Lit Ignorance is Bias: The Diversity Manifesto

Discussion in 'Literature' started by CooperTFN, Sep 2, 2012.

  1. CeiranHarmony Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 10, 2004
    star 5
    Mama the Hutt would be proud..
  2. CeiranHarmony Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 10, 2004
    star 5

    Actually... there really NEVER was an Endor Holocaust since ENDOR is the planet that vanishes from time to time... if you mean the Sanctuariums Moon though we may talk :p

    hell, why is everybody confusing Endor for its moon..
  3. CeiranHarmony Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 10, 2004
    star 5
    sure pheromones add to it, but are hardly all of it I guess.

    attractiveness is just math and science actually. perfect shapes, ratio like hip to waist ratio... such exist for all bodyparts.. based on several principles. Beauty Studies the science is called that analysed this and even tried pheromones and all to influence peoples judgement of others in experiments. it works.. quite interesting to read up on their research. got links and files on that if anybody is interested ;)

    so the thing is, if Zeltrons seem universally attractive, their biology tends to go towards the perfect ratio more easily than other species. same for the universally beautiful Hapans!

    of course a lot of beauty is based on lifestyle too.. keep in shape, sports, how you eat, what you eat etc. but given a biological predisposition for certain things, it is easier or harder to get fat.. there are folks who can eat what they want and they stay thin.. others no so much. exists on earth, simple as that. these GFFA species just got natural predisposition for this kind of thing genetically installed and voila.. universal beauty... not saying they can't get fat.. but they have it harder to do so and deviate from their ideal shape.

    the most important things here in this science are ratios and symmetry. One can be thicker and still follow the same ratio if all is packed in the right places, explaining why in some historic cultures and times fat was beautiful.. so long it followed the same ratio is it does today.

    that said.. that is attractiveness, love and affection is another matter not accounted for in this science, likewise fetishes are not accounted for here. yet do some scientists believe it is only chemical reactions and folks automatically seeking one close to the perfect shape which equals the perfect balance of fat and muscle and thus a healthy breeding partner who is capable of surviving pregnancy and raising kids.
  4. CeiranHarmony Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 10, 2004
    star 5
    stop Prometheus-ing my Star Wars!
    Zeta1127 likes this.
  5. MistrX Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 20, 2006
    star 4
    I blame Ackbar, calling it the "Forest Moon of Endor". As if he isn't hard enough to understand.
  6. CeiranHarmony Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 10, 2004
    star 5
    Admiral Ackbar:
    "Everything I tell you is a TRAP!"
    Sinrebirth and Random Comments like this.
  7. CooperTFN TFN EU Staff Emeritus

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1999
    star 6
    In living memory alone, the "ratios" considered to be attractive have changed considerably. And that's just in Western culture, among humans on this planet. Beauty studies have even found that the same man will be attracted to different-sized women depending on how hungry he is at a given moment. In the GFFA, "beautiful" is not going to be the same thing to a Zabrak and a Mirialan and a Human and a Chiss. Unless, of course, they're inhaling a chemical that pushes whatever their automatic "attraction" button happens to be.
  8. Rilwen_Shadowflame Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 27, 2005
    star 6
    I'd imagine the pheromones would be read on the intellectual level by the person experiencing them as "Not my type, but..."

    That kind of thing where someone usually likes a certain look, but along comes someone who doesn't have that look but just has something about them, some indefinable but powerful attraction.
    Contessa likes this.
  9. CeiranHarmony Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 10, 2004
    star 5
    changed over living memory time how actually? the ratios are the same.. and a ratio can apply to different sizes.. link to proof please ;) cause I noted these changes in my above post and explained that they got nothing to do with the ratio :)

    as for the how hungry... that is interesting indeed. did not notice that yet though. link for further study please.

    though all that leaves the same ratio intact, which follow the golden cut and other principles. the factors that change is the number of fat/muscle, not its distribution across the entire body which the ratio regulates.

    now as for the GFFA... yeah all species got something in common.. but it is neither a common ancestor, nor pheromones that work on all species the same... which is unlikely too... the thing they all got in common is called a "reader" :p and based on readers preferences... comic book babes get standardized bra sizes... look at the poor girl from Dark Times and what happened to her while she was still alive!
  10. CooperTFN TFN EU Staff Emeritus

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1999
    star 6
    I don't feel like digging up measurements right now; I'll just leave this here (which, yes, is not itself "living memory") and resign myself to our disagreeing. :p

