NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going to list some scenerios. You give me your imput.

1. You have a psychotic serial killer and a rescue dog. You have to choose one, and only one, that will NOT be killed. Who will die?

2. You have the same psychotic serial killer. Now, instead of the dog, you have an endangered animal. There's only twenty left and without it, the local ecosystem would soon become a wasteland after a severe overpopulation problem. The overpopulating animal is very large and deadly. Trying to run it down is useless. Guns are all, but banned locally. Try to kill it with a sword or anything and you're head will be sent into orbit. Which dies?

3. You have a kid. He is dumb. Heck, you've seen cockroaches with more common sense than him. He sees a gate with a clearly marked "Danger: guard dog on duty" sign. The dog has killed numerous killers before. He protects an important person. The kid ignores the sign and the barking, snarling dog and trespasses. He sees the dog coming. It looks like it wants to kill him so bad, his friends will drop dead. They won't really die. He has 5 minutes to turn around and walk 5 measly inches to safety. He's so dumb, he just stands there and gets mauled to death. Should the dog get put to sleep for killing a kid who almost died jaywalking on a busy highway. do you want the guard dog, who has protected his important owner from would-be assasins for years, to die?

4. You have a forest with nothing much of value for people in it. Game is more plentiful elsewhere. The plants have no nutritional value. It's much cheaper to level a forest elsewhere. No minerals worth mining. The gold there isn't anywhere near enough to justify spending money mining it. Plus, you have the endangered pie-wolf living there. It helps protect a special plant. That plant is needed for the newly invented/discovered AIDS, cancer, and alzheimers drugs. However, the wolf is very territorial against humans, who it learned to kill after it was nearly wiped out. A small town is nearby.

The town has been terrorised by the pie-wolf. If you don't kill off the pie-wolf soon, the entire town will die. However, if you kill even a measly dozen or so wolves(not nearly enough to save the town), the overpopulating mice and deer will completely destroy the plant. No plant means no mericle cures. Do you save the town or save the millions of people dying of AIDS, cancer, and alzheimers? The wolf is the only thing that can protect the plant. without it, the plant goes extinct. The plant can only grow in that forest. Anywhere else and it dies. Is the town more important than two entire species, one of which benefits mankind with it's deadly disease-curing properties?

1. The serial killer would die
2.The serial killer would die... again
3.The dog should live
4.Bye bye town

I don't have a very good opinion about people!:rolleyes:

1 dead killer
2 dead killer
3 eh, could go either way but I would let it live
4. I dont see how the overpopulation of dear would effect the world, so I would go with kill the wolves.

For the record, I love these threads:
1. Is the serial killer treatable? If he's treatable, drop the dog. If he's not, the psychotic serial killer will die before the question is over.

2. See above.

3. Killing the dog will not make the kid alive again. Therefore, let the dog live.

4. Could you possibly make a longer question? Evacuate the town and let the wolves overrun it.

Any more opinions?

1. Serial killers < dog
2. Serial killers < endangered animal
3. Dog > stupid kid who didn't pay attention to ample warning
4. I would tell the people in the town to relocate, would offer to pay for that relocation, and save the pie-wolf. (Mmm... pie) If people refuse to relocate, too bad for them.

same as galloism

1 dead killer
2 dead killer
3 eh, could go either way but I would let it live
4. I dont see how the overpopulation of dear would effect the world, so I would go with kill the wolves.
No wolves means deer overpopulation. Deer population explosion wipes out special plant because the deer eat the plant into extinction before the plants get a chance to repopulate. No special plant means no cures fo AIDS and cancer and whatnnot because they're a vital ingredient in said cure.

1. Dead serial killer
2. Dead serial killer
3. Let the dog live. Let the kid remove himself from the genepool.
4. I was gonna kill the pie-wolf until I read the plant thing. After that, let the town get destroyed. People should have moved away.

1. The dog dies. (Any human life is more important than some dog)
2. The animal dies. (foreign poachers= pwnage)
3. Kill the dog. (retards can't help it)
4. The town is more important. (With that small of a supply, the cure would be far too expensive to benifit all but the richest, who don't really need a cure because they can afford the meds)

1. Have the serial killer rescue the dog.
2. See above.
3. Dog lives.
4. Put a fence around the town, grab the plant and mass-plant it. Wolves moved if continue to attack to a area with more game so life is easy.

