A Hypothetical Moral Question II [Archive]

View Full Version : A Hypothetical Moral Question II

Judge Smails

04-28-2006, 09:43 AM

Is swear, there's no aliens in this one . . . .  but there is some time travel.OK.  I've been thinking about this for a while and the Flight 93 movie and CircusFreak's WTC thread reminded me.  Al Queda, and those types, obiviously had a hard-on for bringing down the WTC long before 2001, as is evidenced by the 1993 attack.  Why those towers as opposed to any other building or monument?  It was not because of the buildings but what they symbolized - our economic and technological superiority.  I think that to Al Queda, the deaths were far secondary to bringing down the buildings.  In the war on terror, I think that Al Queda was strengthened more by the accomplishment of bringing down the towers.So, if you could travel back in time and had the ability to either save everyone in the buildings but have to allow the towers to fall at the end; or if you could preserve the towers but have to sacrifice everyone inside which would you do?I think I would save the buildings.  And before you call me a heartless fuck who is isolated from the situation please be aware that I have a friend whose brother-in-law was killed in the attack.  He left a wife with a three month old son.  I attended the memorial and am well aware of the pain that it caused the family.  Am I on the wrong side of the fence on this again?  Obviously we still would have been alerted to the danger of fundamentlist islam because of the deaths but we would have avoided giving them a feather in their caps by keeping the buildings up. I just think that if the towers had not fallen maybe we would be in a very different place in this "War on Terror".  Maybe we might have even stayed out of Iraq, who knows.  And before you DC people complain that I didn't include The Pentagon in this scenario, there are two reasons: 1) The Pentagon was not destroyed, and 2) I think Al Queda accomplished their goal simply by carrying out an attack on what should arguably have been the most guarded and protected building on the planet.

Furtherman

04-28-2006, 09:45 AM

I would save the people.  I would save my friends.

A.J.

04-28-2006, 09:59 AM

1) The Pentagon was not destroyed,...only because the plane (or missile for you conspiracy theorists) hit the building where it did: the refurbished wedge that had the reinforced blast windows and fire supression/evacuartion systems.  If ANY other part of the building had been hit, believe me, the damage would have been far, far worse.  My office survived only because those windows absorbed the blast.

Recyclerz

04-28-2006, 10:13 AM

Save the people, no question.  Although the Judge has a point on the symbolism of the buildings themselves, the real proof of our economic & technological superiority is our ability to replace those things in relatively short order.

Furtherman

04-28-2006, 10:15 AM

A.J. wrote:  the refurbished wedge that had the reinforced blast windows and fire supression/evacuartion systems.  For the last time, it's HOAGIE.

kdubya

04-28-2006, 10:16 AM

People over everything, no structure is more importent than human life Also why is the Pentagon always over looked, the people who died there had families that loved them just as much.

This message was edited by kdubya on 4-28-06 @ 2:17 PM

A.J.

04-28-2006, 10:20 AM

Furtherman wrote: A.J. wrote:  the refurbished wedge that had the reinforced blast windows and fire supression/evacuartion systems.  For the last time, it's HOAGIE.THANK YOU...I was hoping someone would get that!

SatCam

04-29-2006, 10:27 AM

Buildings can be re-built, people cannot

FezPaul

04-29-2006, 10:34 AM

SatCam wrote: Buildings can be re-built, people cannot http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f281/FezPaul/Sixmilliondollar1.jpg "We can rebuild him, we have the technology."

moochcassidy

04-29-2006, 10:51 AM

the people, no question

cougarjake13

04-29-2006, 02:07 PM

if we could find evidence that their ultimate goal was to bring the towers down and casualties were an added bonus for them then i would say save the towers because in the words of spock "the needs of many outweigh the needs of a few" but the problem is if the towers dont fall then we prob dont go to war with iraq and get saddam out of power and if everything that has happened since 9-11 still happens the same way would we really want a saddam in power iraq and that crazy fuck in iran potentially joining forces against us and the world ???question is how would all the people who died still die if the towers dont fall ???

