Could you live with yourself????

I'd rather not be put in that position.

Besides, it would be much more rewarding to earn 1 million.
 
Vance said:
Just to make this a little more relevant, I'd argue the point that normal, every day people do this each and every single day already.

For example;

Plenty of people own shares in companies which design, manufacture and sell arms all over the world. They profit directly by the proliferation of arms.

Plenty of people own shares in private security firms which conduct clandestine operations for different regimes all over the world - same story.

And so it goes on.

Arguably to push a button to kill someone and get paid is a more moral and honest approach from an individual stand-point. Merely because the individual has to own the outcome, which isn't the case in my above examples.

That's my two cents.
Click to expand...

Although I respect your opinion, this is a Typical liberal response.
 
dg806 said:
Although I respect your opinion, this is a Typical liberal response.
Click to expand...

Best part about the above is... I'm not a liberal!

:rofl:

How about you strap a pair on and have an opinion of your own rather than just throwing around generalisations and hyperbole?
 
Funny thing about this movie is that it is based of a youtube video where a dude is put in the same position. He pushes the button, and finds out he is in purgatory and in pushing the button, has decided where he wants to go. The dude who proposed it to him is the devil, he gets sent to hell, and the person he kills via the button is the next to be set in to make the decision.

I can bet that the movie's twist is that the couple is in purgatory the whole movie, and in pushing the button get sent to hell.

BTW, I know there was a whole political discussion in the second half of the thread. I passed over it, knowing how useless these arguments are, and decided to spoil the movie for you.

As for myself, I wouldn't do it. Just me though.
 
Wow, this thread has taken a major turn out to left field. I do however appreciate the input from everyone. It does sadden me though that some of you actually place a value on someone else's life, whether you know them or not. To say if it was x or y you would do it, is frightening. Whether $100B or $1, no life is worth taking. I firmly believe, unless you have the ability to give life, you have no right to take life. What if someone else pushed the button, and your loved one was killed because of it. How would you feel if you found out that was the case? Would you have the same view or opinion?
 
ABNRanger said:
Wow, this thread has taken a major turn out to left field. I do however appreciate the input from everyone. It does sadden me though that some of you actually place a value on someone else's life, whether you know them or not. To say if it was x or y you would do it, is frightening. Whether $100B or $1, no life is worth taking. I firmly believe, unless you have the ability to give life, you have no right to take life. What if someone else pushed the button, and your loved one was killed because of it. How would you feel if you found out that was the case? Would you have the same view or opinion?
Click to expand...

*looks at your avatar*

Oh the irony. Here's a question, would you be in the military if they didn't pay you..?
 
Touche, I understand the reason for the question. Referring to avatar, as a ranger we say a lot of bad a$$ stuff to spark motivation, and comradery. But, to answer your question, and as hard as it might seem, yes I would be in the military for free. Unlike others, I did not join for college, or to travel, or to run from problems like a lot others did. I joined because I wanted to, I LOVE army life. I volunteered for all the hard assignments and schools. I have taken a lives, but it came with the mission. While some may have been innocent, it was collateral damage, but not willfully taken. I did not shoot unless shot at. In defense to my statement in my prior post, I am referring to people who murder or willing to push a button even if they know it will take a life.
 
ABNRanger said:
Touche, I understand the reason for the question. Referring to avatar, as a ranger we say a lot of bad a$$ stuff to spark motivation, and comradery. But, to answer your question, and as hard as it might seem, yes I would be in the military for free. Unlike others, I did not join for college, or to travel, or to run from problems like a lot others did. I joined because I wanted to, I LOVE army life. I volunteered for all the hard assignments and schools. I have taken a lives, but it came with the mission. While some may have been innocent, it was collateral damage, but not willfully taken. I did not shoot unless shot at. In defense to my statement in my prior post, I am referring to people who murder or willing to push a button even if they know it will take a life.
Click to expand...

No disrespect chief, but that means you would have killed people for free. Sure there was the mission at hand - which could be ultimately about anything - but that's what it boils down to - particularly in relation to the potential for collateral damage.

