Here's another: You're riding a horse. You know for a fact that a village will die if you don't get there in time. Do you ride the horse to death to get there in time?It's a much more equivalent situation because for me, and many others, human life =/= animal life. Human life trumps that of something like a horse. It just does.
.
.
.
Of course, I'm a ruthless bastard, I'd kill the person on the train tracks, too. Though only if jumping myself wouldn't do the job.But not everyone who picked killing the horse would do the same if it was human. It's just a horse, after all.
See, in this situation I'd sacrifice the horse. The other situation is practcially impossible, given that the horse is standing upright. Kicking an animal the size and durability of a Clydesdale to death is practically an impossibility unless you're trained to kill unarmed.
|
See, in this situation I'd sacrifice the horse. The other situation is practcially impossible, given that the horse is standing upright. Kicking an animal the size and durability of a Clydesdale to death is practically an impossibility unless you're trained to kill unarmed.
I think some basic knowledge of anatomy (the neck, specifically), determination, and steel-toed boots would probably be sufficient.
Hell, you might even be able to bite open an artery...that'd do it too.
I'd bet on being able to do it, anyway.
|
|
Here's another: You're riding a horse. You know for a fact that a village will die if you don't get there in time. Do you ride the horse to death to get there in time?
It's a much more equivalent situation because for me, and many others, human life =/= animal life. Human life trumps that of something like a horse. It just does.
.
.
.
Of course, I'm a ruthless bastard, I'd kill the person on the train tracks, too. Though only if jumping myself wouldn't do the job.But not everyone who picked killing the horse would do the same if it was human. It's just a horse, after all.
Hmm? I figured that my suggestion better captured the dichotomy between rationality and human emotion. Because some people don't value animal lives at all, and it's not a very interesting question.
Anyways I'm a pacifist vegetarian pinko so I would choose to let the freedom rebels rot in prison jail.
|
|
Hmm? I figured that my suggestion better captured the dichotomy between rationality and human emotion. Because some people don't value animal lives at all, and it's not a very interesting question.
Possibly, but whether more interesting or not, it's a fundamentally different question. And thus will result in very different answers from the same people.
Anyways I'm a pacifist vegetarian pinko so I would choose to let the freedom rebels rot in prison jail.
Noted.
I am not sure I understand why quantum physics confirms the existence of "real" magic. Also, how would pulling a real rabbit out of a hat without using illusion be quantum mechanically possible?
Two possible explanations: at one extreme of quantum behavior the innate uncertainty of location of a particular bunny may spontaneously change to be not on the grass where it was a moment before - but inside the hat. Alternatively, particles can spontaneously spring into existence and disappear again (generally with a zero-sum energy difference) - it is conceivable that a set of particles that make up a bunny spontaneously manifest inside the hat.
Admittedly both events are exceptionally unlikely - but their chance is not entirely nil. In other words quantum mechanics offers ways which allows for the existence of "real magic", if you qualify that to mean that magic is the level of thing that can pull a real rabbit out of a hat without trickery.
|
|
I am not sure I understand why quantum physics confirms the existence of "real" magic. Also, how would pulling a real rabbit out of a hat without using illusion be quantum mechanically possible?Two possible explanations: at one extreme of quantum behavior the innate uncertainty of location of a particular bunny may spontaneously change to be not on the grass where it was a moment before - but inside the hat. Alternatively, particles can spontaneously spring into existence and disappear again (generally with a zero-sum energy difference) - it is conceivable that a set of particles that make up a bunny spontaneously manifest inside the hat.
Admittedly both events are exceptionally unlikely - but their chance is not entirely nil. In other words quantum mechanics offers ways which allows for the existence of "real magic", if you qualify that to mean that magic is the level of thing that can pull a real rabbit out of a hat without trickery.
This is just you trying to say "Since we don't fully understand quantum physics, anything is possible!"
Which has nothing to do with the question, since it specifically says it is magic, and therefore it is actually magic.
|
|
I don't think you truly understand just how "improbable" the low chance events of quantum mechanics are at the macro level. For instance, quantum mechanics allows for the spontaneous appearance of a rabbit in a hat. The actual likelihood of such an event pretty much precludes it happening during the expected lifetime of the universe.I am not sure I understand why quantum physics confirms the existence of "real" magic. Also, how would pulling a real rabbit out of a hat without using illusion be quantum mechanically possible?Two possible explanations: at one extreme of quantum behavior the innate uncertainty of location of a particular bunny may spontaneously change to be not on the grass where it was a moment before - but inside the hat. Alternatively, particles can spontaneously spring into existence and disappear again (generally with a zero-sum energy difference) - it is conceivable that a set of particles that make up a bunny spontaneously manifest inside the hat.
Admittedly both events are exceptionally unlikely - but their chance is not entirely nil. In other words quantum mechanics offers ways which allows for the existence of "real magic", if you qualify that to mean that magic is the level of thing that can pull a real rabbit out of a hat without trickery.
Not to mention the fact that it is something the magician can repeat or....and I'm going to bold this for emphasis....
That the question specifically states that the person is "legitimately magical"
I would't want to be your friend if you were the type of person who would make me take a test to see if we could be friends.
