Hey, give old man some discount! He runs on 1960s Soviet animation. Fill the gaps with your imagination. Or with Discovery Planet footage of snake weddings. Also, there is enough impressive motion happening to support my point, IMO
The point about pressure is interesting though. Tail supports the body mostly through muscles alone while legs have more rigid bone structure that in itself offer great support. Balancing on the tail while moving intensely would probably tire someone down much faster, yes.
Also (and the vid I posted kinda supports it) the tail dance would be... Something else. More akin to gymnastic than to a dance, perhaps.
Damn, I want to see such choreography! Many people do lamia porn, but where is our lamia dancing? Huh?!
I don't think someone who loses and arm and deceased person are really comparable in this context. Without an arm, person is still a person - better analogy would be someone in vegetative state or otherwise unreachable by others, even if still alive. And when someone dies, there is no person to interact - at least, not on this plane of existence, if we go by religious explanations. Their remains are one of the few things left of them, therefore often treated as person, since apart from fond memories, it's either the remains, the tombstone or the priest. No wonder there are cultures still venerating remains.
As for the nature...
Why should we even use nature as an argument on the topic of our dead? We are part of nature, but we also aren't. Sentience is synergy of living matter in the same way living matter is synergy of regular matter - the combination of parts being greater than their sum. Of course, nature has its own way and by her way corpse is just another's meal.
Why agree? We are sophisticated kind of beasts. Ultimately, we have great many thing to say about how we conduct ourselves. Especially if it all just a matter of perspectives and concepts, why stop at something so basic? Even more developed beasts like elephants venerate their dead.
So, I don't think the way of nature is that related to the topic.
As for "shifts the focus from being considerate to the body towards being considerate to people who care about the body" - well, yes and also hard no. Yes, because we should be considerate to people who care about the dead person. Hard no because to me dead person is still person. Literally - dead person. Not a body - if I or someone else care about that biological mechanism, it is enough for me to warrant veneration to the body itself.
Then again, I am religious person. You mileage may wary a lot.
Once again: "duh, its social concept, bro!" is one heck of self-beating argument. If that's just a social concept - a construct of mind, then why should anyone revoke it? For personal example, I know religion is social construct, I can with some effort (given I am nowhere near what I would deem 'knowledgeable enough') trace God's image to pre-Judaic cults (which probably themselves culminated in Judaism). And I am very aware that modern Christianity, to which I belong, is a hybrid between Judaism and Antique Philosophy. One may joke that no matter how hard we argue about Christ being true prophet, we can't argue about his later followers being versed in Plato.
I know it - and I don't care. I may joke about how religion as a concept is cope-out against the uncrating world and still consider myself a man of faith. Knowing something and believing in it may be surprisingly disconnected processes, after all. And I do believe people need cope-outs because... We live in scary universe. Wonderful, but scary. It is uncaring to an absolute, dreadful apex. It is vast, it is empty, it is cold. More than our minds can hope to grasp. I do not think it is either wise or caring to not believe in something greater when universe shows you middle finger in shape of Bootes Void.
So, why won't embrace out social concepts regardless of how made up they are? It does not mean you should be ignorant of their nature, but embracing them thankfully does not require you to be.
Hippity-Hoppity get off my property. Faster than a speeding bullet!" "More powerful than a locomotive!" "Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. This is CNN. Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac.
There is nowhere Death will not go, no matter how distant and dangerous. In fact the more dangerous it is, the more likely he is to be there already.
I bet none of you caught on that a made a bunch of stuff up. Thats how much no one is reading this.
Also, sky-burial is metal AF. Kinda weird, kinda gross - but cool. Also, we bury our dead in the caskets where they would slowly turn into rotten soup, dried skin and bones and even petrified in weird enbalbed-like state if soils composition is right.
Giving dead to the birds is not that gross if you thin about it. Unsanitary, granted - but at least the dead isn't turned into death-goo can.
