Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done

Covenant said:

> > If you recall, the discussion is based around the quite cogent theory
> > that the Alien CB *does* alter dependant on it's host (As is best seen
> > in A3, as spoken of even before Aliens release and is continued by Fox
> > by allowing such *toys* as 'bull', 'ape' etc alien creatures)).

Sandman replied:

> "as spoken of" in what media? As far as I know, that was a A3 idea.

I don't have time right now to dig through the internet/AQ
and find some "proof", but I'm pretty sure I recall someone
associated with Alien mentioning the idea that the creature
assumes traits of its hosts as a way of explaining why the
alien is so humanoid. The idea was around way before A3.

Then again, maybe I'm just being irrational! :-D

Have a great day!

ADWatts

"As long as you have some idea what's happening to you 'real'
and 'unreal' doesn't matter. You have to stand up for what you
care about; if you don't you lose control of who you are."
Stephen R. Donaldson -- "The Wounded Land"

I said:

> > Still doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you should just choose your
> > words more carefully.

Sandman replied:

> Why+ They are accurate. Your lack of insight in the reason for them does
in no
> way make them less suited.

But it's not accurate. That's the whole point.

Enlighten me, and actually answer the original question:

Why is it "irrational" for Covenant (or I) to hate what Cameron
did with the alien?

I know I clipped a lot, but I just don't see an answer in any of
it. Sounds to me like you simply don't like the way Covenant
expresses himself, which has absolutely nothing to do with
whether or not he is *irrational*.

Not that I should really care; but, like I said in my original
reply, I'm just wondering because you're the one who jumped in
with "Oh please - your irrational hatred of Cameron . . ." It's a
false statement because Covenant doesn't hate James Cameron.
Don't you feel you should acknowledge you were wrong? I
would hope that you'd want to be accurate if you want to be
taken serious.

Just in case you felt it was important to your "point", I will
answer your question of:

> Again, ones knowledge in a given subject does not automatically lead to
ones
> opinions about said subject being rational. Would you consider someone
very
> knowledgable about Hitler to be reasonable if he advocates genocide?

Once more, it's not about being rational/irrational at all. It's about
a person's morals/opinions. Just because a person is a murdering
bigot doesn't automatically make them "irrational". Someone who
advocates genocide is quite detestable in my view, but it doesn't
mean they haven't thought it out and that they feel they have valid
reasons for feeling that way. It would be my opinion that they are
an evil person without morals, but unless I knew they were also
ignorant, calling them "irrational" wouldn't necessarily be accurate.

I also don't see the sense in killing *anything* just for *fun*.
Would it be accurate for me to label a hunter as irrational, or
do I simply have a difference of opinion? I don't believe it's
a "rational" thing to do, but who am I to judge their reasons?
(Some of which may be quite rational to some people; such
as "protecting crops when deer are 'overpopulated'".)

Like many things, "reason" is in the eye of the beholder.

I'll let you have the last word, answers or not . . . ;-)

Have a great day!

ADWatts

Wondering how the hell he wound up in a philosophical
debate just by asking a simple question . . . :-)