Sacrifices - choices

by donkey 40 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  marsal

  No to both.
• 

  Euphemism

  1. No. I don't believe that past causality can be altered. But if it could, then that would mean that the five-year-old child I would be strangling wouldn't necessarily grow up to be the tyrant of history. Therefore, it would not be right to kill him.

  2. Probably not. It might depend on the species of animal. Humans are self-aware beings with the capacity for complex emotion and rational thought. Most animals clearly lack those capacities. If it was one of the higher apes or another species that might conceivably be argued to have those characteristics, I might consider it. Otherwise, no.
• 

  drwtsn32

  No. Changing even a seemingly insignificant past event could have drastic consequences. Didn't you see Back to the Future?

  No. Animals go extinct. It's been happening for millions of years.
• 

  donkey

  The Hitler question illustrates the fact that IMHO governments (society in general) are more interested in protecting rights and morals in principle than in practice. I advocate that they look at "playing the numbers" instead.

  Two examples come to mind:

  The legalization of drugs.

  Society is on its moral high-horse and adamantly maintains that drugs are harmful and therefore need to remain illegal (with very few exceptions). This is a point solution which creates bigger problems than it solves. I am too lazy to look up the estimated number of drug users as a percentage of the population. But for now let's say it is 5% - my point will be made regardless. So by fighting the "war on drugs" we have contained the use or drugs to 5% of the population. At what cost? (forget the cost in $). We now have 100% of people affected by drugs!!! How so? 5% use them and the other 95% of us have to be subjected to the violent crimes associated with having the drugs illegal (the so called solution). If we were to legalize drugs and the usage doubled we would have 10% of the population affected by them...the rest of us would not have to live with violent crime.

  Tort Reform

  We need to protect the rights of victims to sue doctors for malpractice to the full extent of the law. So in protecting these victims what has it cost the rest of us? Well, with unlimited torts we have sky rocketing malpractice insurance....resulting in higher costs of healthcare and then a consequent higher cost in health care insurance. The net result? We now have over 40% of the US population without insurance. Yes, we have protected society!!! Nice job!!!

  Our discontinuous minds at work once again.

  Donkey
• 

  teejay

  I don't know...
  
  
  Is it just me or is it very, very troubling that people say they would kill -- murder, actually -- a five year old kid with their own two hands because of what that kid MIGHT do thirty years later.
• 

  donkey

  It might just be you, Teejay, who does not understand the question properly.

  The question said HITLER....not just some kid for what they might do 30 years hence.

  Knowing what you do of what Hitler did....(and assuming that he would do the same again)...would you kill him as a child? This type of question is similar to the question posed in the "Minority Report".
• 

  Englishman

  Kids, gorilla's, aardvarks..I know where this thread is leading up to:

  Englishman.
• 

  smack

  If Hitler was alive today, would you kill him?

  Do you use insecticide?

  Steve
• 

  StinkyPantz

  1. Maybe, but ever heard of a "Catch 22"? By my killing Hitler, it might somehow cause me to not be born, in which case I couldn't kill Hitler. . and so on. Even so. . I have asked myself this question before. . and I would most likely do it, especially if I somehow knew that the outcome was a favorable one.

  2. No way! Well, unless the person was a murderer or child molester.
• 

  donkey

  Damn, EMan is onto me!!

  I can run but I cannot hide, heh?