What would you do if you 'knew'?

Couldn't the mad man just be disabled? Say some toxin that induces stroke-like symptoms? And the building destroyed where the virus is kept? Although blowing up this building could lead to the release of the virus itself, making YOU the one who actually released it on humanity rather than the mad man. If we go with the MK Ultra theory with someone else actually pulling your strings to get you to do this, that could be the whole idea. YOU actually release the toxin rather than the evil-genius. So, don't blow up the building.

Also, will the man's death actually stop the virus from being released? Surely he has a team of equally nefarious folks that would continue as planned. I think the actual virus and it's recipe need to be destroyed in a way that does not release it.

And just for a twist of irony, why not kill him with his own virus? Give it all to him thus eliminating the chemicals and the bad guy in one fell swoop?

But to answer your "hypothetical" question, yes I would eliminate this person if I knew without a doubt that he planned to kill a large amount of people.

Originally posted by SmokeyDawn

Originally posted by muzzleflash
There is no moral dilemma, no quandary of philosophy.
You either believe that murder can be a means to an end, or you do not.
I do not.
I do not like that end.
I want a new beginning.
The 'final solution' is not acceptable for anyone. Not even the devil himself.
To win this war you must stand your ground.
Good does not commit evil to accomplish good.

Exactly!! Why is this so difficult for people to understand?? The end does NOT
justify the means!! In fact, if there's a need to justify an action at all it's the
WRONG action!!

Why is it so difficult for people to understand? Because the world is not as black and white as you make it. You justify every action you take every day, whether you realize it or not. You take different actions in different circumstances, according to what would be most beneficial to a desired outcome; it's called rationalization.

Would you push a child out of the way of a bus to avoid his imminent death? Even though it might mean he would get a little scraped up on the pavement? It's certainly not something you would normally do, but you could justify it because it prevented him from getting splattered on the underside of the bus. Or do the ends never justify the means, and you let the child die because to physically harm him would be 'wrong'?

What if you didn't even have to harm anyone, you just had to tell a little lie. A mother and child come running by you, and they quickly hide down a dead end alley. A thug comes along, intending to murder the mother and child, and asks you if they went down that alley. You could tell him you haven't seen them, and save their lives. Or do you offer them up and say "Sure thing, they are right down there, have at it!", because saving their lives does not justify the lie you had to tell to get there?

Yes, in an ideal world we'd never have to comprimise our moral integrity. But sometimes we have to sacrifice a lesser moral for one we hold much closer. War is about standing your ground, but peace is about compromise. I know which one I'd rather have.

I am a bit surprised at the perspective people are taking here.
To me, i think the real question is whether or not you'd be willing to allow the deaths of millions. Could you, in good conscience accept responsibility for something like that? for any reason? Is there any moral reason or spiritual truth that could make it okay?

Imagine it as a court setting(representative of the internal struggles you'd go through considering your options).
On the one hand, you are guilty of murder, found guilty and everyone will know of your guilt. Saved millions, spend life in prison for it.

On the other, accessory to crimes agains humanity is a pretty serious charge. Sure, know one would know (except hundreds here on ats) but you'd have to live with it. knowing if people ever knew, you'd die anyway.

regardless of your choice you cannot remain blameless. so, the blood of one man on your hands or many?

Also, if in this situation, I'd consider i might be seriously crazy. but none of that matters much

maybe saving millions, maybe killing an innocent researcher, and putting my loony ass in prison. either way, I'd go with the numbers. One death is enough bloodshed for me. No matter what your morality, or for what reason, you have been given (for pretend) the choice of life or death for murder. there's no way around it. they are your resposibility. period.

i don't think time is that rigid. if it's only giving you two options, create a third. as a human being and a child of the most high, you have the ability to create a third scenario and more.. send the guy a letter outlining that you know what he's doing and where he's at because you've been having visions of him. and that he must stop what he's doing, properly destroy and dispose of the dangerous product, and go find a new job making cures for the common cold or something else benign. then explain the contents of your visions to him so he realizes that this cannot end well for him either and he has a third option of not doing it at all, which would obviously end alot better since it's an unannounced modification made to the timeline in the incident in which the two of you are making it up as you go along.

Particularly relevent to this thread at a couple of minutes in. An experiment using VR to test people's response to a moral dilemma.

The full program looks at what makes us good/evil and discusses socio/psycopathy.


Edit to add: not sure if I am properly embedding...


Link as I cant make it work!

use to have falling dreams as a child. right before i hit the ground i learned to change the inevitable to a satisfactory alternative...i decided i would bounce and fly instead. which i then did. rather clumsily, i might add, but was preferable to the times when i woke up instead, right before hitting the ground, scared half outta my wits and certainly alot more fun. i think this scenario is similar. you don't have to accept only those 2 outcomes.

