Thread: Would you run over a human to dodge a cat?

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

i was not contradicting myself by answering the topics question, i was merely showing that i picked to run over a can to save a human because i was demonstrating that the majority of people would do it to save a human life. Read carefully before judging

I didn't quote you to criticise you. I violently agree with you that this question isn't very useful. I was trying to criticise the thread author, specifically his reply (post #7) to me (post #4). Ironic that you didn't read my post carefully enough to grok it - no offence, I know I'm often far too obscure for my own good and I try to avoid it now, sorry.

I wanted to say that UM had gone on to even greater heights of uselessness by quoting me, and then repeats the argument I objected to in greater detail, without actually engaging with what I said. After I'd given *his* questionable question a relatively direct answer. I could have tried to wheedle out of mentioning kitty killing and said 'You've set up a scenario with one "right" answer. Fine', but instead I agreed to openly discuss kitty killing in this hypothetical situation and commit myself to feline slaughter in favour of murder.

I was trying to point out that UM's dilemma - kill the human OR admit cats are inferior - wasn't solid because the word "inferior" is not necessarily appropriate. I'm glad to see someone else come up with the more concrete justification that "inferior" implies an absolute objective value, but the choice to kill the cat may be based on subjective value (survival of *my* species).

Look at #7 and you'll see UM quotes me trying to explain why I might find the word "inferior" extremely distasteful. Then he says that I should accept the statement that a cat's life is generally inferior to a human's, using the word "inferior" several times as he reiterates his argument. Neither taking the effort to find a less questionable word nor directly answering my objection to it.

Here's an analogy of what UM did taken to the extreme. This is even worse than UM's false dilemma so I apologise for it in advance:
I might be black. I might let people know this e.g. in my profile or posts. I would be surprised if someone called me a nigger. If, after explaining why I found the word offensive, they said "Well, you're black aren't you?. Nigger just means black", and went on to use the word nigger two more times, it would be obvious he was ignoring what I'd said.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I think I was the one who said they were inferior, if not, I was at least thinking it... because let's face it... in practical terms, they are. I mean, c'mon now. It only takes a minute to make a quick mental list of all the things a cat can do that a human can't and vice versa and see who wins, and there you go. Case closed...ya treehugging hippies.

Touch their nose to their bottom? Balance atop fences? Sleep their way through adult life and rely on someone else to feed them?

And of course there's their terminal velocity, which isn't. Terminal, that is. They're about borderline; they don't land very well because their back legs spay and theres a real danger of breaking the chin. But a cat can fall from an arbitrary height and survive with only broken bones; skydivers don't have that luxury if the parachute fails.

Maybe they wouldn't do so badly.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

In terms of silly things not to do, I think it's topped by quoting someone then completely ignoring what they said. Like quoting someone who expresses extreme suspicion of the particular word inferior applied to the value of life, then demanding that they agree with the statement that a cats life is inferior to a humans.

Apparently you ignored what I wrote in response, or else you just couldn't understand it. You said this...

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

You've set up a scenario such that the "right" answer is "kill the cat", fine.

It's possible to accept the right answer *and think that calling a cat "inferior" is the stupidest thing you've ever heard*. Because you can be extremely suspicious of using the word "inferior" to compare the values of lives.

"inferior" is a fine word for disparaging poor quality goods. "inferior" car, "inferior" operating system, "inferior" apples. But if I say that your ability to debate is inferior to dodobird's? Or your life? Even if I have good reason?

There may be context here that outweighs the connotations of the word "inferior", but you haven't provided it here (I'm too lazy to wrestle with BB search this time of nite).

And I gave a very on-point response by saying this...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, so you say that killing the cat is the right answer? Why? Is it because you value a person's life over a cat's life? If so, then you see the value of a cat's life as inferior to a human's life.

For you personally, I will ask you this... Do you see mosquitoes as inferior to humans? To my personal value system, they are. I think morality is not an objective science. But there are objective facts regarding what people's values are.

