Wolf or dog?

[Hakeem]

Someone here needs to look up materialism and it isn't MySpaceBarBroke.

 

[Elenai]

Someone here needs to not tell me what to do, and stop telling me what I'm thinking when I'm not. Especially when I already full well, know what materialism is.

The irony is that people keeps saying "OMG TH3 D0GZ 4 FR!CK3N m4t3ri41!s7" (paraphrase).....when he's not. He just knows who takes care of him, and that it's best to stay where he will survive.

Though mostly it was a continuation of the "irony" repitition.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Someone here needs to not tell me what to do, and stop telling me what I'm thinking when I'm not. Especially when I already full well, know what materialism is.

The irony is that people keeps saying "OMG TH3 D0GZ 4 FR!CK3N m4t3ri41!s7" (paraphrase).....when he's not. He just knows who takes care of him, and that it's best to stay where he will survive.

1. That's materialism. Using the mindset that materialism is a demeaning term doesn't change its meaning.
2. Even if it wasn't materialism, it wouldn't exactly be the most ironic of situations.

 

[Elenai]

True it's not ironic. But there is irony in that most people who so claim to be free of materialism, are usually very materialistic.

And by the way. That is not materialism. Materialism is the desire for more stuff. Not the desire to survive in a stable and healthy environment.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

True it's not ironic. But there is irony in that most people who so claim to be free of materialism, are usually very materialistic.

And by the way. That is not materialism. Materialism is the desire for more stuff. Not the desire to survive in a stable and healthy environment.

Materialism is the belief that material things are worth more than beliefs, for example, selling your opinion.

Also, what does

most people who so claim to be free of materialism, are usually very materialistic.

have to do with the price of tomatoes? We are mind and we are matter. Right now, we discuss the both with the mind.

 

[Hakeem]

True it's not ironic. But there is irony in that most people who so claim to be free of materialism, are usually very materialistic.

And by the way. That is not materialism. Materialism is the desire for more stuff. Not the desire to survive in a stable and healthy environment.

First, yeah, you need to look up the definition of materialism.

Second, just because I'm free of materialism doesn't mean I don't ever want to get a jet-ski.

 

[Elenai]

materialism:

noun
1. a desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters
2. (philosophy) the philosophical theory that matter is the only reality

wordnet.com

And when did tomatoes come into the debate?

 

[GST_Nemisis]

Anyway, the dogs are less chosen because more know the value of freedom.

wolfs are compareable to terrorists here i think, death for freedom etc...

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

materialism:

noun
1. a desire for wealth and material possessions with little interest in ethical or spiritual matters
2. (philosophy) the philosophical theory that matter is the only reality

As I said, matter over mind. You care more about your own physical well being than about the fact that your opinions are now someone else's property.

And when did tomatoes come into the debate?

It's a saying.

wolfs are compareable to terrorists here i think, death for freedom etc...

Christians are comparable to Nazis here i think, because they're not Jewish.

 

[Hakeem]

You and your life are a material. The dog is pure materialism. He cares more about his life than real freedom. On top of that, freedom is not a hazard. Freedom does not endanger your life.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I am taking into the account only what I can deduce from the story. And it doesnt matter how short the story is I can deduce alot from it.

...

The master from what I can deduce is a kind owner and thus the dog is treated well.

You must look deep into the story, and take only the evidence (given/you can glean) in this case.

No evidence that the dog is being treated kindly other than the steaks. Just because he knows he can get the wolf a steak doesn't mean he isn't afraid of what the owner is going to do to him... as far as we know the dog is kind enough that he's willing to take whatever the owner will do to him to get the wolf a steak. Perhaps the dog is eager to have the master's attention shift to something else.

wolfs are compareable to terrorists here i think, death for freedom etc...

terrorists are comparable to activist leaders (Ghandi, MLK, Malcom X, etc.) here i think, death for freedom etc...

 

[Elenai]

I never said that freedom was a hazard. But it is foolishness not only to say that the dog is absolutley not free (he only has a chain for goodness sakes) but to choose the wolf is just.....choosing death over life. PLUS the dog's opinions are not anyone elses property. NOONE can own another person's opinions.

