View Full Version : Serious Debate Only
Ok, how seriously can people debate a nonsensicle subject? For instance, if the topic was so ludicrious that it is beyond belief? Well, thats what this is about, a debate on such a subject, but, the rules are, you have to debate the topic seriously, keeping within the topic as if the topic was a serious one (difficult heh)
So, the topic to discuss, if Bugs Bunny has been around in Bambi, would Bambi's mother have been shot by the hunter, or would Bugs have saved her?
If Bugs Bunny had been around in Bambi, then per definition the hunter would be Elmer Fudd, and in comparisance, then Bugs Bunny, would play around with Elmer Fudd, never letting him hit, not to mention having his mind on Bugs Bunny, which in terms would save Bambiīs mother.
So yes, if Bugs Bunny had been around in Bambi, then Bambiīs mother would still be alive.
Hard to discuss a closed question there Lexxy. ;)
N
Hard to discuss a closed question there Lexxy. ;)
N
I believe I did well ^^
Wouldnīt you agree ??
If Bugs Bunny had been around in Bambi, then per definition the hunter would be Elmer Fudd, and in comparisance, then Bugs Bunny, would play around with Elmer Fudd, never letting him hit, not to mention having his mind on Bugs Bunny, which in terms would save Bambiīs mother.
So yes, if Bugs Bunny had been around in Bambi, then Bambiīs mother would still be alive.
Ahh, but during the altercations bugs has with elmer, it tends to sometimes involve daffy, or another scapegoat for bugs to relay attention onto. Without daffy being around, it could be seen that Bugs would try to get elmers attention onto Bambi's mother, as invariably, someone other than bugs tends to be shot.
Yes Daffy, would definitely be a disturbing factor for Bugs, which could draw his attention away from Elmer, allowing Elmer to get a clear shot.
But Bugs do have a gift for doing multiple things at the same time.
So yes, if Bugs Bunny had been around in Bambi, then Bambiīs mother would still be alive.
Unless of course Daffy Duck was also there, and persuaded Bambi's mom to wear a duck costume, which would of course result in Babmi's mom at LEAST getting her (fake)duck bill shot off, if not losing all her feathers.
At which point it is plausible that she would a)die of embarassment from being feather-less, aka nude, or b)die from exposure to the elements at some further point in the happenings, aka when it is winter and she is still without feathers.
Ahh, but during the altercations bugs has with elmer, it tends to sometimes involve daffy.
lol great minds think alike and whatnot
Yes, I agree with Lexx, Elmer always shoots someone, and never Bugs, so it'd be Bambi's mother.
I believe that Bambi's mother was doomed to irreversible death and hunter was only a tool in hands of faith.
That would be the Daffy we all know, to save himself by disguising Bambiīs mother as a Duck, to avoid getting shot by Elmer himself.
But he would still be a target for Elmer, since he is still a Duck, so guessing from Daffys apparent intelligense then Daffy would put himself in a Deer Costume, and with Elmer both hunting Ducks and Deers, then he would still be a target and is not safe then, so he would gain nothing from that.
Yes, I agree with Lexx, Elmer always shoots someone, and never Bugs, so it'd be Bambi's mother.
I believe that Bambi's mother was doomed to irreversible death and hunter was only a tool in hands of faith.
Yes, but as with certain beliefs, it is possible to cheat death.
Bugs Bunny is a worthless slacker and is only a match for the likes of moron retard hunters like Fudd. Bambi's mom would have definitely ate a bullet while Bugs was busy in his rabbit hole licking himself.
I'll have to disagree with that, as Bugs would naturally try to get one upmanship on Daffy, so would dress up like a duck, in response to Daffy being a deer, along would come Elmer, and the conversation would turn out...
Duck season!
Deer season!
Duck season!
Deer season
Duck season!
Duck season
Deer sea...<bang> Dead daffy, or at least with a new burnt hair style, and a "your dithpicable"
Dribble Joy
17-05-04, 23:55
What about thumper?
Bugs Bunny is a worthless slacker and is only a match for the likes of moron retard hunters like Fudd. Bambi's mom would have definitely ate a bullet while Bugs was busy in his rabbit hole licking himself.
Bugs is an attention seeking, "love-bunny", he would without doubt be seducing Bambiīs mother, and saving her from Elmerīs bullet.
But then we would only turn the question around,
Would Bugs be able to save Bambiīs mother without getting shot himself ?
