Why the path of least resistance is not always the best

[Syne]

Do you find it shocking that so many people are struggling with such a simple parable?

Yep.

Then the parable must surely be about how it is unwise to take baskets of sugar and cotton across a river? Or to rely on donkeys that are too short-legged that the goods get wet?

The point of my facetious initial response was because the parable was poor in trying to get the desired message across.
Yes, one could argue the "path of least resistance" led to the donkey's demise in the river... but had there been no river then the donkey that took the cotton would be laughing and the other donkey would be in dire straits, possibly dying from exhaustion. Thus limiting the supposed point of the parable to a gamble - death by exhaustion or death by drowning.

JDawg has probably already covered this, as I haven't read ahead, but I'll address it anyway, to at least reiterate.

Premises:
1. The donkeys are only anthropomorphised to the point of allowing a simple choice, light or heavy load.
2. The donkeys are analogous to man, but with no more human concerns/purpose (for delivery, route, etc.) than explicitly stated.
Given:
Choices tend to be made with incomplete knowledge.
Moral:
Given incomplete knowledge of future consequences, the easy immediate choice does not guarantee a good result.

Being donkeys, given only the one free choice as analogy to man, they are impelled to do as they are expected. They carry a load as and where directed. This is a simple analogy to causation, where there is no avoiding the natural results of our choices.

Part of the lesson to this parable is that the donkey who chose the lighter load did so at the knowing suffering it placed upon the other (a choice of vague morality at best). So not only is it a lesson about not taking the easy path, it is also about not making choices that knowing harm another. Otherwise this parable would have worked just as well with a single donkey.



As far as adding the point about the donkey dying, lessons are often exaggerated for emphasis.

 

[Sarkus]

And the relevant information was "One is heavy, one is light." Choosing the light load is the easy choice. The shortcut. The path of least resistance.

Shortcut is not synonymous with "easy choice" for the reason explained - that shortcuts only exist in the presence of a known end point. Otherwise it just remains a choice.

"Non-easy" is a terribly awkward way of saying "difficult."

It was used for literary purposes - given that you were emphasising the "easy" choice - so I continued to use a phrase that maintained the use of "easy".
And why is it awkward? It has fewer characters than "difficult" and, from your comment, you clearly understood its meaning.
But I am somewhat confused at why you are raising issue with literary styles and techniques that you don't like in a thread where it has no bearing?

The parable is very effective, your opinion notwithstanding. The part with which you object is precisely what makes the parable work: the easy path is chosen, and then there is a new obstacle which makes the initial decision regrettable.

What could possibly be wrong with this?

Because it is weak. One reason is that it can be negated and reversed in meaning too simply, especially given that the obstacle (the river) is not known up front. The general parable is thus not specific to the "easy choice"... but to choices in general.

That's what makes it a parable! The easy path itself is a very specific condition: the choice of the cotton rather than the sugar. You simple take the message of the story and relate it to your own situation, as I demonstrated in my previous post.

So the message is that we should always take the more difficult path, then?
The parable can be strengthened by giving the donkeys some foreknowledge of the route... e.g. if it was a path they had often used with different goods (non-hazardous to health when in water).
It is also weak in that neither result (dying donkey or lost sugar) is too appealing... so perhaps the parable is that all choices end in disaster in one form or other?
Another weakness of this parable is that there are too many such (unintended) messages one can take if one actually analyses it... messages that thus cloud the specific one that it is actually trying to tell.
If I give you a list of telephone numbers and say "mine is on that list"... well, it's not a particularly strong way of telling you my number.

Well then that's your hang-up. If you don't understand how a metaphor works, that's not anyone's problem but your own.

I understand it - but the parable is weak told. If you can't see that, that's not anyone's problem but your own. :shrug:

To me it is obvious it is a weak parable, even if the most simple message can be understood.
But you obviously have issue with facetiousness, and have taken this discussion far further than I had intended with my initial response.

 

[garbonzo]

Then the parable must surely be about how it is unwise to take baskets of sugar and cotton across a river? Or to rely on donkeys that are too short-legged that the goods get wet?

