Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (87 users) | |
|
| CarniX Sweden. May 28 2012 07:00. Posts 75 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 06:56 RavenLoud wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 06:53 CarniX wrote:
On May 28 2012 06:34 RavenLoud wrote:
WTF at results.
Maybe we deserve all the inequality and capitalism because 60% of us seem to lack the ability to consider how our own existence may be worth less than that of TEN FREAKING THOUSAND others.
The amount of pessimism and narcissism really boggles the mind.
But how do you measure the value of human life? Is it always the same? Also life always have to end anyway, so does it really matter if i sacrifice myself for others? The are going to die anyway.
If you have the intellect to ponder these overcomplicated questions, you'd surely have enough to understand this little thing called "empathy". If you were about to die, and a guy who could have saved you said those things to justifiy himself, what would you think?
I'd be dead I wouldn't even know someone could have saved me, or that I even existed to begin with. |
| | Darkness beyond twilight, crimson beyond blood that flows. Buried in the flow of time. In the great name, i pledge myself to darkness! |
|
|
| Vandrad Germany. May 28 2012 07:00. Posts 685 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 06:34 RavenLoud wrote:
WTF at results.
Maybe we deserve all the inequality and capitalism because 60% of us seem to lack the ability to consider how our own existence may be worth less than that of TEN FREAKING THOUSAND others.
The amount of pessimism and narcissism really boggles the mind.
I was more shocked that anyone would die for anyone completely unknown
Like why would I care if 10.000 people die I don't even know ....
I wouldn't even be sad... like this is just silly
typical christian morality
do all of you guys cry for all the billions of people who died over the last hundreds and thousands ofyears ? |
| | "Death is so final. Whereas life, ah life is so full of possibilities." - Tyrion Lannister |
|
|
| sereniity Sweden. May 28 2012 07:00. Posts 1132 | Profile Blog # |
On May 28 2012 06:02 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 05:32 sereniity wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:07 Gigaudas wrote:
On May 28 2012 01:57 Garth wrote:
One person might be difficult, but two+ I would definately do.
Pretty sure you could do this right now. Your organs are valuable.
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
He could donate a kidney later in his life, what difference does it make if he does it now?
Makes a lot of difference for people dying on the waiting list.
I'm sure there will be people on the waiting list later on in Garths life aswell? |
| |
|
| sc4k United Kingdom. May 28 2012 07:04. Posts 4403 | Profile Blog # |
On May 28 2012 06:40 Ysellian wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 06:34 RavenLoud wrote:
WTF at results.
Maybe we deserve all the inequality and capitalism because 60% of us seem to lack the ability to consider how our own existence may be worth less than that of TEN FREAKING THOUSAND others.
The amount of pessimism and narcissism really boggles the mind.
Glad to see someone as shocked as I am who can put it into better words. I really hope the majority of those people didn't read the entire poll.
Do you people break down and cry every time you see deaths in the newspaper?
Every day...hundreds of people get killed, thousands die of disease and poverty. Death is just happening all the time. Life is happening, that is, being created, coincidentally, at a faster rate.
If you feel too great a responsibility by choosing your life over a mass of unknown people, then so be it, in my opinion you are abnormally selfless to an absurd degree. I'm all for sharing out wealth and being nice to your neighbour, but where in the social contract is there a stipulation that you should die for others just because there are more of them than you?
I mean, if you go through this barbaric and ridiculous thought process that the lives of multiple people automatically outweigh the lives of single people, then you clearly are voicing support for an organ lottery. Something I have always thought is the embodiment of logic without wisdom.
Edit: for those who don't know, an organ lottery is the idea of randomly selecting people in society and killing them + harvesting their organs to give to people in need of organs.Last edit: 2012-05-28 07:06:22 |
|
|
| sereniity Sweden. May 28 2012 07:05. Posts 1132 | Profile Blog # |
On May 28 2012 05:46 Kaitlin wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 05:32 sereniity wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:07 Gigaudas wrote:
On May 28 2012 01:57 Garth wrote:
One person might be difficult, but two+ I would definately do.
Pretty sure you could do this right now. Your organs are valuable.
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
He could donate a kidney later in his life, what difference does it make if he does it now?
Because the point of this thread is making the sacrifice to save others' lives. It's not, when you're 89 and on your death bed, would you agree to die to save others. Putting off the sacrifice is not part of the question, nor did Garth suggest he would after a certain age. He said he would give his live to save one, or definitely two lives. That is complete bullshit.
