Seen on insta the other day:
What do you call a fursona for scalies?
A scalias.
im just confused. first you claim to be an owl. okay cool. but now you’re a dragon?? so which is it then? im starting to think you’re not any type of winged creature at all. maybe even just a human, which would be BIG if true.
Don’t be silly
Birds don’t count as scalies, though
Dragons are made up so I just invented an owl dragon right now so now they count
Now you have to be a dragon with the face of an owl. I hope you’re happy with yourself
I am living the dream
They should. Birds are reptiles. Feathers are derived scales. Those on the legs still look like scales.
Mammals may have evolved from scaly animals too, and some mammals still have scale-like structures (pangolin, some rodents). Should we also call furries scalies? No, hair and feathers are distinct structures from scales. Taxonomy becomes meaningless when it’s too broad.
This is like the whole “
tomato is a fruit!” redditism. Yes, this is true, but vegetable isn’t a botanical classification; it’s a culinary classification, and including tomatoes in the “fruit” culinary category is irresponsible, as the differences between fruits and vegetables culinarily has more to do with the sweet, sour, and savory flavors than their biological purpose.This wasn’t a very serious comment, but now I feel like fighting you on this.
Mammals may have evolved from scaly animals too
Not directly, early therapsids had naked skin. Some earlier synapsids had scales, but it’s unkown if it was a general thing or something that evolved independently in a few lineages. You gotta go back almost as far as fishes for something that was definitely a mammal ancestor and that we’re sure had scales.
some mammals still have scale-like structures (pangolin, some rodents)
Pangolins are scaly tho. As for rodents, only the tail is scaly, so you don’t typically call the whole beast scaly.
Should we also call furries scalies?
It’d be strange to apply it to all furries when only a minority of mammals have scales.
No, hair and feathers are distinct structures from scales.
They all share a common basis (and with teeth as well), but feathers are arguably closer to reptilian scales:
-
They’re formed of beta-keratin, like the scales of other reptiles and unlike hair which is made of alpha-keratin.
-
Both are attested in dinosaurs, some had both feathers and non-feather scales.
Basically, feathers are directly modified scales. Hair appeared from scaleless creatures, altho it did use a gene that had been involved in making scales in this scaleless creature’s distant ancestors.
You could make a point that bird furries could be called “featheries”, which would be more precise and accurate than " scalies". However in absence of this term (which has been proposed several times bug never really enterered general use, “scaly” is more accurate than “furry”.
Tomato
Irrelevant.
This wasn’t a very serious comment, but now I feel like fighting you on this.
may have
(That’s supposed to be me, to be clear, as I have not been clear about the level of joking)
-
Welcome to Dorley Dungeon
Socialism, and even communism, are great on paper.
But they forget the human element. Greed exists. It always will. Both economic systems require someone or a group of someones to enforce equality.
And when that someone or group of someones falls to greed, they will inevitably decide that they are more “equal” than the rest, and deserve to get just a little bit more than the rest because of their obvious service.
Greed is no problem as long as the bourgeois are oppressed. You want more? Work more. <- greed weaponized for the good of the state
And when it’s the state itself that’s the greedy one?
The problem is centralized power. No matter the economic system, when power is centralized in one group or person, they can control much more than just their own lives.
Decentralized is best.
Hell, everyone on Lemmy understands this. What blows my mind is when it’s the all knowing perfect government, they seem to forget it.
No, centralized is much more efficient. At pretty much everything.
Yeah so we should all just go back to Reddit. After all, having more than one website isn’t efficient.
Go back to reddit where you belong
Yeah no shit, that’s why you police greed instead of letting it run wild like a monkey with a gun.
Oh shit, sometimes people kill each other too. Guess that’s just human nature and we shouldn’t make murder illegal or try to mitigate it. In fact, let’s just reward the most murderous shitheads and make them the leaders of our countries.
That’s capitalism. A system that rewards one of the worst human elements. It’s a suicidal cult marching itself off a cliff.
Communism sent us to space. Capitalism is sending us to extinction.
Also the idea that communists forget to consider greed. Lmao. Hilarious.
Also the idea that communists forget to consider greed. Lmao. Hilarious.
I read their post and only then noticed it’s .ee and it’s not one of hexbears doing a bit
Please provide evidence that humans are immutably greedy. That’s what you’re saying, right? That the system people live in cannot eliminate human greed and therefore we uh…shouldn’t try? Idk what your point actually is here. Do you think greed has less of an impact under capitalism?
Me thinks basing a society off of people being greedy is bad.
You: A fish, unable to see the water you swim in.
You should ask yourself why it is that you’ve been made to believe that the entirety of the human experience can be boiled down to this one single trait. And who benefits from you believing it.
Ah, yes, so instead we have to have a socioeconomic system that rewards the greediest among us, to the detriment of everyone else. Can’t get rid of greed, so let’s make our society completely subservient to it! Perfect!
Capitalism is a system that has only existed for a couple of centuries, just like feudalism, it too will sunset into history, giving way to a form of living that reflects the vast majority of the history of human civilization, which was built on cooperation, community, and egalitarianism. Greed only exists so long as civilization allows it to.
Marx failed to consider deez nuts
they will inevitably decide that they are more “equal” than the rest
Wow, this reminds me a lot of a quote from this great book we read in school called “Animal Farm.” One of the pigs in the story basically said the exact same thing! The only thing is that, in the book, it was the animals acting like some people (or animals) were more equal than others, and not the humans. And the animals acting that way was the pigs, but I think the pigs were meant to be humans? Idk, but it was a really deep story that made me think a lot of things.
British colonial cop and police snitch being the main source of philosophy and social sciences for westerners is really on the nose.
Damn, none of us ever read Animal Farm
This is the human nature fallacy. It’s twice wrong, because it reduces all human nature to a single characteristic; and because even if that statement is true, there’s a logical contradiction in it.
Socialism and communism is not about rejecting greed, or even about upholding any moral value or even about denying or upholding any human characteristic. It’s about workers taking power and re-organizing society so workers are the ones on top. That includes oppressing the capitalist class and eventually getting rid of them.
So even if you are a self interested worker, is it in your self interest to be subjugated by capitalists? A greedy worker should accept submission by another capitalist?
And you can still be a greedy and self interested worker, even under socialism or communism.
“Greed is part of human nature, and greed can corrupt any government or private organization, therefore the preferable economic system is one that directly incentivizes greed while doing absolutely nothing to mitigate the negative effects of increasingly concentrated wealth & political power. I’m very smart”