The point of my facetious initial response was because the parable was poor in trying to get the desired message across.
Yes, one could argue the "path of least resistance" led to the donkey's demise in the river... but had there been no river then the donkey that took the cotton would be laughing and the other donkey would be in dire straits, possibly dying from exhaustion. Thus limiting the supposed point of the parable to a gamble - death by exhaustion or death by drowning.


There were no shortcuts taken... one donkey HAD to take the sugar, the other HAD to take the cotton. One donkey dies.
Surely the donkey that clearly sacrifices himself by taking the cotton should be praised and lauded for his obvious altruism?

Any path can hurt you in the long run. It can also reward you. It's part of the condition of life.

The "parable" might also have said that the donkey taking the sugar stumbled and died from the weight they were carrying and no mention of a river... thus concluding "Choosing the hardest path can hurt you in the long run."


The parable, given its stated aim in the OP, sucks.

I'm laughing so hard right now.:worship:

I love you, Sarkus.

 

[garbonzo]

Part of the lesson to this parable is that the donkey who chose the lighter load did so at the knowing suffering it placed upon the other (a choice of vague morality at best). So not only is it a lesson about not taking the easy path, it is also about not making choices that knowing harm another. Otherwise this parable would have worked just as well with a single donkey.



As far as adding the point about the donkey dying, lessons are often exaggerated for emphasis.

If you want it to make it about that, then both donkeys wouldn't want to take the cotton, as it is immoral.

 

[Balerion]

Shortcut is not synonymous with "easy choice" for the reason explained - that shortcuts only exist in the presence of a known end point. Otherwise it just remains a choice.

Well, it is, but if your problem is with the use of the word "shortcut," then your problem is with me, not with the parable. The point of the parable is to show that the path of least resistance is not always the wisest.

It was used for literary purposes - given that you were emphasising the "easy" choice - so I continued to use a phrase that maintained the use of "easy".
And why is it awkward? It has fewer characters than "difficult" and, from your comment, you clearly understood its meaning.
But I am somewhat confused at why you are raising issue with literary styles and techniques that you don't like in a thread where it has no bearing?

Literary purposes? No, there is nothing literary about the term "non-easy." I only point it out because it was so clunky. You could have--and should have--simply said "difficult."

Because it is weak. One reason is that it can be negated and reversed in meaning too simply, especially given that the obstacle (the river) is not known up front. The general parable is thus not specific to the "easy choice"... but to choices in general.

Non-sequitur. The river not being known at the outset does not nullify the easy choice. There are two bags, one heavy and one light, meaning that there is an easy choice and a difficult choice, right from the start. The point of the river is to demonstrate how life can make you pay for taking the easy path--ie, the bag of cotton. I've already demonstrated ways in which this parable can be applied to everyday situations, so you can go back and re-read them if you need to.

So the message is that we should always take the more difficult path, then?

No. Where would you get that idea?

The parable can be strengthened by giving the donkeys some foreknowledge of the route... e.g. if it was a path they had often used with different goods (non-hazardous to health when in water).

Are you kidding me? If they knew there would be a water-crossing, then the cotton would be the difficult choice right from the start, and there would be no parable.

It is also weak in that neither result (dying donkey or lost sugar) is too appealing... so perhaps the parable is that all choices end in disaster in one form or other?

The donkeys do not have a vested interest in their payloads. Their only concern is their own health and well-being, and on that count there is a clear negative outcome, and a clear positive outcome.

Another weakness of this parable is that there are too many such (unintended) messages one can take if one actually analyses it... messages that thus cloud the specific one that it is actually trying to tell.

No. This is simply enough for a child to understand. I don't know what your excuse is.

If I give you a list of telephone numbers and say "mine is on that list"... well, it's not a particularly strong way of telling you my number.

Apples to oranges.

I understand it - but the parable is weak told. If you can't see that, that's not anyone's problem but your own.

I've explained to you why there is nothing wrong with the parable, and why your failing to understand it does not reflect poorly on the parable, and certainly is not my problem. :shrug:

To me it is obvious it is a weak parable, even if the most simple message can be understood.

Then you don't know what a parable is.

But you obviously have issue with facetiousness, and have taken this discussion far further than I had intended with my initial response.

Well, I'm sure you never intended your fallacious arguments to be publicly dismantled and laid bare, but you know what they say about best-laid plans...

 

[Sarkus]

Well, it is, but if your problem is with the use of the word "shortcut," then your problem is with me, not with the parable.

