there are no registry of panda before the 1800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_(Chinese_zoology)#Mo_giant_panda
Why do they lie about facts that are so easy to disprove?
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
366 points (96.0% liked)
Greentext
7394 readers
243 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, it’s 4chan. It says (or at least it used to) that only a fool would take its stories as real right on the webpage
It's greentext so the pandas are fake and gay, that's why they need to be artificially inseminated.
Dammit, even the pandas are Yuri.
It's inescapable.
The prophecy has been fulfilled.
I just gave a brisk read through that article, btw your link is slightly off, and it doesn't seem to disprove the point much at all. What few historical Mo panda are referenced were called giant iron eating beasts in mythical tales, no artistic depictions, and most of the citations are improper/broken. One of them mentions Bencao Gangmu, a sort of catalogue of plants and animals with pictures, claims Mo panda being between Leopards and Elephants but a quick search did not reveal any such images unto me.
All of the actual depictions of black and white pandas presented on the page were in the 19th century and after.
Honestly, I'm convinced. Pandas are just painted or modified brown bears.
most of the citations are improper/broken
...citations... to books... not broken links lol.
[19] (tr. adapted from Harper 2013: 185, 205)
And on page 185, we find the exact text cited
What few historical Mo panda are referenced were called giant iron eating beasts in mythical tales, no artistic depictions, and most of the citations are improper/broken.
For the mythical part, you're conflating Mo panda and mythical Mo chimera, which is confusing. Giant pandas are known to and commonly observed licking rocks, soil, and metal objects to supplement minerals missing from their diet of bamboo, so that's where iron eating comes from. The given ancient decriptions of them are consistent with a panda, but for some reason you've chosen not to quote those descriptions, instead crafting your own.
Resembles a bear, with a small head, short legs, mixed black and white; able to lick and consume iron, copper, and bamboo joints; its bones are strong and solid within, having little marrow; and its pelt can repel dampness.
Sounds like a panda.
No clue what you mean by my link is "slightly off"
I always heard they were larger and ate a specific diet of plants that are now extinct, and so have adapted to only eating low nutrition bamboo and it's caused them to barely be able to reproduce.
Obviously, duh. The pandas are the ones running the simulation
Yep, guess who is piloting the „birds“…
Those are just the Flock cameras everybody's been talking about.
They actually debunked the simulation hypothesis recently
If you mean the paper saying it can't be a simulation because the universe has true randomness, which can't be created in software: we ourselves do in fact have true randomness in software, by capturing it from the environment via hardware sensors for fluctuations in temperature and such.
Do you have a source for this claim?
For what claim?
If you mean the fact that we have true randomness, just read about how secure random number generators work, like urandom. It's not some industry secret, they're in every computer and likely every smartphone out there, and have been around for twenty years at least.
That having true randomness in machines means the study is debunked?
If we're talking about the same thing, then afaik their whole claim is that we aren't in a simulation, because we have true randomness which can't be created in software. But it's not necessary to create true randomness in software to have it in said software.
Although I haven't read the full paper, and am going off what people wrote about it in comments.
If you haven't read it. Why should I trust your opinion?
Then don't trust it, what the fuck is it to me.
I love this answer, it tells me a lot of positive things about you.
It also tells me that like me you are oh so weary.
Btw, it's obvious from your questions that you haven't read the paper either, so this whole thread seems like pointless wankery.
I am also oh so weary
One of the issues of the simulation idea is that it is inherently impossible to prove or disprove. Because all the information we could have is a part of the simulation itself.
Even if there was some kind of glitch which got exposed and caused everyone to know we are in fact living in a simulation, the ones running the simulation could fix the glitch and then modify all our brains to not know it anymore, or roll back to an earlier restore point or something like that. It could even be that they have many simulations running, to study different forms of life for example. Inevitably some of the life in the simulation figures out their world isn't real, which then invalidates further data from that simulation, so it's turned off. Then by definition, if you are still alive you don't know you are in a simulation.
Whilst a cool idea to base a book or movie on, it isn't something to take seriously. It's a self-reinforcing idea with zero evidence and no way to test, prove or disprove.
Link or you're a sleeper agent
The new RAM shortages confirms the simulation theory though. Think about it, we start building more and more datacenters => the real servers running the simulation saturate their memory and whoever’s running the simulation needs to upgrade their memory => simulation computing power is artificially capped for a few “years” (a few weeks in reality for the memory upgrade to be delivered and installed)
I thought that was mice.
Bamboo-zled? But "Panda'd to" was right there!
Wait until this guy hears about koalas...
wake up honey new conspiracy just dropped
#Pandasarentreal
"I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species."
IS IT FAKE????