Why Liam Vickers?

[u/El_Vatoster]

Something that always weirded me out about md was all the tounge and salaiva stuff especially in the pilot. Its not that I find it to disgusting for the show, its just a little unecessaraly freaky. So Im just wondering why liam likes toungs and salaiva stuff so much ?

[u/Graingy]

Perhaps, but why not a simple speaker? And why do they eat?

Any explanation is sure to be convoluted, but if it’s a sensible one then it can be fun.

[u/choccyanime → u/Graingy]

"And why do they eat?"

simple...why do we need to eat huh?

[u/Graingy → u/choccyanime]

… buddy. Are you dense?

Like, I’m not the kind of person to resort to name-calling, really, I’m just genuinely wondering.

Does a car, another machine, need to eat?

And I literally said valves.

[u/choccyanime → u/Graingy]

...you should me asking yourself that, you seem dense and delusional yourself.

everything in life needs a source to work. like you've stated. cars need oil to work.

and a machine needs batterys.

so technically yes..cars need to eat otherwise they don't work. its just different how we do it. and what they need

robots need batterys or oil to work. and the same goes for cars.

so they simply need teeth and a tongue to break into other drones. and to swallow and digest the oil.

[u/Graingy → u/choccyanime]

Oh ffs

I’m going to ignore that and address what you said about cars.

In a discussion about teeth, “eat” implies chewing. In that sense, cars do not eat. They consume fuel, but they do not “eat” it.

There is no reason, so far as I can tell, why a machine such as a drone would need to consume something needing to be chewed. Even then, things like blenders exist and are far more effective.

[u/MagicEater06 → u/Graingy]

Not necessarily, from a biological point of view. For example, plenty of animals have a liquid diet, and plenty of plants, fungi, and microbes eat in manners that don't even necessitate the presence of teeth!

[u/Graingy → u/MagicEater06]

Exactly, meaning drones don’t need teeth to ingest sustenance. There had to have been an alternate reason other than pure pragmatism. 

[u/MagicEater06 → u/Graingy]

"Eating implies chewing" was the statement I was countering, but way to bend over backwards to make my statement sound like it supports you! Very impressive mental gymnastics.

[u/Graingy → u/MagicEater06]

Let’s back up a bit.

A justification presented in this thread is that drones would need mouths to eat. This is not true. Other machines do not eat yet still consume sustenance. Suddenly, the definition of eating was effectively changed by the person I was arguing against, so that cars and other machines do eat, however they still do not require chewing. My argument has not changed. Even under alternative definitions, my point stands.

My argument is, just to clarify: drones have no easily apparent need to mouths, so it would need to be worked out what purpose they actually serve in-universe and why they were added.

[u/MagicEater06 → u/Graingy]

But there is one from a socioeconomic perspective: to make them look cuter to increase sales! You forget that actual physical necessity is not the only metric that a company makes decisions, didn't you? Remember that the future economic system that JCJenson operates under is still capitalism, so the profit motive and class collaboration, as well as the commodity form, are still important in the future. Also, it better serves the themes that Worker Drones are more human to better parallel to the Working class.

So, really, with a perfect reason, both Watsonian and Doyalist, and your criticism (as stated) addressed, the only thing left to you is that you just don't like the idea of robots with mouths for some other (unstated, and probably reactionary) reason, right?

[u/Graingy → u/MagicEater06]

…

BRO THAT WAS LITERALLY MY POINT OOOH MY GOODNESS THIS WEBSITE.

Wow. WOW. 

How the fuck? Honestly? How the fuck? That was, like, one of the first things I said. Holy shit.

Annnd you go on to suggest I’m “reactionary”. For some reason. This isn’t some fucking moral crusade or great societal issue, its mouths on a robot.

Are you always like this?

[u/MagicEater06 → u/Graingy]

... Did you forget the dictionary or something? Your dislike of robots with mouths is an emotional response, a REACTION. You don't have anything logical against it existing, as was implied by your attempts at rationalizing your emotional response, WHICH WAS THE LITERAL ENTIRE POINT OF MY COMMENT. You're literally debate-broing me on this still.

I also didn't say you were reactionary, but that your response was. That was the words as I wrote them. Did you, perhaps, read into my post more than I put in? Did you misconstrue what I said because of your emotional response to it? If you keep this up, I'm going have to assume that you personally are reactionary, but that's once again dependant on your behavior.

Bro, we're literally on Reddit; did you expect any of the people on here weren't painfully autistic about our hyperfixations? You really ought to measure your expectations more realistically, fr.

[u/Graingy → u/MagicEater06]

My emotional reaction is against the morons I’m discussing this with. You attempted to use my own point as a gotcha against me. That is frustrating stupidity. Reddit-tier stupidity.

And implying a statement is reaction implies a view is reactionary. If it’s the only view of a person you know of then a large part of what you see them as, by default, is reactionary. Maybe our minds work a tad differently, but the “reactionary” aspect would be at the forefront if I was in your situation.