Because cars are man-made. And for humans to make them they require for certain resources to exist, technologies to be understood, historical events to be present, brand names/companies to exist, etc.
Meanwhile dragons are mythical but a product of nature.
>Why is there a dragon here? >Because this mythical ecosystem has dragons in it. And some live somewhere near here.
How can you you explain the presence of Chevrolet in the same setting using similarly sound reasoning?
Does the Chevrolet company also exist? Do the humans in the setting understand internal-combustion engines. Who invented those? Does Henry Ford exist in this setting? Did he still make the Model-T? Do car factories exist? Who runs them? How can they have cars and car factories but not know how to make a fricking Printing-Press? Etc.
You sound VERY low IQ. Why did someone have to explain this to You? Did NONE OF THIS cross your mind on your own?
Please see:
Using this argument is a certified indicator of a low IQ.
The presence or absence of other external fantastical elements does not (inherently) mean that other familiar aspects of reality are either absent or changed.
People who can't understand this are bovine in intelligence and most likely ALSO lacking in Imaginative Ability.
You seem to be EXACTLY the kind of person it's talking about.
How does a dragon breathe fire? What physiology could possibly allow that to exist? By what properties can magic even feasibly operate?
Oh, you don't want to scrutinize those aspects because they're familiar to your preconceptions of what fantasy "should" be? And you have the audacity to call ME low IQ?
It's not a matter of explaining every single detail about your fantasy world, or how dragon physiology works. It's a matter of internal consistency.
If you've established that your setting is a medieval world where people live in castles and knights ride around on horseback stabbing people with swords and lances, you can't just suddenly introduce modern technology with no explanation. Why would people be using horses and carriages if cars have been invented?
Maybe cars spontaneously appear by some magical principle in small qualities. They aren't manufactured, they just exist. No one has the tech or resources to recreate them. Or perhaps they are holdover artifacts from an highly advanced society that no longer exists. They could have been sent back in time by some freak accident, or some bored scientist deliberately trying to frick with history. Dozens of explanations immediately come to mind.
My point wasn't that you don't need to explain where the car comes from, it's that a car isn't any more ludicrous of a thing to exist in a fantasy setting than a dragon. In fact, it's much LESS ludicrous because we know for a fact that cars can and do exist, so any explanation for them is much more mundane than explaining dragons.
9 months ago
Anonymous
But that picture is specifically Lord of the Rings, a medieval fantasy story that never even hinted at the existence of Ferraris, or time-traveling cars sent to Middle-Earth by a bored scientist.
>In fact, it's much LESS ludicrous because we know for a fact that cars can and do exist, so any explanation for them is much more mundane than explaining dragons.
You don't need much explanation for a dragon at all, though. The fire-breathing can be explained by "It's magic!" and most audiences know that dragons are a long-standing fantasy trope. The audience will accept a dragon in a fantasy world without ANY explanation, because dragons are a conceit of the genre. Like how audiences will accept people doing ludicrous spin-kicks and wire-fu jumps during a Kung-Fu movie, because those are just things that Kung-Fu movies include.
Whereas with a Ferrari in a medieval world, you have to come up with something about time-travel, or an advanced civilization leaving them behind.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Maybe cars spontaneously appear by some magical principle in small qualities
And THAT'S why it's different than the assumption of "animals called 'Dragons' exist", moron. It's inherently more nonsensical and stupid. Listen to yourself.
Good job answering YOUR OWN question with your own ensuing argument, dingdong. Again, low IQ.
9 months ago
Anonymous
How is assuming a magical creature exists less nonsensical than assuming a magical car exists? Are you sure you have any ground to be calling other people morons and low IQ when you don't seem to understand how basic comparisons work?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>How is assuming a magical creature exists less nonsensical than assuming a magical car exists?
Literally ALREADY been explained to you MULTIPLE times in this thread.
Yes, you are proving yourself to be low IQ by needing this explained to you. Even the average normies bovine, at least if asked, knows that there's something inherently questionable about magic Chevrolets appearing out of nowhere in fiction, and that that's different than a setting having alternate biology that includes mythical animals like Dragons. You are literally LESS intelligent than a typical Johnny Jack-off normie off the street. How does that feel? I hope you feel embarassed and ashamed. Because you deserve to feel that way for being that stupid.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Your explanation for dragons is "magic exists in the universe." My explanation (one of several I offered) for cars is "magic exists in the universe". They both rely on magic as the sole explanation and yet you continue to insist one is totally reasonable and the other is nonsensical. Because you a moron and can't grasp unfamiliar ideas. Magic dragons are familiar to you, but magic cars are not, so you think the two things are completely incomparable. Because, once again, and I cannot stress this enough, you are moronic.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>My explanation (one of several I offered) for cars is "magic exists in the universe".
We know how cars work though. They are not magic.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't say in my original explanation the car itself has magical properties, just that it appears magically. But there's no reason a car that works by magical properties (e.g., one that doesn't require any fuel source) couldn't exist in a fantasy setting.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I didn't say in my original explanation the car itself has magical properties, just that it appears magically.
Any element that differs from real life must be explained. For dragons "they are animals that exist in this world" is a good enough explanation.
A car appearing magically via magic portal is a fine explanation, but this is something that actually needs to explained by the movie. You can't just have the car show up with no explanation.
>But there's no reason a car that works by magical properties (e.g., one that doesn't require any fuel source) couldn't exist in a fantasy setting.
Again, this is something that needs to actively be explained by the movie.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I agree with everything you said. I don't think you're the original poster I was arguing with; his contention is that cars are inherently stupid in a fantasy setting and that any explanation for them is stupid on its face.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>his contention is that cars are inherently stupid in a fantasy setting and that any explanation for them is stupid on its face.
No, the original poster you were arguing with simply posted this image
. Nowhere in that image does it imply that no explanation at all is possible without it being dumb.
This is a proxy for having random black people in clearly isolated european settings. People are usually fine with black people in medieval western settings if they are set up as travelers from a distant land, or if the city is a major trading port, but it makes no sense for medieval settings to be significantly diverse simply because of the known travel restrictions.
Same as the car, we know how they are built, so them showing up in medieval settings for no reason is equally silly.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>if they are set up as travelers from a distant land, or if the city is a major trading port
That still doesn't make any sense since they never invented the wheel or boats. How would they get all the way to Europe? Why do you love them so much? What compels you to be a zoophile?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>That still doesn't make any sense since they never invented the wheel or boats.
They never invented them, but they certainly interacted with people who did. They copied the concept, or more likely traded for ships and carts.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Muslims took nig slaves with them to other places, you can assume something could happen in fantasy settings as well
9 months ago
Anonymous
They castrated those slaves, in golden age Islamic Iraq there was a massive slave revolt (the Zanj Rebellion) and after that they decided to not let African slaves reproduce at all and just hunt new ones constantly
9 months ago
Anonymous
OK now YOU'RE being moronic.
