Gamecat and I were discussing this last night, and I'm curious to get a reaction from the SB.

You have to choose between the life of a 22-year old and a 6-year old. Which ever one you pick, the other dies.

Do you have a natural inclination to pick the younger? Why? Is the life of a child more or less valuable than the life of an adult?

3/17/2006 1:03:46 PM

If we knew nothing about the individuals, I'd flip a coin. So I guess the rest of the questions don't apply to me.

[Edited on March 17, 2006 at 1:07 PM. Reason : to me]

3/17/2006 1:06:53 PM

I'd cut them both in half

that way they spilt the burden

3/17/2006 1:12:39 PM

My first thought was to save the 6-year old unless the 22-year old was a girl and fairly hot. But then I realized that most 22-year old girls don't fuck guys who kill 6-year olds.

3/17/2006 1:22:04 PM

^ ah ha ha ha

oh fuck


that was good.

3/17/2006 1:26:28 PM

i'm naturally gonna pick the older (up to a point)

between a 6 and 22, i go 22

between a 22 and a 30 i go 30

but

between a 30 and a 60, i go 30

i'm thinking 45, maybe 48 is my turning point

by the time you're fifty, can't be but so much more in YOUR life that would really be worth killing someone else

conversely, if you're still a toddler or young person, you're not aware of what you'll be missing out on by dying so young

while a 17 or 22 or 30 year old understandds the thresholds they are about to cross, going to college, falling in love, getting married, having kids, being successful, things like that


also, a person who realizes what you've done for them will be more thankful
it will be hard for a 6 year old to realize what you did by letting that 22 year old perish
so thats the selfish reason i guess...

3/17/2006 1:33:35 PM

Id always choose the person who has gotten the least out of life so far, so in this case, the 6-year old.

Also, being 22, if someone chose to allow me to live at the cost of the 6-year-old's life I would feel ashamed.

[Edited on March 17, 2006 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

3/17/2006 1:41:16 PM

Quote :

"My first thought was to save the 6-year old unless the 22-year old was a girl and fairly hot. But then I realized that most 22-year old girls don't fuck guys who kill 6-year olds."

oh my fucking god

ahahahhahahahah

so fucking funny

3/17/2006 1:42:00 PM

THAT HAS TO BE THE SB QUOTE OF THE CENTURY!

3/17/2006 4:28:49 PM

I would kill them both

That way, I wouldn't feel the "what if" remorse

3/17/2006 4:29:55 PM

I wouldn't pick. I'm a weenie.

3/17/2006 4:35:59 PM

I would pre-emptively attack one and then blame the other for it and kill them too.

3/17/2006 4:45:33 PM

But TreeTwista10, what if you didn't kill them both!?!? What if one of them lived and cured [insert disease you suffer from]?

3/17/2006 4:48:06 PM

We talked about this in Anthropology something or another.

Apparantly the subconscious inclination in these situations (if you don't know the people) is to save the one with the highest chances or reproducing further. Thus, either of these would be about the same. But that's why at about 30-35, we stop saving people and opt for the younger.

3/17/2006 5:18:41 PM

22 Year old man

The 6 year old has 16 years to fuck his life up.

I aint playing those odds.

3/17/2006 5:29:30 PM

I'd let the 6 year old die. Because at age 6, you don't realize what lies ahead of you, you can't possibly have a true understanding of what you'd be missing. You're barely getting started.
But by the time you're 22, you've got all these plans, you're attached to so many things(and probably have more people attached to you), you've gone to school for whatever number of years, and most likely laid the foundation for your future. Just seems like more is lost if a 22 year old dies.

3/17/2006 7:00:23 PM

^exactly

3/17/2006 7:15:06 PM

I'd keep the 22 yo, pretty much for the Anthropology reasoning.

3/17/2006 7:21:41 PM

Depends on whether you let me do it.

3/17/2006 7:37:03 PM

i agree with woodfoot.

3/17/2006 7:46:18 PM

I think the better question is whether you would save a bunch of fetuses (feti?) that nobody wants

or millions of living adults with MS, Parkinson's, and other degenerative diseases.

3/17/2006 7:53:42 PM

Quote :

"I'd let the 6 year old die. Because at age 6, you don't realize what lies ahead of you, you can't possibly have a true understanding of what you'd be missing. You're barely getting started. But by the time you're 22, you've got all these plans, you're attached to so many things(and probably have more people attached to you), you've gone to school for whatever number of years, and most likely laid the foundation for your future. Just seems like more is lost if a 22 year old dies. "

See.. that's pretty much exactly how I feel. I'm naturally inclined to save the 22 year old, because I feel like more has been invested in the future of that person. More people are attached, more is expected, ect and so forth.

