Would You Kill An Innocent Person If It Created World Peace?

[The Blowhard]

Mr Spock once said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few". What do you think?

<img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/images/sigs/heckler sig.jpg" width="300" height="100">
[/b]"Seeking the gorilla my dreams!" [/b][i]

[HordeKing1]

HECKLER - Sacrifice one life for many? The life of a stranger, certainly! The real quandary arises when the person to sacrifice is someone you love; your wife or kids for example. My death in exchange for saving many I can willingly accept. My kids though? Are any number of lives worth theirs? If so, how many? 10? 100? 10,000? I pondered this for hours and was unable to arrive at a definitive conclusion. I just don't know. This is a fascinating ethical dilemma and I'd appreciate feedback.

[The Blowhard]

Be warned...I find myself in many ethical dilemmas! ;)

<img border="0" src="http://www.ronfez.net/images/sigs/heckler sig.jpg" width="300" height="100">
[/b]"Seeking the gorilla my dreams!" [/b][i]

[vegeta]

Damn right! Especially if it was someone I found extremetly annoying. In fact, my crosshairs are trained on dumpy right now. If I kill him, something good has got to come out of it!

<center>
<img src="http://darknemesis5.homestead.com/files/vegetafire.jpg" height=130 width=100></IMG><font color="#80000">
You may not like me, but you will learn to LOVE ME! </font><br><p><br>

[skullcrush]

wow leave it to heck to stump the all knowing

"official pimp of rfbabies.com"
"get in the cage,grandma"
-Baby Chanel

[NYHCmikeX]

Hell, I;d kill an innocent stranger just for the hell of it, but giving up a loved one's life for any amount of others I dont think I could go for, I'd rather have people who I didnt know suffer then my family over the loss of a loved one.

<img border="0" src="http://members.aol.com/nyhcmikex/myhomepage/ronfezsig2.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US">
I'm the dealer of death and here's your motherfuckin' hand-Biohazard

AOL Name:NYHCmikeX

[HordeKing1]

NYCHMIKEX - There has to be a point at which the rational person will concede that despite their fierce love for their kids for example, the lives of others takes precedence. Ultimately, it all comes down to numbers. Kill your kid for 5 people? I can't imagine anyone going for that. Kill your kid to save a billion? How could you not? No life, no matter how precious to you, is worth a billion lives. Note that I used "a billion" as an extreme example. Reasonable people will differ as to the exact number.

[The Blowhard]

I thought about this for a while. Would killing Pootertoot be a sin? He obviously has no soul and I'm sure that the Westchester DA's office would be extremely happy.

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/heck.gif
"My dog told me to kill you"

[Gvac]

My Liege,

My question is: Do we really
want World Peace? Think about it.

[The Blowhard]

"War is stupid, and people are stupid" Boy George

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/heck.gif
"My dog told me to kill you"

[Pootertoot]

You'd have to catch me first. I'm in a different child's closet every night.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/muldermanx/images/tardpower2.gif">
This Sig is Temporary, while the REAL 1000 Post Spectacular Sig is Pending Litigation.

[HordeKing1]

GVAC - Could you be more explicit? What about world peace seems like a bad thing to you.

The problem of overpopulation could be dealt with.

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[CYYYFYYY]

I as usual agree with
Spock!!!!!!!!!


David the Franchize
Let them eat Cake!

[adolescentmasturbator]

How about we put it this way. If your kid was Damien from the Omen would you kill him?

[The Blowhard]

What if your kid was that ugly little girl on the Welch's Grapejuice commercial?

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/heck.gif
"My dog told me to kill you"

[Gvac]

King,
You asked me to be more
specific as to what would be
so bad about world peace.
Aside from the advancements
that seem to be made
economically and
technologically post-war time,
I also have a problem with the
human race being so docile. I
love strong emotions; it's one
of the great things about
being human. Granted, violent
physical acts are not always
the best way to resolve a
conflict, but sometimes they
are unavoidable.

[EffMeBoobs]

I thought about this for a while. Would killing Pootertoot be a sin? He obviously has no soul and I'm sure that the Westchester DA's office would be extremely happy.

Of course they would, they'll find my Movado watch that has been nestled up his rectum for quite some time now!

http://members.aol.com/lqqieee/images/fmb.jpg

Piddlers and BJQs do it better....There you are you sexy thang...come love me darling.

[Pootertoot]

I fart every hour on the hour now.

But that's probably due to the grandfather clock up there and not the watch.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/muldermanx/images/tardpower2.gif">
This Sig is Temporary, while the REAL 1000 Post Spectacular Sig is Pending Litigation.