And not only that. Do not tell me what I do or do not care about. For the record I care both about my physical health (to not care is foolish) AND I care about my opinion and my freedom to express it. (If I did'nt I would not be here debating it)

The dog is not pure materialism, with that logic the wolf then, is pure ignorance.

And whats the point of freedom if your DEAD? The wolf is alone, has no kids, no pack, he's going to die. His freedom is clearly irrelevent. ESPECIALLY since dying for his "freedom" will not give anyone else freedom.

And do not compare Christians to Nazis. I take an EXTREME offense at that.

And Teh_Ephy: Here's the evidence.
1 the steaks
2 the dog doesnt warn the wolf to run away
3 the wolf basically invites the wolf to lunch
4 the master shows no evidence that he is abusive IE: kick the dog when he barks
5 the dog does not ask the wolf to "release the chain"
6 the dog shows no signs of abuse
7 the dog says nothing about abuse
8 the dog invites the wolf to stay in the his healthy environment, If it was a cruel one the dog would have warned the wolf to run, or said HELP ME!!!!

But he doesnt so logic dictates that the master and the environment are healthy, stable, and kind.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

The dog is not pure materialism, with that logic the wolf then, is pure ignorance.

Not pure ignorance, pure recklessness. Refusing to exchange food for absolute freedom isn't ignorant, it's reckless and idealistic.

And whats the point of freedom if your DEAD? The wolf is alone, has no kids, no pack, he's going to die. His freedom is clearly irrelevent. ESPECIALLY since dying for his "freedom" will not give anyone else freedom.

You know what's funny as hell? African slaves were totally happy to die free, rather than live as slaves. Whether or not it freed somebody else...

And do not compare Christians to Nazis. I take an EXTREME offense at that.

GST_Nemisis' analogy was as effective as MSBB's was offensive. Hey, you know what most of you people have in common with Hitler: ten toes, ten fingers, one head, two eyes, two arms, two legs, male genitalia, hair, OH MY GOD! YOU'RE ALL LIKE HITLER! Being compared to Nazis isn't flattering, but being compared on terms of something so profanely common throughout the human race? MSBB was just making a point that GST_Nemisis' analogy was crap.

1 the steaks

Again, that's just one thing. Maybe the master has an excess of steaks, or is just mentally deranged like that. Maybe the master feels guilty for treating the dog so poorly in other areas of life that he gives the dog steaks to ease his conscience.

2 the dog doesnt warn the wolf to run away

Maybe the dog wants somebody else for Master to beat on? I mentioned that last post. Or maybe he knows he can't get out and is selfish and wants company.

3 the wolf basically invites the wolf to lunch

Do you mean dog invites the wolf? Same reasons as 2.

4 the master shows no evidence that he is abusive IE: kick the dog when he barks

The master hasn't reached the dog yet. He just appears with a steak and chain in hand, the wolf bolts before the master reaches them. Or maybe the wolf waits for the master to reach him first, we don't know because the story never mentions it.

5 the dog does not ask the wolf to "release the chain"

It's a chain, which is usually made of metal... like the wolf could?

6 the dog shows no signs of abuse

It's a dog eating a steak... no mention of the dog's physical condition is made, it's just eating a steak.

7 the dog says nothing about abuse

Maybe he wants some of it to shift to someone else? Maybe the dog's lonely and selfish and wants somebody there?

8 the dog invites the wolf to stay in the his healthy environment, If it was a cruel one the dog would have warned the wolf to run, or said HELP ME!!!!

Or maybe the dog knows he's stuck there, and just wants some company. Or some relief from the master's beatings or whatever.

But he doesnt so logic dictates that the master and the environment are healthy, stable, and kind.

Use your logic on this:

My Papa's Waltz, Theodore Roethke The whiskey on your breath
Could make a small boy dizzy;
But I hung on like death:
Such waltzing was not easy.

We romped until the pans
Slid from the kitchen shelf;
My mother's countenance
Could not unfrown itself.

The hand that held my wrist
Was battered on one knuckle;
At every step you missed
My right ear scraped a buckle.

You beat time on my head
With a palm caked hard by dirt,
Then waltzed me off to bed
Still clinging to your shirt.

Is that a story about a drunkard beating his child, or about a tipsy man dancing his child to sleep? I can guarantee that I can provide counter examples.

