FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Two guns, limited food and water.






Which action would you choose...
I'd shoot.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
I'd not shoot. I'd rather starve.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
I am unsure.
100%
 100%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 1

JoryRFerrell
You are placed in a room with another individual, against your will, by an unknown party.
You do not know the other individual who has been placed there with you either. Nor do
they know anything about you. The room is actually divided by a sliding wall made of bars.
You each occupy a side of this divided room. Each side has a limited supply of water and food,
along with a handgun containing a full extended magazine of 20 rounds or so. There are
skeletons, in the room with you, indicating that others have died here before. You are each told
by a loud speaker that unless one of you shoots the other, while the other person is
ASLEEP you will be left to starve to death. (But you'll be given water. They want you to
suffer for whatever reason.)

You know there is no escape. In fact, for the sake of the argument, please pretend that all
possibilities, outside of the options offered to you, are for one reason or another, unavailable
to you in this situation. There is no killing your captors. There is no escape. Suicide by any
means other than voluntarily starving to death is assumed to be impossible...maybe they installed
a shock collar to zap you, physically preventing you from doing so in case you try. No matter
what you do, you or this other person will fatally shoot each other while the other is asleep, or
die a slow death of starvation.

Would you murder the other individual in their sleep? What if they honestly somehow seemed to
give the impression they were considering killing you when you fell asleep, but you could not be
sure?

Would you act preemptively?

Do you think this situation is similar to Iraq? If our country were honestly worried about WMD's,
would this justify our governments actions?
deanhills
The logic is flawed. You'll obviously not be able to shoot someone if you are asleep. You'll do it when you're awake. And obviously no one will go to sleep in a situation like that.
JoryRFerrell
deanhills wrote:
The logic is flawed. You'll obviously not be able to shoot someone if you are asleep. You'll do it when you're awake. And obviously no one will go to sleep in a situation like that.


LMFAO.

You misunderstand: You must shoot the other person while only THEY are asleep. I did not mean you must both be asleep. Lordy. LOL. You make me laugh. Razz

Anyway's, I added the part about being asleep so people don't try to say they'd simply fire only if the other person raised their gun at you. This additional detail helps cut through excessive posting by people trying to figure out ways around the question. It gets right to the point, throwing bullshite out the window:

What would you do if you have know way of knowing if the other person will kill you in a way which you cannot defend yourself (I.E. while you are asleep, not while they are. :\), and the only alternatives to not killing them, are to die with alongside them, or be killed.
SonLight
This type of hypothetical is notoriously hard to set up with the right incentives. If I knew there would be a good outcome for the one who shot the other, it would greatly increase the incentive to be the first shooter. One likely outcome would then be that the first to go to sleep would die.

You suggest suicide might be a preferred option. Perhaps (if it had been allowed) we could flip a coin, loser to commit suicide. Or winner to commit suicide if outcome for survivor looked grim, or maybe both would choose to. Most people would probably prefer that to murdering someone.

Since the murder seems compelled, I think I would freely agree to kill if I won the toss or be killed if I lost. Murder wouldn't seem quite as immoral if it was by consent and I was arguably doing the victim a favor.

I believe we could apply the scenario to WW II as well as to Iraq. The US avoided a preemptive strike, but only by deviously taking advantage and/or encouraging Japan to attack us.
JoryRFerrell
SonLight wrote:
This type of hypothetical is notoriously hard to set up with the right incentives. If I knew there would be a good outcome for the one who shot the other, it would greatly increase the incentive to be the first shooter. One likely outcome would then be that the first to go to sleep would die.

You suggest suicide might be a preferred option. Perhaps (if it had been allowed) we could flip a coin, loser to commit suicide. Or winner to commit suicide if outcome for survivor looked grim, or maybe both would choose to. Most people would probably prefer that to murdering someone.

Since the murder seems compelled, I think I would freely agree to kill if I won the toss or be killed if I lost. Murder wouldn't seem quite as immoral if it was by consent and I was arguably doing the victim a favor.