To make things clear I'm not saying anything you did was wrong per-say, in fact I think there are circumstances (however unlikely though they may be) in which each and any one of us would kill someone else for any number of reasons. I think the gray area - read interesting - part of this discussion is what people would see as sufficeint justification for such action.

What's the difference between pushing a button to take a life, and pulling a trigger?
 
There's a huge difference between puishing a button for money, and pulling a trigger to protect yourself, your buddy, or your country.
 
poison said:
There's a huge difference between puishing a button for money, and pulling a trigger to protect yourself, your buddy, or your country.
Click to expand...

Is there really though? In the end you are killing someone to protect goods for the most part, rather than protect life. Although terrorism is a part of it, much of the gulf war is about protecting long term oil supplies.

And if you donated half the money to the "feed the starving children in africa for 30 cents a day" wouldn't you be saving more lives while only ending one?
 
EasyEJL said:
Is there really though? In the end you are killing someone to protect goods for the most part, rather than protect life. Although terrorism is a part of it, much of the gulf war is about protecting long term oil supplies.

And if you donated half the money to the "feed the starving children in africa for 30 cents a day" wouldn't you be saving more lives while only ending one?
Click to expand...

thats not the point of what you would do with half(!!!) of the money. the point is that you have no right to take another life. same goes for war, it will only lead to total destruction of our human race. its a shame that we all know that we have to live here together and share everything but still so many people would kill one another for financial gain.
 
EasyEJL said:
Is there really though? In the end you are killing someone to protect goods for the most part, rather than protect life. Although terrorism is a part of it, much of the gulf war is about protecting long term oil supplies.

And if you donated half the money to the "feed the starving children in africa for 30 cents a day" wouldn't you be saving more lives while only ending one?
Click to expand...

Yes, there is. This thread isn't specifically about the iraq war; each war is different. However, You can't say most of the killing is to protect goods, not life. It's nonsense that the war was for oil; we haven't taken any of the money from iraqi oil, despite funding billions in iraaqi reconstruction. We have not asked for, or taken, repayment. Afganistan was most definitely about terror and protecting our country, there isn't **** worth taking there.

I agree that africa is overlooked. Fact is, africa holds no strategic value to the US, so the gov't doesn't do anything. It's not just the US, it's every western country. The only countries heavily involved in africa are russia and china, and believe me, it's about taking oil, resouces, and power, not helping africa.

Again, the point is you can't equate a soldier serving his country, and the ******* who pushes the button for money.
 
poison said:
Yes, there is. This thread isn't specifically about the iraq war; each war is different. However, You can't say most of the killing is to protect goods, not life.
Click to expand...

Honestly if you make the case through history, I doubt you can find a single war whose cause was truly more about life than about protecting goods. In essence at least one side is totally driven by goods. Wars of conquest are always about property and resources. Iraq invading Kuwait was about resources, not lives. I guess one side is there protecting "lives", but often as not they are just protecting goods - their homes, their businesses, etc. Most conquerors (outside of Hitler) don't kill the conquered, just take away all their good stuff.

Even our own civil was was driven by goods, not that the US was going to kill off all the confederates, and the confederates didn't want to kill anyone in the union....

Makes for a more fun topic than the button I think :)
 
Easy do you have kids? if your answer is yes then if you push that button and your kid died but you gave half the money to africa then would killing your own child be worth saving the lives of children in africa? I know your answer would be no, just trying to make a point.

As far as war and pushing a button go, there's nothing to discuss the two cannot be compared. One is for greed the other is for protecting our freedom, family, friends and kids from that red button. ABranger looks like you have a new mission kill the bastard who has the red button.
 
I would probably push the button. It is no different than being a contract killer which is my day job anyways. :saroll:
 
How can you put a price on your morality?? Mine isn't forsale...
 
well i'd be a gigilo so my morality has a price. Murder for money is unforgivable, plus being a gigilo would be an awesome job if you only banged hot chicks, better yet disabled hot chicks prob get more money for that.

sorry don't know how i got off track with that.
 
