Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8818808" data-attributes="member: 6801228">No, the size doesn't change anything about my assessment of the creature, because as I mentioned, size has nothing to do with any of my points. Additionally, if your only counter to "dictionary images provide a lot of information" is "Well, they don't provide ALL information" then... yeah, we know. No one assumes that a single image can convey every single piece of possible information. A lot =/= AllI posted as big of an image as I could. And... you never asked about it being wild or domestic, and a "domestic" creature is just a wild creature socialized by humans. There are very little base structural differences between a "dog" and a "wild dog" or a "cat" and a "feral cat". They are the same animal, just differently socialized.While the picture of the kitty is cute, it is blatantly obvious from the structure of the legs that they are not bipedal. Secondly, Sloths are quadrupeds, but their limbs are clearly not designed for speed. Just with a quick glance you could tell the claws are not shaped for proper 4-legged running, and the fact that they tend to have far longer arms than hind legs makes a huge difference. As for porcupines, corgis, guinea pigs, skunks, beavers, and badgers you should note the size of their legs. They all have short, stumpy legs compared to their long body, which is also generally quite broad. Compare that to the long legs of the proportionally thinner tiger, and you can see why it is easy to assume the tiger is faster. Again, body shape matters for these things. "Lives in a place where it snows" =/= "Lives in the Arctic" which is a cold climate. "Lives in a cage with sand" =/= desert. Same with the picture of them on some mud flat. Not a desert. As for the jungle, I will note that it is not a desert, or a region of ice, so... not sure why you included it. Just to save us time and effort, here is a habitat map. [ATTACH=full]265787[/ATTACH]Do you see the way it bends around where the name "china" is? A little bit north of that is the Gobi desert. Why do you suppose Tiger populations bent around that region for thousands of years? Long enough for speciation? Also note, that while they do get up north into Russia, that they are about as far north as Japan. Which for comparison is about as far North as the northern United States/Southern Canada. That means harsh winters, but not cold year round and likely quite warm summers as well.No, that art provides DIFFERENT information than this art. I have never claimed, and repeatedly refuted your assertion that dictionary art provides all possible information. Again A lot =/= All, just because you can find some information that is not included does not mean that they lack all information.Um... They absolutely are showing the shoulder joints. Just because they didn't do an x-ray of them doesn't mean they aren't. Additionally, you know what a tail is right? A tail is an extension of the spinal column. The existence of a tail proves a spinal column. Now, if you want to claim I cannot know the exact degrees to which those limbs have range of motion, sure, I can't tell you the exact angled degrees of motion. However, considering what I can see, I can say with certainty that they do not have a 360 degree range of movement. It would be impossible.This is just pettiness at this point. Muscle is beneath fur, skin and fat. If you could see the exact lines of muscle, the animal would be dead and shaved. And we don't need to see the muscles to know it has muscles. It is a mammal. There is not a single mammal, let alone a single vertabrate that lacks muscles.Some unicorns can, however this isn't a picture of a fantasy creature, so it, like every other creauture in the real world cannot fly without wings. And don't try and pull anything with sugar gliders or "flying snakes" either, those are creatures that glide, they do not fly. Foot is pictured well enough to see enough details, same as the shoulder joints.A picture of a humanoid does not count for anything regarding intelligence. The assumptions of "human" are too forefront in a human mind. The picture of the beholder is amusing, but what if I told you that book was a picture book and it doesn't understand anything it is seeing, it just likes the colors? You cannot tell if it is actually intelligent or not from that picture, just that it can look inside of a book. As for the gnoll art, you could show a picture of a man being hit in the face with a leaping fish, or a fish eating a man's arm, that doesn't mean fish are aggressive. I can just as easily find art that wouldn't lead to any assumption of a gnoll beingagreeive. Here, I have some saved[ATTACH=full]265791[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]265792[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]265793[/ATTACH]So, since art of a feline shows a feline, just like the word feline... the art carries "little weight"? This is like saying a pciture of a tree carries little weight compared to the word tree. Right now, as you read "tree" you are conjuring an image of a tree. The word and the picture are linked. One does not have more weight than the other. Notably, you might have raised a child at some point, and had flashcards. These cards show a picture (usually of something the child can recognize) and then the associated word. We do this because the word without the context is meaningless to the child, who cannot recognize what these strange symbols mean. The art and the word are equal in this regard, because they convey the same information, which allows the child to associate the two. So, if your point is "words convey meaning too"... congrats, that doesn't take anything away from the meaning and information conveyed by the art. Just like having art that shows something different from something else conveys different information doesn't mean the first picture lacks all information.</blockquote>

Verification