Maybe it's bullshit, maybe it isn't. Either way, the kidney example is silly, as he could donate his kidneys later on in his life with the exact same end result. |
| |
|
| Kiarip United States. May 28 2012 07:11. Posts 1733 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 06:59 Garth wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:07 Gigaudas wrote:
On May 28 2012 01:57 Garth wrote:
One person might be difficult, but two+ I would definately do.
Pretty sure you could do this right now. Your organs are valuable.
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
You are absolutely, irreparably retarded. This thread is the sister thread to the kick in the balls thread, its half magical because in that thread some random dude comes and kicks you in the nuts at random times and just appears magically. I would not suffer through any practical means such as slow recovery from surgery or being tortured or having to kill myself physically for others, but if there was a button and I just died instantly and painlessly for another to live I would take that route. I didn't criticize anyone until you told me that I was full of shit and you seem to miss the point and the humour of a thread like this.
So what you're saying is that if you had a choice between instantly painlessly dying to save 2 people, and losing a kidney and a liver lobe to save 2 people, you would chose to painlessly die? I mean this basically boils down to you rather dying than losing a kidney, and a liver lobe and going through a recovery or w.e.
This sounds pretty dumb not gonna lie.
edit:
As for the question, I probably wouldn't even for very large amounts of people, at least given the situation I'm in now. I think given the right situation I will be willing to die for what I believe is morally right, but I just don't think it's morally right for me to make this trade even for very large amounts of people.Last edit: 2012-05-28 07:18:12 |
|
|
| sereniity Sweden. May 28 2012 07:13. Posts 1132 | Profile Blog # |
On May 28 2012 07:11 Kiarip wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 06:59 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:07 Gigaudas wrote:
On May 28 2012 01:57 Garth wrote:
One person might be difficult, but two+ I would definately do.
Pretty sure you could do this right now. Your organs are valuable.
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
You are absolutely, irreparably retarded. This thread is the sister thread to the kick in the balls thread, its half magical because in that thread some random dude comes and kicks you in the nuts at random times and just appears magically. I would not suffer through any practical means such as slow recovery from surgery or being tortured or having to kill myself physically for others, but if there was a button and I just died instantly and painlessly for another to live I would take that route. I didn't criticize anyone until you told me that I was full of shit and you seem to miss the point and the humour of a thread like this.
So what you're saying is that if you had a choice between instantly painlessly dying to save 2 people, and losing a kidney and a liver lobe to save 2 people, you would chose to painlessly die? I mean this basically boils down to you rather dying than losing a kidney, and a liver lobe and going through a recovery or w.e. This sounds pretty dumb not gonna lie.
Once again, why would he choose to lose a liver now rather than later, thus crippling his life?
Why the hell are people even using examples such as this kidney bullshit to compare with this thread, which is suffering from complete lack of context?
Pretty dumb not gonna lie.
Last edit: 2012-05-28 07:13:11 |
| |
|
| Garth United States. May 28 2012 07:14. Posts 327 | Profile Blog # |
On May 28 2012 07:11 Kiarip wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 06:59 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:07 Gigaudas wrote:
On May 28 2012 01:57 Garth wrote:
One person might be difficult, but two+ I would definately do.
Pretty sure you could do this right now. Your organs are valuable.
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
You are absolutely, irreparably retarded. This thread is the sister thread to the kick in the balls thread, its half magical because in that thread some random dude comes and kicks you in the nuts at random times and just appears magically. I would not suffer through any practical means such as slow recovery from surgery or being tortured or having to kill myself physically for others, but if there was a button and I just died instantly and painlessly for another to live I would take that route. I didn't criticize anyone until you told me that I was full of shit and you seem to miss the point and the humour of a thread like this.
So what you're saying is that if you had a choice between instantly painlessly dying to save 2 people, and losing a kidney and a liver lobe to save 2 people, you would chose to painlessly die? I mean this basically boils down to you rather dying than losing a kidney, and a liver lobe and going through a recovery or w.e. This sounds pretty dumb not gonna lie.
Scenarios are slightly different. In this case I am directly responsible for peoples' deaths because I chose to save myself but not in the kidneys case. But yes I am a pussy for pain, not to die though. |
|
|
| Kiarip United States. May 28 2012 07:25. Posts 1733 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 07:13 sereniity wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 07:11 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 06:59 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:07 Gigaudas wrote:
On May 28 2012 01:57 Garth wrote:
One person might be difficult, but two+ I would definately do.
