up. So the only pointless thing here is your argument.
I'm arguing that the counter of reputation is irrelevant. You've yet to address that. It's still irrelevant. It bears no meaning on the actual merit of anything being discussed. I can give everyone a +1 on everything. Freely. It amounts to nothing.
(09-01-2013, 06:43 PM)Vinter Wrote: So, you're the one who defines what a homonid-style is? It has two legs, two arms, two ears, a nose, a mouth, two eyes, plantigrade feet.
A homonid is member of the great ape family. Last I checked, SE had not mentioned Miqo'te being great apes. So a kangaroo is as much a homonid as a Miqo'te.
No, that's science. Science determines what is, and isn't a hominid, or like a hominid.
On this kangaroo thing, which you seem weirdly hooked on, they're still not even close to being like hominids. What with them being marsupials. They use their long, heavy tails for balance (something that hominids don't have)and as a brace to stand upright, hop for locomotion (which hominids aren't likely to do), develop their young in a pouch, have elongated jaws with relatively small craniums... I mean, I can't believe you're even trying to argue this, but ok. You're wrong in every way possible.
I mean, they're part of the Macropodidae family of Marsupials, which is preeeettty physically divorced from hominids, or anything resembling them, so it's like...what the fuck are you even on about?
Anyway, Miqo'te have a lot more in common with modern hominids than anything else. We've already established that their method of locomotion is the same as any other upright biped. Their tails aren't large or heavy enough to account for any balance, and are basically vestigial.
They can even have babies with humans and shit. Like for real. I'm not joking. There ain't no kangaroo-man babies out there. Because they're not similar in the least.
Really, that last bit shoots your argument entirely to shit by itself, but I'm gonna go ahead and leave you this right here so you can chart for yourself exactly how many degrees by which you're wrong.
On a more personal note, this is still a terrible attempt. It really, really is. You can't argue that discussions don't get to evolve (or ignore the part where I showed up well after the direction of the discussion had changed) simply because you don't like me. I don't need you to like me. Nobody needs you to like me. Nobody cares that you don't.
On top of that, you can't throw out something like "KANGAROOS AIN'T A MAN SO HOW A MIQO'TE A MAN!?!?" and expect that to fly when they're genetically similar enough to have offspring. It's also weird that you're apparently upset about being told you're wrong on this outrageous attempt at a strawman fallacy in claiming that I have, singlehandedly, argued that this is not worth discussing (you've erected an argument that wasn't presented, and then went ahead and attacked it. I'm just clarifying, because apparently you think "hominid" is a fluid term, not a specific one, so who knows what else is unclear for you.) Also, then there's this kangaroos being like miqo'te, even though they're obviously not even kind of, and...your whole point is just a mess.
It's a huge mess. A huge wrong mess.
So yeah. Miqo'te: Pretty much just people with cat ears and a goofy tail. As such, not terribly "mysterious" or "special". This isn't a bad thing, it's just a thing that is.