    I've heard the hunger thing from a couple different sources over the years, but here's something from a quick Googling.
  11. CeiranHarmony Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 10, 2004
    star 5
    believe it or not but that nice old statue fits the ratio still.. :p well kinda, but it follows the principle. Still I'd prefer someone slim, not necessarily model-slim though, that may go too far. only because you put more fat on the body does not mean the ratio gets lost asap. it will come over time.. just look at me naked :p

    and now I am hungry... =P~
  12. Goodwood Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2011
    star 4
    That's fine. I'm not suggesting that you can't draw your own conclusions based on the available canon sources. But don't pretend that your interpretation is right, and for the love of Katarn, don't try to apply SCIENCE! to a universe where even the most elementary laws of physics are ignored for sake of a good drama.
  13. Zeta1127 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 4
    I will pretend that my interpretations are right if I so choose, since LFL can't seem to do much but spat in the face of EU fans like me and Del Rey completely lost me with the post-NJO.
  14. Goodwood Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2011
    star 4
    Well, that was a rhetorical "you" anyway and, for what it's worth, I agree with you regarding Del Rey mucking up post-NJO EU (don't get me started on TOR and TCW). My beef is with those who would try to use real-world science to fuel their own suppositions and use those suppositions to try and sound authoritative regarding Star Wars canon, as if they know better than the rest of us.
    Zeta1127 likes this.
  15. Zeta1127 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 4
    I know you weren't specifically addressing me, I was just specifically responding.
  16. Adrian the Cool Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 3
    This means?
  17. CeiranHarmony Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 10, 2004
    star 5
    never seen Prometheus Movie, that was supposed to be an Alien Prequel, turned out to ruin itself with creationism and godlike ancestors seeding the stars with monters and lookalike species? well.. Star Trek did it.. now Prometheus did it to the ALIEN universe... Star Wars needs something else.. not necessarily evolution theory which is flawed enough itself, but creationism and superbeings creating lookalike species is overdone. nothing against your idea per se, but it feels not unique enough since it is common in scifi these days.
  18. Adrian the Cool Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 3
    Never seen Prometheus, yes. Never seen Alien, too, but already having the DVD set at home waiting to be watched when I'll have time again. I've thought about ordering Prometheus, too, when I bought Alien on Amazon, but well I've heard the movie is bad before.
    Last edited by Adrian the Cool, Mar 8, 2013
  19. Goodwood Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2011
    star 4
    @CeiranHarmony

    Uhh...not to further digress this thread, but evolution is hardly "flawed enough itself". It is one of the most robust theories that exist within science; we know more about how it works and have greater proofs for it even than the theory of gravity, but you don't see folks saying that they think gravity is flawed. But like everything else in science, no one is 100% certain about either.
    instantdeath likes this.
  20. CeiranHarmony Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 10, 2004
    star 5
    point is, the movie Prometheus is a great movie... its philosophy is debatable, only as part of the Alien universe and as Prequel it failed. But as a scifi movie unrelated to them, it still is enjoyable. just could have been better. the original script before they changed it is online availeable.. read that one, so much cooler than what they went for in the end.
  21. instantdeath Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 22, 2010
    star 5
    But, but... it's just a theory!!!!

    [face_devil]
    CeiranHarmony likes this.
  22. CeiranHarmony Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 10, 2004
    star 5
    well it is one of the most popular theories indeed.. but not more robust than others based on many assumptions, some found to be wrong, others to be right. Sure Darwin did a hell of a job there and kudos for that. I am not against evolution or its principles, merely against several connections and details he featured. Not the entire thing though. One may say evolution is how it works and happened, if evolution though went the path he mapped out I am not so certain in some areas. but that is for another discussion indeed ;)

    and I know and agree, in science nothing is 100% certain, nearly all ist theory and thus only closing in on the truth through generalisations and simplifications with educated guesses too. not complaining about that. ;)

    PS: What, I can't defy gravity whenever I feel like I want to fly? D'oh :p
  23. Goodwood Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2011
    star 4
    Closing statement RE: this digression:

    Someone needs to learn the differences between a hypothesis, a "scientific fact", a principle, a law, and a theory. For the purposes of this discussion, a theory is a body of facts, principles and laws based on rigorous, repeated tests on a series of hypotheses which explain all observed and observable data, and make predictive models based on data and the testing thereof. So in other words, a theory isn't just something that someone thought up on a whim.
  24. Adrian the Cool Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 3
    In the Star Wars universe Humans among other species may have been created by the Celestials according to their likeness, that means from a certain point of view, creationists are right.

    Religion: 1
    Science: 1
    Atheists: 0

    Besides, "theory" in daily language is called "hypothesis" in science, it's a difference. A hypothesis is just an assumption without any prove or hints, a theory an abstract model of facts which likely are true. Or something like this. Current science does not really know, where life came from, but a lot hints to evolution being true. Maybe life or certain species came from space/distant planets and evolving is guided by a higher entity, but species changing over time through mutation and selection is near to be a fact. How gravity works is unclear, a lose theory is about mass accelerating objects through warping space-time what appears to be gravity (=things falling down). Another hypothesis assumes existence of hypothetic particles called "gravitons" generating gravity by an unknown way.

    Life here began out there.
    CeiranHarmony likes this.
  25. CeiranHarmony Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 10, 2004
    star 5
    a theory still can be wrong though too.. even Einstein and Hawking went against their earlier theories that people believed to be gospel and fact with newer discoveries they made.

    besides, any theories, based on facts indeed, kit these facts together with assumptions and educated guesses.. it is not the Lego-stones I doubt, it is the glue between them ;)

    trust me, I know my science and what a theory is. Been a sociologist once ;)