 

[Elenai]

To be reckless is to be ignorant. If your commander on a battle field was reckless and sent a squad to their deaths you would call him ignorant.

And of course you fail to realize that the wolf is not dying to give freedom to his kids or his friends. The slaves did.

You also fail to back up your counter arguments with evidence. ATLEAST I gave credible evidence to back my arguments. You are simply contradicting me, not putting up a valid counter point.

The wolf invites the dog to lunch. My mistake a simple typo. The dog invites the wolf to lunch.

My evidence is still valid and no counter argument has proved it untrue. So it remains as the authority. The dog shows no signs of an unhealthy environment. If it did he would not drag someone to take his place. His built in flight or fight response would kick in and say RUN....or fight.

And your tipsy father thing. That is clearly meant to be taken both ways. Your attempt to bolster your argument with this halphazard example that can easily be interpreted a number of ways has failed.

 

[Soviet.Kazak]

wolfs are compareable to terrorists here i think, death for freedom etc...

Not all terrorists fight for freedom. In fact, probably a majority of terrorists do not fight for freedom, but to demoralize governments through terror and acts of terror for reasons such as religious ideologies.

 

[Soviet.Kazak]

Maybe the man wants to eat the dog latter, and that's why there's no sign of abuse on the dog. The man probably prefers dog meat over cow meat, so he feeds cow meat to the dogs to make sure they're nice and plump to eat. He also doesn't abuse them because they might try to looks for a way of escape. Why else would a guy give a perfectly good steak to some mutt?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

To be reckless is to be ignorant. If your commander on a battle field was reckless and sent a squad to their deaths you would call him ignorant.

Three things. One: Actually, I would call him a retarded fuck. But that's just me. Two: Being reckless is not being ignorant. Three: The technical definition of being "ignorant" is lacking knowledge, not being too stupid to know to act on that knowledge.

And of course you fail to realize that the wolf is not dying to give freedom to his kids or his friends. The slaves did.

=Teh_Ephy;330330]You know what's funny as hell? African slaves were totally happy to die free, rather than live as slaves. Whether or not it freed somebody else...

They would die for freedom without giving it to anybody else on the off chance that they would live long enough to benefit it. It's exactly the same as beauty pageants; chances are almost nothing that it's going to be your girl that makes it, but you let her on the off chance that it is her. The wolf is gambling on a low chance, but it's still there.

You also fail to back up your counter arguments with evidence. ATLEAST I gave credible evidence to back my arguments. You are simply contradicting me, not putting up a valid counter point.

I'm providing alternate interpretations to your "evidence," which should be considered a valid counter point.

My evidence is still valid and no counter argument has proved it untrue. So it remains as the authority. The dog shows no signs of an unhealthy environment. If it did he would not drag someone to take his place. His built in flight or fight response would kick in and say RUN....or fight.

The dog shows no signs of ANY environment, it [HIGHLIGHT]is not mentioned[/code]. What is mentioned is that the dog has a steak, which says nothing about his personal life other than that he is well fed.

And your tipsy father thing. That is clearly meant to be taken both ways. Your attempt to bolster your argument with this halphazard example that can easily be interpreted a number of ways has failed.

I was actually expecting you to pick one, and then I expected myself to bash whatever position you picked to hell and back, but that obviously failed.

But of course, I've succeeded in something else with the poem. I've shown you a story with lots and lots of evidence for the immediate issue that goes either way. You are assuming (or acting like you are assuming) that because something is not mentioned, it is obviously intended to be interpreted your way, and yours alone. I'd like you to stop doing that.

Consider this sentence: I ate tasty ramen the other day.

Am I immediately happy because I'm eating something good? What happens if I started eating while it was still really hot and burnt myself? What happens if because I burnt myself, I didn't enjoy the ramen, and only ate it because it was all I had to eat? You would never know, because nothing about it is mentioned. Conversely, you would never know if it was the best thing to ever happen to me ever, because that isn't mentioned either. Stop throwing out potential situations as factual ones.

Maybe the man wants to eat the dog latter, and that's why there's no sign of abuse on the dog. The man probably prefers dog meat over cow meat, so he feeds cow meat to the dogs to make sure they're nice and plump to eat. He also doesn't abuse them because they might try to looks for a way of escape. Why else would a guy give a perfectly good steak to some mutt?