[HordeKing1]

GVAC - Your concerns about the advancement of technology is not without merit. War has always driven technology.

Economic advances post-war are not real though. They are just adjustment to depressions and rationing that war inevitably produce.

Why do you assume that humans would be docile without war? Just because we wouldn't go around killing each other becuase of silly language, cultural or teritorial disputes does not make the species docile.

Imagnine if all the negative emotions associated with hatred and jealousy could be channeled into positive strong emotions, like love caring and empathy.

Imagine if the creativity of the human race formerly geared towards implimenting weapons of greater destructive force would be directed at worthwhile projects like eliminating hunger and disease, or increasing longevity, or developing a realistic manned space program.

We, as a species have more important things to do than to destroy ourselves. Until we realize that our species is in constant peril of total extinction.





http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[Gvac]

HK,
You stated previously that
we have ways other than war to
control population, and then
you say our energies should be
turned to eradicating disease
and encouraging longevity.
This appears a bit
contradictory to me. Please
explain.

Big A.S.S. card # 190

Pootertoot is God

[HordeKing1]

GVAC - Good question that I should have clarified earlier. I acknowldge that my beliefs on this issue are radical and may piss off some right wing religious nuts.

Simply put, there are too many people on the planet. I believe that mandatory limitation on childbirth is inevitable. I'd rather see it enacted sooner rather than later.

It's always galled me that we require people to take a test to drive a car, but anyone who wants can become a parent. This is unacceptable. Parents are the key influences in a child's early years. Bad parents can fuck up a kid for life.

Encourage lognevity and increased standard of living for lives in being. Limit the uncontrolled expansion of the population. Propserity and peace for all.

Even then, until the population is reduced no more than 2 kids per couple who qualify.

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[Pootertoot]

This is why my UN proposal, Operation SFFF (Stop Foreigners From Fucking) needs to be implemented immediately.

I mean, really, don't we have our quota of Pakistani children by now?

And thanks for the props, Mr. GVAC. I promise if a large cult of people decide to worship me as their personal deity, I will uphold the standard of killing them all eventually, but not before raping most, if not all, of their children.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/muldermanx/images/tardpower2.gif">
This Sig is Temporary, while the REAL 1000 Post Spectacular Sig is Pending Litigation.

[ScottBaio]

Horde King

I'm astonished at your stance on population control. Surely you realize that such measures would only work on law obeying people in well developed countries, leaving the world disproportionately overpopulated with the underfed and uneducated.

If you're going to embrace a noble aspiration in lieu of war, why not work toward developing new population centers? Besides the ultimate possibility of spreading the human race throughout the cosmos, there is plenty of undeveloped land on the Earth that could be terraformed. 30 billion people could live in Africa and be less crowded than Jersey if there was an infrastructure in place to support it.

Killing babies. Sheesh. I already find it a shame that the more enlightened souls are reluctant to bring newborns into the world while ghetto whores are cranking them out like a pez dispenser.

Mmm.. pez.

<a href="mailto:scott.baio@everydaytrend.com"><img src="http://www.eclipse.net/~ataraxia/baio.gif"></a>

[HordeKing1]

SCOTTBAIO - I've tried to keep my answers shorter as several people have noticed my leanings toward maximum verbosity. (Go figure)!!

This being the case, I didn't address all the issues that need be addressed in order for population control systems to work.

Any law must be enforced with consequences for those who break it. Otherwise the law and the system that promulgated the law is doomed to fail.

I read an excellent paper on the topic by an evolutionary biologist who pointed out that failure to enforce a mandatory population control law will esentially select (in the Darwinian Natural Selection sense) for people who feel no compuncture at breaking laws or are too stupid to see the value of such laws.

The usual punishment advocated for violators of population control laws are mandatory abortion and sterilization. These measures are hardly Draconian.

Needless to say, such a system would have to be applied globally. The infrastructure for doing so is slowly getting in place. The WTO is helping accomplish this in ways to numerous, diverse and complex to go into in this forum.

Your figures are way off. For example you say that "30 billion people could live in Africa." There are about 6 billion people alive on the whole planet and there is great difficulty sustaining all of them. It goes way beyond the simplistic view that it's because some countries are rich and some poor. That has to do with distribution of wealth only, not the planets ability to sustain a steadily increasing population.

You might be interested to know that just 50 years ago less than 3 billion people were alive. The population more than doubled in 50 years. It is projected to do so again.