But that would be going slightly off topic, so lets not.
But he would deffo save bambiīs mother.
I'll have to disagree with that, as Bugs would naturally try to get one upmanship on Daffy, so would dress up like a duck, in response to Daffy being a deer, along would come Elmer, and the conversation would turn out...
Duck season!
Deer season!
Duck season!
Deer season
Duck season!
Duck season
Deer sea...<bang> Dead daffy, or at least with a new burnt hair style, and a "your dithpicable"
But Bugs would do anything he could to "Jackass" Elmer into believing that itīs neither of those seasons.
Heavyporker
17-05-04, 23:57
even if Bugs Bunny humped Bambi's mother, he wouldn't do much to save her, because for one, he's a man, hence doesn't give a damn for his bitches, two, he cba to save her because he had to get the latest carrot crop out from Old Man MacDonald's garden.
I don't understand, If Daffy is a deer(disguise) and Bugs is a wabbit - who's duck here ? o_O
Dribble Joy
17-05-04, 23:57
Would Bugs be able to save Bambiīs mother without getting shot himself ?
But that would be going slightly off topic, so lets not.
Bugs, is by his very nature, unkillable, but not invulnrable, so he could not save bambi's mother by sacrificing himself for her.
I don't understand, If Daffy is a deer(disguise) and Bugs is a wabbit - who's duck here ? o_O
Bambiīs Mother is
Bugs, is by his very nature, unkillable, but not invulnrable, so he could not save bambi's mother by sacrificing himself for her.
Yes there is logic in that.
So he would trick Elmer into believing that it was neither Duck nor Deer season, that would be the best solution..
But that would lead Elmer to believing itīs "Wabbit Season" and go after Bugs, who would then fool Elmer throughout the "Season"
I'm pretty sure, that whilst bugs is indeed an attention seeker, with his wonderful dressing up as women act, he has a tendancy to fall for rabbits, so, in relation to DJ's question, we might be able to conclude, at the time bambi's mother was shot, bugs was busy making thumper? Which would have given the hunter plenty of time to turn Bambi's mother into sunday lunch
Heavyporker
18-05-04, 00:02
You guys forget, even though Bugs Bunny is technically *unkillable*, if he does sacrifice himself to save Bambi's mother, he will succeed, because his body does have cartoon *mass* to counteract the bullet's kinetic energy.
Period.
I'm pretty sure, that whilst bugs is indeed an attention seeker, with his wonderful dressing up as women act, he has a tendancy to fall for rabbits, so, in relation to DJ's question, we might be able to conclude, at the time bambi's mother was shot, bugs was busy making thumper? Which would have given the hunter plenty of time to turn Bambi's mother into sunday lunch
But Thumper is Bambiīs friend, so he would be with Bambi..
And bugs is not as far as we know a "friend" of Bambiīs, but as per the question we assume that he is a "friend" of Bambiīs mother, which would keep his attention with Bambiīs mother, and will then be around to save her, not to mention, that Bambiīs forest is next to a great field, which could have been a carrot field.
So Bugs wouldnīt have to really leave Bambiīs mother, and would be able to save her long before, Elmer could have shot her.
You guys forget, even though Bugs Bunny is technically *unkillable*, if he does sacrifice himself to save Bambi's mother, he will succeed, because his body does have cartoon *mass* to counteract the bullet's kinetic energy.
Period.
If we used that logic, it would also be logical to deduce, that as Bambi's mother was also made of the same material as Mr Bunny, she too would be immune to the onlaught of TNT/Rocks/GunFire and all manner of violent activity that involved the aforementioned characters
If we used that logic, it would also be logical to deduce, that as Bambi's mother was also made of the same material as Mr Bunny, she too would be immune to the onlaught of TNT/Rocks/GunFire and all manner of violent activity that involved the aforementioned characters
That would in terms mean that the bullet had only "bruised" Bambiīs Mother, so she would still be alive...
Dribble Joy
18-05-04, 00:17
Would bugs even want to save Bambi's mum?
Besides, if bugs has pursuaded fudd that it is Wabbit season, then by the nature of the 'bambi' and 'looney tunes' world's, bugs would not die, so thumper would be the one to snuff it.
Assuming fudd can actually hit anything.
It all depends on if Bugs takes a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
Dribble Joy
18-05-04, 00:24
It all depends on if Bugs takes a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
If so, bambi's mum is vension...