The 6 year old doesn't know what he/she's gonna miss.

3/18/2006 1:19:35 AM

Quote :

"I think the better question is whether you would save a bunch of fetuses (feti?) that nobody wants or millions of living adults with MS, Parkinson's, and other degenerative diseases."

gee, never saw this coming... yawn. Anyway, the choice need not be made in the case of 99+% of
fetuses. It is rare that this hypothetical is ever realized, and when it is neither side of the debate argues that the mom should die necessarily to save the baby.

3/18/2006 12:28:12 PM

You don't seem to know what I'm talking about.

I'm okay with that.

3/18/2006 3:16:56 PM

Maybe the question would be to save a bunch of unwanted fetuses (or perhaps "innocent almost children") to have a possibility of saving people with MS and other degenerative diseases that MIGHT be cured by stem cell research on the fetuses.

Not that I'm for it or against it, (I never really formed an opinion) but you can't expect honest debate from a characterization that favors one of the sides. Bulking it down with "bunch of unwanted fetuses" and "saving millions of living adults" is simple baiting.

3/18/2006 3:25:21 PM

Quote :

"You don't seem to know what I'm talking about. I'm okay with that."

Enlighten me. What is the point of your question if not to rationalize the murder of the unborn?

[Edited on March 18, 2006 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2006 4:20:54 PM

Rationalize murder of the sick?

3/18/2006 4:47:31 PM

I guess, instead of "bunch of unwanted fetuses", I should have said "aborted fetusus that would otherwise go into the garbage".

I'm still pretty okay with millions of adults.

3/18/2006 5:45:27 PM

Is it illegal to do research with aborted fetuses? I thought such research was possible, just not with government funds. Anyway, adult stem cell research is also possible, so there is really no need to use
aborted fetuses ( or left over embryos which is what I thought was the main candidates for such research ).

3/18/2006 6:21:42 PM

I never said anything about what was and was not legal.

3/18/2006 7:26:49 PM

Well you see, the whole stem cell argument is quite ridiculous.

Embryonic stem cell research is perfectly legal, it just doesn't qualify for government funding. Well, if its so easy to take embryos and turn them into a million-person saving medical procedure, you wouldn't need any government funding. Those greedy drug companies and biotech firms would be doing it. The idea that the government needs to invest in it for us is just for those people that hate capitalism.

3/18/2006 8:09:34 PM

This country got where it is today through a strong partnership between the gov and private enterprise, especially in basic research.

But you're going to argue that it could have been better in some fantasy libertarian world where the government doesnt exist, arent you?

3/18/2006 9:22:10 PM

Nope, I'm not arguing it could have been better.

I'm just saying that when there is a huge market for something, you don't need the government to help research it. Its nice if they do, but they don't have to. This is one of the cases where there is a huge market for the research.

Also, my real attack is not against government helping out in research, but in the tone people take with stem cell research. They let the news tell them that we're like "this close" to curing everything in the world if only the lousy right would stop impeding it with their take on bioethics (whether right or wrong).
We aren't that close to curing degenerative diseases and it isn't like the only thing preventing the cures is Bush's stance on embryonic research.

3/18/2006 11:47:39 PM

you can get to level 6 in like under an hour.

22 takes like 10 or so

also i wouldn't want to spend another round in the barrens.


the 6 goes

[Edited on March 19, 2006 at 1:23 AM. Reason : .]

3/19/2006 1:22:46 AM

I immediately picked the 22yo, with the assumption that he'd made something of himself by going to college.

fuck a 6yo - they're some dogs/monkeys with as much intelligence as them. there's no telling what they'll grow into

[Edited on March 19, 2006 at 9:42 AM. Reason : s]

3/19/2006 9:42:06 AM

Quote :

"you can get to level 6 in like under an hour. 22 takes like 10 or so also i wouldn't want to spend another round in the barrens. the 6 goes"

lol.. grats on the WoW analogy

3/19/2006 1:08:49 PM

Quote :

"I immediately picked the 22yo, with the assumption that he'd made something of himself by going to college."

Going to college does not necessarily mean that you are going to make something of yourself.

3/19/2006 2:22:23 PM

i'd make them draw straws.

3/19/2006 5:49:29 PM