The designs chosen for alien characters are based on the limitations and of the technology of their time, not just creative wants. You know why Klingons were so hairy up till disco? Because wigs were cheaper and look better on camera than full body prosthetics did. Remember the fish heads?
But now they have a lot better prosthetic technology so let’s reinterpret the designs for this new show. We can maintain the characteristics from the text but we can also change the things we did because they were more practical then.
But then we get to your last paragraph and you completely lose me. How you made that jump from what I said is just, bravo. 👏🏻 that’s some fancy gymnastics right there. Again, people who can’t understand that stories produced in live action actually have to exist in reality and make choices for practical and not just creative reasons are absolutely insufferable.
Yeah, how dare those artists do their jobs! I can’t stand this sentiment. Times and technology change, and so designs can change because of that. Yes they ham fisted an explanation witht the ENT arc. But like, should we go back to the racist Asian caricature based look? People who can’t separate the stories from the fact that they are real productions that have to actually exist in reality don’t deserve Star Trek.
Like yes, zoning is used for a whole bunch of bullshit, but the second you get anywhere even remotely urban this is extremely common. This sounds like it’s from someone who grew up in suburbia hell and really just wants to move into a city but doesn’t know that.
You wanna share your opinion as it differs to mine, I’m happy to engage with that. But I am absolutely not interested in whatever tit for tat, nit-picky debate that wants to be.
I’m saying as long as the consumption of animals and animal products is part of the most viable means for satisfying the nutritional debt of the human species, the human psychological need to distinguish between pets and livestock is necessary.
Do we need, or is it right to keep pets? is its own set of moral questions.
I agree with you in principle, but until at which point we have the technological and production capabilities in place to fully feed the planet without the need for livestock and other animal sources of nutrients, the distinction has to exist. We may have gotten to the point of being technologically capable but the human population is very much reliant on animal sources to sustain itself. And so the distinction is necessary. I’m not arguing that it’s right or just or morally correct. But it’s where we are and what is required to continue existing as a species.
And by no means am I saying that those animals we see as livestock don’t deserve to be treated with care and respect while they are alive. I just believe the distinctive categories of pets and livestock are an unfortunate requirement of our current situation.
To clarify I meant schnirittos was giving the libertarian vibes of immediately calling any amount of curation or harm reduction via removal on social media sites a blanket ‘censorship bad slipery slope boogie woogie.’ And was agreeing with whom I directly replied to.
Schnirittos’ (I know I’m getting it wrong but i just can’t be bothered to go check for a third time I’m sorry) comment, I think, exemplifies(in part) the American-bastardized version of libertarianism you describe.
Because they’re the men who made it?