Keskustelujen arkisto

Why? "Duck people" are NOT Ducks, just as Goofy and Pluto are not kin. Donald does NOT have wings and cannot fly. Look at the "Duck people's" skeletons in the comics(Barks' and others). They look a lot more like those of primates. than those of birds. "He eats meat. Why wouldn't he also eat fowl?
In that story, when Donald assumes that Fethry is hunting HIM, Fethry answers, "No! I'm going after REAL Ducks!"-This means that Donald's last name is the only thing he shares with true "ducks", other than the general shape of the "duckbill" on his face, and his webbed feet, and thefact that he has a sort of feathers over his "skin". True, -it's a bit confusing, and a bit difficult for Disney personnel to rationalise. But Warner Brothers' "Daffy Duck" is even more difficult, as he CAN fly (his arms and hands acting as wings, and sometimes even morph into actual wings (when he flies), and he wears no clothes (and sometimes lives outside, in a "duck pond, or in a tree). Bizarre, eh?

Let's face it, -the cartoon and comic book "universes" were molded one piece at a time, for use in a single cartoon or comic book story, with no logical plan or plan in mind. Thus, they have many holes and contradictions, causing logic problems, with no possible logical solutions.

Quote from user: Robb_KThis means that Donald's last name is the only thing he shares with true "ducks", other than the general shape of the "duckbill" on his face, and his webbed feet, and thefact that he has a sort of feathers over his "skin"
Plus he goes "Wak" sometimes and I can think of adleast three stories (plus one duck tales episodes) that made a point of showing they were born from eggs...

Acutually even by the logi "Duck = humans" it would be ok for Daffy to have no clothes since he is... well... "Daffy" ;)

Quote from user: Baar Baar JinxSylvester is constantly trying to eat Tweety, and none of this is considered attempted murder
Actually... http://www.220.ro/desene-animate/Tweety-And-Sylvester-The-Last-Hungry-Cat/LRjSZO38fE/

I always asume (In Disney comics univers) that "Ducks" are a difrent species but relaret to actuall ducks... like they the more evolve version.

There was one italian one page gag where Donald & Daisy are in a Zoo. Daisy is annoyed with Donald buying something to eat every five seconds not carring about the animals around him... any way the punch-line is that Daisy puts a sign on Donald "Dont feed the ducks" and turns to a bunch of ducks in a cage and say "What do you think abut this pals?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEeZtjQYJBM - plus watch this at 02:19 ;)

To me the folks of Duckburg are duck-alike, dog-alike, pig-alike etc. (Anatoid, Kynoid, Porcoid ...) humans. This theriomorphic differentiation of mankind has no complement in our world. And it is noteworthy to see that the different "animal-humans" then again each show the "racial"-geographic differentiation we know from mankind in our world. For example there are Caucasian duck-alikes, Black duck-alikes East Asian duck-alikes, Caucasian dog-alikes, Black dog-alikes, East Asian dog-alikes, and so on and so on.
But in the world of the ducks there are also humans without any animal-like features. We see many of them in stories like "Big-Top Bedlam", "Voodoo Hoodoo", "Dangerous Disguise". These "Humanoid humans" seem to be just a minority in the world of the Ducks and show a more or less clear social and geographical concentration as we sometimes (mostly) see not much of them while they seem to be very much in certain areas (Riviera) and milieus (Duckburg's circus milieu). But this disparate frequency and concentration applies for all "animal forms" in the Ducks' world. While the Kynoids seem to predominate in Duckburg directly we often see the ducks traveling to other places where the overwhelming majority of the population is made up by e.g. bird-alikes.
While the different "animal forms" of mankind do not really seem to be an object of frequent and intensive reflexion in the society of Duckburg people are obviously at least able to see this differentiation as such. This expresses itself e.g. when (Kynoid) people speak of the Ducks of "ducks". But also the surnames of some people reflect the perception of human "animal-alikeness". It need not surprise by the way that in the Kynoid world of Duckburg we see people with the names Duck, Goose, Gander, Pork etc. but none of the many dog-alikes seems to have the name Dog. In many European countries the names of the miller and the smith are much more common as surnames than the name of the farmers or peasants irrespective of the fact that much more people were peasants than millers and smiths in the past. But if a village had one miller and one smith, "Miller" and "Smith" could perfectly turn into surnames while for the many peasants other names than the simple profession had to become surnames. Similar in Duckburg with the duck-alikes, goose-alikes, pork-alikes being rather few and the dog-alikes making up the mass of the population.
Unfortunately we have no real knowledge how the phylogenesis in the world of the ducks actually took place. The question is if what we see in Duckburg are from the standpoint of evolutionary origin now after all theriomorphic humans or anthropomorphic animals. Have the duck-alikes evolved from ducks to humans (or have the duck-alikes, dog-alikes etc. at least common evolutionary roots with ducks, dogs etc.)? Or did rather one mankind split apart in the variegated richness of those many different animal-alike humans we see in the world of the Ducks? While I want to call the folks of Duckburg animal-alike humans rather than human-alike animals, I do tend to assume common evolutionary roots of those animal-alikes with the respective animals. But maybe none of the two oppositional theories has the truth exclusively on its side, and that what we see in Duckburg is the result of certain human-animal hybridisation processes which took place at some point in evolution and which would need to be closer investigated or theorised ...