I believe we could apply the scenario to WW II as well as to Iraq. The US avoided a preemptive strike, but only by deviously taking advantage and/or encouraging Japan to attack us.


You are entirely off topic. Are you intentionally trolling? You have to be. You must because I specifically stated that I used language for the express purpose of avoiding hypothetical. I deliberately stated that suicide was not to be considered an option, that hypothetical escapes from this situation were supposed to be assumed inneffective, etc.

I did all this why/ Because I wanted you to answer the question. You apparently made a very intense effort to do the exact opposite, even earning bonus points by doing the exact opposite. Neutral

Bravo. Bravo.
I couldn't outdo you if I tried.
Top marks sir.
Job well done chap.
You have given us an OUTTTTTSTANDING PERFORMANCE MY DEAR BOY!

These are all examples of sarcasm. You will earn further extra credit by responding to these "compliments" in the same fashion you answered my original post. I look forward to grading your work.
SonLight
OK, I thought you were trying to set up an analogy to compare the Iraq war with. Discussing possible suicides was maybe a little off topic, but the fact remains that I did answer some of the things I might consider in deciding whether to murder or not.

You may have intended to suggest that the two of you could not communicate, but I assumed you could. I did suggest two possible outcomes. Either the first one to fall asleep would be killed, or the two might agree to choose who would be killed by a coin flip.

PS. Thanks for the extra points.
Marcuzzo
deanhills wrote:
The logic is flawed. You'll obviously not be able to shoot someone if you are asleep. You'll do it when you're awake. And obviously no one will go to sleep in a situation like that.


I totally agree with Deanhills.

By the answers of the OP JoryRFerrell I can only assume that he/she is either a 12 year old kid that watches too much TV and has recently seen one of the SAW movies or we are dealing with a deranged individual with a very low IQ and self-esteem.


Back to this crappy topic If you were in the room with another person and you BOTH get the same message: "kill the other person in his sleep"... who in his right mind would go to sleep? nobody!
JoryRFerrell
Yes... thats exactly it. You nailed it. I am just watching to many movies.

[img]http://thewe.cc/thewe_/images_5/__/us_global_attack_strategy____/child_killed_by_us.jpe[/img]

[img]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1074596%2Fthumbs%2Fo-AFGHANISTAN-AIR-STRIKE-KILLS-CHILDREN-facebook.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fafghanistan-war-blog%2F5%2F&h=1022&w=1536&tbnid=rQ1ODDMOb3a-eM%3A&zoom=1&docid=nOhsHq8ErgDw8M&ei=EVx9U97oLcaiyATquYGYBg&tbm=isch&client=firefox-a&ved=0CFQQMygAMAA&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=722&page=1&start=0&ndsp=25[/img]



[img]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-CQYN0OvreMk%2FSHpyDohcvvI%2FAAAAAAAAAks%2FRsE5XVjUfvE%2Fs1600%2FAfghan%252Bfamily_mourning.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fafghancentral.blogspot.com%2F2013_09_01_archive.html&h=319&w=300&tbnid=V3jUDnC1554VXM%3A&zoom=1&docid=rDycv2tpLnl0kM&ei=EVx9U97oLcaiyATquYGYBg&tbm=isch&client=firefox-a&ved=0CGcQMygTMBM&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=1063&page=1&start=0&ndsp=25[/img]

[img]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmorallowground.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fafghanistan-civilian-casualties-e1338135004636.png&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmorallowground.com%2F2014%2F04%2F16%2Fus-airstrike-kills-afghan-woman-2-children-in-khost-province%2F&h=284&w=440&tbnid=WzyMwBTk0JQSjM%3A&zoom=1&docid=5A06V3B6y5JksM&ei=EVx9U97oLcaiyATquYGYBg&tbm=isch&client=firefox-a&ved=0CGUQMygRMBE&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=848&page=1&start=0&ndsp=25[/img]

[img]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmorallowground.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fafghanistan-civilian-casualties3-e1350492664987.png&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmorallowground.com%2F2012%2F10%2F17%2Fnato-air-strike-kills-3-afghan-children%2F&h=264&w=440&tbnid=MGxK-gScmw_kBM%3A&zoom=1&docid=POoRrsRZf7uXpM&ei=EVx9U97oLcaiyATquYGYBg&tbm=isch&client=firefox-a&ved=0CGEQMygNMA0&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=505&page=1&start=0&ndsp=25[/img]


[img]http://thewe.cc/weplanet/asia/afghanistan/afghanistan_continues.html[/img]



What kind of ****** up films do you think I should watch next to fill my head with sick ideas?
Remember, I am 12, so you should probably only suggest pg13 and stuff...I don't want nightmares.

