I think you just have empathy for someone else who can at times leap and then look.
He did clarify. But he did so in an argumentative and snarky way, making it rather clear he was annoyed at being called out at all, and that he in fact didn't have much respect for the viewpoint of the other person who was concerned about his behavior. -shrugs-
I understand perfectly what he meant when he said he was attacking Mark's arguments rather than Mark, and in a way of speaking he was. But the tone, if you will, of his comments present an attitude of derisiveness and contempt for that which he does not agree with... and if he had spoken in such a manner to me ( whether I was being idiotic at that moment or not. ) it would have injured my pride.
Whether one's logic is the correct one at any given moment doesn't mean you can't state it in a diplomatic way rather than a 'Your argument/POV is absurd.' way.
While, of course, you are free to play whatever rules you like, the approach that the animal taming rules in RoP:Magic takes is thus:
Training an animal is commanding an animal to sit, or fetch a stick, or guard a gate, or whatever
Animal Ken does help in issuing such commands. Clearly, if you can communicate what to do better, then the animal will be able to obey better --- if it wants to.
This is the critical bit, a wild animal doesn't want to obey your commands, no matter how well you communicate the command. On the other hand, a tame animal does want to obey its master.
A wild animal will attack, flee from, ignore (or possibly play with) a human --- depending on what sort of animal it is, and the precise circumstances (whether the animal is injured, surprised, hungry, has a litter, etc). Taming an animal is all about breaking whatever its natural, wild behaviour is. Taming an animal is all about making the animal love you, respect you, fear you, or whatever model of behaviour the trainer wants to use. It is about making the animal loyal to you.
Taming an animal is about making it want to understand and obey you. It only once the animal is tame that how well you can communicate specific instructions becomes relevant.
Taming an animal is about creating the emotional response of loyalty in the animal, towards its master. It is an emotional response that is wanted, it is not an intellectual response. Animal Ken is solely about "speaking" to the animal, Animal Ken is all about "intellectual" sense-type communication. It is thus not relevant to the taming part of taming and training an animal.
That's the approach the animal training rules takes. Whether that is true of taming animals in real-life is debatable. But that is also irrelevant, because in real-life animals don't have a language at all (except maybe some things like dolphins), and certainly in real-life no person can speak to animals.
Someone jumps into a thread for no other purpose than to whine about how terrible you are, no that deserves absolutely zero respect.
Coming from someone actually involved in the thread or at the very least as part of something on-topic, thats another matter entirely.
But merely entering a thread like that is something i wouldnt even dream of doing unless i was a mod on the site.
I suggest you reread. First of all, there isnt any "in a way of speaking", im not attacking Mark´s person, end of story.
And there is exactly ONE comment that is on the level of "Your argument/POV is absurd" or close to it. And thats the first one and its just a short statement of my opinion and clearly so and should thereby not be possible to mistake for any "your POV sucks" comment anyway.
And that is where the canon argument fails so badly, because its not a matter of giving commands and expecting them to be carried out.
Its taming an animal, its not marching on the exercise field.
More commonly modifying it, not breaking it.
Exactly, and how can anyone claim that increasing the degree of understanding in either direction does NOT help this?
Conditioning humans would then according to that also be no different wether a common language exists.
Sorry but that line of argument is still epic fail.
I can straight away simply state that its wrong.
I guess someone could have used a vet, animal psychologist or even any old cat-lady as assistance then...
"dont have a language" is a very questionable statement on more than one level. Not a language most humans understand anything of, certainly yes, not a language as diverse or flexible(at least not that WE know) as that of most humans oh yes, and yet there are plenty of example of "information transfer" between animals...
Then of course there is the part about properly defining language...
AND then there´s the part about how tame animals sometimes pick up ways to communicate quite well with "their" humans...
And then there´s the cases where animals have been taught some form of language, which have suggested rather clearly that its a matter of learning a new form of language, not learning intentional communication, ie some sort of language at all.
If you would try to tame a squirrel that comes to your backyard all the time, would you specifically not try any form of communication? Please, do tell exactly HOW you would try to do it without ANY form of communication at all?
