1: You're only allowed to pick two of the following. Which two and why?
a) You're given a decent used car, runs well, good condition, etc. And it'll last you a while. You can drive it, use it, buy a replacement, and drive. If you do NOT pick this as one of your options, you can NEVER drive a car (or motorcycle, etc...). You can use cabs, take a bus, walk, ride a bike, but no driving yourself.
b) You're given a big screen TV, satellite reciever, couple game systems, bunch of games. You can watch TV, play games, snuggle watching a movie, catch the news. If you don't pick this, you're never allowed to own a television, never allowed to watch television shows in your house (no watching them on the PC) and never allowed to own a console. You can watch tv in a bar, but not in your house.
c) You're given a nice cellphone with all the latest annoying ringtones, doodads and gismos, as well as unlimited minutes. It replaces your current house phone. You can use it, replace it with a new one (still unlimited talk time) and what have you. If you don't pick this, then no telephone for you. No cell, no house phone, and no using a work phone for incoming or outgoing personal calls. You get to use a payphone and if you want, buy a beeper.
d) Computer. Nice, good for games, internet connection, all the doodads and gizmos, upgrade as you like it. If you don't pick it, then you're not allowed to own a PC, you can't use work PC's for personal use. If you want to game or check e-mail, then you'll have to use an internet cafe PC.

Remember, choose only 2.

2: You're about to be attacked, you have a baseball bat as a weapon to protect yourself. Which of the following assailants would you prefer to be pitted against? And why?
a) 2 Twenty year old guys. Just average guys, they'll use strategy, and they'll be trying.
b) 6 Twelve year old guys. Average 12 year olds, and will use strategy and co-operation at a twelve year old level. They'll be trying.
c) 40 Six year olds. They'll swarm you. Teeth, clobbering, any means necessary to beat you.

Which is the best to defend yourself against?

3: Which of the following is the LEAST morally offensive, and why?
a) Running over a homeless person in your car. Intentionally. They don't die.
b) Torturing a convicted murderer to the death.
c) Push a button that will make 1000 women sterile. They feel no pain, never know how it happened, but they will never bear children.

Which is the least bad?

I'm just curious.

40 six year olds. Because the thought of knocking homeruns with little kids is funny.

B. Because

nem-x fucked around with this message on 12-05-2004 at 04:54 AM.

2)Six year olds, a nice whirlwind manuver for a while will knock most of em out, and a nice crack in the noggin per will take the rest out.

3)C, Need less people in the world.

quote:

---

Fizodeth painfully thought these words up:
1) A and C, all of my friends that I made from work and school use AIM, so if I ever need to contact them, I can just pop open a window. I do, however, need a car for this because I need it to "go out and play." However when I'm not out with real friends and such, I'm a computer nerd-ish person second, so I'd use the computer when I'm bored.

2)Six year olds, a nice whirlwind manuver for a while will knock most of em out, and a nice crack in the noggin per will take the rest out.

3)C, Need less people in the world.

---

you mean A and D, right? Not a cell, but a PC?

As for the 6 year olds that everyone is so fond of, that's a full class of little kids. I think that you'd take out a dozen easy, but that the rest would pile on you and just take you to pieces.

The twelve-year-olds. Living with a younger brother, I know kid tactics and how to beat them up.

The homeless guy. I wouldn't DO it, bbut I wouldn't do ANY of those things.

a) I pick a car because I currently do not have a car and it is a pain in the ass to go anywhere. All my real close friends moved away from the area in which I live, and all of my current friends do not have a car. So if we want to go anywhere, we have to organize our time around public transportation which stops running at midnight.

B) I was torn between answers B and D, I could do without my cell, but I chose B. Why? Lately I haven't been on the internet as much as I used to, and I like console games 513 million times more than I like computer games. I'll just go to an internet cafe to get my net fix.