In this regard, you are right, my issue was with your term "shortcut". And in this regard I never said otherwise. But thanks for pointing out that you realised.

The point of the parable is to show that the path of least resistance is not always the wisest.

I am aware of the intended point of the parable. Repeating it won't make me consider the parable any less... sucky.

Literary purposes? No, there is nothing literary about the term "non-easy." I only point it out because it was so clunky. You could have--and should have--simply said "difficult."

I would encourage you not to deviate and start picking holes in literary styles you don't like, especially when you clearly understood at least an obvious, if not identical, synonym (unless you think all choices become digital with regard easy/difficult - with no other alternatives?).
But hey, side-track away if you want, although such discussion would probably be best served in the linguistics forum.

Non-sequitur. The river not being known at the outset does not nullify the easy choice. There are two bags, one heavy and one light, meaning that there is an easy choice and a difficult choice, right from the start. The point of the river is to demonstrate how life can make you pay for taking the easy path--ie, the bag of cotton.

Yet it makes you pay for taking the difficult path as well... so the parable is "life sucks"... "all choices lead to doom or misery"?
Yes, we are all aware of the intended message.
And so my point remains: the parable, as told, sucks - it lacks clarity in the message it is trying to tell and - as is quite apparent to all those who give it a moment's thought (facetious or otherwise) - raises questions as to unintended meanings - due to its weakness.

I've already demonstrated ways in which this parable can be applied to everyday situations, so you can go back and re-read them if you need to.

I did already - and dismissed them as not being analogous other than in the broadest meaning. In each of your examples the choice taken is in the knowledge of the pros and cons of that choice... but not so for the donkey. Plus those choices you example are not necessarily "easy". But nice try.

No. Where would you get that idea?

The parable basically makes a mockery of the idea of choice in the absence of knowledge... that either option is basically just a gamble. But since it then suggests that the "easy" choice can lead to death... who would then decide to walk such a path? And since both choices also lead to the lost cargo... maybe it is saying that all choice is ultimately pointless?
Or maybe it's a revolutionary parable: "Break free from your merchant, who clearly does not have your best interests at heart, and who is patently stupid."

Are you kidding me? If they knew there would be a water-crossing, then the cotton would be the difficult choice right from the start, and there would be no parable.

No, as I clearly suggested that they had often used with different goods (non-hazardous to health when in water).
But even then I guess that it doesn't alter the basic weakness of the parable.
But perhaps the parable is that one should be wary of the foolishness of those leading the donkeys through water with perishable goods and goods that are hazardous in water?
Still, too many possible messages... parable is weak.

The donkeys do not have a vested interest in their payloads. Their only concern is their own health and well-being, and on that count there is a clear negative outcome, and a clear positive outcome.

Yep - "Easy" option leads to death!! - so you're advocating taking the difficult choice? But then both options lead to lost goods!!

No. This is simply enough for a child to understand. I don't know what your excuse is.

Because children generally don't analyse anything other than the basic message... which is why they're quite happy picking toys out of dog-poo and putting them straight in their mouth!

Apples to oranges.

No, the analogy is clear... tell someone a parable with countless possible "messages" and it is no different to giving someone a list of telephone numbers. Perhaps the number you want is in bold, or at the top... but the analogy holds.

I've explained to you why there is nothing wrong with the parable, and why your failing to understand it does not reflect poorly on the parable, and certainly is not my problem.

And I've explained to you why the parable is weak, and your failing to understand that does not reflect poorly on the parable either... the parable reflects poorly enough on its own.

Then you don't know what a parable is.

I know what a good parable is.

Well, I'm sure you never intended your fallacious arguments to be publicly dismantled and laid bare, but you know what they say about best-laid plans...

Unfortunately the only thing you have laid bare is your own lack of analysis, and your rigid holding to the aforementioned poo-covered toy and saying that you meant to put it in your mouth.
But you have your toy, and be happy with that.

 

[Balerion]

I am aware of the intended point of the parable. Repeating it won't make me consider the parable any less... sucky.

Your explanation of why you don't like the parable makes it clear that you don't really understand what makes a parable work, so I thought maybe you needed to hear it...again.

