Would you be willing?

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's amazing.

I feel very sorry for you that you have so little empathy.

[/ QUOTE ]

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the girl. That should be bloody well unquestioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stalin said, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." People are twice as willing to kill thousands of innocent people and hurt tens of thousands at the behest of a distant politician, than to allow a single person to be hurt at the behest of friends.

Of course, even that's not true. Studies have indicated people are very willing to allow things like the rape described above. But the way people have reported here is telling.

[Siegmund]

I am going to say no and no for somewhat different reasons than those posted so far.

In the bomb case, I am being asked to take one man's word for it that this is the right thing to do - the democratic process to elect a president is no guarantee that the president's decisions represent the current will of the people or reflect a correct grasp of the strategic situation. I can imagine I might, in fact, drop the bomb, if I had some strong reasons to believe at least one of the above were the case.

In the second case, it is presented as a hypothesis that majority rule is the accepted method of decision-making. As I understand it, that means that -- in this messed up hypothetical world -- they have legally established their right to rape her and my pulling the gun would be crime. The same crime as stealing boxes of ballots from an area with different political views than mine, to try to make my view prevail over the majority view in the election.

[paperjam]

[ QUOTE ]
I am going to say no and no for somewhat different reasons than those posted so far.

In the bomb case, I am being asked to take one man's word for it that this is the right thing to do - the democratic process to elect a president is no guarantee that the president's decisions represent the current will of the people or reflect a correct grasp of the strategic situation. I can imagine I might, in fact, drop the bomb, if I had some strong reasons to believe at least one of the above were the case.

In the second case, it is presented as a hypothesis that majority rule is the accepted method of decision-making. As I understand it, that means that -- in this messed up hypothetical world -- they have legally established their right to rape her and my pulling the gun would be crime. The same crime as stealing boxes of ballots from an area with different political views than mine, to try to make my view prevail over the majority view in the election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your second reason makes very little practical sense. In this case it is a very very small sample size, whereas to "legally establish" a right, to your meaning, everyone or most everyone would have to agree - obviously a clan of cluxers get together and want to kill blacks or jews, we say that isn't right - it represents the feelings of a specific group, not the whole.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's amazing.

I feel very sorry for you that you have so little empathy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Maybe he has a small appendix too. Good thing for him is we're no longer reliant on everything evolution gave us.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am going to say no and no for somewhat different reasons than those posted so far.

In the bomb case, I am being asked to take one man's word for it that this is the right thing to do - the democratic process to elect a president is no guarantee that the president's decisions represent the current will of the people or reflect a correct grasp of the strategic situation. I can imagine I might, in fact, drop the bomb, if I had some strong reasons to believe at least one of the above were the case.

In the second case, it is presented as a hypothesis that majority rule is the accepted method of decision-making. As I understand it, that means that -- in this messed up hypothetical world -- they have legally established their right to rape her and my pulling the gun would be crime. The same crime as stealing boxes of ballots from an area with different political views than mine, to try to make my view prevail over the majority view in the election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your second reason makes very little practical sense. In this case it is a very very small sample size, whereas to "legally establish" a right, to your meaning, everyone or most everyone would have to agree - obviously a clan of cluxers get together and want to kill blacks or jews, we say that isn't right - it represents the feelings of a specific group, not the whole.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol, what, in your mind, defines the 'whole' group.

Hint:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50FZ0Sz2N6A

[keith123]

whatever the whole group is, i'd trust them more than a single individual.

[tomdemaine]

Perhaps the parallels would have hit home harder for some if it was a random American city.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the parallels would have hit home harder for some if it was a random American city.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, I probably shouldn't have added the 'Japanese' part, because people immediately start rationalizing.

[VarlosZ]

Scenario 1 is poorly worded. Is this a situation such as the end of WWII, after years of war and with (possibly) millions of lives about to be lost in a conventional invasion of the island? Or is this just an order that comes out of the blue?