Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[slink]

oh god, you really just tried to make an argument against climate science? Yea, okay, that happened. Look, you made a random assumption about data that you say you read, and ignorantly linked it all back to gay pride going too far.

You're not a biologist. You are just making assumptions off of raw data. And apparently you ONLY looked at giraffes, when I linked a small section of a list of animals that have homosexual behavior.

You are correct, I am not a biologist, although there is no way you could know that.  I am a chemist.  I don't make random assumptions.

I take it you are a professional biologist, specializing the in the sexuality of animal populations?  Or are you a climate scientist?

[smeeprocket]

oh god, you really just tried to make an argument against climate science? Yea, okay, that happened. Look, you made a random assumption about data that you say you read, and ignorantly linked it all back to gay pride going too far.

You're not a biologist. You are just making assumptions off of raw data. And apparently you ONLY looked at giraffes, when I linked a small section of a list of animals that have homosexual behavior.

You are correct, I am not a biologist, although there is no way you could know that.  I am a chemist.  I don't make random assumptions.

I take it you are a professional biologist, specializing the in the sexuality of animal populations?  Or are you a climate scientist?

So you admit you do not have a basis to work off of.

I tend to listen when people who are knowledgeable in a field, have been educated in it, know about it, all overwhelmingly feel that the same things are true. Now when a bureaucrat who doesn't even have a grade school understanding of basic science tells me that what they are saying is bullshit, I'm not going to give him the time of day. It's just a personal preference. Regardless off whether it is about homosexuality or climate change. I don't listen to lawyers about science, or chemists about biology.

[slink]

oh god, you really just tried to make an argument against climate science? Yea, okay, that happened. Look, you made a random assumption about data that you say you read, and ignorantly linked it all back to gay pride going too far.

You're not a biologist. You are just making assumptions off of raw data. And apparently you ONLY looked at giraffes, when I linked a small section of a list of animals that have homosexual behavior.

You are correct, I am not a biologist, although there is no way you could know that.  I am a chemist.  I don't make random assumptions.

I take it you are a professional biologist, specializing the in the sexuality of animal populations?  Or are you a climate scientist?

So you admit you do not have a basis to work off of.

I tend to listen when people who are knowledgeable in a field, have been educated in it, know about it, all overwhelmingly feel that the same things are true. Now when a bureaucrat who doesn't even have a grade school understanding of basic science tells me that what they are saying is bullshit, I'm not going to give him the time of day. It's just a personal preference. Regardless off whether it is about homosexuality or climate change. I don't listen to lawyers about science, or chemists about biology.

In other words, you have no training at all in anything even vaguely relevant to the discussion.

[IndigoFenix]

My guess is that it's a bug, in that it's taking the 'orientation' code which determines whether or not a creature will marry, and then applying it to animals which don't get married in any event.  It's probably because in DF, no sentient creature can reproduce without marrying, so that's the part of the code that gets transferred over, even though it doesn't make sense.

Most animals will engage in homosexual behavior, but it's very rare to find animals that are exclusively homosexual to the extent of avoiding an available opposite-sex partner.  Giraffe males have a lot of same-sex mountings, but that's because the mounting usually comes after fighting, and males fight a lot.  These giraffes will still mount females if given the opportunity.

Sheep seem to be an exception in that there are apparently enough homosexual rams that sheep breeders have to take them into account in real life, but even this is only 8%.

If that were the case you'd expect animals to be monogamous. I think it's more likely that only animals that are roll not interested in the opposite sex won't breed. Pure homosexuality might not be super common but it's manifestation in the game is about 5% of animals not breeding which doesn't seem particularly crazy.

The default values in the game are 5:20:75 for opposite-sexed creatures, which means any creature has a 5% chance of being uninterested in the opposite sex, 20% chance of being lovers, and 75% chance of marriage possibility.  The problem is that, for both sapients and non-sapients, the game uses the 'marriage' values for calculating whether or not a creature can impregnate or become pregnant, rather than the 'lovers' value, which would make a little more sense - the only difference is that for animals, they don't actually get married.

This means that one out of every four animals will be completely unable to breed (link).  This is way too much, even for sheep.  It's unrealistic, and it causes gameplay issues.

[The Bard]

How can a scientist fail at science so hard?

Not even laboratory science, but basic observation.

Basically, what you're saying is that you don't believe any science that doesn't fit your political leanings. You don't believe in homosexual animals despite them stubbornly continuing to exist and you don't believe in climates despite easily observable changes that merely involve the task of 'having a window' if you don't live on the equator.

Just promise me not to try and science up anything important.

[Broseph Stalin]

Would adding 5:0:95 would work as a stopgap?

[smeeprocket]

oh god, you really just tried to make an argument against climate science? Yea, okay, that happened. Look, you made a random assumption about data that you say you read, and ignorantly linked it all back to gay pride going too far.

You're not a biologist. You are just making assumptions off of raw data. And apparently you ONLY looked at giraffes, when I linked a small section of a list of animals that have homosexual behavior.

You are correct, I am not a biologist, although there is no way you could know that.  I am a chemist.  I don't make random assumptions.

I take it you are a professional biologist, specializing the in the sexuality of animal populations?  Or are you a climate scientist?

So you admit you do not have a basis to work off of.