Because it's his best freaking friend maybe? Please don't throw out potential situations as factual ones.

 

[Hakeem]

The dog is not pure materialism, with that logic the wolf then, is pure ignorance.

And whats the point of freedom if your DEAD? The wolf is alone, has no kids, no pack, he's going to die. His freedom is clearly irrelevent. ESPECIALLY since dying for his "freedom" will not give anyone else freedom.

You don't know that. Maybe they are looking for him. BUT, this story does not follow normal logic. There is no reason to say the wolf will die.


This story does not follow normal logic.

 

[TheDivineBoss]

Someone has been typing a lot here Teh_Ephy
Please guys close this thread and start a other philosophic/very spammy thread. *Has A LOT AND I MEAN A LOT OF PLEASURE HERE*

 

[UchihaSasuke.gr]

It was wolf no need to talk about it..

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Please elaborate on what the wolf did when "it was".

 

[Elenai]

If the story does not follow normal logic...Then how in the name of Oinkerwinkle can we truely debate this topic?

 

[Hakeem]

By debating the metaphorical question: Safety and chains vs. Freedom.

 

[Elenai]

But it's nigh impossible to discuss anything logically without a backdrop to reality.

 

[Hakeem]

We take the metaphor out of the story and bring it into reality:
Airport security is a waste because no terrorist is going to hijack a plane,
Listening to our phone calls isn't going to work either, privacy lost for nothing.

 

[Elenai]

...You don't know if a terrorist will hijack a plane again. After all they probably wont do it because of the security measures. Who's to say, that if we lay off security measures....that they wont take the opportunity to strike again?

But it still comes to play...If normal logic is invalid...then how is it possible to discuss a topic....where there is no common concept of the logic involved?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

...You don't know if a terrorist will hijack a plane again. After all they probably wont do it because of the security measures. Who's to say, that if we lay off security measures....that they wont take the opportunity to strike again?

Any day, you might have a car crashing in your direction, or a random guy that wants to kill you. Are you prepared? Get your padded cell today!

But it still comes to play...If normal logic is invalid...then how is it possible to discuss a topic....where there is no common concept of the logic involved?

I know people can't turn invisible with energy from their mind. Therefore there is no point to understanding any other part of any science fiction story... ever. Elves don't exist. There goes fantasy.

 

[Hakeem]

...You don't know if a terrorist will hijack a plane again. After all they probably wont do it because of the security measures. Who's to say, that if we lay off security measures....that they wont take the opportunity to strike again?

What tower would they go for now? That's all they'd use a plane for anyway. (Not that it was even physically possible for those planes to take down those towers. Yeah, it's true, research it.)

But it still comes to play...If normal logic is invalid...then how is it possible to discuss a topic....where there is no common concept of the logic involved?

We don't debate the story, we use it as a metaphor:
Dogs give up freedom because they get scared.
Wolves know that giving up freedom is not acceptable.

 

[Elenai]

Thats not the point. Fantasy and fiction are different from philisophical debates. And even then the fantasy world that is portrayed has a (usually) clear vision of the kind of logic found in those worlds. Thats what partly makes some of them believable to the reader. (as in believable to the reader like tolkeins books were very believable , drawing in the reader, and entertaining them)

There must be a clear form of logic for this debate. And I think "real world logic" should be the one used.

Terrorists could strike at any thing. The seatle tower...thing, the whitehouse, the pentagon again, the sears tower, the empire state building....there are a number of targets.

And I would say that dogs do not give up their freedom...much less for being scared. Wolves could be viewed as ignorant for choosing death over survival.

The dog merely takes the protection of law (the chain/rules) to survive in a healthy stable environment.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Thats not the point. Fantasy and fiction are different from philisophical debates. And even then the fantasy world that is portrayed has a (usually) clear vision of the kind of logic found in those worlds. Thats what partly makes some of them believable to the reader. (as in believable to the reader like tolkeins books were very believable , drawing in the reader, and entertaining them)

There must be a clear form of logic for this debate. And I think "real world logic" should be the one used.

You don't "think" a type of logic is used, you notice what type of logic is being used. This story is obviously using a metaphorical stance, and because most metaphors are imperfect and only used to convey a few messages, that metaphor is obviously pointing towards the "wealth vs freedom" question. As for fantasy and sci-fi, they use a literal stance, not planning on conveying a message actually, but telling a good story.