Well she is either way.. but as in the cooked/dried and on your plate way.
JackScratch
18-05-04, 01:14
OK, Im going to catch hell for this, but here it goes. You are breaking the cross genra rule by even asking this question, therefore invalidateing the question in the first place. "Bambi" is a drama, The Bugs Bunny character is comedy, The two being merged would have one of 2 possible effects. The presence of Bugs Bunny and his slpstick comedy would render the entire story comedy, or Bugs bunny would follow the theme of the story, and would therefore behave within the rules set forth by the story type, being, in this case, semi realistic physics and emotions. In the former, the story base would be changed entirely, and while the outcome would most likely be different, depending on the thoughts of the writer in question, it would be a different story, with different characters, even if the names remained the same. In the later situation, Bugs Bunny would simply be an added character, and would, once again, depending on the writer in question, not change the story, with the exception of a few added lines.
This is a serious answer/debate
omfg lexx u have no idea how much i love u lol
this is making me laugh soo much
im just copyin and pastin it in msn and my mate thinks im crazy
@ Jack - if you look deepy into the context of Bambi, you will see some form of comedy in there, in fact, I would go as far as to assume Thumper is a comedy sidekick, the "Bambi skating on ice" being a clear indication of comedy effect. However, you could look into the cultural heritage of the two, with Bambi being from Disney, whilst Bugs is in fact part of the Warner Brothers (and the Warner sister dot).
With this in mind, the only reference that springs to mind, is the live action movie, staring Bob Hoskings. Now, if we are to use this as a base point, it could be debated that it was Elmer who actually did kill Bambi's mother, BUT, Bugs was framed for it, which is where Bob Hoskings comes along, to ask "Who Framed Bugs Bunny". Which in turn, would lead people to deduce it was a loony tune that commited the act, and, the fact that Bugs was not able to stop the act, as he was framed for it.
@ Jack - if you look deepy into the context of Bambi, you will see some form of comedy in there, in fact, I would go as far as to assume Thumper is a comedy sidekick, the "Bambi skating on ice" being a clear indication of comedy effect. However, you could look into the cultural heritage of the two, with Bambi being from Disney, whilst Bugs is in fact part of the Warner Brothers (and the Warner sister dot).
With this in mind, the only reference that springs to mind, is the live action movie, staring Bob Hoskings. Now, if we are to use this as a base point, it could be debated that it was Elmer who actually did kill Bambi's mother, BUT, Bugs was framed for it, which is where Bob Hoskings comes along, to ask "Who Framed Bugs Bunny". Which in turn, would lead people to deduce it was a loony tune that commited the act, and, the fact that Bugs was not able to stop the act, as he was framed for it.
But that was Roger Rabbit and NOT Bugs Bunny..
sanityislost
18-05-04, 02:58
With this in mind, the only reference that springs to mind, is the live action movie, staring Bob Hoskings. Now, if we are to use this as a base point, it could be debated that it was Elmer who actually did kill Bambi's mother, BUT, Bugs was framed for it, which is where Bob Hoskings comes along, to ask "Who Framed Bugs Bunny". Which in turn, would lead people to deduce it was a loony tune that commited the act, and, the fact that Bugs was not able to stop the act, as he was framed for it.
I would have to say bugs would never get to the forest where bambi chilled out. why? because he would too busy indulging in his cross dressing fetish. so when he heard that bambi's mother chick was going to get screwed over he sent his heterosexual life partner Rodger Rabbit, who btw was framed by Bob Hoskings. what most people dont understand is that this really happened and these events where turned into a script which disney later made a movie about. however disney being disney decided that having a horny habit wouldnt be very good for showing children so they left that part out. when rodger found out he was rather pissed off so decided to go out and make a movie about the misfortune that happened to him. but because disney owned the rights to the script and the movie he very well couldn't make a copy of the movie Bambi so who made "who frame rodger rabbit" the story tho slightly changed still tells the viewer about the problems that one horny rabbit had to over come.
SiL
[edit]naimex beat me to it :(
sanity.... you lost me...
8|
.... hope Iīll understand someday..
EDIT :
ARGH CURSE YOU !!
now i wanna watch that movie... (Who framed Roger Rabbit)
itīs 3 am !!! and I just watched Volcano !!
DAMN YOU !!!
