What should qualify a person to be a true fan of Dinosaurs?

[Takama]

The following was copied and pasted from a thread that was already made, and i think what was said deserves its own topic


Everyone in the general public sees Dinosaurs as monsters. But they are not, they are real animals that lived.
I did not care if some Dinosaurs had feather's, if its a Dinosaur, i will love it. I never went through a phase in life were i saw dinosaurs as nothing but big savage monsters, and i did not prefer a scaly raptor over a Feathered (or vice versa) I just dont feel the reason as to why such a question should be asked in the first place. These are animals, not fictional creatures like Dragons and Griffons.

I think we should not have a preference in how we see them. I think a true dinosaur fan loves dinosaurs for what they really are, and not for what some pop culture media makes you believe, and if someone hates the fact that most dinosaurs (im talking about the fact that there are more avian dinosaurs known then non avian dinosaurs, both dead and alive) had feathers and cannot accept the fact that the stars of there favorite dinosaur movies are inaccurate or outdated, then i dont think they should be considered true dinosaur fans. A true Dinosaur fan loves dinosaurs for what they are, not what he/she wants them to be.
Is there anyone else who thinks the same way? if not feel free to state your opinions in this thread

[SBell]

So now we're going to start determing who can be a fan based on how they come to dinosaurs?

What is this, comic book fandom?

If someone likes dinosaurs, they like dinosaurs. I am not sure what a 'fan' woudl entail--since it's short for 'fanatic', maybe someone that thinks, talks and engages only with dinosaur topics?

Let people enjoy their lives, and stop worrying about how to judge others (or yourself) in appreciating something that, based on engaging with this forum, you share with others.

[laticauda]

Not everyone in the general public thinks of Dinosaurs as monsters.  Some do, sure, since many people are uniformed, and their parents were uniformed, and still have opinions that were popular in 1930.  I would argue, that many people in the general public are under informed or misinformed about what dinosaurs are and they realize they are animals from a long ago time.  There is also a perception that knowing about dinosaurs or having an interest in dinosaurs, are for little kids, not for teens or adults.  It is looked at as a normal phase of growing up but not cool when you are older.   

So, to your feather, scientific accuracy, or who is a "true dinosaur fan" point.  Many people have become excited about dinosaurs only after watching a so called, "movie monster" dinosaur.  Then they look up more information and become interested.  Also, there is a lot, ALOT, of speculation with dinosaurs when it comes to accuracy, including feathers.  Who had them, what type of feathers, at what stage of growth did they have them, etc, etc. There is so much more out there to be learned, but the reality is, if a person enjoyed a movie, and enjoyed the character that was portrayed in it, how does that make them any less of a dinosaur fan. 

This might be a bad example but lets try this.  I love the movie Braveheart.  I know about the historical inaccuracies of the film.  In fact, after watching the movie, I read book after book about England, Scotland around 1300.  The political climate, the battles, really interesting stuff.  Am I less of a History fan, because I still enjoy the movie?  I accept the fact it is movie.  Do I care what Mel Gibson does out in the world or in his personal life?  Does that change my enjoyment of the film?  Well, for me, it doesn't.  So why would a person who is ok and enjoys watching JP or JW, be less of a dinosaur fan.  Just because they are ok with how they are portrayed in a fictional film.  It is fiction, and meant to be fiction.  Now, how many people in the world are more interested in dinosaurs after Jurassic Park came out and then did research and found out they liked dinosaurs.  Maybe even chose a profession based on the initial interest due to a fictional film that isn't 100% accurate on the animals.  Are they not true Dinosaur fans?  Come on.

Now, all this is my own opinion, and I am not trying to spew venom at anybody, but it seems silly to decide what a true fan is.

[suspsy]

This is a pointless and divisive question.