The scenario I illustrated shows the understandability of having a value system that regards cats as inferior to humans in terms of their general value. In my value system, people generally have more value than cats, and that is understandable.

First, I pointed out your misconception that I allowed only one right answer. I simply asked a question and provided TWO possible answers. Then I asked you how I set up only one right answer, and you didn't answer it until many posts later when you said that the majority would hit the cat. How in the Hell does that answer my question? I also explained to you that I think morality is subjective, not "objective" as you mischaracterized me as suggesting, and I told you that cats are inferior on my value scale. In the scenario I described, everything comes down to whether a person values a cat more than a human or not (At least that was the idea.). In other words, it answers where cats stand on people's value scales. The point of this thread was to show that seeing cats as inferior is understandable.

Did you just not see my response or something?

So... (again) Do you see mosquitoes as inferior to humans? If not, why not? If so, then how about cats?

Originally Posted by dodobird

Hey Universal, no I don't think it was you. It was in that thread about the cat who was given LSD. I got into an argument there which brought out some negative emotions from me and from the people I argued with, so I will not go into another argument about it - it's not good for me.

But I will answer your question: I will run over the cat, but not because I think the cat is inferior, but because:

A) Like you said, the life of so many people will be ruined if I run over the human. More than the cat, who probably only have a few relatives and friends, that will forget about her pretty quickly. Cats have shorter memory so they forget, and also they are smarter so they don't get so attached to others as humans do.

Thanks for answering. I should have removed the grieving variable also. I was trying to get this to all come down completely to a person's value scale. I definitely value humans (innocent at least) worlds over cats. You see some understandability in that, I hope. I thought you were probably talking about me in that other thread because in the cat LSD thread I did make the point that cats are inferior to humans (which is a subjective matter, as I have explained). Humans mean a lot more to me than cats could ever hope to.

Ok, I respect your opinion Dodo, of course, however I'm going to voice it as I see it.

You can put it any way you like, Ok, if you don't own your cats legally (I hope you do) then you are responsible for them. Yeah, you can say you take care of them and they you, but to what extent? They can't think about your well being like you can them. Yeah, they will use their few instincts to take care of one in the "clan" and nestle next to you, but this is not concious thought. You THINK about taking care of your cats. No matter how you want to put it, you know you are on a much higher level of intelligence than the animals you keep in your house "taking care of you" Concious thought is what makes us human. Sure, you can say "But that doesn't make us superior, or cats inferior" but, in our society, unfortunately it does, again, however politely you'd like to put it. You have intellect and intelligence, the cat has instincts, and yes, basic emotions, not the FULL SPECTRUM OF EMOTIONS as you stated. What you say is caring and kind about a cat, and interpret it that way is instinct, welcoming another cat into the mix in your home.

You say "A few more neurons", that is a gross oversimplification. We have "a few more neurons" than a chimpansee, or some primates, can you see the difference between them and a cat?

I know people love their cats, as I love my dog, however, her level of "thought" is on a very basic level, their own behavior shows this, by their repetition , and science has proven this. Now if you begin to argue that science couldn't possibly begin to know what a cat "thinks", then why accept any science? do you accept the convenient ones that bring you comfort in your life? As I say, denial.

What you put as problem solving is again learned conditioning, your cats learned that they could open the door, just as my dog learned to sit, so now they push on it, ok, this, again is instinct. Your cats learned to do what gets them what they want. Kind of like (if my memory serves me right) the cats hovering around the tables on Ben Yehuda Street, (and some places here for that matter), they know, that is where they get the good stuff, it is NOT concious thought. This is completely different from concious thought, it is almost a reflex...So I know you don't like the word inferior, but pick any one you like, they are not equal, you and I know it ourselves.