9 months ago
Anonymous
"Magic" is just laws of nature that are different than our own. We do not know how those laws work, so we put our trust in the story that it is not lying to us about how its world works. This is suspension of disbelief.
However, we do know how cars work, or how body fat works. So when the movie tries to bullshit us about those things, it breaks the suspension of disbelief. And the entire illusion falls apart.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Well if one day you create a fantasy setting with cars in it, and explain why they’re here with one of your explanantions sure, maybe you can make it work.
Meanwhile there’s absolutely no explanantion to why Sam remains fat or why every modern fantasy show has the racial demographics of a modern american big city
>How does a dragon breathe fire? What physiology could possibly allow that to exist?
Bombardier beetles, spitting cobras, horned toads, have evolved methods to squirt venom, noxious fluids, or blood. It wouldn't be unfeasible for a lizard to evolve such that it's venom would incorporate flammable materials from it's food. All it would need then is some flint to act as a spark, or specially evolved fangs to act as such. And maybe some specialized mucus membranes to fireproof it's mouth. It might be implausible, but it's certainly not impossible, given what we know occurs in nature. >By what properties can magic even feasibly operate?
Depends on the magic. Chemistry has it's roots in Alchemy, and many modern drugs, psychedelics, come from religious practices and ancient traditions. Otherwise, one can presume magic works along certain quantum principles, and that physics are just a little weirder in the setting to allow something like a dragon to be able to fly without collapsing under it's own weight thanks to the squre/cube law.
I wasn't trying to say there aren't hypothetical explanations, just that "They just exist" doesn't work any better as an answer for a dragon than it does for a car.
>How does a dragon breathe fire?
Same way an Electric Eel makes electricity, probably.
But you understand the difference between this question and "Why does Middle-Earth have a Ferrari?", right?
One is a question of biology and magic, while the other involves incredibly specific things like historical figures, history, technolgy-trees, culture, vocabulary, etc.
Like, you're not SO incredibly stupid that you don't see the difference, are you? Because if you ARE that stupid then God help you.
I interpreted the specific make and model of the car as just a joke/meme. If the actual argument is that a literal Ferrari is something that you'd have to have a damn good explanation for randomly showing up in Middle Earth, I agree.
>Why is a car inherently more stupid in a fantasy setting than a dragon?
...This is trolling, right?
Not an argument.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Not an argument.
Not an argument
9 months ago
Anonymous
Your explanation for dragons is "magic exists in the universe." My explanation (one of several I offered) for cars is "magic exists in the universe". They both rely on magic as the sole explanation and yet you continue to insist one is totally reasonable and the other is nonsensical. Because you a moron and can't grasp unfamiliar ideas. Magic dragons are familiar to you, but magic cars are not, so you think the two things are completely incomparable. Because, once again, and I cannot stress this enough, you are moronic.
>I wasn't trying to say there aren't hypothetical explanations, just that "They just exist" doesn't work any better as an answer for a dragon than it does for a car.
Again: it actually does work much better for a dragon than it does for a car, for reasons already stated. If you like, let's use actual world history as an analogy:
Moose existed 4000 years ago (and still do). Obviously there was a long historical chain of reproductive evolution that resulted in their existence as such. Humans existing contemporaneously in the same area as those moose would see the moose's existence as a given, and the biological explanation for the moose's antlers, for example, is totally fricking irrelevant and simply a product of nature. Because the moose is a given as a natural phenomenon, NO FURTHER EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED. The moose just is.
Drop a modern sedan into that time period and you have something incongruous that breaks the setting. The specialized knowledge, tools, supplies, organization, labor, etc., necessary to create the thing do not exist. The prior technologies necessary to create its sub-components do not exist. The fricking language on the safety labels inside the vehicle and on the rear view mirror does not exist. To include the sedan in this setting, all of this and more would need to be explained, and without some device like time travel or similar, it simply cannot be, period, end of story.
9 months ago
Anonymous
But, you Do understand that dragons couldn't actually exist right? Anon, before we continue this discussion, I need you to understand that dragons couldn't actually exist by our existing world's rules of biology/physics and necessitate a magical explanation, in which case, we're well into "magical car" territory of outlandish ideas.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>But, you Do understand that dragons couldn't actually exist right?
They could, actually. You just need a planet with slightly lower gravity, and they are perfectly possible given everything we know about physics.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I need you to understand that dragons couldn't actually exist by our existing world's rules of biology/physics and necessitate a magical explanation
we absolutely do not know the entire scope of what is biologically possible, and in any case asserting in a fictional setting 'x is biologically possible and exists' is not an issue so long as it does not directly contradict other features of the world (for example, a flying dragon that has an additional lung that fills with hydrogen gas and an electricity-generating organ like a stargazer, such that when it expels the gas from the lung and generates electricity it acts like a flamethrower). None of this requires any additional dependencies like the modern sedan would and it is supremely unlikely that one would craft a scenario in which this generates a contradiction.
You are deliberately and dishonestly muddying the issue by saying 'magic car'. Saying that someone could summon a magical conveyance in a fantasy setting is fine (such a thing falls under 'taken as given' territory), but if that conveyance involves dependencies that do not exist within the setting (and thereby generating inescapable contradictions), then it is an unacceptable incongruity.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>But, you Do understand that dragons couldn't actually exist right?
The frick do you mean? Yes they could. They don't for numerous reasons, but they COULD. Especially if you assume the existence of magic in the setting and it being able to affect biology, ecosystems, etc.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>he doesn't know
9 months ago
Anonymous
>He thinks dragons aren't real
Can you explain why every isolated ancient culture has artworks of the same exact giant winged creature that breathes fire? From the British Isles to China to Mesopotamia, it's the same thing stretching back and forth through time
9 months ago
Anonymous
They're usually giant snake-like beings without wings. For the lizardish dragons, the dragon Saint George fought was originally conceived as only being about knee high.
>How does a dragon breathe fire?
Same way an Electric Eel makes electricity, probably.
But you understand the difference between this question and "Why does Middle-Earth have a Ferrari?", right?
One is a question of biology and magic, while the other involves incredibly specific things like historical figures, history, technolgy-trees, culture, vocabulary, etc.
Like, you're not SO incredibly stupid that you don't see the difference, are you? Because if you ARE that stupid then God help you.
>dragon breathe fire
Because they do. >How does magic work
It is called magic for a reason >ME low iq?
Yes? All of your points are extremely pedantic and midwit-tier. >dragons exist, so therefore cars should exist too!!!
Ok, wow great argument...
>dragons exist in the setting because they just do >ok then cars also exist in the setting because they just do >ARE YOU CRAZY? THAT'S RIDICULOUS
9 months ago
Anonymous
Dragons are accepted as a part of fantasy, cars are not.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I don't think fantasy should be limited purely to conventions established by Tolkien. If an author can write a compelling, entertaining fantasy world where cars exist in some form, I think that's ok.