1. kill the seriel killer
2. kill the seriel killer
3. kill the dog
4. just go in and take some clippings of the plant, cultivate them and then kill the wolves.

if given free choice i would kill none of them, there's always another way, like relocating the wolves to a true wilderness area or a wildlife sanctuary, take the dog and relocate to an industrial area to guard a factory or retrain it and give it to the army, put the seriel killer in a solitary ward in a mental assylum. however, i realise that is not the point of the thread, so the above listed are my choices.

You really can't move the plants, clone them, or anything like that. Killing or moving the wolves would make the plant extremely vulnerable. Plus, you can't really add new scenerios or options. I can justify not moving the wolves because moving them isn't a choice.

No wolves means deer overpopulation. Deer population explosion wipes out special plant because the deer eat the plant into extinction before the plants get a chance to repopulate. No special plant means no cures fo AIDS and cancer and whatnnot because they're a vital ingredient in said cure.
Couldnt we just bring in hunters...

The animals win 1 through 3, and on the 4th one I introduce a group of wardens and hunters to the area. This organization will protect the plants and destroy the wolf/deer population.

1. Kill them both.
2. Kill them both.
3. Fuck that ki. Let the dog live.
4. Kill all the deer, all the wolves, keep a constant, large hunter guard along with fences and shit like that to keep the plants safe, and then wipe out the town for good measure.

...on second thought, save the town, and fuck the people. I hope they all die.

1. Not much of a choice. I like dogs.
2. Move to a new planet, this one is obviously very poorly managed
3. Waste the dog. It’s cruel that someone turned a dog into a monster like that in the first place and besides the child is an innocent. Any person who thinks they’re special should be special enough not to turn animals into psychotic killers. Screw them.
4. If the town can be wiped out by a wolf then it’s no place I want to live in. Time once again to find a new less screwed up planet. Humans obviously weren’t meant to live here.

1. Kill the dog (it isn't human.)
2. Kill the Endangered animal (It isn't human)
3. Kill the dog, it's just good policy to make sure people control their animals
4. Move the town to protect the plant supply (millions of human lives are more important than a few people's homes).

Welcome to the difference between humanistic environmentalism (the only realistic kind) and animalistic environmentalism (the kind that ELF, ALF, and PETA types practice, which makes real environmentalists look bad).

Two words for those wolves. Electric fences.

1. The serial killer would die
2.The serial killer would die... again
3.The dog should live
4.Bye bye townLikewise. Yes, I am a misanthrope as well, and have no shame in it.

1. serial killer would die
2. serial killer would die
3. dog will live
4. the towns people are retarded if all of them together cant seem to defend against wolfs, and i will sell the plant for a very high price making a fortune off the misfotune of others

1. serial killer
2. serial killer
3. Yes
4. Keep the wolf alive

All the animals/forest in those situations have special purposes. Thats why they should survive.

Likewise. Yes, I am a misanthrope as well, and have no shame in it.
Ditto. I don't see the problem. One life is the same as another whether it is human or animal.

I'm going to list some scenerios. You give me your imput.

1. You have a psychotic serial killer and a rescue dog. You have to choose one, and only one, that will NOT be killed. Who will die?
I'd need more details.

2. You have the same psychotic serial killer. Now, instead of the dog, you have an endangered animal. There's only twenty left and without it, the local ecosystem would soon become a wasteland after a severe overpopulation problem. The overpopulating animal is very large and deadly. Trying to run it down is useless. Guns are all, but banned locally. Try to kill it with a sword or anything and you're head will be sent into orbit. Which dies?
Perhaps the psychotic killer although I make no promises.

3. You have a kid. He is dumb. Heck, you've seen cockroaches with more common sense than him. He sees a gate with a clearly marked "Danger: guard dog on duty" sign. The dog has killed numerous killers before. He protects an important person. The kid ignores the sign and the barking, snarling dog and trespasses. He sees the dog coming. It looks like it wants to kill him so bad, his friends will drop dead. They won't really die. He has 5 minutes to turn around and walk 5 measly inches to safety. He's so dumb, he just stands there and gets mauled to death. Should the dog get put to sleep for killing a kid who almost died jaywalking on a busy highway. do you want the guard dog, who has protected his important owner from would-be assasins for years, to die?
No I dont.