2)

C) Why? I would hate to be beat up by shitty kids that are younger than me. I'm bigger than them, I'm older, I'm going to kick their ass. And I wouldn't mind being over powered by two guys that are my age.

Defend against? Same answer. 40 little kids would do more damage than 2 20 year olds.

3)

Least Morally Offensive: Torture of the convicted murder. An eye for an eye in my books. I don't care if it's wrong, but if you kill, you deserve to have your life ended.

Least bad: Sterilizing women. They won't know it happened, so they may blame their genes and just end up adopting.

quote:

---

Burger was naked while typing this:
you mean A and D, right? Not a cell, but a PC?

As for the 6 year olds that everyone is so fond of, that's a full class of little kids. I think that you'd take out a dozen easy, but that the rest would pile on you and just take you to pieces.

---

No, they wouldn't. 40 six year olds would run the hell away after the first kid is killed from a bat to the head, which wouldn't take much.

'Twould be like being overrun by man eating guinea pigs. Give me the easier to hit targets of fewer number any day.

In many places, public transit is insufficient to survive without a car. Around here, you could do it, but being without one would severely limit options on jobs, and every task would take longer. It'd also mean you'd have one hell of a time moving, since you couldn't rent a truck by the rules given. Without choice A, I'd have to work in the city, take trains/subway in daily, and hire movers if I ever relocated. Plus I could only live in equally dense locations.

As for television, it'd mean more time spent at movie theatres, and I'd probably watch more TV at my friends' houses, which means more sports, but oh well. As long as I take the computer (which I'd have to do anyway, see below), the TV can leave.

Telephone would be more of a loss than TV, since it's a way that people can reach you and you can reach them. However, low-urgency communication could take place over the computer (again, see below), and there's always be videoconferencing if I missed voice communication. If I had to, I could buy the needed equipment for family and a few close friends. Everyone else could buy their own. So long as I had the car or sufficient public transit, a pager would due (I already carry one). The main downside to not having a phone is it's harder to ask people when's a good time of day to drop by for a visit. Life without telephones requires more advanced planning. It also means no communication in a power failure or other super disaster, which is a major downside, but one I'd live with if this sort of decision was forced.

Computers in the modern age are necessary. This is even more important to me, since I work in a computer field. Computers substitute for both television and telephone for the majority of their functions, so long as everyone you need to communicate with has similar equipment. Having a computer would mean video games (as stated), and I could check news and weather online, so I wouldn't miss television much. (Despite the fact that I have a TV input box for my computer, I'll presume that would count under TV.) A combination of chat programs and video conferencing would replace most need of a telephone, so long as the people I needed to reach remembered to sign on. Thanks to online shops and banking, it'd cut down on the need for a car as well. Plus computers provide a lot of data storage, allowing me to keep records without massive volumes of paper and a wall covered with filing trays.

If I had to choose two of the four devices and could never own the other two, I'd go for A (car) and D (computer).

Now for question two. I'm not thrilled with the bat as a weapon, since I was never very precise at baseball. However, I'll presume I have whatever bat gives me the best advantage in a fight, which for me means an aluminum one-hander.

When fighting two adults, it's basically a matter of keeping your distance and staying out of the corner long enough to disable one of them. Then you'll have an advantage over the other one. For the purposes of eliminating negotiation, let's say we speak a different language and they think I did something illegal with the bat. They'll be cautious, of course, but a good hit on either one early on means I could win.

Six average twelve year olds is out. With the average height getting taller, there's no guarantee that these average twelve-year-olds wouldn't come up to my neck, or higher. I'd be stronger, but they'd have a better chance than the adults of getting the bat away from me, which means losing my advantage. I'd have to watch six attackers constantly, which is another problem. Unlike the two adults, six twelve-year-olds can surround you and surprise you. Besides, I beat someone twice my size in a fight when I was nine. For me, this option is out.