9 months ago
Anonymous
As long as cars are set up as part of the universe then it's fine. If they are inserted for no reason other than "it's FANTASY, why do you care", I hate that.
Dragons are magical in GoT, so you accept that it works. Fat guys aren't magical so if they don't lose weight during starvation you got explaining to do. Neither the book nor the film establishes that Sam is somehow magical. Fricking midwit moron.
Because you'd have to establish that the fat dudes' metabolisms work differently in your fantasy setting for that to work.
If a dude shows up and gets his head chopped off, you can't just have him put it back on and go "Whatever, it's fantasy!" unless you specifically established that this dude has some magic ability to put his head back on.
We have to assume that humans in a fantasy world work the same as humans in this world do, especially if they're doing things that humans in the real world do, like farm, or live in castles, or build wells for water, or a dozen other things that fantasy characters do that only make sense if they are regular humans.
It's the same with a Ferrari. Why the hell would people be riding around on horseback if there are Ferraris in this fantasy world?
>Why the hell would people be riding around on horseback if there are Ferraris in this fantasy world
Because there are no suitable roads for the ferrari, obviously
>You're not using rational arguments.
Arguing that Gandalf having a Ferrari is and absurd but apparently totally valid claim to make if one accepts the infantile and objectively wrong claim that "Fiction doesn't have to make sense or have any sort of logic or consistency if it's Fantasy/Speculative Fiction!" Is a completely and wholly rational argument.
Do you really not see how those arguments fit together? If the fat guys statement is true/beliefs are valid and not absurd, then Gandalf having a Ferrari is not absurd either, which is apparently what both you and he are arguing. You understand what "The Transitive Property" is, right?
It literally isn't though. It's a comparative analogy used to highlight absurdity.
Do you even know what a "Strawman Argument" is? Or did you just hear someone else use that term in another argument and just kind of assume that you could parrot it and use it as a defense against any comparative argument that you don't like?
Note: A "Strawman Argument" is an argument that relies entirely on attacking, opposing and/or defeating an argument that the opponent, or potentially anyone for that matter, has not made, and thusly serves no purpose in furthering discussion as it does not address any of the actual arguments or points of view being discussed and thusly supports or refutes anything relevant.
A "Strawman Argument" is NOT just any argument you did not LITERALLY make but your opponent is using as an illustration of your flaws or absurdities using the transitive property, i.e. "You claiming X = Y is founded on the exact same logic and reasoning that the claim of A = B is founded on, and therefore the claims of X = Y and A = B are EQUALLY valid/invalid".
Fantasy is reality except where it explicitly isn't. It only differs in a few (usually) fundamental ways, and the rest follows from there. This allows the audience to comprehend the setting and fill everything that doesn't need to be explained. That's why you don't need to have Ned stop and explain to the audience that cutting that deserter's head off will kill him. Or why it doesn't need to explained why people eat and drink. And so on. There's no reason to assume that people don't biologically function like they do in reality.
Obviously, the more stylized something is, the less important this is, but that's irrelevant here.
If everyone that's ever b***hed about shit like this suddenly died the world would be exactly the same because none of you homosexuals have ever left your basement or propagated your bloodline.
But you're wrong. Literally any accomplished and respected author would call bullshit on having that attitude towards fiction. If every actuallu talented and intelligent author were to have been killed, culture would not just be drastically altered but arguably wouldn't even exist.
>Renly's death
so the shadow what he was talking about, officially nobody knows this was a magical death. >The House of the Undying
not real magic >House Of Black and White
implied magic. >Wargs
based on real animals >wall
big walls are not magic.
All fantasy settings are dumb as hell because it's just a contrived and paradoxical set of lifestyle and aesthetic choices that get ren faire nerds hot and bothered.
Using this argument is a certified indicator of a low IQ.
The presence or absence of other external fantastical elements does not (inherently) mean that other familiar aspects of reality are either absent or changed.
People who can't understand this are bovine in intelligence and most likely ALSO lacking in Imaginative Ability.
You expect a disgusting fat frick, ACTOR to be smart.
What people should have realized with the era of the internet is that 99% of actors are actual fricking morons.
Where's the lie? Why can't there be black people in an ahistorical, nonexistent setting just because it vaguely resembles medieval Europe in some ways?
There absolutely can be, in cities centered around that region. It doesn't make sense for every backwoods redneck shanty town to have every single color person and no cohesion. Don't @ me again
Why would people of multiple ethnicities exist over long periods if time in the same isolated area without eventually genetically combining? Do you not understand Sociology/History/Demographics?
Why would an isolated region with little outflow-inflow of humans be, let alone remain, ethnically diverse?
Because LA is ethnically diverse, and your brain is too small/politically-dogmatic to imagine a world that ISN'T one big LA?
Where is the pure black fantasy then? Black writer, black MC, black medieval kingdom, most of the characters black?
Oh yeah, you want white people to watch it because they bring money and fantasy isn't exactly ghetto entertainment. They wouldn't watch a black MC and everyone knows it. So it's calculation but STILL agenda. And they can't even bother to make some asspull explanations, like, there is a black empire and there are some migrants coming from there. Instead, they act like the black people just fell from heaven into this predominantly white setting. Cause they did into America, right? Or as if two white people randomly had a black kid (maybe they're trying to normalize this as well)?
Cause race doesn't just magically happen. If the conditions for a race to develop aren't given, why would it develop? Why would you evolve skin that is worse at absorbing sun light in an environment that has fairly low sun light to begin with?
At least in DnD, the drow having purple/coal skin colour is explained as them being magically cursed by their old gods for their treachery.
>curse
Yeah but they would already call an explanation with negative connotation like that racism. Apparently, the only non-racist explanation that everybody is doing is that babies are born with whichever race, independently from the races of the parents.
They are simply born like when you click randomize on a character creation screen, magically resulting in a society composition of a major American city.
pretend there was a game of thrones where this guy actually did lose weight over the seasons and got more and more malnourished.
vs the version where that doesn't happen.
which would be better?
The reason it doesn't happen in the books is because the fat homosexual is the GRRMartin self insert, who happens to be a homosexual hack with a good publisher.
Frankly, I don't know how that fat homosexual hack hasn't gotten sued by his publisher for taking 25 years to write 5 books.
>moron thinks that a couple of weeks long, organized trek into the wilderness is enough to make you lose 50 pounds
Samwell actor's answer is gay but he wasn't in the wrong.
What a stupid argument. The correct answer is who cares? It’s not like if he incrementally lost weight over the course of the show it would have affected the quality. If you are the kind of person whose immersion is broken because a character who can be summarized as “fat, cowardly, and overall worthless but nice” is still fat even though he’s been working hard for a while then I don’t think there are many things out there for you to enjoy
>It’s not like if he incrementally lost weight over the course of the show it would have affected the quality.
Yes it would have. That wouldn't have been enough to make the whole show good, but attention to detail like that is a point in any show's favor.