I would encourage you not to deviate and start picking holes in literary styles you don't like, especially when you clearly understood at least an obvious, if not identical, synonym (unless you think all choices become digital with regard easy/difficult - with no other alternatives?).
But hey, side-track away if you want, although such discussion would probably be best served in the linguistics forum.

Why do you insist on calling your choice of words a "literary style?"

Yet it makes you pay for taking the difficult path as well... so the parable is "life sucks"... "all choices lead to doom or misery"?
Yes, we are all aware of the intended message.

Apparently not, because you say things like the above, which is not at all the intended message. And again, the donkey does not pay for taking the difficult path. Remember, the donkey carrying cotton drowns, while the donkey carrying sugar is relieved of its load and crosses safely.

For all your insistence that you "get it," you very clearly do not.

And so my point remains: the parable, as told, sucks - it lacks clarity in the message it is trying to tell and - as is quite apparent to all those who give it a moment's thought (facetious or otherwise) - raises questions as to unintended meanings - due to its weakness.

You are projecting your own shortcomings onto others now. So far, you're the only one who seems to think this parable is unclear in any way. Garbonzo's initial issue with it was, from what I can tell, the fact that the donkey drowned, which he saw as excessive. I did happen to agree that the point could be made without the donkey drowning, but I do admit that this particular resolution does remove any potential ambiguity.

None of the questions you've raised have had any merit.

I did already - and dismissed them as not being analogous other than in the broadest meaning. In each of your examples the choice taken is in the knowledge of the pros and cons of that choice... but not so for the donkey. Plus those choices you example are not necessarily "easy". But nice try.

Now I believe you are aware that you've adopted the wrong position, and you've become too entrenched to admit defeat. There's no other explanation, because my examples were analogous. A child dropping out of school has no earthly idea what that actually means for their future, neither what advantages they are giving up or extra hardship they're bringing upon themselves. That is a choice made with only the most immediate situation apparent: School is hard, McDonald's is easy. This is no different than the bags of cotton and sugar, with no care given to--and no knowledge of--the morrow.

The parable basically makes a mockery of the idea of choice in the absence of knowledge... that either option is basically just a gamble. But since it then suggests that the "easy" choice can lead to death... who would then decide to walk such a path? And since both choices also lead to the lost cargo... maybe it is saying that all choice is ultimately pointless?

Again, a clear demonstration that you simply do not comprehend the point of the parable. I will risk boring everyone by once again repeating the explanation: The donkeys do not own the cargo. Their vestment is only in their own health and well-being. This is why the initial choice is made BY THE DONKEY. The story anthropomorphizes the donkeys and gives them the ability to choose their cargo.

Or maybe it's a revolutionary parable: "Break free from your merchant, who clearly does not have your best interests at heart, and who is patently stupid."

Nope. The donkeys were free to choose their load. See, you can only raise this question when you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the parable.

No, as I clearly suggested that they had often used with different goods (non-hazardous to health when in water).
But even then I guess that it doesn't alter the basic weakness of the parable.
But perhaps the parable is that one should be wary of the foolishness of those leading the donkeys through water with perishable goods and goods that are hazardous in water?
Still, too many possible messages... parable is weak.

Nope, those are inferences you invented entirely divorced from the message of the parable. It required you to create a scenario in which there are different goods, or that the merchants knew a water hazard was ahead. Neither of these is inferred in the parable, and required you to assume them independent of the story.

Taking the story for what it is, there is just one message: The path of...oh, that's right, you "already know it."

Yep - "Easy" option leads to death!! - so you're advocating taking the difficult choice? But then both options lead to lost goods!!

You're mixing your messages now. As I said before, the parable is about the donkeys, not the merchants. This is why the donkeys are anthropomorphized and given the power to choose their own payload. The reward for the difficult choice is life, and the penalty for the easy choice is death. The fate of the cotton and sugar are irrelevant except for their influence on the donkeys' fates.

And no, the message is not "take the easy road and die." This is why I initially questioned your ability to comprehend metaphors. The point of having the donkey die is to eliminate ambiguity, because death cannot be construed as a "good" outcome. Sure, the author could have simply said the cotton-weighted donkey could have made it to the other side later, tired and slow, but then it would be guilty of leaving itself open to many interpretations. Death is simple and succinct.

Because children generally don't analyse anything other than the basic message... which is why they're quite happy picking toys out of dog-poo and putting them straight in their mouth!