Def Dave in SC

04-29-2006, 02:22 PM

Don't be ignorant, nobody, especially Iran was going to "team up" with Iraq.  Iraq was secular and that shit just doesn't fly in the radically Islamic Middle East.  As a matter of fact, Iraq and Iran fought a war over that same fact about 20 years ago.   And to answer the question, I would give the buildings up in a heartbeat to save the people.  Obviously buildings can be rebuilt.  Lives cannot be brought back, and the pain of the loss cannot be undone.

newport king

04-29-2006, 04:50 PM

Also why is the Pentagon always over lookedI think it is because the Pentagon is a military structure.Yes the people in there had families but the WTC was a civilian building. Those people just went to work that day like any other not thinking that an act of war would be comitted that morning and they'd lose their life just because of where they worked.

DarkHippie

04-29-2006, 06:04 PM

I think we've stumbled onto the main difference between normal people and terrorists.  Normal people care aout saving human lives over a building.  The terrorists care more about taking out the building (being a symbol) than the number of people that die.

Bulldogcakes

04-30-2006, 02:47 AM

Recyclerz wrote:the real proof of our economic & technological superiority is our ability to replace those things in relatively short order. Too late for that. 5 years later and they're just breaking ground. Because the Port Authority, NY state and NYC all had to haggle with each other for their piece of it. So much for our "superior system" especially in NYC. Which also has the highest building costs in the nation, almost double that of Chicago, for no practical reason (architectural concerns, etc) whatsoever. <blockquote />

Bulldogcakes

04-30-2006, 02:49 AM

I'd save the people, but we all know that the Jews were tipped off and didn't show up for work that day.

Yerdaddy

04-30-2006, 04:44 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  Recyclerz wrote: the real proof of our economic & technological superiority is our ability to replace those things in relatively short order. Too late for that. 5 years later and they're just breaking ground. Because the Port Authority, NY state and NYC all had to haggle with each other for their piece of it. So much for our "superior system" especially in NYC. Which also has the highest building costs in the nation, almost double that of Chicago, for no practical reason (architectural concerns, etc) whatsoever.  <img src="http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8047/simpsonsfather0uv.jpg" border="0" />Father! Give me legs!

sr71blackbird

04-30-2006, 05:03 AM

I think if time travel were possible, Id rather go back and stop Islam itself.  Its a shame that in this time of enlightenmet, that we have to have all these differing religions and idiologys cutting each others throat's in the name of God.  Of all religions, despite that it's foundation is based upon peace, Islam has spawned more problems in the name of peace than any other religion in the history of mankind, bar none.  It would be great if one religion were to sweep the world and it's focus was on brotherhood of man and striving towards enlightenment, and everyone bought it and followed it and we had a true brotherhood of man. 

jeffdwright2001

04-30-2006, 05:05 AM

Having trouble answering the question? Ask this instead:  Would you rather the Fire Department save your house or your family if the fire were started by arson.

This message was edited by jeffdwright2001 on 4-30-06 @ 9:05 AM

sr71blackbird

04-30-2006, 05:16 AM

The family, of course.  What good is a home with no family to house?

Reephdweller

04-30-2006, 06:13 AM

sr71blackbird wrote: I think if time travel were possible, Id rather go back and stop Islam itself.  Its a shame that in this time of enlightenmet, that we have to have all these differing religions and idiologys cutting each others throat's in the name of God.  Of all religions, despite that it's foundation is based upon peace, Islam has spawned more problems in the name of peace than any other religion in the history of mankind, bar none.  It would be great if one religion were to sweep the world and it's focus was on brotherhood of man and striving towards enlightenment, and everyone bought it and followed it and we had a true brotherhood of man.  Could you say brotherhood one more time....brother!