4. You have a forest with nothing much of value for people in it. Game is more plentiful elsewhere. The plants have no nutritional value. It's much cheaper to level a forest elsewhere. No minerals worth mining. The gold there isn't anywhere near enough to justify spending money mining it. Plus, you have the endangered pie-wolf living there. It helps protect a special plant. That plant is needed for the newly invented/discovered AIDS, cancer, and alzheimers drugs. However, the wolf is very territorial against humans, who it learned to kill after it was nearly wiped out. A small town is nearby.

The town has been terrorised by the pie-wolf. If you don't kill off the pie-wolf soon, the entire town will die. However, if you kill even a measly dozen or so wolves(not nearly enough to save the town), the overpopulating mice and deer will completely destroy the plant. No plant means no mericle cures. Do you save the town or save the millions of people dying of AIDS, cancer, and alzheimers? The wolf is the only thing that can protect the plant. without it, the plant goes extinct. The plant can only grow in that forest. Anywhere else and it dies. Is the town more important than two entire species, one of which benefits mankind with it's deadly disease-curing properties?
Cant we build a pie-wolf proof barrier? :confused:

1. That depends on whether the serial killer is liable to kill again. If sparing his life means that he's set free, then I'd rather see him dead. If he can be put behind lock and key until he's no longer dangerous, then the dog will die. Overall, I value the life of any human being more than I value the life of a dog.

2. I understand the animals and the change in the ecosystem would pose a great threat, and in the long run plenty of people would suffer and die. I'd say sacrificing one person to prevent this is rational.

3. If the dog kills a person who does not act aggressively towards it or its owner, it's clearly too dangerous to be kept alive.

4. The town goes, because the drug would save more people.

1) killer
2) killer
3) dog - can you even keep a killer dog?
4) wolf - but only cos it's a pack of psychotic man-eating wolves

1. I'd rather the dog lived.

2. I don't really understand the scenario, but I'd rather the psychotic serial killer died. I'm usually on the side of the animals.

3. Don't put the dog down.

4. Again, I don't really understand the scenario. It should be fairly easy to collect some of the lifesaving AIDs plant without getting killed by a killer wolf. Don't we have robots to collect the plant? People in wolf-proof suits? Trained dogs that could do it?

Ditto. I don't see the problem. One life is the same as another whether it is human or animal.

A human being is as important as an ant or an amoeba?

1. Serial killer dies
2. Serial killer dies
3. Kid should have either noticed the warning signs or had a responsible adult with him. Dog lives.
4. If they're stupid enough to stick around and get eaten by wolves, let em. Wolves live, mice and deer live, plant lives, idiots die.

A human being is as important as an ant or an amoeba?
And why not?

In fact, the way you put that implies that you believe that the ant or amoeba are more important...

1. Serial killer dies.
2. Serial killer still dies.
3. Whoever was supposed to be in charge of the kid (since he obviously doesn't have the mental capacity to properly care for himself) should be punished, not the dog. The dog was contained and there was a warning posted. If the dog had attacked the kid off the property, then maybe, and the owner should be seriously punished.
4. Offer to relocate the village, but if they decide not to leave even while knowing the circumstances if they get eaten by a wolf, it's something they accepted and new might happen. The medicinal value of the plant is more important.

And why not?

In fact, the way you put that implies that you believe that the ant or amoeba are more important...

Well in that case i didnt put it quite right.

Of course a human is more important than an insect or ameoba. Without getting muddied down in strange concepts such as the soul, I think the simplest way to put it would be that we're self aware. We can determine our actions not my instinct but through thought and plan ahead, simple animals cant, they're automatons with no more worth than a computer program.

Higher animals like dogs are debatable as sometimes they could be said to be more than that, and apes and dolphins are pretty much as intelligent as people, but insects, no. If they were you should charge every single pest exterminator with genocide.

In all 4 cases I favour the animal. Even if the wolf in #4 wasnt guarding an AIDS curing plant I'd let it live. The dumbassed people shouldnt have built a town in a place inhabited by wolves.

Killing an animal may be necessary if you need to eat it, or wear it (like in the arctic, not somewhere warm) or it becomes an excessive danger to people who arent stupid. Killing a person can be necessary for all those reasons, and a person can also deserve to die. Viva la anaimals!

I'm going to list some scenerios. You give me your imput.

1. You have a psychotic serial killer and a rescue dog. You have to choose one, and only one, that will NOT be killed. Who will die?
Rescue dog dies.