With a swarm of six-year-olds, the question changes a bit. Do I really want to kill 40 kids with a baseball bat? Not if I have a choice. However, tactially, this would be the best option. The average six-year-old is between 2.5 and 3 feet tall, so I could gain tactical advantage in the right terrain. Wide open areas would allow running, which would split them up. A narrow staircase would have the same effect. I've wrestled six year olds (my friend's nieces and nephews are very rough'n'tumble), and even if they swarmed, I might be able to fight average ones off long enough to cut down their numbers. I could even stand with between four and eight of them pulling me down (depending on weight), and their punches/kicks wouldn't hurt too badly unless they went for the groin/face.

In summary, if morals no longer existed, I'd fight the swarm of six-year-olds. However, so long as morals have any say in the matter, I'd fight the two adults. Remember, however, that all answers depend on the opponents being unarmed, because all I got was a baseball bat.

If I get to choose the women who become sterile, that's my choice. Some people should never reproduce, and some others will never try anyway.

Presuming the homeless person hasn't committed a crime and isn't threatening people, I wouldn't want to run him over. Honk and let him out of the way. However, if the homeless person tried to intimidate me intentionally ("You can't hurt me, I'm a person too!" and block me from going anywhere, or "What you gonna do about it, smartypants," again blocking me in) then he's setting himself up for it.

If (as stated above) I didn't get to choose who became sterile, and the homeless person wasn't confrontational, I'd go with torturing the convicted murderer. In order to set aside exceptions, let's presume the person wasn't wrongfully convicted, and wasn't, say, defending herself from an abusive husband. Let's say she killed her ex-husband for his life insurance, or he mugged and killed someone in an alley, since these two concepts don't tilt the scales (for or against the killer) on the morality of murder. This is the only one that has willingly disregarded the rights of others in society. It becomes a more brutal form of punishment, like an exaggeration of the eye-for-an-eye philosophy.

In short, there's a priority order. If I get to choose who goes sterile, then C. If the condition for C is not met, and the homeless person intentionally intimidates people, then A. If neither the condition for A nor the condition for C is met, then B. If the condition for B isn't met, then the question is rigged, and I'd need all the information in advance.

`Doc fucked around with this message on 12-05-2004 at 11:28 AM.

If i give up any of the others, it's just inconvienent. I hear bums don't have much use for home entertainment centers, so there is no scenario where I can even keep b and c if I choose them. Besides, if I lose my house, it doesn't matter if I can't do stuff in it, becuase i'd be living on the streets.

Hell, the no phone thign isn't even a problem... people could just IM or e-mail me if there's something important. And no TV? What am I, fucking two?

2: You're about to be attacked, you have a baseball bat as a weapon to protect yourself. Which of the following assailants would you prefer to be pitted against? And why?

The 20 year olds. Chances are they are just gang bangers and they'll look for an easier unarmed person to mug. They'll probably have that hint of rationality even if their ethical structure is completly diffrent form the rest of societies. And if they have a gun, I'll just put down the bat and give them my damn money.

3: Which of the following is the LEAST morally offensive, and why?
b) Torturing a convicted murderer to the death.

diadem fucked around with this message on 12-05-2004 at 11:26 AM.

Question 1: A twisted government with a psychotic leader takes over the entire world. In order to keep control, they establish the rule that every person gets exactly two of the four modern technologies. Society is still capitalist, so you still need to work to survive. Strangely, not much else about society gets changed. You have to make the decision before consulting anyone you know, but your family and friends got on later transition schedules, so you can tell them your choices afterward, before they make theirs.

Question 2: You're stranded on an island with mountains and valleys. The natives don't speak your language. What's more, people of different ages aren't allowed to live together. You won't need to kill as many adults, because they live in smaller groups as they get older, but most of the plants are small, mushy, and poisonous if eaten, so in order to survive, you need to confront one of the three groups. If you stay where you are, you'll starve, and the first group to find you will eat your corpse. Nothing on the island can be used as a weapon except for your baseball bat.