Terrorists could strike at any thing. The seatle tower...thing, the whitehouse, the pentagon again, the sears tower, the empire state building....there are a number of targets.

And I would say that dogs do not give up their freedom...much less for being scared. Wolves could be viewed as ignorant for choosing death over survival.

The dog merely takes the protection of law (the chain/rules) to survive in a healthy stable environment.

Any day, you might have a car crashing in your direction, or a random guy that wants to kill you. Are you prepared? Get your padded cell today!

 

[Hakeem]

There must be a clear form of logic for this debate. And I think "real world logic" should be the one used.

This story has talking animals that understand the meaning of freedom, real world logic cannot be used to determine extra details about the story.

Terrorists could strike at any thing. The seatle tower...thing, the whitehouse, the pentagon again, the sears tower, the empire state building....there are a number of targets.

They wouldn't strike those. Only a fool would. And no, terrorists are not fools.

And I would say that dogs do not give up their freedom...much less for being scared. Wolves could be viewed as ignorant for choosing death over survival.

They are afraid for their safety, so they choose to lose freedoms. And once again: the wolf won't die. He did not choose death. He chose freedom. In choosing freedom he did not choose death.

The dog merely takes the protection of law (the chain/rules) to survive in a healthy stable environment.

...for fear of death.

 

[Elenai]

And so you continue to insult my sanity Spacebar...A padded cell will not save you from your destiny. But security measures and rules and laws will keep the world from spinning into chaos.

The dog is not choosing wealth over freedom. He is choosing stability. The wolf is choosing death for an illusion of freedom that he will never enjoy. He will die, because he is starving to death, he is weak, he cannot chase after prey anymore, He WILL die.

And if we are not using real world logic, and if the wolf isnt going to die because such logic doesn't apply....then aparently the dog's chain is made of alluminum foil, and the master is the dog's servant.

Even still the metaphorical logic must be coherent with realworld logic, at least as a back drop. Therefore, if the logic I am using to convey the evidence I use is not valid. Then no logic is valid. Because each person will be using what ever they percieve as the "logic" of the story.

Especially since "metaphorical knowledge" is interpretive by it's very nature.

You must use real world logic to set a common basis for the debate.

 

[Hakeem]

The dog is not choosing wealth over freedom. He is choosing stability. The wolf is choosing death for an illusion of freedom that he will never enjoy. He will die, because he is starving to death, he is weak, he cannot chase after prey anymore, He WILL die.

And if we are not using real world logic, and if the wolf isnt going to die because such logic doesn't apply....then aparently the dog's chain is made of alluminum foil, and the master is the dog's servant.

Invalid comparison. The chain is a regular chain. Clear evidence is given to support this and no evidence is given against this. There is, however, no evidence to support that the wolf will die. Once again: Invalid comparison.

Even still the metaphorical logic must be coherent with realworld logic, at least as a back drop. Therefore, if the logic I am using to convey the evidence I use is not valid. Then no logic is valid. Because each person will be using what ever they percieve as the "logic" of the story.

Especially since "metaphorical knowledge" is interpretive by it's very nature.

You must use real world logic to set a common basis for the debate.

You cannot use real world logic to deduce details about the story.
We don't need to know the details to know the metaphor. We can use real world logic in this debate, however, we cannot deduce details about the story.
So lets debate the metaphor.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

And so you continue to insult my sanity Spacebar...A padded cell will not save you from your destiny. But security measures and rules and laws will keep the world from spinning into chaos.

I am not insulting your sanity, you are taking offense to my metaphor. A padded cell is the perfect example of sacrificing some freedom ("obedience", if you will) for safety. "Destiny" has nothing to do with it.

The dog is not choosing wealth over freedom. He is choosing stability. The wolf is choosing death for an illusion of freedom that he will never enjoy. He will die, because he is starving to death, he is weak, he cannot chase after prey anymore, He WILL die.

1. Identify the "illusion" part of it.
2. Even if he only has a split second of life left, he will enjoy freedom. It is not unusual for one to die for such a cause. You may enjoy your "protective chain" and choose to stay loyal to a tyrannical country rather than rebel, but there are those who are willing to die in place of support for a tyrant.