Pretty sure you could do this right now. Your organs are valuable.
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
You are absolutely, irreparably retarded. This thread is the sister thread to the kick in the balls thread, its half magical because in that thread some random dude comes and kicks you in the nuts at random times and just appears magically. I would not suffer through any practical means such as slow recovery from surgery or being tortured or having to kill myself physically for others, but if there was a button and I just died instantly and painlessly for another to live I would take that route. I didn't criticize anyone until you told me that I was full of shit and you seem to miss the point and the humour of a thread like this.
So what you're saying is that if you had a choice between instantly painlessly dying to save 2 people, and losing a kidney and a liver lobe to save 2 people, you would chose to painlessly die? I mean this basically boils down to you rather dying than losing a kidney, and a liver lobe and going through a recovery or w.e. This sounds pretty dumb not gonna lie.
Once again, why would he choose to lose a liver now rather than later, thus crippling his life? Why the hell are people even using examples such as this kidney bullshit to compare with this thread, which is suffering from complete lack of context? Pretty dumb not gonna lie.
... Ok. so let's say I have this magical button to save a million people and kill myself... Sure I'll press it... when I get to like 90 years old and I'm on my deathbed, but does that fairly answer the question?
The question implies that if you press the metaphorical "button" you save x amount of people and immediately die, if you don't, you don't die and the people die.
Anyone who's willing to die immediately so save lives in the numbers of 1-3 should have already donated his organs, unless they think it's worse to live after having donated some liver/kidney than it is to die, in which case they are either crazy/stupid or young and very idealistic, which is something they're gonna grow out of like everyone else.
Saying that why give up organs now if I can give them up later makes as much sense as saying why die now if I can die later, plus if I wait until 90 years old a lot of my organs probably won't even be good for transfers since they'll be too damaged/weak w.e.
Scenarios are slightly different. In this case I am directly responsible for peoples' deaths because I chose to save myself but not in the kidneys case. But yes I am a pussy for pain, not to die though.
:S... what? in both cases you have an opportunity to save lives. Hell, if you didn't buy computers/computer games you could have sent that money to africa, or even personally flown out to africa to save some random kid's life or 2, but you chose to play computer games instead...
I doubt you think that you're a murderer or anything like that just because you didn't give up some entertainment, why would you think that you're at all in the wrong morally, if you don't give up your life?Last edit: 2012-05-28 07:28:46 |
|
|
| JonnyBNoHo May 28 2012 07:26. Posts 2309 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 06:34 RavenLoud wrote:
WTF at results.
Maybe we deserve all the inequality and capitalism because 60% of us seem to lack the ability to consider how our own existence may be worth less than that of TEN FREAKING THOUSAND others.
The amount of pessimism and narcissism really boggles the mind.
Wait.
You are surprised that people on the internet are not speaking with their heart on a completely random and implausible scenario? |
|
|
| Garth United States. May 28 2012 07:31. Posts 327 | Profile Blog # |
On May 28 2012 07:25 Kiarip wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 07:13 sereniity wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:11 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 06:59 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:07 Gigaudas wrote:
On May 28 2012 01:57 Garth wrote:
One person might be difficult, but two+ I would definately do.
Pretty sure you could do this right now. Your organs are valuable.
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
You are absolutely, irreparably retarded. This thread is the sister thread to the kick in the balls thread, its half magical because in that thread some random dude comes and kicks you in the nuts at random times and just appears magically. I would not suffer through any practical means such as slow recovery from surgery or being tortured or having to kill myself physically for others, but if there was a button and I just died instantly and painlessly for another to live I would take that route. I didn't criticize anyone until you told me that I was full of shit and you seem to miss the point and the humour of a thread like this.
So what you're saying is that if you had a choice between instantly painlessly dying to save 2 people, and losing a kidney and a liver lobe to save 2 people, you would chose to painlessly die? I mean this basically boils down to you rather dying than losing a kidney, and a liver lobe and going through a recovery or w.e. This sounds pretty dumb not gonna lie.
Once again, why would he choose to lose a liver now rather than later, thus crippling his life? Why the hell are people even using examples such as this kidney bullshit to compare with this thread, which is suffering from complete lack of context? Pretty dumb not gonna lie.
