.. centered around things we find fun or enjoyable- our sense of play. Not a coincidence.
Most people want excitement and surprises in love- how often or how intense etc. varies- but the “traditional” models of love tend to be built around these cycles of surprise and excitement or quasi surprise and excitement. “Will they go out with me?” “Will they like this outfit?” “Will we have fun?” “Will there be a second date?” Going from dating to “steady” has its new things and excitements- lots of “firsts” and changes like possibly moving in or sleeping over or meeting the family and so forth.
Usually before those things get too “stale” people introduce engagement and marriage- also full of changes. Having children and all the new experiences and new interactions and aspects of your partner and so forth. These tend to not be coincidence- that’s generally part of romance- part of keeping excitement and surprise and fun in a relationship so it doesn’t stagnate.

I want to be clear because “playing games” romantically has a negative context and I’m not talking about “toying with” someone or their emotions- humans are very much about play. Sports and competitions and jokes and exploration and all sorts of things. We learn and develop and find fulfillment through various sorts of play. Simply having a goal and working towards it is often a sort of play for humans. Most things that aren’t “life or death” can be called a sort of play for us. So our mating rituals tend to also hold these elements of play- think it is a coincidence that dates often revolve around leisure activities? For most people of most ages a date isn’t going somewhere quiet and comparing financial statements and medical histories and life plans and genetics data to ensure you are a practical fit. We tend to go do fun things and see if the other thinks they are fun too and if we have fun with them, and then in that process we explore the practical stuff- but dates are usually…

.. common ground. Ways we think the same. It becomes less about how they look and more about how they play- are we having fun together in this little romance game?

Then we teach the illusion concepts of romance and courtship. Romance is a bit hard to define and it is a bit different for everyone as is it’s importance- but at the core romance centers around mystery and excitement. Courtship is in many ways a game. It a game that people who are possibly interested in relationships together play. Not everyone plays the game the same way or sees the “rules” the same right? Not everyone likes the same games. That’s part of the point. Is the way you play the game and this other person play and enjoy the game compatible? Do you both have fun playing together? This is where we alleviate some of that oddness from the scenario where we meet strangers- romance is how we take things away from it being all about “you looked like I want to have sex so let’s hang out…” and move it into a deeper interest. If we start to play the romance game with them- a little bit to start- and they recognize and appreciate and respond yo our play style- we are building…

Now, of course there are issues of things like gender roles and such in society- not that these things can’t or shouldn’t be changed but that not everyone wants to completely abolish or disrupt them. Some men want to be the ones to ask out a woman or to propose marriage and some women want to be the ones to do that right? In general though it is still not all that common or the “norm” in western society for women to propose marriage or for men to take the last names of women in marriage is it? So these things do factor in in various ways.

scenario 2 is where you know someone already- perhaps a friend or coworker or classmate where you have more information on who they are or how they behave etc.
in this scenario we have a little more depth and are approaching things more from an “I like who you are and want to know more” sort of angle- but now there is some existing relationship there which we may be worried about endangering.
In either scenario the possibility for rejection, potential social or career etc. consequences and such can be threats which sit on our minds.

I can tell you the difference though- if you haven’t spotted it already.
To help that kid mining batteries or the kid melting down old e waste or the kid breaking ships or kid without regular food or clean water who may even be down the street or a short drive from you- that requires YOU to give something up or to make sacrifices or to actually do something and change your ability to live your life the way you are used to. To try and stop an abortion puts all the sacrifices and burdens on the person who would consider an abortion- you just have to complain. You don’t have to take any steps or give any money or lift a finger besides maybe to type a complaint or a letter or say an unkind word or such. Miserable things that miserable people often enjoy doing anyway.
If you love babies and kids so much and human life is so important to you- go actually do something to help the babies and kids and humans in the world right now suffering. That actually takes work or sacrifice though so..

So whatever someone answers of you ask them what they think about abortion doesn’t really matter as much as wether that person has an abortion or convinces or hopes for another to get an abortion right?
It’s pretty derpy. Like- if you ask someone “do you want to be so poor you can’t afford food or a place to live..?” Most people will probably say “no” right? But then ask people how they feel about social welfare or immigration or any number of topics dealing with OTHER people facing those circumstances and they often will feel differently about SOMEONE ELSE facing those things if it is to their sensibilities no?
It’s just a dumb a$s way of thinking- “ask a fetus..” derp derp. Ask the kid that mined the battery in your devices if they’d like to do that or live in the suburbs or ever “western poverty” and what will most probably say?

… and asking dead organisms about their preferences is not really feasible nor would it likely be extremely productive no? But of course the argument that aborted fetuses might argue against abortion is stupid. Abortion is more complicated as well and the same applies as to asking dead organisms things- but think about it- derp- 99.9999% of abortions are had by…. People who grew up from babies that weren’t aborted as fetuses right? So if you could go back in time and not abort a random female fetus- there would be a chance that regardless of how that fetus answered your question about abortion that it would grow up and… have an abortion… derp. And of course we know that politicians and advocates against abortion have been caught at the same time they are speaking against abortion or trying to remove access- getting abortions or suggesting to wives or mistresses etc. that they get an abortion if they get pregnant….

Lastly- there are other ways the question still works literally- but to your point, THAT is the point of questions like this- as you formulate a hypothesis or conjecture on the question- you explore elements of your own knowledge and logic and cognition. What data or facts do you use to come to an answer? What if any experiences do you draw on and why do you believe them relevant? How do you puzzle out the question? This can help us learn to think better and also shows how we think and what we know. Looking at a question like this and saying it is stupid or the answer is simple is a bit like being asked to build a nuclear fusion reactor and saying “I totally could but it’s so easy and dumb that I won’t waste my time…” 9.9/10 times the person that says such things isn’t up to the task and is saving face or grossly overestimates their capabilities. So it is a touch ironic.

