I would be interested to hear someone explain their view of why this is not the correct answer (I understand it's rhetorical and there is no right or wrong answer). I can't think of another way to answer it.
Cats are a dime-a-dozen (<insert standard redwill reference to euthanasia happening in shelters everyday>).
This is ridiculous and means nothing to the question asked IMO. Copies of artwork are a dime a dozen as well. Original pieces of art mean nothing to me (read: personal opinion).
redwill wrote:
Moreover, what if it was it was a notorious murderer instead of a cat? Or if it was a common housefly?
I would choose the murderer. I've always been terrible at catching flies so it would probably be screwed.
I would be interested to hear someone explain their view of why this is not the correct answer (I understand it's rhetorical and there is no right or wrong answer). I can't think of another way to answer it.
Cats are a dime-a-dozen (<insert standard redwill reference to euthanasia happening in shelters everyday>).
This is ridiculous and means nothing to the question asked IMO. Copies of artwork are a dime a dozen as well. Original pieces of art mean nothing to me (read: personal opinion).
How many of you wanting to save the cat over the precious artwork are going to have a burger for lunch?
This sudden reverence for non-human life is astonishing to me.
That's not very philosophical. I guess it could be though. It might say something about they type of person you are. I'd choose the Rembrandt in that case.
i read this premise and figured the only appeal of saving the painting was because it was worth a bunch of cash. i could give two craps about its artistic value.
I would be interested to hear someone explain their view of why this is not the correct answer (I understand it's rhetorical and there is no right or wrong answer). I can't think of another way to answer it.
Cats are a dime-a-dozen (<insert standard redwill reference to euthanasia happening in shelters everyday>).
This is ridiculous and means nothing to the question asked IMO. Copies of artwork are a dime a dozen as well. Original pieces of art mean nothing to me (read: personal opinion).
How many of you wanting to save the cat over the precious artwork are going to have a burger for lunch?
This sudden reverence for non-human life is astonishing to me.
I don't eat cat. You didn't ask about a painting vs. a cow...
I would be interested to hear someone explain their view of why this is not the correct answer (I understand it's rhetorical and there is no right or wrong answer). I can't think of another way to answer it.
Cats are a dime-a-dozen (<insert standard redwill reference to euthanasia happening in shelters everyday>).
This is ridiculous and means nothing to the question asked IMO. Copies of artwork are a dime a dozen as well. Original pieces of art mean nothing to me (read: personal opinion).
How many of you wanting to save the cat over the precious artwork are going to have a burger for lunch?
This sudden reverence for non-human life is astonishing to me.
I would be interested to hear someone explain their view of why this is not the correct answer (I understand it's rhetorical and there is no right or wrong answer). I can't think of another way to answer it.
Cats are a dime-a-dozen (<insert standard redwill reference to euthanasia happening in shelters everyday>).
This is ridiculous and means nothing to the question asked IMO. Copies of artwork are a dime a dozen as well. Original pieces of art mean nothing to me (read: personal opinion).
How many of you wanting to save the cat over the precious artwork are going to have a burger for lunch?
This sudden reverence for non-human life is astonishing to me.
Is it really that surprising? I own a cat so I am more sympathetic to all cats regardless if they're mine or not. And yeah, I'm going to eat a McDonalds's hamburger after. Because the cow that died wasn't in a burning building that I could've saved it from, so I don't care about it.
I know it's not rational, but it's human nature. Out of sight, out of mind.
Last edited by MalkinIsMyHomeboy on Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
redwill, you believe in evolution correct? I know nothing about your thoughts on it so I'd like to ask if you think we developed incisors because we were eating meat out of necessity? Incisors have little value in an all veggie diet.
I would be interested to hear someone explain their view of why this is not the correct answer (I understand it's rhetorical and there is no right or wrong answer). I can't think of another way to answer it.
Cats are a dime-a-dozen (<insert standard redwill reference to euthanasia happening in shelters everyday>).
This is ridiculous and means nothing to the question asked IMO. Copies of artwork are a dime a dozen as well. Original pieces of art mean nothing to me (read: personal opinion).
How many of you wanting to save the cat over the precious artwork are going to have a burger for lunch?
This sudden reverence for non-human life is astonishing to me.
Is it really that surprising? I own a cat so I am more sympathetic to all cats regardless if they're mine or not. And yeah, I'm going to eat a McDonalds's hamburger after. Because the cow that died wasn't in a burning building that I could've saved it from, so I don't care about it.
I know it's not rational, but it's human nature. Out of sight, out of mind.
You might want to try some fast pitch instead of these lobs you're tossing at him
It's hypocritical to save a cat from a burning building, but eat a burger for lunch? What am I reading right now? lol
I believe it is, but we can certainly make it more apparently so by adding something like, you are going to lose a finger in saving the cat. The only problem with the original hypo to make redwill's original comment very fair is that there is zero sacrifice elucidated in the hypothetical. Once you add a small sacrifice and get the same answer, then you're walking right into a Peter Singer trap.
It's hypocritical to save a cat from a burning building, but eat a burger for lunch? What am I reading right now? lol
Well, IMO it kinda is given your original justification for saving the cat.
You are assuming c2i has to value all animal life the same. He, and everyone else, do not have to do that.
Someone can value a certain animal as a domesticated companion. Other animals can be valued as domesticated livestock used for food. Both are valued but both are not valued equally.
redwill, you believe in evolution correct? I know nothing about your thoughts on it so I'd like to ask if you think we developed incisors because we were eating meat out of necessity? Incisors have little value in an all veggie diet.
redwill, you believe in evolution correct? I know nothing about your thoughts on it so I'd like to ask if you think we developed incisors because we were eating meat out of necessity? Incisors have little value in an all veggie diet.
Yes.
I guess so.
OK.
I'm not pushing vegetarianism here. My point was not at all to do that, but to ask about the value of art and the value of life.
redwill, you believe in evolution correct? I know nothing about your thoughts on it so I'd like to ask if you think we developed incisors because we were eating meat out of necessity? Incisors have little value in an all veggie diet.