... Ok. so let's say I have this magical button to save a million people and kill myself... Sure I'll press it... when I get to like 90 years old and I'm on my deathbed, but does that fairly answer the question? The question implies that if you press the metaphorical "button" you save x amount of people and immediately die, if you don't, you don't die and the people die. Anyone who's willing to die immediately so save lives in the numbers of 1-3 should have already donated his organs, unless they think it's worse to live after having donated some liver/kidney than it is to die, in which case they are either crazy/stupid or young and very idealistic, which is something they're gonna grow out of like everyone else. Saying that why give up organs now if I can give them up later makes as much sense as saying why die now if I can die later, plus if I wait until 90 years old a lot of my organs probably won't even be good for transfers since they'll be too damaged/weak w.e.
Show nested quote +
Scenarios are slightly different. In this case I am directly responsible for peoples' deaths because I chose to save myself but not in the kidneys case. But yes I am a pussy for pain, not to die though.
:S... what? in both cases you have an opportunity to save lives. Hell, if you didn't buy computers/computer games you could have sent that money to africa, or even personally flown out to africa to save some random kid's life or 2, but you chose to play computer games instead... I doubt you think that you're a murderer or anything like that just because you didn't give up some entertainment, why would you think that you're at all in the wrong morally, if you don't give up your life?
Maybe its because I'm christian and death to me isn't awful.
|
|
|
| Kiarip United States. May 28 2012 07:32. Posts 1733 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 07:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 06:34 RavenLoud wrote:
WTF at results.
Maybe we deserve all the inequality and capitalism because 60% of us seem to lack the ability to consider how our own existence may be worth less than that of TEN FREAKING THOUSAND others.
The amount of pessimism and narcissism really boggles the mind.
Wait. You are surprised that people on the internet are not speaking with their heart on a completely random and implausible scenario?
I actually bet that the people who wouldn't die for "TEN FREAKING THOUSAND" people are being more honest than those that said they would for 1-6 strangers...
RavenLoud apparently doesn't understand that the worth of human life is very subjective.Last edit: 2012-05-28 07:34:53 |
|
|
| Kiarip United States. May 28 2012 07:33. Posts 1733 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 07:31 Garth wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 07:25 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:13 sereniity wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:11 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 06:59 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:07 Gigaudas wrote:
On May 28 2012 01:57 Garth wrote:
One person might be difficult, but two+ I would definately do.
Pretty sure you could do this right now. Your organs are valuable.
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
You are absolutely, irreparably retarded. This thread is the sister thread to the kick in the balls thread, its half magical because in that thread some random dude comes and kicks you in the nuts at random times and just appears magically. I would not suffer through any practical means such as slow recovery from surgery or being tortured or having to kill myself physically for others, but if there was a button and I just died instantly and painlessly for another to live I would take that route. I didn't criticize anyone until you told me that I was full of shit and you seem to miss the point and the humour of a thread like this.
So what you're saying is that if you had a choice between instantly painlessly dying to save 2 people, and losing a kidney and a liver lobe to save 2 people, you would chose to painlessly die? I mean this basically boils down to you rather dying than losing a kidney, and a liver lobe and going through a recovery or w.e. This sounds pretty dumb not gonna lie.
Once again, why would he choose to lose a liver now rather than later, thus crippling his life? Why the hell are people even using examples such as this kidney bullshit to compare with this thread, which is suffering from complete lack of context? Pretty dumb not gonna lie.
... Ok. so let's say I have this magical button to save a million people and kill myself... Sure I'll press it... when I get to like 90 years old and I'm on my deathbed, but does that fairly answer the question? The question implies that if you press the metaphorical "button" you save x amount of people and immediately die, if you don't, you don't die and the people die. Anyone who's willing to die immediately so save lives in the numbers of 1-3 should have already donated his organs, unless they think it's worse to live after having donated some liver/kidney than it is to die, in which case they are either crazy/stupid or young and very idealistic, which is something they're gonna grow out of like everyone else. Saying that why give up organs now if I can give them up later makes as much sense as saying why die now if I can die later, plus if I wait until 90 years old a lot of my organs probably won't even be good for transfers since they'll be too damaged/weak w.e.
Scenarios are slightly different. In this case I am directly responsible for peoples' deaths because I chose to save myself but not in the kidneys case. But yes I am a pussy for pain, not to die though.
