Looks like they've addressed it now.I wrote:About the otherkin in the strip...Playing devil's advocate here:
If I met this guy in the real world, I'd discount him as crazy. But UTLT, from the perspective of Ben, Warhorse, or even Lily...Well, Ben and Warhorse have both had the aspects of their subconscious take physical form. And Ben's Id tried to kill him. I'm just saying that in that context, I wouldn't dismiss the koala's claim automatically (although it would probably take little research to see that yes, he is crazy).
I'm not really what I am...
Even so....is a person who puts their heart into a delusion someone to be mocked?
Although perhaps this is just an old bitter point on my part; I've delved into just about any weird belief you can name trying to find something that felt right.
In any case--that's an IRL point, and this is a comic strip. In terms of the comic strip, just about anything can happen and it would be funny. => It's when you remove the point and look at it that you identify all the key points--and that removes the funny part.
Sometimes comics just need to be comics. =>
(Oh, and BTW, I'm still here. Lurking as usual.)
Although perhaps this is just an old bitter point on my part; I've delved into just about any weird belief you can name trying to find something that felt right.
In any case--that's an IRL point, and this is a comic strip. In terms of the comic strip, just about anything can happen and it would be funny. => It's when you remove the point and look at it that you identify all the key points--and that removes the funny part.
Sometimes comics just need to be comics. =>
(Oh, and BTW, I'm still here. Lurking as usual.)
Burden of Proof
Well, the whole point being made is that there's a difference between a belief and a delusion. A belief is what you have that's based on at least a crumb or two of observed evidence, material, logical, circumstantial, corroborative eyewitnesses, whatever.
A delusion is what you are clinging to when there is not only an absence of positive evidence but a presence of considerable evidence--- material, logical, circumstantial, corroborative eyewitnesses-- to the contrary.
For instance, you can BELIEVE in sasquatch--- there has been, over the centuries, considerable eyewitnesses and material evidence (footprints) for people to SUSPECT it exists.
However, insisting you ARE sasquatch, despite a prominent absence of body hair and size 50 sneakers in your life, qualifies as a DELUSION.
Insisting you have a "sasquatch soul" in a human body only increases the improbability you're anchored firmly to planet earth--- first, for the existence of sasquatch, second, for the existence of reincarnation, third for the existence of sasquatch souls to be reincarnated therewith.
Stringing unlikelihoods togethor into a bead necklace does not increase their intellectual acceptability; it only magnifies the improbability and delusional nature of the whole thing.
The Unicorn Koala was insisting that he was a 1) a pop-culture misrepresentation 2)of a mythical creature 4) of which no living example has ever been caught and 5) for which no material, archaeological, or fossil evidence existed 6) that had been reincarnated into his present body that 7) was somehow "invulnerable" to all the objective, physical world had to offer 8) even though he himself was subsequently demonstrated to be quite vulnerable to ordinary industrial plastic.
When making a claim, the burden of proof must always lie on the claimant.
This is why people have to be PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. You cannot "prove" a negative: you cannot "prove" someone DIDN'T commit a crime, you cannot "prove" someone ISN'T some sort of astral magical reincarnated spirit guided being.
When someone claims to be a unicorn, he must be the one to present convincing evidence to the positive.
Which brings up the interesting question--- how would one test for unicorns? Or other "Otherkin"? Blood and urine test? Breathalyzer?
Okay, in unicorns, certain things present themselves.
1) Cold Iron, silver, etc. Unicorns (like most other mythical creatures) are assumed to react adversely to the touch of certain metals. Can the claimant sense, without being informed ahead of time, that a sample of metal is iron, silver, or the like? Do they react adversely to contact or presence of the metal?
2) Virgins. Unicorns are supposed to be able to sense human virgins from a considerable distance. Bring the claimant into a roomful of females whom they do not know. With what accuracy can they determine which are virgins and which are not?
3) Purification. Unicorns can allegedly purify foods and liquids. Can the claimant purify a sample of water within a given amount of time?
4) Healing. Unicorns can allegedly heal the sick and wounded. Can the claimant do the same, even so little as lowering a fever slightly or healing a minor scrape?
5)And a general test for ANY "reincarnated"/"awakened" claimant: Knowledge. What era, age, historical period do they claim to be from? What area of the world? What station of life in society? One might be persuaded if they were able to speak a foreign tongue or medieval dialect fluently, or if they had an understanding of life during that time period that could be historically or archaeologically confirmed, or could prepare a peasant meal by recipe from memory.... if they claim to be a "creature of the forest, seperate from man's crass culture," an innate knowledge of the wild, the flora and fauna, wilderness skills they could not have obtained in this life, might be persuasive--- so on and so forth.
A delusion is what you are clinging to when there is not only an absence of positive evidence but a presence of considerable evidence--- material, logical, circumstantial, corroborative eyewitnesses-- to the contrary.
