Where is Pale Rider?

[mattskramer]

It's an unrealistic scenario. You can't be in a position to molest someone yet also NOT be in a position to fight.

It is possible. Read the scenario again and imagine:

Hmmmm. Nope. Right off hand, I can’t think of an occasion in which it would be justified to sexually abuse infants for pleasure. Wait. Yes. Picture this: A sexual pervert got his jollies out of seeing adults abuse children. He held family captive and forced adults to sexually abuse children while he watched. Technically, the captive adults abused the children, but if they refused to abuse the children, the kidnapper/pervert would have killed all of the members of the family. In that case, I would say that it was okay for the abuse to have happened.

The bad guy stands in a corner of the living room with his back to the wall. He holds a high-power machine gun in each hand. You and your family are bunched together at the other side of the room. He is well enough away from you and other members of your family so that if anyone even starts to approach him, the result is …well…I think that you get the picture - Everyone gets turned into Swiss cheese. He gets his jollies watching as he forces people to have sex. What do you do?

And why only a reasonable chance? How about any of the slightest, even most unreasonable chance?

Be careful. You are getting a little bit situational on me. Yes. It depends on the possibility of success. Each person has his number – what he thinks is the statistical probability of succeeding in a fight, before he would take a chance. If the probability of success were 0, I would not fight.

 

[mattskramer]

Matt...what if Aliens from a planet in a far-away solar system invaded Earth and transported themselves into your home. They threatened to torture your entire family by slowly burning the skin off their bones unless you agreed to have the biggest Alien perform anal sex on you.

Would you do it?

Yes. If, by allowing myself to be subjected to the pain inflicted by a huge alien, the rest of my family would be spared, I’d go through with it, reluctantly.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It is possible. Read the scenario again and imagine:

Hmmmm. Nope. Right off hand, I can’t think of an occasion in which it would be justified to sexually abuse infants for pleasure. Wait. Yes. Picture this: A sexual pervert got his jollies out of seeing adults abuse children. He held family captive and forced adults to sexually abuse children while he watched. Technically, the captive adults abused the children, but if they refused to abuse the children, the kidnapper/pervert would have killed all of the members of the family. In that case, I would say that it was okay for the abuse to have happened.

The bad guy stands in a corner of the living room with his back to the wall. He holds a high-power machine gun in each hand. You and your family are bunched together at the other side of the room. He is well enough away from you and other members of your family so that if anyone even starts to approach him, the result is …well…I think that you get the picture - Everyone gets turned into Swiss cheese. He gets his jollies watching as he forces people to have sex. What do you do?

Since I am free to move around, I am free to fight. It's quite simple. A man holding a machine gun at me from a corner will not force me to molest any child, and certainly not my own. If you choose to compromise yourself that way in order to continue living, well, then we have a severe difference in mentality. You are trying to make an absolute choice where fighting isn't an option, and I'm telling you that's not possible. Either I am completely incapacitated, rendering me unable to fight but also unable to molest, or I am not, in which I can molest, but also can fight.

Be careful. You are getting a little bit situational on me. Yes. It depends on the possibility of success. Each person has his number – what he thinks is the statistical probability of succeeding in a fight, before he would take a chance. If the probability of success were 0, I would not fight.

If it's 0 then there is NO chance. You're obtusely splitting hairs. I specifically said ANY chance. That means greater than 0. You simply said you'd do it if there was a REASONABLE chance. There's a difference between reasonable chance and any, even unreasonable chance. But if the probability is 0, that's NO chance.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yes. If, by allowing myself to be subjected to the pain inflicted by a huge alien, the rest of my family would be spared, I’d go through with it, reluctantly.

What would you be reluctant about? You'd be reluctant to sacrifice yourself for the good of your family?

 

[GotZoom]

What would you be reluctant about? You'd be reluctant to sacrifice yourself for the good of your family?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that.

 

[Said1]

What would you be reluctant about? You'd be reluctant to sacrifice yourself for the good of your family?

Reluctant. As opposed to "I'll be waiting in the breeding room, warming up the annal probe. Don't keep me waiting. It makes me cranky'.

 

[mattskramer]

What would you be reluctant about? You'd be reluctant to sacrifice yourself for the good of your family?

I suppose that the word “reluctant” is out of place. I would not like the choice that I’d have to make. Still, it would be the better of two evils. Yes, I would sacrifice myself for the good of my family.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I suppose that the word “reluctant” is out of place. I would not like the choice that I’d have to make. Still, it would be the better of two evils. Yes, I would sacrifice myself for the good of my family.

Out of place? You mean wrong? Incorrect?

Reluctant implies hesitation. You would hesitate and actually think about the options?

 

[mattskramer]

Out of place? You mean wrong? Incorrect?

Reluctant implies hesitation. You would hesitate and actually think about the options?

Okay. Wrong choice of words.

 

[OCA]

Honestly I cannot believe that Matts you have the balls to defend this sick post. How fucked up do you have to be that you would throw your kids under the bus to save your own ass? That you would willingly molest or have your child molested to save your skin?

I cannot even fathom this thought, Matts, out of all the fruit loops we've had here you are definitely the sickest sumbitch yet.