Even your response that you would run the cat down but conveniently not because it is inferior shows right there, that it is! You know there would be more emotional pain for the humans you said, (or something along those lines). What, a cat will remember a death all of a week? Right there you showed it yourself! No concious thought, for hardly any emotional pain like there would be with humans. You say they were smarter not to get attached. Look how you define emotions when they are clearly reflexes. A cat is an animal that once (and some still do) lived in the wild. Their nature is to move on, because if they hover over the dead one they will be dead too. This is not SMARTER than humans, in fact it is less smart as they don't have the capacity to long for their loved ones, they move on, as you said yourself.



So, now that that's cleared up, I hope I didn't come off to harsh here, and no hard feelings Dodo, it's just my opinion, explaining, why, with no other option, without even a second thought I would turn that unfortunate cat into a pancake.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

see who wins, and there you go. Case closed...ya treehugging hippies.

I agree with this objective man.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So... (again) Do you see mosquitoes as inferior to humans? If not, why not? If so, then how about cats?

If the choice is solely between inferior and superior, then yes to both questions. If saying "I don't see how very different animals can be either inferior or superior" counts as an answer, then no. I would actually be far more willing to say that I saw a disabled person as inferior to an able bodied person (assuming as in your scenario I can know nothing else about them), where there is some actual basis for comparison.

Can you answer my question please? Maybe I was being too rhetorical before, so here's a more concrete query: How would you feel if I described you, or one of your friends, as inferior? Would you be able to accept that, agree with my argument, and admit that you or a friend were indeed inferior? Or would you feel I was being deliberately offensive and refuse to accept that my description was valid, however valid and logical my argument was?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

First, I pointed out your misconception that I allowed only one right answer. I simply asked a question and provided TWO possible answers.

A question can have two possible answers, but only one right one. But you've dropped the speech marks I put around "right" to indicate I wasn't take the word completely seriously. Which was shorthand for: strictly speaking this is a question of judgement with no right answer, however no sane human in the modern cultures* I know of would choose to kill the human. Anyone who seriously posted that they preferred killing the human would face intense opposition from everyone else, so it would be "the wrong answer" to give.
[*] think ancient Egyptian cat-worship; in that culture either answer might be justifiable.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then I asked you how I set up only one right answer, and you didn't answer it until many posts later when you said that the majority would hit the cat. How in the Hell does that answer my question?

I assume "until many posts later" would be my post #27. You're right to say I replied rather late, but I don't spend *all* my time on DV and its not as if I made other posts which ignored the question and only answered later on.

I can't see where you asked for an explanation of why there was only one "right" answer (or I misread it as asking for something different). I don't think I answered that question in #27 either, and certainly not with reference to "the majority". Can you point these out to me?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I also explained to you that I think morality is subjective, not "objective" as you mischaracterized me as suggesting, and I told you that cats are inferior on my value scale.

Sorry, I didn't write that very well at all. Take that simply as an agreement with the original argument. I'm struggling to put this any better so I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

In the scenario I described, everything comes down to whether a person values a cat more than a human or not (At least that was the idea.). In other words, it answers where cats stand on people's value scales. The point of this thread was to show that seeing cats as inferior is understandable.

OK, it's understandable. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it though :-). The reason I and others dislike your argument is that we think you're saying we *must* agree with you, unless we would choose to kill the hypothetical human to save kitty (which we don't like either).

Some people will accept the lesser of two evils, others will question the dilemma. Terrorist attacks or police state? With us or against us? (George Bush). Better to believe in God and be wrong than to suffer eternal torment as punishment for disbelief? (Pascals wager). Understanding these arguments doesn't compel my agreement; it leaves me better equipped to resist them.

Cats can't drive a car.

LOL I meant IF the cat was driving. Hypothetically speaking.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Thanks for answering. I should have removed the grieving variable also. I was trying to get this to all come down completely to a person's value scale. I definitely value humans (innocent at least) worlds over cats. You see some understandability in that, I hope. I thought you were probably talking about me in that other thread because in the cat LSD thread I did make the point that cats are inferior to humans (which is a subjective matter, as I have explained). Humans mean a lot more to me than cats could ever hope to.

