MediumGray

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Yes, if taking it seriously, then those are reasonable conclusions. However, I think you're just overthinking it, in this context the scenario exists to service the joke rather than the other way around.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The comedic implication is that the giant eagles are natural predators of goblins and, more importantly, hobbits. And might be inclined to a mid-flight snack.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago

Well, we know that they're typically referred to as male (as far as I know at least), so perhaps they're all transmasc?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean, assuming the existence of a god, I don't disagree. But if you are assuming the existence of a god then you're not really atheist. This is the kind of misinterpretation that theists who can't imagine not believeing in the supernatural often make about atheists; that we're simply angry or confused rather than rejecting the paradigm altogether.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I thought that part of it at least was that much like existing life has a harder time breaking down these mirror proteins the same is true in reverse. So any life that was mirror protein based would struggle with consuming and gaining energy. As such the current protein chirality basically won by being first to market. That being said I don't see why that would hamper reverse chirality photosynthesis, and I don't really know what I'm talking about so perhaps your suggestion is more convincing after all.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

It is terribly worded, so it's unnecessarily confusing and unclear, but it means 'nobody says (or does) anything', thus indicating that the second action is unprompted.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Ya, a bit, I guess. I just don't think talking down to someone is ever really a good way to communicate (unless the interaction is in fact adversarial and that's the whole point). That being said I suppose I also get that sometimes it's desirable to express exasperation, even if it's not constructive or polite.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Ok, so I don't disagree with anything you're saying, and I think your point is very valid and worth saying, but why do you feel the need to start it by being condescending? I'm honestly curious because I feel like I've been seeing this a lot on Lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's especially worth noting that "Traditional Chinese Medicine" is a relatively modern invention by the CCP for cultural unity purposes. It takes various pre-scientific practices from all manner of historically disparate places and times in what now constitutes modern day China and pretends that they were always some kind of harmonious whole. Like as if the EU made up something using ancient medical beliefs from Portugal to Romania in order to enforce the idea that Europe was somehow historically a whole and therefore should be today. It's utter rubbish.

This may be a bit off topic but I can't help but feel the need to rant whenever TCM is mentioned and hopefully this is informative to someone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Fair enough, like most matters of language I suppose it's ultimately subjective and comes down to differences in personal interpretations. Specific context and perspectives will always have the potential change things but by and large I stand by my point in general application.

view more: ‹ prev next ›