Question 3: A secret society plucked you off the street. Your job now is to reduce human population. Success is not measured in quantity, because you're told by experts that all three options will have the same net impact on population. The choice is purely moral, and they want you to make it. Once you make the choice, you get paid, and can go home. Until you make a choice, you're stuck in the room. If you refuse, you're stuck in the room, but they stop bringing you food and water. You have none of the comforts from question 1 in the room. Apparently they've been doing this sort of thing for years.

`Doc fucked around with this message on 12-05-2004 at 12:03 PM.

1:
a) CAR --> I need a car to get to school, sneek around and see my favourite person in the world. Making out in cars is nice. Racing people in cars is fun too. I love cars... so YAY CARS!!!!

d) COMPUTER--> I need a computer not only to keep in touch with people, but I need it to do labs (late at night), search for things I need and of course communicate with friends. (DAMMIT I LOVE MY CELL, but a computer is more practical)

2:
b) 6 Twelve year old guys. Because they are not young enough for me to feel bad about beating them up! Plus, I know I can take them!!

3:
b) Torturing a convicted murderer to the death. That is the LEAST morally offensive to me. Although I am assuming that they are convicted of a crime they actually commited. If they are innocent it's wrong. But if they killed someone, then they should feel pain to. The death penalty is too "kind" for horrid people.

I don't use a cellphone, barely even the phone as it is. Most of my communication is via the computer as it is, and the rare times I use a phone, it is either to call Inferno-Spirit, or I am away from home and use a pay phone anyways. I barely use the TV now anyways, mostly it is background noise while playing the comp. Wouldn't be much of a change from the current scheme, except I would get a car out of the deal

2) C (40 6 year olds)

There may be 40 of them, but by backing myself up into a defensive position, a dead end or perhaps a sharp corner, and wielding the bat short range, short striking attacks instead of full swings, I can force them into a choke and use their numbers against them, only dealing with a small handful at the time, while the fallen trip up the ones behind them and give me a further advantage as the fight proceeds. They have very limited physical strength, and assuming I am properly dressed their teeth only pose a problem to my forearms which I would be protecting at all costs with the bat anyways. Their only advantage would be numbers and their combined weight, so force them into a choke and remove their only advantage, then it is just a war of attrition.

Ultimately, same way you deal with the zerg.

3) B (Torturing murderer to death)

He has already killed someone (assuming on purpose from the usage of the word murderer), and is currently alive, so his death would be the most effecient way of balancing the scales. The torture would make up the barest fraction of the suffering he inflicted upon those in close relation to the person he murdered, but at least it is something.

Vorago fucked around with this message on 12-05-2004 at 12:36 PM.

2.) Six twelve year olds, because they're not quite strong enough to even hurt me, and their numbers are still low.

3.) Making 1000 women sterile, because they probably didn't deserve children anyway. (Ha ha ha!) Of course, this may be a gift to some women.

2.) Six twelve year olds. Xyrra gives a good answer.

3.) B. I'm stealing Vorago's answer. I'm so unoriginal.

I'm back on the job hunt now, but one of my criteria for where to work is a city with Public Transit is mandatory for me now; I don't mind driving but I prefer doing other things than sit in traffic.

2. Tough choice between a and b. c) is completely out of the question; you'd be swarmed (There was a scene in the recent Resident Evil movie that is more fitting for this choice). MOre likely I would go with a) since I could probably back up against a wall and keep them both in front of me and in range of the bat. 6 at once would be too easy to be surrounded and attacked.

3. I would have to go with c). It is the least painful to all involved, though it affects the most people and ignores emotional frustration that might come from it. It's also the least 'in your face' about what you're doing as well which makes it easier to do.

Fourty Six year olds, cause, it made me snicker most.

Push a button for population control today.

B) 40 6 year olds for the same reason as Nem.

C) I can't choose. Wouldn't mind doing any.