For instance, you can BELIEVE in sasquatch--- there has been, over the centuries, considerable eyewitnesses and material evidence (footprints) for people to SUSPECT it exists.
However, insisting you ARE sasquatch, despite a prominent absence of body hair and size 50 sneakers in your life, qualifies as a DELUSION.
Insisting you have a "sasquatch soul" in a human body only increases the improbability you're anchored firmly to planet earth--- first, for the existence of sasquatch, second, for the existence of reincarnation, third for the existence of sasquatch souls to be reincarnated therewith.
Stringing unlikelihoods togethor into a bead necklace does not increase their intellectual acceptability; it only magnifies the improbability and delusional nature of the whole thing.
The Unicorn Koala was insisting that he was a 1) a pop-culture misrepresentation 2)of a mythical creature 4) of which no living example has ever been caught and 5) for which no material, archaeological, or fossil evidence existed 6) that had been reincarnated into his present body that 7) was somehow "invulnerable" to all the objective, physical world had to offer 8) even though he himself was subsequently demonstrated to be quite vulnerable to ordinary industrial plastic.
When making a claim, the burden of proof must always lie on the claimant.
This is why people have to be PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. You cannot "prove" a negative: you cannot "prove" someone DIDN'T commit a crime, you cannot "prove" someone ISN'T some sort of astral magical reincarnated spirit guided being.
When someone claims to be a unicorn, he must be the one to present convincing evidence to the positive.
Which brings up the interesting question--- how would one test for unicorns? Or other "Otherkin"? Blood and urine test? Breathalyzer?
Okay, in unicorns, certain things present themselves.
1) Cold Iron, silver, etc. Unicorns (like most other mythical creatures) are assumed to react adversely to the touch of certain metals. Can the claimant sense, without being informed ahead of time, that a sample of metal is iron, silver, or the like? Do they react adversely to contact or presence of the metal?
2) Virgins. Unicorns are supposed to be able to sense human virgins from a considerable distance. Bring the claimant into a roomful of females whom they do not know. With what accuracy can they determine which are virgins and which are not?
3) Purification. Unicorns can allegedly purify foods and liquids. Can the claimant purify a sample of water within a given amount of time?
4) Healing. Unicorns can allegedly heal the sick and wounded. Can the claimant do the same, even so little as lowering a fever slightly or healing a minor scrape?
5)And a general test for ANY "reincarnated"/"awakened" claimant: Knowledge. What era, age, historical period do they claim to be from? What area of the world? What station of life in society? One might be persuaded if they were able to speak a foreign tongue or medieval dialect fluently, or if they had an understanding of life during that time period that could be historically or archaeologically confirmed, or could prepare a peasant meal by recipe from memory.... if they claim to be a "creature of the forest, seperate from man's crass culture," an innate knowledge of the wild, the flora and fauna, wilderness skills they could not have obtained in this life, might be persuasive--- so on and so forth.
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
-
Mikhail Dragoslav
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 3:14 pm
- Location: New York
Interesting batteries of tests...I think it covers about everything.
Of course, if unicorns exist(ed) and are just horses with horns without any special powers (and all those stories were myths invented by people who had seen them from afar), then only the fifth test would be valid (although we could just ask the guy to pierce cardboard with his horn)...
Of course, if unicorns exist(ed) and are just horses with horns without any special powers (and all those stories were myths invented by people who had seen them from afar), then only the fifth test would be valid (although we could just ask the guy to pierce cardboard with his horn)...
OtherKin tests
...You know, I'd bet there's a market for "Otherkin Test Kits"... or maybe you could make a boodle setting up a "test your otherkin-ness" booth at your average Renfaire....
One of the obstacles to consider, though, is that the modern stereotypical description of most mythological beasts is wildly different from the descriptions given in ancient times, or in varying cultures. The European dragon vs the asian dragon, for instance.... or the dozens of different variations on "Vampires" and vampire legends. Even unicorns are scarcely the straightforward legends we imagine... There were, reportedly, at least eleven different types of "unicorn" legends during the medieval period. Some of them were quite unpleasant, a few were savagely violent and even carnivorous!
Quite frankly, the sources of the legend are quite.... disappointing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium
No ethereal beauties, these.
One of the obstacles to consider, though, is that the modern stereotypical description of most mythological beasts is wildly different from the descriptions given in ancient times, or in varying cultures. The European dragon vs the asian dragon, for instance.... or the dozens of different variations on "Vampires" and vampire legends. Even unicorns are scarcely the straightforward legends we imagine... There were, reportedly, at least eleven different types of "unicorn" legends during the medieval period. Some of them were quite unpleasant, a few were savagely violent and even carnivorous!
Quite frankly, the sources of the legend are quite.... disappointing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium
No ethereal beauties, these.
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