So you've chosen to interpret "children" only as ones young enough to shove poo-covered toys into their mouths? Or did you do this well into your teen years?

Clearly I was not referring to toddlers when I said that. It should be very telling that you had to interpret it that way in order to make your point.

No, the analogy is clear... tell someone a parable with countless possible "messages" and it is no different to giving someone a list of telephone numbers. Perhaps the number you want is in bold, or at the top... but the analogy holds.
And I've explained to you why the parable is weak, and your failing to understand that does not reflect poorly on the parable either... the parable reflects poorly enough on its own.
I know what a good parable is.
Unfortunately the only thing you have laid bare is your own lack of analysis, and your rigid holding to the aforementioned poo-covered toy and saying that you meant to put it in your mouth.
But you have your toy, and be happy with that.

I certainly hope this post has cleared up any lingering issues you have with the parable, but I am not convinced it will. Either you aren't interested in being wrong, or you aren't capable of understanding that you are. :shrug:

 

[Sarkus]

Your explanation of why you don't like the parable makes it clear that you don't really understand what makes a parable work, so I thought maybe you needed to hear it...again.

Good parables have simple and unambiguous lessons. This one thus sucks.
That you can't see, facetiously or otherwise, the alternative "lessons" that one might garner from the story is merely an indictment of your blinkeredness.

Why do you insist on calling your choice of words a "literary style?"

What am I meant to call my choice of words? Bob?

Apparently not, because you say things like the above, which is not at all the intended message.

I know it's not the intended message. I was giving you an alternate message to that which was intended, thus highlighting how such alternate messages can be drawn from the story, thus demonstrating why the parable is, in my opinion, sucky.

And again, the donkey does not pay for taking the difficult path. Remember, the donkey carrying cotton drowns, while the donkey carrying sugar is relieved of its load and crosses safely.

"...the donkey carrying the sugar was near collapse..."
Or is life and death the only measure of payment?

For all your insistence that you "get it," you very clearly do not.

Convince yourself of that and you'll continue to miss the facetiousness dripping from most posts in this thread, mine included.

You are projecting your own shortcomings onto others now.

Wow, yes, you're so right - analysis is such a shortcoming.

So far, you're the only one who seems to think this parable is unclear in any way.

Have you ever had to explain a punchline to someone before? Because that is how I'm currently feeling.

There's no other explanation, because my examples were analogous.

That's the spirit... Positive Mental Attitude!

A child dropping out of school has no earthly idea what that actually means for their future, neither what advantages they are giving up or extra hardship they're bringing upon themselves...

So why didn't you drop out? Or perhaps you did?

Again, a clear demonstration that you simply do not comprehend the point of the parable.

Or that you miss when people are being facetious, perhaps?

Nope. The donkeys were free to choose their load. See, you can only raise this question when you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the parable.

Seriously, this thread - your posts in particular - clearly missed the facetious nature of many of the posts (especially the earlier ones), and in your desire to appear superior you are just highlighting that you missed it. But my bet is that you're now too emotionally involved in this thread and your position to appreciate this. Hey ho.

So you've chosen to interpret "children" only as ones young enough to shove poo-covered toys into their mouths?

They're the only ones who would not be capable of seeing other possible messages in the parable, even if just from a humourous point of view.

Clearly I was not referring to toddlers when I said that. It should be very telling that you had to interpret it that way in order to make your point.

If you refer to "children" in a context of stuggling to add 2 and 2 to get 4, then yes I will infer that you are talking of toddlers, or the mentally ill.

I certainly hope this post has cleared up any lingering issues you have with the parable, but I am not convinced it will.

In my opinion the parable still sucks. :shrug:

 

[Balerion]

Good parables have simple and unambiguous lessons. This one thus sucks.
That you can't see, facetiously or otherwise, the alternative "lessons" that one might garner from the story is merely an indictment of your blinkeredness.

This parable has a simple and unambiguous message. This is demonstrated by the fact that each one of your alternative theories requires assumptions above and beyond anything asserted by the parable itself. In other words, your alternatives assume complexity where there is only simplicity.

What am I meant to call my choice of words? Bob?

Bob would be as relevant a word as "literary."

