>be lion
>Great Eagle God picks me up and drops me on an island
>says half of it is mine now
>drops a rat too
>says the other half is his
>we divide the island fairly
>many generations later
>my kingdom is now populated by 50 lions
>rat land is populated by 50.000 rats
>lions can only live in freedom and no lion can be free without plenty of space to roam around in without trespassing
>rats on the other hand completely exhaust their land and live in miserable, destitute, oppressive conditions
>hungry rats petition me to settle on my land, because they think we have plenty of unused space
>refuse them
>rats organize an invasion and kill 5 of my lion huscarls
>I gather my lion knights and we retaliate by killing 5.000 rats
>rats complain to the Eagle God
>they say lions killed more rats, so lions are much more evil than rats
>counter the rat by saying they decided to birth thousands of rats into absolutely miserable conditions, oppressed by their den-mothers, constantly hungry and willing to betray their closest for a scrap of food
>rats counter by saying lions are evil for not using their resources to alleviate their suffering
>a young lion snidely remarked the rats would simply breed, until they covered the entire island in their shit
Who has the correct view of reality? The lions or the rats?
so what is the scenario you describe supposed to represent? if its about the refugee crisis thats against the 25 year rule, but this thread seems like a bait one anyways.
It‘s not about history, but HUMANITIES. It‘s a thread about discussing the morality of this animal story.
>It‘s not about history, but HUMANITIES.
yeah, only a humanities major would propose that story without thinking about how would a single lion procreate (they aren't amoebas, you know) and what would the resulting 50 lions eat on their rat-free half of the island.
Tell me truthfully. Do you feel intelligent for questioning these irrelevant details of the story?
Uncritical worshippers of orthodoxy cannot tell the difference between pedantics and wisdom.
Someone once told me that low IQ people can't handle hypotheticals.
To be fair there have been refugee crises long throughout history. It's one of the oldest conflicts - that between civilization (represented by the lions) and barbarity (represented by the rats)
What the frick are you talking about schizo
Let's see:
Rome and Germans
China and Mongolic/Turkic tribes
Aztecs and Chichimecs
Quechuas and Mapuches/Amazonians
Catholic Europe and the Vikings
The list goes on, civilization vs barbarity. You build a civilization, people who aren't as good at it want to raid it.
t.
Lions, no debate.
This analogy sucks dicks. Stick to the Oyish staples when using an analogy: food, shit, or sex.
>>we divide the island fairly
How? The Lion has the total upper hand, he can just give it a sliver if land and the rat can't do shit. Your use of "Fairly" seems intentionally vague.
The divided it in half like the Eagle God said and were fair in regards to determining the area and the border of their kingdoms. Because there are ways to divide even technically equal sized parts unfairly.
The Lions.
The Eagle God chose a single rat and a single lion and gave them both the same amount of land and deemed this fair, so it is implied that one rat is equal to one lion in the eyes of the Eagle God. Therefore, the slaughter of 5000 rats was wrong, and only the perpetrators should have been killed (unless it was an invasion of 5000 rats).
>rats are too weak to genocide lions and take the entire island for themselves.
>lions are too gutless to genocide the rats and take the whole island despite be entirely capable of doing so.
Who is more pathetic?
You kind of skewed this by deliberately making the rats look awful, you even accentuate this with adjectives and quips.
>birth thousands of rats into absolutely miserable conditions, oppressed by their den-mothers, constantly hungry and willing to betray
their closest for a scrap of food
>a young lion snidely remarked the rats would simply breed, until they covered the entire island in their shit
Completely irrelevant to this question.
This feels like a very bad faith analogy for something. 5 lions died and 5000 rats died. It seems like it worked out for everyone, they'll simply replace the death toll and prevent either population from exploding too much. Eventually more lions would need more land and more rats would need more as well, this worked out better in the long term.
He didn't make them look awful. He described them as they are, which is awful. The OP wrote the story here so it's the situation. I think this anon was right:
Don't know what this is an allegory for but I'm guessing it's a situation that only involves one species, humans, so by giving rats and lions different requirements for life you're bullshitting. Also in real life there are no divinely ordained borders.