:S... what? in both cases you have an opportunity to save lives. Hell, if you didn't buy computers/computer games you could have sent that money to africa, or even personally flown out to africa to save some random kid's life or 2, but you chose to play computer games instead... I doubt you think that you're a murderer or anything like that just because you didn't give up some entertainment, why would you think that you're at all in the wrong morally, if you don't give up your life?
Maybe its because I'm christian and death to me isn't awful.
Ah, well I guess that makes sense.
|
|
|
| Garth United States. May 28 2012 07:34. Posts 327 | Profile Blog # |
On May 28 2012 07:25 Kiarip wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 07:13 sereniity wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:11 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 06:59 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:07 Gigaudas wrote:
On May 28 2012 01:57 Garth wrote:
One person might be difficult, but two+ I would definately do.
Pretty sure you could do this right now. Your organs are valuable.
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
You are absolutely, irreparably retarded. This thread is the sister thread to the kick in the balls thread, its half magical because in that thread some random dude comes and kicks you in the nuts at random times and just appears magically. I would not suffer through any practical means such as slow recovery from surgery or being tortured or having to kill myself physically for others, but if there was a button and I just died instantly and painlessly for another to live I would take that route. I didn't criticize anyone until you told me that I was full of shit and you seem to miss the point and the humour of a thread like this.
So what you're saying is that if you had a choice between instantly painlessly dying to save 2 people, and losing a kidney and a liver lobe to save 2 people, you would chose to painlessly die? I mean this basically boils down to you rather dying than losing a kidney, and a liver lobe and going through a recovery or w.e. This sounds pretty dumb not gonna lie.
Once again, why would he choose to lose a liver now rather than later, thus crippling his life? Why the hell are people even using examples such as this kidney bullshit to compare with this thread, which is suffering from complete lack of context? Pretty dumb not gonna lie.
... Ok. so let's say I have this magical button to save a million people and kill myself... Sure I'll press it... when I get to like 90 years old and I'm on my deathbed, but does that fairly answer the question? The question implies that if you press the metaphorical "button" you save x amount of people and immediately die, if you don't, you don't die and the people die. Anyone who's willing to die immediately so save lives in the numbers of 1-3 should have already donated his organs, unless they think it's worse to live after having donated some liver/kidney than it is to die, in which case they are either crazy/stupid or young and very idealistic, which is something they're gonna grow out of like everyone else. Saying that why give up organs now if I can give them up later makes as much sense as saying why die now if I can die later, plus if I wait until 90 years old a lot of my organs probably won't even be good for transfers since they'll be too damaged/weak w.e.
Show nested quote +
Scenarios are slightly different. In this case I am directly responsible for peoples' deaths because I chose to save myself but not in the kidneys case. But yes I am a pussy for pain, not to die though.
:S... what? in both cases you have an opportunity to save lives. Hell, if you didn't buy computers/computer games you could have sent that money to africa, or even personally flown out to africa to save some random kid's life or 2, but you chose to play computer games instead... I doubt you think that you're a murderer or anything like that just because you didn't give up some entertainment, why would you think that you're at all in the wrong morally, if you don't give up your life?
The scenarios are different lol. I am not directly responsible for the starvation that occurs in Africa, I can possibly stop it to some degree, but in the case of this thread if I don't die people instantly die. In one case I essentially shot someone in the face killing them and I'm a murder but in the other I'm just a bystander and I'm indirectly responsible for a certain degree of someone's suffering. |
|
|
| Garth United States. May 28 2012 07:35. Posts 327 | Profile Blog # |
On May 28 2012 07:33 Kiarip wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 07:31 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:25 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:13 sereniity wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:11 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 06:59 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:07 Gigaudas wrote:
[quote]
Pretty sure you could do this right now. Your organs are valuable.
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
You are absolutely, irreparably retarded. This thread is the sister thread to the kick in the balls thread, its half magical because in that thread some random dude comes and kicks you in the nuts at random times and just appears magically. I would not suffer through any practical means such as slow recovery from surgery or being tortured or having to kill myself physically for others, but if there was a button and I just died instantly and painlessly for another to live I would take that route. I didn't criticize anyone until you told me that I was full of shit and you seem to miss the point and the humour of a thread like this.
So what you're saying is that if you had a choice between instantly painlessly dying to save 2 people, and losing a kidney and a liver lobe to save 2 people, you would chose to painlessly die? I mean this basically boils down to you rather dying than losing a kidney, and a liver lobe and going through a recovery or w.e. This sounds pretty dumb not gonna lie.