Caferacer said:
Funny thing about this movie is that it is based of a youtube video where a dude is put in the same position. He pushes the button, and finds out he is in purgatory and in pushing the button, has decided where he wants to go. The dude who proposed it to him is the devil, he gets sent to hell, and the person he kills via the button is the next to be set in to make the decision.

I can bet that the movie's twist is that the couple is in purgatory the whole movie, and in pushing the button get sent to hell.

BTW, I know there was a whole political discussion in the second half of the thread. I passed over it, knowing how useless these arguments are, and decided to spoil the movie for you.

As for myself, I wouldn't do it. Just me though.
Click to expand...
O'really?

I thought it was based on the 1970's version of the movie, but maybe I am wrong...I can't think of the name of the movie at the moment...
 
joeymutz said:
well i'd be a gigilo so my morality has a price. Murder for money is unforgivable, plus being a gigilo would be an awesome job if you only banged hot chicks, better yet disabled hot chicks prob get more money for that.

sorry don't know how i got off track with that.
Click to expand...

Where's the face palm when I need it so baaaadddddly
 
I hope that none are put in a situation where you are faced with killing or allowing a loved one to be killed (wife, daughter, brother, mother, etc).

I will tell you from experience, you do not stand there and think about where you are going to end up, or going after you die or your damn conscious....you think nothing but instinctual survival mode, period.... all of this bullshyyyat about your personal beliefs and mind, etc, means nothing.....

At least I hope for the sakes of your loved ones, if you are going to just let them be killed, you are not the person put in that situation.
 
I'm taking the hit before anyone in my family ever will.
 
poison said:
There's a huge difference between puishing a button for money, and pulling a trigger to protect yourself, your buddy, or your country.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, but the mantra of 'war for defense' is bull****. ALL wars begin as an act of aggression. Where does the aggression come from? 99.99% of the time it's about taking what someone else has, hence Easy's assertion that it's about goods of some form or another. Might be land, might be resources, whatever. Fact of the matter is that there is only so much to go around and you have to be willing to defend it by force because there are plenty of people who are willing to take it thus.

Hard knock's post pretty much sums it up.
 
Vance said:
Ah yes, but the mantra of 'war for defense' is bull****. ALL wars begin as an act of aggression. Where does the aggression come from? 99.99% of the time it's about taking what someone else has, hence Easy's assertion that it's about goods of some form or another. Might be land, might be resources, whatever. Fact of the matter is that there is only so much to go around and you have to be willing to defend it by force because there are plenty of people who are willing to take it thus.

Hard knock's post pretty much sums it up.
Click to expand...

But there are 2 sides to every war, right? One side is the aggressor, one side defending. Are you equating the acts of the defender with the aggressor?

That's my point: you can't say all war is for goods. NATO attacked Kosovo...for what? Certainly not for goods or power. Lebanon attacked Israel in 2006, Israel defended. You equate the two?
 
poison said:
But there are 2 sides to every war, right? One side is the aggressor, one side defending. Are you equating the acts of the defender with the aggressor?

That's my point: you can't say all war is for goods. NATO attacked Kosovo...for what? Certainly not for goods or power. Lebanon attacked Israel in 2006, Israel defended. You equate the two?
Click to expand...

Care to name one engagement that the Rangers have been in since WW2 where they spent time defending American soil which wasn't an embassy?

I'd also like to point out that in many cases wars begin 'defensively' as an excuse to go on the 'offense' later. Pearl Harbour being one obvious example. Americans knew the Japanese were going to attack, and they needed this to happen to get the people to embrace war. After Pearl Harbour the US didn't spend the majority of the time defending in the rest of that war - or since.

Point is that regardless of who attacks/defends initially, both sides ultimately aim to be the aggressor from that point on. All war is about aggression and violence of action. To say you're fighting a stationary, defensive war is to say you're losing the war.

I like arguing with you poison. :D
 
Vance said:
Care to name one engagement that the Rangers have been in since WW2 where they spent time defending American soil which wasn't an embassy?

I'd also like to point out that in many cases wars begin 'defensively' as an excuse to go on the 'offense' later. Pearl Harbour being one obvious example. Americans knew the Japanese were going to attack, and they needed this to happen to get the people to embrace war. After Pearl Harbour the US didn't spend the majority of the time defending in the rest of that war - or since.