I know it's not the intended message. I was giving you an alternate message to that which was intended, thus highlighting how such alternate messages can be drawn from the story, thus demonstrating why the parable is, in my opinion, sucky.

But as I've explained to you now two or three times, those "alternatives" cannot be derived from the parable without making several assumptions unrelated to the story. You cannot read the story as it is written and logically conclude that it means "All choices lead to pain/sadness/failure." As the parable is written, there is very clearly a positive outcome, and very clearly a negative outcome. Remember, this parable is written to reflect the interests of the donkeys, not the merchants.

"...the donkey carrying the sugar was near collapse..."
Or is life and death the only measure of payment?

It's certainly the least ambiguous, which is, as you say, what makes a parable effective.

Do you not see how your can't even keep your arguments straight? You are calling the story too ambiguous, yet you criticize the aspect that makes it unambiguous. LIGHTGIGANTICSHRUGPOWER! :shrug:

Convince yourself of that and you'll continue to miss the facetiousness dripping from most posts in this thread, mine included.

So then you don't really think there are other possible messages?

Wow, yes, you're so right - analysis is such a shortcoming.

Straw man. Your analysis is tremendously flawed.

Have you ever had to explain a punchline to someone before? Because that is how I'm currently feeling.

Well, don't hang your head. Just because you don't understand it now doesn't mean you never will.

So why didn't you drop out? Or perhaps you did?

I liked school. I did well there, I had friends, and I enjoyed my experience. I also had the good fortune of being the ninth (and entirely unexpected) child of older parents, and saw the consequences of my older brothers' mistakes. Most people don't have that benefit, and many don't have any kind of support system.

Or that you miss when people are being facetious, perhaps?


Seriously, this thread - your posts in particular - clearly missed the facetious nature of many of the posts (especially the earlier ones), and in your desire to appear superior you are just highlighting that you missed it. But my bet is that you're now too emotionally involved in this thread and your position to appreciate this. Hey ho.

You'll have to forgive me, because I fail to see what is so facetious about your posts. Your argument hinges on these alternatives, yet you say you don't really mean them?

They're the only ones who would not be capable of seeing other possible messages in the parable, even if just from a humourous point of view.

They wouldn't be able to understand any part of a parable. They're toddlers.

If you refer to "children" in a context of stuggling to add 2 and 2 to get 4, then yes I will infer that you are talking of toddlers, or the mentally ill.

I never implied that context. I said that children can understand the message contained within. I certainly did not intend that to mean children who couldn't understand the concept of "2".

In my opinion the parable still sucks. :shrug:

And since your opinion is based on fundamental misunderstandings, it is invalid.

 

[DaveC426913]

The parable has a simple message:

Taking what looks like an easy path at the start may turn out to bite you in the end. (It may even cost you your life.)

To make its point it has:

• a highly memorable, concrete mnemonic: a pack animal with a heavy bag of sugar and a pack animal with a light load of cotton.
  
• a cautionary message about recognizing that the road ahead is not always visible and straight (or, in this case, dry).
  
• a clear, memorable consequence, designed to remind you this is not a trivial lesson; life and death can hang in the balance.

No parable will work equally for everyone. Certainly, this one is steeped in antiquity. That works for it, or against it, depending on your perspective.

Can we agree?

 

[Sarkus]

This parable has a simple and unambiguous message. This is demonstrated by the fact that each one of your alternative theories requires assumptions above and beyond anything asserted by the parable itself.

No, they don't - as demonstrated further down.

In other words, your alternatives assume complexity where there is only simplicity.

The complexity within the parable is already there, if you care to look. It may not be intended, but if you only look for simplicity, that is all you will find.

Bob would be as relevant a word as "literary."

Hmmm. So you don't consider the choice of your words to be in any way a demonstration of your own personal literary style?

But as I've explained to you now two or three times, those "alternatives" cannot be derived from the parable without making several assumptions unrelated to the story. You cannot read the story as it is written and logically conclude that it means "All choices lead to pain/sadness/failure."

Yes you can: 2 donkeys - one suffers from carrying the heavy pack, the other dies: ergo both choices lead to pain/sadness - albeit at different times on the journey. Even if the donkey does not die, the pain/suffering is merely reversed at the river... i.e. they suffer equally rather than only one surviving.
What of this is not simple enough for you to grasp?