[Takama]

Not everyone in the general public thinks of Dinosaurs as monsters.  Some do, sure, since many people are uniformed, and their parents were uniformed, and still have opinions that were popular in 1930.  I would argue, that many people in the general public are under informed or misinformed about what dinosaurs are and they realize they are animals from a long ago time.  There is also a perception that knowing about dinosaurs or having an interest in dinosaurs, are for little kids, not for teens or adults.  It is looked at as a normal phase of growing up but not cool when you are older.   

So, to your feather, scientific accuracy, or who is a "true dinosaur fan" point.  Many people have become excited about dinosaurs only after watching a so called, "movie monster" dinosaur.  Then they look up more information and become interested.  Also, there is a lot, ALOT, of speculation with dinosaurs when it comes to accuracy, including feathers.  Who had them, what type of feathers, at what stage of growth did they have them, etc, etc. There is so much more out there to be learned, but the reality is, if a person enjoyed a movie, and enjoyed the character that was portrayed in it, how does that make them any less of a dinosaur fan. 

This might be a bad example but lets try this.  I love the movie Braveheart.  I know about the historical inaccuracies of the film.  In fact, after watching the movie, I read book after book about England, Scotland around 1300.  The political climate, the battles, really interesting stuff.  Am I less of a History fan, because I still enjoy the movie?  I accept the fact it is movie.  Do I care what Mel Gibson does out in the world or in his personal life?  Does that change my enjoyment of the film?  Well, for me, it doesn't.  So why would a person who is ok and enjoys watching JP or JW, be less of a dinosaur fan.  Just because they are ok with how they are portrayed in a fictional film.  It is fiction, and meant to be fiction.  Now, how many people in the world are more interested in dinosaurs after Jurassic Park came out and then did research and found out they liked dinosaurs.  Maybe even chose a profession based on the initial interest due to a fictional film that isn't 100% accurate on the animals.  Are they not true Dinosaur fans?  Come on.

Now, all this is my own opinion, and I am not trying to spew venom at anybody, but it seems silly to decide what a true fan is.

YOu make a good point.

I never grew interested in dinosaurs via some big budget film though. My interest stems from a  computer Program i had called Microsoft Dinosaurs which taght me everything from what was and was not a dinosaur. and the basics of when each animal lived and what they looked like.   It was thanks to this program that i instantly knew that the animals in Jurassic Park were inacuratae to a degree(this was the 90s to early 2000s, so i did not criticized JP for having scaly raptors, rather i criticized them for being called Velociraptors.)

[stargatedalek]

I think what's really being asked is whether someone is a "fan of dinosaurs" or whether they're a "fan of real animals including or specific to extinct animals". I would consider myself both, but they are definitely two separate perspectives and at times even two distinct philosophies, in which cases I lean far to the latter.

This might be a bad example but lets try this.  I love the movie Braveheart.  I know about the historical inaccuracies of the film.  In fact, after watching the movie, I read book after book about England, Scotland around 1300.  The political climate, the battles, really interesting stuff.  Am I less of a History fan, because I still enjoy the movie?  I accept the fact it is movie.  Do I care what Mel Gibson does out in the world or in his personal life?  Does that change my enjoyment of the film?  Well, for me, it doesn't.  So why would a person who is ok and enjoys watching JP or JW, be less of a dinosaur fan.  Just because they are ok with how they are portrayed in a fictional film.  It is fiction, and meant to be fiction.  Now, how many people in the world are more interested in dinosaurs after Jurassic Park came out and then did research and found out they liked dinosaurs.  Maybe even chose a profession based on the initial interest due to a fictional film that isn't 100% accurate on the animals.  Are they not true Dinosaur fans?  Come on.

An interesting point. I would definitely say that it's possible for it to play out as you describe, but it isn't always the case. Someone can enjoy dinosaurs both in fiction or in truth and be able to separate fantasy from reality, but that doesn't mean everyone does. A lot of people like fictional dinosaurs but show disinterest or even distaste towards real dinosaurs, and I've had the utmost displeasure of meeting many people who insist, nigh demand, the spreading of false information because they refuse to accept the truth about their favorite movie creature.