But doesn't he get more fit in the books as time goes on? I don't give a frick either way, but I think I remember reading that. I guess the actor just didn't want to lose the weight.
I believe in the books he was described more morbidly obese than this guy so maybe he got down about to his level. Still fat.
But it's not like you could have expected GRRM to write a character getting down to normal weight to better themselves. His goal would rather be to normalize the fat.
You are right, this was the passage I was thinking about. I could've sworn I read somewhere about him thinking to himself that he'd gained muscle and shed a good amount of fat training and marching (maybe after he came back to the Wall with Gilly?) but I guess I must be confusing him with some other book fatty (maybe Nevare from Soldier Son).
>"Gilly can stay as long as she likes." She poked Sam in the belly with a finger. "She does not eat so much as some." "I'm not so fat as I was before," Sam said defensively. The passage south had seen to that. All those watches, and nothing to eat but fruit and fish. Summer Islanders loved fruit and fish. >AFFC Samwell V
Are there that many very fat characters in the books though? I only remember the fat Lannister woman (or is that show only?), fat Walda Frey and fat Lord Manderly.
Yes! And Varys I guess, but he has a decent excuse for it.
Yeah, I also remember the passage where Jon sees him for the first time and it's all "rolls of fat", "jowls" and whatever. I don't remember any more either, perhaps Strong Belwas but obviously that's a different kind of fat. But GRRM's approach would be, even fatguy can be smart (Sam) or strong (Belwas), even morbidly obese glutton can be honorable (Manderly). He's obviously trying to make these characters have traits that overshadow the fat.
>Strong Belwas
I'm still a bit mad they didn't put him in the show. Cut half of the Daario scenes and give Sansa less time on the show, they could have made room ffs. Then again Barristan's identity is revealed right away in the show version so Belwas doesn't have a real part to play.
Yeah, I also remember the passage where Jon sees him for the first time and it's all "rolls of fat", "jowls" and whatever. I don't remember any more either, perhaps Strong Belwas but obviously that's a different kind of fat. But GRRM's approach would be, even fatguy can be smart (Sam) or strong (Belwas), even morbidly obese glutton can be honorable (Manderly). He's obviously trying to make these characters have traits that overshadow the fat.
That was the little tough I liked in Stargate Universe. Eli was gradually losing a little bit of wait as the show went on. I think they had the actor work out but I also think they put him in bigger clothes every few episodes to really emphasize everyone was on food rations and it had an affect.
Maybe sci-fi is just superior to fantasy.
>we got dragons and zombies but you don't buy that starvation and exercise burn body fat? >we got dragons and zombies and you don't buy a white character can be black? >we got dragons and zombies and you don't buy there is a Starbucks in Westeros? >we got dragons and zombies and you don't buy people can teleport across the continent? >we got dragons and zombies and you don't buy Dany kinda forgot about the Iron Fleet? >we got dragons and zombies and you don't buy that we can write a show?
I fricking hate the morons that uses that sort of excuse everytime you point out a plothole in a fantasy or other settings like that, bunch of fricking midwits
This moron was whining about people being allowed to celebrate "Straight Pride", right after he was mewling about how much he loved "equality".
He's a certified moron with no thoughts of any value. Which SHOULDN'T be surprising, because he is a "celebrity".
Wait. So they had an explanation ready but they still blackwashed characters? Guess that's the move we can observe in 10 years since GoT. GoT has some blackwashing but it made some kind of sense. I wonder who would be made black and who gay if it was made today.
>"Hmmmm, it's Fantasy/Science-Fiction/Fiction of some type so logic and consistency literally don't matter, DUH!"
This is one of the biggest, most common examples of a non-functional, moron-tier argument that people in the dimwit to midwit range parrot and repeat simply because they are too dumb to understand why it's flawed but instead assume it is correct becsuse it SOUNDS semi-solid at a passing glance while simultaneously being snarky and quippy.
I was recently made witness at a family-gathering to my Mom; someone who considers herself and intelligent and educated woman; praising Dolly Parton for her supposed stance on troony's being allowed to use Women's Bathrooms. That stance was, apparently, no more complex than "Well if I had to REALLY use the bathroom then I wouldn't care much about details, would you?", I.E. some sort of snarky, dismissive statement desperately trying to rely on humor to mask the fact that it states nothing of value and doesn't really function as an actual argument within the debate it is supposedly being presented within. Nothing in that supposed argument addresses any of the wants, fears or beliefs of the people who oppose having mentally-ill hairy men in drag allowed and encouraged to piss next to your 6-year-old daughter. But an idiot either doesn't recognize that, or doesn't care.
This is a very similar example of what I'm talking about: non-arguments and blatantly flawed claims or statements that are parroted as if they had ironclad reasoning behind them by Social Media-using, Reality-TV watching midwits that think they are 20 times smarter than they actually are in reality, simply because the statement sounds snarky and thusly "superior".
The "existence" of dragons in such medieval settings is contextual to stories about dragons during that era as fantastical beasts. A car has no context in that regard.
He simply has plot fat. It's like plot armor, but you gotta stay the fat loser no matter what cause it's your character. Also your dad must remain disappointed in you.
Why is a car inherently more stupid in a fantasy setting than a dragon? You're not using rational arguments.
I it dfjdkusnqp gsgs. Sgysfsnao bshsootysi ysygsys ysysgsvsvhosps.
It stupider than a Black person, that’s the point.
NOTHING is stupider than a Black person
Because cars are man-made. And for humans to make them they require for certain resources to exist, technologies to be understood, historical events to be present, brand names/companies to exist, etc.
Meanwhile dragons are mythical but a product of nature.
>Why is there a dragon here?
>Because this mythical ecosystem has dragons in it. And some live somewhere near here.
How can you you explain the presence of Chevrolet in the same setting using similarly sound reasoning?
Does the Chevrolet company also exist? Do the humans in the setting understand internal-combustion engines. Who invented those? Does Henry Ford exist in this setting? Did he still make the Model-T? Do car factories exist? Who runs them? How can they have cars and car factories but not know how to make a fricking Printing-Press? Etc.
You sound VERY low IQ. Why did someone have to explain this to You? Did NONE OF THIS cross your mind on your own?
Please see:
You seem to be EXACTLY the kind of person it's talking about.
How does a dragon breathe fire? What physiology could possibly allow that to exist? By what properties can magic even feasibly operate?
Oh, you don't want to scrutinize those aspects because they're familiar to your preconceptions of what fantasy "should" be? And you have the audacity to call ME low IQ?
It's not a matter of explaining every single detail about your fantasy world, or how dragon physiology works. It's a matter of internal consistency.
If you've established that your setting is a medieval world where people live in castles and knights ride around on horseback stabbing people with swords and lances, you can't just suddenly introduce modern technology with no explanation. Why would people be using horses and carriages if cars have been invented?
