basically every cartoon animal is. tom? check. jerry? yeah, him too. wile e. coyote? to the extreme, if ineptly. this is the cartoon version of three stooges humor
Sure. But that’s realistic to what animals are actually like. It’s only in modern suburbia that we culturally forget that. Watch cats hunt. Or mice when there’s not enough food (they tear each other to pieces). Or really any animal in their natural habitat. “Hen pecked” isn’t just a turn of phrase.
I suspect animal on animal violence is common in old cartoons because more people spent time with animals. The idea that we should stop animals from hurting each other is a very recent notion.
>I suspect animal on animal violence is common in old cartoons because more people spent time with animals. The idea that we should stop animals from hurting each other is a very recent notion.
I don't think cartoons of the time were intended to present realistic depictions of animal behavior, so much as use them as tropes and archetypes. Rather I suspect physical and slapstick comedy was popular at the time, and that broad style of comedy was easier to portray in a visual medium.
How is Wile an “animal abusing asshole”, and “to the extreme”? It’s a primarily carnivorous animal trying to hunt another to eat. It’s not like he’s catching and torturing the Road Runner.
most people would be comfortable with the assertion that armin meiwes is a 'human-abusing asshole', even though he didn't torture brandes before killing and eating him. perhaps you are among the exceptions
Most people would be comfortable with the assertion that it is absurd to compare a fictional episodic cartoon animal comedy to real life human cannibalism in modern society. It seems you are among the exceptions.
the context of this discussion is that someone described a character in a fictional cartoon animal comedy as an 'animal abusing asshole', so judging interactions between fictional cartoon animal comedy characters using the standards applied to real-life interactions between humans is the entire premise of the discussion. i agree that it leads to absurd conclusions; that's what my comments are designed to demonstrate
it's nice that you internalized my thesis so thoroughly, but it's unfortunate that you seem to believe i was arguing against it
(unless you think the key difference is that steamboat willie wasn't episodic)
I did. I apologise for the misunderstanding but it was the “perhaps you are among the exceptions” that did it. And I bet that’s what made someone downvote you too (your comment was already grey by the time I saw it). If that part had been left out, the lingering ambiguity would have given more room for the correct interpretation.
It is probably a really bad way though, since the first 5 or whatever cigarettes are the hardest to smoke until you have overruled your natural repulsion of inhaling hot smoke.
In my n=3 experience, that didn't work on any of my friends who got caught and were forced to smoke the entire pack. It also didn't work on my siblings and I when our mother got tired of us pestering her for saltwater taffy so she made us eat an entire bag. If it made us sick, I don't remember that part and either way, it did nothing to dissuade us from further pestering for more until we aged out of having such extreme sweetooths.