----------------------
Think I got it now.. :confused: but not sure..
sanityislost
18-05-04, 03:08
ROFL...har har now u know of my evil powers muah
SiL
Well, my theory is that Elmer framed Bugs Bunny, so the bottom line is, Bugs didnt stop Bambi's mother being murdered, so him being there, might actually have been the cause
Well, my theory is that Elmer framed Bugs Bunny, so the bottom line is, Bugs didnt stop Bambi's mother being murdered, so him being there, might actually have been the cause
On what grounds do you base this?
sanityislost
18-05-04, 03:12
Well, my theory is that Elmer framed Bugs Bunny, so the bottom line is, Bugs didnt stop Bambi's mother being murdered, so him being there, might actually have been the cause
So either way bugs is still a cross dressing rabbit and either way he is gona be someones "pretty rabbit" in jail....your theory is chilled
SiL
On what grounds do you base this?
Well, for about 70 years or so, Bugs Bunny has been really pissing off Elmer Fudd right? Now, what better was is there for Elmer to get back at Bugs, than to tarnish his (cross dressing aside) good reputation, than to go out hunting in the woods, come across Daffy, Bugs and Bambi's mother, then shoot the deer whilst working out in the background how to blame Bugs?
The evidence that Bambi's mother died, is irrefutable, we all saw it happen, well, we "didnt" we heard the gunshot, and the only hunter we know (famous or not) that is known to be around Mr Bunny, is... Elmer Fudd, BUT we all know Elmer couldnt shoot the side of a barn at point blank range, Daffy is.. well.. a duck, so that leaves just Bugs as the prime suspect in the deer's murder.
Well, for about 70 years or so, Bugs Bunny has been really pissing off Elmer Fudd right? Now, what better was is there for Elmer to get back at Bugs, than to tarnish his (cross dressing aside) good reputation, than to go out hunting in the woods, come across Daffy, Bugs and Bambi's mother, then shoot the deer whilst working out in the background how to blame Bugs?
The evidence that Bambi's mother died, is irrefutable, we all saw it happen, well, we "didnt" we heard the gunshot, and the only hunter we know (famous or not) that is known to be around Mr Bunny, is... Elmer Fudd, BUT we all know Elmer couldnt shoot the side of a barn at point blank range, Daffy is.. well.. a duck, so that leaves just Bugs as the prime suspect in the deer's murder.
The defense is shocked..
I rest my case..
Judge : Mr. Bunny, you are hereby to be sent to an asylum for insane deluted rabbits, and are to be under close watch untill the day you no longer live.
Court ajourned *SLAM*
(Could just imagine niddy do this ::)
[The case against Mr. Bunny is closed]
[*big heavy slam that cannot be imitated nor have its sound described, the sound of niddys hammer hitting the thread*]
[CLOSED]
Ahh, but Mr Bunny didnt do it, which is where Bob Hoskins must come into play, to prove it was in fact, a looney tune!
Ahh, but Mr Bunny didnt do it, which is where Bob Hoskins must come into play, to prove it was in fact, a looney tune!
...........
So you wish to plea (pledge whatever.. dunno how that word is spelled), the sentence ?
But if Mr Bunny didnīt do it.. and Mr Hoskins didnīt do it..
Then...............
Who framed Bugs Bunny ??
I already told you, Elmer framed Bugs as payback for Bugs dressing up as a woman and snogging Elmer lots which brought into question Elmers sexuality. Elmer being a red blooded hunter type masculine dude with a speech impediment, couldnt take the strain of his mates at the gun club calling him "rabbit lover" so he set up a plan to frame bugs for killing bambi's mother
Dribble Joy
18-05-04, 03:30
If we only heard the shot then there are a range of possibilities.
1) The hunter shot Bambi's mum.
2) The hunter was framed and the rifle was hooked up to a trap by Bugs or..
3) Daffy, or..
4) Elmer. In his idiocy he could frame himself, or he had planned it from the beginning and allready had a pad in cuba before the deed was done, where he could hide (and gain some nifty tax benefits) untill it was shown that he was framed.
5)Or Bambi.
6)Bambi's mum didn't die, it was a hoax.
7) the real shot came from the grassy knol, where the scilenced sniper lay in wait, the shooter of which could be that of 1-5.