Every-time I try to talk about the psychology of avoiding these kinds of issues, people tend to shrug me off. I try to pose questions like this to get past all the usual "Thats war. Stuff happens in war."-bullshit that people constantly throw my way. In the end, peoples justifications as to why they are willing to "shoot first", either with a handgun, or a missile during an invasion of a crowded city,
are self-serving. Peoples justifications for allowing our country to blow other folks away is that that is just how war is. But should it happen to them, it's a tragedy. Whenever we do it, it's fair and just, when "they" (it wasn't even Middle Easterners in general, it was 20 dudes who performed 9/11) do it, it's barbaric and monstrous.

In the end, asking ourselves what is, and is not a reasonable way to handle seriously dire situations, is key to avoiding murdering another 300,000-1,000,000 people who have nothing to do with terrorism. What would you do to me if we were in a locked room? What would you do if we weren't but I simply "had" stuff that would make your life easier? What is the true worst you are capable of doing to another human being? Are you willing to kill, let others kill on your behalf? Are you as a first-world citizen willing to call others trash, but sit around and do or say nothing about human rights abuses? Are you going to waste all the education opportunities that could be used to further yourself,
and help make our country more efficient so we "need" to kill fewer innocent folks, or would you rather play/watch football? As a civilized adult...a mature non-12-year-old, what are you going to do in terms of protest as governments use your money to pay for tomahawks used to murder folks who simply don't need...murdering?

As for the part about sleeping folks...stop being retarded. Eventually you have to go to sleep or literally die of exhaustion. The human body needs sleep, especially in such a stressful situation. :\
Once you realize you literally can no longer stay awake and may possibly be killed in your sleep, would you desperately pull the trigger to avoid the possibility of being shot yourself?
Iceaxe0410
Given the premise, logically I'd goad the other person to shoot me. You stated there is no escape and for some reason you can't shoot yourself? If there is no hope of escape, the only reasonable solution is to shoot the other person in say the leg. Pretend you're a really bad shot and hope that they at least manage to shoot you good enough to either bleed to death or get killed instantly.
JoryRFerrell
Iceaxe0410 wrote:
Given the premise, logically I'd goad the other person to shoot me. You stated there is no escape and for some reason you can't shoot yourself? If there is no hope of escape, the only reasonable solution is to shoot the other person in say the leg. Pretend you're a really bad shot and hope that they at least manage to shoot you good enough to either bleed to death or get killed instantly.


Hmmm....ok...that's one way around it...
deanhills
Iceaxe0410 wrote:
Given the premise, logically I'd goad the other person to shoot me. You stated there is no escape and for some reason you can't shoot yourself? If there is no hope of escape, the only reasonable solution is to shoot the other person in say the leg. Pretend you're a really bad shot and hope that they at least manage to shoot you good enough to either bleed to death or get killed instantly.
Like your answer. Quite original. Unless of course the other guy manages to shoot first. Then you'll be completely off the hook. Die an innocent man.

PS: GREAT to see you posting Iceaxe. Could you please make some nice topics for us? Very Happy
Related topics
Shenzhou 6 Safely Returns Taikonauts
Texas Al: Modern Don Qixote! (non fiction)
Santeros
Machinegun Ownership
Do you have a pet?
Crossing Pacific
America is you, no matter who you are
Layers of the mind
Is Technology Good or Bad?
Why are we not going into outer space?
Megaman Phoenix
What is Evolution
Aliens on 14th of october?
On Arks
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.