Once again, why would he choose to lose a liver now rather than later, thus crippling his life? Why the hell are people even using examples such as this kidney bullshit to compare with this thread, which is suffering from complete lack of context? Pretty dumb not gonna lie.
... Ok. so let's say I have this magical button to save a million people and kill myself... Sure I'll press it... when I get to like 90 years old and I'm on my deathbed, but does that fairly answer the question? The question implies that if you press the metaphorical "button" you save x amount of people and immediately die, if you don't, you don't die and the people die. Anyone who's willing to die immediately so save lives in the numbers of 1-3 should have already donated his organs, unless they think it's worse to live after having donated some liver/kidney than it is to die, in which case they are either crazy/stupid or young and very idealistic, which is something they're gonna grow out of like everyone else. Saying that why give up organs now if I can give them up later makes as much sense as saying why die now if I can die later, plus if I wait until 90 years old a lot of my organs probably won't even be good for transfers since they'll be too damaged/weak w.e.
Scenarios are slightly different. In this case I am directly responsible for peoples' deaths because I chose to save myself but not in the kidneys case. But yes I am a pussy for pain, not to die though.
:S... what? in both cases you have an opportunity to save lives. Hell, if you didn't buy computers/computer games you could have sent that money to africa, or even personally flown out to africa to save some random kid's life or 2, but you chose to play computer games instead... I doubt you think that you're a murderer or anything like that just because you didn't give up some entertainment, why would you think that you're at all in the wrong morally, if you don't give up your life?
Maybe its because I'm christian and death to me isn't awful.
Ah, well I guess that makes sense.
Lmao, Hi by the way kiarip its garmeth from gamereplays. |
|
|
| RavenLoud Canada. May 28 2012 07:40. Posts 1069 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 07:00 Vandrad wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 06:34 RavenLoud wrote:
WTF at results.
Maybe we deserve all the inequality and capitalism because 60% of us seem to lack the ability to consider how our own existence may be worth less than that of TEN FREAKING THOUSAND others.
The amount of pessimism and narcissism really boggles the mind.
I was more shocked that anyone would die for anyone completely unknown Like why would I care if 10.000 people die I don't even know .... I wouldn't even be sad... like this is just silly typical christian morality do all of you guys cry for all the billions of people who died over the last hundreds and thousands ofyears ?
What is this I don't even...
Just because you don't know them means their lives don't have value?
I'm willing to bet my own life that ten thousand random people will be much more productive for society than you.
I'm an Atheist btw. |
|
|
| Kiarip United States. May 28 2012 07:41. Posts 1733 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 07:34 Garth wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 07:25 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:13 sereniity wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:11 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 06:59 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:07 Gigaudas wrote:
On May 28 2012 01:57 Garth wrote:
One person might be difficult, but two+ I would definately do.
Pretty sure you could do this right now. Your organs are valuable.
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
You are absolutely, irreparably retarded. This thread is the sister thread to the kick in the balls thread, its half magical because in that thread some random dude comes and kicks you in the nuts at random times and just appears magically. I would not suffer through any practical means such as slow recovery from surgery or being tortured or having to kill myself physically for others, but if there was a button and I just died instantly and painlessly for another to live I would take that route. I didn't criticize anyone until you told me that I was full of shit and you seem to miss the point and the humour of a thread like this.
So what you're saying is that if you had a choice between instantly painlessly dying to save 2 people, and losing a kidney and a liver lobe to save 2 people, you would chose to painlessly die? I mean this basically boils down to you rather dying than losing a kidney, and a liver lobe and going through a recovery or w.e. This sounds pretty dumb not gonna lie.
Once again, why would he choose to lose a liver now rather than later, thus crippling his life? Why the hell are people even using examples such as this kidney bullshit to compare with this thread, which is suffering from complete lack of context? Pretty dumb not gonna lie.
... Ok. so let's say I have this magical button to save a million people and kill myself... Sure I'll press it... when I get to like 90 years old and I'm on my deathbed, but does that fairly answer the question? The question implies that if you press the metaphorical "button" you save x amount of people and immediately die, if you don't, you don't die and the people die. Anyone who's willing to die immediately so save lives in the numbers of 1-3 should have already donated his organs, unless they think it's worse to live after having donated some liver/kidney than it is to die, in which case they are either crazy/stupid or young and very idealistic, which is something they're gonna grow out of like everyone else. Saying that why give up organs now if I can give them up later makes as much sense as saying why die now if I can die later, plus if I wait until 90 years old a lot of my organs probably won't even be good for transfers since they'll be too damaged/weak w.e.