I already told you, Elmer framed Bugs as payback for Bugs dressing up as a woman and snogging Elmer lots which brought into question Elmers sexuality. Elmer being a red blooded hunter type masculine dude with a speech impediment, couldnt take the strain of his mates at the gun club calling him "rabbit lover" so he set up a plan to frame bugs for killing bambi's mother
But didnīt we just state that Mr Fudd, was unable to hit a barnyard door with the barrel pushed against it ?
But didnīt we just state that Mr Fudd, was unable to hit a barnyard door with the barrel pushed against it ?
Ahh, but, the only reason we have to believe that, is the fact he has never managed to shoot Mr Bunny, Elmer has however shot Daffy (lots of times), but we forget that because Bugs, is naturally, the star
Ahh, but, the only reason we have to believe that, is the fact he has never managed to shoot Mr Bunny, Elmer has however shot Daffy (lots of times), but we forget that because Bugs, is naturally, the star
You got a pretty good point there... didnīt even think of that....
Dribble Joy
18-05-04, 03:35
Indeed, bugs and daffy are both unkillable, but only daffy is indestructable.
We have no proof that bugs is as robust as duffy, which is somewhat a moot point considering he never gets harmed.
You got a pretty good point there... didnīt even think of that....
Which can lead us to the natural conclusion, on which we all agree, the reason bambi's mother DID die, is because bugs WAS there, so, the only way Bugs could have stopped Bambi's mothers death, was by being somewhere over the rainbow at the time.
Defence rests its water-tight case :D
Which can lead us to the natural conclusion, on which we all agree, the reason bambi's mother DID die, is because bugs WAS there, so, the only way Bugs could have stopped Bambi's mothers death, was by being somewhere over the rainbow at the time.
Defence rests its water-tight case :D
Well almost..
but so far we have only assumed the hunter to be Mr Fudd, due to the fact that he is the main person hunting Mr Bunny...
So if we do take the current events into consideration, then the hunter didnīt have to be Mr. Fudd, and in that case it wouldnīt have been because of Mr Bugs presence that Bambiīs mother died.
Magic Sausage
18-05-04, 03:52
I have discovered the hunter
http://www.betablog.com/img/pimp.jpg
We all know you did it... BUGS = Teh Win
sanityislost
18-05-04, 04:07
I have discovered the hunter
We all know you did it... BUGS = Teh Win
how the hell did u get my pic....OMG STALKER
SiL
HatchetRyda
18-05-04, 04:42
Have you seen the "Secret World of Alex Mac"?
Since she is able to turn into water or some kind of puddle.. If we drank her would she die?
Serious Debate.
Original monk
18-05-04, 09:10
use bambi to lure bugs, wack bugs, strangle bambi
yes bambi would die
for sure
Have you seen the "Secret World of Alex Mac"?
Since she is able to turn into water or some kind of puddle.. If we drank her would she die?
Serious Debate.
NOO NOOB ffs if we drank her then what she would reform inside of us and we would rip apart!!
Looks like this failed then Lexxy.
Original monk
18-05-04, 14:44
Looks like this failed then Lexxy.
lexxy asking to make a serieus debate is funny at itself lol
:)
If Bugs Bunny has been around in Bambi, would Bambi's mother have been shot by the hunter, or would Bugs have saved her?The study of the habits of animals in the wild has long been of particular interests to scientists. Habits change however along with the stress levels of the situation: desperate times call for desperate actions.
The question has been posted: If Bugs Bunny has been around in Bambi, would Bambi's mother have been shot by the hunter, or would Bugs have saved her? My goal here today is to show that no, Bugs would not have saved her.
We begin the proof with
1. Definitions. Assuming we all know who the major players in this are, the key phrase that needs to be defined is "have saved her." The idea behind this is whether or not Bambi's mother would have been alive had Bugs been present, but I am suggesting that this goes beyond a simply evaluation of the livlihood of Bambi's mother. The saving of someone is an intentional act. "Save" is defined as "to preserve from injury" by the Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996. Typically one doesnt preserve something from injury without intending to do so, and it is the belief in this forum post that the author intended that Bugs would have to pro-actively, with intent, preserve Bambi's mother (B'sM) from injury.
So I will attempt to show today that Bugs would not have preserved B'sM from injury had he been present in the forest at the time of the shooting.
We now begin with the first contention:
Bugs Bunny is selfish.