Maybe cars spontaneously appear by some magical principle in small qualities. They aren't manufactured, they just exist. No one has the tech or resources to recreate them. Or perhaps they are holdover artifacts from an highly advanced society that no longer exists. They could have been sent back in time by some freak accident, or some bored scientist deliberately trying to frick with history. Dozens of explanations immediately come to mind.
My point wasn't that you don't need to explain where the car comes from, it's that a car isn't any more ludicrous of a thing to exist in a fantasy setting than a dragon. In fact, it's much LESS ludicrous because we know for a fact that cars can and do exist, so any explanation for them is much more mundane than explaining dragons.
But that picture is specifically Lord of the Rings, a medieval fantasy story that never even hinted at the existence of Ferraris, or time-traveling cars sent to Middle-Earth by a bored scientist.
>In fact, it's much LESS ludicrous because we know for a fact that cars can and do exist, so any explanation for them is much more mundane than explaining dragons.
You don't need much explanation for a dragon at all, though. The fire-breathing can be explained by "It's magic!" and most audiences know that dragons are a long-standing fantasy trope. The audience will accept a dragon in a fantasy world without ANY explanation, because dragons are a conceit of the genre. Like how audiences will accept people doing ludicrous spin-kicks and wire-fu jumps during a Kung-Fu movie, because those are just things that Kung-Fu movies include.
Whereas with a Ferrari in a medieval world, you have to come up with something about time-travel, or an advanced civilization leaving them behind.
>Maybe cars spontaneously appear by some magical principle in small qualities
And THAT'S why it's different than the assumption of "animals called 'Dragons' exist", moron. It's inherently more nonsensical and stupid. Listen to yourself.
Good job answering YOUR OWN question with your own ensuing argument, dingdong. Again, low IQ.
How is assuming a magical creature exists less nonsensical than assuming a magical car exists? Are you sure you have any ground to be calling other people morons and low IQ when you don't seem to understand how basic comparisons work?
>How is assuming a magical creature exists less nonsensical than assuming a magical car exists?
Literally ALREADY been explained to you MULTIPLE times in this thread.
Yes, you are proving yourself to be low IQ by needing this explained to you. Even the average normies bovine, at least if asked, knows that there's something inherently questionable about magic Chevrolets appearing out of nowhere in fiction, and that that's different than a setting having alternate biology that includes mythical animals like Dragons. You are literally LESS intelligent than a typical Johnny Jack-off normie off the street. How does that feel? I hope you feel embarassed and ashamed. Because you deserve to feel that way for being that stupid.
Your explanation for dragons is "magic exists in the universe." My explanation (one of several I offered) for cars is "magic exists in the universe". They both rely on magic as the sole explanation and yet you continue to insist one is totally reasonable and the other is nonsensical. Because you a moron and can't grasp unfamiliar ideas. Magic dragons are familiar to you, but magic cars are not, so you think the two things are completely incomparable. Because, once again, and I cannot stress this enough, you are moronic.
>My explanation (one of several I offered) for cars is "magic exists in the universe".
We know how cars work though. They are not magic.
I didn't say in my original explanation the car itself has magical properties, just that it appears magically. But there's no reason a car that works by magical properties (e.g., one that doesn't require any fuel source) couldn't exist in a fantasy setting.
>I didn't say in my original explanation the car itself has magical properties, just that it appears magically.
Any element that differs from real life must be explained. For dragons "they are animals that exist in this world" is a good enough explanation.
A car appearing magically via magic portal is a fine explanation, but this is something that actually needs to explained by the movie. You can't just have the car show up with no explanation.
>But there's no reason a car that works by magical properties (e.g., one that doesn't require any fuel source) couldn't exist in a fantasy setting.
Again, this is something that needs to actively be explained by the movie.
I agree with everything you said. I don't think you're the original poster I was arguing with; his contention is that cars are inherently stupid in a fantasy setting and that any explanation for them is stupid on its face.
>his contention is that cars are inherently stupid in a fantasy setting and that any explanation for them is stupid on its face.
No, the original poster you were arguing with simply posted this image
. Nowhere in that image does it imply that no explanation at all is possible without it being dumb.
This is a proxy for having random black people in clearly isolated european settings. People are usually fine with black people in medieval western settings if they are set up as travelers from a distant land, or if the city is a major trading port, but it makes no sense for medieval settings to be significantly diverse simply because of the known travel restrictions.
Same as the car, we know how they are built, so them showing up in medieval settings for no reason is equally silly.
>if they are set up as travelers from a distant land, or if the city is a major trading port
That still doesn't make any sense since they never invented the wheel or boats. How would they get all the way to Europe? Why do you love them so much? What compels you to be a zoophile?
>That still doesn't make any sense since they never invented the wheel or boats.
They never invented them, but they certainly interacted with people who did. They copied the concept, or more likely traded for ships and carts.
Muslims took nig slaves with them to other places, you can assume something could happen in fantasy settings as well
They castrated those slaves, in golden age Islamic Iraq there was a massive slave revolt (the Zanj Rebellion) and after that they decided to not let African slaves reproduce at all and just hunt new ones constantly
OK now YOU'RE being moronic.
"Magic" is just laws of nature that are different than our own. We do not know how those laws work, so we put our trust in the story that it is not lying to us about how its world works. This is suspension of disbelief.
However, we do know how cars work, or how body fat works. So when the movie tries to bullshit us about those things, it breaks the suspension of disbelief. And the entire illusion falls apart.
Well if one day you create a fantasy setting with cars in it, and explain why they’re here with one of your explanantions sure, maybe you can make it work.
Meanwhile there’s absolutely no explanantion to why Sam remains fat or why every modern fantasy show has the racial demographics of a modern american big city
>How does a dragon breathe fire? What physiology could possibly allow that to exist?
Bombardier beetles, spitting cobras, horned toads, have evolved methods to squirt venom, noxious fluids, or blood. It wouldn't be unfeasible for a lizard to evolve such that it's venom would incorporate flammable materials from it's food. All it would need then is some flint to act as a spark, or specially evolved fangs to act as such. And maybe some specialized mucus membranes to fireproof it's mouth. It might be implausible, but it's certainly not impossible, given what we know occurs in nature.
>By what properties can magic even feasibly operate?
Depends on the magic. Chemistry has it's roots in Alchemy, and many modern drugs, psychedelics, come from religious practices and ancient traditions. Otherwise, one can presume magic works along certain quantum principles, and that physics are just a little weirder in the setting to allow something like a dragon to be able to fly without collapsing under it's own weight thanks to the squre/cube law.
I wasn't trying to say there aren't hypothetical explanations, just that "They just exist" doesn't work any better as an answer for a dragon than it does for a car.
I interpreted the specific make and model of the car as just a joke/meme. If the actual argument is that a literal Ferrari is something that you'd have to have a damn good explanation for randomly showing up in Middle Earth, I agree.
Not an argument.