Reephdweller

04-30-2006, 06:17 AM

If I could travel back in time, what I would do, go back to the 50's and snatch that book of sports scores that Bif took from Marty in the future, make millions...if not BILLIONS, and then in September around the 1st or second of the month do a massive corporate takeover of United and American Airlines and ground their fleet for a month and prevent both the people from dying and the buildings from falling. Problem solved!

mikeyboy

04-30-2006, 06:22 AM

jeffdwright2001 wrote: Having trouble answering the question? Ask this instead:  Would you rather the Fire Department save your house or your family if the fire were started by arson.This message was edited by jeffdwright2001 on 4-30-06 @ 9:05 AM Damn!  A jeffdwright appearance?!?!?  Where they hell have you been, buddy?

jeffdwright2001

04-30-2006, 06:34 AM

mikeyboy wrote: Damn!  A jeffdwright appearance?!?!?  Where they hell have you been, buddy?Been busy with my our 20 month old (Matthew), my computer business, and now a 4 week old brother for Matthew.I've been trying to catch up on goings-on with board members via the threads (btw - I'm rushing out tomorrow for some rock salt shampoo), but it's slow progress.Shoot me a message and catch me up on how you're doing.

newport king

04-30-2006, 06:47 AM

it's focus was on brotherhood of man and striving towards enlightenment, and everyone bought it and followed it and we had a true brotherhood of man.  <img src="http://www.killcastro.com/blog/uploaded_images/Lennon-NYC-767612.jpg" border="0" />Imagine all the people....seriously. greatest song ever.

Yerdaddy

05-01-2006, 04:46 AM

sr71blackbird wrote: I think if time travel were possible, Id rather go back and stop Islam itself.  Its a shame that in this time of enlightenmet, that we have to have all these differing religions and idiologys cutting each others throat's in the name of God.  Of all religions, despite that it's foundation is based upon peace, Islam has spawned more problems in the name of peace than any other religion in the history of mankind, bar none.  It would be great if one religion were to sweep the world and it's focus was on brotherhood of man and striving towards enlightenment, and everyone bought it and followed it and we had a true brotherhood of man.  I like you Man, but seriously, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

A.J.

05-01-2006, 05:09 AM

Islam has spawned more problems in the name of peace than any other religion in the history of mankind, bar none.Lately I'd blame Scientology.But ditto to what Yerdaddy said.  Christians are hardly innocent.

Reephdweller

05-01-2006, 06:23 PM

Its a shame that in this time of enlightenmet, that we have to have all these differing religions and idiologys cutting each others throat's in the name of God.  Of all religions, despite that it's foundation is based upon peace, Islam has spawned more problems in the name of peace than any other religion in the history of mankind, bar none.Personally I am not a fan of any religion. I was raised Catholic though I am not a follower. I believe in the idea of a God to an extent, though by no means am I religious. I sometimes wish there was a way to just do away with all religions and hope that would solve things though I doubt it would. I think it's mans inherent nature to find a problem with other people for whatever reason, so if it weren't about God or a religion, it would be about land or skin color, or taxes, or whatever. I don't necessarily think we even need a reason at times. That it just for whatever reason feels like a good time for a war and that's it. I'm not justifying it or even condoning it, but rather just something I think we tend to do.I would like to think that mankind will one day evolve into being a peace seeking race and we would move forward, though I just know that won't happen. Something someone anyone does or doesn't do will always piss someone off, and at least one of those variable of people who get pissed off and stop whatever it is by force or murder. It is the animal in us that gives us the ability to survive by hunting but also that which causes us to kill. Some will never, and some could never, but many others could and will.

suggums

05-01-2006, 06:41 PM

Reefdweller wrote:  Its a shame that in this time of enlightenmet, that we have to have all these differing religions and idiologys cutting each others throat's in the name of God. Of all religions, despite that it's foundation is based upon peace, Islam has spawned more problems in the name of peace than any other religion in the history of mankind, bar none. I think it's mans inherent nature to find a problem with other people for whatever reason, so if it weren't about God or a religion, it would be about land or skin color, or taxes, or whatever.   or sometimes all at once!