And if we are not using real world logic, and if the wolf isnt going to die because such logic doesn't apply....then aparently the dog's chain is made of alluminum foil, and the master is the dog's servant.

You yourself implied real world logic is one of other logics to consider in a fictional work. You do the math. I'm tired of spelling it out for you.

Even still the metaphorical logic must be coherent with realworld logic, at least as a back drop. Therefore, if the logic I am using to convey the evidence I use is not valid. Then no logic is valid. Because each person will be using what ever they percieve as the "logic" of the story.

It IS coherent, to some extent. You're holding for yourself a double standard, saying that wolves are capable of fluently communicating with dogs in the story, and resisting the temptation of meat from the dog, the human, and the steak. BUT, all real world logic must apply to everything else.

Especially since "metaphorical knowledge" is interpretive by it's very nature.

Metaphorically speaking, actors and directors are like lawyers in that they are meant to make their audience think the way they want them to. Does that mean you need to have a license to be an actor? Metaphors aren't universal. They are only for conveying a few messages (a single one, usually).

You must use real world logic to set a common basis for the debate.

Like assuming zerglings have to be real if you want to debate over starcraft's lore, right? Jeeze, you have one side of the extreme here, and another side of the extreme in the other thread.

 

[Elenai]

Hakeem: The valid comparison is valid, as long as there is no common ground of logic. BUILD ONE and the comparison will change.

Spacebar: How is the master a tyrant?
A padded cell is not a chain, You are trying to overexaggerate the situation to make it negative.

The wolf will die. The evidence is: The wolf is weak, the wolf didnt take the food, the wolf is starving. Thats the evidence. And the dogs freedom is useless if he dies...which logic states he will. He is not fighting for his freedom or the freedom of others. The illusion is: He will die, his physical needs will eventually send him to lose his freedom as he becomes so very weak and powerless....that someone or something will take it from him.

Real world logic is one of the things to consider in a story. And yet again do not insult my intelligence...you havent spelled out anything for me. You've done nothing but spill out "stuff" with no evidence to back it up. I however, gave valid evidence.

I am not holding a double standard. You just refuse to accept my logical evidence because it is detrimental to your side of the debate.

Yet again. Metaphoric Logic could be easily interpreted hundreds of ways. The lawyers/Actors could be compared to liers, telling lies to make the audience view some thing a certain way. Do they need a licence to lie then?

And the starcraft lore....perhaps it is best to do it that way. What better way to delve into the story than to believe it while you read/play it.

What other thread have I gone to another extreme on?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Spacebar: How is the master a tyrant?

The dog has no defined rights. You said it yourself, the human is a master. He has the final say of everything.

A padded cell is not a chain, You are trying to overexaggerate the situation to make it negative.

Alas, the double standard! You say a hungry wolf means certain death, but when I say a padded cell is exactly what you imply, it's "overexaggerating".

The wolf will die. The evidence is: The wolf is weak, the wolf didnt take the food, the wolf is starving. Thats the evidence.

A hungry animal not taking food in times of hunger will surely die? I've died plenty times already, where's my heaven and hell?

And the dogs freedom is useless if he dies...which logic states he will. He is not fighting for his freedom or the freedom of others. The illusion is: He will die, his physical needs will eventually send him to lose his freedom as he becomes so very weak and powerless....that someone or something will take it from him.

Think not about one's death, but of his life. Even if only at the last second was he free, he was still free. He still remained strong until the very end. One who bends so easily due to fear of death obviously needs to have his virtrues in check. You, of all people, a self proclaimed strong Christian believer, should know that there are things that is worth sacrificing your life for.

Real world logic is one of the things to consider in a story. And yet again do not insult my intelligence...you havent spelled out anything for me. You've done nothing but spill out "stuff" with no evidence to back it up. I however, gave valid evidence.

*pass the baton. i'm tired of spelling it out*

I am not holding a double standard. You just refuse to accept my logical evidence because it is detrimental to your side of the debate.

*pass the baton. i'm tired of spelling it out*

Yet again. Metaphoric Logic could be easily interpreted hundreds of ways. The lawyers/Actors could be compared to liers, telling lies to make the audience view some thing a certain way. Do they need a licence to lie then?

