If entering a burning building...

[Maximo]

I would grab the painting and call for the cat to follow me, if the cat did not listen I would think to myself "Oh well I tried" then take off to save my own ass. Then when I exited the house I would put the painting under my shirt and walk up to the people saying "Im soooo sorry I tried to save your kitty and your painting but the roof collapsed on both of them." Then I would run.

Hilarious

[GoldenGundam]

Without a doubt I'd save the kitten. Life is important. Not money.

I would just see it as one less damn cat that would be digging thru my trash.

Or your room........................

Besides I think the cat would automatically follow me out of the house by itself, but if not, then at least I would've saved the painting. Hey, a Van Gogh can buy a lot of kittens, that is if any one is stupid enough to sell a rare Van Gogh. Also, you can get kittens for free anyways. Besides I to despise cats with a passion.

[kthulhu]

?!?!?!??!?!??!?!?

Have you ever had a cat in your engine, and not till after driving for 40 minutes realize it was in there?

I'd go for the kitten.

So you could put it into a car engine? Rachel, why would you do such things?!

I still stand by the Van Gogh. Cats will always keep on having kittens. No artist will ever paint a genuine Van Gogh. Not to sound elitist, but the kitten savers are sounding shallow about all this. Sure, the kitten is cute and a living creature, but that means it can go and save its own damn life. The kitten may move out on its own, it may be lucky and survive the blaze, or it may even commit suicide.

It has its own free will and duty to save itself in this circumstance. It can always be replaced, in the very worst scenario. The Van Gogh, on the other hand, is unique - in the worst case scenario, it turns to ashes, never to be seen in its original artistic beauty.

If one wanted to switch roles (numerous Van Goghs, few kittens), then yes, I would save the kitten. Life does not, should not, always win out. A world in which we don't save a Van Gogh because we view a common kitten as being worth more is world in which we don't LIVE - we merely exist. Sorry for how that sounds, but get over it.

[jonmartensen]

If one wanted to switch roles (numerous Van Goghs, few kittens), then yes, I would save the kitten. Life does not, should not, always win out. A world in which we don't save a Van Gogh because we view a common kitten as being worth more is world in which we don't LIVE - we merely exist. Sorry for how that sounds, but get over it.

excellent point

[fyrtenheimer]

?!?!?!??!?!??!?!?

Have you ever had a cat in your engine, and not till after driving for 40 minutes realize it was in there?

I'd go for the kitten.

So you could put it into a car engine? Rachel, why would you do such things?!

I still stand by the Van Gogh. Cats will always keep on having kittens. No artist will ever paint a genuine Van Gogh. Not to sound elitist, but the kitten savers are sounding shallow about all this. Sure, the kitten is cute and a living creature, but that means it can go and save its own damn life. The kitten may move out on its own, it may be lucky and survive the blaze, or it may even commit suicide.

It has its own free will and duty to save itself in this circumstance. It can always be replaced, in the very worst scenario. The Van Gogh, on the other hand, is unique - in the worst case scenario, it turns to ashes, never to be seen in its original artistic beauty.

If one wanted to switch roles (numerous Van Goghs, few kittens), then yes, I would save the kitten. Life does not, should not, always win out. A world in which we don't save a Van Gogh because we view a common kitten as being worth more is world in which we don't LIVE - we merely exist. Sorry for how that sounds, but get over it.

I didn't put him in the car, he was there and it changes ur perspective. It's nothing really to joke about, so save me your idiocies just this once.

Was all that directed towards me? What exactly am I (or neone else) supposed "to get over"? I'm not the one posting in this thread three times to get my point across, Mark/Mike/Gabe. Yeah, we heard yours, let someone else say something.
A cat = another life. And I'd choose another life. That's like saying you'd pick the van gogh over a child because there's so many children in the world, the child can easily be replaced. Well guess what, since that child's a living creature, I'm sure that child can get out on it's own. Yeeeah.

You think just because it's a kitten, there's no value? Who's sounding more shallow?! I could care less for a material object and that motherfucker probably didn't even know that his paintings would be worth "so much".

You're right though. "Life does not, should not, always win out", but that's obviously not enough to tell me to go save the picture.

Sorry, but it's only a picture. I wouldn't "condemn" neone for going in and choosing the picture, I just know what I would do. I shouldn't have to defend myself over my own opinion considering the amount of other opinions in this thread, even if it is directed at everyone else and not just me. So don't go making lengthy posts at my expense and YOU should get over the fact that some people want to save the kitten instead of that picture.

I'M HAVING PANCAKES FOR BREAKFAST.

[Nurd]

Not to sound elitist, but the kitten savers are sounding shallow about all this.

The Van Gogh, on the other hand, is unique - in the worst case scenario, it turns to ashes, never to be seen in its original artistic beauty.

If one wanted to switch roles (numerous Van Goghs, few kittens), then yes, I would save the kitten. Life does not, should not, always win out. A world in which we don't save a Van Gogh because we view a common kitten as being worth more is world in which we don't LIVE - we merely exist. Sorry for how that sounds, but get over it.

Every time I take a crap, each and every one of them is unique, and took effort and time to create, a world where van gogh or a kitten is worth more than a piece of my shit is one in which we don't live, we merely exist.

Living my life has nothing to do with paintings or conventional works of what my humanities teacher considered "art" so many years ago. I see real art looking at the sunrise, I see art watching the leaves change in the fall. I see art when a baby smiles and I see art even in the destructive power of natures fury. These are experiences that are living life. Something some asshole painted, no matter how talented or conflicted he was, many years ago, means approximately dick to me.

It's time to let shit go, we've got enough pictures of these damn paintings that anyone who really wants to learn from the techniques of the "masters" can do so. The objects themselves are merely canvas and paint, things we have plenty of.