While we must acknowledge the fact that he saved the planet Earth from destruction at the hands of Marvin the Martian, the fact remains that his motives for doing so were purely ones of self-gratification. Bugs acts out of what pleases him at the moment, rather than what is good, or more specifically, the greater good. This is also evident in his persistent badgering of Elmer Fudd. While it is true that Bugs was perhaps always acting out of the need to preserve his own life, we can see that seldom was his life in actual danger, and he took the mockery of E.Fudd well beyond what was needed to ensure that said hunter wouldnt be having Wabbit Soup for dinner.
Considering that Bugs Bunny is a selfish individual, we can see that in order to save B'sM, he would need to have a reason to do so that would be self-serving. We find that is not the case in contention 2,
Bugs would not benefit from saving B'sM.
The saving of the life of B'sM would not benefit Bugs in any way. We can see that Bugs Bunny is only concerned a few noteable ideas: the presence of carrots, peace and quiet, and the way to Albuquerque.
A. Presence of carrots. I can see no way in which the preserving of the life of a deer in the forest would in any way help Bugs acquire carrots. First, we see on the webpage named "My Journey with God and the Pathway Chapel" found at http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/d/cdyquest/experience.html that deer do in fact eat carrots, where the author explains
To say the deer has been a blessing and a pleasure is an understatement. She would come up and eat carrots out of our hand and when she thought the time was right, she introduced her off spring to us.So at one level, we see that deer eat carrots, and that by not saving the life of a deer, Bugs is basically removing a carrot competitor.
However, it must be acknowledged that by allowing a deer to die, Bugs ran the risk of that deer being used in a meal that also used carrots. We see at AllRecipes.com, http://soup.allrecipes.com/az/DeerSoupCreamMshrmClry.asp , that humans to eat dishes in which carrots are used along with deer meat.
It is the contention of this author though that the number of carrots a human might consume in a meal with deer meat would be far less that a deer might consume if it would be allowed to live and ravage the countryside of its carroty goodness.
So by allowing the deer to die, Bugs would increase the net availability of carrots.
B. Peace and quiet. We know that Bugs likes his peace and quiet. Most people seem to think that deer are quiet, cuddly animals. To wit, Lindsay, of Mrs. Farnworth's grade 2 class at http://www.boundaryschools.com/perley/CHIJ/wildlife/wildlife.html explains
They are special because they have white tails and they're nice and soft.while her classmate Clare adds
This is fun.What Lindsay and Clare dont realize is that deer are a nightmare for your typical rabbit. Rabbits live in the ground- the same ground that deer trample unmercifully. Rhetorically speaking, one has to wonder if Clare would think that "this is fun" if she had deer running around on the roof of her house 24 hours a day.
By not saving B'sM, Bugs would remove four hooves from the forest floor, as well as ensure that B'sM would not spawn any more deer to continue annoying him into his golden years.
C. The way to Albuquerque. There is no reason to think that B'sM, should her life have been saved, would have been able to tell Bugs the way to Albuquerque. While deer are known for their ability to navigate the woods, only if we had some sort of proof that B'sM had actually BEEN to Albuquerque could we even begin to postulate her ability to give Bugs directions.
Human hunters, however, are likely to at least know which state Albuquerque is in.
One can easily see how by intentionally NOT saving B'sM, that Bugs could have perhaps hoped to fall into favor with the human hunter, and then either be gifted with the directions we were after, or perhaps trick the hunter, like previously noted E.Fudd, into helping him anyway.
--
Today, we have looked at reasons why Bugs Bunny would not have saved Bambi's mother had he been present. We saw that Bugs is a selfish bunny, as that based on his three main motivations, had no selfish reason to save her.
Original monk
18-05-04, 16:09
intresting strych, intresting and yes i agree, he woulnt of saved her :)
Interesting theory there, and indeed, we should look at what motivated the hunter to actually chase down B'sM. Now, the fact that deer eat carrots, is not a widely known fact, the majority of people would in fact come to the conclusion, deer eat grass, and probably McDonalds. So let us assume for a moment, that the hunter was in fact, trying to preserve his carrots from some animal that was stealing them for food.
Mr Hunter, walking through the woods, would be more likely to attack and kill a rabbit, who is munching said carrot whilst asking the hunter "whats up doc?", this would in turn, give the rabbit motivation, even within the rabbits own selfish interests, to outwit the aforementioned hunter, thereby, inadvertantly saving the deers life.
