3 ms·

And now I'm picturing a dragon with bombardier-beetle style pulsed jet boosters. And while I'd typically question your assumptions of how big dragons need to b

by boothby 8mo ago

And now I'm picturing a dragon with bombardier-beetle style pulsed jet boosters. And while I'd typically question your assumptions of how big dragons need to be in order to deserve the name, I'll assert that quetzocoatlus nothropi[1] was big enough. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus

krapp 8mo ago
"Dragon" as a classification is odd, because when you look at every kind of mythological creature that gets classified as such nowadays, sometimes from cultures that wouldn't have recognized the concept, you find that they have little in common beyond some vaguely reptilian vibe and being scary. And I'm sorry but that thing is too goofy looking to be considered a dragon.
- PaulHoule 8mo ago
  Dragons are dinosaurs, that is, closer to birds then contemporary reptiles.
- coldtea 8mo ago
  That's begging the question. We don't need to look "at every kind of mythological creature that gets classified as such nowadays" from "cultures that wouldn't have recognized the concept". One could stick on those classified as such in western culture - which is where the fantasy novel about dragons and knights and spells and the rest are based on. And in there, dragons have quite specific characteristic and vibes, as evidenced from medieval iconography of St George to countless fantasy book covers and illustrations.
  - fc417fc802 8mo ago
    But if we do expand the set under consideration then I'd suggest they do in fact have specific things in common. Large flying carnivorous reptiles. That won't cover all the various edge cases but I think it describes the vast majority of the popular usage of the term. That definition would imply that sufficiently large flying dinosaurs qualify as dragons. And at least personally I think I agree with that conclusion. Dragons aren't purely fantasy, they're merely extinct (and never breathed fire IRL).

by boothby 8mo ago

krapp 8mo ago

"Dragon" as a classification is odd, because when you look at every kind of mythological creature that gets classified as such nowadays, sometimes from cultures that wouldn't have recognized the concept, you find that they have little in common beyond some vaguely reptilian vibe and being scary. And I'm sorry but that thing is too goofy looking to be considered a dragon.

PaulHoule 8mo ago
Dragons are dinosaurs, that is, closer to birds then contemporary reptiles.
coldtea 8mo ago
That's begging the question. We don't need to look "at every kind of mythological creature that gets classified as such nowadays" from "cultures that wouldn't have recognized the concept". One could stick on those classified as such in western culture - which is where the fantasy novel about dragons and knights and spells and the rest are based on. And in there, dragons have quite specific characteristic and vibes, as evidenced from medieval iconography of St George to countless fantasy book covers and illustrations.
- fc417fc802 8mo ago
  But if we do expand the set under consideration then I'd suggest they do in fact have specific things in common. Large flying carnivorous reptiles. That won't cover all the various edge cases but I think it describes the vast majority of the popular usage of the term. That definition would imply that sufficiently large flying dinosaurs qualify as dragons. And at least personally I think I agree with that conclusion. Dragons aren't purely fantasy, they're merely extinct (and never breathed fire IRL).