I think some basic knowledge of anatomy (the neck, specifically), determination, and steel-toed boots would probably be sufficient.Hell, you might even be able to bite open an artery...that'd do it too.
I'd bet on being able to do it, anyway.
The proposition clearly said "kick to death." Good luck reaching that neck without first bringing the horse down.
|
|
The proposition clearly said "kick to death." Good luck reaching that neck without first bringing the horse down.It's doable. Difficult but doable. Anyway, it has knees, you could take those out first if necessary.
I think part of the point of the question was that it would be hard to physically do, in addition to the moral question behind it.
It isn't just you have to kill something, it is that you have to kill something that is very hard to kill in a very personal, visceral way.
The steel toed boots are thrown in to make it not impossible, but the Clydesdale is put in to make you go "Damn...that is going to be hard to do..."
I would't want to be your friend if you were the type of person who would make me take a test to see if we could be friends.That's okay, we only accept friends that read the whole thread so as to not get a wrong impression. :)
How does reading the whole thread, and I have, make any difference? You're still making me take a test to see if we can be friends.
But he did ask the questions before he said he doesn't.
I wouldn't want to take a test to love someone either. It would take all the fun out of random anonymous sex.
If only Felicia Day was that easy.
Stolen from Chuck Klosterman, yet I've found them accurate in my experience.
1. Let us assume you met a rudimentary magician. Let us assume he can do five simple tricks–he can pull a rabbit out of his hat, he can make a coin disappear, he can turn the ace of spades into the Joker card, and two others in a similar vein. These are his only tricks and he can’t learn any more; he can only do these five. HOWEVER, it turns out he’s doing these five tricks with real magic. It’s not an illusion; he can actually conjure the bunny out of the ether and he can move the coin through space. He’s legitimately magical, but extremely limited in scope and influence.Would this person be more impressive than Albert Einstein?
Einstein is not as impressive as a legitimate proof of magic, because magic violates and refutes physics as extant, and Einstein developed a part of that corpus of knowledge. A wizard changes everything.
2. Let us assume a fully grown, completely healthy Clydesdale horse has his hooves shackled to the ground while his head is held in place with thick rope. He is conscious and standing upright, but completely immobile. And let us assume that–for some reason–every political prisoner on earth (as cited by Amnesty International) will be released from captivity if you can kick this horse to death in less than twenty minutes. You are allowed to wear steel-toed boots.
Would you attempt to do this?
3. Let us assume there are two boxes on a table. In one box, there is a relatively normal turtle; in the other, Adolf Hitler’s skull. You have to select one of these items for your home. If you select the turtle, you can’t give it away and you have to keep it alive for two years; if either of these parameters are not met, you will be fined $999 by the state. If you select Hitler’s skull, you are required to display it in a semi-prominent location in your living room for the same amount of time, although you will be paid a stipend of $120 per month for doing so. Display of the skull must be apolitical.
Which option do you select?
Hitler's skull. It is just a skull, and the money would be useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Human life trumps that of something like a horse. It just does.
For you, maybe. For me, it depends on the human, and on the horse. If I could kick a rapist to death in order to save a herd of hardworking horses, I'd do it in a second.
|
|
For you, maybe. For me, it depends on the human, and on the horse. If I could kick a rapist to death in order to save a herd of hardworking horses, I'd do it in a second.
Well, yeah. Sure, so would I. But then I'd kick a rapist to death for my own personal amusement...
As a rule, the lives of non-sentients are less important than those of people, and killing them is acceptable if useful or convenient to people. That's the logic behind eating meat, anyway.
As a rule, the lives of non-sentients are less important than those of people, and killing them is acceptable if useful or convenient to people.
Sentience is a scale, though, not a binary quantity.
1) Does not compute. How do you want me to measure impressiveness? Are Einstein and the Magician both there in front of me? If so, then Einstein is more impressive, since coming back from the dead is a way better magic trick.
2) I agree it makes more logical sense to kill the horse, but I would not be *able* to do it. Emotionally, I know I would not be capable of it. I doubt most people can, despite what they say. Torturing an animal and torturing a human require the same amount of emotional detachment. I doubt I could do it physically anyway.
3) Take the skull; but I do not believe it is possible to display such an important historical artifact in a apolitical fashion. Oh and I'd donate the money to Jewish, LGBT, and other groups that Hitler oppressed.
|
|
Sentience is a scale, though, not a binary quantity.
A person is smarter than a chimp, but they're both self-aware and can feel, grieve, speak (through sign language for the chimp), make tools, teach their offspring to do the same, get along in communal societies, etc.
A dog can feel and grieve and recognize its name and its friends, but its communication is more rudimentary, and the social rules for a pack are extremely primitive compared to those for a troop of chimps.
Still, a dog is a hell of a lot smarter than a cow, and
A cow is a genius compared to a cockroach.
Absolutely! I honestly couldn't agree more (though I would put a cutoff point for 'Is this murder?' pretty close under chimpanzee).
Horses are pretty close to the 'cow' end of the scale, though. They're definitely under dogs from what I understand.