Point is that regardless of who attacks/defends initially, both sides ultimately aim to be the aggressor from that point on. All war is about aggression and violence of action. To say you're fighting a stationary, defensive war is to say you're losing the war.

I like arguing with you poison. :D
Click to expand...

Of course war is about aggression and violence, there isn't any other way. As they say, the best defense is a good offense. This is also why I told Easy you can't lump all war together, you gotta take each war, and each side, on its own merits.

Your example of Pearl Harbor is poor: the US wasn't itching to enter that fight, and WWII was certainly not about the US acquiring goods or power, but preventing Germany and the Japanese from gaining ALL the power. It was most definitely a defensive war on the part of the Allies.

A better example is Israel's 6 Day War. Israel attacked Egypt, in a preemptive move, and acquired Egyptian land in the process. Israel felt threatened, and preempted. They then returned the land captured, in return for a peace accord.
 
poison said:
Of course war is about aggression and violence, there isn't any other way. As they say, the best defense is a good offense. This is also why I told Easy you can't lump all war together, you gotta take each war, and each side, on its own merits.

Your example of Pearl Harbor is poor: the US wasn't itching to enter that fight, and WWII was certainly not about the US acquiring goods or power, but preventing Germany and the Japanese from gaining ALL the power. It was most definitely a defensive war on the part of the Allies.

A better example is Israel's 6 Day War. Israel attacked Egypt, in a preemptive move, and acquired Egyptian land in the process. Israel felt threatened, and preempted. They then returned the land captured, in return for a peace accord.
Click to expand...

:hijacked:

... But held on to and settled the occupied territories which they are still fighting over to this day ...

WW2 came about due to the treaty of Versailles where the allies, in particular France, set out massively punitive economic conditions upon the Germans - under the guise of reparations - which then created the environment for an ultra-nationalist party like the nazis to come about, ultimately sweep to power and be able to lead the entire country to war.

American intelligence were fully aware of an impending Japanese attack, but general consensus is that they expected it to come in the Phillipines. Doesn't change the fact that all historians agree that this was the attack which polarised the American people into fighting what ultimately became a war of aggression (The Japanese were done after Iwo Jima) and involved the firebombing of civilian populations and the use of atomic weapons - again on civilian populations.

I think we need our own thread mate.

[/hijack]
 
poison said:
The US wasn't itching to enter that fight, and WWII was certainly not about the US acquiring goods or power, but preventing Germany and the Japanese from gaining ALL the power. It was most definitely a defensive war on the part of the Allies.
Click to expand...

Defense of US economy was the major issue, not defense of US lives. We knew then and still know that part of the value of the US economy is just based on our overall size, and if all of europe was truly united financially that we'd move downwards on the economic ladder. Thats why the EU was formed, to try and make them competitive with the US. Had germany "united" all of europe and japan had all of asia, our economy would have taken a hell of a nosedive. Was there any significant odds of loss of American lives outside of pearl harbor? no.

Take the war in Rwanda, between the Hutus and the Tutsis. Both sides would say the war is about protecting lives of their own people, yet what both sides try to do is kill off all the people on the other side....
 
Yeah, this thread got jacked. :lol:

The US involvment in wwII is not that simple. If the US hadn't gotten involved, the allies might have lost, and at that point the world would've been a sad place.

You can't equate the tutsi's and hutu's, necessarily. I don't know a ton about that specifically, but there's always an aggressor, or instigator. Muslims are killing christians in the sudan as a calculated policy. It's a copout to simple 'call it even'. If you just can't be bothered to research and find the start of it, that's fine, but it doesn't mean both sides are equivalent, evil, or driven by the same motivations.
 
Vance said:
The government should water-board him on pay per view. It would help them payback a ****load of the debt they owe to China! :D
Click to expand...

I read in a article on prisonplanet that in 08 the united states payd china 3 billion AMEROS! Wtf? Weard
 
Before I saw the movie I knew i would not push it.
Unless I was homeless and starving and then that is would still be a hard choice.
After I saw the movie yesterday I now know I would not.