If society had more love it would have been easy to heal hitlers suffering while he was young and all that stuff might not have happened.......so yes its our fault all that # happened not hitlers.

if in the scenario you arrive at a certain time, go there earlier instead.
change it up. don't obey the vision's/OOBE's outcomes since neither of them is acceptable to you.
quantum universe. mix that puppy up.

one more post: if all possible outcomes of the event were shown to you, you would also have been shown outcomes where none of it happened at all. so i think the issue here is for you to choose a new outcome, since the other outcomes are just existing as potentialities until they actually occur or don't occur.

in other words, seems to me, the solution is to defy the 2 options you were given: 1) because there must be other options, and 2) because neither of the 2 you were shown, were acceptable.

am i making sense?

ah so many paradox's ! By simply stopping him (ie shooting him) you could inadvertently cause an even bigger genocide, or what if his 'biological crimes' were the one thing that united humanity against TPTB ?

Of course paradox's aside i would at all cost's avoid personifying my 'ability' ie: i would not ask 'why me' or 'is this right or wrong' etc because these powers are beyond human, therefore they need to be applied to a new paradigm, a 'neo-maxim'.

Ultimately i would try to stop him / her via a 'chain' of cause and effect, for example the force exerted by a butterflies wings can cause a tornado on the other side of the world, following this idea i would do something really simple like make him / her late for work - thereby causing him/her to miss a conversation with a co-worker which would later spark the intention to study biology etc , BUT following the laws of cause and effect and equilibrium this would in turn produce something which would make it more difficult for me to prevent him / her.. maybe eventually leading to a future in which my attempts to stop the scientist actually resulted in him/her producing the virus !

Originally posted by undo
one more post: if all possible outcomes of the event were shown to you, you would also have been shown outcomes where none of it happened at all. so i think the issue here is for you to choose a new outcome, since the other outcomes are just existing as potentialities until they actually occur or don't occur.

in other words, seems to me, the solution is to defy the 2 options you were given: 1) because there must be other options, and 2) because neither of the 2 you were shown, were acceptable.

am i making sense?

edit on 18-9-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)

Maybe the best answer i have read, it makes to much sense to me

I wouldn't kill him. It doesn't matter that you would have saved so many lives, as killing him makes you no better. Taking life is taking life, the quantity is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Your experience only provides one solution that will end this before it begins, but is that one solution really the only one that could work?

the answer to the first question in the original post is: NO! that is not the only solution that could work!!

therefore... my answer to the second question in the original post

72 hours, what would you do if YOU knew?

would be:
i would NOT intervene!

cheers!

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I wouldn't kill him. It doesn't matter that you would have saved so many lives, as killing him makes you no better. Taking life is taking life, the quantity is irrelevant.

i also agree with this! so giving ya the star
+1

Dude I think I know what you are talking about o_O I know its hard but if you killed the guy, the plan will not be removed, it will just be slowed down. It just depends if you want to slow it down.

Europe will still get that load either way. If its sooner or later, it probably wont matter anyways.
Whatever you choose to do, it wont save us.

Sad part about this thread is that its not hypothetical...

GL man

Originally posted by exponencial
Sad part about this thread is that its not hypothetical...

GL man

i had the same feeling

Originally posted by exponencial

Sad part about this thread is that its not hypothetical...

This being so, what would YOU do?

And would you care to let us in on what the big secret is?!

Some of us are in Europe...

Originally posted by Mouldilocks

Originally posted by exponencial

Sad part about this thread is that its not hypothetical...

This being so, what would YOU do?

And would you care to let us in on what the big secret is?!

Some of us are in Europe...

edit on 18-9-2011 by Mouldilocks because: spells

the clues are in the original post...
but, don't worry as the OP say: there are 7 years for the madman to carry out his plan and to develop the deadly virus...
besides, Nibiru will be here very much sooner!

Well WWII from a birds eye view looks like just part of the zionist/occultist/masonic plan:

PROBLEM: Hitler kills jews
REACTION: Oh those poor jews, nobody wants to live with them, they deserve a country they can rule over instead of trying ot rule over everyone else
SOLUTION: rape and pillage the Palestinians and steal their land and throw the jews in there so they can help us prepare for our NWO and one world leader(anti-christ), theres not many that are more anti-christ than some of the jews(after all they did conspire to kill him when he was last here). Now we have zionists, occultists, and masons awaiting the anti-christ and willing to bend over backwards to see their plan fulfilled

So I doubt killing Hitler would of done much at all to the big picture, the zionist/occultist/masonic freaks would of just found some other gimp to take his place.

In regards to the OPs question about some madman trying to spread a virus, as mentioned it's hard to say when there is a good chance his head is being messed with from evil spirits to mind control, and like the scenario above if it is true/real then there's a good chance they will just replace him with another abhorrent freak.

I think the OP is the only one who knows his situation well enough and can make a decision based on his own experiences.

Originally posted by EmilNomel

the clues are in the original post...
but, don't worry as the OP say: there are 7 years for the madman to carry out his plan and to develop the deadly virus...

If the OP, or anyone else has more knowledge, more details of this, it could be argued they have a moral obligation to the rest of human kind to divulge...so at least we also have the benefit or foresight and can therefore prepare.

I'll quote Fractured.Facade here from this thread, his reply also deals with issues of morality...

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

Mr. Feldman has made some serious criminal allegations, and will apparently do nothing more about it, so on his words alone, it is easy to conclude both that he is complicit and a coward.

In my opinion, of course.

So...what's going on then, Fractured.Facade?