100 v. 2 Billion

Fuck you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oniw17:

Calm down.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, it comes down to me having a little fun with the answers to what was a ridiculously flawed question to begin with.
You, in thinking you are morally correct in making no choice on principle, are the source of that fun. You said, and I quote :

So you did say it. Absolve yourself of all responsibility via inaction. There's a third factor your answer completely ignores : allowing people to be killed. Or let us put it a little more simply for you.
People are going to die. What will you do about it?
You say: Nothing. My morals will not allow me to act.

Ah, but wait - you said credit. So, it all becomes clear - TW Scott wants recognition for being a morally upstanding individual. Who would that be, Scotty boy? God? Or all the other cowards using their morals as an excuse?
You're screwed either way, sunshine. Nasty old Demon, exposing you like this.

*note - how is it that so many cannot understand the difference between "your" and "you're"...

*edit: Oniw17 - Yes, calm down old son. Wouldn't want you getting all ... violent, or anything. You might go and do something silly, and compromise your morals. Can't have that, can we.
*further edit: Actually, the question wasn't all that flawed. It has application.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My morals actually have nothing against violence. In fact, I would encourage violence to teach respect.

 

Yes, I imagine you do. What you really mean, though, is that you'd encourage violence to teach respect for your opinion.

 

No, that's not what I really mean, stupid.

 

Clarify, then, or shut up.

I just read your bio. You, apparently, like to fight and dislike those who are afraid to. Here I am exposing those who you apparently dislike, and yet you attack me.
Lack integrity, do we?

 

I mean respect for people, not there ideals. There's a lot that goes with that, but on the grounds of enforcing such a thing I would use the following example. If you say something that's isulting to someone, and they ask you in a threatening tone "what did you say?" Then it is time to act. Or if someone says something extra offensive. However, I wouldn't advocate violence against someone who insults you to a point where you're not actually emotionally hurt by it(which is usually the case). I could elaborate more, but that would go too far off topic.

Afraid to do anthing at that. Fear is an abomination to human life. Fighting's just on my bio because it's one of my favorite things to do.

I didn't see any fear in their posts. Moral reasons can have little or nothing to do with fear. You imply that you reasoning for making the same decision is better than theirs. That somehow JamesR and TW Scott are less dignified in their decisions because they didn't decide such they same way you did. You suggest that they are selfish because they do not want to be responsible for the deaths, as if it were senseless self-righteousness.

So?

No sir, I obey my own ethics very strictly, I've even written them down so that I won't forget them trying to chase liquor with Robotussin, and my ethics are very detailed and utterly perfect.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ah, I see. You're one of those brought up on a idea of rap singers yelling at everyone to show respect for them regardless of whether or not they've done anything to earn it.
I tend to disagree. I'm old school, you see. You don't demand it on the simple grounds that you're a human being and have a right to it. That's hogwash.
If you want my respect, then you bloody well earn it.
Most of you youngsters don't realise that as soon as you feel compelled to demand, you've already lost it.

Hmm, yes. So whether or not they're right hasn't got anything to do with it?
Sometimes, someone pointing out fault in you is reason for you to listen and question yourself. Your enemy is often a friend in disguise.

Fear is actually quite a useful emotion. Perhaps you meant blindly surrendering to it was the abomination?
Do you refuse to accept that not making a choice, in this instance, could well be a result of the fear of the consequence of making one?

Fear of something is the ground for any moral code. Ask yourself how "morality" came into being to begin with, what it is designed to achieve.

I wouldn't have made the same desicion - I already stated what mine would probably be. Other than that, correct. They obviously have not thought through the results of this "moral" decision, and yet they claim to be compassionate beings.

And yet you appear to miss the point that by doing nothing, they are indirectly responsible. Now how will you reconcile that?

So justify it. I'll ask you to clarify your choice of target. If you simply wanted someone to have a go at, then just admit it - I often feel that way myself.
If that is not the case, then what made you think they needed defending to begin with?
You're on rather shaky ground at the moment. You appear to be confirming that you had no reason whatsoever.

I hardly think so. You haven't yet the life experience for any such thing to be possible, and I guarantee you you'll look back on them in 20 years time and have a little chuckle at yourself.

 

I guess I would be similar, just in a reverse fashion. I tend to give respect until it is lost.

I took it for granted that when you said you don't care much for the human race and would let the 2 billion die, you were agreeing with them?

Yup.

Fear makes you nervous, and causes decisions to be made on impulse.

That's a good conclusion I guess.

It could, but that doesn't mean it does.

Either order, or maybe hightened enlightenment I would think.

I guess you have a point as far as hypocrisy there, especially in JamesR's case.

I have no problem with that, the decision was perfectly fair.

That's the only reason why I do anything at sciforums.

Uh....that's a good question.

I'm always on shaky ground.

I assure they definitely are perfect.

Of course, that's the way it's been in my life so far. I'd normally say something about that passive derogatory use of my age, but I just smoked my first blunt in 2 months, and I'm blazed right now, so maybe later.