For the guy who brought up the issue about people 'killing by default' for not giving to charity...
That depends on where you are financially yourself.
There are quite a few people in the US, whether college educated or not, who just make enough to maintain a stable life. And I am not talking about upper level neighborhoods and the lifestyle associated. Plus all charity is as a temporary bridge for a larger problem.
Nothing wrong with it, but charity should only be needed as per emergency like Katrina or the Phillipines disaster and not as a normal lifestyle for multitudes around the globe.
I digress.......

If I could get to pick who died if I pushed the button.
Then there would be no question.
I KNOW that is considered morally bankrupt by a lot of people
but I could give a flying crap.
Because this dirtbag hurt several children, was given the chance to reform and did not.
And the sad thing is that the chump is a blood relation of mine who hurt some kids in the family.
Had I been the same person I was as a teen, he would have disappeared.
And I have the balls to do it now, but I do not want my kid to have his father in prison.
 
EasyEJL said:
Defense of US economy was the major issue, not defense of US lives. We knew then and still know that part of the value of the US economy is just based on our overall size, and if all of europe was truly united financially that we'd move downwards on the economic ladder. Thats why the EU was formed, to try and make them competitive with the US. Had germany "united" all of europe and japan had all of asia, our economy would have taken a hell of a nosedive. Was there any significant odds of loss of American lives outside of pearl harbor? no.

Take the war in Rwanda, between the Hutus and the Tutsis. Both sides would say the war is about protecting lives of their own people, yet what both sides try to do is kill off all the people on the other side....
Click to expand...

Check out the fictional book
The White Mountain(Chung Kuo) by David Wingrove
It actually has China forming some kind of Pan Asian alliance and becoming darn near the strongest in the world. And the intrigue and betrayal that went along with it. As well as other national alliances as well.
Cant remember exactly what happened to the USA but it was not an improvement.
Read it about five years ago and its a pretty good series.
 
joeymutz said:
Easy do you have kids? if your answer is yes then if you push that button and your kid died but you gave half the money to africa then would killing your own child be worth saving the lives of children in africa? I know your answer would be no, just trying to make a point.
Click to expand...

It's a completely valid point. At some point everyone, as is human nature, makes a decision between who is on their inner circle and who is on their outer. The inner circle they treat like humans, and the outer they have no consideration for.

For some, this is just their family. They love their family but won't hold the door open for someone on the street.

Then there are those that are courteous and consider even some random people part of their inner circle. 'Faith in their fellow man' or whatever reason. But at someone point everyone makes that distinction however big or small the circle is.

This is why wars can be fought. Fellow soldiers and the like are your inner circle. The opposition is your outer circle and this is why the trigger can be pulled. For whatever reason, your circle has changed and the killing of another of your species is justified.

I'm not saying this to reduce anyone who has fought in a war or stood up for their country by ANY means at all to animals. It's more a statement of human nature and me trying to apply it to the argument. After all, humans are by nature herd animals. Herds can only be so big.
 
GuyverX said:
Check out the fictional book
The White Mountain(Chung Kuo) by David Wingrove
It actually has China forming some kind of Pan Asian alliance and becoming darn near the strongest in the world. And the intrigue and betrayal that went along with it. As well as other national alliances as well.
Cant remember exactly what happened to the USA but it was not an improvement.
Read it about five years ago and its a pretty good series.
Click to expand...

actually in just a few years china will be a bigger economic power than the US or the EU anyhow.
 
GuyverX said:
Before I saw the movie I knew i would not push it.
Unless I was homeless and starving and then that is would still be a hard choice.
After I saw the movie yesterday I now know I would not.

For the guy who brought up the issue about people 'killing by default' for not giving to charity...
That depends on where you are financially yourself.
There are quite a few people in the US, whether college educated or not, who just make enough to maintain a stable life. And I am not talking about upper level neighborhoods and the lifestyle associated. Plus all charity is as a temporary bridge for a larger problem.
Nothing wrong with it, but charity should only be needed as per emergency like Katrina or the Phillipines disaster and not as a normal lifestyle for multitudes around the globe.
I digress.......

