question for alex

Post Reply New Topic

I saw that post. I knew he was joking, as that poster had made a lot of facetious posts. but I also had a feeling that some people would not be able to tell.

That is the problem inherent with using sarcasm or satire. The range of opinions on WP is very diverse. So exactly the same post by one person could be intended as satire but by another person (word for word) it could be intended at face value! The only way people can tell the difference is if they are familiar with the posters history or that their comment may be related to comments they have made elsewhere or even in another thread - assuming people have even read the other thread.

The poster of satire is leaving themselves wide open for misinterpretation. Their comments may not even be challenged and people are left with an unfavourable opinion about the poster having mislabelled them.

The "it" we have been talking about has changed along the way, but there is not always a single yes-or-no answer anyway.

Whenever anyone does anything that in any way compromises someone else's "life, liberty or property", the life, liberty or property of that individual has been offended ... and that is still true even if the offended individual does not happen to "feel" offended. But then on the other hand, the fact of someone merely "feeling" offended does not automatically prove an offense against that individual's life, liberty or property has actually been committed.

Sometimes people believe (or at least claim) they have committed no offense even when they actually have, and sometimes people "feel guilty" (even though guilt is never a mere feeling and) even when no offense actually has been committed. Moderators and judges and the like exist for the purpose of sorting all of that our objectively.


Many do not even understand themselves. The best they can do is to rationalize and attempt to justify ... and that is another reason moderators are needed here.

Humans do not create, but I do understand what you mean ... and I suspect rats would still carry disease and so on even if we humans did not exist.


If they are "very like humans", why are they not "creating" their own places for habitation?!

But in any case. animal protection is not something covered by WP's rules for conduct while here.

Ought satire to be banned from the realm of Free-Speech© upon the grounds that it is difficult to identify and may lead to people getting offended?

Of course not, but the posters of such should be aware that satirical comments stand a higher chance of being misunderstood and causing confusion during discussion than direct speech. It depends on the objectives of the poster and how clearly they wish to make their points.

Perhaps I should do the [satire="not to be taken at face value"][/satire] BBCode?

As daft as that may sound it would actually help sometimes! I'm not directing my comments at you by the way, just generally based on the chaos I've seen ensuing sometimes from short pithy posts made by some posters where it is ambiguous if the posts are satirical or intended to be taken on face value. In the absence of any tone of voice or facial expression there are only the words. The problem then is that different posters can use those exact same words but intend to convey opposite meanings.

It doesn't matter if the topic of conversation is frivolous. If I said "I hate ice-cream" I could be meaning that literally or tongue in cheek because I actually love it. The consequences aren't important. But when people use satire or inverted comments regarding highly emotive subjects there is likely to be more fall out from misunderstandings. Personally I prefer direct speech - there is less chance of ambiguity and talking at cross purposes with people.

I quite like satire personally in the form of classical literature or trashy Onion articles or topical news programs. The problem is when it is used in discussion amongst many people of widely differing opinions. Working out what is and isn't satire isn't always obvious.

who is anyone to insist that people must explain themselves? I mean what right does anyone think they have to insist that explaining themselves to others is mandatory of anyone who asks? Is it one of the marriage vows? Is it in the constitution? How is it anyone's else's business? Is using coercive methods ethical to make someone explain themselves?

As long as there is no contract that exacts subordination to another (manager to employee, for instance) I would say those that demand explanations from another can go whistle up the wind.

Rats are opportunists, very much like humans. Of course, they lack the advanced intellectual development of apes and humans, but rodents are still on the same branch of family tree as the apes, monkeys and humans. But if you are not an evolutionist, I guess you would not see it that way...

And as for rats not creating their own places for habitation, you would be surprised. In fact, birds, which are reptile like, even insects can create elaborate places for habitation.

The large rat which live(d) on my boyfriend's parent's farm had established itself a great home under the worm farm, and lived there happily for many months, before discovered.

It had a nice cozy hole under the worm tub, which was warm in the winter and sheltered from the sun in the summer, and even provided a food source. It was one happy rat, Im sure.

I am so sorry, zen_mistress, but the rat talk makes me think of my snakes and my world the lil guys are food. It makes me think of that movie, Madagascar, "Alas, we are all steak". But I agree with you, they are clever critters who are very opportunistic and they do make themselves comfy homes. Seeing as I have kept and bred them before, I have gotten to know a few of them up close and personal and I have a firm appreciation for them and their different personalities. But I also tend to take the whole stand that all life is connected... spiritually and biologically. At a chromosomal level we are all what... 69% the same as rats? Even better though, we are 90% with cats. Meow.

Well, phylogenetic studies I have seen show that monkeys and proto-simians seem to have evolved from rodent stock. My biology teacher told me that all mammals are actually evolved from an early shrew-like creature. The diagram I looked at recently showed monkeys, apes and humans branching off with the rodents such as mice, rabbits, rats, beavers etc... I am not sure what other species are on that part as well, possibly the mustelids (ie weasels, stoats).

Cats, dogs, hippos, sheep and cows amongst other 4 legged mammals are on the other branches. But I guess the divide wasnt really too long ago.

When I looked at the diagram if becomes quite obvious that humans are closer genetic relatives of monkeys of course, but also modern day rodents, than our beloved domesticated pet cats and dogs, or our domesticated farm animals.

I actually think that perhaps human's dislike of rats is a case of familiarity breeding contempt, whereas dogs and cats occupy a niche that differs a little from us, which can allow us to befriend something that isnt in our face all the time, so to speak.

Last edited by zen_mistress on 16 Oct 2010, 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dossa, I did some research and I see you are correct about genetic similarity (cats 90%, dogs, 82%, rats 69%). However I am referring to this diagram:



And I have seen others like it.

So, I am not sure why studies on genetic similarity dont correspond with the phylogenetic trees I have seen around on the web.

Are these rhetorical questions?

Just imagine if you were listening to music through your head phones and your partner came by and snatched them off your head? Wouldn't you freak out? But what if he told you he needed to borrow them or wanted to see what you were listening to before he snatched them off your head? My husband picked up my PSP and unplugged it without even telling me what he was going to do. I was already flipping out before he told me what he was doing but I was already too upset so he didn't even want to bother.

Many native American tribes got to pick which animal they claimed to originate from. Since I partly derive from native Americans on my mother's side (some Cherokee) I claim the right to choose which animals I wish to claim origination from. Parakeets, I choose you!

People can demand as they please, of course, but being a bit like you, such demands do not always get even a passing glance from me! However ...

The context here is first about when, where and/or how someone like any one of us either should or should not question others about things we either do not know about them (or their actions) or we have possibly heard wrongly (such as via gossip) or have even misunderstood directly from them, and then also whether or not that kind of questioning of others (for the simple sake of "just knowing") is at all akin to actually "calling someone out" either publicly or privately and/or even an actual offense committed. For example:

If I had some reason to suspect you and I might have known each other at some other site prior to my arrival here but I was not sure either way, at what point would I actually be out-of-line in asking you or anyone else about that?