hullo everyone :]

After a long time spent lurking and being an internet hermit, I've decided to join the ranks of those with real accounts. I'm Amanda, my talents include reading, writing, and being an internet, video game, and webcomic nerd. I'm a freshmen at UC Santa Cruz and I'm thinking about majoring in legal studies with a minor in language studies (or maybe the other way around, I'm still thinkin' about it). Not sure what else to put here, so I guess I'll just leave it at that for now. Nice to meet everyone and all that. Hopefully I don't forget to post things, but I guess we'll see. :3

Forums: 
MeiLin's picture

Most High

Welcome to accounthood! Smile

Kittae's picture

Postulant

Ooohh, your icon is pretty. Who is it?

GreenGlass's picture

Supplicant

Yay for being member 300!!!!!!! GO YOU!

Poisonous Giraffe's picture

Devotee

sweet, I feel like I accomplished something.

The person in my icon is Ron DeLite from the third Phoenix Wright game. my icon makes him look a lot cooler than he really is, but he still is pretty cool.

sherinik's picture

Postulant

behind your user name?

Poisonous Giraffe's picture

Devotee

There kind of is a story, although it has nothing to do with adventuring to Africa to breed a new kind of giraffe assassin. I kind of wish it did Blush

I was taking a standardized test, which was almost the same test they'd given the year before, but that year they started a new science section of the test. it was pretty normal for a test, but on one of the last questions it asked: "why are there no short necked giraffes?" and one of the answer choices was something like: "the long necked giraffes killed the short necked giraffes." It was probably the most hilarious thing I've ever seen on a standardized test. Giraffes became my favorite animal, and one day when I was contemplating a new username I remembered that question, and it all clicked into place, Poisonous Giraffe.

V's picture

Embodiment

Did you choose that as the correct answer? Darwin would seem to support it...an indirect death due to starvation, certainly, but killers nonetheless. I'm curious what the other choices were, now, and if one was "more" correct.

Gudy's picture

Embodiment

... that there was at least one choice more correct than that. The lack of short-necked giraffes required the death of not a single short-necked giraffe of anything but old age. Outbreeding != killing, except for extremely broad definitions of "kill".

Also, who says that there are no short-necked giraffes? Blum 3

V's picture

Embodiment

Are you saying that the female giraffes chose to mate only with the male giraffes due to their sexy long necks? I think somewhere there was a short-necked lady giraffe getting some hot giraffe-on-giraffe action from her vertically challenged boyfriend. No evolutionary pressure there.

As long as two or more long-neckers helped to first eat all the low-hanging foliage, then laugh at two short-neckers starving while they dined on the higher limbs, then long-necked giraffes (plural) killed the short-necked giraffes. Breeding has nothing to do with it.

Capriox's picture

Embodiment

I think Gudy meant "outbreeding" in the sense of "successfully producing more brats" versus what you read as "getting more action".

V's picture

Embodiment

While "more brats" is one eventual consequence of the difference, there's no need to generalize that far. If I can reach two branches and you can reach one, but I eat from the lower (compete with you) before eating from the higher, my actions contribute to your starvation...I have 1.5 food to your 0.5. If you die as a direct consequence of my actions, I find it pretty correct to say that I've helped kill you.

ETA: thanks for the clarification, and I realize you haven't actually taken a side here Smile On the other hand, I have this habit of playing devil's advocate...

Gudy's picture

Embodiment

If you die as a direct consequence of my actions, I find it pretty correct to say that I've helped kill you.

Agreed, more or less. (Less rather than more, since simplifying food competition down to that level seems to gloss over a whole damn lot of what's going on, but still). My point is that such drastic outcomes are completely unnecessary for the eventual extinction of shortnecked giraffes. No-one needs to starve to death.

All it takes it for the better food supply of longnecked giraffes to improve their chances of producing viable offspring while the lower food supply of shortnecked giraffes lessens their chances of producing viable offspring to the point that their birth rate falls below the level required to sustain the population size. End result: the population of longnecked giraffes grows, that of shortnecked giraffes shrinks, no one starves to death, and still the shortnecked giraffes eventually die out.

Poisonous Giraffe's picture

Devotee

there was a more correct answer, but it was rather boring and textbook definition like. there were some other not quite correct, but funny answers, but it was a couple years ago so I don't remember them.

also, from the context of the question and the other answers, everyone assumed that the long-necked giraffes had gone on a murderous, genocidal rampage against their short-necked brethren. you know those giraffes, they look innocent, but one of these days they'll rule the world.

Add new comment

Get an exclusive free ebook from the world of the Intimate History! Exclusive content, contests, new releases and more.