If I could get to pick who died if I pushed the button.
Then there would be no question.
I KNOW that is considered morally bankrupt by a lot of people
but I could give a flying crap.
Because this dirtbag hurt several children, was given the chance to reform and did not.
And the sad thing is that the chump is a blood relation of mine who hurt some kids in the family.
Had I been the same person I was as a teen, he would have disappeared.
And I have the balls to do it now, but I do not want my kid to have his father in prison.
Click to expand...



I never saw the movie, I intend to someday when I have so spare time, but i know I would never push the button, I couldn't, BUT I know i could push it if it meant someone had hurt my family, nephews, sister, parents, that to me would be the only reason, I am a forgiving person sometimes to a fault but if you mess with my inner circle as you say, I become a diffrent person as I think we all do, it's the fighter instinct in me that comes out.....that wanting to protect.......
I know I could have pushed only if i could have choosen the person who killed my sister, he would have been the one i could have hurt and not blinked an eye............

TC
 
If you think about it, you have a chance to kill someone good, or someone bad. Now I'm not sure what the odds are of killing a murderer vs killing a saint are, but I kinda think of it like rolling a die but no matter what side it lands on, you win lots of money.

Also, considering you may never know exactly who you kill or how they die. I almost feel like its hard to feel bad about something you don't even know anything about besides that you pushed a button.
 
PaloAltoMike said:
If you think about it, you have a chance to kill someone good, or someone bad. Now I'm not sure what the odds are of killing a murderer vs killing a saint are, but I kinda think of it like rolling a die but no matter what side it lands on, you win lots of money.

Also, considering you may never know exactly who you kill or how they die. I almost feel like its hard to feel bad about something you don't even know anything about besides that you pushed a button.
Click to expand...

oh yea its hard to feel bad for a person that you dont know, except for the fact that its a person just like you. dont you realize that the person you would kill also has a family/friends/kids just like you? the only difference between us are looks and emotions/personality, other than that we are all basically the same - all of the same human race.

dont want to care about anyone other than the people you personally know? I cant tell you not to take an ignorant approach to life. Eventually, however, this looking out for yourself thing bites everyone in the ass. I just dont get how some of you place zero value on a life of a person just because you havent spent any time with them. So you believe that you deserve to enjoy all that life has to offer and someone else's chance to live could be taken away for your financial gain? What have you done to deserve it?
 
Well I'm pretty sure that when someone dies on the other side of the world, you don't necessarily hear about it, much less care about it. In my mind this is almost similar. I mean sure it could potentially bite you in the ass.

What about this hypothetical instead. Would you push that button to gain a million dollars to spend that money saving lets say 10 lives? or 25 lives? or even hundreds of lives?
 
Agree 100%!

TexasLifter89 said:
no, I have no need for 1 million and would much rather make someones day and enjoy my life without a potential burden such as that. Notice most people that make loads of money have torn family/personal life. I would rather have the decent personal life/family than money.
Click to expand...
 
I dont know if this has been said I only read the first few. I am not sure how the movie will end but in another show I have seen (yrs ago) the person you kill is the last person that pushed the button. It was to show how greed kills, Your not at risk to die unless you killed another over money

Be intresting if the movie follows this or not
 
AntonG42O said:
oh yea its hard to feel bad for a person that you dont know, except for the fact that its a person just like you. dont you realize that the person you would kill also has a family/friends/kids just like you? the only difference between us are looks and emotions/personality, other than that we are all basically the same - all of the same human race.

dont want to care about anyone other than the people you personally know? I cant tell you not to take an ignorant approach to life. Eventually, however, this looking out for yourself thing bites everyone in the ass. I just dont get how some of you place zero value on a life of a person just because you havent spent any time with them. So you believe that you deserve to enjoy all that life has to offer and someone else's chance to live could be taken away for your financial gain? What have you done to deserve it?
Click to expand...

I dont think it's placing zero value on life, I agree with you BUT and I stress but there are some cases where I know I could push that button given knowing who it would hurt.....If i didnt know I couldnt do it, like most we care and love who are inner circle is, like humans we look out for ourselves, sad but true...................

Sadly it's the way of the world........

TC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top