Yea, I understand your view and respect it. Just remember one thing, when an animal lover expresses his or her pro-animal views, it is not because they think less highly of humans, but because they think more highly of animals.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I think I was the one who said they were inferior, if not, I was at least thinking it... because let's face it... in practical terms, they are. I mean, c'mon now. It only takes a minute to make a quick mental list of all the things a cat can do that a human can't and vice versa and see who wins, and there you go. Case closed...ya treehugging hippies.

Well physically cats are a million times superior to humans, except for the fact that they live a short life, which is a bit of a minus for them, but probably makes sense in terms of survival of the specie.

mentally humans win, they can do a lot of things cat can't or won't do:
Watch awful TV shows
Make awful TV shows
Kill other of their own kind in industrialized proportions
Believe in stupid religions
ingest poisonous food knowingly
ingest poisonous drugs
wear closes
wear jewelry
makeup
plastic surgery
pollute the earth until it starts to rot
exterminate whole species

And yes, humans do a lot of useful and wonderful things too, but if you take all that into consideration, well I don't which one is the idiot specie...

BTW, I don't hug trees, because they are all sticky from that what you call it thing that spills out of them :p

Originally Posted by bro

Ok, I respect your opinion Dodo, of course, however I'm going to voice it as I see it.

You can put it any way you like, Ok, if you don't own your cats legally (I hope you do) then you are responsible for them. Yeah, you can say you take care of them and they you, but to what extent? They can't think about your well being like you can them. Yeah, they will use their few instincts to take care of one in the "clan" and nestle next to you, but this is not concious thought. You THINK about taking care of your cats. No matter how you want to put it, you know you are on a much higher level of intelligence than the animals you keep in your house "taking care of you" Concious thought is what makes us human. Sure, you can say "But that doesn't make us superior, or cats inferior" but, in our society, unfortunately it does, again, however politely you'd like to put it. You have intellect and intelligence, the cat has instincts, and yes, basic emotions, not the FULL SPECTRUM OF EMOTIONS as you stated. What you say is caring and kind about a cat, and interpret it that way is instinct, welcoming another cat into the mix in your home.

You say "A few more neurons", that is a gross oversimplification. We have "a few more neurons" than a chimpansee, or some primates, can you see the difference between them and a cat?

I know people love their cats, as I love my dog, however, her level of "thought" is on a very basic level, their own behavior shows this, by their repetition , and science has proven this. Now if you begin to argue that science couldn't possibly begin to know what a cat "thinks", then why accept any science? do you accept the convenient ones that bring you comfort in your life? As I say, denial.

What you put as problem solving is again learned conditioning, your cats learned that they could open the door, just as my dog learned to sit, so now they push on it, ok, this, again is instinct. Your cats learned to do what gets them what they want. Kind of like (if my memory serves me right) the cats hovering around the tables on Ben Yehuda Street, (and some places here for that matter), they know, that is where they get the good stuff, it is NOT concious thought. This is completely different from concious thought, it is almost a reflex...So I know you don't like the word inferior, but pick any one you like, they are not equal, you and I know it ourselves.

Even your response that you would run the cat down but conveniently not because it is inferior shows right there, that it is! You know there would be more emotional pain for the humans you said, (or something along those lines). What, a cat will remember a death all of a week? Right there you showed it yourself! No concious thought, for hardly any emotional pain like there would be with humans. You say they were smarter not to get attached. Look how you define emotions when they are clearly reflexes. A cat is an animal that once (and some still do) lived in the wild. Their nature is to move on, because if they hover over the dead one they will be dead too. This is not SMARTER than humans, in fact it is less smart as they don't have the capacity to long for their loved ones, they move on, as you said yourself.



