BF2S Forums Hypothetically, could you..

Cougar wrote:

Sure.  I'll shoot someone in the face for the greater good.

Actually, I'd probably shoot 100 people for the common good.

thats just cause you hate everybody cougar... you'd probly shoot me for the fun of it.

Cougar wrote:

Sure.  I'll shoot someone in the face for the greater good.

Actually, I'd probably shoot 100 people for the common good.

agreed.

id have to draw the line at no more than a low percent of the earths entire population. i mean, if you could eliminate a fatal disease by destroying 1% of the earth's population, why wouldn't you?

example: no more aids for the price of one city? more people die a year by aids than it would take to end it that way.

Last edited by OmniDeath (2007-07-18 06:59:01)

If the probability were 100%, and exactly that (no less) that those diseases would be completely and utterly wiped out with no chance of returning, and - I don't mean to sound cold, but if she was nobody I knew - then I could probably bring myself to. It'd most likely throw me into a depression or something, though.

I don't know. I don't like having the lives of other people in my hands. Most likely I'd put on a gas mask or something, drop the magazine out of the pistol and de-cock it, and call the proper authorities.

funny thing is, i'd assume as a christian you would believe those diseases would exist for a reason and by the commandments you wouldn't do it?

i wouldn't do it. she has the right to live, and disease is natures way of thinning the numbers. if no one died by anything but accidents and old age the world would be even more populated than it is now. i suppose you could argue that the children you would save out weighs one childs life, but how can you value something like that? one childs life is worth the infinate odds and chances it took to get there. infinity x 1 or infinity x 1 billion is still infinity.

i would however probably kill a convicted pedo or something of that nature..

I hate everyone too, but this is a bit different. I'd have no problem popping off a ten year old girl if it meant the disease would get destroyed with her. Regardless of whether or not it's the little girl's fault, I'm not letting this shit get passed on to even more innocent people. So it becomes an issue of when to cut your losses. Do you do it now, when the losses would be minuscule, or do you wait until thousands of people have it, and they all have to be quarantined and killed anyway?

leetkyle wrote:

As a Christian, I am totally against murder. .....

What's being a Christian got to do with being against murder? As a Male, I am also against murder.

OmniDeath wrote:

agreed.

id have to draw the line at no more than a low percent of the earths entire population. i mean, if you could eliminate a fatal disease by destroying 1% of the earth's population, why wouldn't you?

example: no more aids for the price of one city? more people die a year by aids than it would take to end it that way.

i would kill you, to save 1% of earth population...

depends... is she Muslim ???














bad joke.
I doubt I would be able. Maybe If I was sick or someone I loved, than for selfish reasons I would consider it. But Im too disappointed in human kind to kill an innocent girl

I'm not going to pretend I know what I'd do.

I'd really only know at the time.

Doubt it, would be too personal. Dropping a nuclear bomb tho.. yeah I could do that.

As they say, "1 deaths a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic".

Depends on your definition of "the greater good". curing all disease MIGHT not be for the greater good. There's a damned good reason why disease exists. It's called "culling of the weak". Without it, we'd be TRILLIONS of people on the planet today, not just billions. Then we'd all die of starvation, or canibalism would set in and we'd all die of kuru (!) But THAT'S been cured, so I guess not.

So what IS the greater good in killing a child ? Or 10 , or 100 ? I certainly dont see any greater good in what you propose. Have you ever heard of the term "racial hygene" ? Oh it was VERY popular in the 1920's and up. Forced serilization of the "weak", some countries serilized the crazy, some the handicapped, some started on the gypsies, and ended up with the jews.... Now what part of THAT was for the greater good ?

While I agree that you must sometimes do the WRONG thing to reach the RIGHT goal, then I have to tell you... There IS no "greater good", and EACH wrong thing you do on your way, will put you slightly off course for your goal, and eventually, you'll find that you goal is unattainable, or has shifted.... In which case... Can you TAKE BACK the evil things that you did, now that you find they are no longer a means to an end ?

Another way of putting it would be: If you could save half the worlds population by killing the other half.... Would you be commiting genocide ? Or if you did nothing, would you leave things to chance ? Because chances are that whatever put you in the position to kill half the world, it may not be as bad as what YOU by your own hand will cause.

You are ONLY responsible for your own actions in this life, and as you do not know the future, you do not know that your actions in your hypo WOULD save lives, or cure cancer or save billions of people. In fact, you do not know that what you do wont make things WORSE, so in any given situation you HAVE to make a judgment call, and EACH time you have to make the RIGHT choice. And the right choice in THAT case would be to NOT kill the girl, because your premises are false. Nothing you do to ANY girl will cure cancer.

ghettoperson wrote:

Easily. Hell, I'd shoot her if it'd prevent someone getting a cold. And then have my wicked way with her corpse.

sick.