Topic: Critical thinking question. (Ecology question) (Read 3614 times)
If we kill all of my extended family, who will take care of their dogs?
I'd go "Fuck your deliberately manipulative and simple minded question" 
people who make those kind of questions up or statements are trying to provoke you into an answer that they want and they form stupid assumptions about a person based on that, this is how I discovered I had very Anarchistic tendencies because I can't stand things like that. It reminds me a bit of Fable 3 with their stupid good/evil choices and one of them I kid you not made it out that bailing out the banking system was a good thing and not bailing them out was evil, it's all just designed to manipulate you into a stereotypical two answer system when the only time there is one correct answer is with Mathematics.
If the person went further with it I'd also consider punching them in the face.
people who make those kind of questions up or statements are trying to provoke you into an answer that they want and they form stupid assumptions about a person based on that, this is how I discovered I had very Anarchistic tendencies because I can't stand things like that. It reminds me a bit of Fable 3 with their stupid good/evil choices and one of them I kid you not made it out that bailing out the banking system was a good thing and not bailing them out was evil, it's all just designed to manipulate you into a stereotypical two answer system when the only time there is one correct answer is with Mathematics.If the person went further with it I'd also consider punching them in the face.
Critical thinking would be to question the question.
Almost always when you are confronted with this kind of "this-or-that" question, the goal is to mislead you by making you blind for all the other possible options. Don't be fooled.
Onkel Paul
Almost always when you are confronted with this kind of "this-or-that" question, the goal is to mislead you by making you blind for all the other possible options. Don't be fooled.
Onkel Paul
My Army friend said, "What if your grandchild was to come up with the cure for cancer?" Thought provoking.
No it isn't. You can't judge the value of a person's life based on what they might do in the future. By that logic, you might as well say "What if your grandchild was to become the next Hitler?"
My Army friend said, "What if your grandchild was to come up with the cure for cancer?" Thought provoking.
No it isn't. You can't judge the value of a person's life based on what they might do in the future. By that logic, you might as well say "What if your grandchild was to become the next Hitler?" Key words: trophic cascades, riparian zones, ungulates, water supply, wolves, ecosystem services.
Also: symbiotic relationships, companionship.
Answer: kill the family. Save the canines.
And why?Also: symbiotic relationships, companionship.
Answer: kill the family. Save the canines.
I already know why, else I would not have been able to belt out those key terms.
The real question is, do you disagree with me?
My Army friend said, "What if your grandchild was to come up with the cure for cancer?" Thought provoking.
My friend is in the Army. They asked his "squad" this question, they had to answer with an explanation.
Either your family dies (all extended relatives) or the whole canine race (all dogs) go extinct. Which would you choose and why?
Either your family dies (all extended relatives) or the whole canine race (all dogs) go extinct. Which would you choose and why?
I believe they asked to get answer whether the soldiers can sacrifice what they love most (as they are expected to do)
Could also be the other way around. Are they willing to extinct an entire race (or maybe nation?) to protect their loved ones (homeland?).
To the question:
Logical answer: Save the dogs. A entire race is more important in the big picture than a few individuals of an already overpopulated species.
Emotional answer: Save you family. And seriously, what human being would not take this choice? There must be something seriously wrong with you to sacrifice your relatives.
My friend is in the Army. They asked his "squad" this question, they had to answer with an explanation.
Either your family dies (all extended relatives) or the whole canine race (all dogs) go extinct. Which would you choose and why?
Either your family dies (all extended relatives) or the whole canine race (all dogs) go extinct. Which would you choose and why?
I believe they asked to get answer whether the soldiers can sacrifice what they love most (as they are expected to do)
Kill all dogs. I love dogs, but they're still just animals. Humans > animals. Simple as that. The ecology will find a way to replace their function.
That's a poorly thought out answer. It's pretty much a given that more people will perish from a complete elimination of all dogs on the planet than the sum total of your family members. But even so, your claim is actually subjective and self serving. Furthermore, you make the ridiculous mistake of not factoring in the time required for the ecosystems to find a substitute.
A huge part of the dogs is domesticated so I doubt it'll have a huge ecological impact. Blind people will start using llama's to help them, so the world will become an ever beter place to live.
Kill all dogs. I love dogs, but they're still just animals. Humans > animals. Simple as that. The ecology will find a way to replace their function.
That's a poorly thought out answer. It's pretty much a given that more people will perish from a complete elimination of all dogs on the planet than the sum total of your family members. But even so, your claim is actually subjective and self serving. Furthermore, you make the ridiculous mistake of not factoring in the time required for the ecosystems to find a substitute.
And why?
Probably because "symbiotic relationships" includes all the blind people who will simultaneously shit themselves when their guide dogs all suddenly drop dead?
Kill all dogs. I love dogs, but they're still just animals. Humans > animals. Simple as that. The ecology will find a way to replace their function.
Key words: trophic cascades, riparian zones, ungulates, water supply, wolves, ecosystem services.
Also: symbiotic relationships, companionship.
Answer: kill the family. Save the canines.
And why?Also: symbiotic relationships, companionship.
Answer: kill the family. Save the canines.
I already know why, else I would not have been able to belt out those key terms.
The real question is, do you disagree with me?
Key words: trophic cascades, riparian zones, ungulates, water supply, wolves, ecosystem services.
Also: symbiotic relationships, companionship.
Answer: kill the family. Save the canines.
And why? Also: symbiotic relationships, companionship.
Answer: kill the family. Save the canines.
Key words: trophic cascades, riparian zones, ungulates, water supply, wolves, ecosystem services.
Also: symbiotic relationships, companionship.
Answer: kill the family. Save the canines.
Also: symbiotic relationships, companionship.
Answer: kill the family. Save the canines.
My friend is in the Army. They asked his "squad" this question, they had to answer with an explanation.
Either your family dies (all extended relatives) or the whole canine race (all dogs) go extinct. Which would you choose and why?
My personal question here is what would happen to the global ecosystem without dogs?
Thx!
Either your family dies (all extended relatives) or the whole canine race (all dogs) go extinct. Which would you choose and why?
My personal question here is what would happen to the global ecosystem without dogs?
Thx!
Jump to: