ForumGarden

Would you be willing to murder an innocent person if it would cure cancer ?

Nomad wrote: Would you be willing to murder an innocent person if it would cure cancer ?


depending if it were me or someone i love with cancer, to be honest if it were my son maybe... parental attachements are strong... anyone else I dont think so...



what made u think of that question??

I meant all cancer...for everyone. Stuff just pops in my head and out my mouth ???

Nomad wrote: I meant all cancer...for everyone. Stuff just pops in my head and out my mouth ???


depends on who has to die....

Nomad are you just getting words of the back of a newpaper and using them to make up threads with?

Here's a moral question for you, if I got 3 chickens (one destined to be a poisonous nugget in MacDonalds, one a Zinger Burger in KFC, and one destined to become the Hitler of chickens) and pointed a gun at them and said "which one gets it" what would you do?

Galbally wrote: Nomad are you just getting words of the back of a newpaper and using them to make up threads with?



Here's a moral question for you, if I got 3 chickens (one destined to be a poisonous nugget in MacDonalds, one a Zinger Burger in KFC, and one destined to become the Hitler of chickens) and pointed a gun at them and said "which one gets it" what would you do?


id kill hitler first

Galbally wrote: Nomad are you just getting words of the back of a newpaper and using them to make up threads with?



Here's a moral question for you, if I got 3 chickens (one destined to be a poisonous nugget in MacDonalds, one a Zinger Burger in KFC, and one destined to become the Hitler of chickens) and pointed a gun at them and said "which one gets it" what would you do?






Too bad you can't buy a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin real fast and freak everybody out.

Nomad, it depends on the circumstances. I'd need more info before I could make a balanced decision.

Galbally - aren't ALL McDonalds nuggets poisonous?? :wah:

Nomad wrote: Too bad you can't buy a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin real fast and freak everybody out.


are you one of those kids that used to burn ants on the ground with your magnifying glass....

Bella_Boo wrote: are you one of those kids that used to burn ants on the ground with your magnifying glass....




I was more the fly wing puller type.

Nomad wrote: I was more the fly wing puller type.


ha ha ha - there is a difference?????????????

I should have made that question more difficult, would you still shoot the Chicken Hitler, if you know that by exterminating all the less bright chickens or chickens with spots he managed to liberate all the chicken nugget chickens and KFC burger chickens, oh and build nice roads in chicken land.

Galbally wrote: I should have made that question more difficult, would you still shoot the Chicken Hitler, if you know that by exterminating all the less bright chickens or chickens with spots he managed to liberate all the chicken nugget chickens and KFC burger chickens, oh and build nice roads in chicken land.




If you shot Hitler chicken why would that automatically exterminate all the less bright chickens ? Chickens with spots are merely nuggets in waiting and KFC doesnt serve spotted chicken burgers so why build roads when the ones we have need to be snow plowed ?

Nomad wrote: If you shot Hitler chicken why would that automatically exterminate all the less bright chickens ? Chickens with spots are merely nuggets in waiting and KFC doesnt serve spotted chicken burgers so why build roads when the ones we have need to be snow plowed ?


I don't know why, that his plan not mine, personally I would shoot all chickens just to be on the safe side.

Nomad wrote: Would you be willing to murder an innocent person if it would cure cancer ?
No, I couldn't kill anyone.

Cancer does not mean you are going to die though.:-5

Has someone been to see Saw or Saw II?

I dont think I could do it. I wouldnt be able to live with myself knowing I took another life, so if I had the cancer, Id die anyway (if the cancer didnt get beat).

For right now I'll stick with blood and marrow donation to help save lives.

Galbally wrote: I don't know why, that his plan not mine, personally I would shoot all chickens just to be on the safe side.


You don't mess around Galbally !!:D

Bez wrote: You don't mess around Galbally !!:D


I think "harsh but fair" would be my way of putting or alternately "cheerful and violent".

Galbally wrote: I don't know why, that his plan not mine, personally I would shoot all chickens just to be on the safe side.


Not a bad answer! Perhaps it would put an end to the predicted bird flu pandemic before it really got started!

Too late, 3 cases reported in humans in China.

The answer to the murder question, is no.

I wouldn't worry its a daft question anyway, its like asking "would you bomb oregon so that whales won't go extinct?" I mean you can choose personlly if you like cetaceans or a state, but that choice is never really gonna come up is it? Or is it? Perhaps we should move on to a conspiracy thread, then again we already know too much so that might be dangerous. Or would it?

Nomad wrote: Would you be willing to murder an innocent person if it would cure cancer ?


Nomad, I think National Geographic should be contacting you any day now, they really really want to get into your mind.

Ok if I were a scientist and I knew this for a fact would cure all cancer, I would be putting out a call for volunteers and letting them know what exactly was going on and then I could with good conscience say yes I could kill for a cure.