Would I say this makes them "less of a dinosaur fan", no I would not. But I would say that this places their mindset in a definite contrast, or in extreme cases even in competition, with people who respect and curate dinosaurs as animals.

This is a pointless and divisive question.

I disagree, both as a community and as a hobby base it's important for these kinds of discussions to exist and persist (providing they remain within reason). Such discussions not only stimulate intellectual perspectives and discussions but allow us to think critically about our own role in the community.

[stoneage]

   I agree with Bell on this.  I came to love Dinosaurs from Retro Dinosaurs that are now considered inaccurate.  If you love something then you love it, there doesn't have to be any logical reason.  Unless of course you collect Geoworld figures!   

[The Atroxious]

This risks becoming a "no true Scotsman" issue. Labels are irrelevant in the grand sceme of things. It may be irksome that a group of people want to ignore the fact that dinosaurs were real animals that did real animal things, but in the end, that's their prerogative. You don't have to be like them, and you can vocally disagree with them all you wish, but saying they are "not true dinosaur fans" is a personal opinion on an already subjective issue.

When I was a young child, I was resistant to the idea of birds being of dinosaur lineage for two reasons: One was that in most of my dinosaur books, it was made abundantly clear that dinosaurs were scaly reptiles, and I felt as though I had to agree with the scientific consensus. The second was that when I thought of the word "bird" I thought of pigeons, specifically rock doves, which I have a long-standing aversion to. The idea of dinosaurs being not elegant, proud, formidable creatures, but more akin to dumpy, grimy, clumsy pigeons bothered me. The ironic thing was that I've always loved raptors, and at the time I practically worshipped hawks, but when thinking on the dinosaur-bird connection, I never considered that hawks and other raptors were just as much birds as pigeons were. As I got older and learned more about the myriad different types of birds, it became easier to accept the connection. I suspect that some of the resistance people have to seeing non-avian dinosaurs depicted with feathers has to do with the fact that a lot of people think either "pigeon" or "chicken" when think about birds, which puts some people off, not realizing that birds are a phenomenally diverse group of animals, and, for most non-avian dinosaurs at least, pigeons and chickens are very, very different in size, diet, morphology, and environment than any non-avian dinosaur.

I think what's really being asked is whether someone is a "fan of dinosaurs" or whether they're a "fan of real animals including or specific to extinct animals". I would consider myself both, but they are definitely two separate perspectives and at times even two distinct philosophies, in which cases I lean far to the latter.

I will describe myself technically as a fan of maniraptoriform theropods specifically. Perhaps I am not a "fan of dinosaurs" or even a "fan of animals" but I do feel a great measure of affinity to those majestic, feathered dinosaurs with the long arms.

An interesting point. I would definitely say that it's possible for it to play out as you describe, but it isn't always the case. Someone can enjoy dinosaurs both in fiction or in truth and be able to separate fantasy from reality, but that doesn't mean everyone does. A lot of people like fictional dinosaurs but show disinterest or even distaste towards real dinosaurs, and I've had the utmost displeasure of meeting many people who insist, nigh demand, the spreading of false information because they refuse to accept the truth about their favorite movie creature.

Would I say this makes them "less of a dinosaur fan", no I would not. But I would say that this places their mindset in a definite contrast, or in extreme cases even in competition, with people who respect and curate dinosaurs as animals.

I agree with this. It is particularly vexing to be faced with people who insist that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago, and never had feathers because it makes them "boring" or "mundane". I won't say that they shouldn't be considered to be "true dinosaur fans" so much as there's an enormous conflict of interest between us, me with my fascination with all things birdy, and them with their desire for unstoppable, almost godlike beasts of legend.

[Jose S.M.]

I feel like we can't judge if another person is or isn't a fan of anything because we can't really get inside someone's mind to really know how they feel or think,  maybe what it's possible is to differentiate if someone has a preference for the more fictional idea about dinosaurs or the scientific approach,  and the fact that someone likes one of the approaches more or even exclusively doesn't mean that we can say that person is not a fan of dinosaurs.
I really don't know of I'm expressing myself understandably (I have a bit off a problem when expressing my ideas in written words)  but in short what I mean is that I think we can really judge how people feels about certain subject because a lot of personal feels intervene in our likes and preferences

[SBell]

This risks becoming a "no true Scotsman" issue. Labels are irrelevant in the grand sceme of things.

