shitposting rave 3: Dawn of the third rave

That is to say, just because juveniles of a species have not reached generally accepted thresholds for sapience does not mean that they are not sapient, simply not done growing. Brains continue to grow just like everything else in non-adults - at least, in species that do grow and mature. This is basic biology.

 

But they become trolls when they get older?

 

the ones that make it out of the cavwerns do.

 

Again, the qualifier given was only if I absolutely must make a distinction. Life is rarely so clean-cut, even mechanoid life!

To be perfectly honest, if something's trying to kill me and mine I don't much care if it's a person or not, and the distinction between "hostile" and "nonhostile" is generally more useful than "thinking" and "not thinking".

 

*Watches this discussion with a smirk, popping candy in his mouth occasionally*

 

Think of it like stone walls, where an objective truth is the fact that stone cannot be broken. If we think of a stone fortress as unbreakable, it's easy to assume that the fortress must always be there and the holders supreme. But stone is not unbreakable, and there are more ways to destroy it than the presumed true methods of routing an occupying force.

If our perceptions of the world, our stone fortresses, are fully capable of being broken, that means that no cruelty is impossible to face. We can take the truths of the powerful and make them lies. We can be powerful too.

So in ideal circumstances, all of them? That would still make them the youth of your people.

Oh, I do agree! On both parts, really, much as it may sadden me at times for the blood I've had to shed. But I do find the perspective fascinating.

 

in ideal circumstances, only the best of them.

 

Take truths and make them lies? What? How? With magic or something?

 

*Wink.*

 

... I don't think I like that.

 

Yes that seems reasonable. Though I do feel like I have to point out that a purely reaction/function based taxonomy is a specific approach, while a purely structural/architectural one is a different one. I suppose given equipment I am not nearly knowledgeable enough to hypothesize on, one might even be able to use a different taxonomic approach entirely!

The point of this exercise is to reevaluate why certain categories are used and to avoid categorization systems based purely on "because that is what I learned and how those before me did it" :P

Neither are either of them mine.
I am merely pedantic.

I... got carried away criticizing a political context that is entirely irrelevant toyour experience.
There was a lot of governmentally enforced stratification that locked many cybertronians out of scientific fields. This was excused mainly with ideologic propaganda of a theocratic state.
I was pretty fragging sick of being grudgingly allowed to learn because they couldn't prevent me from absorbing knowledge while in a classroom, but never being allowed to be a scientist. Until the revolution came, that is. So I gotta apologize for that tangent, it wasn't relevant.

Yes, isn't it wonderful? But re-examining the assumed "truths" from time to time is important to keep on course.

-thankful nod-

 

According to many humans, elves are inherently inferior who deserve nothing better than the pittance of slavery or perhaps the small freedom an alienage grants us. To them, this is truth. To many elves, this is truth, because it is all they have ever known. But that doesn't mean that it's true, yes?

Of course, magic can be applied, but that would be more of a discussion about the manipulation of the Fade and how intentions and emotional resonance can affect the spirits within. And I suppose one could pull from the gods and our perceptions of them, since all of them have turned their gazes away. But I'm not sure that what you meant by magic?

Beg pardon if this is rude, but what kind of being are you? I hesitate to call you a spirit because you have a great deal more purpose and personality than most of them.

 

Yes. Yes I am.
-she gives her a respectful nod-

Can you prove him wrong though? Do you have an absolutely perfect, infallible way of determining sapience that isn't "since sapience as a category is subjective and hard to objectively determine, it is best to assume sapience until given reason to believe otherwise"?

Rebellion.

 

I'm a genie.

And yeah, that doesn't mean it's true but... I don't really get how subjectivity helps with that. You tell them their shit is subjective, and then they tell you that yours is, and you guys just keep on disagreeing and disagreeing. Back and forth, back and forth, and the people with power still have their power.

... well no.

How does rebellion do that?

 

does it matter vwhat you like if all truths can be turned into lies evwentually?

 

Yeah, it does! Or, at least, it should!

 

i think you have the right idea

 

Somewhere, aliens continue to be so alien they do not abide by "known" standards of reality.

Ah. Clarification appreciated.

Reestablishing basic definitions in each generation is hideously impractical, though. By all means, question-- but why waste time on theory when there are people who need physical help?

Fair.

Heard, accepted, forgiveness granted. Sympathy offered for (past?) frustration; knowledge should not be restricted by caste.

"On course"?

 

guess you and i vwill just havwe to agree to disagree.

 

Yeah, you do that.