As the parable is written, there is very clearly a positive outcome, and very clearly a negative outcome. Remember, this parable is written to reflect the interests of the donkeys, not the merchants.

Suffering under a heavy pack is a positive outcome??

It's certainly the least ambiguous, which is, as you say, what makes a parable effective.

No, an effective parable has just one message... not a "least ambiguous" message (a phrase which implies the existence of other more ambiguous messages).
But it is good to see you at least starting to acknowledge the existence of other interpretations. Baby-steps, as they say.

Do you not see how your can't even keep your arguments straight? You are calling the story too ambiguous, yet you criticize the aspect that makes it unambiguous.

So I'm only allowed to criticise a single aspect? Who made up these rules?

So then you don't really think there are other possible messages?

Oh, no, I do. There ARE other possible messages - as I have explained.
I just didn't expect you to get so emotionally involved over what is in effect one of the most inane threads on this board.
The facetious comments were throwaway... to be taken with a healthy dose of salts... but still highlighting that the parable is open to interpretation beyond the simplistic and obvious meaning, if one really wants to analyse it far deeper than is intended in its telling.

Straw man. Your analysis is tremendously flawed.

Yet you have singularly failed to demonstrate such.

You'll have to forgive me, because I fail to see what is so facetious about your posts. Your argument hinges on these alternatives, yet you say you don't really mean them?

No, I mean them, just not as seriously as you think. The facetiousness is in taking what is intended as a simple story with a simple message and analysing it to the nth degree. You missed the facetiousness.

They wouldn't be able to understand any part of a parable. They're toddlers.

Well, I guess that would put you at least one step up from the metaphorical toddler, then.

I never implied that context. I said that children can understand the message contained within. I certainly did not intend that to mean children who couldn't understand the concept of "2".

My comment was to show how the context of the discussion provides a likely age-range for the term "children". Hence the example: if you're talking of children incapable of adding 2+2=4 then you set the age-range rather low.
However, this was not to imply that I am equating your use of the term "child" to this particular age-range - merely that the context provides the likely range.
The comment about putting toys in their mouth was again for literary effect.
Oh, sorry, you don't like the term "literary" for some reason.

And since your opinion is based on fundamental misunderstandings, it is invalid.

Are you also the kind of person who hears a joke, doesn't get it, and then tries to explain why the situation narrated is based on fundamental misunderstandings, and thus invalid?

 

[Balerion]

The complexity within the parable is already there, if you care to look. It may not be intended, but if you only look for simplicity, that is all you will find.

It is not there, as I have already demonstrated.

Hmmm. So you don't consider the choice of your words to be in any way a demonstration of your own personal literary style?

No one would, unless they were writing a story.

Yes you can: 2 donkeys - one suffers from carrying the heavy pack, the other dies: ergo both choices lead to pain/sadness - albeit at different times on the journey. Even if the donkey does not die, the pain/suffering is merely reversed at the river... i.e. they suffer equally rather than only one surviving.

This is incorrect. The burden of one donkey is relieved in the river, thereby demonstrating that the difficult path can be ultimately rewarding. Of course the difficult path must be difficult at the beginning; otherwise it would not be the difficult path. The message is in the ultimate outcome, obviously.

Again, this is simple enough for a child to understand.

Suffering under a heavy pack is a positive outcome??

No, but neither is it the outcome of the parable. The outcome is the lifting of the burden by the sugar's dissolution in the river.

No, an effective parable has just one message... not a "least ambiguous" message (a phrase which implies the existence of other more ambiguous messages).
But it is good to see you at least starting to acknowledge the existence of other interpretations. Baby-steps, as they say.

See, you have to twist my words in order for you to make a point, just as you need to twist the parable in order to interpret it the way you want. Doesn't it bother you that none of your arguments stand without such trickery?

I never implied that there were multiple interpretations of the parable. I said that if the story had been different--ie, the donkey had not drowned in the river--then yes, it would have left itself open to other interpretations. But obviously the donkey does drown, and therefore there is only one way to read it.

So I'm only allowed to criticise a single aspect? Who made up these rules?

I see you're having trouble keeping up. I'll try again: You are contradicting yourself by arguing that a story is not unambiguous, and then by criticizing exactly what makes the story unambiguous.