I am always saddened when I forget that there are excellent rhetorical devices and fallacies that would nicely sum up my thoughts better...

  I agree with Bell on this.  I came to love Dinosaurs from Retro Dinosaurs that are now considered inaccurate.  If you love something then you love it, there doesn't have to be any logical reason.  Unless of course you collect Geoworld figures!   

Although even then--some fans like Geoworld anyway. Me, I can't stand most of what Schleich does, but that's just me and I can choose to not have them.

[Simon]

[stoneage]

 
Good one!

[Libraraptor]

I can´t stand topics like these.
Please close or even delete it.

[Silvanusaurus]

I don't get why people dislike chickens and pigeons, I find them to be very attractive, endearing animals, especially chickens. I think it must be because to most people they are so common and mundane that they take them for granted, but they can be just as beautiful as any exotic bird from distant lands. I could sit and watch both for hours. In fact, it's in the motions and anatomy of chickens that I'm often struck by the most obvious resemblance to the ancient theropods (of all the birds I've actually spent an extended period observing that is, which is a very limited number). Even long before I renewed my interest in palaeontology and researched and became aware of the relationship between dinosaurs and modern birds (which was only vaguely hinted at when I was a child), I found it pretty obvious from chicken's feet alone that they were of the same lineage as the dinosaurs of old.

It seems to me that if somebody couldn't accept dinosaurs for what they really were as animals, and only cared about their manifestations in movies/entertainment, then they wouldn't be a fan of dinosaurs in the first place, they would just be a fan of a particular piece of pop culture. It would be like saying you were a fan of gorillas, but only if they look just like King Kong from the 1933 movie, or a fan of the vikings only so long as they wear horned helmets. If somebody cannot seperate pop culture from reality, then they should be educated as to the difference, and if they aren't interested in the reality, then so be it, they've chosen not to be a fan, and it's their loss.
That's why I think it's so important, not to condemn and dismiss those people who dislike the reality of dinosaurs, but to encourage them to understand why they are so amazing just as they are, and infinitely more impressive than anything in any movie. As simple as it may seem, the 'authenticity' of dinosaur toys is one route by which that might be achieved, being held back only by companies like Schleich which dominate the market and hold an unfortunate sway over the little children, with their turgid commitment to making dinosaurs look abominable, or at best; mildly silly (with a couple of exceptions, of course).

Personally I am a fan of nearly all animals (with notable exceptions being Human Beings, Dogs, and winged 'Daddy Long-legs', all of which I think are just awful, as animals go (And I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to make a provocation)).   

[The Atroxious]

I don't get why people dislike chickens and pigeons, I find them to be very attractive, endearing animals, especially chickens. I think it must be because to most people they are so common and mundane that they take them for granted, but they can be just as beautiful as any exotic bird from distant lands. I could sit and watch both for hours. In fact, it's in the motions and anatomy of chickens that I'm often struck by the most obvious resemblance to the ancient theropods (of all the birds I've actually spent an extended period observing that is, which is a very limited number). Even long before I renewed my interest in palaeontology and researched and became aware of the relationship between dinosaurs and modern birds (which was only vaguely hinted at when I was a child), I found it pretty obvious from chicken's feet alone that they were of the same lineage as the dinosaurs of old.