Scenarios are slightly different. In this case I am directly responsible for peoples' deaths because I chose to save myself but not in the kidneys case. But yes I am a pussy for pain, not to die though.
:S... what? in both cases you have an opportunity to save lives. Hell, if you didn't buy computers/computer games you could have sent that money to africa, or even personally flown out to africa to save some random kid's life or 2, but you chose to play computer games instead... I doubt you think that you're a murderer or anything like that just because you didn't give up some entertainment, why would you think that you're at all in the wrong morally, if you don't give up your life?
The scenarios are different lol. I am not directly responsible for the starvation that occurs in Africa, I can possibly stop it to some degree, but in the case of this thread if I don't die people instantly die. In one case I essentially shot someone in the face killing them and I'm a murder but in the other I'm just a bystander and I'm indirectly responsible for a certain degree of someone's suffering.
I disagree, just because you can instantaneously save them by giving up your life and you don't doesn't mean you're at fault.
The reason people are just "bystadners" for not going to africa to save starving children is because it takes a lot of time and effort and some money that you may have wanted to use towards a different purpose.
But if you accept death to save a few people you're basically giving up ALL your time. The truth is that you could have probably actually saved more people (more people than 2 for sure,) simply by staying alive, and abandoning all your current goals and just dedicating your life to helping out people in some really poverty struck region of the world, and then you could have still come back at like 70 to collect your social security (assuming you made it that long,) and you would have still lived a relatively fullfilling life.
|
|
|
| Kiarip United States. May 28 2012 07:41. Posts 1733 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 07:35 Garth wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 07:33 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:31 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:25 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:13 sereniity wrote:
On May 28 2012 07:11 Kiarip wrote:
On May 28 2012 06:59 Garth wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:54 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
On May 28 2012 04:19 Garth wrote:
[quote]
Who would kill me?
Nope. You can donate a kidney or part of your liver. Furthermore there are never enough healthy kidneys to meet demand. When we're not involved we don't think about it and assume that deceased donors take care of it but they don't, people die on waiting lists and people don't get them and every extra kidney will save a life. Furthermore a living kidney has a higher chance of a successful transplantation than one from a dead donor and living kidney donors with one kidney remaining actually outlive random people on average (although you need to be of above average health to donate). Go out and donate today, there's really no reason not to.
... and this is why I call B.S. on Garth. Not a chance in hell is Garth going to donate an organ as a result of this thread, yet expects us to believe the line of 'oh, I'd donate my life to save even two others. Opportunity presents itself to save lives without even sacrificing a life, and suddenly it's no longer just meaningless B.S. on an internet forum, which is the exact limit of how much people like Garth are willing to sacrifice. Honest people simply say 'Nope, wouldn't do it.' And yet Garth criticizes us ...
You are absolutely, irreparably retarded. This thread is the sister thread to the kick in the balls thread, its half magical because in that thread some random dude comes and kicks you in the nuts at random times and just appears magically. I would not suffer through any practical means such as slow recovery from surgery or being tortured or having to kill myself physically for others, but if there was a button and I just died instantly and painlessly for another to live I would take that route. I didn't criticize anyone until you told me that I was full of shit and you seem to miss the point and the humour of a thread like this.
So what you're saying is that if you had a choice between instantly painlessly dying to save 2 people, and losing a kidney and a liver lobe to save 2 people, you would chose to painlessly die? I mean this basically boils down to you rather dying than losing a kidney, and a liver lobe and going through a recovery or w.e. This sounds pretty dumb not gonna lie.
Once again, why would he choose to lose a liver now rather than later, thus crippling his life? Why the hell are people even using examples such as this kidney bullshit to compare with this thread, which is suffering from complete lack of context? Pretty dumb not gonna lie.