Far Rider wrote: One life for many...

Id talk them into going willingly.

If it were me, I'd jump into a volcano! Call me Joe! ahhhh,, uh oh... im not innocent. can't be me.:wah:

The chicken one...good question... easy fix though. Collect them all up and make them free rangers! don't waste a round on a chicken, you can break their necks too easy.:sneaky:

Kobiyahcimaroo... change the rules!


I'm with Far, sacrafice one for millions, would do it any day of the week!!!

No ands, ifs, or buts!

Are people seriously saying they could stand in front of a 7 year old child and look at them and kill them?

Here's a thought

Prisoners for science... I am all for it.

SnoozeControl wrote: Seriously, I think that's a very good idea. Why not make all those people on death row into useful citizens (if they volunteer, of course) and let them be experimental subjects. In exchange, they could earn benefits.


I figure they could be used for all kinds of medical testing....

SnoozeControl wrote: Better than animal testing, which is inaccurate anyway. How similiar is a human to a rabbit.. unless you're chonsi, of course.
Presisely and imagine the good advertising slogans

"Why torture the innocent...."

minks wrote: I figure they could be used for all kinds of medical testing....


Surely you jest! Guess you're not a member of PETA!!:-2

Truly it is worth the loss of one life to save millions of billions of trillions of peoples' lives today and for future generations.

Yes, it's worth the loss of one life for the staggering amounts of lives that would be saved. The cancer-life-saving person, I'd say, had an awesome meaning to their life. Imagine being able to save millions like that.

Far Rider wrote: Oh sherry aks the ultimate questions and we all pass her up any answers for her???



A 7 year old child... for all the cures of the world ills?



Wow..I'll tell ya what any good man would do... pass this question to a woman!


honestly i couldnt do it - but i am up for testing on prisoners - i think its a wonderful idea - let them give back what they took away in the first place

Far Rider wrote: Oh sherry aks the ultimate questions and we all pass her up any answers for her???

A 7 year old child... for all the cures of the world ills?

Wow..I'll tell ya what any good man would do... pass this question to a woman!


I'm all for asking the person to sacrifice themself but a child cannot make that decision. I would never approve of killing an innocent person without their consent.

Valerie100 wrote: Truly it is worth the loss of one life to save millions of billions of trillions of peoples' lives today and for future generations.

Yes, it's worth the loss of one life for the staggering amounts of lives that would be saved. The cancer-life-saving person, I'd say, had an awesome meaning to their life. Imagine being able to save millions like that.


Nomad's question was: "would you be willing to muder an innocent person if it would cure cancer?' Hell no! That innocent person may be leaving loved ones behind and how would they feel that you chose to sacrifice the one they loved to save others.

Who are we to determine who should be the chosen one to save millions of billions or trillions of people? Killing one innocent person to cure cancer....how many others would have to be killed to cure other illnesses?

What to be righteous....choose yourself to die and cure the world, not an innocent person!

Far Rider wrote: Choices are tough sometimes...



Put yourself in the snipers scope....





You have the rules of engagment that say no 50 cal shots on personell... they are for equipment only.. like vehicles and stuff...



You have in your sights a man with a large caliber sniper rifle (.308) he is in range and targeting a allied troop.... (remember he has no rules of engagement)...



The only weapon you have at your disposal to take him out is your 50 cal sniper rifle... do you break the rules of engagement for which you swore an oath to keep and kill the sniper, or let him shoot an allied troop?



Easy huh.... you of course take the shot, cut him in half when the round enters his spine....



Question is now... do you lie when you write it up? Cause you just violated the UCMJ... and can be charged with a war crime!


wow i feel there is more to that story - u seem to have led an interesting life.....

Far Rider wrote: Choices are tough sometimes...

Put yourself in the snipers scope....



You have the rules of engagment that say no 50 cal shots on personell... they are for equipment only.. like vehicles and stuff...

You have in your sights a man with a large caliber sniper rifle (.308) he is in range and targeting a allied troop.... (remember he has no rules of engagement)...

The only weapon you have at your disposal to take him out is your 50 cal sniper rifle... do you break the rules of engagement for which you swore an oath to keep and kill the sniper, or let him shoot an allied troop?

Easy huh.... you of course take the shot, cut him in half when the round enters his spine....

Question is now... do you lie when you write it up? Cause you just violated the UCMJ... and can be charged with a war crime!


Well Far...in this situation I would take the shot! Would I lie? Would you?

Far Rider wrote:

Basco, yes you take the shot, no you dont lie. I'd rather go down for doing whats right in the spirit of the law rather than live with the results of the letter of the law.

The simplest answer is...."target the weapon". That technically is "equipment" if a combatant happens to be holding it at the time...oh well he shoulda dropped it!


Yes, I would take the shot and I'd do exactly that...tell the truth and face the consequences afterwards. Will ya visit me in the brig?