"Unthinkable": What would you do? Could you do the "Unthinkable"?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Sorry i did not mean to attack or offend you. I was just making my argument.

reply to post by ksorelleesq


are you kidding me?-yes nuke the ---- out of that country, they obviously dont care enough about people to keep from murdering innocent women and children, so deserve to be nuked. 2 sides just fanning eachothers flames under the guise of morality

reply to post by andy1033


I agree with you. But I couldn't write off millions of more peoples. They are more than just numbers. They have lives too and have just as much right to live. Sure you are faced with the children. But what of those people not there?
Remember, I said I would do it. But I know I couldn't live with myself afterwards.

Without thinking on it twice I could do it. Cold blooded maybe I am but if I thought that his family was the weak link I would use it to the fullest. The one thing that could be some trouble is what family member to start with. Kids or wife?
I`m thinking kids so the wife could beat it out of him so it would stop.

reply to post by andy1033


No. You tried to call void a sick ffer for saying he would do it. That was in NO WAY justified.

reply to post by andy1033


It is because suffering of many is worse than suffering of few. In this particular situation, I try to minimize the suffering, pick the lesser of the two evil. What? So you'd let the million people die and just watch it over even you could have a chance to prevent the disaster?

At the bottom of my heart, I don't really believe in ethics in the sense that there is universal good and evil. All depends on the situation. Sometimes something which seems to be evil, may be good. But I am not fantasizing of torturing people - I'd try to avoid that. I infact don't hurt a mosquito sucking my blood. But in this specific situation presented by OP, I might reconsider resorting in violence and torture.

-v

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Simple human instinct. What guarntee do you have it wouldn't work?

I'm not the one making up the scenario. I'm just asking if there is any indication that torturing his family would do any good in the first place. I think it's very likely that if someone is willing to kill millions of people for some reason that that reason is paramount to him - even more than his family. I think it's very unlikely that torturing the family would bring any results except for losing valuable time.

reply to post by v01i0


The thing is the gov and police would use this dilema to torture people, and kill people that have done nothing.

I do not know how you justify killing anyone or torturing them as a family and saying they are less important than a million. Maybe in terms of tax dollars they are, but is a million people really worth more than a few peopel. Who knows.

But i am sure, in terms of morals it is not.

You may want to rationalise it, as all of us do, but really can you really justify it. Your trying to visualise the difference, but is there really a difference between a family dead or a million dead?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by andy1033

 

No. You tried to call void a sick ffer for saying he would do it. That was in NO WAY justified.

Are you sure your talking about me. Here is teh post you first replied too.

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by v01i0

 

Explain to me how it is moral, to take his and his family life over any one else. Numbers are numbers, morals have nothing to do with numbers. Your just rationalising and fantasising about torturing and murdering peopel to save others.

How does numbers get into morals?

If something is wrong it is wrong.

Where is the part of me calling someone a name?

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Like I said, no guarntee it wouldn't work either. The simple question is could and would you pull out all the stops when a great deal of lives are on the line. A smaller though simular question is could you kill someone if it meant keeping your family from starving to death.

reply to post by andy1033


I think I just've justified it. Maybe not in your morals, but as I am a spineless capitalist elitist illuminati, I could do such things without losing my sleep

I don't value lives in money, but really you cannot say that 1 million (a hypothetical number) weights as much in the scale as 3?

Or then again, because I am a spineless capitalist elitist illuminati, I could just watch million people die just to prevent overpopulation and blame teh terrorists in order to push through the patriot act XIV.



-v

reply to post by andy1033

Your just rationalising and fantasising about torturing and murdering peopel to save others.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I think you had a slight over reaction there. lol

I did not mean in the way you thought i meant.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Like I said, no guarntee it wouldn't work either. The simple question is could and would you pull out all the stops when a great deal of lives are on the line. A smaller though simular question is could you kill someone if it meant keeping your family from starving to death.

In your scenario you would jump right to going for his family without considering other ways first? I know time is of the essence but you would just go for the nuke option (pun intended) right off the bat? I wouldn't. I would try to determine the best way of getting it out of him rather than what seems to the "normal" person, from a "normal" mindset, to be the easiest.

reply to post by andy1033


Oh. Telling people they fantasize about such situations is not an attack? You are the one who over reacted. He merely answered a hypothetical. You insinuated he's getting off on it. Shall we drop this part of the conversation now?

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


As I think I said. All other options were tried and failed. In the movie the guy was former spec ops. Which means anti-interrigation training.

I saw that movie, and the ending was beat.

how wouldnt they find the other one? they had a team go in and sweep the building.. please..

oh hollywood

I can't remember the whole movie, but I remember there being a part, early on, that gave the authorities the best opportunity to get the bombs, and I would have taken advantage of it.. and given him what he wanted... you can always shoot him later.

reply to post by Myendica


If you remember it was only at the last minute that the main character figured out there was a fourth device.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


right... but if 2 bombs are at same location, and you have a team there sweeping the area, you would have found it..

its a movie though

reply to post by hypocrites


I think we are saying the same thing/ or maybe explain yourself better- reread my post - I am saying that you do what you have to do to protect your own - hmmm