 

Yes, you're right. The result of both decisions would be the same.
Only the reasons for them were different.

Only if you aren't aware of being afraid, or surrender to it.
However, a lack of fear would have a similar result, wouldn't it? Taking on an enraged lion by yourself and armed only with a stick isn't really conducive to a long life expectancy, let alone survival of the species. Fear evolved for a reason.

"Enlightenment" is often a word used hand in hand with humanistic religion or ideology.
The real basis for most of these is the fear of suffering.
If you impress upon as many people as possible the idea that a certain course of action is wrong, then it is less likely it will happen to you.

Only for the one making it. For the one hundred or the two billion, it was heartless and completely selfish. From their point of view they have, in making the decision to do nothing in order to uphold a moral code, already violated their own self-proclaimed compassion.

Yup. Completely understand that.

They cannot be. A rigid code is an ineffective one.
This is why justice and law are often at loggerheads.

Not really "passive" as much as resigned. You won't agree until you get to where I'm at, and that's some way in the future. I didn't say youth doesn't have a brain (in this case), I'm saying you don't have enough experience to make informed judgements. It simply doesn't matter if you agree or not, it's the way it is. I'm certainly not going to pander to you.
But don't get me wrong - I kind of like you so far. Could use a blunt myself, but unfortunately I'm at work and killing time here out of boredom. Enjoy.

 

No, not responsible at all. The Demon is responsible. It designed the disease, infected and people and can cure them at a whim. Their fate is in his hand no matter what you do. You're only responsible for the 100 people as you decided wheter they live or die. The Demon has already made it's decision it's trying to commit evil, either directly or through you. The fact that I choose to be defiant and not play the game makes me not responsible, even indirectly.

 

Well, hell, Scotty. If you don't give a damn about other human lives, then just say so.

Sheesh. No need to take your disinclination to do anything, clothe it in a pretty red dress and label it "defiance" if you don't care to begin with.

Defiance would be charging the thing headlong with a shotgun filled with silver pellets or something. Then at least, if you got torn limb from limb, Mel Gibson would make a movie out of you with some beautiful girl as lead actress playing your wife/girlfriend or whatever, you'd be accredited some choice quotes and heroic final words and you'd go through posterity a bloody hero.
Just think about it.

Better that than, say, the surviving relatives of 2 billion odd people all looking at you with a glint in their eyes and a lust for revenge, knowing you were the one who could have saved some of them but chose not to because it wouldn't have been morally correct to do so... and it wasn't you anyway, it was that demon over there.

 

I do care that is why I will not kill the 100 people who are not harming me or mine.

though apparentalty you can take ignorance and dress it as intellectuallism. Nice talent

Man you are stupid, i thought you were just ignorant, but your stupid. If it came to me out of the blue and asked this question and made the offer, my chancec of having silver pellets are slim and none. Besides it's already infected the peopl numb nuts, it's gotta be alive to contain the virus or cure it.

Why would they have a lust for revenge, dumbass, the demon infected them. I didn't. nature didn't. The demon did. I just chose not to commit more evil for a supposed cure promised by a being that serves the prince of lies.

 

Yup... and your "caring" ensures 2 billion die instead. But don't worry - you have the high moral ground.

Why, thank you. What's yours? Spelling and grammar?

Well ok. What about a sprig of garlic then. Think that'll work? No wait - that's for vampires. How about a major leaflet campaign, or perhaps free t-shirts with "Demon poisoners go home!" written on the front in bold letters?

Um hm. I'm sure that once you take the time to explain this to all those people, they'll listen carefully, consider your words and decide you're absolutely right, and leave you alone.
This kind of human intelligence and reason is evident all around us. People are always willing to listen to reason, assume responsibility for their own actions (or take no action in order to avoid responsibility), and assign blame where it actually lies rather than where the easiest or most profitable target is. Check out the law courts, you'll see.

 

No Dipshit, the demon's bloodlust ensures 2 billion deaths. My refusal to play his game saves 100 lives.

I won't have to explain shit, 2 billion people die I will guarantee there will be so few close relatives left that it won't come up. And if it does, believe that they will target the maker of the disease, it's human nature to find the direct threat. Some may blame me for not saving the people but when they hear the cost they'll grumble, complain and realize they could not ask a person to do such a thing to save strangers. Remember we are culling out the worst 30%+ of the population. The people left would be the type that murder is not an option taken lightly.

Plus in all honesty the Demon would let you kill the hundred then cure everyone of the disease, then reinfect them just for giggles.

 

But... you'll at least wear the t-shirt, right?

 

Why stop at two billion?

 

Now that would be a response I'd admire.
Demons are known for high stakes gambling. We could go double or nothing on the flip of a coin.

 

Ah….oh shit….ummmm….which group am I in....aaaaa.....what's the question again?......hmmmm....?

I don’t know….I....uh... shoot the messenger.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Am I right?