>Not an argument.
Not an argument
>I wasn't trying to say there aren't hypothetical explanations, just that "They just exist" doesn't work any better as an answer for a dragon than it does for a car.
Again: it actually does work much better for a dragon than it does for a car, for reasons already stated. If you like, let's use actual world history as an analogy:
Moose existed 4000 years ago (and still do). Obviously there was a long historical chain of reproductive evolution that resulted in their existence as such. Humans existing contemporaneously in the same area as those moose would see the moose's existence as a given, and the biological explanation for the moose's antlers, for example, is totally fricking irrelevant and simply a product of nature. Because the moose is a given as a natural phenomenon, NO FURTHER EXPLANATION IS REQUIRED. The moose just is.
Drop a modern sedan into that time period and you have something incongruous that breaks the setting. The specialized knowledge, tools, supplies, organization, labor, etc., necessary to create the thing do not exist. The prior technologies necessary to create its sub-components do not exist. The fricking language on the safety labels inside the vehicle and on the rear view mirror does not exist. To include the sedan in this setting, all of this and more would need to be explained, and without some device like time travel or similar, it simply cannot be, period, end of story.
But, you Do understand that dragons couldn't actually exist right? Anon, before we continue this discussion, I need you to understand that dragons couldn't actually exist by our existing world's rules of biology/physics and necessitate a magical explanation, in which case, we're well into "magical car" territory of outlandish ideas.
>But, you Do understand that dragons couldn't actually exist right?
They could, actually. You just need a planet with slightly lower gravity, and they are perfectly possible given everything we know about physics.
>I need you to understand that dragons couldn't actually exist by our existing world's rules of biology/physics and necessitate a magical explanation
we absolutely do not know the entire scope of what is biologically possible, and in any case asserting in a fictional setting 'x is biologically possible and exists' is not an issue so long as it does not directly contradict other features of the world (for example, a flying dragon that has an additional lung that fills with hydrogen gas and an electricity-generating organ like a stargazer, such that when it expels the gas from the lung and generates electricity it acts like a flamethrower). None of this requires any additional dependencies like the modern sedan would and it is supremely unlikely that one would craft a scenario in which this generates a contradiction.
You are deliberately and dishonestly muddying the issue by saying 'magic car'. Saying that someone could summon a magical conveyance in a fantasy setting is fine (such a thing falls under 'taken as given' territory), but if that conveyance involves dependencies that do not exist within the setting (and thereby generating inescapable contradictions), then it is an unacceptable incongruity.
>But, you Do understand that dragons couldn't actually exist right?
The frick do you mean? Yes they could. They don't for numerous reasons, but they COULD. Especially if you assume the existence of magic in the setting and it being able to affect biology, ecosystems, etc.
>he doesn't know
>He thinks dragons aren't real
Can you explain why every isolated ancient culture has artworks of the same exact giant winged creature that breathes fire? From the British Isles to China to Mesopotamia, it's the same thing stretching back and forth through time
They're usually giant snake-like beings without wings. For the lizardish dragons, the dragon Saint George fought was originally conceived as only being about knee high.
Disingenuous fricking slimeball
>How does a dragon breathe fire?
Same way an Electric Eel makes electricity, probably.
But you understand the difference between this question and "Why does Middle-Earth have a Ferrari?", right?
One is a question of biology and magic, while the other involves incredibly specific things like historical figures, history, technolgy-trees, culture, vocabulary, etc.
Like, you're not SO incredibly stupid that you don't see the difference, are you? Because if you ARE that stupid then God help you.
>dragon breathe fire
Because they do.
>How does magic work
It is called magic for a reason
>ME low iq?
Yes? All of your points are extremely pedantic and midwit-tier.
>dragons exist, so therefore cars should exist too!!!
Ok, wow great argument...
>dragons exist in the setting because they just do
>ok then cars also exist in the setting because they just do
>ARE YOU CRAZY? THAT'S RIDICULOUS
Dragons are accepted as a part of fantasy, cars are not.
I don't think fantasy should be limited purely to conventions established by Tolkien. If an author can write a compelling, entertaining fantasy world where cars exist in some form, I think that's ok.
As long as cars are set up as part of the universe then it's fine. If they are inserted for no reason other than "it's FANTASY, why do you care", I hate that.
Dragons are magical in GoT, so you accept that it works. Fat guys aren't magical so if they don't lose weight during starvation you got explaining to do. Neither the book nor the film establishes that Sam is somehow magical. Fricking midwit moron.
Even if you're trolling, the world would be better off without you.
>How does a dragon breathe fire?
Magic. On the other hand you breathing in cakes is not magic.
the car came through a portal from another dimension
What if the car was made by more advanced race?
Like Africans don't have the technology to make cars but you still see cars in Africa
Good effort posting
Appreciated
Because you'd have to establish that the fat dudes' metabolisms work differently in your fantasy setting for that to work.
If a dude shows up and gets his head chopped off, you can't just have him put it back on and go "Whatever, it's fantasy!" unless you specifically established that this dude has some magic ability to put his head back on.
We have to assume that humans in a fantasy world work the same as humans in this world do, especially if they're doing things that humans in the real world do, like farm, or live in castles, or build wells for water, or a dozen other things that fantasy characters do that only make sense if they are regular humans.
It's the same with a Ferrari. Why the hell would people be riding around on horseback if there are Ferraris in this fantasy world?
>Why the hell would people be riding around on horseback if there are Ferraris in this fantasy world
Because there are no suitable roads for the ferrari, obviously
Him putting his head back on would establish that he is able to put his head back on.
Yes, but it's shit writing that is obvious even to the stupidest of your viewers/readers, whatever. Their suspension of disbelief will not hold.
>Why is a car inherently more stupid in a fantasy setting than a dragon?
>Why is a car inherently more stupid in a fantasy setting than a dragon?
...This is trolling, right?
>You're not using rational arguments.
Ok mr wannabe teacher. Get back to grading Tavyon's paper for monday
Verisimilitude
>You're not using rational arguments.
Arguing that Gandalf having a Ferrari is and absurd but apparently totally valid claim to make if one accepts the infantile and objectively wrong claim that "Fiction doesn't have to make sense or have any sort of logic or consistency if it's Fantasy/Speculative Fiction!" Is a completely and wholly rational argument.
Do you really not see how those arguments fit together? If the fat guys statement is true/beliefs are valid and not absurd, then Gandalf having a Ferrari is not absurd either, which is apparently what both you and he are arguing. You understand what "The Transitive Property" is, right?
I don't understand why this image is still being pushed; it's a strawman.
Illiterate morons seething at clear intellectual superiority.
Many such cases!
moron, it's a metaphor for any immersion breaking anachronism; did you feel smart using the semi-colon?
>colon
Eheheheh.
It literally isn't though. It's a comparative analogy used to highlight absurdity.