Oh, no, I do. There ARE other possible messages - as I have explained.
I just didn't expect you to get so emotionally involved over what is in effect one of the most inane threads on this board.
The facetious comments were throwaway... to be taken with a healthy dose of salts... but still highlighting that the parable is open to interpretation beyond the simplistic and obvious meaning, if one really wants to analyse it far deeper than is intended in its telling.

You haven't explained anything other than your own inability to comprehend a simple concept. Also, the unimaginative, shrouded ad hom stab by claiming I am "emotionally involved" is not overlooked.

What you're essentially saying here is that there are other messages which can be derived from the story, but you can't be bothered to show us one. Since all of your arguments as to why there could be other messages has been thoroughly debunked, the admission that you've yet to demonstrate an actual alternative interpretation is your death knell.

Yet you have singularly failed to demonstrate such.

That statement is factually inaccurate. My arguments have completely dismantled yours.

No, I mean them, just not as seriously as you think. The facetiousness is in taking what is intended as a simple story with a simple message and analysing it to the nth degree. You missed the facetiousness.

I missed the facetiousness because even your reasoning was absurd. It's difficult to parse the joke from an argument that is in itself laughable.

Well, I guess that would put you at least one step up from the metaphorical toddler, then.

Given that your arguments have been debunked, your regression to ad hominem is unsurprising. It is, after all, the last resort of the defeated.

My comment was to show how the context of the discussion provides a likely age-range for the term "children". Hence the example: if you're talking of children incapable of adding 2+2=4 then you set the age-range rather low.
However, this was not to imply that I am equating your use of the term "child" to this particular age-range - merely that the context provides the likely range.
The comment about putting toys in their mouth was again for literary effect.
Oh, sorry, you don't like the term "literary" for some reason.

I don't like the term "literary" in this context because it doesn't apply. You aren't writing a story, or even an essay with literary devices.

And you're completely off-base on the whole "children" argument, as usual. When I said it was easy enough for a child to understand, I meant it exactly as it is implied. If that alone is not clear enough for you, then perhaps you should take it up with whomever home-schooled you.

Are you also the kind of person who hears a joke, doesn't get it, and then tries to explain why the situation narrated is based on fundamental misunderstandings, and thus invalid?

The sound of a plane falling out of the sky...

 

[Sarkus]

Seriously, JDawg, I'm dropping this... as you've continuously missed the point, you clearly missed the earlier facetiousness, you continue to think you have debunked arguments when it is evident that you don't actually even understand the arguments, and I am tired of beating my head against the wall in an effort to explain.
It began as a light-hearted dig at the parable - through a level of analysis that the parable never intended - and it is my own fault for taking it this far in debating with someone who seems simply incapable of such level of analysis.

My lesson has been learnt.
Feel free to put the toy back in your mouth.

 

[Balerion]

I had hoped to help you understand where you erred, but you've proven that on the internet, people care more about the appearance of correctness than they care about actually learning something.

Run back to your hole, Sarkus. I'm sure it's nice and dark in there.

 

[Syne]

This is the exact same sort of path of least resistance fable as the grasshopper and the ant, and no more complex.

 

[Sarkus]

I had hoped to help you understand where you erred,

Very noble of you: like trying to explain to someone the correct word to use when they deliberately used another one for effect (comedic, facetious, humourous etc), thus demonstrating that they clearly misunderstood that person's reasoning for their choice of word.

...but you've proven that on the internet, people care more about the appearance of correctness than they care about actually learning something.

And you've shown that it's painful trying to explain humour to someone who just doesn't get it.
But I admit that it is my fault for dragging it out, thinking that noone could really be that stupid. You have certainly helped me understand my error in this regard. Thank you.

Run back to your hole, Sarkus. I'm sure it's nice and dark in there.

When your eyes are closed you will probably be sure of many things.

 

[DaveC426913]

Enough bickering you two. Don't make me turn this forum around!

 

[Balerion]

Enough bickering you two. Don't make me turn this forum around!

It's hysterical, isn't it? He just doesn't seem to get it, and when his arguments are debunked, he acts like they were all a big joke anyway. :shrug:

 

[DaveC426913]

Both of you.

 

[Balerion]

Both of you.

Alright, homie, climb down off the high horse. Either contribute or get lost.