You mention Africa in particular sustaining these 30 billion people. It's simply not possible. Much of the continent is uninhabitalbe dessert, another sizable percentage is unihabital forrest. Although Africa was unquestionably the birthplace of humanity, there were good reasons why there was a mass exodous of homo sapiens from the continent about 75,000 years ago. The continent did not have a great many resources. People left looking for better lands and found them.

I suggest an excellent book on the topic (which also explains why some countries have much material goods and others dont). The book is called "Guns, Germs and Steel by J. Diamond. It's fascinating, captivating reading.

As a final point, under any population control plan, "ghetto whores" (to use your term) would not be permitted to have more than a set number of children, and only then after they qualify as parents.

A topic of great interest to me and I appreciate your questions and/or comments.


http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[adolescentmasturbator]

I love the whole point of abortion is for a woman to have control over her body. So just because the government says you cannot decide what to do with your body but on the other end of the spectrum it is ok?

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[Gvac]

HK,

I hope you're just trying to
be controversial to stimulate
some conversation, otherwise
you may be taking that
"supreme oligarch" tag a wee
bit too seriously.

To the sober I'm just an asshole

Pootertoot is God

[HordeKing1]

GVAC - An interesting point, often raised.

Think about it for a second and you'll see a major difference.

A woman has a right to choose NOT to bring another life into the world. It's her decision and affects her alone.

Contrast that with a person insisting on bringing life into the world - a decision which affects the entire population, in that it taxes our already depleted resources.

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[adolescentmasturbator]

HK I respect your opinions but I feel about it this way.

You cannot have liberty unless you have it both ways. It should be your right to have 0 children or 100 children.

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[HordeKing1]

As I respect yours.

I hope you know by know that I'm all about encouraging the open and free discussion of ideas to better promote understanding. It's OK to agree to disagree. In fact about most things, we have to agree to disagree. No two people are alike.

On this particular issue, I don't feel it's as black and white as you seem to.

It's more a matter of respecting the social contract where we all live in a society and must repsect the laws of the society and the good of the society at the expense of some measure of personal freedom.

I'll give two brief examples.

1. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater as it will lead to damage, no matter how badly you may feel you are entitled to do so.

2. Take the matter of religious freedom. A person cannot claim immunity from prosecution becasue his religion requires him to kill infidels. (True of many religions).

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[girl germs is dead]

women just need to cut off men's ding dings, schlongs, penises, weeners, wee wees, peepees, whatever you want to call those horrific looking things....that seems like a great way to control population.

and if men still want to do women in the ass, they can wear strap-ons.

there. problem solved.

<p align=center><b>fear me</b></p>

[adolescentmasturbator]

Yeah girl germs sign me up for that program.

HordeKing another question what happens in your program if you get triplets?

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[HordeKing1]

ADOLESCENT MASTRUBATOR - Multiple births, particularly in excess of twins are statistically rare, in the absence of fertility drugs.

However, in such event, the two most viable should be picked at an early stage of pregnanccy and continued, the other terminated

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[adolescentmasturbator]

I know these are extreme situations but I'm just curious.

What if a couple already has a child then get pregnant with siamese twins?

What if a someone has two kids already and gets married to someone childless? Would the childless person be able to have children.

I will get a sig pic...eventually

[HordeKing1]

Interesting questions. Obviously a complete system has to be worked out. Thre are reasons why books of the most basic statutes are really really thick.

A system can be worked out that will acount for every eventuality.


http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[HordeKing1]

A similar topic was just raised.

Top.

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[IkeaBoy]

World peace? No. Fun? Definiitely

"Nothing can kill The Grimace"

[42nd-delay]

Uh, Horde King:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/worldpopulation010801.html

------------------------------
42nd-delay

<img src = "http://www.krikordaglian.com/images/superbowl_sig.jpg">

[HordeKing1]

42ND-DELAY - This methodologically flawed study has been criticized by experts all over the world.

Even the link you point to shows some of the most glaring flaws of the study.

The population crisis, is just that a crisis and will not disappear as a result of wishful thinking or hoping.

(A global nuclear, chemical, biological, or even conventional war would help reduce the population but I hope that no onw is wishing for that.)

http://members.aol.com/slipknot4twenty/hking

[The Blowhard]

Well?

"It takes good taste to truly appreciate bad taste"-John Waters

[RF Godfather]

I prefer to sacrifice myself than anyone else. Kill me if it will create world peace, please!

http://members.aol.com/dxixrxt/rfmark1.jpg
Thanks ManDrew! Take it easy like a Sunday morning, Clarkey!
THE PROTOTYPE<marquee>ONE AND ONLY RFW UNDISPUTED CHAMPION!</marquee>