 

[mattskramer]

Uh. You don’t read and comprehend very well, do you?

How fucked up do you have to be that you would throw your kids under the bus to save your own ass?

I don’t know, since I did not say any such thing. There isn’t such a message. To the contrary, see post # 62 on this very thread. I practically said that I would allow myself to be subjected to the pain inflicted by a huge alien so that the rest of my family would be spared.

That you would willingly molest or have your child molested to save your skin?

Again. Where is there such a post? It seems as though you are making stuff up.
Look at post # 19 in the thread titled “Situational Ethics examples” again. It is in the “US Current Events” section. Read it carefully. Don’t add anything and don’t remove anything. I said:

...if they refused to abuse the children, the kidnapper/pervert would have killed all of the members of the family.

It might be a good idea for you to look up the word all.

 

[5stringJeff]

It might be a good idea for you to look up the word all.

It might be good for you to look up the term false dichotomy, since that's what many of your situational ethics dilemmas boil down to.

 

[sitarro]

Uh. You don’t read and comprehend very well, do you?



I don’t know, since I did not say any such thing. There isn’t such a message. To the contrary, see post # 62 on this very thread. I practically said that I would allow myself to be subjected to the pain inflicted by a huge alien so that the rest of my family would be spared.

:teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth:

Look at post # 19 in the thread titled “Situational Ethics examples” again. It is in the “US Current Events” section. Read it carefully. Don’t add anything and don’t remove anything. I said:

...if they refused to abuse the children, the kidnapper/pervert would have killed all of the members of the family.

It might be a good idea for you to look up the word all.

I think you deny this too much, you're looking more and more guilty by the post.

 

[mattskramer]

It might be good for you to look up the term false dichotomy, since that's what many of your situational ethics dilemmas boil down to.

Nope. I understand the notion of false dichotomy (also called a false dilemma, either or, black or white, the missing middle) probably more so than most people here. I merely used ethical dilemmas, perhaps bizarre ethical dilemmas, to show that there are very few absolutes. I restricted options to one of two choices with the understanding that people are rarely, if ever, faced with such situations.

 

[mattskramer]

I think you deny this too much, you're looking more and more guilty by the post.

Naw. I just like seeing OCA twist my words around and make up lies. He certainly does not pay attention.

 

[OCA]

Naw. I just like seeing OCA twist my words around and make up lies. He certainly does not pay attention.

Matts its all right here in your own words in that infamous post. The word all does not mean shit, whether its one or all any MAN WORTH HIS SALT would do whatever it took whether it would be in vain or not to ensure that his children were not hurt physically or mentally.

How you can still call yourself a man is beyond me and i'm guessing beyond most others here.

 

[mattskramer]

Matts its all right here in your own words in that infamous post. The word all does not mean shit, whether its one or all any MAN WORTH HIS SALT would do whatever it took whether it would be in vain or not to ensure that his children were not hurt physically or mentally.

How you can still call yourself a man is beyond me and i'm guessing beyond most others here.

Let me try to spell it out again using sentences as simple as I know how to create and using the simplest words that I think that I can use. In my example, there is No chance of successfully fighting the bad guy. Failure is 100 percent certain. If you do not obey him, ALL members of the family will be killed. If you do not obey him, he will kill you, your wife, and all of your immediate relatives. He will kill your children too. In this scenario, I would do as the bad guy commands.

If you were to try to fight, then each member of your family would be dead and you would be a dead fool.

 

[MissileMan]

Let me try to spell it out again using sentences as simple as I know how to create and using the simplest words that I think that I can use. In my example, there is No chance of successfully fighting the bad guy. Failure is 100 percent certain. If you do not obey him, ALL members of the family will be killed. If you do not obey him, he will kill you, your wife, and all of your immediate relatives. He will kill your children too. In this scenario, I would do as the bad guy commands.

If you were to try to fight, then each member of your family would be dead and you would be a dead fool.

BUT, you wouldn't have molested your kids. There is a difference of opinion as to which choice is the lesser of 2 evils. IMO, better to all die together than your alternative.

 

[OCA]

BUT, you wouldn't have molested your kids. There is a difference of opinion as to which choice is the lesser of 2 evils. IMO, better to all die together than your alternative.

First time i've ever agreed with missle but Matts to die altogether rather than take the molestation like a bitch is the ONLY honourable choice in this situation, but knowing that you have no honour its perfectly understandable the choice you would make.

You would fuck your own kids or let someone else fuck your own kids to save your ass, think about that statement.

 

[sitarro]

Let me try to spell it out again using sentences as simple as I know how to create and using the simplest words that I think that I can use. In my example, there is No chance of successfully fighting the bad guy. Failure is 100 percent certain. If you do not obey him, ALL members of the family will be killed. If you do not obey him, he will kill you, your wife, and all of your immediate relatives. He will kill your children too. In this scenario, I would do as the bad guy commands.

If you were to try to fight, then each member of your family would be dead and you would be a dead fool.

Why would you think that anyone that would propose that kind of scenario would actually let you live after you entertain them? Better to have your kids see you fighting for them before they die than the other option.