Alright, so assuming this FAQ is correct then sub-species isn’t the correct way to describe them. In that case then they would be closer to dogs: a single species with a number of different “breeds”, with a wide amount of variance in physical characteristics.
Surprise, this doesn’t prove your point! If Outlaws are a
single species with multiple breeds then they are still not a precedent for the Khanzumers, who are described as
separate species who share enough characteristics to be classified into a single group.
Those characteristics are only described by Lorne in terms of shared lifestyle: they’re all fat, eat TV dinners, watch TV, read the news. Shared lifestyle does not in any biological way inform speciation.
So when Lorne refers to them as “becom[ing] a single species”,
he is using a metaphor. Which is to say they are a
metaphorical species, not a
literal biological species.
This is all in service of the blindingly obvious:
Khanzumers are a satire of consumers, who are a grouping of people defined by their role in the economy and their lifestyle, not by their species.
:
|
This is speculation. Moreover, Lanning doesn't use the word "class".
|
You’re right – he uses a metaphor to imply it. Is the French language really so literal that you don’t understand what a metaphor is?
:
|
I disagree. Lanning ought to be taken seriously:
|
This from the guy who relentlessly criticizes and nitpicks every single thing Lorne says.
:
|
Khanzumers can interbreed with Khanzumers of a different species. Don't laugh because there's a precedent for this: the Outlaws.
|
No, I’m gonna laugh. You literally argued earlier in the same post that Outlaws were a single species, and now you’re arguing Khanzumers of different species can interbreed because Outlaws are a precedent for it.