Quote from user: CoolwaterTo me the folks of Duckburg are duck-alike, dog-alike, pig-alike etc. (Anatoid, Kynoid, Porcoid ...) humans. This theriomorphic differentiation of mankind has no complement in our world. And it is noteworthy to see that the different "animal-humans" then again each show the "racial"-geographic differentiation we know from mankind in our world. For example there are Caucasian duck-alikes, Black duck-alikes East Asian duck-alikes, Caucasian dog-alikes, Black dog-alikes, East Asian dog-alikes, and so on and so on.

But in the world of the ducks there are also humans without any animal-like features. We see many of them in stories like "Big-Top Bedlam", "Voodoo Hoodoo", "Dangerous Disguise". These "Humanoid humans" seem to be just a minority in the world of the Ducks and show a more or less clear social and geographical concentration as we sometimes (mostly) see not much of them while they seem to be very much in certain areas (Riviera) and milieus (Duckburg's circus milieu). But this disparate frequency and concentration applies for all "animal forms" in the Ducks' world. While the Kynoids seem to predominate in Duckburg directly we often see the ducks traveling to other places where the overwhelming majority of the population is made up by e.g. bird-alikes.

While the different "animal forms" of mankind do not really seem to be an object of frequent and intensive reflexion in the society of Duckburg people are obviously at least able to see this differentiation as such. This expresses itself e.g. when (Kynoid) people speak of the Ducks of "ducks". But also the surnames of some people reflect the perception of human "animal-alikeness". It need not surprise by the way that in the Kynoid world of Duckburg we see people with the names Duck, Goose, Gander, Pork etc. but none of the many dog-alikes seems to have the name Dog. In many European countries the names of the miller and the smith are much more common as surnames than the name of the farmers or peasants irrespective of the fact that much more people were peasants than millers and smiths in the past. But if a village had one miller and one smith, "Miller" and "Smith" could perfectly turn into surnames while for the many peasants other names than the simple profession had to become surnames. Similar in Duckburg with the duck-alikes, goose-alikes, pork-alikes being rather few and the dog-alikes making up the mass of the population.

Unfortunately we have no real knowledge how the phylogenesis in the world of the ducks actually took place. The question is if what we see in Duckburg are from the standpoint of evolutionary origin now after all theriomorphic humans or anthropomorphic animals. Have the duck-alikes evolved from ducks to humans (or have the duck-alikes, dog-alikes etc. at least common evolutionary roots with ducks, dogs etc.)? Or did rather one mankind split apart in the variegated richness of those many different animal-alike humans we see in the world of the Ducks? While I want to call the folks of Duckburg animal-alike humans rather than human-alike animals, I do tend to assume common evolutionary roots of those animal-alikes with the respective animals. But maybe none of the two oppositional theories has the truth exclusively on its side, and that what we see in Duckburg is the result of certain human-animal hybridisation processes which took place at some point in evolution and which would need to be closer investigated or theorised ...
It's likely that humans couldn't even breed successfully with our closest relative, Chimpanzees. Certainly, we couldn't interbreed with lemurs. if so, how could we interbreed with non-primate mammals? If we couldn't do the latter 9and surely, that MUST be true, how could we interbreed with birds???

It is more likely, (though not very likely) that these species have "evolved" from their "lookalike" "animal" species. But if they are completely different species in completely different phyla, all of whom have evolved into intelligent beings, capable of speech, why do they "date" out of species (indeed, out of phylum)? They can't possibly produce offspring. i guess prurient curiosity and fetishism could be the answer.

But, the much more logical answer is this is all a bunch of ill-thought-out fantasy that doesn't have an integral internal logical basis, and so, is "utter hogwash", and not worthy of so much analysis. AS stated above, there is no original premise that the creators have stuck to. And, therefore, there are too many discrepancies, contradictions and holes to allow any kind of coherent logical theory to apply.

I'll bet Fethry is the one who shot Bambis mom... :(

Quote from user: Robb_KBut if they are completely different species in completely different phyla, all of whom have evolved into intelligent beings, capable of speech, why do they "date" out of species (indeed, out of phylum)? They can't possibly produce offspring. i guess prurient curiosity and fetishism could be the answer.
Why do we assume they can't interbreed? Barks drew duck-like duckpeople (Scrooge, Donald, etc.) and duckpeople with more human bodies (Junior Woodchucks scoutmaster, Jolly Ollie Eiderduck). He drew birdpeople with human ears and feet like the dogpeople have. Some ducks have human hair (Magica, Glomgold) and others don't (the nephews, Daisy). Interbreeding explains all these apparent contradictions perfectly!

Interbreeding would only be impossible if we assume these "animalpeople" have different chromosomes, as they would if they were descended from the respective species in our universe. But, since they can't possibly exist in our universe, why do they have to follow the same genetic rules as our universe?

Quote from user: Robb_KIn that story, when Donald assumes that Fethry is hunting HIM, Fethry answers, "No! I'm going after REAL Ducks!"
I've read this story, but don't have it on hand. Doesn't Donald take offense at Fethry's insinuation that he's "not a real duck"?