It seems to me that if somebody couldn't accept dinosaurs for what they really were as animals, and only cared about their manifestations in movies/entertainment, then they wouldn't be a fan of dinosaurs in the first place, they would just be a fan of a particular piece of pop culture. It would be like saying you were a fan of gorillas, but only if they look just like King Kong from the 1933 movie, or a fan of the vikings only so long as they wear horned helmets. If somebody cannot seperate pop culture from reality, then they should be educated as to the difference, and if they aren't interested in the reality, then so be it, they've chosen not to be a fan, and it's their loss.
That's why I think it's so important, not to condemn and dismiss those people who dislike the reality of dinosaurs, but to encourage them to understand why they are so amazing just as they are, and infinitely more impressive than anything in any movie. As simple as it may seem, the 'authenticity' of dinosaur toys is one route by which that might be achieved, being held back only by companies like Schleich which dominate the market and hold an unfortunate sway over the little children, with their turgid commitment to making dinosaurs look abominable, or at best; mildly silly (with a couple of exceptions, of course).

Personally I am a fan of nearly all animals (with notable exceptions being Human Beings, Dogs, and winged 'Daddy Long-legs', all of which I think are just awful, as animals go (And I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to make a provocation)).

Personally, I like chickens just fine, and I find it hard to not have a bit of respect for them. They are, after all, members of one of the most successful groups of dinosaurs to have ever lived. Fowl have been around since the Cretaceous period, and are some of the most widespread birds on earth today, next to the passerines. They are hardy, highly omnivorous, and lay larger clutches of eggs than most types of birds. In fact, all the traits that make fowl such successful animals, and that have kept them relatively unchanged since the Cretaceous are precisely the reason we as humans domesticate and breed them for food. Moreover, with chickens in particular, the males have spikes of bone growing from their tarsus, which they use as weapons. That's pretty close to a real life example of an awesomebro dinosaur trait if you ask me.

Pigeons on the other hand, are a different issue for me. The ones I encounter are loud, obtrusive, messy, and demanding. They will converge in the dozens upon one spot, and if you try to walk through their numbers, they'll only split into two. They're barely scared of people at all, and are always begging for a handout. I can't even sit in the garden and read a book without pigeons swarming me and likely pooping on either me or the book. I once picked up a young, injured individual only to see that it was swarming with feather lice. I don't find them particularly attractive, either. Some of the domestic breeds are nice to look at, admittedly, but the feral pigeons behave much more like the common conception of rats than the rats themselves do.

Incidentally, I do like seagulls. The ones around here are nowhere near as aggressive as the pigeons are, and I find them to be quite pleasant and easy to live beside.

I'm not a fan of dogs either, to tell the truth. Humans I can take or leave, depending on the situation, and the daddy long legs flies (I've always called them crane flies) are definitely freaky on account that they look like giant mosquitoes that can drink half the blood in your body, though their larvae do prey upon mosquito larvae, so I like having them around all the same. I can't really think of any animal I hate on principal, so much as ones I'd just really rather not be around, the aforementioned pigeons and cockroaches being high on the list.

[Chad]

I was a fan of dinosaurs until they went electric.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

If you know Tyrannosaurus from Pteranodon your good by me.

[stargatedalek]

I personally adore all birds, especially pigeons. Despite the stereotypes pigeons (including Raphus just for extra irony) are remarkably intelligent, them and gulls get a reputation for stupidity largely due to their comparatively poor eyesight and brazen nature. This is why gulls will gather in open areas like airports and fields, since they can see birds of prey approaching (there's even a prairie species of gull).

I like most animals, but I'm still uncomfortable around most large mammals. I grew up around birds, reptiles, arthropods and fish and not around dogs or horses, so it's always at least a little bit about what one is used to. As for dogs, well I like the more "natural looking" dogs, German shepherds and huskies namely. But the small dogs that people generally tend to be more comfortable around I just can't get over how strange and foreign they seem to me.

I can´t stand topics like these.
Please close or even delete it.

I think that's a bit of an overreaction. Perhaps we should change the title to something a bit more neutral however. How does "How do you quantify a "dinosaur fan"?" sound? Or perhaps ""Dinosaur fan" vs "Animal fan""?

[Derek.McManus]

Fairly simple I think..as long as they like dinosaurs they are in the club lol!

[Silvanusaurus]

Ducks are pretty legit, too. I love a good duck at the weekend.