So, now that that's cleared up, I hope I didn't come off to harsh here, and no hard feelings Dodo, it's just my opinion, explaining, why, with no other option, without even a second thought I would turn that unfortunate cat into a pancake.

I agree with this objective man.

bro my bro, your post is too long... I'm am to lazy now to read, and will answare tommorow if I don't forget.

Kill the human. Wtf is doing in the middle of the road?! Damn J-walker...

Originally Posted by Infraredkelp

Kill the human. Wtf is doing in the middle of the road?! Damn J-walker...

Nononono.

Don't try to run the human over. Humans are much heavier and larger than cats, so they're more likely to leave a nasty dent in your bonnet and icky mess all over the front of your car. You could even be thrown off course and crash! Far safer to kill the cat.

No prob sourcejedi, i must have misread your response, i agree with what your saying though, its like saying would you rather your girlfriend live and many children die or your girlfriend die and loads of children live, either way is not fair and he knows what the answer will be from the majority. Pointless to even continue discussing anyway.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

If the choice is solely between inferior and superior, then yes to both questions. If saying "I don't see how very different animals can be either inferior or superior" counts as an answer, then no. I would actually be far more willing to say that I saw a disabled person as inferior to an able bodied person (assuming as in your scenario I can know nothing else about them), where there is some actual basis for comparison.

Then, "No," is your answer to the questions about cat and mosquito inferiority. I see mosquitos and cats as inferior to humans, but I see all innocent humans as equal. But remember... I am talking about a life value scale, not comparisons of human ability. I don't value a great athlete more than a guy in a wheelchair in terms of their humanity, but the great athlete would be a superior athlete. They still deserve the same rights. Cats don't, in my opinion. I would kill a cat to save either one of them.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

Can you answer my question please? Maybe I was being too rhetorical before, so here's a more concrete query: How would you feel if I described you, or one of your friends, as inferior? Would you be able to accept that, agree with my argument, and admit that you or a friend were indeed inferior? Or would you feel I was being deliberately offensive and refuse to accept that my description was valid, however valid and logical my argument was?

I would accept that they are inferior in specific areas, like the ability to manage a company or the ability to hit a baseball, but I wouldn't accept that any basically good person is superior in general to another one.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

A question can have two possible answers, but only one right one. But you've dropped the speech marks I put around "right" to indicate I wasn't take the word completely seriously. Which was shorthand for: strictly speaking this is a question of judgement with no right answer, however no sane human in the modern cultures* I know of would choose to kill the human. Anyone who seriously posted that they preferred killing the human would face intense opposition from everyone else, so it would be "the wrong answer" to give.[*] think ancient Egyptian cat-worship; in that culture either answer might be justifiable.

I don't think there is an objectively right answer to my car swerve question, but there is what I strongly believe in. Some people would say that the human should be hit instead of the cat. I would have a disagreement with it, but I wouldn't say that such a person would be objectively wrong. I don't think the universe has morality laws in the way that it has scientific and mathematical laws. We make our own rules of morality based on our perceptions and consciences. I have strong moral convictions, but I don't see morality as a purely objective subject.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

I assume "until many posts later" would be my post #27. You're right to say I replied rather late, but I don't spend *all* my time on DV and its not as if I made other posts which ignored the question and only answered later on.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

I was trying to point out that UM's dilemma - kill the human OR admit cats are inferior - wasn't solid because the word "inferior" is not necessarily appropriate. I'm glad to see someone else come up with the more concrete justification that "inferior" implies an absolute objective value, but the choice to kill the cat may be based on subjective value (survival of *my* species).

Look at #7 and you'll see UM quotes me trying to explain why I might find the word "inferior" extremely distasteful. Then he says that I should accept the statement that a cat's life is generally inferior to a human's, using the word "inferior" several times as he reiterates his argument.