Furtherman

05-02-2006, 07:43 AM

sr71blackbird wrote: I think if time travel were possible, Id rather go back and stop Islam itself.  Its a shame that in this time of enlightenmet, that we have to have all these differing religions and idiologys cutting each others throat's in the name of God.  Of all religions, despite that it's foundation is based upon peace, Islam has spawned more problems in the name of peace than any other religion in the history of mankind, bar none.  It would be great if one religion were to sweep the world and it's focus was on brotherhood of man and striving towards enlightenment, and everyone bought it and followed it and we had a true brotherhood of man.  Since its creation, the catholic chuch leads all religions in the Spawned More Problems In The Name of Peace game.  Islam has a lot to catching up to do.One religion to sweep the world?  How about no religion.  Imagine.  It isn't hard to do.  We'd all be better off.

IamFogHat

05-02-2006, 08:26 AM

judge_smails wrote:  I think I would save the buildings.  You would save the buildings?  I really feel like I'm reading this wrong or something and trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.  But you're asking us whether we would save the people and lose the buildings or save the buildings and lose the people, and you would save the buildings?  I'm a little fucking perturbed right now.

dereckfishboy

05-02-2006, 09:12 AM

SatCam wrote: Buildings can be re-built, people cannot  There's no shortage of humans. They're a self renewing resource, and there's more of them than ever. The fall of the Towers weakened the Country as a whole. It made us feel vunerable to attack, showed the rest of the world that we were vunerable to attack, and in the end led to events that very well might claim more lives than were lost in the Towers. It's a lot more traumatizing to lose all those lives in one sitting, but you have to look and the long term future. For the strength of the nation, we can't afford to think of individuals. We are collectively the United States of America, the strongest free nation on Earth. If we start negotiating how many lives that's worth, we'll pay more in the end.  I don't want people to die. But when the world saw that we could be hurt, some of their eyes lit up. I'd rather 3,000 people die now than 15,000 people die in the next however many years. And I'll bet most of those people who perished in the Towers would have been willing to die for their freedom if given the choice. I know I would.

Judge Smails

05-02-2006, 09:31 AM

dereckfishboy wrote: There's no shortage of humans. They're a self renewing resource, and there's more of them than ever. The fall of the Towers weakened the Country as a whole. It made us feel vunerable to attack, showed the rest of the world that we were vunerable to attack, and in the end led to events that very well might claim more lives than were lost in the Towers. It's a lot more traumatizing to lose all those lives in one sitting, but you have to look and the long term future. For the strength of the nation, we can't afford to think of individuals. We are collectively the United States of America, the strongest free nation on Earth. If we start negotiating how many lives that's worth, we'll pay more in the end. I don't want people to die. But when the world saw that we could be hurt, some of their eyes lit up. I'd rather 3,000 people die now than 15,000 people die in the next however many years. And I'll bet most of those people who perished in the Towers would have been willing to die for their freedom if given the choice. I know I would. I was just about to answer IamFoghat but dereckfishboy pretty much covered most of what I was going to say.  My point in my original thread was not meant to come off as me being a cold-hearted prick.  What I meant to get across was that by saving the Towers we might have avoided the whole climate that we find ourselves in.  Maybe we wouldn't have as convenient an excuse to go into Iraq.  Maybe the Muslim extremists wouldn't have been bolstered by their sucess or our subsequent retaliation. Maybe Bush would be out of office or at the very least the climate of fear wouldn't be crippling us as it is.  I don't know.  I don't say I'm right, but I think that there is some kernal of reason in arguing about saving the towers.

This message was edited by judge_smails on 5-2-06 @ 1:32 PM

Gvac

05-02-2006, 03:39 PM

I'm a fairly open minded person who generally likes intellectual debate.  This argument, however, has no merit.  To dismiss the senseless slaughter of 3,000 innocent people and equate human life with a  "self renewing resource" is as inhuman a point of view as I have ever heard.

rooter

05-08-2006, 07:21 AM

cougarjake13 wrote: question is how would all the people who died still die if the towers dont fall ???  Gas