Also, you overfocus on social aspect, IMO. You aren't wrong - absolutely not! - but there is also: "what you think of yourself" aspect that goes deeper than social. It maybe intertwined with it or sprouted from it on some deep level, but it exist on its own terms, I think. I don't think you are being gross-out when someone overdo jokes on dead people just because that's what others around you taught you. If even elephants venerate their dead, I doubt it's just societal stuff. I assume it's some kind of parallel processes running in our subconsciousness as we evolved, becoming more complex and amplifying each other.
Like, whose bones your ancestors seen most often? The people they knew, with whom they unmistakably associated those bones. It must have made a personal impact, which led to consensus of respect to the dead. Then it grew in intensity and complexity, being amplified by said consensus and amplifying it in return. Until we reach this point in history of our species.
Or at least that's my two nickels on the matter.
Nah. It does matter. And it doesn't! Ironically enough, that's both.
First, the message delivered exists outside of the messenger and regardless of them.
But second, it is made by (if person came up with the message themselves) or put through (broken telegraph is a thing - everyone gets at least some tiny bit wrong, and it stacks) the messenger. Even when not being the originator, messenger is a prism through whom the message refracts.
And when the messenger is the originator, they will put themselves into the message. If they are insane, the message will be warped by their insanity. If stupid - by stupidity. If morally bankrupt... Oh, boy, that's probably not the message to listen to, because who the fuck knows much lies and manipulations would be put in it!
"But GrandPaBrowning, let me by the judge of the message! I will discern!..."
You won't, and I won't too. Probably. Or maybe not. But the danger is there.
"Ad hominem isn't an argument" is, sadly, a fallacy in practice. To certain degree it works, but not completely. The reason is that people overestimate their skills at critical thinking. And I mean it in the most plural of senses - almost everyone I knew at least at some point acted dumb, and I probably just don't know enough those who didn't. Also, if you just don't have information on the topic, it won't matter how good your critical thinking is. Our mind stands on two pillars: available date and analysis skill - if you lack either, your odds at making right conclusion turns into random numbers.
"Ad hominem isn't an argument" - yeah, would have been a true statement in a world without crazy people, idiots, scammers and false prophets.
The truth is - we always look at personality of whoever is telling us whatever. And that is a good approach. Because if we take the word of someone untrustworthy (even if we assume their word to be right), we risk learning first-hand why that person was deemed untrustworthy.
Reputation is a thing for a reason.
Thank you. I suspected that much, but a read or two on the matter would be welcome.
Yeah. We may meet Dark Eldars. And become a collection of fleshy chairs, screaming in perpetual agony to make their masturbatory sessions 0.001% more intense. Which would be considered an incredible improvement over previous chair-fied specie, which upped their nutting by meager 0.0005%. They would even make songs of our great accomplishment!
Oh screaming thing
You make me cum
So much
What we were talking about?.. I feel like my post is 90% mix of tangent and rambling.
Poor racoons. I won't inquire. I hope they weren't hurt. I have less consideration for the people involved, but I also hope they are okay. That would be a rotten way to go:
- Yeah, officer. They burst out like three furry chestbursters. The other guy? He's okay, he just fainted.
Khm-khm... Anyway, tails are pointier and get thick only further on. Still seems easier than feet.
Also, three fucking racoons... Man, I hope that's urban legend. But it suddenly makes that picture of Lunara with Tyrande more believable. The one by Demimond23, if you are curious. Tyrande had such very fitting expression. And Lunara had very tight fitting of her log in night elf's tree hollow.
Hot pic.
Well... At that point, I think, the power side of dynamics would be steadily in Malice's hands. Or tail, lol! Basically like her first scene (the one in your dreams), but she also tops you while you top her.
I wonder Bad Dragon's reaction though. He's just SUPER-dominating fella, so the whole concept of bottoming is probably quite alien to him. I think, he would become a very, very confused dragon while her own daughter's tail pegs his cloaca.
Besides, I think, it was stated (or hinted?) that Malice at some point will just become stronger than Bad Dragon. If that happens, we may begin to struggle to apply the word 'power' to their bedtime dynamics.
Man, this post is less coherent than I'd like it to be. Train of thoughts happily chugged on!
P.S. My avatar fits the hat perfectly! Suck it, other people! Glory to Heckapoo!