So you still stand by the fact that metaphors are universal? Because you disproved yourself right there when you implied you did not need a license to lie, because you interpret practicing law as lying.

And the starcraft lore....perhaps it is best to do it that way. What better way to delve into the story than to believe it while you read/play it.

Even when one Roleplays, he knows what's going on isn't real. To use the term "believe" so loosely is like a children's fantasy book. You don't really believe it.

What other thread have I gone to another extreme on?

Did I say it was you? Didn't think so.

 

[Hakeem]

"A wolf was hungry in the woods, about to die of starvation."
Ok, fine. I really haven't looked back at the story, but now that I have: I admit that the wolf will most likely die.
Even so, I'd take my slim chances with freedom however reckless it may be.
Happy now?

Now lets use a less extreme metaphor:
A wolf was hungry in the woods, but clearly not going to die soon, he has a chance to still get food. He pushed on, hoping to find something to eat. As he draged himself over a hill, he saw a house. Outsdie the was a dog chained up to the house, nawing on a large stake.

The wolf ran. When he reached the dog he asked "Please, may I have some of that? I havn't eaten in days".

The dog looked at him, and then the stake. "No," he replied, "But I can get one for you." The dog barked for his master.

The wolf was happy to see the man come out with a stake in one hand, but then caught sight of the chain in the other.

"What is he going to do?" asked the wolf.

"Why, he is going to chain you up so you don't run away."

"Food is not worth my freedom" declared the wolf. He ran back into the forest and never looked back.

Now what would you choose?
Because in this story, the wolf clearly wont die.

 

[Elenai]

Spacebar: The dog has rights. He can choose when and where to pee and poop. When to eat, when to lick his.....yah, and all kinds of things.

And alas...NO double standard do I see. A padded cell is still not a chain. A chain is alot less than a cell. And my evidence of the hungry wolf still stands with logic. (See below)

The wolf is indeed hungry, and since there is no food that I see, and since he is most likley weak (as he would be seriously hunting if he wasn't) he cannot get food. Thus he will die. And I do know the meaning of sacrificing your life for the good of others...however, The wolf is not. He's just a lone wolf who will die of starvation. He is sacrificing his life...so that he can be "free" to live the way he wants to live.....Thats kind of stupid.

*pass the baton. i'm tired of spelling it out*

You have yet to spell anything out. Still just drivel with no evidence to back it up.

So you still stand by the fact that metaphors are universal? Because you disproved yourself right there when you implied you did not need a license to lie, because you interpret practicing law as lying..

Alas I have not disproven myself at all. I was interpreting you metaphor, a different way. You have yet to disprove me. Because I never said metaphors were universal. If anything I said they were all interpretive by their very nature.

Did I say it was you? Didn't think so

Sorry. I though you meant me.

Hakeem: Yes I am happy now.

And don't change the story to suit the debate. Thats pretty much cheating.

Even then the dog still has freedom. He's still just bound by the chain of law.

 

[Dr00d]

You haxed life. o.0

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Spacebar: The dog has rights. He can choose when and where to pee and poop. When to eat, when to lick his.....yah, and all kinds of things.

"Don't worry, Jews of Birkenau, you can still choose when you want to shit!"

And alas...NO double standard do I see. A padded cell is still not a chain. A chain is alot less than a cell. And my evidence of the hungry wolf still stands with logic. (See below)

A padded cell provides the "security" and the "restrictions" of a "protective chain". If you think it's an "overexaggeration", that is probably the result of accepting only metaphors in your favor.

The wolf is indeed hungry, and since there is no food that I see, and since he is most likley weak (as he would be seriously hunting if he wasn't) he cannot get food. Thus he will die. And I do know the meaning of sacrificing your life for the good of others...however, The wolf is not. He's just a lone wolf who will die of starvation. He is sacrificing his life...so that he can be "free" to live the way he wants to live.....Thats kind of stupid.

Let's talk about you as a human. Let's say you are a beggar. A rich man comes along, looks at your dirty self, and offers you to come over to his mansion.. to become his pet. Would you accept, or continue your life as a beggar?

Alas I have not disproven myself at all. I was interpreting you metaphor, a different way. You have yet to disprove me. Because I never said metaphors were universal. If anything I said they were all interpretive by their very nature.