... Ok. so let's say I have this magical button to save a million people and kill myself... Sure I'll press it... when I get to like 90 years old and I'm on my deathbed, but does that fairly answer the question? The question implies that if you press the metaphorical "button" you save x amount of people and immediately die, if you don't, you don't die and the people die. Anyone who's willing to die immediately so save lives in the numbers of 1-3 should have already donated his organs, unless they think it's worse to live after having donated some liver/kidney than it is to die, in which case they are either crazy/stupid or young and very idealistic, which is something they're gonna grow out of like everyone else. Saying that why give up organs now if I can give them up later makes as much sense as saying why die now if I can die later, plus if I wait until 90 years old a lot of my organs probably won't even be good for transfers since they'll be too damaged/weak w.e.
Scenarios are slightly different. In this case I am directly responsible for peoples' deaths because I chose to save myself but not in the kidneys case. But yes I am a pussy for pain, not to die though.
:S... what? in both cases you have an opportunity to save lives. Hell, if you didn't buy computers/computer games you could have sent that money to africa, or even personally flown out to africa to save some random kid's life or 2, but you chose to play computer games instead... I doubt you think that you're a murderer or anything like that just because you didn't give up some entertainment, why would you think that you're at all in the wrong morally, if you don't give up your life?
Maybe its because I'm christian and death to me isn't awful.
Ah, well I guess that makes sense.
Lmao, Hi by the way kiarip its garmeth from gamereplays.
yeah i know
|
|
|
| Ysellian Netherlands. May 28 2012 07:46. Posts 3864 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 07:04 sc4k wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 06:40 Ysellian wrote:
On May 28 2012 06:34 RavenLoud wrote:
WTF at results.
Maybe we deserve all the inequality and capitalism because 60% of us seem to lack the ability to consider how our own existence may be worth less than that of TEN FREAKING THOUSAND others.
The amount of pessimism and narcissism really boggles the mind.
Glad to see someone as shocked as I am who can put it into better words. I really hope the majority of those people didn't read the entire poll.
Do you people break down and cry every time you see deaths in the newspaper? Every day...hundreds of people get killed, thousands die of disease and poverty. Death is just happening all the time. Life is happening, that is, being created, coincidentally, at a faster rate. If you feel too great a responsibility by choosing your life over a mass of unknown people, then so be it, in my opinion you are abnormally selfless to an absurd degree. I'm all for sharing out wealth and being nice to your neighbour, but where in the social contract is there a stipulation that you should die for others just because there are more of them than you? I mean, if you go through this barbaric and ridiculous thought process that the lives of multiple people automatically outweigh the lives of single people, then you clearly are voicing support for an organ lottery. Something I have always thought is the embodiment of logic without wisdom. Edit: for those who don't know, an organ lottery is the idea of randomly selecting people in society and killing them + harvesting their organs to give to people in need of organs.
You actually made me think this idea a bit more than I was expecting on such late at night, but in the end I'm still not certain if I could live with myself knowing that my own death could have saved 10.000+ people. People die, we all do, but it's the effect that it has on the living that I just don't think is something I could live with,
Here is a concept. Imagine that your body holds the key to stopping disease and poverty, the first would save thousands of people and the latter would stabilize world population on a healthy level. Would you not consider it? Last edit: 2012-05-28 07:52:19 |
|
|
| Kiarip United States. May 28 2012 07:46. Posts 1733 | Profile # |
On May 28 2012 07:40 RavenLoud wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 07:00 Vandrad wrote:
On May 28 2012 06:34 RavenLoud wrote:
WTF at results.
Maybe we deserve all the inequality and capitalism because 60% of us seem to lack the ability to consider how our own existence may be worth less than that of TEN FREAKING THOUSAND others.
The amount of pessimism and narcissism really boggles the mind.
I was more shocked that anyone would die for anyone completely unknown Like why would I care if 10.000 people die I don't even know .... I wouldn't even be sad... like this is just silly typical christian morality do all of you guys cry for all the billions of people who died over the last hundreds and thousands ofyears ?
What is this I don't even... Just because you don't know them means their lives don't have value? I'm willing to bet my own life that ten thousand random people will be much more productive for society than you. I'm an Atheist btw.
Yeah, but the value of life is subjective. For example just because someone is more productive for the so-called society, doesn't mean that you would trade the life of your less productive relative for his life... It doesn't work like that. All of realistic and real humanitarian appreciation for human life (at least secular appreciation for human life,) comes from the realization that life is the most precious thing that you have, THE MOST, and that the lives of other people are the most precious things that THEY HAVE. But this doesn't mean that all lives are worth relatively the same objectively, so you should trade yours for a greater sum of values of others, that's not how morality works, and it's not how it's ever worked.
|
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
