- Messages
- 7,902
- Tings
- 292,131
Jewish Candy said:That's the best allegory I've ever heard for anything. What a shame it's wrong.Tobbe said:Good Sir, your argumentation is flawed. That's rather like saying that without raw eggs there wouldn't be any cake, therefore raw eggs own cake. Yet I am sure that we all agree that we would feel slightly disappointed when, come dessert, we were served raw eggs.![]()
Just because we like the taste of cake more than that of raw egg doesn't mean cake owns raw egg. The purpose of cake is to be eaten; the purpose of raw egg is to make up for the fact that it never became a chicken by existing. If the two were in a fight, the raw egg's insides would end up over the cake, rendering it inedible. Result - raw egg godpawns cake every time.
My head hurts.
I'm afraid it is you who are wrong, my friend. The scenario you describe is impossible, as both cakes and raw eggs are non-sentient, immobile objects without the ability to fight each other. Furthermore, since you are so interested in so-called purposes: It's neither the purpose of cake nor raw eggs to participate in fights, therefore the outcome of a so-called "fight" between the two is irrelevant to this discussion.