You get only ONE chance

There is also the fact that we don't deliberately kill a humans in movies.


Maybe an obvious distinction, but here we are. Sometimes we've got to spell these things out.

I wonder what his response will be.

If you and a badger hanging over the side of a cliff and I could only save one, I'd save you. I'd do this even if your own mistake got you into the mess. I'd do it, because you're a human being and because the badger is animal. And if we were starving, I shoot that badger (and I would do so without the animal's consent!) and fry it up in a pan well before I started eye-balling you for cuts of meat (by your logic, however, it would seem that the moral thing to do would be to shoot you and feed you to the badger since it was your volition that got you into a jackpot whereas our poor badger is an innocent angel possessing as much or more value than a human being). Moreover, stunt-people get socially coerced and they get hurt quite a bit and we know it, but we don't really care so much as when some dumb animal gets harmed on set.


Pray tell me you're at least a vegan and not eating meat (there is a mountain more needless suffering in the meat industry than the movie industry).

Lots of obfuscation and references to how one is supposed to properly argue.


Whatever it takes to obscure how easy an argument this was to dismantle.


And all in the name to undercut the empathy some people show for pointless animals deaths in films.

Or it was a tactic to once again pull a thread off course and insert himself into the center of it.

If I was presented with such a choice, and a badger and Corax were hanging from a cliff, it should surprise no one that I'd rescue the badger, because I like them better. Also, I could then use it to bite him in the face.

Also, he's got you pegged Wyldeside. Don't tell me what you posted didn't have you claiming you would feed human meat to a badger.

Reductio ad absurdum

He certainly didn’t disappoint us.
Now, if you don’t mind, could you kindly explain to me what the actual **** he’s arguing here?

I think it has to do with pointing out the moral decay of anyone concerned over the welfare of a 'stupid animal'. You know, because you can't simultaneously care about both people and animals. This does not compute inside whatever ****brain that idiot is saddled with.


In the end though, he's basically making the argument why it's so easy to prefer animals over some of our fellow humans.

This was the point. A mild one, at most.

Remember that point that you sufficiently addressed, Wyldeside? And how what you actually said was completely ignored, and was instead answered with a bunch of junk you didn't say which called into question how much you liked humans? How you are no hero like the person you were responding to, who would save you from the edge of a cliff and then cook you a stew made from some stupid animal he just killed in an effort to sustain you?


Didn't you grasp how mild that initial point was?

How dare you say what he said didn't make any ****ing sense.

Guys, the correct answer is that you let the badger and the person fall to their deaths, so that the Pokemon cards are all yours.

Sorry, I'm not following the conversation super closely, but we're talking about some prisoner's dilemma variation where it's you, a badger, and another person arguing over some Pokemon cards at the edge of a cliff, right?

What if the human has stage 4 cancer and the badger has a wife and kids? Who should I rescue?

First I need to know who the badger votes for.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

In this thread, it goes (1) post a recommendation, (2) weigh in on The Badger Question

Look at Captain Fancy here trying to jump the queue.

Right, sorry.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

I'm going to assume it is a magical, talking badger who can grant me wishes and rescue the badger.

My real answer is Tati's Playtime .

One of the few films I would place in the rarefied are of 2001.


It's a singular achievement, rendered immaculately.