Do you even know what a "Strawman Argument" is? Or did you just hear someone else use that term in another argument and just kind of assume that you could parrot it and use it as a defense against any comparative argument that you don't like?
Note: A "Strawman Argument" is an argument that relies entirely on attacking, opposing and/or defeating an argument that the opponent, or potentially anyone for that matter, has not made, and thusly serves no purpose in furthering discussion as it does not address any of the actual arguments or points of view being discussed and thusly supports or refutes anything relevant.
A "Strawman Argument" is NOT just any argument you did not LITERALLY make but your opponent is using as an illustration of your flaws or absurdities using the transitive property, i.e. "You claiming X = Y is founded on the exact same logic and reasoning that the claim of A = B is founded on, and therefore the claims of X = Y and A = B are EQUALLY valid/invalid".
He does though. It's never established that metabolism works the same in the GOT world as it does in ours.
Did he establish what the tax policy he lived under was like though
I'd buy it. Genetics are basically magic in ASOIAF.
its never established that Gravity is 9.81ms^2 but why should we assume otherwise
Fantasy is reality except where it explicitly isn't. It only differs in a few (usually) fundamental ways, and the rest follows from there. This allows the audience to comprehend the setting and fill everything that doesn't need to be explained. That's why you don't need to have Ned stop and explain to the audience that cutting that deserter's head off will kill him. Or why it doesn't need to explained why people eat and drink. And so on. There's no reason to assume that people don't biologically function like they do in reality.
Obviously, the more stylized something is, the less important this is, but that's irrelevant here.
if everyone who's ever used this argument suddenly died, the world would be a less stupid place
If everyone that's ever b***hed about shit like this suddenly died the world would be exactly the same because none of you homosexuals have ever left your basement or propagated your bloodline.
But you're wrong. Literally any accomplished and respected author would call bullshit on having that attitude towards fiction. If every actuallu talented and intelligent author were to have been killed, culture would not just be drastically altered but arguably wouldn't even exist.
Found the virgin.
Found the moron.
>WhyCan'tGandalfHaveAFerrari.PNG
I don't get it, was he cursed to stay fat or he's a magical species or something else?
yeah
its a fantasy land
not america
the funniest part about this quote is that those two things is literally the only magical thing that ever happens in the show (and white walkers)
fricking breaking bad is more fantasy than this show.
You didn't watch the show. Renly's death, The House of the Undying, House Of Black and White, Wargs, the fricking Wall?
>Renly's death
so the shadow what he was talking about, officially nobody knows this was a magical death.
>The House of the Undying
not real magic
>House Of Black and White
implied magic.
>Wargs
based on real animals
>wall
big walls are not magic.
asoiaf is not a fantasy.
All fantasy settings are dumb as hell because it's just a contrived and paradoxical set of lifestyle and aesthetic choices that get ren faire nerds hot and bothered.
Using this argument is a certified indicator of a low IQ.
The presence or absence of other external fantastical elements does not (inherently) mean that other familiar aspects of reality are either absent or changed.
People who can't understand this are bovine in intelligence and most likely ALSO lacking in Imaginative Ability.
What's shocking is those kinds of people are the overwhelming majority
But it's shown that it's different. You can see he doesn't lose weight.
You expect a disgusting fat frick, ACTOR to be smart.
What people should have realized with the era of the internet is that 99% of actors are actual fricking morons.
>bro there's a dragon in this show that means we can have trannies and fat fricks like me in it too it's called FANTASY bro!
Where's the lie? Why can't there be black people in an ahistorical, nonexistent setting just because it vaguely resembles medieval Europe in some ways?
There absolutely can be, in cities centered around that region. It doesn't make sense for every backwoods redneck shanty town to have every single color person and no cohesion. Don't @ me again
>It doesn't make sense for every backwoods redneck shanty town to have every single color person
why not tho
Why would people of multiple ethnicities exist over long periods if time in the same isolated area without eventually genetically combining? Do you not understand Sociology/History/Demographics?
Why would an isolated region with little outflow-inflow of humans be, let alone remain, ethnically diverse?
Because LA is ethnically diverse, and your brain is too small/politically-dogmatic to imagine a world that ISN'T one big LA?
ummm sweatie, race isn't real and heroes come in every color size and gender
>race isn't real
Really? Oh thank God.
That means we can get rid of Affirmative Action, Diversity Quotas, CRT, etc.
why do cucks and hook noses worship orcs so much?
Where is the pure black fantasy then? Black writer, black MC, black medieval kingdom, most of the characters black?
Oh yeah, you want white people to watch it because they bring money and fantasy isn't exactly ghetto entertainment. They wouldn't watch a black MC and everyone knows it. So it's calculation but STILL agenda. And they can't even bother to make some asspull explanations, like, there is a black empire and there are some migrants coming from there. Instead, they act like the black people just fell from heaven into this predominantly white setting. Cause they did into America, right? Or as if two white people randomly had a black kid (maybe they're trying to normalize this as well)?
Cause race doesn't just magically happen. If the conditions for a race to develop aren't given, why would it develop? Why would you evolve skin that is worse at absorbing sun light in an environment that has fairly low sun light to begin with?
At least in DnD, the drow having purple/coal skin colour is explained as them being magically cursed by their old gods for their treachery.
>curse
Yeah but they would already call an explanation with negative connotation like that racism. Apparently, the only non-racist explanation that everybody is doing is that babies are born with whichever race, independently from the races of the parents.
They are simply born like when you click randomize on a character creation screen, magically resulting in a society composition of a major American city.
ermmm anon, black skin absorbs light better, which is why it looks dark
The real answer is George RR Martin has never been skinny so he couldn’t imagine a fat guy losing weight even under starvation.
>George RR Martin has never been skinny
is that christopher poole?
stupid fat bastard
Is he saying Sam knew magic and used it to keep himself fat?
pretend there was a game of thrones where this guy actually did lose weight over the seasons and got more and more malnourished.
vs the version where that doesn't happen.
which would be better?
pretend there was a GOT where he became more and more jacked from the constant physical activity
This.
The reason it doesn't happen in the books is because the fat homosexual is the GRRMartin self insert, who happens to be a homosexual hack with a good publisher.
Frankly, I don't know how that fat homosexual hack hasn't gotten sued by his publisher for taking 25 years to write 5 books.
>moron thinks that a couple of weeks long, organized trek into the wilderness is enough to make you lose 50 pounds
Samwell actor's answer is gay but he wasn't in the wrong.
it wasn't a couple weeks, he was doing active stuff pretty much the entire series.
Fat c**t
All he had to say was he eats a ton even if it's not shown on screen, or he has some secret illness or ability that makes losing weight hard.
He should have have just started screaming HEALTHY AT ANY SIZE and shitting himself, to teach that fatphobic chud a lesson
Imagine admitting on tv that eating food makes you fat.
I'd like to hijack this thread to pose a question: What IS actually west of Westeros?