So you apparently accused me of objectifying inferiority in the context of my question and my analyses of it. Again, I am just asking for opinions and illustrating the understandability of seeing cats as inferior to humans. My point there illustrates the subjective nature of the issue.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

OK, it's understandable. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it though :-). The reason I and others dislike your argument is that we think you're saying we *must* agree with you, unless we would choose to kill the hypothetical human to save kitty (which we don't like either).

Thank you. And no, you don't have to agree with it.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

Some people will accept the lesser of two evils, others will question the dilemma. Terrorist attacks or police state? With us or against us? (George Bush). Better to believe in God and be wrong than to suffer eternal torment as punishment for disbelief? (Pascals wager). Understanding these arguments doesn't compel my agreement; it leaves me better equipped to resist them.

Those are all good issues. And none of them have objectively correct answers. They all have majority answers, but I'm not somebody who puts much stock in what the majority believes.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

Pointless to even continue discussing anyway.

You keep saying that. Why are you still here? Bye.

It does depend on the human. BUT.........

Go in debt to save pet?
IMO, our society our culture, maybe our economic wealth has allowed us to take common known pets and some animals and put their sentience equal to us humans. It is just not so.

Our environment has changed.
Most elders see this change as ludicrous. If a dog gets injured on the farm, you shed a tear and put him down.
They do not know the difference!
How far above, consciously is a cat or a dog? A bird or a horse, any pet you may have from a "rodent" Because they are not cute I guess.

Oddly enough it seems when you grow up seeing animals come and go via the means of hunting, farming and pets you do not consider them an equal yet you can love them just as much as a person who would spend thousands of dollars to perpetually prolong a pets life.

So because we have the means does that make it justifiable. OR moreover our duty. As we know many other countries can't afford to follow in the same perspective.
I love my dog. I have spent plenty on veterinary bills (Damn you Burns -lol)
But at some point I will look at the quality of life for pee Wee, my dog and also my cat. I can assure you it will not be on the same frame of reference to that of a human.

Nono, what makes the big difference is the cuteness of the animal. So a kitten is more important than a lobster, cause kittens are cute, and lobsters look like space mutants. A dog is more important than a cow, cause dogs have people-like eyebrows they can move and stuff. A cow is just a baseball glove wrapped around a steak. Plus it'll dent your car .

Originally Posted by Replicon

A cow is just a baseball glove wrapped around a steak.

I agree with the cuteness point. Pigs and dogs have about equal intelligence and about equal emotional complexity. However, a dog is "man's best friend" while a pig is "bacon". If cats looked and sounded like pigs, we wouldn't be having this conversation or seeing commercials about what food they like the most.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I agree with the cuteness point. Pigs and dogs have about equal intelligence and about equal emotional complexity. However, a dog is "man's best friend" while a pig is "bacon". If cats looked and sounded like pigs, we wouldn't be having this conversation or seeing commercials about what food they like the most.

I heard somewhere that the average pig is actually more intelligent than the average dog or cat...

I love pigs.

Anyway I think humans think that humans are more important than animals just because this is how they are used to think. For example you can take a severely retarded kid, who is not any smarter than a dog, and most people would value this kid more than a dog.

Wake up guys, it's not a matter of intelligence, sentience, consciousness, emotional complexity, cuteness or whatever. It's a matter of what we are used to think and feel, based on our upbringing.

In semi-objective terms, yes, you COULD say all life is equal.

Yes, the single-celled bacteria's life is as necessary and equal to the conscious human it spawned through 5 billion years of the evolution of life here on earth.

HOWEVER, you are leaving out one important realization if you took just a little more time to delve deeper. And, that realization is, without the self-aware lifeform, the other lifeforms would cease to bear any meaning, or, by all rights...even exist. We are all an interconnected tangled mess of a web that is held together by itself. Therefore, one COULD objectively say, the single most important strand of that web is one that is aware of itself, more so, than ANY of the other parts of that web. The simple reason being, that without that aware strand of the web, the web really serves no function or purpose and wouldn't even know of itself enough to have such pointless and sophomoric debates as this.