So let us assume for a moment, that the hunter was in fact, trying to preserve his carrots from some animal that was stealing them for food.That is fine. I think that in that case, he would have to suspect both deer and rabbit, unless he was ignorant of the fact that deer eat carrot. Which is possible and plausible. So I assume you intend to say that he was ignorant of the fact, yes?
Mr Hunter, walking through the woods, would be more likely to attack and kill a rabbit, who is munching said carrot whilst asking the hunter "whats up doc?", this would in turn, give the rabbit motivation, even within the rabbits own selfish interests, to outwit the aforementioned hunter, thereby, inadvertantly saving the deers life.Well you never indicated that the rabbit was eating a carrot. As far as that goes, we could also say that B'sM was eating nine carrots, and had a stock of them she was using as a nest. ;)
There is also this- should the hunter have ANY inkling that both deer and rabbit eat carrots, and IF the hunter was out trying to find the culprit-
1. Wouldnt the hunter just shoot both animals?
2. Wouldnt the hunter just shoot the deer first because he wanted the meat for food?
3. What would stop the hunter from killing B'sM after he killed Bugs in your scenario?
4. By my definitions, Bugs has to proactively do something to save B'sM, not just be another target that happens to take the attention of the hunter.
1. Wouldnt the hunter just shoot both animals?
Well, that would be what any sane person with a gun would do, but, had the hunter first come upon bugs, by past experience with this rabbit, the hunter would have ended up unable to shoot the deer, by virtue of the rabbit outwitting the hunter
2. Wouldnt the hunter just shoot the deer first because he wanted the meat for food?
If the hunter was looking for food, both rabbit or deer would have been fair bait, however, bugs is usually seen with a carrot in his hand, a hunter seeing a rabbit with a carrot, would think "fast food"
3. What would stop the hunter from killing B'sM after he killed Bugs in your scenario?
Again, based on past history with Mr Bunny, we can naturally assume, he would have gotten the better of Mr Hunter, simply causing Mr Hunter to give up, and seek psychiatric help "the rabbits are talking to me doc!"
4. By my definitions, Bugs has to proactively do something to save B'sM, not just be another target that happens to take the attention of the hunter.
See above
Well, that would be what any sane person with a gun would do, but, had the hunter first come upon bugs, by past experience with this rabbit, the hunter would have ended up unable to shoot the deer, by virtue of the rabbit outwitting the hunterUnable to shoot the deer? If the hunter was hungry or even was willing to shoot and eat a deer, then why would he be unable to shoot the deer because of being outwitted by a rabbit?
We have no reason to assume the hunter would not have been unable to shoot the deer.
If the hunter was looking for food, both rabbit or deer would have been fair bait, however, bugs is usually seen with a carrot in his hand, a hunter seeing a rabbit with a carrot, would think "fast food"But you admit yourself, below, that the hunter couldnt kill Bugs. So on the assumption that the hunter wanted food, his only choice is deer.
Again, based on past history with Mr Bunny, we can naturally assume, he would have gotten the better of Mr Hunter, simply causing Mr Hunter to give up, and seek psychiatric help "the rabbits are talking to me doc!"Give up? No, the one hunter we DO know about, E.Fudd, never gave up. Otherwise, their encounters would have been one in number, rather than the many we know of.
It seems you are relying on the hunter to give up and not shoot the deer (or anything else) because of Bugs.
I disagree with that, in that the hunter would not give up.
BUT
If we grant that to be true, by my definitions which have still gone uncontested up to this point, that would not be Bugs "saving Bambi's mother" in that it wouldnt have been his intention to do do, as he had no reason to do so. You are saying Bugs would save his own life, and possibly as a side effect save the life of B'sM at the same time, but that does not fall into the scope of this discussion as it has been defined.
If you wish to redefine the notion of saving and indicate what is flawed with mine, I am open for such discussion.
Hmm, whilst we both can agree that bugs is a selfish rabbit, there have been cases where his, sense of morality has urged him to take upon himself, the act of assisting another person.
I do remember one time, him trying to protect Granny from Calamity Sam, who wanted to marry Granny for her money, he therefore, went out of his way to do as much as he could do, to protect Granny from Sam, thereby proving, he can, when required, protect people with unselfish acts, I do believe he actually ended up marrying Sam, just to protect Granny, thereby cementing the fact, he would give the ultimate sacrifice, to preserve someone else from harm.