Easteros
Are you proposing that you could go....so far west....you end up in the east? I need to bring this to the attention of the Citadel
The Midwesteros
West Westeros
What a stupid argument. The correct answer is who cares? It’s not like if he incrementally lost weight over the course of the show it would have affected the quality. If you are the kind of person whose immersion is broken because a character who can be summarized as “fat, cowardly, and overall worthless but nice” is still fat even though he’s been working hard for a while then I don’t think there are many things out there for you to enjoy
>It’s not like if he incrementally lost weight over the course of the show it would have affected the quality.
Yes it would have. That wouldn't have been enough to make the whole show good, but attention to detail like that is a point in any show's favor.
But doesn't he get more fit in the books as time goes on? I don't give a frick either way, but I think I remember reading that. I guess the actor just didn't want to lose the weight.
I believe in the books he was described more morbidly obese than this guy so maybe he got down about to his level. Still fat.
But it's not like you could have expected GRRM to write a character getting down to normal weight to better themselves. His goal would rather be to normalize the fat.
You are right, this was the passage I was thinking about. I could've sworn I read somewhere about him thinking to himself that he'd gained muscle and shed a good amount of fat training and marching (maybe after he came back to the Wall with Gilly?) but I guess I must be confusing him with some other book fatty (maybe Nevare from Soldier Son).
>"Gilly can stay as long as she likes." She poked Sam in the belly with a finger. "She does not eat so much as some." "I'm not so fat as I was before," Sam said defensively. The passage south had seen to that. All those watches, and nothing to eat but fruit and fish. Summer Islanders loved fruit and fish.
>AFFC Samwell V
Are there that many very fat characters in the books though? I only remember the fat Lannister woman (or is that show only?), fat Walda Frey and fat Lord Manderly.
You forgot Illyrio who's also partly a GURM self insert.
Yes! And Varys I guess, but he has a decent excuse for it.
>Strong Belwas
I'm still a bit mad they didn't put him in the show. Cut half of the Daario scenes and give Sansa less time on the show, they could have made room ffs. Then again Barristan's identity is revealed right away in the show version so Belwas doesn't have a real part to play.
Yeah, I also remember the passage where Jon sees him for the first time and it's all "rolls of fat", "jowls" and whatever. I don't remember any more either, perhaps Strong Belwas but obviously that's a different kind of fat. But GRRM's approach would be, even fatguy can be smart (Sam) or strong (Belwas), even morbidly obese glutton can be honorable (Manderly). He's obviously trying to make these characters have traits that overshadow the fat.
How do people not understand context and suspension of disbelief? In the context of GoT, dragons are believable, but not everything is.
LOL PWNED THAT RANDOM GUYS LIFE IS LITERALLY OVER
Why is this fat homie calling himself a monster lmao
internal consistency
That was the little tough I liked in Stargate Universe. Eli was gradually losing a little bit of wait as the show went on. I think they had the actor work out but I also think they put him in bigger clothes every few episodes to really emphasize everyone was on food rations and it had an affect.
Maybe sci-fi is just superior to fantasy.
SGU was just starting to get better when they axed it. I mourn the loss.
no wonder they were leaving coffee cups on set and shit. none of them cared. they just wanted the money and fame and it was her turn
>we got dragons and zombies but you don't buy that starvation and exercise burn body fat?
>we got dragons and zombies and you don't buy a white character can be black?
>we got dragons and zombies and you don't buy there is a Starbucks in Westeros?
>we got dragons and zombies and you don't buy people can teleport across the continent?
>we got dragons and zombies and you don't buy Dany kinda forgot about the Iron Fleet?
>we got dragons and zombies and you don't buy that we can write a show?
I fricking hate the morons that uses that sort of excuse everytime you point out a plothole in a fantasy or other settings like that, bunch of fricking midwits
Same. It's always the same argument.
If you wanna do an asspull, at least have a working in-universe explanation ready.
>fat moron doesn't understand what internal consistency is
makes sense
Haha funny fat guy. I don’t like fat people but unfunny fat people I absolutely hate
Pure normalgay insanity. You can tell all of them just laughed without really thinking about what he just said.
This moron was whining about people being allowed to celebrate "Straight Pride", right after he was mewling about how much he loved "equality".
He's a certified moron with no thoughts of any value. Which SHOULDN'T be surprising, because he is a "celebrity".
>Do people still think of you as the funny fat guy?
So is he gonna address why Sam didn't lose massive amounts of weight in the show or is he gonna keep deflecting?
He should have lied saying he lost weight since season 1 and acted offended about nobody noticing. I would have enjoyed that awkward situation.
>Completely avoids answering the question
Classic fatty response.
They pretty much filibuster whenever the question is raised
So what are the fantasy settings that have plausible explanations for blacks?
Haven't read that much so I know only of Summer Isles and Redguard.
The Wheel of Time (the books, NOT the tv series)
Wait. So they had an explanation ready but they still blackwashed characters? Guess that's the move we can observe in 10 years since GoT. GoT has some blackwashing but it made some kind of sense. I wonder who would be made black and who gay if it was made today.
He doesn’t even make sense. He’s saying that the anything a character does in the show isn’t supposed to make sense, which doesn’t make sense.
>"Hmmmm, it's Fantasy/Science-Fiction/Fiction of some type so logic and consistency literally don't matter, DUH!"
This is one of the biggest, most common examples of a non-functional, moron-tier argument that people in the dimwit to midwit range parrot and repeat simply because they are too dumb to understand why it's flawed but instead assume it is correct becsuse it SOUNDS semi-solid at a passing glance while simultaneously being snarky and quippy.
I was recently made witness at a family-gathering to my Mom; someone who considers herself and intelligent and educated woman; praising Dolly Parton for her supposed stance on troony's being allowed to use Women's Bathrooms. That stance was, apparently, no more complex than "Well if I had to REALLY use the bathroom then I wouldn't care much about details, would you?", I.E. some sort of snarky, dismissive statement desperately trying to rely on humor to mask the fact that it states nothing of value and doesn't really function as an actual argument within the debate it is supposedly being presented within. Nothing in that supposed argument addresses any of the wants, fears or beliefs of the people who oppose having mentally-ill hairy men in drag allowed and encouraged to piss next to your 6-year-old daughter. But an idiot either doesn't recognize that, or doesn't care.
This is a very similar example of what I'm talking about: non-arguments and blatantly flawed claims or statements that are parroted as if they had ironclad reasoning behind them by Social Media-using, Reality-TV watching midwits that think they are 20 times smarter than they actually are in reality, simply because the statement sounds snarky and thusly "superior".
He didn't answer why he's so fat.
The "existence" of dragons in such medieval settings is contextual to stories about dragons during that era as fantastical beasts. A car has no context in that regard.
Was he magically maintaining the form of a fat moron?
He simply has plot fat. It's like plot armor, but you gotta stay the fat loser no matter what cause it's your character. Also your dad must remain disappointed in you.