2. You have the same psychotic serial killer. Now, instead of the dog, you have an endangered animal. There's only twenty left and without it, the local ecosystem would soon become a wasteland after a severe overpopulation problem. The overpopulating animal is very large and deadly. Trying to run it down is useless. Guns are all, but banned locally. Try to kill it with a sword or anything and you're head will be sent into orbit. Which dies?
Endangered animal dies. No guns then? Fine, we'll use an air rifle equipped with highly toxic darts.


3. You have a kid. He is dumb. Heck, you've seen cockroaches with more common sense than him. He sees a gate with a clearly marked "Danger: guard dog on duty" sign. The dog has killed numerous killers before. He protects an important person. The kid ignores the sign and the barking, snarling dog and trespasses. He sees the dog coming. It looks like it wants to kill him so bad, his friends will drop dead. They won't really die. He has 5 minutes to turn around and walk 5 measly inches to safety. He's so dumb, he just stands there and gets mauled to death. Should the dog get put to sleep for killing a kid who almost died jaywalking on a busy highway. do you want the guard dog, who has protected his important owner from would-be assasins for years, to die?
Put the dog to sleep.

4. You have a forest with nothing much of value for people in it. Game is more plentiful elsewhere. The plants have no nutritional value. It's much cheaper to level a forest elsewhere. No minerals worth mining. The gold there isn't anywhere near enough to justify spending money mining it. Plus, you have the endangered pie-wolf living there. It helps protect a special plant. That plant is needed for the newly invented/discovered AIDS, cancer, and alzheimers drugs. However, the wolf is very territorial against humans, who it learned to kill after it was nearly wiped out. A small town is nearby.

The town has been terrorised by the pie-wolf. If you don't kill off the pie-wolf soon, the entire town will die. However, if you kill even a measly dozen or so wolves(not nearly enough to save the town), the overpopulating mice and deer will completely destroy the plant. No plant means no mericle cures. Do you save the town or save the millions of people dying of AIDS, cancer, and alzheimers? The wolf is the only thing that can protect the plant. without it, the plant goes extinct. The plant can only grow in that forest. Anywhere else and it dies. Is the town more important than two entire species, one of which benefits mankind with it's deadly disease-curing properties?
Relocation of either the wolves or the people. Perhaps kill the wolves and import new wolves and coyotes to handle the rodent problem. Owls can be put out too.

1. serial killer dies - what has the serial killer done to earn his right to life over that which helps others? Context of the question doesn't allow for circumstances to which the death penalty would be analgous to the situation, so I'm okay for the rescue dog to live.

2. Serial killer dies - only because wtf has the serial killer got to do with endangered species?!

3. Dog remains alive - you can't blame the animal for its nature. Sure there is a responsibility of the owner to stop people confronting a dog like that, but in this context, then there is an equal responsibility of the dumb kid's guardians to safeguard him from such circumstances.

4. Plants can be cultivated. The question has too many alternatives for it to havea black/white answer. Cultivate the plant elsewhere and let the town/wolves live on.

1. The life of a single person trumps the life of a single animal.
2. Ditto, plus the fact that if there are only 20 of them any attempt to save one is only a temporary stay of execution of the population anyway.
3. First, harsh punishment for the parents who allowed this child to wander off when he is so obviously in need of constant supervision. Second, the dog must be destroyed... no animal should be trained to kill a human. Third, the very important person should face harsh punishment for training and/or keeping such an animal, and especially for doing so without appropriate protection (this child so easily found access to the dog...) and not be allowed to keep animals in the future. Once again... the life of a single person is the most important part of this equation. What it comes down to, really, is whether the life of the child is more important than the life of the "important person". There are too many other ways to avoid assassination that do NOT put innocent people at risk, so the scales tip towards the child in this case.
4. You have changed the formula in the last instance. In this case, it is ultimately the lives of a LOT of people (those who would be helped by the drugs) that take precedence over the lives of the FEWER people who live in the town. The short term solution of killing the pie-wolves would save fewer people than not killing them would. The town obviously encroached on the pie-wolf in the first place, so either relocate the town or build them better defenses. Explain to them the necessity for doing so, and work to protect the pie-wolf and its habitat.

1. Person psychotic enough to kill again vs. dog who saves people. One hurts humanity. One helps it. I'll save the dog and kill the killer.

2. replace dog with species and you have my answer.

3. spare the dog. his owner can't get a security system without ruining this scenerio.

4. marical cures rock. let the town die off. :p