I tend to listen when people who are knowledgeable in a field, have been educated in it, know about it, all overwhelmingly feel that the same things are true. Now when a bureaucrat who doesn't even have a grade school understanding of basic science tells me that what they are saying is bullshit, I'm not going to give him the time of day. It's just a personal preference. Regardless off whether it is about homosexuality or climate change. I don't listen to lawyers about science, or chemists about biology.

In other words, you have no training at all in anything even vaguely relevant to the discussion.

Exactly and neither do you. We are both not educated in a manner that makes us effective scientists in this field. Therefore, let us defer to those who work in these fields, who overwhelmingly agree on these matters.

To do otherwise is unscientific. You should know better. Maybe, what you need is for some climatologists to come tell you how to do chemistry. Then you will get how absolutely silly you are being.

The people you are letting tell you how to think are uneducated and have a vested interest in keeping things as they are or deregulating them further. The vested interest in saying climate change is man-made is to prevent the destruction of the human race and the other species on the planet by halting the change we are causing. The one scientist I could find that actively denies climate change is largely funded by the Koch Brothers and Exxon.

There are also a ton of very real examples of how we are destroying the world around us, which we, last time I checked, need to continue to survive.

And none of this has anything to do with homosexual animals, anyway. I don't know why you brought it up other than to enforce the kind of position you are coming from with regards to life in general, and to ensure us that the comment "this is taking Gay Pride too far" was definitely coming from a position of ignorance, and not just misspoken.

[smeeprocket]

My guess is that it's a bug, in that it's taking the 'orientation' code which determines whether or not a creature will marry, and then applying it to animals which don't get married in any event.  It's probably because in DF, no sentient creature can reproduce without marrying, so that's the part of the code that gets transferred over, even though it doesn't make sense.

Most animals will engage in homosexual behavior, but it's very rare to find animals that are exclusively homosexual to the extent of avoiding an available opposite-sex partner.  Giraffe males have a lot of same-sex mountings, but that's because the mounting usually comes after fighting, and males fight a lot.  These giraffes will still mount females if given the opportunity.

Sheep seem to be an exception in that there are apparently enough homosexual rams that sheep breeders have to take them into account in real life, but even this is only 8%.

If that were the case you'd expect animals to be monogamous. I think it's more likely that only animals that are roll not interested in the opposite sex won't breed. Pure homosexuality might not be super common but it's manifestation in the game is about 5% of animals not breeding which doesn't seem particularly crazy.

The default values in the game are 5:20:75 for opposite-sexed creatures, which means any creature has a 5% chance of being uninterested in the opposite sex, 20% chance of being lovers, and 75% chance of marriage possibility.  The problem is that, for both sapients and non-sapients, the game uses the 'marriage' values for calculating whether or not a creature can impregnate or become pregnant, rather than the 'lovers' value, which would make a little more sense - the only difference is that for animals, they don't actually get married.

This means that one out of every four animals will be completely unable to breed (link).  This is way too much, even for sheep.  It's unrealistic, and it causes gameplay issues.

It's manageable for now. I'm sure it will be fixed at some point. I'm just enjoying the new gelding feature, though I wish the whole system of pasturing and such wasn't so unwieldy.

[Urist Tilaturist]

I am greatly in favour of allowing animals to breed as lovers. This means 19 out of 20 animals will breed, which fixes the problem of far too many animals uninterested in procreation, and stops the bad-natured arguments about it.

[Magistrum]

Oh, that sounds good...
Also, stop picking on slink, the poor guy just thought the proportion was ridiculous at first (And it really is, but not for that reason), but you shouldn't go out of your way to prove him wrong. Just explain stuff.

[Chimerat]

*sighs...*

People?

As an Asexual, Biromantic female in real life, I can understand that things can get complicated when discussing such things.

Still, let's stop with this topic in my thread about how to ensure you don't geld the wrong male by accident since there's no easy way to confirm who you're selecting.

Please and Thank You.

[Badger Storm]

I just had a thought.  Can you geld from cages?  You could try putting each one of your males in a different colored cage to keep them separate.  Unfortunately, this only works if you have around three or so males.

[4maskwolf]

*sighs...*

People?

As an Asexual, Biromantic female in real life, I can understand that things can get complicated when discussing such things.

Still, let's stop with this topic in my thread about how to ensure you don't geld the wrong male by accident since there's no easy way to confirm who you're selecting.

Please and Thank You.

Back on topic, I don't think it would be that hard for Toady to allow the player to geld an animal from its preferences screen, much in the same way butchering can work.

[Broseph Stalin]

Back on topic, I don't think it would be that hard for Toady to allow the player to geld an animal from its preferences screen, much in the same way butchering can work.

It's so easy he's already done it.

[Ravendarksky]

A more on topic post:

Gelder level: 5
Bunnies Gelded: 20
Work related injuries: 3 (bruised arm, bruised foot, bruised ribs)

Seems like gelding is a fairly dangerous business...

Gelder level: 6
Bunnies Gelded: 35
Work related injuries: 5 (lower body fat, bruised foot)

Gelder level: 7
Bunnies Gelded: 45
Work related injuries: 7 (Head injury!, bruised arm)

Gelder level: 8
Bunnies Gelded: 70
Work related injuries: 10 (Bruised arm muscles, lower body fat, leg muscle)

Gelder was killed by a bunny :-( I will reembark with cats (for skin, bones, non grazers)
Experiment ends