Everyone can claim that there are umpteen hundred kittens in this world, but how many of the rest of them are that kitten? None. The kitten is just as unique as the painting, only the kitten is a living and breathing thing, while the painting is just stuff.

"Life" should always win out over a "thing."


Nurd

[fyrtenheimer]

What a point.

[kthulhu]

I didn't put him in the car, he was there and it changes ur perspective. It's nothing really to joke about, so save me your idiocies just this once.

I'm sorry .

Was all that directed towards me?

No, but if it makes you feel special, then think what you want.

What exactly am I (or neone else) supposed "to get over"? I'm not the one posting in this thread three times to get my point across, Mark/Mike/Gabe. Yeah, we heard yours, let someone else say something.

I'm not hogging the thread. Plenty of room for all! By "getting over", I'm referring to this notion that all life is precious, and the most valuable thing in the world. It is, and yet, in a weird paradox, it can be the cheapest commodity in the world.

A cat = another life. And I'd choose another life. That's like saying you'd pick the van gogh over a child because there's so many children in the world, the child can easily be replaced. Well guess what, since that child's a living creature, I'm sure that child can get out on it's own. Yeeeah.

One would expect, certainly, that the people with the burning house would make it a priority to get their children out. A child can at least reason better than a kitten. A child probably won't run off if you try to pick it up in a burning house. With a child, you COULD probably save both.

You think just because it's a kitten, there's no value? Who's sounding more shallow?! I could care less for a material object and that motherfucker probably didn't even know that his paintings would be worth "so much".

I'm saying people are being shallow, in that they'll save a kitten, probably because it's cute and fluffy and harmless, and justifying it with all this "life is wah wah wah" reasoning. Very well, would you be willing to save their tub of slugs? Their snakes? Or, semi-realistically, their crazed guard Rottweiler, already prone to losing it, and further agitated by the heat, flames, and commotion?

Would you save that Rottweiler?

You're right though. "Life does not, should not, always win out", but that's obviously not enough to tell me to go save the picture.

Well, it is your call.

Sorry, but it's only a picture. I wouldn't "condemn" neone for going in and choosing the picture, I just know what I would do. I shouldn't have to defend myself over my own opinion considering the amount of other opinions in this thread, even if it is directed at everyone else and not just me.

I was joshing you (poorly) and then I made a general comment. Sorry.

So don't go making lengthy posts at my expense and YOU should get over the fact that some people want to save the kitten instead of that picture.

I'm over that. But I'm partly trying to present another view, and partly trying to play devil's advocate. And no, besides that one poor comment, I have not directed anything at you.

I'M HAVING PANCAKES FOR BREAKFAST.

Sounds delicious.

[OmniStrata]

I'd save the painting, cause if the kitten is too damn dumb to get out on its own, then its probly just gunna run out in front of a truck anyways once you got it out, so why waste a good painting.

booyah...

Seriously speaking though, humans and the works of humans are seen as "superior" to the wealth of beauty around elsewhere...

There are more people who want to see the works of people and other people rather than animals...

[look at what the world is coming to!]

I'd say save the painting...

[Don't give me no shit about "what if you were the kitten Omni?!" I'd just fuckin' say, "what if you were the painting!?"]

But I never post anything seriously so...

[kthulhu]

Every time I take a crap, each and every one of them is unique, and took effort and time to create, a world where van gogh or a kitten is worth more than a piece of my shit is one in which we don't live, we merely exist.

Sure, it might be "unique" (to you), but we all crap. Mix it all together, and WOW! What shit belongs to what person? You can't really tell. Shit is not unique. Do you keep your shit because it has any intrinsic value? No, if you're like most of humanity, you flush it down and forget about it. There'll be another one in a day, at most. "Nurd's Turd" is a poor example.

Put a Van Gogh next to a Rembrandt next to a Japanese print, and guess what? They all stand out from one another. They're different, they're unique, and each is the end result of the creator's vision. It's not the time, effort, or materials put into the painting that gives it value - it's the story, the idea, the inspiration, and the reaction it gives the viewer that does.

Living my life has nothing to do with paintings or conventional works of what my humanities teacher considered "art" so many years ago. I see real art looking at the sunrise, I see art watching the leaves change in the fall. I see art when a baby smiles and I see art even in the destructive power of natures fury. These are experiences that are living life.

Yes, but there is nothing to stop you from appreciating a Van Gogh in addition to all that, is there? Besides blowhard elitism, that is. "I have nature, I don't need Van Gogh!". Why not have both?

Something some asshole painted, no matter how talented or conflicted he was, many years ago, means approximately dick to me.

And yet some asshole's kid can smile, and it's different? What if it's a bratty kid? And why not have both? You're going for an ideological high ground that, while your own (and you're entitled to it), seems silly, illogical, and masochistic. It's not deep.

It's time to let shit go, we've got enough pictures of these damn paintings that anyone who really wants to learn from the techniques of the "masters" can do so. The objects themselves are merely canvas and paint, things we have plenty of.

So, with your "nature only" doctrine, humanity should go back to the state that we've worked hard to get AWAY from. Nature seems fine and beautiful when you have a modern house, with indoor plumbing and heat, and a computer with internet connection to return to. Ask the homeless how much they appreciate the "art of nature".

Also, don't we have enough sunsets and smiling babies and changing leaves in the fall?

Everyone can claim that there are umpteen hundred kittens in this world, but how many of the rest of them are that kitten? None. The kitten is just as unique as the painting, only the kitten is a living and breathing thing, while the painting is just stuff.

"Life" should always win out over a "thing."

Nurd

Except that life involves death, no matter what. There can always be life. There won't always be genuine Van Goghs.

As for the unique kitten: what if it were cloned? They looked and acted alike. They were the same internally. Is that kitten still unique? Is its clone less unique?