How so when “anyone with 2 brain cells” would “know” that sound propagates as a law? Well… because the broader implications underpin some pretty advanced quantum science at a fundamental level. It’s the question of the observer- which there is not only long standing evidence, but some very recent discoveries concerning the observer in physics. Current theories show several examples where the act of observing phenomenon changes the outcome. Sound isn’t currently on that list so much in any direction way- but we didn’t think light would be either or sub atomic particles. The question remains open then- anyone with 2 months of any scientific study would know we have the basis for hypothesis or speculation but little else until a theory is devised to test how to measure sound without observation.

Well said. And this is where I drop the “aCtuaLly….” So- there are levels of knowledge. If you ask a small child a question like “what color is the sky?” They might instantly respond “blue!” and someone in their cynical phase may say “it has no color you SEE color because…” and an adult will usually say “blue” and then those with more knowledge might point out color implies perception already and point out the non visible light spectrum or all sorts of broader and more specific issues of science and logic and perspective.
So if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This question is, as you point out, more philosophical, a thought exercise- BUT- it’s actually a very literal and scientifically important question.

lol. No worries @ignorance.

Lol. Hi @funkmastrrex. I don’t put a lot of effort in these days myself when it comes to such things either- but just for the record I wasn’t criticizing ignorance or undermining their argument. They asked in their comment to point out any perceived issues like spelling etc. because they are trying to improve their English- and I did make sure to mention that all I see are very small things that seem natural and normal.

They can’t or won’t just remake the same thing over and over. A story about a “cool” teen or a “dork” changes with time or it doesn’t resonate anymore. What is “cool” and how kids look and dress and act or what is “dorky” etc. changes. Our images of beauty or perceptions of different appearances changes with time. So it’s just sort of a natural thing.

While it is it’s own film it’s undeniable that the properties are linked at least in the owners of the IP and in the fact that their similarities make them inseparable to most. The remake of the film “Total Recall” in my opinion wasn’t a terrible film- but the fact it shared a name and details with an original that IMHO was far superior in every way, made it seem terrible to myself and many others. Often this is true- sequels or “reboots” etc. that could be at least good movies on their own are actually seen as worse because they are comparing themselves to a better or more loved work in their own title and narrative. So I get that angle and I’m not saying that every person who dislikes a “new” version is prejudiced or foolish- but at the end of the day it is what it is.

To your other question- I see it as both a completely new and spectate entity and not. This film, nothing about what we know suggests it shares a continuity with the original or any of the spin offs and other Disney Little Mermaid works. They have a new team and so it is a new movie based on the same story. Many stories, books, even movies and TV shows have multiple works based on the same origin. Arnold was Conan and Jason Mamoa was Conan and others have been as well as cartoons and other iterations. There have been many Dracula and Joker and The Hulk etc etc. we’ve seen new version of Buzz Lightyear and so forth. Very different versions of the characters- but for some the line is only crossed, the differences only noticed, when certain things are changed.

Of course- if the little mermaid stopped someone from killing themselves or they worship it like a holy book- perhaps the outrage of any change makes sense. For most people it’s a movie they maybe liked and probably have a bunch of childhood memories tied to. Changing the character doesn’t change those memories. A new generation of kids will know this new version and that will be their version until it changes or is forgotten. They modeled the original Ariel after an actress who was an example of the beauty standards of the time, so it would make logical sense they might do the same now.

I want to be clear- there are people who DO or would complain when they decide to cut Robin or make Robin a circus orphan or a pick pocket or whatever- and when those people cry out about the change- probably they just don’t like change to the character and that’s all that there is to it. But- when the people who are fine with one Batman being in a modern “real” setting and another being in a 1930’s hyperbolic world and all these other things- but that ONE thing sets them off, that isn’t about changes to the character- it’s about the SPECIFIC change.

Where it gets interesting is that when Iron man no longer looks like he’s wearing a rubber gimp suit and is in “cool techno armor” most people don’t mind that “violation of the original character,” or when Batman suddenly has modern tactical looking suits and equipment instead of a gray onesie etc. you can argue that “technology marched ahead” but Batman stories are (with special exception) usual set in a similar time and place. When they aren’t- that’s a pretty big change too. So you can change the way the suit looks, the entire identity and origin of his closest friends and villains, how his parents died and how he became the Batman- his entire arsenal or his “rules” or any of that… and that’s ok… until we make Bruce Wayne Black. Then- suddenly come a bunch of people crying out that a legacy is ruined.

And yes- even books. With the exception of academics and die hards, few people who even read the oldest popular stories read them in their original text- they are translated and updated. When films and such are made they tend to translate and update them as well. It’s not only easier for contemporary audiences to understand but it helps keep the “tone” in most cases. A story written in the 1950’s would use language and references of the time. If that story was intended as a tale of the modern times- that’s 70 or so years ago to us. To keep it “Everyman” and “relatable” the language and style and even perhaps certain points would need changed. So there is an artistic choice- stay as true to the original as possible- “period correct” and all- or change things.

We see this all over. The “rebooting” or “reimagining” of stories isn’t new and it isn’t some recent fad- most people just never noticed or connected the dots because the every person just didn’t really have the access or care to.
Most famous characters and iconography that has been around any length of time in a commercial space undergoes at the least stylistic changes for the times. Batman looks very different , his characterization and mannerisms and often details of his life and story are very different now than at his inception. Most heroes don’t have their “classic” appearance. Most have undergone various “updates” to make them relevant or “cool” or fit the image of that time and/or place.