...Now do you get it? Now, go out and club some clueless seals, ya tree-hugging hippies :p

Wow, it's amazing how some people do not grow in life (mentally). As for me it depends, lets say the human is George "Dubbya" Bush, then Hell yeah, I'll Run his Ass over, pick up the cat, put it in the passenger seat and throw the car in reverse to finisih the job.

The entire concept can become more inflated dependent upon the environment.
Take the Eskimos for an example. When the would bear a child if that child was in any way lacking, or even a female, they would often just take the newborn and set it out side to freeze. that is an extreme case but you can see how any example along those lines can further enhance our reasoning or our ability to show compassion.

Nice political punch Ne-yo

Solskye, Did you just make that up as you were writing?
I don't really follow you. God I can't stand the whole objective subjective argument.
With out the ability to reason, changes the entire thing. Aside from administering any pain of coarse, an animal does not have the ability to comprehend or have any precognitive or preconceived notion of death.
It is us humans that feel the pain, emotionally. Yet we somehow turn it around at focus the attention away from that, therefore it is again justifiable.

Unless it was DeadDollKitty or one of Burns' cats then no, I'd flatten the little bastard and watch his owner scrape him up off the road with a palette knife and a spoon.

However, as Ne-yo says, if it was an asshole who I'd have to run over to save the cat then I sure would. In fact, if Leo Volont was standing in the road I'd run him down, reverse over him, drive over his corpse again and reverse over him until the cows came home.

*HAS FLASHBACK OF THE MOVIE "JEEPERS-CREEPERS"*

*SINGS THE SONG*

"Jeepers-Creepers, where d'you get those peepers? Jeepers-Creepers, where d'you get those eyes?"

Originally Posted by Super Duck

Unless it was DeadDollKitty or one of Burns' cats then no, I'd flatten the little bastard and watch his owner scrape him up with a palette knife and a spoon.

However, as Ne-yo says, if it was an asshole who I'd have to run over to save the cat then I sure would. In fact, if Leo Volont was standing in the road I'd run him down, reverse over him and drive over his corpse again and reverse until the cows came home.

*HAS FLASHBACK OF THE OVIE "JEEPERS-CREEPERS"*

*SINGS THE SONG*

"Jeepers-Creepers, where d'you get those peepers? Jeepers-reepers, where d'you get those eyes?"

lol I watched Death Proof yesterday ( really really good BTW ), and well considering your alias and what you just said I ask my self if there is a coincidence here, or...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JuVHCJVYf4

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Wow, it's amazing how some people do not grow in life (mentally). As for me it depends, lets say the human is George "Dubbya" Bush, then Hell yeah, I'll Run his Ass over, pick up the cat, put it in the passenger seat and throw the car in reverse to finisih the job.

Yeah, it sure is nice to see the mindless masses still understand sarcasm. By the way, how was the view from up there when you were preaching, Knee-Yo? *points to the plastic Fisher-Price rocking horse he's standing on*

Seriously though, only people with animals in their avatar pictures would let their subjective irrational minds run amok, in order to run with whatever lame laundry list of excuses needed to justify picking LOWER non-sentient lifeforms to humans. I assume, the same rational goes through the minds of religious zealots attempting to impose their insanity in the name of their 'god'.

I guess, when apples don't fall too far from the tree it's much easier to relate to lower level animals. Beats me, though.*shrugs*

Originally Posted by Howie

Solskye, Did you just make that up as you were writing?
I don't really follow you.

What's there not to follow?

I don't think it's that hard to understand. Everything, is just one big interconnected meaningless web without us there to impose our subjective meanings on things. We are the key that opens and closes all the doors...without us...the universe is just one big energy and chemical vat randomly exchanging, duplicating and morphing parts of itself ad-infinitum.

Whether the meanings we impose actually have substance backing them, or are as hollow as the belief in this reality as real is for another topic, though.