Hmm, whilst we both can agree that bugs is a selfish rabbit, there have been cases where his, sense of morality has urged him to take upon himself, the act of assisting another person.
ex. SpaceJam, when Bugs enlisted the help of His Airness MJ to save the toons from eternal slavery in an alien themepark.
Hmm, whilst we both can agree that bugs is a selfish rabbit, there have been cases where his, sense of morality has urged him to take upon himself, the act of assisting another person.
I do remember one time, him trying to protect Granny from Calamity Sam, who wanted to marry Granny for her money, he therefore, went out of his way to do as much as he could do, to protect Granny from Sam, thereby proving, he can, when required, protect people with unselfish acts, I do believe he actually ended up marrying Sam, just to protect Granny, thereby cementing the fact, he would give the ultimate sacrifice, to preserve someone else from harm.So what is his motivation for helping Bambi's mother? We still dont see his reason for that.
I never said he didnt assist others. That is not in dispute. Its whether or not he acts for the greater good, or just for himself. His motivations are in question, not his actions.
By my criteria, if you can show that he had a reason for stepping in to try and save the life of B'sM, then you could answer yes. But simply saying "Bugs has helped others before" doesnt prove what needs to be proven.
Now you admit he is eating a carrot that may or may not belong to the hunter, who so happened by your own admission to have had carrots stolen "for food." Where is the big Bugs philanthropist now? He steals carrots, yet you expect that he would make some sort of sacrafice to spare Bambi's mother when he has nothing to gain? He also admittedly dupes E.Fudd repeatedly. Granted, Fudd is out to get him, but we all know that Bugs has the mental ability to simply avoid Fudd altogether. Yet instead of that, Bugs forces conflict and mockey. Again, not quite the savior of morality.
I would have to review the facts of the Granny/Calamity Sam incident before deciding whether or not Bugs acted out of simply morality rather than his selfishness.
Re: SpaceJam, Bugs was a toon himself and subject to slavery. Thats different than him taking steps to protect a deer he has zero interests in saving.
So what is his motivation for helping Bambi's mother? We still dont see his reason for that.
umm, I surrender, your too good at this :p
umm, I surrender, your too good at this :pLOL
Just wanted to give you serious discussion. Ask and ye shall receive.
What you find in competitive debate, that there is only really three things that you can argue:
1. Definitions. How you define something really is the core of almost every discussion. The abortion debate is purely about definition. In this case, defining "saved" as any sort of action to result in the preservation of life, rather than dealing with the intent to actually preserve life, would have made it easy for the "yes" side to win.
2. Logical structure of argument. Do the conclusions necessarily follow from the claims? Like if I say "Birds can fly. Man is not a bird. Therefore man cannot fly." Now each of those statements is true, but the conclusion does not logically follow from the claims.
3. Truth value of the claims. In the above example, the claims are true, but the logic is flawed. Now you can also have "All birds fly. Man is a bird. Therefore man can fly." Now that logically is sound, but the second claim is untrue, so the argument is invalid. In this discussion, my logic was sound (point 2) but the truth of the claims could have been addressed. You agreed that Bugs is selfish- at that point, I dont think you could really "win" (if you want to look at it that way) unless you disputed the definition of saved.
So my approach was almost one you could say of tautology. The only room there was to argue was about what it means to "save the life" of someone and then what motivated bugs bunny.
Fun exercise though. :) And like with all my posts, please dont take anything I say personally, and no, I am never mad or upset when I post in these forums. :D
heh, but can u answer, who framed bugs bunny :p :angel:
Clownst0pper
18-05-04, 21:37
How some of you have made this debate so deep is beyond me, Do you ever get laid?
lmfao, :lol:
How some of you have made this debate so deep is beyond me, Do you ever get laid?
lmfao, :lol:So... because I have free time at work, you must wonder whether I get laid?
You are right. I dont get laid at work.
O_o
Edit:
heh, but can u answer, who framed bugs bunny :p :angel:I assumed you did? 8|
So... because I have free time at work, you must wonder whether I get laid?
You are right. I dont get laid at work.
I did, heh, isnt that what lunch breaks are for, boffing your girlfriend? (mind you, I was 16 at the time :angel: )
Edit:I assumed you did? 8|
oh, umm, ya, probably was actually, and I would have gotten away from it if it wasnt for you debaters! :p
oh, umm, ya, probably was actually, and I would have gotten away from it if it wasnt for you debaters! :pThe truth is out there...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.