If metaphors aren't universal, you can't consider the wolf to symbolize certain death just because of how wolves tend to travel in packs in real life.

I'd like to thank Prudential Real Estate for making this post. Fuck yeah, sponsoring!

 

[Elenai]

What else is freedom but the right to choose what you want to do and when. That includes physical release of wastes. Even slaves have an ounce of freedom.

The padded cell is like comparing a wedding cake to a muffin. Stop accusing me of double standard. Fore I havent been double standardizing.

It would depend on the situation. If I was going to die as a beggar. I would probably go and stay, until I was healthy again. It would also depend on how he treats me. I of course would not be a pet. Perhaps a servant if anything. And even then I would still have freedom.

And you fail to see that the wolf does not symbolize death. ITS GOING TO DIE. It isnt death itself. And we must consider real life logic in this debate. Because if we dont....then all logic is out and this debate is invalid.

 

[Hakeem]

We've said all we can about the original extreme story where the wolf will die, now let's use a better, more realistic, less extreme, example.
Let's change the story to fit the debate, or would you rather argue about something that is a deep-seeded part of every person, and would require a complete 180 degree personality change to convert to your side?

What else is freedom but the right to choose what you want to do and when. That includes physical release of wastes. Even slaves have an ounce of freedom.

Yeah, an ounce. That's not freedom. An ounce does nothing for you if they have the ultimate ability to decide whether or not you live.

And in the mansion example, you can't just stay as long as you want, he wants you as a pet forever. Pets don't get to run away.

 

[Elenai]

Or how about we close this thread if there is nothing more to debate about the original story.

 

[Hakeem]

Or we can continue it to a better debate.

Or do you really, really, want to start "Wolf or Dog 2.0"?

 

[Elenai]

Perhaps a better debate. Hopefully a more logical less angering debate. But in a different thread please. This one is jaded.

Perhaps a war tactics "what would you do in a war" thread.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

What else is freedom but the right to choose what you want to do and when. That includes physical release of wastes. Even slaves have an ounce of freedom.

But what kind of freedom is that? It's menial freedom. True freedom means every man has a chance of climbing the social ladder. Where every man has a chance to be king or peasant. Again, ""Don't worry, Jews of Birkenau, you can still choose when you want to shit!"

The padded cell is like comparing a wedding cake to a muffin. Stop accusing me of double standard. Fore I havent been double standardizing.

Comparisons depend on the situation. If I'm looking in the pantry and I see a wedding cake, a 9-iron, a chupacabra, and a cupcake, it's perfectly valid to compare the wedding cake to the cupcake. As I said, comparisons depend on the situation at hand.

It would depend on the situation. If I was going to die as a beggar. I would probably go and stay, until I was healthy again. It would also depend on how he treats me. I of course would not be a pet. Perhaps a servant if anything. And even then I would still have freedom.

"Stay until you were healthy again"??? What the hell happened to the protective chain? You're a pet, not a business partner.

And you fail to see that the wolf does not symbolize death. ITS GOING TO DIE. It isnt death itself. And we must consider real life logic in this debate. Because if we dont....then all logic is out and this debate is invalid.

Ok, let's consider real life logic. Wolves actually talk to dogs, and refrain from stealing steaks that are there for the taking. Humans actually take out chains in response to seeing wolves, rather than rifles because wolves are fucking deadly and rabid. Dogs can actually cue their masters to bring out stakes and chains once they see potential customers. Wolves actually run away at the sight of an unarmed man and a tame dog (to be fair, if stakes can kill vampires, they can kill wolves).

 

[Elenai]

Hoi....for goodness sakes. shut up! We already stated that this thread is done. ITS JADED, OLD NEWS, DEAD. And we both know, that I wont move from my posistion, and that everyone else is not going to move from theirs.

I am done everyone else is done. And stop turning every debate we get into a personal attempt to make me appear stupid. WE are moving on.

And for the record you did not win this debate. As it stands no one did.

 

[Dr00d]

Dr00d won

 

[Hakeem]

I think it would be awesome if the person that makes a thread can be the mod of it, don't you agree Dr00d?

 

[Elenai]

Hmmmz...mabye that would be nice. But I would be afraid that they would abuse their powers.