Hey! Tardigrade rights are a real issue in our society. Tardigrade equality is a subject that shouldn’t be treated lightly or be made fun of.
Spoilers THE ORVILLE S1, E12: "MAD IDOLATRY" - SEASON FINALE
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
Hey! Tardigrade rights are a real issue in our society. Tardigrade equality is a subject that shouldn’t be treated lightly or be made fun of.
So I finally caught up in watching this episode this last weekend and I have a couple of questions about it. Hopefully I can get some feedback on this. Regarding:
As I was watching this episode, as soon as the planet disappeared, I knew what was going to happen in the rest of the episode (though the "religion was just a step in our evolution" was a nice change/surprise). There were just so many similarities to "Blink of an Eye", including Kelly/The Sky Ship and Isaac/The Doctor, that it is hard to believe that they weren't purposefully based on BOAE. But what was the point of aping that Voyager episode so closely? Did MacFarlane just want to redo BOAE just to add in the religion-is-just-a-step conclusion? I just don't really understand the motivation.
Also, so we know MacFarlane is a fan of Trek, TNG specifically, but is he a fan of Voyager? Anyone know for sure? I wonder because in addition to aping BOAE with this episode, he also seemingly directly copies a scene from Voyaer's "Ashes to Ashes" where Janeway (a notoriously bad cook) burns a pot roast and has to resort to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches (there is no makeout scene though). It's like MacFarlane watched a bunch of Voyager episodes and then just copied specific elements into "Mad Idolatry".
Ultimately I can't figure out if these are all just for fun, are intended to be homages, are plagiarism, or are coincidental parallel developments.
As I was watching this episode, as soon as the planet disappeared, I knew what was going to happen in the rest of the episode (though the "religion was just a step in our evolution" was a nice change/surprise). There were just so many similarities to "Blink of an Eye", including Kelly/The Sky Ship and Isaac/The Doctor, that it is hard to believe that they weren't purposefully based on BOAE. But what was the point of aping that Voyager episode so closely? Did MacFarlane just want to redo BOAE just to add in the religion-is-just-a-step conclusion? I just don't really understand the motivation.
Also, so we know MacFarlane is a fan of Trek, TNG specifically, but is he a fan of Voyager? Anyone know for sure? I wonder because in addition to aping BOAE with this episode, he also seemingly directly copies a scene from Voyaer's "Ashes to Ashes" where Janeway (a notoriously bad cook) burns a pot roast and has to resort to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches (there is no makeout scene though). It's like MacFarlane watched a bunch of Voyager episodes and then just copied specific elements into "Mad Idolatry".
Ultimately I can't figure out if these are all just for fun, are intended to be homages, are plagiarism, or are coincidental parallel developments.
The opening credit sequence is intentionally based Voyager's, to the point they even got the guy responsible for Voyager's sequence to do the Orville credit sequence.
While the episode undoubtedly is a bit of an homage to/rip-off of BOAE, I don't recall BOAE having the character-building element of Janeway or anyone else actually feeling responsible for what's occurring on the planet. In that regard this episode may be a step up, even if during the events that led to it I was (internally) screaming at Kelly to stop being stupid.
If you're not hungry and somebody asks you if you're hungry, do you answer, "I don't know?"
Yeah, this is an episode about religion, belief, and unintended consequences, as well as circling back on the Ed/Kelly story and giving a little resolution to that. With respect to that last element, the last couple of shows constitute pretty good "season finale:" we began with the story of her infidelity and secret maneuvering on Ed's behalf, and with his fall from grace as a promising officer, and that all moves forward in "New Dimensions" and "Mad Idolatry" based on the events of the intervening episodes,
ADMIRAL HALSEY ("Old Wounds"):
My God, you've been put on report for coming into work hungover six times.
Look, the truth is, you're nobody's first choice for this job.
ADMIRAL HALSEY ("New Dimensions"):
Ed, in the eyes of the admiralty, you've proven yourself worthy of that chair. You have validated our trust in you. There is no doubt in anyone's mind anymore.
(It is kind of cute that unbeknownst to Halsey, Orville is going into a crisis with Ed and Kelly both coming into work hung over.
)
Last edited:
In grade school I was always late, so the teacher gave me tardigrades.
What about glass floors?Say "no" to glass ceilings for the Tardigrades! Glass walls, too!
Nope, you say that I'm not hungry. (Revolutionary, I know!) Being not hungry is as much of a condition as is being hungry.
That could be pretty dangerous.
Hang on - while believing something doesn't exist may be considered a belief, I propose that not believing in something, is.... NOT a belief.
i.e., you don't even think about it, consider it, care about the subject.
The wording of the statement does make a difference.
Yeah. Claims to the contrary are stupidly illogical.
Shruggles. Stating something repeatedly isn't going to negate logic for you.
Re: "A lack of a thing, CANNOT, by definition, be that very thing."
Nice red herring. I'm not saying that atheism is not atheism. I'm saying that believing something doesn't exist is, gasp, a belief. It's takes a lot of mental gymnastics to deny something that straight forward!
Atheists might not like the idea that they have beliefs, which is pretty funny actually. But, yes, you can have a belief that something doesn't exist. D'oh, that's not hard to figure out. Just because it is a belief that something doesn't exist does not negate the fact that you believe it doesn't exist.
Great quote by the way, "Atheism is not anything." If it's not anything, why so touchy?! Seems like it is something!
Re: "It is an absence of a thing."
Yep, you believe in that absence. Again, it's a belief. Atheism is an affirmation that a supreme being doesn't exist. You've stated previously that atheism doesn't require evidence, which ironically only pushes it further into the belief category!
If there were evidence, I'd grant you that it's more a statement of fact (in that case) rather than a belief.
It's believers that don't require evidence. As you say, atheists don't require evidence--which only proves the case that atheism is a belief!
If atheists truly had a lack of a belief about the matter, then when asked about the existence of god, they'd answer "I don't know"--because they had no belief in the matter.
You really have a hard time grasping the concepts of “lack” and “absence”.
Exactly.
And for the win.
I guess if you truly haven't thought about it at all that would be true. Thing is, I suspect atheists have thought about it and have concluded that there is no god. Just a guess though. Maybe they've never, ever thought about it and simply have formed no opinion about the existence of god either way. If you believe that, I've got this land . . . .
Nope. But, you have a hard time grasping the concept of a belief. Let me make this super, duper simple for you.
If someone asks you--Do you believe god exists?
If you answer:
Yes: You believe god exists. You're a theist.
No: You believe that god does not exist. You're an atheist.
I don't know: You're agnostic.
Note that answering "no" does not represent a "lack" or "absence" of a belief. You still have a belief. As indicated, you *believe* that god does not exist. It's amazing I have to spell this out for you!!
Atheists have a hard time accepting that they have beliefs just like theists!
No one in this thread is suggesting that not thinking about a topic constitutes a belief. However, if you think about a topic and conclude that something doesn't exist, *that* is a belief.
So lack of a condition is the same as a condition? There are no non-conditions? Much as I oppose negativity, that's as untrue as the existence of a god. You're just playing with semantics because you really want atheism to be the equivalent of religion. The question is not, "What are your beliefs?" The question is, "Do you believe in a god?"